United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (4203)
Washington, D.C. 20460
www.epa.gov/npdes
EPA833-R-01-003
December 2001
Report to Congress
Implementation and Enforcement
of the Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy
-------
|> jk % UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f 52E1 % WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 28 2002
THE ADMINISTRATOR
The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
President of the Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to present the Environmental Protection Agency's Report to Congress on
Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy. This
report responds to Section 112 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, P.L.
106-554, which required EPA to report to Congress on the progress made by EPA, states and
municipalities in implementing and enforcing the CSO Control Policy.
The Report examines what is known about the success of the CSO Control Policy as a
means for complying with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. It highlights innovative
aspects of the CSO Control Policy, including an overall assessment of: the effectiveness of the
CSO Control Policy in regulating CSOs; implementation in terms of the four key principles
established by the CSO Control Policy; and accomplishments related to CSO control. The
Report provides a detailed account of EPA, state, and local activities to implement and enforce
the CSO Control Policy. The Report also describes important aspects of state-specific policies or
strategies, technical and financial assistance provided by states to CSO permittees, and
documented environmental benefits from CSO control.
The Report finds that definite progress has been made in implementing and enforcing
CSO controls prior to, and as a result of, the 1994 CSO Control Policy. Some CSO communities
have made significant investments to reduce the frequency, volume, and duration of CSOs,
which has resulted in increased protection of human health and water quality. All 32 states
(including the District of Columbia) with combined sewer systems have developed CSO
strategies, and most have adopted the key provisions of the CSO Control Policy. In spite of the
progress that has been made, CSOs still present a potentially serious environmental and public
health threat in some areas. The Report outlines our future plans for reducing these threats.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
-------
I believe that this Report to Congress responds fully to the mandate of Section 112 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year J2001. It provides a comprehensive examination
of implementation and enforcement of the CSO Control Policy and our plans for the future. If
you have any questions, please call me or your staff may call Shawna Bergman in the Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at 202-564-3641.
Sincerely yours,
Christine Todd Whitman
!
Enclosure \
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 28 2002
THE ADMINISTRATOR
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am pleased to present the Environmental Protection Agency's Report to Congress on
Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy. This
report responds to Section 112 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, P.L.
106-554, which required EPA to report to Congress on the progress made by EPA, states and
municipalities in implementing and enforcing the CSO Control Policy.
The Report examines what is known about the success of the CSO Control Policy as a
means for complying with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. It highlights innovative
aspects of the CSO Control Policy, including an overall assessment of: the effectiveness of the
CSO Control Policy in regulating CSOs; implementation in terms of the four key principles
established by the CSO Control Policy; and accomplishments related to CSO control. The
Report provides a detailed account of EPA, state, and local activities to implement and enforce
the CSO Control Policy. The Report also describes important aspects of state-specific policies or
strategies, technical and financial assistance provided by states to CSO permittees, and
documented environmental benefits from CSO control.
The Report finds that definite progress has been made in implementing and enforcing
CSO controls prior to, and as a result of, the 1994 CSO Control Policy. Some CSO communities
have made significant investments to reduce the frequency, volume, and duration of CSOs,
which has resulted in increased protection of human health and water quality. All 32 states
(including the District of Columbia) with combined sewer systems have developed CSO
strategies, and most have adopted the key provisions of the CSO Control Policy. In spite of the
progress that has been made, CSOs still present a potentially serious environmental and public
health threat in some areas. The Report outlines our future plans for reducing these threats.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
-------
I believe that this Report to Congress responds fully to the mandate of Section 1 12 of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 . It provides a comprehensive examination
of implementation and enforcement of the CSO Control Policy and our plans for the future. If
you have any questions, please call me or your staff may call Shawna Bergman in the Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at!202-564-3641.
Sincerely yours,
Christine Todd Whitman
Enclosure
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary— ES-1
Chapter 1—Introduction 1-1
1.1 Brief History of Combined Sewers and CSOs 1-1
1.2 Organization of the Report 1-4
Chapter 2—Regulatory and Environmental Background for the CSO Control Policy 2-1
2.1 Description of Combined Sewer Systems and CSOs 2-1
2.2 Environmental and Public Health Impacts of CSOs 2-3
2.3 Initial Efforts to Control CSOs 2-6
2.3.1 1965 to 1989 2-6
2.3.2 National Municipal Policy 2-6
2.3.3 1989 National CSO Control Strategy 2-9
2.3.4 Office of Water Management Advisory Group (MAG) 2-9
2.4 The CSO Control Policy 2-11
2.4.1 Purpose, Objectives and Key Principles of the CSO Control Policy 2-11
2.4.2 Objectives for CSO Communities 2-12
2.4.3 Expectations for Permitting Authorities 2-14
2.4.4 Coordination with Water Quality Standards: Development, Review, and Approval 2-14
2.4.5 Enforcement and Compliance 2-14
2.5 Summary 2-15
Chapter 3—Methodology for Development of the CSO Report to Congress 3-1
3.1 Overview of Study Objectives and Approaches 3-1
3.2 Data Sources 3-3
3.2.1 National Data Sources 3-3
3.2.2 NPDES Authorities and Other State Program Files 3-3
3.2.3 Community-level Data Sources 3-4
3.2.4 External Sources 3-4
3.3 Data Collection 3-4
3.3.1 Assessment of EPA Efforts 3-5
3.3.2 Assessment of Efforts by NPDES Authorities and Other State Programs 3-5
3.3.3 Assessment of Community Efforts 3-6
3.3.4 CSO Surveys from AMSA and the CSO Partnership 3-7
3.4 Stakeholder Involvement 3-7
3.5 Data Considerations 3-8
3.6 Quality Control and Quality Assurance 3-9
3.7 Summary 3-9
-------
Chapter 4—CSO Control Policy Status: EPA 4-1
4.1 General Activities to Support CSO Control Policy Implementation 4-1
4.2 NPDES Permitting 4-3
4.2.1 EPA Headquarters Responsibilities and Activities 4-3
4.2.2 EPA Regional Office Responsibilities and Activities 4-4
4.3 Water Quality Standards 4-4
4.3.1 Section 303 (d) and the Total Maximum Daily Load Program 4-5
4.3.2 Section 305 (b) and the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress 4-6
4.4 Compliance and Enforcement 4-6
4.4.1 General NPDES Compliance and Enforcement Process 4-7
4.4.2 National Compliance and Enforcement Priorities 4-7
4.4.3 NPDES Compliance and Enforcement Activities 4-7
4.5 Guidance, Training, and Compliance and Technical Assistance 4-12
4.5.1 Guidance 4-13
4.5.2 Training 4-15
4.5.3 Compliance and Technical Assistance 4-16
4.5.4 Wet Weather Flow Research Plan 4-17
4.6 Communication and Coordination 4-17
4.6.1 Outreach to State and Regional CSO Coordinators 4-17
4.6.2 CSO Awards Program 4-18
4.6.3 Listening Sessions on Implementing the Water Quality-Based Provisions of the CSO Control Policy 4-18
4.7 Information Management 4-19
4.7.1 Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) 4-19
4.7.2 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 4-20
4.7.3 Permit Compliance System (PCS) 4-21
4.7.4 Statistically Valid Non-Compliance Rate Project 4-21
4.7.5 Other Information Management Activities 4-22
4.8 Financial Assistance 4-22
4.8.1 The Clean Water SRF Program 4-22
4.8.2 Section 104(b) (3) Water Quality Cooperative Agreements 4-24
4.8.3 Section 106 Water Pollution Control Program Support Grants 4-24
4.8.4 Specific Line Items in EPA's Budget 4-25
4.9 Performance Measures 4-26
4.9.1 Specific Efforts to Track Benefits Resulting from CSO Control Policy Implementation 4-26
4.9.2 Other Agency Initiatives to Document Environmental Results Related to CSO Control 4-28
4.9.3 Promoting the Use of Watershed Approach 4-30
4.10 Findings 4-30
Chapter 5—CSO Control Policy Status: NPDES Authorities and Other State Programs 5-1
5.1 Policy Development and Support 5-4
5.1.1 Efforts to Adhere to the 1989 National CSO Control Strategy 5-4
5.1.2 Efforts to Adhere to the 1994 CSO Control Policy 5-7
5.2 NPDES Permitting 5-12
5.2.1 Permit Requirements for NMC 5-13
5.2.2 Permit Requirements for LTCP 5-16
-------
5.3 Water Quality Standards 5-20
5.3.1 Integrating Water Quality Standards Review with LTCP Development and Implementation 5-21
5.3.2 State Approaches for Reviewing Water Quality Standards for CSO Receiving Waters 5-21
5.3.3 State Water Quality Assessment Reports 5-24
5.4 Compliance and Enforcement 5-24
5.4.1 Policy 5-24
5.4.2 State Inspections 5-26
5.5 Guidance, Training and Compliance and Technical Assistance 5-29
5.5.1 Guidance 5-29
5.5.2 Training 5-30
5.5.3 Compliance and Technical Assistance 5-30
5.6 Communication and Coordination 5-32
5.6.1 Communication 5-32
5.6.2 Coordination 5-32
5.7 Financial Assistance 5-33
5.8 Performance Measures 5-36
5.9 Findings 5-37
Chapter 6—CSO Control Policy Status: Communities 6-1
6.1 National CSO Demographics 6-2
6.1.1 CSO Permits and Types of Systems 6-2
6.1.2 CSO Size 6-3
6.1.3 Small System Considerations 6-4
6.1.4 CSO Receiving Waters 6-5
6.2 Implementation of CSO Controls 6-6
6.2.1 Assessment of Control Implementation 6-6
6.2.2 Documented Implementation of CSO Controls 6-7
6.3 Implementation of the NMC 6-7
6.3.1 NMC Implementation Status 6-8
6.3.2 Specific CSO Control Measures Implemented for the NMC 6-8
6.4 Implementation of the LTCP 6-17
6.4.1 Status of Documented Implementation of the LTCP 6-18
6.4.2 Selected LTCP Approach 6-18
6.4.3 Specific CSO Control Measures for LTCPs 6-18
6.4.4 Minimum Elements of an LTCP 6-20
6.5 Financial Considerations 6-28
6.5.1 Funding Options 6-28
6.6 Obstacles and Challenges 6-29
6.6.1 Resources 6-30
6.6.2 Water Quality Standards 6-31
6.6.3 Uncertainty 6-32
6.6.4 The Watershed Approach 6-34
6.7 Performance Measures and Environmental Benefits 6-35
6.7.1 CSO Performance Measures for CSO Communities 6-35
6.7.2 Loading Reduction and Environmental Benefits 6-35
6.7.3 Data, Findings and Examples 6-36
6.8 Findings 6-42
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of the CSO Control Policy 7-1
7.1 Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy 7-1
7.1.1 Implementation of the CSO Control Policy 7-2
7.1.2 Compliance and Enforcement 7-3
7.2 Observations Related to the Four Key Guiding Principles of the CSO Control Policy 7-4
7.2.1 Provide Clear Levels of Control to Meet Appropriate Health and Environmental Objectives 7-5
7.2.2 Provide Sufficient Flexibility to Municipalities to Consider the Site-Specific Nature of CSOs 7-7
7.2.3 Allowing a Phased Approach to Implementation of CSO Controls 7-10
7.2.4 Review and Revise, as Appropriate, Water Quality Standards When Developing CSO Control Plans 7-12
7.3 Accomplishments Attributable to Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy 7-14
7.3.1 National Estimates of CSO Volume and Pollutant Loading Reductions 7-14
7.3.2 Accomplishments Attributable to Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy 7-16
7.4 Next Steps 7-17
List of Figures
Figure 1.1—Typical Combined Sewer Overflow Structure 1-2
Figure 2.1—National Distribution of CSO Communities 2-3
Figure 5.1—Distribution of CSO Permits by Region and State 5-5
Figure 5.2—Distribution of CSO Outfalls by Region and State 5-6
Figure 5.3—Status of NMC Requirements in CSO Permits 5-13
Figure 5.4—CSO Permits With Requirements to Implement the NMC 5-14
Figure 5.5—Mechanism Used to Require NMC Implementation 5-15
Figure 5.6—Status of Facility Plan Requirements in CSO Permits 5-17
Figure 5.7—Mechanism Used to Require LTCPs 5-17
Figure 5.8—CSO Permits With Requirements to Develop and Implement an LTCP 5-18
Figure 5.9—SRF Loans for CSO Projects, 1988—2000 5-34
Figure 5.10—Distribution of SRF Loans for CSO Projects by State, 1988—2000 5-35
Figure 6.1—Geographic Distribution of CSO Permits 6-3
Figure 6.2—Types of CSO Facilities 6-4
Figure 6.3—POTW Facility Size Classification 6-5
Figure 6.4—Distribution of POTW Facility Sizes 6-5
Figure 6.5—Types of Waters Receiving CSO Discharges 6-6
Figure 6.6—Distribution of CSO Control Measures Implemented as Part of an LTCP 6-19
Figure 6.7—Cost-Benefit Analysis Using Knee-of-the-Curve 6-26
Figure 6.8—New York Inner Harbor Water Quality Improvements Due to Pollution Controls 6-39
Figure 6.9-Genesee River Water Quality Improvements Due to CSO Controls 6-41
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table 2.1—CSO Pollutants of Concern and Principle Consequences 2-5
Table 2.2—Typical Pollutant Concentrations Found in CSOs 2-5
Table 2.3—CSOs as a Source of Water Quality Impairment 2-5
Table 4.1—Summary of 303(d) List Impaired Waters in States With CSOs 4-5
Table 4.2—Extent of CSOs as a Source of Impairment 4-6
Table 4.3—EPA CSO Guidance Documents 4-13
Table 4.4—Comparison of CSO and Total Needs 4-20
Table 4.5—SRF Loans for CSO Projects 4-23
Table 4.6—EPA 104(b) (3) Grant Cooperative Agreements for CSO Projects 4-24
Table 4.7—Annual Section 106 Grant Totals 4-25
Table 4.8—Annual EPA Budget Line Items for CSO Control Projects 4-25
Table 4.9—Environmental Measurements from 1997 Pilot GPRA Performance Plan 4-27
Table 5.1—Roles and Responsibilities 5-2
Table 5.2—States With CSO Permits 5-3
Table 5.3—States With No CSO Permits 5-4
Table 5.4—Online Information Resources 5-31
Table 6.1—Status of NMC Implementation Documentation 6-9
Table 6.2—10 Most Frequently Implemented NMC Activities 6-9
Table 6.3—10 Most Frequently Implemented LTCP Controls 6-20
Table 6.4—Sensitive Areas Affected by CSO Discharges 6-24
Table 6.5—MWRA Critical-Use Prioritization Program Results 6-25
Table 6.6—Bacteriological Indicators Used By States 6-32
Table 6.7—CSO Control Performance Measures 6-36
Table 6.8—Pollutant Removal Capability of Retention Treatment Basins on the Saginaw River 6-37
Table 6.9—Pollutant Removal Capability of Two CSO Treatment Facilities in Columbus, GA 6-40
Table 6.10—Benefits of CSO Controls in San Francisco Harbor 6-42
Table 7.1—Implementation Schedule Based on Financial Capability 7-12
Table 7.2—Pollutant Reduction Estimates Based on Implementation of CSO Control Policy 7-15
-------
List of Appendices
Appendix A Statutes, Policies, and Interpretative Memoranda
Appendix B Profiles of State CSO Programs
Appendix C CSO Community Case Studies
Appendix D List of Current CSO Permits
Appendix E Summary of CSO-Related Civil Judicial Actions Taken By EPA Prior to Issuance of the CSO Control Policy
Appendix F Data Base Documentation
Appendix G AMSA and CSO Partnership CSO Survey Summary
Appendix H Forms Used to Guide Data Collection Effort
Appendix I Stakeholder Meeting Summary, July 12-13, 2001, Chicago, Illinois
Appendix J Summary of CSO-Related Enforcement Actions Initiated by EPA After Issuance of the CSO Control Policy
Appendix K Summary of Planned Research by EPAs Office of Research and Development
Appendix L List of Recipients of National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy Excellence Awards
Appendix M Summary of Outcomes of 104 (b) (3) Grants
Appendix N Summary, by State, of CSO Impacted Water Body Segments from 303 (d) Lists
Appendix 0 Summary of State Inspection Programs
Appendix P Summary of CSO-Related Enforcement Actions Initiated By States After Issuance of the CSO Control Policy
Appendix Q Sample State Information Management Systems Used to Track Requirements for CSO Control
Appendix R Summary of Controls Implemented by CSO Communities
Appendix S GPRACSO Model Documentation
VI
-------
List of Acronyms
6MM—Six Minimum Measures
AMSA—Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Authorities
AO—Administrative Order
APWA—American Public Works
Association
BAT—Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable
BCT—Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology
BEACH Program—Beaches
Environmental Assessment,
Closure and Health Program
BMP—Best Management Practice
BPJ—Best Professional Judgement
CAPD—Compliance Assistance
Planning Database
CIP—Capital Improvement Plan
CMC—Center for Marine
Conservation
CSO—Combined Sewer Overflow
CSS—Combined Sewer Systems
CWA—Clean Water Act
CWNS—Clean Water Needs Survey
DEM—Department of
Environmental Management
DEP—Department of Environmental
Protection
EBPS—Environmental Benefit Permit
Strategy
EPA—Environmental Protection
Agency
ERPs—Regional Enforcement
Response Plans
FOIA—Freedom of Information Act
GPRA—Government Performance
and Results Act
IEPA—Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
LGEAN—Local Government
Environmental Assistance
Network
LTCP—Long-Term Control Plan
MAG—Office of Water Management
Advisory Group
mgd—Million Gallons per Day
MHI—Median Household Income
MOA—Memorandum of Agreement
MS4s—Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems
MSD—Metropolitan Sewer District
MWRA—Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority
MWRD—Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District
NEORSD—Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District
NEPPS—National Environmental
Performance Partnership System
NMC—Nine Minimum Controls
NMP—National Municipal Policy
NOAA—National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
NOV—Notices of Violation
NPDES—National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
NRDC—Natural Resources Defense
Council
NYCDEP—New York City's
Department of Environmental
Protection
O & M—Operation and Maintenance
OECA—Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
OGWDW—Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
ORD—Office of Research and
Development
OW—Office of Water
OWM—Office of Wastewater
Management
OWOW—Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds
PCS—Permit Compliance System
POTW—Publicly Owned Treatment
Works
PPA—Performance Partnership
Agreement
RCATS—Reporting Compliance
Assistance System
SCSs—Satellite Collection Systems
SEA—Senate Enrolled Act
SRF—State Revolving Fund
SSES—Sewer System Evaluation
Study
SSO—Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SWAP—Source Water Assessment
Program
TARP—Tunnel and Reservoir Plan
TMDL—Total Maximum Daily Loads
TOGS—Technical and Operational
Guidance Series
UAA—Use Attainability Analysis
USDA—United States Department of
Agriculture
WEE—Water Environment
Federation
WPD—Water Permits Division
WWTP—Wastewater Treatment
Plants
-------
Glossary
This glossary includes a collection of the terms used in this manual and an
explanation of each term. To the extent that definitions and explanations
provided in this glossary differ from those in EPA regulations or other official
documents, they are intended for use in understanding this manual only.
Jrl Average Number of Overflow Events
JF1| Per Year—The total number of
combined sewer overflow events
Anti-backsliding—A provision in the that occurred during the term of
Federal Regulations [CWA the permit divided by the permit
§303 (d) (4); CWA §402 (c); CFR term in years.
§122.44(1)] that requires a
reissued permit to be as stringent =&
as the previous permit with some
exceptions.
Antidegradation—Policies which
ensure protection of water quality
for a particular water body where
the water quality exceeds levels
necessary to protect fish and
wildlife propagation and
recreation on and in the water.
This also includes special
protection of waters designated as
outstanding natural resource
waters. Antidegradation plans are
adopted by each state to minimize
adverse effects on water.
Authorized Program or Authorized
State—A state, territorial, tribal,
or interstate NPDES program
which has been approved or
authorized by EPA under 40 CFR
Part 123.
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable
(BAT) —Technology-based
standard established by the Clean
Water Act (CWA) as the most
appropriate means available on a
national basis for controlling the
direct discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants to
navigable waters. BAT effluent
limitations guidelines, in general,
represent the best existing
performance of treatment
technologies that are
economically achievable within
an industrial point source
category or subcategory.
Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)—Technology-
based standard for the discharge
from existing industrial point
sources of conventional pollutants
including BOD, TSS, fecal
coliform, pH, oil and grease. The
BCT is established in light of a
two-part "cost reasonableness"
test which compares the cost for
an industry to reduce its pollutant
discharge with the cost to a
POTW for similar levels of
reduction of a pollutant loading.
The second test examines the
cost-effectiveness of additional
industrial treatment beyond BPT
EPA must find limits which are
reasonable under both tests before
establishing them as BCT.
Best Management Practice (BMP) —
Permit condition used in place of
or in conjunction with effluent
limitations to prevent or control
the discharge of pollutants. May
include schedule of activities,
prohibition of practices,
maintenance procedure, or other
management practice. BMPs may
include, but are not limited to,
treatment requirements, operating
procedures, or practices to control
plant site runoff, spillage, leaks,
sludge or waste disposal, or
drainage from raw material
storage.
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) —
The method used by permit
writers to develop
GL-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
technology-based NPDES permit
conditions on a case-by-case basis
using all reasonably available and
relevant data.
BODS—Five-day biochemical oxygen
demand; a standard measure of
the organic content of wastewater,
expressed in mg/1.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)—A measurement of the
amount of oxygen utilized by the
decomposition of organic
material, over a specified time
period (usually 5 days) in a
wastewater sample; it is used as a
measurement of the readily
decomposable organic content of
a wastewater.
Bypass—The intentional diversion of
wastestreams from any portion of
a treatment (or pretreatment)
facility.
Catch Basin—A chamber usually built
at the curbline of a street, which
admits surface water for discharge
into a storm drain.
Clean Water Act (CWA)—The Clean
Water Act is an act passed by the
U.S. Congress to control water
pollution. It was formerly referred
to as the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 or Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (Public Law
92-500), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., as
amended by: Public Law 96-483;
Public Law 97-117; Public Laws
95-217, 97-117, 97-440, and
100-04.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) —
A codification of the final rules
published daily in the Federal
Register. Title 40 of the CFR
contains the environmental
regulations.
Collector Sewer—The first element of
a wastewater collection system
used to collect and carry
wastewater from one or more
building sewers to a main sewer.
Also called a lateral sewer.
Combined Sewage—Wastewater and
storm drainage carried in the
same pipe.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)—A
discharge of untreated wastewater
from a combined sewer system at
a point prior to the headworks of
a publicly owned treatment
works. CSOs generally occur
during wet weather (rainfall or
snowmelt). During periods of wet
weather, these systems become
overloaded, bypass treatment
works, and discharge directly to
receiving waters.
Combined Sewer System (CSS)—A
wastewater collection system
which conveys sanitary
wastewaters (domestic,
commercial and industrial
wastewaters) and storm water
through a single pipe to a publicly
owned treatment works for
treatment prior to discharge to
surface waters.
Compliance Schedule—A schedule of
remedial measures included in a
permit or an enforcement order,
including a sequence of interim
requirements (for example,
actions, operations, or milestone
events) that lead to compliance
with the CWA and regulations.
Criteria—The numeric values and the
narrative standards that represent
contaminant concentrations that
are not to be exceeded in the
receiving environmental media
(surface water, ground water,
sediment) to protect beneficial
uses.
Designated use—Use specified in
WQS for each water body or
segment whether or not it is being
attained.
Director—The Regional
Administrator or State Director,
as the context requires, or an
authorized representative. When
there is no approved state
program, and there is an EPA
administered program, Director
means the Regional
Administrator. When there is an
approved state program,
"Director" normally means the
State Director.
Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR)—The form used
(including any subsequent
additions, revisions, or
modifications) to report
self-monitoring results by NPDES
permittees. DMRs must be used
by approved states as well as by
EPA.
GL-2
-------
Glossary
Draft Permit—A document prepared
under 40CFR§124.6 indicating
the Director's tentative decision to
issue, deny, modify, revoke and
reissue, terminate, or reissue a
permit. A notice of intent to
terminate a permit, and a notice
of intent to deny a permit
application, as discussed in 40
CFR §124.5, are considered draft
permits. A denial of a request for
modification, revocation and
reissuance, or termination, as
discussed in 40 CFR §124.5, is not
a draft permit.
Dry Weather Flow Conditions—
Hydraulic flow conditions within
the combined sewer system
resulting from one or more of the
following: flows of domestic
sewage, ground water infiltration,
commercial and industrial
wastewaters, and any other non-
precipitation event related flows
(e.g., tidal infiltration under
certain circumstances). Other
non-precipitation event related
flows that are included in dry
weather flow conditions will be
decided by the permit writer
based on site-specific conditions.
Dry Weather Flow Overflow—A
combined sewer overflow that
occurs during dry weather flow
conditions.
sources into waters of the United
states, the waters of the
contiguous zone, or the ocean.
Effluent Limitation—Any restriction
imposed by the Director on
quantities, discharge rates, and
concentrations of pollutants
which are discharged from point
General Permit—An NPDES permit
issued under 40 CFR §122.28 that
authorizes a category of
discharges under the CWA within
a geographical area. A general
permit is not specifically tailored
for an individual discharger.
Indirect Discharge—The
introduction of pollutants into a
municipal sewage treatment
system from any nondomestic
source (i.e., any industrial or
commercial facility) regulated
under Section 307 (b), (c), or (d)
of the CWA.
Infiltration—Water other that
wastewater that enters a
wastewater system and building
sewers from the ground through
such means as defective pipes,
pipe joints, connections, or
manholes. (Infiltration does not
include inflow).
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) —The total
quantity of water from both
infiltration and inflow.
Inflow—Water other than wastewater
that enters a wastewater system
and building sewer from sources
such as roof leaders, cellar drains,
yard drains, area drains,
GL-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
foundation drains, drains from
springs and swampy areas,
manhole covers, cross
connections between storm drains
and sanitary sewers, catch basins,
cooling towers, stormwaters,
surface runoff, street wash waters,
or drainage. (Inflow does not
include infiltration).
Interceptor Sewer—A sewer without
building sewer connections which
is used to collect and carry flows
from main and trunk sewers to a
central point for treatment and
discharge.
ratings criteria developed by
EPA/state.
Million Gallons per Day (mgd)—A
unit of flow commonly used for
wastewater discharges. One mgd
is equivalent to 1.547 cubic feet
per second.
Mixing Zone—An area where an
effluent discharge undergoes
initial dilution and is extended to
cover the secondary mixing in the
ambient water body. A mixing
zone is an allocated impact zone
where water quality criteria can
be exceeded as long as acutely
toxic conditions are prevented.
Load Allocation (LA) —The portion
of a receiving water's loading
capacity that is attributed to one
of its existing or future nonpoint
sources of pollution, or to natural
background sources.
Major Facility—Any NPDES facility
or activity classified as such by the
Regional Administrator, or in the
case of approved state programs,
the Regional Administrator in
conjunction with the State
Director. Major municipal
dischargers include all facilities
with design flows of greater than
one million gallons per day and
facilities with EPA/state approved
industrial pretreatment programs.
Major industrial facilities are
determined based on specific
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)—
The national program for issuing,
modifying, revoking and
reissuing, terminating,
monitoring and enforcing
permits, and imposing and
enforcing pretreatment
requirements, under Sections 307,
318, 402, and 405 of CWA.
National Pretreatment Standard or
Pretreatment Standard—Any
regulation promulgated by the
EPA in accordance with Sections
307 (b) and (c) of the CWA that
applies to a specific category of
industrial users and provides
limitations on the introduction of
pollutants into publicly owned
treatment works. This term
includes the prohibited discharge
standards under 40 CFR §403.5,
GL-4
-------
Glossary
including local limits [40 CFR
§403.30)].
Overflow Rate—Detention basin
release rate divided by the surface
area of the basin. It can be
thought of as an average flow rate
through the basin. Generally
expressed as gallons per day per
sq. ft. (gpd/sq.ft.).
Peak Flow—The maximum flow that
occurs over a specific length of
time (e.g., daily, hourly,
instantaneous).
Point Source—Any discernible,
confined, and discrete
conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well,
discrete fixture, container, rolling
stock, concentrated animal
feeding operation, landfill
leachate collection system, vessel,
or other floating craft from which
pollutants are or may be
discharged.
Pollutant—Dredged spoil, solid waste,
incinerator residue, filter
backwash, sewage, garbage,
sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials
(except those regulated under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 201 let
seq.)), heat, wrecked or discarded
equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt
and industrial, municipal, and
agricultural waste discharged into
water.
Precipitation Event—An occurrence
of rain, snow, sleet, hail, or other
form of precipitation.
Precipitation events are generally
characterized by parameters of
duration and intensity (inches or
millimeters per unit of time).
This definition will be highly site-
specific. For example, a
precipitation event could be
defined as 0.25 inches or more of
precipitation in the form of rain
or 3 inches or more of
precipitation in the form of sleet
or snow, reported during the
preceding 24-hour period at a
specific gaging station. A
precipitation event could also be
defined by a minimum time
interval between measurable
amounts of precipitation (e.g., 6
hours between the end of rainfall
and the beginning of the next
rainfall).
Pretreatment—The reduction of the
amount of pollutants, the
elimination of pollutants, or the
alteration of the nature of
pollutant properties in
wastewater prior to or in lieu of
discharging or otherwise
introducing such pollutants into
a publicly owned treatment
works [40 CFR §403.3(q)].
Primary Clarification or Equivalent—
The level of treatment that would
typically be provided by one or
more treatment technologies
under peak wet weather flow
GL-5
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
conditions. Options for defining
primary clarification include a
design standard (e.g., side wall
depth and maximum overflow
rate), a performance standard
(e.g., percent removal), or an
effluent standard (e.g.,
concentration of pollutants).
"Equivalent to primary
clarification" is site-specific and
includes any single technology or
combination of technologies
shown by the permittee to achieve
primary clarification under the
presumption approach. The
permittee is responsible for
showing equivalency to primary
treatment as part of the
evaluation of CSO control
alternatives during LTCP
development. Primary
clarification is discussed in more
detail in the Combined Sewer
Overflows-Guidance for Long-
Term Control Plan (EPA, 1995a).
Primary Treatment—The practice of
removing some portion of the
suspended solids and organic
matter in a wastewater through
sedimentation. Common usage of
this term also includes
preliminary treatment to remove
wastewater constituents that may
cause maintenance or operational
problems in the system (i.e., grit
removal, screening for rags and
debris, oil and grease removal,
etc.).
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW)—A treatment works, as
defined by Section 212 of the
CWA, that is owned by the state
or municipality. This definition
includes any devices and systems
used in the storage, treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of
municipal sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature. It also
includes sewers, pipes, and other
conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW treatment
plant [40 CFR §403.3].
Rainfall Duration—The length of
time of a rainfall event.
Rainfall Intensity—The amount of
rainfall occurring in a unit of
time, usually expressed in inches
per hour.
Regulator—A device in combined
sewer systems for diverting wet
weather flows which exceed
downstream capacity to an
overflow.
Sanitary Sewer—A pipe or conduit
(sewer) intended to carry
wastewater or water-borne wastes
from homes, businesses, and
industries to the POTW.
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) —
Untreated or partially treated
sewage overflows from a sanitary
sewer collection system.
Secondary Treatment—
Technology-based requirements
for direct discharging municipal
sewage treatment facilities.
Standard is based on a
combination of physical and
GL-6
-------
Glossary
biological processes typical for the
treatment of pollutants in
municipal sewage. Standards are
expressed as a minimum level of
effluent quality in terms of:BOD5,
suspended solids (SS), and pH
(except as provided for special
considerations and treatment
equivalent to secondary
treatment).
Sensitive Areas—Areas of particular
environmental significance or
sensitivity that could be adversely
affected by a combined sewer
overflow, including Outstanding
National Resource Waters,
National Marine Sanctuaries,
water with threatened or
endangered species, waters with
primary contact recreation, public
drinking water intakes, shellfish
beds, and other areas identified by
the permittee or National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permitting authority, in
coordination with the appropriate
state or federal agencies.
Solid and Floatable Materials—Solid
or semi-solid materials should be
defined on a case-by-case basis
determined by the control
technologies proposed by the
permittee to control these
materials. The term generally
includes materials that might
impair the aesthetics of the
receiving water body.
State Revolving Fund Program—A
federal program created by the
Clean Water Act Amendments in
1987 that offers low interest loans
for wastewater treatment projects.
STORET—EPAs computerized
STOrage and RETrieval water
quality database that includes
physical, chemical, and biological
data measured in waterbodies
throughout the United States.
Storm Water—Storm water runoff,
snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage [40 CFR
§122.26(b)(13)].
Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL)—The amount of
pollutant, or property of a
pollutant, from point, nonpoint,
and natural background sources,
that may be discharged to a water
quality-limited receiving water.
Any pollutant loading above the
TMDL results in violation of
applicable water quality
standards.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—A
measure of the filterable solids
present in a sample, as
determined by the method
specified in 40 CFR Part 136.
Variance—Any mechanism or
provision under Sections 301 or
316 of the CWA or under 40
CWR Part 125, or in the
applicable "effluent limitations
guidelines" which allows
modification to or waiver of the
generally applicable effluent
limitations requirements or time
GL-7
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
deadlines of the CWA. This
includes provisions, which allow
the establishment of alternative
limitations based on
fundamentally different factors.
Wasteload Allocation (WLA)—The
proportion of a receiving water's
total maximum daily load that is
allocated to one of its existing or
future point sources of pollution.
Water Quality Criteria—Comprised
of numeric and narrative criteria.
Numeric criteria are scientifically
derived ambient concentrations
developed by EPA or states for
various pollutants of concern to
protect human health and aquatic
life. Narrative criteria are
statements that describe the
desired water quality goal.
Water Quality Standard (WQS)—A
law or regulation that consists of
the beneficial use or uses of a
waterbody, the numeric and
narrative water quality criteria
that are necessary to protect the
use or uses of that particular
waterbody, and an
antidegradation statement.
Waters of the United States-All waters
that are currently used, were used
in the past, or may be susceptible
to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including all waters
subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide. Waters of the United States
include but are not limited to all
interstate waters and intrastate
lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats,
sand flats, wetlands, sloughs,
prairie potholes, wet meadows,
play lakes, or natural ponds. [See
40 CFR §122.2 for the complete
definition.]
Wet Weather Flow—Dry weather flow
combined with stormwater
introduced into a combined
sewer, and dry weather flow
combined with inflow in a
separate sewer.
Wet Weather Flow Conditions—
Hydraulic flow conditions within
the combined sewer system
resulting from a precipitation
event. Since the definition of
precipitation event is site-specific,
the permit writer should evaluate
and define certain site-specific
weather conditions that typically
contribute to wet weather flow.
EPA encourages permit writers to
include snowmelt as a condition
that typically contributes to wet
weather flow.
GL-8
-------
Executive Summary
Report to Congress on
Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined
Sewer Overflow Control Policy
f I Ihe U.S. Environmental
I Protection Agency (EPA or "the
JL Agency") is transmitting this
Report to Congress on the progress
made by EPA, states, and
municipalities in implementing and
enforcing the Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Control Policy signed
by the Administrator on April 11,
1994. This report is required by
Section 402 (q) (3) of the Clean Water
Act(CWA).
Overview and Background
Why is ERA this
1 n the Consolidated Appropriations
| Act for Fiscal Year 2001, PL. 106-
JL 554 (or "2000 amendments to the
CWA") Congress made several changes
to the CWA regarding CSOs,
including:
Section 402(q) Combined Sewer
Overflows
(3) Report-Not later than
September I, 2001, the
Administrator shall transmit to
Congress a report on the progress
made by EPA, states and
municipalities in implementing
and enforcing the CSO Control
Policy.
This Executive Summary provides an
overview of this report and highlights
report findings, key program
challenges, and EPA actions and next
steps to ensure effective
implementation and enforcement of
the CSO Control Policy.
are CSOs, are a
problem?
As defined in the CSO Control Policy,
a combined sewer system (CSS) is:
A wastewater collection system
owned by a state or municipality
(as defined by Section 502(4) of
the CWA) which conveys sanitary
wastewaters (domestic, commercial
and industrial wastewaters) and
storm water through a single-pipe
system to a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW)...
Further, a CSO is defined as:
In this
Overview and Background
Report Findings
Key Program Challenges
EPA Actions and Next Steps
-------
The discharge from a CSS at a
point prior to the POTW...
CSSs were among the earliest sewers
built in the United States and
continued to be built until the middle
of the twentieth century. During
precipitation events (e.g.,rainfall or
snowmelt), the volume of sanitary
wastewater and storm water runoff
entering CSSs often exceeds
conveyance capacity. Combined sewer
systems are designed to overflow
directly to surface waters when their
design capacity is exceeded. Some
CSOs occur infrequently; others, with
every precipitation event. Because
CSOs contain raw sewage and
contribute pathogens, solids, debris,
and toxic pollutants to receiving
waters, CSOs can create serious public
health and water quality concerns.
CSOs have caused or contributed to
beach closures, shellfish bed closures,
contamination of drinking water
supplies, and other environmental and
public health problems.
to CSOs?
The CWA establishes national goals
and requirements for maintaining and
restoring the nation's waters. As point
sources, CSOs are subject to the
technology- and water quality-based
requirements of the CWA. They are
not, however, subject to the secondary
treatment standards that apply to
POTWs.
In 1989, EPA initiated action to clarify
requirements for CSOs through the
publication of the National CSO
Control Strategy (54 FR 37370,
September 8, 1989). As a result, states
developed—and EPA approved—state
CSO strategies. In 1992, a
management advisory group to EPA
recommended that the Agency begin a
dialogue with key stakeholders to
better define the CWA expectations
for controlling CSOs. A workgroup of
CSO stakeholders was assembled
during the summer of 1992. The
workgroup achieved a negotiated
dialogue that led to agreement on
many technical issues, but no
consensus on a policy framework.
Individuals from the workgroup
representing stakeholder groups met
in October 1992 and developed a
framework document for CSO control
that served as the basis for portions of
the draft CSO Control Policy issued
for public comment in January 1993.
With extensive and documented
stakeholder support, EPA issued the
final CSO Control Policy on April 19,
1994 (59 FR 18688). When the CSO
Control Policy was released, many
stakeholders, key members of
Congress, and EPA advocated that it
be endorsed in the CWA to ensure its
full implementation.
In the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2001, PL. 106-554,
Congress also stated that:
...each permit, order or decree
issued pursuant to this Act after
the date of enactment of this
subsection for a discharge from a
municipal combined storm and
sanitary sewer shall conform to the
CSO Control Policy signed by the
Administrator on April 11, 1994.
In addition, Congress required
preparation of a second report to
Congress by December 2003. The
second report will summarize the
-------
Executive Summary
extent of human health and
environmental impacts from CSOs
and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs),
quantify and characterize resources
spent by municipalities to address
these impacts, and evaluate the
technologies used by municipalities to
control overflows. EPA collected data
during the preparation of this first
report in anticipation of preparing the
second report.
is the CSO
The CSO Control Policy "represents a
comprehensive national strategy to
ensure that municipalities, permitting
authorities, water quality standards
authorities and the public engage in a
comprehensive and coordinated effort
to achieve cost effective CSO controls
that ultimately meet appropriate
health and environmental objectives."
In 1994, EPA estimated that the cost of
CSO control, consistent with the CSO
Control Policy, would be $40 billion.
In the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Report to Congress (EPA, 1997b), EPA
estimated the cost to be $44.7 billion
(1996 dollars).
The CSO Control Policy established
four key principles to guide CSO
planning decisions by municipalities,
NPDES authorities, and water quality
standards authorities:
1. Providing clear levels of control
that would be presumed to meet
appropriate health and
environmental objectives.
2. Providing sufficient flexibility to
municipalities, especially
financially disadvantaged
communities, to consider the site-
specific nature of CSOs and to
determine the most cost-effective
means of reducing pollutants and
meeting CWA objectives and
requirements.
3. Allowing a phased approach to
implementation of CSO controls
considering a community's
financial capability.
4. Reviewing and revising, as
appropriate, water quality
standards and their
implementation procedures when
developing CSO control plans to
reflect the site-specific wet weather
impacts of CSOs.
The CSO Control Policy expected that
NPDES permits or other enforceable
mechanisms would require CSO
communities to implement nine
minimum technology-based controls
(the "nine minimum controls" or
NMC) by January 1, 1997, and to
develop CSO long-term control plans
(LTCPs). The LTCP must assess a
range of control options, including
costs and benefits, and lead to
selection of an alternative that would
achieve appropriate water quality
objectives and compliance with the
CWA. Once the NPDES authority and
CSO community reached agreement
on an LTCP, the CSO community
would design and construct the CSO
controls as soon as practicable.
did EPA use for
to
The basic study approach for this
report was to collect data and report
on implementation and enforcement
activities across EPA headquarters and
the nine EPA regions and 32 states
-------
known to have CSO communities
within their jurisdictions. This
entailed:
Reviewing existing information in
state and EPA permit and
enforcement files, and federal data
bases.
Performing a literature search on
policy, technology, and
environmental data.
Using modeling projections in
certain cases.
Conducting site visits to five EPA
Regions and 16 states in which
more than 90 percent of the
nation's CSSs are located.
Developing 15 CSO community
case studies.
Reviewing data from surveys
conducted by the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA) and the CSO Partnership.
Organizing a stakeholder
discussion of the preliminary
issues and findings from the
report at a meeting in Chicago,
Illinois on July 12 and 13, 2001.
These efforts have allowed the Agency
to compile a data base of all CSO
permits, prepare profiles of all state
CSO programs, and identify and
document data gaps. The
methodology for this Report to
Congress recognizes that the Report to
Congress required in 2003 will focus
on the extent of environmental and
human health impacts, resources
spent, and an evaluation of
technologies for CSO control.
Report Findings
are the of
to
T"lt rogress has been made in
1™^ implementing and enforcing
JL CSO controls prior to, and as a
result of, the 1994 CSO Control Policy.
Cities that have made substantial
progress and investments in CSO
control are realizing public health and
water quality benefits. The CSO
Control Policy provides a sound
approach to assess and implement cost
effective CSO controls that meet
appropriate environmental goals and
objectives and achieve CWA
compliance. It fosters and expects
significant involvement of the public
and the NPDES and water quality
standards authorities.
Although federal, state, and municipal
officials are involved in a broad range
of activities to regulate and control
CSOs, CSOs continue to pose a
serious environmental and public
health threat. Much remains to be
done to fully realize the objectives of
the CSO Control Policy and the CWA.
The CSO Control Policy provides an
appropriate framework for
communities to control CSOs. EPA
believes the codification of the CSO
Control Policy through the 2000
amendments to the CWA will focus
greater attention on implementation
of the CSO Control Policy.
EPA believes a number of factors have
affected the degree of implementation
of the CSO Control Policy, including
the lack of any statutory or regulatory
endorsement of the CSO Control
ES-4
-------
Executive Summary
Policy from 1994 until December
2000, and competing priorities at the
federal, state and local level.
Below, EPA presents a summary of the
key findings of this report, organized
along four central themes. These
themes are:
A description of the status of
CSOs in the United States.
An overview of progress in
implementing and enforcing the
CSO Control Policy, examining
key programmatic
accomplishments at the federal
and state levels, as well as
municipal actions to implement
the technology- and water quality-
based controls.
Early feedback on the nature and
extent of environmental results
stemming from CSO control.
A review of remaining challenges
in implementing and enforcing
the CSO Control Policy.
is the of CSOs in the
Today, there are 772 CSO
communities with a total of 9,471
CSOs that are identified and regulated
by 859 NPDES permits. Key attributes
of the CSO universe include:
CSSs are found in 32 states
(including the District of
Columbia) and nine EPA Regions.
They are regionally concentrated
in older communities in the
Northeast and Great Lakes regions
as shown in Figure ES.l.
CSSs are diverse, varying in
configuration, size, age, number
and location of outfalls. For
example:
Prior to CSO control, San
Francisco estimated that CSO
discharges from 43 combined
sewer outfalls occurred
approximately 58 times per
year, with a total annual
overflow volume of 7.5 billion
gallons, discharging into Islais
Creek, San Francisco Bay, and
the Pacific Ocean. As a result
of its CSO control program,
San Francisco has eliminated
seven outfalls and reduced
total annual overflow volume
by more than 80 percent.
In Bremerton, WA, prior to
initiation of CSO control, the
average annual CSO volume
was more than 120 million
gallons from 16 CSOs
discharging into Puget Sound.
As part of its CSO control
program, Bremerton has
eliminated three outfalls and
reduced total annual overflow
volume by nearly 70 percent.
Of the 772 CSO communities,
approximately 30 percent have
populations greater than 75,000,
and approximately 30 percent are
very small with total service
populations of less than 10,000.
EPA estimated in 1978 that there
were as many as 1,300 CSO
communities. Differences with
today's 772 CSO communities are
primarily attributable to the
improved inventory of CSO
Since implementing CSO controls, San
Francisco has reduced the number of CSO
events and pollutant loads by an average of
-------
Figure ES.1
Distribution of CSO
Permits by Region and
State
CSOs are found throughout the
U.S., but are most heavily
concentrated in the Northeast and
Great Lakes regions.
i S
mits:8S!f 107107
1 1 I3
SH BS SH
III2 I
Region 10 111 1
1 3 I1 Re9'r8 I I I 3 | 2
AK OR WA SD IL IN Ml MN OH Wl
2
74
H Region 1
31 1 23 1
11 ill5.3.1,
NJ NY CT MA ME NH R! VT
CA
9
155
58
IA KS MO NE
7
GA KY TN
4
DC DE MD PA VA WV
3
-------
Executive Summary
permits developed for this report,
completed sewer separation
projects, and better differentiation
between CSSs and separate sewer
systems.
National projections of annual
CSO discharges are estimated at
1,260 billion gallons per year.
Available data indicate the
following distribution in receiving
waters for CSOs: 43 percent to
rivers, 38 percent to streams, five
percent to oceans, estuaries and
bays, two percent to ponds/lakes,
and 12 percent to other waters
(ditches, canals, unclassified
waters).
Uncontrolled CSOs continue to
impair water quality in areas
served by CSSs:
According to EPA's 1998
National Water Quality
Inventory, CSOs are a source
of impairment for 12 percent
of assessed estuaries (in square
miles) and two percent of
assessed lakes (in shore miles)
(EPA, 2000a).
According to a state-by-state
report of impaired waters
listed under CWA Section
303 (d), less than one percent
of the nearly 15,600 impaired
water bodies in states with
CSOs are impaired by CSOs.
Further, approximately eight
percent of the assessed water
bodies are impaired by urban
runoff (which may include
CSOs). Appendix N provides a
summary of the 303 (d) listed
waters.
The Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC)
reported in its 2000 Testing the
Waters report that sewage
spills and overflows accounted
for 2,230 beach closings and
advisories in 2000. Sewage
spills in the NRDC report
include combined sewer
overflows, sanitary sewer
overflows, and breaks in sewer
lines or septic systems
(NRDC, 2001).
Localized impacts of uncontrolled
CSO discharges have been well
documented by some
communities. For example:
New York City reported that
prior to CSO control, CSOs
caused or contributed to
shellfishing restrictions for
more than 30,000 acres of
shellfish beds. In 1998, New
York City reported that
improvements to sewage
treatment infrastructure and
operations, including CSO
control, led to the lifting of
shell-fishing restrictions.
= The State of New Jersey
reported that prior to CSO
floatables control, CSOs
caused or contributed to
hundreds of days of ocean
beach closings each year. The
control of floatables in CSOs
and storm water discharges
has reduced the average
annual days of ocean beach
closings by more than 95
percent.
Fecal coliform concentrations in New York
Harbor have declined dramatically from the
early 1970s to the present. This
improvement is largely attributable to
abatement of raw sewage discharges
through the construction and expansion of
POTWs, elimination of illegal discharges, and
reduction of CSOs.
-------
is the of
of the 1 CSO
There has been definitive progress
implementing and enforcing CSO
controls prior to, and as a result of, the
CSO Control Policy, resulting in
demonstrable environmental progress
in some communities where CSO
controls have been instituted. EPA,
states, and municipalities all have
played important roles in advancing
the CSO Control Policy.
t PA
EPA issued guidance, supported
communication and outreach, and
provided compliance assistance
and some financial support for
CSO control.
EPA issued guidance on
coordinating CSO LTCPs with
water quality standards in 2001.
EPA issued extensive technical
and policy guidance documents to
foster implementation of CSO
controls dealing with the NMC,
monitoring and modeling,
financial capability, LTCPs, and
permit writing and water quality
standards reviews. EPA has
sponsored and conducted more
than 15 workshops and seminars
on various aspects of
implementation of the CSO
Control Policy as well as other
compliance assistance activities.
Administrative and civil judicial
actions have been used
successfully together with
permitting and compliance
assistance activities to foster
development and implementation
of CSO controls. Many of the CSO
communities that have made the
most progress to date, including
several of the largest
municipalities in the United
States, have done so as the result
of enforcement actions.
EPA issued the Compliance and
Enforcement Strategy for Combined
Sewer Overflows and Sanitary
Sewer Overflows in 2000.
te
Most states have made efforts to
regulate and control CSOs.
NPDES authorities have done
extensive work placing conditions
for CSO control in permits. In
total, 94 percent of CSO
communities are required to
control CSOs, either through a
permit or an enforceable order.
All 32 states with CSSs developed
CSO strategies in response to the
National CSO Control Strategy.
Most states have adopted the key
provisions of the CSO Control
Policy:
27 require implementation of
the NMC or a suite of best
management practices (BMPs)
that include or are analogous
to the NMC.
25 require development and
implementation of LTCPs.
Most CSO communities are
required to implement BMP
measures to mitigate CSO-related
impacts:
BR
o
-------
Executive Summary
94 percent of CSO permits
require implementation of
one or more BMPs.
86 percent of CSO permits
have requirements to
implement the NMC or a set
of BMPs that includes or is
analogous to the NMC.
6 percent of CSO permits do
not require any BMPs.
Imposition of permit or other
enforceable requirements for more
capital intensive CSO facility
planning (e.g., sewer separation or
underground storage) is less
extensive:
82 percent of CSO permits
include enforceable
requirements to develop and
implement CSO facilities plan.
65 percent of CSO permits
contain requirements to
develop and implement an
LTCP.
18 percent of CSO permits do
not require CSO facilities
planning.
Several states have addressed the
full range of programmatic
components (e.g.,guidance,
compliance assistance,
communications and information
management, among others).
Other states, principally those
with fewer CSO communities,
have dealt with CSOs on a site-
specific basis.
Many states have provided
compliance assistance and most
include compliance monitoring of
CSOs in their NPDES inspections
programs. Many state strategies
have been updated since issuance
of the CSO Control Policy in
1994. Yet, state programs vary
widely in the approaches used to
implement the CSO Control
Policy.
Most states have not developed
separate, specific procedures for
coordinating the review of water
quality standards with LTCP
development. Some states have
approaches for considering water
quality standards for CSO
receiving waters. For example:
Indiana passed legislation
providing a mechanism
whereby CSO communities
may apply for a temporary
suspension of state water
quality standards when certain
criteria are met.
i? Maine passed legislation
codifying standard procedures
for providing variances for
CSO receiving waters during
the implementation of an
approved LTCP.
Massachusetts added a series
of refined uses to its state
water quality standards use
classification system to
address CSO-impacted waters.
Illinois' water quality
standards program framework
presumes compliance with
water quality standards upon
the completed
implementation of a CSO
facility plan that meets the
-------
criteria for the state-derived
presumption approach.
Michigan rules allow the use
of alternate design flows (i.e.,
alternate to 7Q10 low flows or
95-percent exceedance flows)
when determining water
quality based requirements for
intermittent wet weather
discharges such as treated
CSOs.
New Hampshire has
developed a surface water
partial-use designation. A
partial-use designation is
made only if the community
planning process and
watershed planning efforts
demonstrate that the
allowance of minor CSO
discharges is the most
environmentally protective
and cost-effective option
available.
At least 16 states have brought
enforcement actions that have
included CSO violations. The
enforcement actions have
primarily been administrative
actions, such as administrative
compliance orders.
Most CSO communities have
documented CSO control through
some combination of the NMC
and other best management
practices.
77 percent of CSO
communities have submitted
documentation of
implementation of one or
more of the NMC to their
NPDES authority.
32 percent have submitted
documentation of
implementation of all NMC.
A smaller number of CSO
communities have developed
LTCPs.
34 percent of CSO
communities have submitted
draft LTCPs to their NPDES
authority.
19 percent have had their
LTCPs approved.
17 percent have initiated
implementation of LTCPs or
other CSO facility plans.
87 CSO communities have
substantially completed
implementation of their
LTCPs or other CSO control
programs.
CSO communities with LTCPs
developed or approved are
pursuing attainment of water
quality standards in roughly equal
measure under three approaches -
demonstration, presumption, and
a combination of the
demonstration and presumption
approaches.
LTCPs indicate that CSO
communities are relying on a wide
range of technologies to address
CSOs including storage
(e.g..tunnels), expanded treatment
capacity, sewer separation, and
improved conveyance. EPA will be
examining the environmental
-------
Executive Summary
benefits of various CSO control
technologies, including sewer
separation, in the second Report
to Congress in 2003.
is the and of
CSO
EPA has seen some examples of
demonstrable public health and
environmental improvements in
communities that have made
substantial progress in controlling
CSOs. The second Report to Congress,
due in 2003, will focus on the
environmental and human health
impacts of CSOs and SSOs, the
resources spent by CSO communities
in controlling them, and an evaluation
of CSO technologies. However, some
early insights into the environmental
gains from CSO controls are provided
so that Congress has some sense of the
return on federal, state and municipal
investments. The following
preliminary observations have been
made:
According to EPAs initial
modeling estimates, CSO controls
have resulted in an estimated 12
percent reduction of untreated
CSO volume and pollutant
loadings since 1994. EPA
developed a preliminary model,
GPRACSO, which estimates that
since 1994, annual CSO volumes
have decreased by 170 billion
gallons per year. It also estimates
that loadings of biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) have
decreased by 125 million pounds
per year.
The number of CSO communities
documenting environmental
results from CSO control is
growing. EPA has identified a
number of notable CSO efforts in
which significant infrastructure
has been completed and
environmental improvements
noted. For example:
Prior to CSO control South
Portland, Maine's 35 CSOs
discharged approximately 100
million gallons of combined
sewer overflows each year to
the Fore River and Casco Bay.
As of 2001, South Portland
has spent nearly $9 million on
capital improvements in the
CSS and invests another
$350,000 annually on CSO-
related operations and
maintenance activities. These
expenditures have resulted in
the elimination of 25 of their
35 CSOs, and an 80-percent
reduction in the amount of
untreated combined sewer
overflows discharged from the
CSS each year. The City of
South Portland has been
recognized by the Friends of
Casco Bay for its efforts to
control CSOs and the
resulting positive impact on
the Bay.
Prior to CSO control,
Saginaw, Michigan's 36 CSOs
discharged nearly 3 billion
gallons of combined sewage
each year to the Saginaw
River. As of 2001, Saginaw has
spent nearly $100 million on
capital improvements in the
CSS. These expenditures have
resulted in the elimination of
20 of 36 CSOs, and a
The City of South Portland has been
recognized by the Friends of Casco Bay
(shown here) for its positive impact on the
Bay.
ES-11
-------
75-percent reduction in the
amount of combined sewage
discharged from the CSS each
year. The Saginaw River is
now characterized by fishing
periodicals as one of the top
walleye fisheries in the
country.
Key Program Challenges
T~ n developing this Report to
1 Congress, EPA identified several
J1L noteworthy challenges to CSO
control in the United States. Each of
these challenges, based on an overall
synthesis of the report findings, is
briefly described below.
When the CSO Control Policy was
issued, EPA estimated the nationwide
financial need to control CSOs,
consistent with the CSO Control
Policy, at $40 billion (in 1992 dollars).
More recently, data from EPAs 1996
Needs Survey sets national CSO needs
at $44.7 billion (in 1996 dollars). CSO
control costs will continue to be
considerable, and EPA has received
numerous requests from CSO
communities for financial assistance,
given mounting water and wastewater
infrastructure costs and the resource-
intensive nature of CSO controls. CSO
LTCPs typically involve major
infrastructure investments that must
compete with other infrastructure
needs. Respondents to the AMSA and
CSO Partnership surveys reported that
funding is the primary challenge in
implementing LTCPs.
CSO communities are using a
combination of local funding sources,
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF) loans, state grants and loans,
and, in special cases, line item
congressional appropriations to fund
CSO controls. EPA does not have data
on the total extent of CSO spending.
Figure ES.2
SRF Loans for CSO
Projects,! 988—2000
SRF loans for CSO projects
reached more than $245 million in
1994 and began to rise again in
1998, reaching more than $400
million in 2000. This suggests that
funding for the implementation of
CSO controls lagged several years
behind the issuances of the 1989
Strategy and the 1994 Policy.
L.
$410.6m
$272.8m
$245.4rn
$180.1m
$190.4rn
$169.5m
$168.1m
$157.8m
$139.6m
$121.5m
,„, $14.6m I I I I I I I I i I
i j i j j | j | i j
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
-------
Executive Summary
Use of SRF for CSO
to
State use of the SRF to fund CSO
control projects has increased
steadily since 1990. As shown in
Figure ES.2, CSO loans in 2000
were the highest ever, accounting
for $411 million, or about 12
percent, of total SRF assistance.
SRF loans for CSO control totaled
$2.08 billion from 1989 to 2000
(about 5 percent of the total CSO
need). States with the highest SRF
spending levels for CSO control
(typically driven by a few large
projects) were Illinois, Michigan,
New York, and California.
Congress has appropriated specific
CSO infrastructure grants totaling
over $600 million for 32 CSO
communities since FY 1992.
Congress has shown some support for
additional funding for CSO control.
The 2000 amendments to the CWA
authorize EPA to provide grants to
CSO communities, either directly or
through states, for planning, design,
and construction of CSO and sanitary
sewer overflow (SSO) treatment. The
amendments also require EPA to
provide technical assistance and grants
to POTWs for watershed-based
management of CSOs, SSOs, and
storm water discharges. The EPA
Administration requested $450 million
for this program in its FY 2002
budget. To date, however, Congress
has not appropriated funds for these
grant programs.
The CSO Control Policy anticipated
that development of LTCPs would be
coordinated with the review and
revision, as appropriate, of water
quality standards. Many reasons,
including institutional barriers, exist
for the lack of coordination in the
LTCP development and water quality
standards review processes. States cite
public pressure to maintain their
water quality standards, EPA
requirements for development of a
"use attainability analysis" (UAA)
prior to revising a state water quality
standard, and the lack of water quality
monitoring data that could be used to
justify water quality standards
revisions. During EPA-sponsored
listening sessions held in the spring of
1999, designed to support
development of guidance for
coordinating CSO LTCPs and water
quality standards reviews, many
participants expressed concern about
the complexity of the process for
revising water quality standards.
Among the changes in the 2000
amendments to the CWA, Congress
added Section 402 (q) to require
issuance of guidance to facilitate the
conduct of water quality and
designated use reviews for CSO
receiving waters by July 31, 2001. EPA
prepared a draft guidance for public
review and comment (66 FR 364,
January 3, 2001) and issued the final
guidance on August 2, 2001.
This Report to Congress relied
extensively on an assessment of CSO
information that resides in EPA and
-------
state files. EPA believes that this
additional information on progress in
implementing CSO controls and
derived water quality benefits exists at
the community level. EPA was
hindered by the lack of a national data
system for comprehensively evaluating
the implementation and effectiveness
of the CSO program, and by the lack
of clear, national performance
measures in place to assess the
effectiveness of CSO control efforts on
a national basis.
EPA Actions and Next Steps
will EPA to
enforcement of the CSO
T""4^ espite significant efforts and
I § progress by EPA, states, and
...s__J^ CSO communities to
implement CSO controls, more work
remains to ensure that human health
and the environment are adequately
protected from CSOs. The 1994 CSO
Control Policy provides a sound and
appropriate framework for developing
and implementing cost-effective CSO
controls. With the codification of the
CSO Control Policy in the 2000
amendments to the CWA, EPA will
continue to work in partnership with
the states to address remaining CSO
issues. EPA will work aggressively with
NPDES authorities, water quality
standards authorities, and CSO
communities to implement and
enforce the CSO Control Policy. Based
on the findings of this Report to
Congress, EPA will pursue a number
of activities to ensure the continued
effective implementation and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy.
all CSOs are
Appropriately
Implement the "shall conform"
statutory mandate.
Begin efforts to implement
new CWA Section 402 (q) (1),
which requires that future
permits or other enforceable
mechanisms for CSOs
conform to the CSO Control
Policy.
Ensure all CSOs are covered by an
NPDES permit or other
enforceable mechanism.
Follow up with NPDES
authorities to ensure that
NPDES permits or other
enforceable mechanisms are
issued as soon as possible for
those CSO communities that
have not yet been required to
control CSOs. EPA will also
work with the states to ensure
that permits and enforcement
actions (e.g..orders, decrees)
conform with the CSO
Control Policy, as required by
the 2000 amendments to the
CWA.
CSO
Control Policy,
Advocate CSO control on a
watershed basis.
Continue efforts to focus
protection of water quality on
a watershed scale, and support
development of LTCPs on a
-------
Executive Summary
watershed basis. EPA will
continue efforts to encourage
integration of wet weather
programs, including support
to facilitate wet weather pilot
projects as designated in the
2000 CWA amendments.
Work with states to speed the
water quality standards review and
revision process.
Continue to work with states,
communities, and
constituency groups on
coordinating the review and
revision of water quality
standards with development
of LTCPs. EPA will establish a
tracking system for water
quality standards reviews on
CSO receiving waters. EPA
will also assess the need for
additional guidance and tools
to facilitate the water quality
standards review process for
all sources, including CSOs.
Strengthen CSO information
management.
Ensure that the Office of
Water and the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance coordinate
information management and
performance measurement
activities to demonstrate the
environmental outcomes and
benefits of CSO control.
Improve compliance assistance
and enforcement.
CSOs will continue to be a
national compliance and
enforcement priority in fiscal
years 2002 and 2003. EPA will
work closely with NPDES
authorities to target
enforcement actions, where
appropriate, to ensure
compliance with the CSO
requirements in NPDES
permits or other enforceable
mechanisms. In addition, EPA
will develop and promote
compliance assistance tools.
for to
Congress.
Initiate efforts to define the scope
and methodology for the second
Report to Congress on efforts
related to CSO controls. By
December 2003, EPA is required
to summarize the extent of human
health and environmental impacts
caused by CSOs and SSOs, report
on the resources spent by
municipalities to address these
impacts, and evaluate the
technologies used, including
whether sewer separation is
environmentally preferred for all
situations. EPA will build on CSO
data collected for this report and
develop a methodology for
addressing the challenges of
collecting and analyzing SSO data.
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
f I Ihis report presents the results
I of the U.S. Environmental
JL Protection Agency (EPA)
assessment of the implementation and
enforcement of its 1994 Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy
(59 FR 18688). This report directly
responds to a Congressional mandate
established in December 2000, when
Congress amended the Clean Water
Act (CWA). In part, the amendments
(PL. 106-554) added Section
402 (q) (3), which requires:
Not later than September I, 2001,
the Administrator shall transmit to
Congress a report on the progress
made by the Environmental
Protection Agency, states, and
municipalities in implementing
and enforcing the CSO Control
Policy.
EPA undertook report preparation
between January and August 2001.
During this time EPA developed an
extensive methodology, collected data
from federal, state, and local sources,
performed analyses, coordinated with
stakeholders, and prepared this report.
PL. 106-554 also requires EPA to
submit a second Report to Congress
by December 2003. The second report
will summarize the extent of human
health and environmental impacts
from CSOs and sanitary sewer
overflows (SSOs), quantify and
characterize resources spent by
municipalities to address these
impacts, and evaluate the technologies
used by municipalities to control
overflows. EPA collected data during
the preparation of this first report in
anticipation of preparing the second
report.
1.1 Brief History of Combined
Sewers and CSOs
f"""""\ ombined sewer systems (CSSs)
1 are wastewater collection
%=^ systems designed to carry
sanitary sewage, industrial and
commercial wastewater, and storm
water runoff from rainfall or
snowmelt in a single system of pipes
to a publicly owned treatment works
(POTW).
In tin's
1.1 Brief History of
Combined Sewers and
CSOs
1.2 Organization of the
Report
Typical CSO outfall discharge following a
storm
1-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Figure 1.1
Typical Combined
Sewer Overflow
Structure
Combined sewer systems are
designed to overflow directly to
surface water bodies such as lakes,
rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters
during wet weather, when
wastewater flows exceed the
capacity of the sewer system or
treatment plant.
CSO outfall to Piney Branch, Washington, D.C.
W-/--/«x///
-,-..>. ii. , - -'" -- f y y '-•
-ff"
During dry weather, CSSs convey
domestic, commercial, and industrial
wastewater and limited amounts of
infiltrated ground water. When rainfall
or snowmelt reaches combined
systems, total wastewater flows can
exceed the capacity of systems or
treatment facilities. Most CSSs are
designed to discharge excess
wastewater directly to surface water
bodies such as lakes, rivers, estuaries,
and coastal waters, as shown in
Figure 1.1. The untreated
discharges—CSOs—can be a major
source of water pollution in
communities served by CSSs.
CSOs are point source discharges and
are subject to National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit requirements,
including the technology-based and
water quality-based requirements of
the CWA. EPA has always asserted that
CSOs are exempt from CWA
secondary treatment standards. EPAs
interpretation was upheld in
Montgomery Environmental Coalition
v. Costle, 646 F2d 568 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Nationwide, 859 NPDES permits
authorize discharges from 9,471CSOs
in 32 states. Most of the CSO
communities are located in the
Northeast and Great Lakes regions,
but some are located in the Midwest,
Southeast and Pacific Northwest.
Control of CSOs is complex due to
site-specific variability in the volume,
frequency, and characteristics of CSOs.
To address these challenges, EPA
issued a National Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Strategy on
August 10, 1989 (54 FR 37370). The
1989 CSO Control Strategy
recommended that all CSOs be
identified and categorized according to
status of compliance with NPDES
requirements. The CSO Control
Strategy set forth three objectives:
Ensure that if CSOs occur, they do
so only as a result of wet weather.
Bring all wet weather CSO
discharge points into compliance
with the technology-based and
water quality-based requirements
of the CWA.
Minimize the impacts of CSOs on
water quality, aquatic biota, and
human health.
-------
Chapter 1—Introduction
In addition, the CSO Control Strategy
charged all states to develop
permitting strategies designed to
reduce, eliminate, or control CSOs.
In early 1992, EPA accelerated efforts
to bring combined sewer systems with
CSOs into compliance with the CWA.
The efforts included negotiations with
representatives of the regulated
community, state regulatory agencies,
and environmental groups. The
initiative resulted in the development
of the CSO Control Policy, which was
published in the Federal Register on
April 19, 1994 (59 FR 18688). The
complete text of the CSO Control
Policy is provided in Appendix A.
The CSO Control Policy is a
comprehensive national strategy to
ensure that municipalities, NPDES
permitting and water quality
standards authorities, EPA, and the
public engage in a comprehensive and
coordinated planning effort to achieve
cost-effective CSO controls that
ultimately meet the requirements of
the CWA. The key principles of the
CSO Control Policy are:
Provide clear levels of control that
would be presumed to meet
appropriate health and
environmental objectives.
Provide sufficient flexibility to
municipalities, especially
financially disadvantaged
communities, to consider the site-
specific nature of CSOs, and to
determine the most cost-effective
means of reducing pollutants and
meeting CWA objectives and
requirements.
Allow a phased approach to
implementation of CSO controls
considering a community's
financial capability.
Review and revise, as appropriate,
water quality standards and their
implementation procedures when
developing CSO control plans to
reflect the site-specific wet weather
impacts of CSOs.
The CSO Control Policy contains
provisions for developing appropriate
site-specific NPDES permit
requirements for all CSSs that
overflow due to wet weather events.
The CSO Control Policy also includes
an enforcement initiative requiring
immediate elimination of overflows
that occur during dry weather and
promoting timely compliance with
remaining CWA requirements.
Since 1994, federal, state, and local
authorities have undertaken
significant efforts to control wet
weather discharges such as CSOs.
Watershed protection initiatives,
including the development of total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for
impaired water bodies nationwide,
have further focused attention on the
impacts of wet weather discharges.
In December 2000, Congress amended
the CWA in recognition of the
continuing challenges posed by wet
weather discharges, including CSOs.
The amendments added Section
402 (q) (1) to require conformance
with the CSO Control Policy in
permitting and enforcement activities.
The amendment text is provided in
Appendix A.
f""":""".. - s^h.'^^^^^-y^^-y-"-^'-"^''^' ^
Chicago's Navy Pier is one of many
attractions on the Lake Michigan waterfront.
1-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
CSO separation project underway in
Louisville, Kentucky.
Congress also acknowledged the need
for funding to address wet weather
discharges by authorizing $1.5 billion
over fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for use
by EPA and states to provide grants for
controlling CSOs and SSOs. To date,
however, Congress has not
appropriated funds for these grant
programs.
In addition, Congress recognized the
importance of the watershed approach
by authorizing "wet weather watershed
pilot projects."
1.2 Organization of the Report
F1 "the purpose of this report is to
| detail progress made by EPA,
JL states, and municipalities in
implementing and enforcing the CSO
Control Policy. The report contains
seven chapters, the contents and
purpose of which are summarized
below.
2 summarizes the history
of regulatory efforts to control
CSOs. It describes actions and
activities leading to the
development and release of the
1989 National CSO Control
Strategy and the 1994 CSO
Control Policy, and includes a
summary of both.
3 describes the
methodology used to develop this
Report to Congress. To
understand the implementation,
enforcement, and general
application of the CSO Control
Policy, EPA designed and
implemented a comprehensive
approach to gather the necessary
information and data. This effort
included an extensive literature
search, numerous site visits, and
outreach to stakeholders
responsible for the development
and implementation of the CSO
Control Policy. The data EPA
collected from these efforts are
summarized in Chapters 4,5,
and 6.
4 presents EPA activities
undertaken between 1994 and
2001to implement and enforce the
CSO Control Policy. This chapter
summarizes technical and
financial assistance provided by
EPA to the states and
municipalities. The chapter
details Agency efforts to document
environmental benefits of CSO
control.
5 summarizes states'
activities to implement and
enforce the CSO Control Policy.
The chapter reports on the
issuance of permits and other
enforceable orders requiring the
development and implementation
of the nine minimum controls
(NMC) and of long-term control
plans (LTCPs) as outlined by the
CSO Control Policy. The chapter
also describes important aspects of
state-specific policies or strategies,
technical and financial assistance
provided by states to CSO
permittees, and documented
environmental benefits from CSO
control. The state profiles, which
summarize each of the 32 states'
approach to implementing the
CSO Control Policy and
controlling CSOs, are presented in
Appendix B.
1-4
-------
Chapter 1—Introduction
8 describes actions taken
by communities to implement
CSO controls. This chapter draws
heavily from CSO community case
studies, provided in their entirety
in Appendix C. The chapter
provides information on factors
perceived by municipalities as
impediments to full
implementation of the CSO
Control Policy. This chapter also
discusses the efficacy of CSO
controls in reducing pollutant
loads and improving water quality.
It identifies the specific controls
most often used by CSO
communities and discusses the
benefits of CSO control in
meeting other locally defined
objectives.
7 evaluates the success of
the CSO Control Policy as a
means for complying with the
requirements of the CWA and
provides:
An overall assessment of the
effectiveness of the CSO
Control Policy in controlling
CSOs.
Assessment of
implementation in terms of
the four key principles
established by the CSO
Control Policy.
Environmental results related
to CSO control.
Next steps EPA will pursue to
ensure the continued effective
implementation and
enforcement of the CSO
Control Policy.
1-5
-------
Chapter 2
Regulatory and Environmental
Background for the CSO Control Policy
"I 1 stablishing a national regulatory
!""i approach for CSO control has
JL=J proven difficult due to the site-
specific nature of CSOs and their
impacts. CSOs discharge to a wide
range of aquatic environments,
including rivers, estuaries, lakes,
coastal waters, ditches, and ephemeral
streams of all sizes. Generally, CSOs
are related to wet weather, but the
frequency and duration of overflows
vary widely from one CSO to another.
Moreover, the pollutant characteristics
of CSOs vary depending on the
location of the collection system, types
of residential and industrial
development in the area, and types of
runoff in the collection system.
CSOs differ from POTWs and
industrial point source discharges in
many ways. Traditional point source
control needs are assessed based on
low flow design conditions. CSOs,
however, often discharge during high
flow conditions. Additionally, many
other point sources have continuous
discharges, but CSOs are intermittent.
For these reasons, it became necessary
to develop a national program
specifically for controlling CSOs.
This chapter explains the development
of the 1994 CSO Control Policy. It
uses data and information on CSO
impacts, as known at the time the
CSO Control Policy was being
developed. This chapter provides a
brief history of the initial construction
and use of combined sewers in the
United States; describes characteristics
of CSOs and resulting impacts to
surface waters; outlines measures
taken to regulate and control CSOs
from the 1960s to 1994; and provides
an overview of the key components of
the CSO Control Policy.
2.1 Description of Combined
Sewer Systems and CSOs
T n the mid-1800s, municipalities
1 began installing public sewer
JL systems to address health and
aesthetic concerns. The waste
treatment technology of the pre-sewer
era, backyard privies and cesspools,
were progressively less effective as
cities grew. During this period,
human waste was dumped into privy
vaults and cesspools, and storm water
ran into the streets or into surface
In tin's
2.1 Description of
Combined Sewer
Systems and CSOs
2.2 Environmental and
Public Health Impacts of
CSOs
2.3 Initial Efforts to Control
CSOs
2.4 The CSO Control Policy
2.5 Summary
2-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Privy vaults and water pump are located side-by-side in
this Pittsburgh neighborhood, circa 1909.
drains. Increased population density
along with the development of water
utilities delivering water by pipe to
residences and commercial buildings
taxed this system. Cesspools and privy
vaults were over capacity, which in
turn caused nuisance, public health,
and flooding problems (Melosi, 2000).
CSSs were constructed to transport
human waste and storm water away
from dwellings and inhabited areas.
The conveyance of sanitary waste and
storm water runoff away from
neighborhoods through a sewer pipe
into local receiving waters became
accepted practice. At this time, little
precedent existed for underground
sewerage systems, and engineers were
reluctant to experiment with expensive
capital works. Moreover, waste
disposal in waterways was believed
safe (Tarr, 1996). The decision to use
combined sewers was made following
a period of intense debate. Large cities
tended to pursue combined sewers
given the flood control advantages
while smaller communities pursued
separate storm and sanitary sewers.
Combined sewers provided public
health improvements and flood
control benefits to local residents,
though such projects created impacts
on downstream communities (Melosi,
2000).
A better understanding of the disease-
causing organisms in sewage and a
recognition of health and nuisance
conditions prompted a shift to
wastewater treatment in the early
1900s. Wastewater treatment plants
were sized and designed to treat
sanitary waste, not a combination of
sanitary waste and storm water runoff.
The use of separate, and in some
instances parallel, collection systems
for storm water runoff and sanitary
waste quickly became accepted
practice. With the advent of
wastewater treatment, the
construction of new CSSs generally
ceased.
CSSs were retained in many cities
because the existing systems provided
a network for the centralized
collection of human and industrial
waste. During dry weather periods,
the performance of combined systems
was generally adequate. During wet
weather, however, the volume of
sanitary wastewater and storm water
runoff entering the combined systems
often exceeded conveyance capacity.
When this occurred, combined
systems overflowed directly to surface
water bodies. Sanitary officials
originally believed that overflows were
diluted to such an extent that they
posed no serious water pollution
problems. As designed, CSSs were
expected to overflow.
Untreated overflows of raw sewage
and storm water—CSOs—began to be
viewed as major sources of pollution
to receiving waters in the second half
of the 20th century. In 1965, the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
acknowledged the significance of
CSOs by authorizing funding for
research, development, and
demonstration of techniques for
controlling CSOs. Soon after, the
American Public Works Association
(APWA) conducted one of the first
nationwide surveys to assess the extent
of the CSO problem (APWA, 1967).
APWAs survey found that the number
of CSSs exceeded 1,300.
2-2
-------
Chapter 2—Regulatory and Environmental Background
Over the years, estimates of the
number of CSSs and CSOs have
fluctuated as communities changed
their systems and as more consistent
information became available. EPA's
early research estimated approximately
15,000 overflow points in about 1,100
communities serving a total
population of 43 million. In 1993,
EPA reported that individual CSOs
discharged an average of 50 to 80
times per year, resulting in the delivery
of about 1.2 trillion gallons of raw
sewage, untreated industrial wastes,
and storm water runoff into receiving
waters nationwide each year (EPA,
1994a).
EPAs 2001 NPDES file review found
859 CSO permits, which included
descriptions of 9,471 permitted
outfalls nationwide. The 859 permits
cover 772 communities. As shown in
Figure 2.1, most CSO communities are
located in the Northeast and Great
Lakes regions. A listing of CSO
permits, by state, is provided in
Appendix D.
2.2 Environmental and Public
Health Impacts of CSOs
jr" "1 SOs are discharges of raw
1 sewage and storm water, and
%=^ exhibit the characteristics of
both. They contain a combination of
untreated human waste and pollutants
discharged by commercial and
industrial establishments. CSOs also
contain solids, metals, bacteria,
viruses, and other pollutants washed
from city streets and parking lots. CSO
impacts include adverse human health
effects (e.g., gastrointestinal illness),
beach closures, shellfish bed closures,
toxicity for aquatic life, and aesthetic
impairment. Many CSOs discharge to
receiving waters in heavily populated
urban areas. The pollutants of
Figure 2.1
National Distribution of
CSO Communities
More than half of the nation's 859
CSO permits are held by
communities in four states: Illinois,
Indiana, Ohio,and Pennsylvania.
2-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
concern and the principal
consequences of CSOs are presented
in Table 2.1.
A tabulation of typical pollutant
concentrations in CSOs compared
with concentrations from other
treated and untreated sources is
presented in Table 2.2. As shown, the
types of pollutants found in untreated
sewage and urban runoff are similar.
Under CWA Section 305 (b), EPA
prepares biennial national water
quality assessment reports to
Congress. The National Water Quality
Inventory 1994 Report to Congress
(EPA, 1995a), listed CSOs as a source
of water quality impairment, as
summarized in Table 2.3. Although
CSOs ranked lower on a national level
than other major sources, the local
impacts of CSOs may be intense and
highly visible.
Several assessments of use impairment
attributed to CSO discharges were
published in the late 1980s and early
1990s. The Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) reported in its 1992
Testing the Waters report that:
High levels of bacteria-primarily
from raw sewage-are responsible
for the overwhelming majority of
[beach] closures and advisories.
There have been over 5,000
closings and advisories since 1988.
... The major causes of high
bacteria levels in beach water are:
inadequate and overloaded sewage
treatment systems, combined sewer
overflows, raw sewage overflows,
poison runoff, faulty septic
systems, and boating wastes
(NRDC, 1992).
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
reported that CSOs are a major cause
of contaminated shellfish beds and
fish kills (NOAA, 1991). NOAA
estimated that between 10 and 20
percent of harvest-limited shellfish
acreage, amounting to nearly 600,000
acres, was attributable to CSOs.
The Center for Marine Conservation
(CMC) summarized public health
risks presented by CSOs as follows:
The primary health issue
associated with CSOs is the risk of
exposure to disease-causing
bacteria and viruses. Combined
sewers contain human waste that
can carry pathogenic organisms.
Activities involving water-exposure
to these contaminants through
swimming or other contact can
lead to infectious disease. Some of
the common diseases include
hepatitis, gastric disorders,
dysentery, and swimmer's ear.
Other forms of bacteria found in
untreated waters can cause
typhoid, cholera, and dysentery.
Human health is also impacted
when fish or shellfish that have
been contaminated by combined
sewer discharges are consumed
(CMC, 1992).
Referencing EPAs harbor study
program and its own Beach Cleanup
Results (CMC, 1991), CMC also
documented floatables and aesthetic
impairment due to CSOs:
Although only one percent of
debris found by the U.S. EPAs
Harbor Studies Program and 4.9
percent of the items found in the
-------
Chapter 2—Regulatory and Environmental Background
Pollutant(s)
Bacteria (e.g., fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci)
Viruses (e.g., hepatitis, diptheria, cholera)
Parasites (e.g., giardia, cryptosporidium)
Trash and floatables
Organic compounds, metals, oil, grease
Toxic pollutants
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Solids deposition
Nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous)
Principle Consequences
Beach closures
Odors
Shellfish bed closures
Drinking water contamination
Adverse public health effects
Aesthetic impairment
Odors
Beach closures
Aquatic life impairment
Adverse public health effects
Fishing and shellfishing restrictions
Reduced oxygen levels and fish kills
Aquatic habitat impairment
Shellfish bed closures
Eutrophication, algal blooms
Aesthetic impairment
Source: Modified from Approaches to Combined Sewer Overflow Program Development:
A CSO Assessment Report (AMSA, 1994)
Contaminant Source
j TSS Total N Total P Fecal Coliform
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (cts/100mL)
Untreated Domestic Wastewater 100—400100—350 20—85 4—15 107—109
Treated Wastewater-Secondary <5—30 <5—30 15—25 <1—5 <200
Urban Runoff 10—250 67—101 0.4—1.0 0.7—1.7 103—107
CSO 25—100 150—400 3—24 1-10 105-107
Source: Prevention and Control of Sewer System Overflows (WEF, 1999a)
Table 2.1
CSO Pollutants of
Concern and Principle
Consequences
CSO discharges contain a variety
of pollutants that cause or
contribute to many public health
and environmental problems.
Table 2.2
Typical Pollutant
Concentrations Found
in CSOs
Comparison of typical ranges of
CSO pollutant concentrations with
other sources. Some of the higher
concentrations are assocated with
the "first flush" following a storm.
.J
.J
Water Body Type CSO Rank Among Sources CSO Contribution to 1994 Impairment
Estuary
Ocean
Great Lakes
Rivers and Streams
12 5% of impairment (527 square miles)
8 11% of impairment (43 shore!ine miies)
10 3% of impairment (172 shoreline miles)
Not In Top 20 Not a leading source of impairment
Table 2.3
CSOs as a Source of
Water Quality
Impairment
EPA prepares biennial assessment
reports on national water quality.
This table specifically looks at
identified impacts attributable to
CSOs in 1994, when the CSO
Control Policy was issued.
Source: National Water Quality Inventory 1995 Report to Congress (EPA, 1995a)
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
in the late 1980s and early 1990s, floatables from CSO
and storm water discharges caused beach closures,
adverse Impacts on coastal species, and property
damage in New Jersey's harbor complex.
National Beach Cleanup Results
constituted medical, drug and
sewage-related debris, these wastes
were more common in eastern
cities that have [combined sewer
systems]. New Jersey and
Massachusetts had five times the
national average of sewage-
associated wastes, making up 2.8
and 2.6 percent respectively of total
trash found. New York and Rhode
Island had a significantly higher
percent as well (1.6 and 1.1
percent respectively) The
Harbor Study found CSO- related
wastes like condoms, tampon
applicators, fecal matter, grease
and food in New York City waters.
In Philadelphia, the plume from
two CSO discharges was seen to
contain condoms, tampons, and
fecal matter (CMC, 1991).
Substantial documentation of the
consequences of CSOs was available in
the early 1990s. These consequences
were specifically recognized in the
CSO Control Policy (EPA, 1994b),
which stated:
CSOs consist of mixtures of
domestic sewage, industrial and
commercial wastewaters, and
storm runoff. CSOs often contain
high levels of suspended solids,
pathogenic microorganisms, toxic
pollutants, floatables, nutrients,
oxygen-demanding compounds, oil
and grease, and other pollutants.
CSOs can cause exceedances of
water quality standards. Such
exceedances may pose risk to
human health, threaten aquatic
life and its habitat, and impair the
use and enjoyment of the Nation's
waterways (Section LA).
2.3 Initial Efforts to Control
CSOs
2,3/1
F | Ihe Federal Water Pollution
| Control Act of 1965 authorized
JL funding for research,
development, and demonstration of
techniques for controlling CSOs and
storm water. More than 100 grants
and contracts totaling $82 million,
with a federal share of $39 million
(47.5 percent), were devoted to this
effort between 1965 and 1972 (EPA,
1973). The absence of an explicit
federal mandate for CSO control,
however, meant that the problem
received little attention.
Passage of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972
focused greater attention on CSOs.
The legislation established the
regulatory framework for controlling
point source discharges, including
CSOs, through the NPDES program.
The legislation also established the
Construction Grants Program for
wastewater infrastructure (CWA
Section 201). Some communities used
the Construction Grants Program to
control CSOs. Most investment in
municipal facilities during the 1970s
focused on POTW upgrades to
secondary and advanced treatment
and expansion, not on wet weather
issues.
EPAs 1978 Report to Congress on
Control of Combined Sewer
Overflows in the United States (EPA,
1978) focused on funding for CSO
pollution abatement projects. The
report documented the status of grant
requests and funding, identified the
-------
Chapter 2—Regulatory and Environmental Background
time required to achieve CSO control,
compared POTWs and CSOs, and
presented legislative alternatives to
control pollution from CSOs. Based
upon the 1978 Needs Survey, the
report estimated total national needs
for CSO control at $21.16 billion in
1978 dollars ($57.28 billion in 2000
dollars).
In 1972 and 1981, CSOs were the
subject of two Supreme Court cases
involving the City of Milwaukee. In
Illinois vs. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S.
91 (1972), the Court recognized the
federal common law of nuisance to
abate pollution from CSOs. In 1981,
the court ruled that the federal CWA
supplants federal common law of
nuisance to abate pollution from
CSOs, City of Milwaukee v. Illinois,
451 U.S. 304 (1981).
The 1980 ruling in Montgomery
Environmental Coalition vs. Costle, 46
F2d 568 (B.C. Cir. 1980), is recognized
by many as a landmark case in CSO
control. The court accepted EPA's
interpretation of the CWA that CSOs
are not discharges from POTWs and
thus are not subject to the secondary
treatment standards applicable to
POTWs. The CWA requires non-
municipal discharges to comply with
NPDES permits that include
technology-based best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT)
for conventional pollutants and best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT) for toxics and non-
conventional pollutants. Following
this decision, EPA and states began to
regulate and permit CSOs under the
NPDES program. This meant CSOs
needed to comply with the
technology-based requirements of the
CWA and with water quality
standards.
Some CSO communities advanced
CSO controls during this period,
establishing the groundwork for future
control. For example:
The Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago initiated its CSO control
program and construction of the
Tunnel and Reservoir Plan
(TARP) facilities to store
combined sewage in the 1970s.
The District of Columbia initiated
a CSO abatement program in
1979 that led to construction of a
swirl concentrator facility,
installation of inflatable dams,
regulator modifications, and
expanded wet weather pumping
capacity during the 1980s.
The City of San Francisco initiated
CSO control planning in 1970 and
implemented CSO controls during
the 1980s, including a deep tunnel
that resulted in substantial
reductions of CSO frequency and
volume.
The cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul,
and South St. Paul committed to
large-scale sewer separation.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
San Francisco's Islais Creek Transport/Storage Facility
stores and conveys flow to the Southeast Plant. With a
600-foot overflow weir and 45 mgd storage capacity,
this facility reduced combined sewer overflows from 40
to the allowable 10 per year.
2,3,2
The National Municipal Policy on
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
(NMP), published by EPA on January
30, 1984, was another early impetus
for CSO control. The NMP
encouraged a collaborative effort
between EPA and states in addressing
compliance with the CWA at POTWs.
The NMP was designed to focus EPAs
compliance efforts on three types of
POTWs: those that had received
federal funding and were out of
compliance, all major POTWs, and
minor POTWs that discharged to
impaired waters. The NMP was
intended to facilitate compliance at all
POTWs by July 1,1988.
The NMP recommended that each
EPA region draft a strategy to bring
POTWs into compliance with the
CWA. Each strategy was to inventory
all POTWs in the region that had not
achieved compliance, an identification
of which noncompliant municipalities
met the criteria for the NMP, and a
plan for each facility to achieve
compliance. The 1984 NMP provided
some flexibility in the planning
process, depending on whether the
POTW was proposed, under
construction, or operational. All plans
required a schedule for compliance.
This schedule was meant to enable
regions to initiate appropriate
enforcement actions, should
municipalities fail to meet the
negotiated deadlines.
As a result of the NMP, state and
federal agencies brought hundreds of
enforcement actions against
municipalities for noncompliance with
the CWA. Several major cases
specifically addressed CSO problems
at POTWs.
Civil
A total of 16 CSO Civil Judicial
actions resulted from the NMP. Six
cases occurred in Region 1, one in
Region 2, one in Region 3, and eight
in Region 5. The types of CSO
violations which led to enforcement
actions included:
NPDES permit violations
Violations of consent decrees
Violations of water-quality
effluent limits
Failure to meet construction
schedules for CSO abatement
Outcomes of these cases included
sewer separation; financial penalties;
and development of abatement,
construction, and management plans.
A summary of the cases is provided in
Appendix E. Examples of NMP cases
are as follows: an NMP case in
Hammond, Indiana, resulted in the
issuance of a court ordered consent
decree for the development of an
implementation plan to eliminate dry
weather overflows and a penalty
payment of $1,272,604. An NMP case
affecting Metropolis, Illinois, which
has a population of 7,200, was settled
through a consent decree that required
correction of its CSO overflow
structure and a penalty payment of
$17,500. The municipality had
violated a construction schedule
previously defined in an
administrative order.
-------
Chapter 2—Regulatory and Environmental Background
CSO
EPA initiated 13 judicial enforcement
actions during the 1980s. These
actions were brought under the CWA,
but not under the NMP (Wade Miller
Associates, 1989). Six cases occurred in
Region 1, three in Region 2, three in
Region 5, and one in Region 10. Most
of these actions involved CSOs
discharging above effluent limits
according to provisions in an NPDES
permit. The principal effluent limit
violations were for BOD, TSS, and
fecal coliform. Seven municipalities
were identified as having dry weather
overflows. The majority of
communities were assessed civil
penalties for noncompliance with
permit limits and were required to
develop plans to control CSOs. These
cases are also summarized in
Appendix E.
2,3.3 CSO
Strategy
EPA issued a National CSO Control
Strategy in 1989 (54 FR 37370). The
National CSO Control Strategy
requested that states develop statewide
CSO permitting strategies by January
15, 1990. The National CSO Control
Strategy also recommended that
NPDES permits for municipal systems
with CSO discharges, at a minimum,
include BAT/BCT technology-based
controls established according to the
best professional judgement (BPJ) of
the permitting authority. Six
minimum control measures were
recommended:
1. Proper operation and regular
maintenance.
2. Maximum use of the collection
system for storage.
3. Review and modification of
pretreatment programs.
4. Maximum flow delivery to the
POTW for treatment.
5. Prohibition of dry weather
overflows.
6. Control of solid and floatable
material in CSO discharges.
During the next several years, nearly
all states with CSSs submitted
permitting strategies. EPA approved
all submitted plans.
2,3,4
As EPA, states, and municipalities
worked to implement the National
CSO Control Strategy in the early
1990s, the consequences of CSOs
(described in Section 2.2) continued
to receive national attention, and
environmental organizations pushed
for further action. Municipal
organizations were also dissatisfied
with the National CSO Control
Strategy, as they sought a consistent
national approach or policy on CSOs
and clarification on how to proceed
with CSO control. In addition, some
studies suggested that states were
implementing strategies and technical
approaches to CSO control that varied
greatly from the National CSO
Control Strategy and from those of
other states.
A review of sample state CSO
strategies by HydroQual (1992)
suggested the following:
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
States were employing a variety of
wet weather design standards,
including overflow frequency,
factor of flow method (e.g., 10
times dry weather flow),
frequency/duration design storms,
and depth/duration design storms.
States' wet weather design
standards were either incorporated
into individual permits on a site-
specific basis, or adopted as
statewide policy or regulation.
Treatment requirements for wet
weather flows varied from state to
state as either primary or
secondary treatment.
In response to these concerns, EPA
formed a Management Advisory
Group (MAG) in 1992. The MAG was
to assist the Agency in the
conceptualization and development of
a national CSO policy. The MAG
included representatives from states,
municipalities, sewerage-related
associations, and environmental
groups. The MAG was charged with
addressing the following issues:
What CSO controls are
appropriate?
When should CSO controls be
implemented?
How should CSO controls be
funded?
In addition to continuing with the six
minimum controls identified in the
National CSO Control Strategy, MAG
recommended three additional
controls (MAG, 1992):
Inspection, monitoring, and
reporting of CSOs.
Pollution prevention, including
water conservation, to reduce CSO
impacts.
Public notification for any areas
affected by CSOs, especially beach
and recreational areas.
The MAG also recommended that a
work group be convened, in a
modified regulation/negotiation
process, to develop a consistent
national permitting policy for CSO
control.
A work group of CSO stakeholders
met during the summer of 1992 to
address these issues. The work group
included environmental groups,
municipalities, municipal associations,
and state and federal water authorities.
The work group agreed to the
following objective:
To develop consensus on a
consistent set of criteria with an
adequate degree of specificity to be
used in determining long-term
CSO control programs
implemented through NPDES
permits (MAG, 1993).
The work group's discussions led to
the resolution of many technical,
economic, and policy issues raised by
stakeholders. Although the work
group failed to reach consensus on a
policy framework document for CSO
control, their work set the stage for
what proved to be the foundation of
the 1994 CSO Control Policy.
-------
Chapter 2—Regulatory and Environmental Background
A subset of the MAG workgroup,
including EPA, the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities
(AMSA), and NRDC, met in October
1992. Participants of this meeting
developed a CSO Framework
Document based upon the MAG
discussions and recommendations.
The CSO Framework Document did
not include all enforcement
components.
EPA used the CSO Framework
Document to develop a policy
statement that would provide a
consistent national approach for
controlling CSOs. Stakeholder
support for this initiative continued
throughout its development. An
example of this support is a letter sent
January 13, 1994, signed by five
divergent stakeholder groups - AMSA,
NRDC, the Environmental Defense
Fund, the National League of Cities,
and the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators - to the Office of
Management and Budget during the
final phases of review. The letter
recognized that the CSO Control
Policy was "the product of many hours
of thoughtful, deliberate negotiations"
and "truly represents a fair
compromise among many divergent
positions and an effective approach to
national CSO permit guidance."
Moreover, the signatories cautioned
that:
There is a strong national coalition
of support for the Policy as
negotiated. Any changes in the
structure and requirements set
forth in the Policy will, without a
doubt, disaffect members of this
coalition and undermine the
significant progress that would be
made by implementing the Policy
as it is currently written.
EPA held a press conference April 11,
1994, to announce the release of the
final CSO Control Policy. At the press
conference, key stakeholders spoke in
support of the CSO Control Policy,
and letters were read expressing
support from various members of
Congress. The CSO Control Policy
was published on April 19, 1994 (59
FR 18688). In October 1996, key
participants in the development of the
CSO Control Policy were presented
with the Vice President's Hammer
Award for Reinvention in recognition
of the success of the CSO Control
Policy negotiation.
2.4 The CSO Control Policy
2.4.1 Purpose, Objectives
Principles CSO
Poiscy
rTHlhe purpose of the CSO Control
| Policy was twofold: 1)
JL elaboration on EPAs 1989
National CSO Control Strategy; and 2)
expeditious compliance with CWA
requirements. The CSO Control
Policy provided guidance to CSO
communities, NPDES authorities, and
water standards authorities for
planning, selecting, and implementing
CSO controls. It also established a
substantial role for public involvement
during the decision-making process.
The CSO Control Policy reiterated the
objectives of the National CSO
Control Strategy. In addition, the CSO
Control Policy recognized the site-
specific nature of CSOs and CSO
2-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
This CSO notification sign is posted along Brandywine
Creek in Wilmington, Delaware. It warns swimmers of
the presence of a CSO and advises that raw sewage
and bacteria may be present after storms.
impacts and provided municipalities
with flexibility to tailor controls to
local situations.
Four key principles of the CSO
Control Policy ensure that CSO
controls are cost-effective and meet
the objectives of the CWA. The key
principles are:
Provide clear levels of control that
would be presumed to meet
appropriate health and
environmental objectives.
Provide sufficient flexibility to
municipalities, especially
financially disadvantaged
communities, to consider the site-
specific nature of CSOs and to
determine the most cost-effective
means of reducing pollutants and
meeting CWA objectives and
requirements.
Allow a phased approach to
implementation of CSO controls
considering a community's
financial capability.
Review and revise, as appropriate,
water quality standards and their
implementation procedures when
developing CSO control plans to
reflect the site-specific wet weather
impacts of CSOs.
The CSO Control Policy established
objectives for CSO communities and
expectations for NPDES and water
quality standards authorities.
Moreover, the CSO Control Policy
presented elements of an enforcement
and compliance program to address
CSOs that overflow during dry
weather and for enforcement of
NPDES permits issued in accordance
with the CSO Control Policy.
2,42 for CSO
Communities
The objectives for CSO communities
with NPDES permits are: 1) to
implement the NMC and submit
documentation on NMC
implementation; and 2) to develop
and implement an LTCP. The NMC
are:
1. Proper operation and regular
maintenance programs for the
sewer system and the CSOs.
2. Maximum use of the collection
system for storage.
3. Review and modification of
pretreatment requirements to
assure CSO impacts are
minimized.
4. Maximizing flow to the POTW for
treatment.
5. Prohibition of CSOs during dry
weather.
6. Control of solids and floatable
materials in CSOs.
7. Pollution prevention.
8. Public notification to ensure that
the public receives adequate
notification of CSO occurrences
and CSO impacts.
9. Monitoring to effectively
characterize CSO impacts and the
efficacy of CSO controls.
-------
Chapter 2—Regulatory and Environmental Background
Municipalities were expected to
implement the NMC and to submit
appropriate documentation to NPDES
authorities as soon as reasonably
possible, but no later than January 1 ,
1997. Because the CWA required
immediate compliance with the
technology-based controls, a
compliance schedule for
implementing the NMC, if necessary,
was to be included in an enforceable
mechanism. EPA committed to
exercise its enforcement discretion and
not seek civil penalties for past CSO
violations if a CSO community was
otherwise in compliance and met the
January 1, 1997, deadline.
In addition to the NMC, CSO
communities were expected to develop
and implement LTCPs that would
ultimately result in compliance with
the CWA. This process was to be
coordinated closely with the NPDES
authority and the state authority
responsible for water quality
standards. EPA expected that LTCPs
would include the following minimum
elements:
Characterization, monitoring, and
modeling of the CSS
Public participation
Consideration of sensitive areas
Evaluation of alternatives
Cost/performance considerations
Operational plan
Maximization of treatment at the
POTW treatment plant
Post-construction compliance
monitoring
In addition, the implementation
schedule was expected to include
project milestones and a financing
plan to design and construct necessary
controls as soon as practicable.
The CSO Control Policy set forth two
approaches that CSO communities
could use in developing LTCPs to
show that the plan would achieve
compliance with water quality
standards:
The "presumption approach" with
performance criteria (i.e., four to
six untreated overflow events or
85 percent capture by volume)
that would be presumed to
provide an adequate level of
control to meet water quality
standards.
The "demonstration approach"
with development and
implementation of a suite of CSO
controls that would be sufficient
to meet applicable water quality
standards.
Under the presumption approach, the
permitting authority must determine
that the presumption is reasonable in
light of data and analyses prepared
during LTCP development. Under the
demonstration approach, the CSO
community may demonstrate that the
selected control program described in
the LTCP, though not meeting the
criteria specified for the presumption
approach, would be adequate to meet
the water quality-based requirements
of the CWA.
Many communities combine public education and
pollution prevention by involving civic and youth
groups in storm drain stenciling and other watershed
protection projects.
Implementation schedule
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
The sewer utility serving Louisville, Kentucky has
restructured its organization to coordinate CSO control
needs with other water quality improvement programs.
2,4,3 for
Authorities
The CSO Control Policy expected
permitting authorities to undertake
the following activities:
Review and revise, as appropriate,
state CSO permitting strategies
developed in response to the
National CSO Control Strategy.
Develop and issue permits
requiring CSO communities to 1)
immediately implement the NMC
and document their
implementation; and 2) develop
and implement an LTCP.
Promote coordination among the
CSO community, the water quality
standards authority, and the
general public through LTCP
development and implementation.
Evaluate water pollution control
needs on a watershed basis and
coordinate CSO control with the
control of other point and
nonpoint sources of pollution.
Recognize that it might be difficult
for some small communities to
meet all of the formal elements of
LTCP development, and that
compliance with the NMC and a
reduced scope LTCP may be
sufficient.
Consider sensitive areas, use
impairment, and a CSO
community's financial capability
in the review and approval of
implementation schedules.
2,4,4
Development,
Communities develop and implement
LTCPs to meet water quality
standards, including the designated
uses and criteria to protect those uses
for water bodies that receive CSO
discharges. The CSO Control Policy
recognized that substantial
coordination and agreement among
the permitting authority, water quality
standards authority, the public, and
the CSO community would be
required to accomplish this objective.
The CSO Control Policy also
recognized that the development of
the LTCP should be coordinated with
the review and appropriate revision of
water quality standards and their
implementation procedures. EPA
regulations and guidance provide
states with some flexibility to adapt
water quality standards and
implementation procedures to reflect
site-specific conditions, including
those related to CSO discharges.
The CSO Control Policy highlights the
flexibilities contained in EPA's water
quality standards regulations. These
include greater specificity in the
definition of recreational and aquatic
life uses, use modification, partial use
designation, and water quality
standards variances. EPA must
approve or disapprove any change to
water quality standards.
2,4,5
The CSO enforcement effort described
in the CSO Control Policy was to
commence with an initiative to
address CSOs that occur during dry
-------
Chapter 2—Regulatory and Environmental Background
weather. This was to be followed by an
enforcement effort in conjunction
with CSO permitting:
Under the CWA, EPA can use
several enforcement options to
address permittees with CSOs.
Those options directly applicable to
this Policy are Section 308
Information Requests, Section
309(a) Administrative Orders,
Section 309(g) Administrative
Penalty Orders, Section 309(b)
and (d) Civil Judicial Actions, and
Section 504 Emergency Powers.
NPDES states should use
comparable means.
EPA recognized that the success of the
enforcement effort would depend on
expeditious action by NPDES
authorities in issuing enforceable
permits with NMC requirements and
other CWA requirements.
Enforcement priorities were to be
based upon human health impacts,
environmental impacts, and impacts
on sensitive areas.
2.5 Summary
T T ncontrolled CSOs are a
| | significant source of
%__/ pollution. They adversely
impact public health and the
environment. Regulation of CSOs,
however, has proven complex because
of the intermittent character and site-
specific nature of CSO discharges. In
addition, unlike POTWs, CSOs are not
subject to the CWA secondary
treatment standards, but must comply
with NPDES permits that include BCT
and BAT requirements on a BPJ basis.
As a result of the 1984 National
Municipal Policy, state and federal
agencies brought hundreds of
enforcement actions against
municipalities for violations of the
CWA. Several cases specifically
addressed CSO problems. EPAs 1989
National CSO Control Strategy
resulted in state-wide CSO permitting
strategies and recommended six
minimum measures for CSO control.
The CSO Control Policy was
developed between 1992 and 1994.
During this time, all parties expressed
dissatisfaction with the lack of
progress toward CSO control
implementation. Stakeholders were
strongly committed to developing a
consensus-based document that would
meet the challenge of guiding CSO
facility permitting and control
implementation into the 21st century.
The CSO Control Policy was
developed to provide clear levels of
control that would be presumed to
meet appropriate health and
environmental objectives. The CSO
Control Policy, which dealt with many
difficult technical and permitting
issues, was innovative in the following
ways:
Recognizing the site-specific
nature of CSOs.
Providing flexibility to
municipalities, especially
financially disadvantaged
municipalities, to determine the
most cost-effective means of
reducing pollutants and meeting
CWA objectives and requirements.
Recommending the use of the
NMC in the form of best
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
management practices (BMPs) as
the minimum technology-based
requirements for CSOs.
Expecting municipalities to
develop and implement LTCPs to
meet water quality standards,
using either a demonstration or
presumption approach as well as
other CWA requirements.
Expecting substantial public
participation in the decision-
making process.
Giving highest priority to
controlling overflows to sensitive
areas.
Expecting that the LTCP
development process would be
coordinated with the review and
revision of water quality
standards, as appropriate.
Encouraging permitting
authorities to evaluate water
pollution control needs on a
watershed basis and to coordinate
CSO control efforts with other
point and nonpoint source control
activities.
Prioritizing enforcement efforts to
address CWA violations due to dry
weather CSOs.
The CSO Control Policy was intended
to guide the planning, selection,
design, implementation, and
enforcement of CSO management
practices and controls to meet the
requirements of the CWA. This report
is designed to describe the progress
made by EPA, states, and
municipalities in meeting these
objectives.
-------
Chapter 3
Methodology for Development of the
CSO Report to Congress
f I Ihis chapter documents the
1 methodology that EPA used to
JL prepare this Report to
Congress. It summarizes the steps EPA
has taken to compile information on
the status of the implementation and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy. The chapter lays out EPA's
study objectives, analytical approaches,
and data sources. It explains essential
information collection methods and
describes steps EPA took to involve
stakeholders in the development of
this report. The chapter summarizes
quality assurance measures used to
enhance the accuracy and precision of
results.
3.1 Overview of Study
Objectives and Approaches
f~T~1he overall objective of the
I report was to accurately
JL describe the nature and extent
of activities by EPA, states, and
municipalities to implement and
enforce the CSO Control Policy. The
basic study approach was to collect
data and report on implementation
and enforcement activities across EPA
headquarters and the nine EPA
regions and 32 states known to have
CSO communities within their
jurisdictions. The breadth of EPA and
state activities (including policy and
guidance development, permitting,
implementation, compliance
assistance, enforcement, training,
research, development and
information management activities,
among others) made this an extensive
undertaking.
EPA emphasized the collection of
actual regulatory data from EPA
regions and states rather than rely on
information from centralized EPA
databases and anecdotal data. EPA
conducted file reviews and staff
interviews in five regions and 16
states, reviewing permit and other
regulatory files for over 90 percent of
the CSO communities in the United
States. EPA's approach was challenging
because of the diversity in state CSO
programs, but it greatly improved
EPA's confidence in its assessment of
implementation and enforcement
status.
In this
3.1 Overview of Study
Objectives and
Approaches
3.2 Data Sources
3.3 Data Collection
3.4 Stakeholder
Involvement
3.5 Data Considerations
3.6 Quality Control and
Quality Assurance
3.7 Summary
Fishing contest in Oswego, New York, a CSO
community that has implemented the NMC and
structural controls, including a swirl concentrator
and disinfection system.
3-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
A new line is installed as part of a sewer system
separation project in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
EPA had developed and maintained a
list of potential CSO communities
since the late 1980s, but had not
validated the list in the field with
regions and states. This report
afforded EPA the opportunity to
evaluate this list, identify additional
CSO communities, eliminate others,
and compile a relational data base.
EPA now has a solid baseline to use to
track CSO activities of regions, states
and CSO communities. EPA will use
this data base for preparation of the
second Report to Congress due in
2003. Data base documentation is
provided in Appendix F.
EPA took an inclusive approach to
preparing this report. The Agency
believes that, since the CSO Control
Policy had its genesis in intensive
stakeholder consultations, it would be
appropriate to solicit stakeholder
input in evaluating progress to date.
The Agency met with stakeholders
early to communicate the goals and
methods of the study, to offer
stakeholders the opportunity to
contribute data, and to invite their
comments on preliminary findings.
With these objectives as a foundation,
EPA undertook the following major
study approaches to describe the status
of implementation and enforcement
of the CSO Control Policy:
Compile information across EPA
headquarters and regions to
document major implementation
and enforcement actions by EPA
offices.
Gather information from available
NPDES authority files to confirm
the CSO regulatory universe and
to assess progress on a
facility/permit-specific basis by
communities in initiating CSO
controls.
Interview federal and state officials
involved in water quality
standards review, permitting,
compliance assistance, and
enforcement activities to augment
the NPDES file data.
Develop fact sheets describing
each state's approach to CSO
control and implementation and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy.
Develop case studies of CSO
communities to describe
approaches used to address CSO-
related problems, to identify
successes in CSO control, to
develop data on the effectiveness
of CSO controls, and to document
remaining challenges.
Meet with interested stakeholders
on report preparation, solicited
data input, and invited comments
on preliminary findings from
stakeholders.
Deliver the Report to Congress
within nine months to meet the
Congressional deadline.
In conducting this study, EPA found it
imperative to focus on the specific
Congressional objectives for this
report, while at the same time laying
the groundwork for the second Report
to Congress on impacts, resources, and
technologies due in 2003. Thus, this
report retains its emphasis on
assessing implementation and
enforcement and provides only
3-2
-------
Chapter 3—Methodology
preliminary insight into the
environmental, technological, and
resource implications of CSO control.
3.2 Data Sources
"I 1 PA developed a comprehensive
!""i list of potential sources of
JL=J information that could be used
to assess the implementation and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy. This list included information
available from EPA; NPDES
authorities and other state programs;
CSO communities; and stakeholders
such as AMSA, the CSO Partnership,
NRDC, and the Water Environment
Federation (WEE). The following
sections describe the sources of
information EPA used to develop this
report.
3,2,1
EPA researched its own files related to
development, implementation and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy. EPA maintains a library of
CSO-related documents and a
chronological record of relevant
memoranda and communications.
EPA also maintains files with
information submitted to the Agency
by CSO communities, documenting
local efforts to implement the CSO
Control Policy. In addition, EPA has a
compendium of water enforcement
policy and guidance documents that
contains several CSO-related
documents.
EPA also looked to a number of
existing data systems for CSO
information. This included the
Permits Compliance System (PCS),
EPA's enforcement docket, and data
bases supporting the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
the Clean Water Needs Survey
(CWNS), the National Water Quality
Inventory, and the State Revolving
Fund (SRF). Lastly, EPA collected CSO
data and research results from a wide
range of EPA programmatic offices
with activities affecting CSOs such as
the Office of Research and
Development, the Office of
Groundwater and Drinking Water, the
Office of Science and Technology, and
the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds.
3.2,2 and
Individual NPDES authorities and
associated state programs were the
primary sources of regulatory
information used in this report. This
data collection effort included an
assessment of information contained
in permit files and other
documentation related to
implementation and enforcement
activities. EPA and its contractors
conducted site visits to 16 states and
five EPA regional offices. To select the
most appropriate targets for these
visits EPA established the following
priorities:
Maximizing the number of CSO
permits reviewed.
Ensuring geographic distribution
across states and EPA regional
offices.
Capturing a range of permitting,
compliance assistance,
enforcement and water quality
standards review experiences.
3-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA collected permit number, information on the
number and location of outfalls, and
requirements for CSO controls for ail CSO
communities. This information was supplemented
with municipal case studies to capture the
varying degrees of progress in CSO control
implementation.
Maximizing the number of major
metropolitan centers for which
data were collected.
To complete the national assessment
of CSO Control Policy
implementation and enforcement,
EPA needed a baseline of specific data
on the status of CSO permits in all
states. This core information included:
NPDES permit number
Number of outfalls
Status of requirements to develop
and implement NMC and LTCPs
For states EPA was unable to visit, EPA
summarized the information available
in its own files and verified this
information with the appropriate CSO
coordinators in each region or state.
3,2,3 Sources
EPA supplemented information from
NPDES authorities with municipal
case studies to illustrate community-
level implementation of the CSO
Control Policy. CSO communities
were selected for case study analysis to:
Capture a range of programmatic
experiences.
Capture the varying degrees of
implementation and progress in
construction of controls achieved
by communities.
Document results of CSO control
activities within the community.
Ensure geographic distribution
across states and EPA regional
offices.
In addition, AMSA and a CSO
community offered to develop case
studies. EPA accepted these offers and
provided AMSA and the community
with the draft outline the Agency had
developed for the case studies.
3,2,4
In February and March of 2001, EPA
met with representatives from key
stakeholder groups including AMSA,
the CSO Partnership, NRDC, and
WEF. During these meetings, EPA
presented an overview of the
congressional directive to report on
implementation and enforcement of
the CSO Control Policy and the
Agency's planned response. EPA then
solicited feedback on the proposed
approach. The comments and
suggestions of the stakeholder groups
were incorporated into the final
methodology presented in this report,
as appropriate.
AMSA and the CSO Partnership also
conducted independent surveys of
their members during the spring of
2001. The surveys focused on
quantifying activities undertaken by
CSO communities implementing the
CSO Control Policy. Both AMSA and
the CSO Partnership furnished EPA
with the results of their surveys. A
summary of the results of these
surveys is provided in Appendix G.
3.3 Data Collection
r~f~°lhe primary sources of data for
| this report were existing data in
I NPDES authority files and
federal data bases, and data obtained
directly from municipalities in
support of community case studies. In
-------
Chapter 3—Methodology
addition, EPA performed a
comprehensive literature search, and
applied national assessment models,
where appropriate.
The following sections describe EPA's
data collection efforts.
3,3,1 of EPA
EPA's first step in implementing the
information collection strategy was to
assess the information in its own files
on development, implementation, and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy, including an extensive set of
files on local communities' CSO
issues.
EPA used the federal docket as its
principal source of information on
administrative and civil judicial
actions taken to address CSO
violations. EPA initially created reports
listing all violations of CWA sections
301 and 402 and then isolated cases
specifically addressing CSOs,
overflows, bypasses, and dry-weather
discharges. (The cases examined
included those resulting from the
NMP, the CWA, and the CSO Control
Policy.) EPA also evaluated CSO-
specific information in the Lexis-Nexis
database and the Federal Register in
order to compile the CSO
enforcement action statistics discussed
in Chapter 4.
EPA also relied on existing Agency
data systems wherever possible. These
include PCS, GPRA, the CWNS, the
National Water Quality Inventory, and
SRF. Information obtained from these
data systems is described in Chapter 4.
332 of by
Programs
EPA's next step in implementing the
information collection strategy was a
series of visits to NPDES authorities in
16 states and five EPA regional offices.
These visits allowed EPA to access
permit files for nearly 90 percent of
the CSO communities nationwide.
EPA visited the following states and
regions:
California
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania (three of six state
regional offices)
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Region 1 (NPDES authority for
Massachusetts, New Hampshire)
3-5
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Region 3 (NPDES authority for
Washington, DC)
Region 4
Region 9 (NPDES co-permitting
authority for City of San
Francisco's CSOs)
Region 10 (NPDES authority for
Alaska)
During visits to regional offices, EPA
also reviewed available CSO permit
files for states not visited. Each visit to
a state or EPA regional office began
with a discussion with the CSO
coordinator and other staff (typically
water quality standards and
enforcement officials) involved in the
permitting of CSOs. In the interview,
EPA collected general information on
the NPDES authority's approach to
CSO control, such as:
Efforts to incorporate the CSO
Control Policy into the permitting
authority's existing programmatic
framework.
Established CSO-related policies
or strategies.
Activities to integrate water
quality standards reviews with
CSO control planning.
Data management techniques.
After completing the discussion, EPA
and its contractors reviewed CSO
permit files and documentation of
NMC and LTCP activities submitted
to the NPDES authority. EPA used
field data sheets to guide the
discussions and file review process,
and to ensure consistency in the
information collected in each locale.
The field data sheets are included in
this report as Appendix H.
EPA also spoke with state and EPA
regional staff to obtain CSO and
NPDES inspection information. These
data were supplemented with and
checked against state and regional
inspection information posted on the
Internet, and reviews of inspection
information in PCS and the federal
docket.
3,3,3
Efforts
Based on information collected during
site visits and internal file review, EPA
identified eight CSO communities for
case study development. The case
studies were selected to highlight a
range of programmatic experiences
and to reflect geographic diversity.
EPA worked with the relevant NPDES
authority to identify an appropriate
contact in each CSO community
selected as a case study.
EPA and its contractors then contacted
an appropriate official in each
community to seek support for case
study development. Seven officials
agreed to assist in development of case
studies, and EPA identified an
additional community to replace the
one that declined.
EPA developed case studies of the
following CSO programs:
Bremerton, Washington
Burlington, Iowa
Muncie, Indiana
North Bergen, New Jersey
3-8
-------
Chapter 3—Methodology
Randolph, Vermont
Saginaw, Michigan
South Portland, Maine
Wheeling, West Virginia
The appropriate NPDES authority and
EPA regional office reviewed each case
study to ensure accuracy.
In addition, AMSA and one other
CSO community contacted EPA and
offered to assist in development of
case studies. EPA accepted these offers,
bringing the total number of
municipal case studies to 17. The
additional case studies were:
Atlanta, Georgia
Chicago, Illinois
Columbus, Georgia
Louisville and Jefferson County
Municipal Sewer District,
Kentucky
Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Boston, Massachusetts
Richmond, Virginia
Rouge River, Michigan
San Francisco, California
Washington, DC
The case studies appear in Appendix C
of this report.
33,4 CSO from and
the CSO
AMSA and the CSO Partnership
surveyed their members during the
spring of 2001 and furnished the
anonymous results of these surveys to
EPA. AMSA estimates that 58 of their
members have combined sewer
systems. AMSA received 27 responses
to the survey, which was distributed to
only those communities with
combined sewers —a response rate of
47 percent. AMSA indicated that one
respondent also completed the survey
conducted by the CSO Partnership,
and flagged those responses
accordingly. The CSO Partnership,
which has approximately 85 members,
distributed its survey to its entire
membership. The CSO Partnership
received 23 responses, a response rate
of 27 percent.
The surveys focused on quantifying
communities' activities to implement
the CSO Control Policy, and benefits
attributed to CSO control. Although
the surveys were conducted
independently, a number of questions
were duplicative. EPA combined the
responses for duplicate questions,
effectively doubling the response rate
for those questions. Additional
information on these surveys is
provided in Appendix G.
3.4 Stakeholder Involvement
Tn July 2001, a facilitated
| stakeholder meeting was held in
JL Chicago, Illinois. Participants
included original members of the
MAG and other CSO experts from
EPA regions, states, CSO communities
EPA completed case studies of 17 community CSO
control programs, including Atlanta, Georgia. As
part of its LTCR Atlanta is replacing a significant
portion of its combined systems with new
separate tunnels.
3-7
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Floatables control facility In North Bergen, New
Jersey.
and consultants, and local and
national environmental groups. The
purpose of the meeting was to:
Provide a preliminary description
of the report's methodology and
findings.
Discuss the implications of
findings.
Collect and share lessons learned
from implementers of CSO
controls.
EPA presented preliminary data and
findings and held facilitated
discussions regarding data sources,
data interpretation, tone, and received
input on the context around which
these findings should be viewed. A
summary of the meeting is included in
Appendix I of this report.
3.5 Data Considerations
T mplementation of the information
| collection strategy identified
JL several important data
considerations. First, each NPDES
permitting authority clearly had taken
a somewhat different approach to
integrating the CSO Control Policy
into its existing programmatic and
regulatory framework. For example,
certain NPDES permitting authorities
had CSO-related permit requirements
that predated the CSO Control Policy.
Although these permit requirements
were often similar to NMC and LTCP
requirements outlined in the CSO
Control Policy, they were not
necessarily identical. Further, few
NPDES authorities immediately
modified existing requirements when
the CSO Control Policy was issued in
1994. EPA also found that some
NPDES authorities required CSO
controls outside the framework
prescribed by the CSO Control Policy.
These actions led to considerable
variability in both terminology and
actual permit requirements used to
require CSO control. Therefore, a
methodological challenge that EPA
confronted throughout the
development of this report was the
selective merging of data from
different programs to arrive at
meaningful national estimates that
accurately reflect efforts to control
CSOs and implementation of the
components of the CSO Control
Policy.
A second consideration was that CSO
reporting requirements were specific
to the NPDES authority. For example,
some NPDES authorities require CSO
communities to submit annual reports
on NMC and LTCP implementation
activities. In contrast, others require
only a single report to document
NMC implementation, with little
documentation of LTCP
implementation activities prior to
post-construction compliance
monitoring.
Another data consideration was
determining if progress in controlling
CSOs was associated with
implementation of the CSO Control
Policy or should be more
appropriately linked to pre-existing
federal or state initiatives such as the
NMP, state strategies emanating from
the National CSO Control Strategy, or
specific enforcement actions. In the
final analysis, EPA concluded that
attribution was far less important than
optimizing the capture of all
-------
Chapter 3—Methodology
meaningful results. Since the clear
intent behind the CSO Control Policy
was not to disrupt ongoing control
efforts, EPA concluded that it should
include any documented results of
progress in controlling CSOs
independent of the date of initiation
of the control effort.
The final consideration was that most
NPDES authorities have no data
available on the annual volume,
frequency, and duration of CSO
discharges. Moreover, data on water
quality improvements specifically
attributable to CSO control efforts
were absent in the NPDES authorities'
files. This complicated EPA's
assessment of the effectiveness of, and
environmental benefits derived from,
CSO control. EPA anticipates that this
type of detailed information will be
the focus of the December 2003
Report to Congress required by
Section 112(d)(l) of PL. 106-554.
Although the above considerations
shaped the approach used to develop
this report, the basic objective—to
determine the status of
implementation and enforcement of
the CSO Control Policy—never
varied.
3.6 Quality Control and Quality
Assurance
Jl detailed data verification and
jLJI interpretation process followed
JL JLthe data collection effort. Data
sets were evaluated for missing and
inconsistent information in
accordance with a data collection and
reporting quality assurance and
control protocol. Summary reports
from file reviews were prepared and
distributed to appropriate EPA region
and state CSO coordinators. In
addition, each coordinator received a
copy of the profile EPA developed for
his or her state or regional program.
Follow-up phone calls to each
coordinator verified the accuracy and
completeness of EPA's records used to
develop the state profiles. Likewise,
each municipal case study was
reviewed by community officials and
the appropriate state and EPA regional
authorities.
Data from the AMSA and CSO
Partnership surveys was not obtained
directly by EPA, and hence was not
subject to the same quality control as
the EPA data.
3.7 Summary
j? "I hapters 4 through 6 provide a
1 detailed assessment of the data
%=,,,,,// and materials collected in
support of this report. The assessment
includes:
A broad national evaluation of
federal, state, and municipal
activities related to the
implementation and enforcement
of the CSO Control Policy.
State fact sheets to describe
activities of the 32 states with CSO
communities.
Detailed municipal case studies to
illustrate community-level
activities.
A bibliography of principle data
sources appears at the end of this
report.
3-9
-------
Chapter 4
CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
4.1 General Activities to
Support CSO Control Policy
Implementation
j, s described in Chapter 2 of this
/\ report, EPA's 1994 CSO
A. JL-Control Policy is designed to
ensure that CSO controls meet the
requirements of the CWA and are
cost-effective. Under the CWA, any
facility that discharges pollutants from
a point source into waters of the
United States must obtain an NPDES
permit. NPDES permits must contain
requirements based on treatment
technology performance, but more
stringent requirements may be
imposed when technology-based
requirements are insufficient to
provide for attainment of water
quality standards in receiving waters.
The CWA authorizes EPA to
implement the NPDES permit
program or to authorize states,
territories, or tribes to do so.
To ensure that the goals of the CWA
are met, EPA is responsible for a
number of activities, including:
Developing new regulations or
modifying existing regulations.
Interpreting regulatory
requirements and initiatives
through policy as needed.
Developing guidance documents
and other forms of technical
assistance.
Communicating and coordinating
with stakeholders.
Providing program compliance
and enforcement assistance.
Providing financial assistance.
Monitoring compliance status and
targeting facilities for follow-up.
Tracking environmental benefits
from program implementation
and enforcement.
Managing information pertaining
to the status of implementation
and enforcement activities.
In fills
4.1 General Activities to
Support CSO Control
Policy Implementation
4.2 NPDES Permitting
4.3 Water Quality Standards
4.4 Compliance and
Enforcement
4.5 Guidance, Training, and
Compliance and
Technical Assistance
4.6 Communication and
Coordination
4.7 Information
Management
4.8 Financial Assistance
4.9 Performance Measures
4.10 Findings
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Addressing deteriorating infrastructure, such
as this crumbling CSO outfall, is one aspect
of most CSO control programs.
Providing general oversight for
implementation and enforcement
of the NPDES program.
Reviewing state-issued NPDES
permits and issuing NPDES
permits in states not authorized to
do so.
Approving water quality
standards.
Commencing enforcement
activities as appropriate.
= Promoting research and
development.
Promulgating water quality
standards when states fail to do so.
EPA's Office of Water (OW) and
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) share
oversight responsibility for
implementation and enforcement of
the CSO Control Policy. Since issuing
the CSO Control Policy in 1994, EPA
has worked to interpret the Policy and
ensure implementation by EPA
regions and states. To this end, EPA
has issued three memoranda to
promote more effective
implementation of the CSO Control
Policy. The memoranda, summarized
below, are provided in Appendix A.
On
November 18,1996, EPA issued a
memorandum titled "January 1,
1997 Deadline for Nine Minimum
Controls in Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Policy." This
document alerted EPA Water
Management Division Directors,
Regional Counsels, and Regional
State Directors to the January 1,
1997, deadline for implementation
of the NMC. The memorandum
also specified that the first phase of
implementation included
development of an LTCP for CSOs
to provide for attainment of water
quality standards. EPA also stated
that its approach of not seeking
civil penalties for past CSO
violations (as described in the CSO
Control Policy) would not apply
unless permittees implemented the
NMC by January 1, 1997. The
Agency further noted that OW
intended to track implementation
(during FY 1997) through a
program performance plan
developed under the GPRA (see
related discussion in Section 4.7.2
of this report).
CSO
On May 19, 1998,
EPA issued "Implementation of
the CSO Control Policy." This
memorandum discussed
implementation of the CSO
Control Policy and identified areas
where increased efforts were
deemed necessary. The
memorandum observed that,
although stakeholders continued
to affirm the CSO Control Policy's
key themes and EPA continued to
work with stakeholders to foster
implementation, numerous
implementation challenges
remained. The memorandum
discussed implementation of the
NMC, development of LTCPs,
achievement of water quality
standards, and measurement of
program performance.
4-2
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
CSO
On July 7, 1999,
EPA issued "Water Quality-Based
and Technology-Based CSO
Requirements." This
memorandum discussed water
quality-based requirements;
technology-based requirements;
and coordination of enforcement,
permitting, and water quality
programs in enforcement cases.
The remainder of this chapter
describes activities EPA has
undertaken to ensure that CSO
communities and NPDES authorities
fully implement the CSO Control
Policy. Information related to the
activities of EPA regions as the
permitting authority in non-
authorized states is provided in
Chapter 5.
4.2 NPDES Permitting
w -Y nder the NPDES permit
| j program, any discharge of
%a^ pollutants to waters of the
United States must be authorized by
an NPDES permit. Permits are issued
to dischargers by EPA regional offices,
or by states or territories or tribes
authorized by EPA to administer a
state permitting program that meets
minimum federal requirements. To
date, EPA has authorized 44 states and
one territory to administer the NPDES
program. EPA remains the permitting
authority in the remaining six states
(Alaska, Arizona, Idaho,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
New Mexico), the District of
Columbia, all U.S. territories (except
the U.S. Virgin Islands), and all
Federal Indian Reservations.
4.2,1
EPA headquarters provides legal and
technical support at the national level
and is responsible for ensuring that
the NPDES permit program is
successfully implemented. EPA
provides technical tools, training, and
contract support to promote the
issuance of timely and high-quality
NPDES permits; tracks, manages, and
reports permit issuance data; and
evaluates and reports on the quality of
permits across all EPA regions and
authorized NPDES states. The
activities described in Chapter 4 are
related to EPA's efforts to address
proper implementation of the CSO
Control Policy.
The Water Permits Division (WPD) of
EPA's Office of Wastewater
Management (OWM) recently
developed several draft management
tools for use by EPA regions and
authorized states to ensure NPDES
permit quality. These draft tools
include central tenets of the NPDES
permit program and a municipal
permit review checklist, both of which
include provisions that evaluate
agreement with the CSO Control
Policy. These draft tools are available
at WPD's web site at
www.epa.gov/npdes/issuance. In
addition, WPD periodically conducts
evaluations of permit quality in EPA
regions and states. The evaluations
assess implementation of the CSO
Control Policy where applicable.
4-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
for
In 1999, EPA developed and issued a
new "Form 2A" permit application for
the discharge of municipal wastewater
from a POTW at 40 CFR 122.2l(j)
(and associated regulations). A section
in the new Form 2A is devoted to
treatment works with CSSs and is
designed to provide NPDES permit
writers with information related to
CSOs. In particular, the applicant is
required to provide a description of
the system; locate each CSO discharge
point or outfall; document the outfall
events (frequency, duration, and
volume); describe the receiving waters
that might be impacted; and describe
any known water quality impacts
caused by CSOs.
4,22 EPA
For those states authorized to
administer the NPDES program, EPA
retains a program oversight role. The
extent and type of interaction between
an authorized state and an EPA region,
including the types of NPDES permits
to be reviewed, is typically
summarized in a memorandum of
understanding. In this oversight role,
EPA ensures that NPDES permits
issued by authorized states meet
program requirements, including CSO
requirements, and that state
administration of the NPDES
program is consistent with federal
requirements. Two EPA regional
offices have issued NPDES permit
policies or strategies specific to CSO
Control, as described below.
1:
In July 1996, Region 1 issued modified
fact sheet language, permit language,
and guidance to implement the CSO
Control Policy. The modified
documents closely follow the NMC
and LTCP elements of the CSO
Control Policy. Region 1 issues NPDES
permits in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire. Until early 2001, Region 1
was also the permitting authority for
Maine.
5: for
Issued in 1985, Region 5's strategy
outlined a phased approach to
implementation of CSO controls.
Region 5 encouraged states to
prioritize dischargers with combined
sewer systems and to incorporate best
management practices into permits.
Under this strategy, dischargers
causing significant water quality
problems are targeted for additional
controls. Many of the provisions
outlined in Region 5's strategy served
as bases for the 1989 National CSO
Control Strategy.
4.3 Water Quality Standards
r=T-|he CWA establishes the
1 statutory framework governing
JL the development of water
quality standards and their use. The
CWA requirements for water quality
standards are further elaborated by
EPA regulations for the program,
found at 40 CFR 131. CWA Section
402(a) specifically requires NPDES
permits to provide for the attainment
of water quality standards.
4^4
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
State water quality standards must
protect public health and the
environment by enhancing and
maintaining the quality of the water.
To protect the uses designated in their
water quality standards, states adopt:
(1) a suite of criteria to protect the
most sensitive of the designated uses;
and (2) an anti-degradation policy
including implementation procedures
to protect water quality. However,
states have considerable discretion to
tailor water quality standards to
particular climatic, hydrologic, and
seasonal conditions. EPA regulations
and guidance provide states with the
flexibility to adapt their water quality
standards and implementation
procedures to reflect site-specific
conditions, including those related to
CSOs. EPA's Office of Water issued
Guidance for Coordinating CSO Long-
Term Control Planning with Water
Quality Standards Reviews. This
guidance describes the specific ways in
which states may exercise their
flexibility for water quality standards
review in conjunction with
development and implementation of
LTCPs by CSO communities.
4.3,1
Under CWA Section 303(d), states
identify waters not attaining water
quality standards, submit a list to EPA
of those impaired waters, and develop
TMDLs for them. EPA is responsible
for approving or disapproving state
impaired waters lists and TMDLs, and
for establishing lists and TMDLs in the
case of disapproval. Table 4.1
summarizes waters identified as
impaired by CSOs or urban runoff in
1996 and 1998 assessments by states
with active CSO permits. Information
on segments impaired by urban runoff
is included because not all states
separate CSO impairments from those
caused by urban runoff.
Based on information supplied by
states as part of their list of impaired
waters, CSOs have been found to
contribute to non-attainment of water
quality standards, particularly in
urbanized areas. The contribution of
pathogens in quantities that exceed
water quality standards is of particular
concern for CSOs.
In January 2001, the EPA Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
(OWOW) published a Protocol for
Developing Pathogen TMDLs (EPA,
200la) to reduce confusion arising
from the complexity of developing
TMDLs for pathogens. This protocol
identifies CSOs as one of several
categories of major point sources
discharging pathogens to surface
waters. The protocol notes that CSOs
contribute significant pathogen loads
during storm events. In addition, the
protocol indicates that modeling CSO
Year Segments Assessed Impaired by CSOs Impaired by Urban Runoff
San Francisco Bay and the Golden Gate
Bridge are considered local and national
treasures. San Francisco initiated CSO
controls in the 1970s and has made
significant improvements to local water
quality.
1996
1998
10,552
15,598
140
150
652
1,233
Table 4.1
Summary of 303(d) List
Impaired Waters in
States With CSOs
Information on segments
impaired by urban runoff is
included because not all states
separate CSO and urban runoff
impairments.
.J
4-5
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
One of the goals of EPA's water compliance
and enforcement program is to ensure
compliance with the CWA for point source
discharges.
impacts can be difficult due to the
intermittent nature of pathogen
loadings from CSOs and associated
data limitations. The protocol
acknowledges that the CSO Control
Policy takes this into account through
use of the presumption and
demonstration approaches.
and the
to
EPA established the CWA Section
305(b) program to inventory the
health of waters of the United States.
This program relies on states to assess
representative subsets of their waters
and to report on the causes of
impairment, if any. The data generated
by the 305(b) program are tabulated
and made available to the public
through STORET. The data were used
to prepare the biennial National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Congress
from 1976 to 1998.
The National Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress is EPA's primary
vehicle for informing Congress and
the public about the quality of the
nation's rivers, lakes, wetlands,
estuaries, coastal waters, and ground
waters, along with information on
public health and aquatic life
concerns. CSOs have been
documented as a source of water
quality impairment in each report.
The most recent (1998) assessment of
water quality impairment attributable
to CSOs is summarized in Table 4.2.
Notwithstanding the limitations of
state resources to fully assess all water,
the subset captured in the 305(b)
inventory and its associated water
quality report will remain an
important tool in assessing the
progress in reducing impairment
associated with CSOs.
4.4 Compliance and
Enforcement
|=a =lhe goal of EPA's water
| compliance and enforcement
JfL program is to ensure
compliance with the CWA. EPA uses a
systematic approach to meet five
major objectives: provide compliance
assistance tools and information to the
regulated community, identify
instances of noncompliance, return
the violator to compliance, recover any
Table 4.2
Extent of CSOs as a
Source of Impairment
Impairment attributed to CSOs in
National Water Quality Inventory -
1998 Report to Congress (EPA,
2QOOa)
Water Body Category Impairment Attributed to CSOs
Rivers and Streams
Estuary
Ocean Shoreline
Great Lakes Shoreline
842,426 of 3,662,255 total miles of rivers and streams assessed
CSOs were not a leading source of river and stream impairment
28,687 of 90,465 total square miles of estuaries assessed
12,622 square miles are impaired for one or more uses
1,451 square miles of impaired estuaries are impaired by CSOs
3,130 of 66,645 of shoreline assessed
CSOs were not a leading source of ocean impairment
4,950 of 5,521 total miles of shoreline assessed
4,752 miles of shoreline are impaired for one or more uses
102 miles of impaired shoreline are impaired by CSOs
4-6
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
economic advantage obtained by the
violator's noncompliance, and deter
other regulated facilities from
noncompliance.
4,4.1
Process
EPA maintains an inventory of
NPDES point source dischargers in its
Permit Compliance System (PCS).
NPDES authorities enter facility
information, permit requirements,
self-monitoring data, inspection
results, and enforcement action
information into PCS. Region or state
personnel identify violations by
reviewing facility self-monitoring data,
inspecting facilities, and investigating
citizen complaints. The same
personnel determine appropriate
follow-up action to noncompliance.
EPA's national enforcement guidance,
Enforcement Management System,
recommends using a scaled response
to noncompliance considering such
factors as the nature, frequency, and
severity of the violation, potential
harm to public health and the
environment, and the compliance
history of the facility. EPA's
enforcement response guidelines range
from an informal action such as a
telephone call or warning letter to a
formal administrative or civil judicial
action.
and
With input from stakeholders such as
regions and states, EPA has identified
CSOs as a national enforcement
priority since FY 1998. For FY 2002
and 2003, based on feedback from
stakeholders, EPA issued a Federal
Register notice soliciting comments on
a draft list of 15 suggested priorities.
The resulting list of priorities included
retaining "wet weather" (i.e., CSOs,
sanitary sewer overflows, storm water,
and concentrated animal operations)
as a national enforcement priority for
FY 2002 and 2003. EPA is developing
better measures to determine the
results of compliance and enforcement
activities in the national priority areas.
EPA's Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) Guidance (EPA, 200Ib) serves
as the basis for developing individual
agreements between EPA headquarters
and regions to enforce national
priorities. Through the MOA process,
EPA headquarters and regions outline
relevant enforcement priorities,
region-specific goals, and available
enforcement tools for the two
upcoming fiscal years. The FY 2000
and 2001 MOA recommended that
regions assess CSO communities'
implementation of the NMC and
LTCPs, provide compliance assistance,
and ensure that compliance schedules
are met. The FY 2002 and 2003 MOA
recommends that EPA regions
continue to implement their
compliance and enforcement response
plans, which were to have been
submitted pursuant to the Compliance
and Enforcement Strategy Addressing
Combined Sewer Overflows and
Sanitary Overflows, described below.
and
On April 27, 2000, EPA issued the
Compliance and Enforcement Strategy
Addressing Combined Sewer Overflows
and Sanitary Sewer Overflows,
requiring regions to submit
4-7
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
compliance and enforcement response
plans (ERPs) within 60 days. The 2000
Strategy is intended to facilitate
regional implementation and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy. The 2000 Strategy recommends
that individual plans include a
systematic approach to assess the
current compliance status of each
CSO permittee, including determining
whether:
The existing NPDES permits and
administrative orders are properly
written to require implementation
of the NMC and development of
an LTCP.
The permittee is implementing the
NMC.
The permittee is developing an
LTCP to comply with all CWA
requirements.
The permittee is implementing an
LTCP.
ERPs should include a process and
timetable for the region or state to
inspect all CSO permittees by the end
of FY 2001 and to take appropriate
follow-up action. The 2000 Strategy
suggests priorities that regions should
consider in targeting enforcement
efforts, such as: elimination of dry
weather CSOs; beach and shellfish bed
closures resulting from CSOs; source
water protection; impaired watersheds
and other sensitive areas; failure to
implement the NMC and develop an
LTCP; and failure to correct
noncompliance with CSO provisions
in a permit or an enforcement action.
The 2000 Strategy describes priorities
for compliance assistance in small
communities and available compliance
assistance tools, such as the Local
Government Environmental
Assistance Network (LGEAN), which
is described in more detail in Section
4.5.3 of this report. The 2000 Strategy
also describes enforcement activities
that regions may undertake in order to
encourage implementation of CSO
controls. These actions, which can be
implemented in accordance with CWA
Sections 308, 309, and 504, include
notices of violation, administrative
actions, and civil judicial actions.
To date, EPA headquarters has received
ERPs from a majority of the regions
with CSOs. The available regional
ERPs vary in level of detail. Some
outline an inspection program for
compliance determination, while
others depend on reporting from the
regulated community. In other
instances, the regional role for CSO
enforcement consists of oversight and
assistance in cases of significant
noncompliance. Priorities for
enforcement actions range from
targeting facilities with persistent
violations to protecting sensitive
watersheds. Not all plans explicitly
describe regional priorities for
determining cases in which
compliance assistance might be
appropriate. In addition, not all the
ERPs describe NPDES state
enforcement activities. EPA
headquarters is evaluating the
substantive content of the ERPs.
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
Policy
EPA's audit policy, formally known as
Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery,
Disclosure, Correction and Prevention
of Violations (65 FR 19618, April 11,
2000), was developed as an incentive
for facilities to conduct self-audits to
determine compliance with
environmental laws. When applicable,
the policy eliminates "gravity-based"
penalties (penalties assessed based on
the characteristics and consequences
of the effluent violation) for facilities
that voluntarily discover, promptly
disclose, and expeditiously correct
violations of federal environmental
law. As of June 2001, no municipalities
have used this policy, but it remains an
option.
Monitoring
CWA Section 308(a)(4)(B) authorizes
EPA to conduct inspections at point
sources. Most inspections are
performed by authorized NPDES
states. EPA headquarters conducts
inspections when a case is particularly
complex and additional resources are
needed, when a case is of national
significance, or when a case involves
several jurisdictions. CSOs can be
addressed as part of a broader NPDES
inspection or as a targeted, CSO-
specific inspection. The steps involved
in conducting each type of inspection
are nearly identical, although the
CSO-specific inspection may include a
review of all CSO data, verification of
implementation of the NMC and
development or implementation of an
LTCP, a visit to the CSO outfalls, and
use of a detailed CSO checklist of
questions. Regional approaches to
CSO inspections vary.
Region 1 participates in joint
inspections with states, as well as
conducting its own, independent
CSO inspections. Regional
involvement is prompted if the
region is checking an aspect of an
LTCP or if it is a complex case. The
region has no CSO-specific
inspector training program, but
does have a CSO checklist. Region 1
tracks all data in PCS and uses an
independent tracking system to
monitor CSO communities. The
region also conducts quarterly
meetings and teleconferences with
the states to discuss instances of
significant noncompliance and
CSO issues.
Region 2 tracks and oversees state
CSO programs. Most inspections
are conducted by the states. The
region also conducts quarterly
meetings and teleconferences with
states to discuss instances of
significant noncompliance.
Region 3 conducts inspections
under its CSO strategy for
FY 2001, which addresses both
enforcement and compliance
assistance efforts. Using several
criteria, including stream
impairment, number of CSO
outfalls, history of flow-limit
violations, and citizen complaints,
Region 3 targeted 35 CSO
communities for inspection in
FY 2001. As of October 2000, the
region had conducted 14 CSO
inspections, in addition to basic
compliance-evaluation or
pretreatment inspections at CSO
facilities. The region expects to
complete the remaining 21
inspections by the end of FY 2001.
Region 2 tracks and oversees state CSO
programs.The State of New Jersey conducts
the inspections of CSO facilities, including
this new separated sewer tunnel in New
Brunswick.
4-9
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
The region also holds quarterly
conference calls with states to
discuss issues of significant non-
compliance that states encounter
in their inspections.
Region 3 developed guidance for
conducting inspections of
combined sewer systems. This
guidance outlines the elements of
a CSO inspection and suggests
questions inspectors might
address during an inspection, with
specific regard to NMC
compliance.
Region 4 has conducted several
inspections in its states but, for the
most part, defers to its states for
inspections and relies on them to
verify that all CSO facilities are in
compliance. The region conducts
annual reviews of state inspection
processes to ensure that the
inspectors are addressing all
relevant aspects of CSO control.
Region 5 assists states in
conducting CSO inspections and
basic NPDES wet weather
compliance inspections. The
region has an annual agreement
with the states to conduct a
certain number of inspections,
and the states conduct annual
CSO inspections within budget
limitations, so that Region 5 can
meet the desired goal of 100-
percent coverage by the end of
FY 2002. The region selects
facilities for CSO inspections for a
number of reasons, including
compliance assistance (technical
transfer), noncompliance, and
enforcement support, consistent
with the region's Wet Weather
CSO/SSO Compliance Enforcement
Strategy.
The region holds quarterly
noncompliance phone calls, from
which the region's Quarterly
Noncompliance Report is created.
Region 5's CSO checklist, which it
developed in 1994, is shared with
the states. The region conducts a
series of state wet weather
inspector training programs
leading to CSO inspector
certification and conducts this
training in the states. The region
tracks all inspection activities by
entering final inspection reports in
PCS.
Region 7 oversees most CSO
inspections and has also
conducted seven regional CSO
inspections in the past two years
and has scheduled several for
FY 2002. The region issues CWA
Section 308 information requests
asking communities to clarify
their NMC and LTCP
implementation status as another
method of compliance assurance.
The region holds quarterly
meetings with states to discuss
CSO implementation and
enforcement as states continue to
finalize strategies and plans for
CSO control.
Region 8 oversees inspections
conducted for CSO communities
in the region.
Region 9 oversees inspections
conducted by California for the
two CSO communities in the
region.
4-10
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
Region 10 is the NPDES authority
in Alaska and recently completed a
CSO inspection there. The region
plays an oversight role in Oregon
and Washington. The region
usually defers to the states, but still
conducts inspections and recently
completed a CSO inspection in
Oregon. Region 10's CSO
inspections are targeted based on
citizen complaints, the volume of
potential CSO discharges, and
information on potential
violations. The region is working
on a more concise version of its
CSO inspection checklist.
The CSO Control Policy recommends
enforcement options to address CSO
permit violations. The Federal Docket,
Federal Register, and the Lexis-Nexis
legal data base were used to compile
data concerning EPA-initiated
enforcement actions with CSO
violations commenced after the CSO
Control Policy. This research revealed
several cases initiated as the result of
the CWA or the CSO Control Policy.
Five judicial enforcement actions
brought against municipalities in
Regions 1, 3, 4, and 5 as a result of
CSO violations are summarized in
Appendix J. The enforcement actions
were outgrowths of violations of the
CWA, NPDES permits, or inadequate
CSO control plans. Each case resulted
in the issuance of consent decrees;
financial penalties up to $3.2 million
were assessed.
Thirty-two administrative CSO
actions filed against municipalities in
response to CSO violations are also
listed in Appendix J. Twenty-eight
cases occurred in Region 1, and four
occurred in Region 5. The outcomes
of these enforcement actions included
issuance of administrative compliance
orders, administrative penalty orders,
and a judicial referral.
This number of cases is an estimate,
based on the best information
currently available, and may not
include all actions taken to enforce the
CSO Control Policy.
of CSO
Actiyities
Atlanta, Georgia
EPA and the State of Georgia
consolidated enforcement efforts
with citizen plaintiffs in the case
of Upper Chattahoochee
Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., et. al. v.
the City of Atlanta. The City had
violated NPDES permit
requirements due to CSOs. Atlanta
also had SSO, operation and
maintenance, effluent limit, and
pretreatment violations.
To resolve the CSO portion of the
case, Atlanta agreed to implement
a phased remedial action plan to:
evaluate the character of CSO
discharges; develop remedial
measures to bring CSO discharges
into compliance; and implement
remedial measures by July 1,2007.
Atlanta's preferred approach of
storage and treatment will be
compared with other alternatives
such as sewer separation. EPA and
Georgia will authorize the City to
implement the final remedy. Other
terms of the overall settlement
include a $3.2 million total cash
penalty, and implementation of a
EPA and the State of Georgia consolidated
enforcement efforts to resolve CSO and
other water quality violations in Atlanta.This
new sewer tunnel is part of the city's
remedial action plan.
4-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Combined 0¥arftews
Guidance For Monitoring
And Modeling
$27.5 million supplemental
environmental project to create a
greenway corridor and conduct a
one-time clean-up along selected
streams by March 31, 2007. This
action followed 1992 and 1999
state fines totaling $20.7 million
for previous delays in CSO
abatement.
Hammond, Indiana
The federal government originally
filed suit in 1993 against the
Hammond Sanitary District. The
resultant consent decree resolved
claims that the Sanitary District,
including the City of Hammond
and the Town of Munster, were
responsible for more than 19,000
violations of the CWA and the
Rivers and Harbors Act through
the discharge of untreated and
improperly treated sewage into the
west branch of the Grand Calumet
River.
The settlement was reached after
three consent decrees—one for the
Town of Munster, one for the
Hammond Sanitary District, and
one for the City of Hammond—
were lodged in April 1999. The
settlement included a $2.1 million
contribution to the Grand
Calumet River Restoration Fund
for sediment cleanup and $34
million in improvements to the
sewer system, including storage
and treatment systems for wet
weather flows, pump station
upgrades, sewer interceptors,
sewer separation, sludge lagoon
closures, and the implementation
of a program to remove residential
downspout connections to the
sewer system.
In addition, the Hammond
Sanitary District was required to
pay $225,000 in cash penalties,
split equally between the United
States and the State of Indiana.
Port Clinton, Ohio
The City of Port Clinton
experienced CSOs that
contributed to beach closures
associated with high levels of fecal
coliform. A consent decree lodged
in 1999 required Port Clinton to
implement a program to inspect
and sample its outfalls
immediately following CSO
events, establish a beach sampling
program, develop a public
information system (e.g., posting
of warning signs) to protect
human health, and develop and
implement a plan to permanently
improve or close CSO structures
no later than June 1, 2000. In
addition, Port Clinton was
required to pay a $60,000 civil
penalty. The settlement will
protect water quality and
beneficial uses, increase available
data from CSOs, and raise local
awareness regarding CSOs and
water quality.
4.5 Guidance, Training, and
Compliance and Technical
Assistance
/"*"% ince issuing the CSO Control
%!, Policy in 1994, EPA has
K,/" developed and distributed
information and technical resources
needed by communities, permit
writers, and other stakeholders to
implement effective CSO controls.
These resources include guidance
4-12
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
documents and compliance assistance
tools like information sharing
resources, training, research, and other
technical materials.
4,5.1
EPA developed and published eight
guidance documents to assist
municipalities, permitting authorities,
and engineers in designing and
implementing CSO controls in a
manner consistent with the CSO
Control Policy. Collectively, these
guidance documents address the range
of issues presented by CSOs, including
implementation of the NMC,
development of LTCPs, NPDES
Title of CSO Guidance
Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls
Guidance for Screening and Ranking
Guidance for Funding Options
Guidance for Permit Writers
Guidance for an LTCP
permitting, monitoring and modeling,
funding options, and schedule
development.
Table 4.3 describes the CSO guidance
documents published by EPA. These
documents are available through EPA's
website, www.epa.gov/npdes/cso, as
well as through NTIS.
In addition to the guidance developed
by EPA headquarters, at least one EPA
region also issued CSO guidance.
Specifically, Region 3 issued Guidance
for Minimum Technology-Based CSO
Control Measures in April 1993 to
provide interim guidance on applying
the NMC while EPA headquarters
finalized the CSO Control Policy. The
Region 3 guidance presents low-cost
Table 4.3
EPA CSO Guidance
Documents
These documents are available
through EPA's website,
www.epa.gov/npdes/cso and
through NTIS.
..J
Document Information
EPA 832-B-95-003 (EPA, 1995b)
EPA 832-B-95-004 (EPA, 1995c)
EPA 832-B-95-007 (EPA, 1995d)
EPA 832-B-95-008 (EPA, 1995e)
EPA 832-B-95-002 (EPA, 1995f)
Guidance on Financial Capability EPA 832-B-97-004 (EPA, 1997a)
Assessment and Schedule Development
Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling EPA 832-B-99-002 (EPA, 1999a)
Guidance for Coordinating CSO Long-Term EPA 833-D-00-002 (EPA, 2001)
Control Planning With Water Quality
Standards Reviews
Overview
Describes and explains specific minimum controls
that communities are expected to use to address CSO
issues before LTCPs are implemented.
Presents an informal tool designed to assist permitting
authorities in establishing CSO permitting priorities.
Describes the options available for funding the
capital, debt service, and operational costs of new or
improved CSO controls.
Intended for permitting authorities and permit
writers. Provides guidance on how to develop and
issue NPDES permits with CSO conditions that reflect
the expectations of the CSO Control Policy.
Outlines how municipalities can develop
comprehensive long-term plans that acknowledge
the site-specific nature of its CSOs and its impact on
local water quality.
Describes how a community's financial capability,
along with other factors discussed in the CSO Control
Policy, may be used to negotiate reasonable
compliance schedules for implementation of CSO
controls.
Explains the role of monitoring and modeling in the
development and implementation of an LTCP.
Describes a process for facilitating integration of
LTCP development and implementation with
water quality standards reviews.
4-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Guidance:Coordinating Long-term Planning
with Water Quality Standards Reviews
suggests that physical alterations, as shown
in this photo, may justify the need for a
review of applicable water quality standards.
methods of identifying control
measures that have remained useful
even with the publication of national
Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls.
As discussed in Chapter 2 of this
report, coordinating the development
of LTCPs with the review of water
quality standards is one of the key
principles on which the CSO Control
Policy is based. To lay a strong
foundation for this principle, EPA
published Guidance: Coordinating CSO
Long-term Planning with Water
Quality Standards Reviews (EPA,
2001c). The essence of the guidance is
a process for facilitating the
integration of LTCP development and
implementation with water quality
standards reviews. Integrating CSO
control planning and implementation
with water quality standards reviews
requires greater coordination among
CSO communities, states, EPA and the
public, but provides greater assurance
that an affordable, well-designed and
operated CSO control program will
support the attainment of appropriate
water quality standards.
Additionally, in this guidance, EPA
commits to establishing a data base
tracking system for CSO permit
requirements and water quality
standards reviews. This data base will
ensure the availability of accurate and
timely data concerning permitting
actions and other CSO program
actions described in the CSO Control
Policy.
EPA developed compliance assistance
and enforcement information
resources to support effective
implementation of the CSO Control
Policy. For example, EPA developed a
Protocol for Conducting Environmental
Compliance Audits for Municipal
Facilities Under U.S. EPA's Wastewater
Regulations (EPA, 1997a).
This document identifies key
compliance requirements at the
federal, state, and local levels,
including CSO requirements, and
describes how compliance with such
requirements can be reviewed. The
protocol describes the records and
features of a facility that should be
reviewed and includes model audit
checklists that address CSOs as part of
the NPDES program elements. This
protocol is intended to facilitate
improved compliance with all
regulatory requirements applicable to
municipal facilities.
EPA also developed a Profile of Local
Government Operations (January
1999). This document, which is one in
a series published by EPA, provides
information of general interest about
environmental issues associated with
local governments. It includes sections
on local government structure and
financing, operation, including
wastewater management and water
resources management, applicable
federal laws and regulations,
compliance history, major legal
actions, and compliance assurance
initiatives; it also includes an overview
of the environmental requirements for
CSO control.
4-14
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
Additionally, EPA has issued tools to
guide inspectors in conducting
NPDES and CSO-specific inspections.
Such tools help promote more
consistent and more effective
compliance monitoring and
assessment activities.
NPDES Compliance Inspection
Manual (EPA, 1994c) The manual
explains all aspects of conducting
an inspection. The manual is used
by inspectors addressing NPDES
permitted facilities. It is intended
to provide information to regional
and state inspectors. Within the
manual is a chapter devoted to
CSO inspections and a CSO
Evaluation Checklist. The checklist
is intended to help inspectors
focus on the identification and
evaluation of CSOs, dry weather
overflows, records, operation and
maintenance, and compliance
schedules.
NPDES Compliance Inspection
Training Program Student's Guide
(EPA, 1995g) The guide is a
follow-up to the manual. It
provides practice exercises and
exams that are designed to help
the inspector review inspection
protocol. Chapter 12 is devoted to
CSO policies and inspection
procedures.
4,5.2 Training
EPA has developed training programs
for NPDES permit writers, operators
of wastewater treatment plants, and
inspectors of CSO facilities. The
training courses are intended to
provide personnel working in and
with CSO communities with an
understanding of the intent and
expectations of the CSO Control
Policy and requirements of the CWA.
In addition, the courses recommend
ways to identify non-compliance.
for
EPA's "NPDES Permit Writers'
Training Course" provides permit
writers with an overview of the
regulatory framework of the NPDES
program. The course gives participants
knowledge of permit components,
effluent limits, permitting conditions,
and tools and techniques for ensuring
compliance with permit conditions.
The course is designed to facilitate
development of NPDES permits in
general. CSOs are addressed in two
modules of the course.
EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual
(EPA, 1996a) provides permit writers
the technical and legal guidance to
develop NPDES permits. The manual
describes CSO policy provisions and
discusses the phased permit process
for CSOs and the suggested permitting
conditions that correspond to each
phase.
for
With contract and technical assistance
from EPA headquarters, Region 3 has
taken the lead in developing a
guidance and training program on
CSOs for regional and state inspectors.
Training on the compliance assistance
tools for municipalities will be part of
this training.
for
EPA, in cooperation with the WEF,
sponsors a two-day training course
titled "Participating in the NPDES
Permit Process: A Workshop." This
4-15
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
course is designed to provide an
overview of the scope and regulatory
framework of the NPDES permit
program, as well as to discuss the
components of a permit and provide
an overview of the permitting process.
As part of this workshop, permit
conditions related to CSOs are
described along with a brief
description of the CSO Control Policy.
4,5.3 and
Assistance
EPA has developed a number of
mechanisms by which compliance
assistance and other information can
be tracked and shared, internally
among EPA staff or externally with
states, local governments, and others.
Several of these tools have specific
references and guidance for
implementing the NMC and
developing LTCPs.
Combined Sower Overflow
Technology Fact
Floatables Control
As part of its efforts to provide
technical assistance for CSO Control
Policy implementation, EPA released
11 CSO Technology Fact Sheets in
September 1999. The fact sheets
provide technical information to CSO
communities, permit writers, and
other stakeholders on several topics:
Alternative Disinfection Methods
(EPA 832-F-99-033)
Chlorine Disinfection
(EPA 832-F-99-034)
Floatables Control
(EPA 832-F-99-008)
Inflow Reduction
(EPA 832-F-99-035)
Maximization of In-Line Storage
(EPA 832-F-99-036)
Netting Systems for Floatables
(EPA 832-F-99-037)
Pollution Prevention
(EPA 832-F-99-038)
Proper Operation and
Maintenance
(EPA 832-F-99-039)
Retention Basins
(EPA 832-F-99-042)
Screens
(EPA 832-F-99-040)
Sewer Separation
(EPA832-F-99-041)
LGEAN
LGEAN is the EPA-sponsored
compliance assistance center for local
municipal governments. LGEAN
provides environmental management,
planning, and regulatory information
for elected and appointed officials,
managers, and staff. LGEAN provides
free research or inquiry services
exclusively to local government
officials. EPA provides technical and
financial assistance to LGEAN.
LGEAN, in turn, provides information
on various technical and financial
resources available to local
governments, including: wet weather
regulatory and legislative initiatives;
workshops; websites; and publications
to assist local governments in reducing
wet weather pollution. LGEAN is
located on the web at www.lgean.org.
4-16
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
Clearinghouse
The National Compliance Assistance
Clearinghouse is a website that
provides links to compliance assistance
tools, contacts, and other resources
available from EPA and other public
and private compliance assistance
providers. Although currently, the
Clearinghouse has links to only about
eight CSO-specific resources, there are
a number of wet weather resources
and related information. It is located
at www.epa.gov/clearinghouse.
4,5.4
Plan
EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) conducts
research to identify, understand, and
solve current and future
environmental problems. In an effort
to direct wet weather flow research at
EPA, ORD prepared the Risk
Management Research Plan for Wet
Weather Hows (EPA, 1996b) in 1996,
which describes potential research
projects EPA may pursue.
Wet weather research efforts by ORD
cover CSOs, storm water, and SSOs.
Wet weather research is organized into
five areas:
Characterization and Problem
Assessment
Watershed Management
Toxic Substances Impacts and
Control
Control Technologies
Infrastructure Improvement
Although several wet weather research
projects evaluate wet weather
discharges collectively, a number of
research projects address CSOs. A
summary of potential research
projects is provided in Appendix K.
4.6 Communication and
Coordination
/'""% ince 1994, EPA has maintained
"^j, open lines of communication
K_-^ and coordinated with those
involved in implementation and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy. This section describes specific
activities by EPA to inform and obtain
feedback from those most directly
responsible for implementing and
enforcing the CSO Control Policy.
4.6.1 to
CSO
Following the issuance of the 1989
CSO Control Strategy, EPA asked each
NPDES authority with CSO permits
to appoint a CSO coordinator. The
CSO coordinators serve as points of
contact for EPA headquarters in
disseminating information related to
CSO control.
EPA's National CSO Program
Manager hosts monthly conference
calls with the CSO coordinators. The
calls allow EPA headquarters to share
information on programs and
initiatives related to the
implementation and enforcement of
the CSO Control Policy. The calls are
also a forum for information sharing
across state and regional programs.
The calls have spurred national CSO
coordinator meetings in 1997 and
1999. The national meetings of CSO
4-17
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
coordinators allowed representatives
from state and EPA regional programs
to interact with EPA headquarters,
share information on successful
techniques for implementing and
enforcing the CSO Control Policy, and
obtain feedback on challenges to
implementation of the CSO Control
Policy.
4,6.2 CSO
EPA has sponsored National CSO
Control Program Excellence Awards
since 1991. The awards recognize
municipalities that are implementing
innovative and cost-effective CSO
control programs and projects. The
awards are intended to heighten
overall public awareness of CSO
control measures and to encourage
public support of CSO programs.
EPA regions and states nominate
municipalities believed to be
implementing cost-effective and
innovative CSO control programs or
projects. Nominations are screened by
appropriate regional enforcement
offices to ensure that nominated
municipalities are in compliance.
Qualified nominees are notified by
EPA headquarters of their nomination
and asked to submit materials to be
used in assessing the details of their
control programs. Winners receive
public recognition through local press
releases and coverage in various
national publications. Appendix L
provides a list of previous winners and
describes their CSO control programs.
The City of Richmond, VA won a National
CSO Control Program Excellence Award in
1999 for its efforts to control CSO discharges,
which include the construction of deep
tunnels for storage, as shown.
to
on
the
CSO
House Report 105-769 on EPA's
FY 1999 appropriations urged the
Agency to:
Develop guidance, after public
comment, to facilitate the conduct
of water quality and designated
use reviews for CSO-receiving
waters.
Provide technical and financial
assistance to states and EPA
regions to conduct these reviews.
Report progress to relevant
authorizing and appropriations
committees by December 1, 1999.
(This report was submitted to
Congress on December 17, 1999.)
To address the objectives of House
Report 105-769, EPA conducted a
series of stakeholder meetings and
conference calls during Spring 1999.
This outreach effort allowed EPA to
obtain a broad range of perspectives
on perceived impediments to
implementing the water quality-based
provisions of the CSO Control Policy
and actions EPA should take.
A total of 156 individuals participated
in the stakeholder meetings and
conference calls, including:
73 CSO community officials
and/or their consultants
53 state agency staff from 15
different states
4-18
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
21 EPA regional and headquarters
personnel
Nine environmental interest
groups and watershed associations
Based on this extensive stakeholder
input, six general categories of
impediments were identified as
preventing full implementation of the
water quality-based provisions of the
CSO Control Policy:
The The
water quality-based provisions of
the CSO Control Policy are
guidance, whereas the "fishable-
swimmable" language of the CWA
is law.
Many
CSO communities and other
stakeholders do not understand
the water quality standards review
process, the analyses required to
revise the standards, and the role
the public plays in influencing any
revision to a standard.
The States
and CSO communities are
presented with conflicting
priorities and resource constraints
as efforts are made to comply with
several competing regulatory
programs (e.g., CSOs, TMDLs,
SSOs, storm water) applicable in
any given watershed.
States and CSO
communities have insufficient
resources and inadequate or
missing tools (regulations,
policies, guidance) and data to
support water quality standards
reviews.
The roles of EPA,
state regulatory agencies, and CSO
communities as they relate to
coordination of LTCP and water
quality standards review processes
occur are poorly defined.
The financial
and technical requirements of the
CSO Control Policy are beyond
the capabilities of many small
communities.
EPA used this information to support
the development of Guidance:
Coordinating CSO Long-Term Planning
with Water Quality Standards Reviews.
4.7 Information Management
•~
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table 4.4
Comparison of CSO and
Total Needs
Source: 1996 Clean Water Needs
Survey Report to Congress (EPA,
1997t»).
Replacement/rehabilitation of
sewers
New interceptor and collector
sewers
CSO control
Storm water control
Nonpoint source control
The 1996 CWNS was the twelfth
survey completed since passage of the
CWA in 1972 (EPA, 1997b). As part of
the 1996 CWNS effort, EPA reviewed
all facilities in the CWNS data base
with documented CSO needs or
identified as CSO facilities. EPA
compared this list of facilities with a
list of CSO facilities with NPDES
permits. This enabled EPA to correct
the CWNS data base by eliminating
incorrectly identified CSOs and
incorporating resolved CSO problems.
The CWNS cost-curve methodology
was based on the presumption
approach criterion for "adequate
control," which is:
... the elimination or capture for
treatment of no less than 85% of
the wet weather flow by volume of
the combined sewage collected in
the CSS during precipitation
events on a system-wide annual
average basis.
CSO Needs Total Needs
(1996$Billions) (1996 $Billions)
1988
1990
1992
1996
20.2
19.5
46.6
44.7
103.3
94.9
143.6
120.6
The cost curve uses rainfall patterns
for each CSO community and a runoff
coefficient to calculate flows resulting
from storm events and to estimate
required CSO control measures. The
cost of the facilities required to
provide additional treatment
consisting of primary sedimentation,
chlorine disinfection, and
dechlorination was estimated with the
cost curves. Estimated CSO needs
from the the most recent surveys are
summarized in Table 4.4.
4,7.2
Act
The 1993 GPRA requires federal
agencies to develop performance plans
to track progress by focusing on
measurable goals and program
objectives. GPRA requires federal
agencies to develop annual
performance plans and reports to
measure progress in meeting their
goals and objectives.
EPA selected the CSO program as a
GPRA pilot program starting in
government FY 1997. EPA OWM
developed a "CSO Performance Plan
for FY 1997" that contained three
performance goals: 1) increase the
number of communities
implementing the CSO Control Policy;
2) reduce point source loadings from
CSOs; and 3) reduce CSO
contributions to receiving water
impairment. The plan also contained
three types of performance measures
to track progress toward the goals:
Percentage of CSO communities
documenting the NMC and the
percent of CSO cities required to
develop LTCPs to provide for
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
water quality standards
attainment.
Pollutant
loadings measured through CSO
frequency and CSO volume.
Impairments measured through
the number of beach closures and
shellfish bed closures per year
attributable to CSOs.
On April 9, 1997, EPA issued its
Assessment of the GPRA Pilot Program
(EPA, 1997c). EPA found that:
96 of 918 (11 percent) CSO
communities were "implementing
the CSO Control Policy" as
defined (i.e., documented
implementation of the NMC and
subject to a requirement to
develop an LTCP). EPA found
fewer CSO communities
implementing the CSO Control
Policy than expected and
attributed this to several factors.
First, some communities had
completed sewer separation
projects and were removed from
the list of CSO communities.
Second, several states emphasized
implementation of the NMC or
development of LTCPs, but not
compliance with both of these
criteria. Finally, some
communities implemented the six
minimum measures listed in the
1989 National CSO Control
Strategy, but not the three
remaining controls included in the
CSO Control Policy.
Considerable variation in
implementation of the NMC
hindered EPA's ability to track
progress and report on program
effectiveness.
4.7.3
(PCS)
EPA's PCS provides information on
point sources holding NPDES permits
to discharge wastewater. The data base
contains NPDES permit issuance and
expiration dates, discharge limits, and
discharge monitoring data. PCS was
developed to track compliance with
NPDES permit conditions, specifically
effluent limits. This design limits the
ability of PCS to track non-numeric
permit conditions such as those most
commonly used for CSOs. Therefore,
the CSO information available from
PCS varies from state to state, and
depends on specific reporting
requirements established by each state.
More information on state data
available from PCS is provided in
Chapter 5.
EPA is now modernizing PCS. The
modernized system will allow entry of
all data element fields needed to track
every discharger, including CSOs. The
modernized system will be capable of
tracking additional relevant
information, including permit
requirements, inspections, and
compliance and enforcement action
data. EPA regions and states are
involved in the PCS modernization
process. Implementation is scheduled
for completion by the end of 2003.
EPA has traditionally focused its
enforcement activities at facilities in
significant regulatory non-compliance.
To determine a more accurate rate of
4-21
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
overall compliance, EPA initiated the
Statistically Valid Noncompliance Rate
Project in 1999. One regulatory area is
addressed each year. CSO
noncompliance is the focus for
FY 2002. As part of the project, EPA
headquarters is providing funding for
Region 3's CSO-inspection training
program and offering the training in
Regions 3, 4, and 5. Inspectors will be
trained on determining CSO non-
compliance and baselines and will also
be made aware of compliance
assistance materials available to assist
communities. The main focus of
compliance determination will be the
level of NMC implementation.
4,7.5
and the
Activity
CAPD was created in 2000. It was
designed to help EPA document
compliance assistance activities that
are being planned at the headquarters
and regional levels. Once a year, the
data base contents are captured and
published in the form of the
Compliance Assistance Activity Plan.
The most current plan includes
activities being undertaken during
FY 2001. CSO-related activities listed
in the current activity plan include the
Great Lakes Wet Weather Control
Project (multi-regional) and Technical
Assistance to Regulated Entities on
CSO and SSO Requirements
(Region 5).
(RCATS)
RCATS, developed in 1999, is an
internal data base for tracking
completed compliance assistance
activities undertaken by EPA. It is a
follow-up tool to CAPD, in that it
tracks those planned activities that are
now being implemented. RCATS
reports on activities such as
workshops and training, phone calls,
on-site visits, mailed material, and
compliance assistance tools developed
by EPA. As of July 2001, Regions 1, 3, 5
and 10 had information entered in
RCATS relating to CSO compliance
assistance activities.
4.8 Financial Assistance
fr^he CSO Control Policy
| recognizes the need to consider
_JL the relative importance of
environmental and financial issues
when developing implementation
schedules for CSO controls. This
section describes funding mechanisms
EPA and other federal agencies have
made available to CSO permittees to
fund CSO abatement efforts.
4.8,1 The SRF
With the passage of the 1987 CWA
Amendments, each state was
instructed to create a revolving loan
fund to provide independent and
permanent sources of low-cost
financing for a range of water quality
infrastructure projects. Funds to
establish or capitalize the SRF
programs were provided by federal (83
percent) and state (17 percent)
governments. SRF programs are
operating in all 50 states and Puerto
Rico. The District of Columbia
4W2
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
participates in the SRF program by
contributing annual funds to its SRF
account and receiving federal
matching funds, but the program is
treated as a grant fund rather than a
revolving loan program.
Capitalization began in 1988. Today,
total assets of the SRF program stand
at more than $34 billion. As payments
are made on loans, funds are recycled
to fund additional water protection
projects.
Under the SRF, states have significant
flexibility in selecting assistance
available for clean water projects.
Options include:
Loans
Refinancing, purchasing or
guaranteeing local debt
Purchasing bond insurance
States set loan terms, including
interest rates (from zero percent to
market rate), repayment periods (up
to 20 years), and many other features.
SRF loans are also available to fund a
wide variety of water quality projects
including CSO control and abatement
projects, as well as more traditional
municipal wastewater treatment
projects. In addition, states may
customize loan terms to meet the
needs of small and disadvantaged
communities within certain
parameters.
Year
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
SRF Loans1
$6.2
$255. 9
$788.9
$1,976.1
$1,688.7
$1,311.2
$2,455.3
$2,157.2
$1,959.8
$1,772.5
$2,283.0
$2,159.2
$3,367.4
$22,181.4
SRF Loans for CSOs1
$0
$4.7
$14.6
$121.5
$180.0
$169.5
$245.4
$190.7
$168.1
$139.6
$157.8
$272.8
$410.6
$2,075.3
% of SRF Spent on CSOs
0%
2%
2%
6%
11%
13%
10%
9%
9%
8%
7%
13%
12%
9%
Table 4.5
SRF Loans for CSO
Projects
SRF funding for CSO control
projects peaked in 1994 and
declined until 1998, Funding rates
rebounded in 1999 and continued
to increase in 2000,
1ln Millions
4-23
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table 4.5 summarizes the total amount
of SRF assistance provided by states
each year since 1989 and SRF loans for
CSO control projects.
4,8.2
Under authority of CWA Section
104(b)(3), EPA makes grants to state
water pollution control agencies,
interstate agencies, and other
nonprofit institutions, organizations,
and individuals to prevent, reduce,
and eliminate water pollution. Among
the efforts eligible for funding under
the Section 104(b)(3) program are
research, investigations, experiments,
training, environmental technology
demonstrations, surveys, and studies
related to the causes, effects, extent,
and prevention of pollution. Funded
projects include activities associated
with CSO abatement and control.
Unlike the CWA Section 106 grant
program described in Section 4.8.3 of
this report, Section 104(b)(3) grants
cannot fund ongoing programs or
administrative activity. Table 4.6
highlights cooperative agreements for
CSO projects funded by EPA since
issuance of the CSO Control Policy.
Additional information on the
outcome of each grant is provided in
Appendix M.
Program Support
Grants
CWA Section 106 authorizes EPA to
provide assistance to states (including
territories, the District of Columbia,
and tribes) and interstate agencies to
establish and implement water
pollution control programs. The
Section 106 program provides grants
to these agencies to assist in the
administration of programs for
preventing, reducing, and eliminating
water pollution.
Eligible activities include permitting,
enforcement, water quality planning,
monitoring, and assistance to local
agencies developing pollution control
programs.
Section 106 funds are used for a broad
range of water quality programs.
Neither CSOs nor any other specific
Table 4.6
EPA 104(b)(3) Grant
Cooperative
Agreements for CSO
Projects
This funding is awarded for
research, investigations,
experiments, training,
environmental technology
demonstrations, surveys, and
studies related to the causes,
effects, extent, and prevention of
pollution.
Grantee
AMSA
City of Indianapolis
Low Impact
Development
Center
ORSANCO
Title
Performance Measures for CSO Control
Wet Weather Public Education Program
Feasibility of Applying LID Stormwater
Micro-Scale Techniques to Highly
Urbanized Areas to Control the Effects
of Urban Stormwater Runoff in CSOs
Wet Weather Study of Ohio River
Federal $
$294,000
$112,000
$110,000
$1,383,000
Years
9/94—1/97
7/97—7/99
4/99—4/00
7/97—12/01
CSO Partnership
California State
University
* CSO Partnership
Information Outreach $176,500 10/94—2/99
Training Video $245,000 7/96—7/98
Development of CSO Handbook $181,000 4/97—4/99
For Small Communities
4^24
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
water quality programs are targeted by
Section 106. EPA does not require
states to report on how funds are used,
and states use a variety of methods for
funding programs (i.e., permit fees to
fund NPDES program, or Section 106
funds allocated to support NPDES).
Therefore, reliable identification of
programs receiving Section 106 funds
is impossible.
The national appropriation figures for
Section 106 funds to state and
interstate agencies, tribes, and
territories from 1994 to 2001 are
presented in Table 4.7.
in
Budget
From FY 1992 through FY 2000,
Congress appropriated more than
$600 million to 32 communities with
CSSs (Table 4.8).
These funds were earmarked for a
wide variety of structural CSO control
projects including:
Sewer separation
Deep tunnel storage
Satellite treatment facilities
Concrete retention basins
Six communities received more than
two-thirds of the total funds
earmarked by Congress for CSO
control. These communities are:
Rouge River, MI—$253,000,000
Newark, NJ—$44,300,000
Onondaga County,
NY—$41,089,000
King County, WA—$35,000,000
New York City, NY—$34,910,000
Lackawanna County,
PA—$30,000,000
Fiscal Year Grant Amount (Millions)
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Total
$81,7
$80.2
$80.2
$80.7
$95.5
$115.5
$115,5
$169.8
$819.1
Fiscal Year Appropriation (Millions)
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Total
$32.0
$61.0
$154.9
$211.8
$13.0
$23.4
$34.0
$43.3
$33.3
$606.7
Table 4.7
Annual Section 106
Grant Tola Is
Section 106 funds are used for a
broad range of water quality
programs. It is not possible to
assess the amount of funds used
for CSO control, since CSOs are not
separately tracked, and EPA does
not require states to report on
how funds are used.
.J
Table 4.8
Annual EPA Budget
Line Items for CSO
Control Projects
Each year, Congress earmarks
funds for a wide variety of CSO
control projects. In general,
communities using these funds
have made substantial progress in
controlling CSOs.
4-25
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
4.9 Performance Measures
& key EPA objective included in
£l the National CSO Control
JL JLStrategy and reiterated in the
CSO Control Policy was to "minimize
water quality, aquatic biota, and
human health impacts from CSOs." As
a result, the CSO Control Policy
contains several provisions that, if
properly implemented, would protect
water quality and other human health
and environmental benefits:
Implementing the NMC.
Developing LTCPs that consider a
range of options to meet water
quality standards. The CSO
Control Policy provides for use of
a presumption or demonstration
approach for showing that selected
CSO controls will achieve water
quality standards.
Encouraging communities to give
the highest priority in controlling
CSOs to sensitive areas. Sensitive
areas include designated
Outstanding National Resource
Waters, National Marine
Sanctuaries, waters with
threatened or endangered species
and associated habitat, waters with
primary contact recreation, public
drinking water intakes, or
designated protection areas, and
shellfish beds.
Moreover, NPDES authorities were
encouraged to evaluate water
pollution control needs on a
watershed management basis and to
coordinate CSO control efforts with
other point and nonpoint source
control activities.
This section describes EPA efforts to
identify and report the benefits
associated with implementation of the
CSO Control Policy. It is important to
note that these benefits are not tracked
through an all-inclusive CSO
program. CSO-specific measures,
however, are tracked through a
number of other programs.
4.9,1 to
CSO
EPA has initiated several efforts to
track the benefits resulting from
implementation of the CSO Control
Policy.
Act:
As described in Section 4.7.2, EPA
developed the GPRA Pilot Program to
quantify benefits related to
implementation of the CSO Control
Policy. As shown in Table 4.9, specific
performance goals related to benefits
were established in response to GPRA.
On April 9, 1997, EPA completed its
assessment of the GPRA Pilot
Program (EPA, 1997c). The results are
also summarized in Table 4.9.
Since the 1997 report, EPA has
initiated efforts to better track and
report on GPRA performance
measures. EPA has developed a model
to predict pollutant and flow
reductions attributable to
implementation of CSO controls by
CSO communities. This model,
GPRACSO, estimates CSO flow
volume and pollutant loadings based
on hourly simulation of a typical
rainfall year. It also estimates flow
volume and pollutant reductions
4^26
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
under various CSO management
scenarios. A discussion of some
preliminary results from the
GPRACSO model is provided in
Section 7.3.1 of this report.
of CSO
The CSO Control Policy expects
permittees to characterize, monitor,
and model the CSS to predict the
effectiveness of controls to reduce
CSO frequency, volume, pollutant
loadings, and impacts to receiving
waters and designated uses. In
addition, the CSO Control Policy
anticipates post-construction
monitoring to verify attainment of
water quality standards and to verify
the effectiveness of CSO controls.
PCS is used to track compliance with
NPDES permit limitations and other
permit conditions (described in
Section 4.7.3 of this report). PCS
contains CSO monitoring data for
only a few permits. This is due in part
to the fact that the system was
designed to track compliance with
effluent limitations, but not
specifically CSO controls. Because
individual states established CSO
reporting requirements, the
availability of CSO-related
information varies from state to state.
As a result, EPA has been unable to use
PCS to track reductions in CSO
frequency, CSO volume, and pollutant
loadings at a national or state scale.
Performance Measure
Reduce point source loadings
by 3 percent
Reduce by 10 percent the extent
to which CSOs restrict uses of
receiving waters
Summary of Results
EPA found that insufficient data were available to estimate
CSO loadings on a national basis or to provide a baseline.
In addition, the Agency found that reporting methods
were inconsistent among communities,and from state to
state. Reasons that made it difficult to obtain end-of-
pipe measurements include the fact that many
communities are not required to monitor or report
CSO data and a general lack of resources
needed to support state reporting to EPA.
EPA found it difficult to report on the performance
measure related to beach closures and shellfish
bed closures, given that there was no consistent national
approach to assessing and tracking beach closures. The
Agency recommended retaining this measure for
upcoming assessments and suggested that EPA
develop guidance on beach assessment (see
discussion related to the EPA BEACH Program in
Section 4.9.2). With respect to counting shellfish
bed closures attributable to CSOs, EPA found that
the current five-year rotating cycle approach to
assessing shellfish bed closures used by NOAA's
National Shellfish Sanitation Program is not
conducive to annual tracking of CSO impacts.
EPA has recommended discontinuing this measure
in future performance evaluations.
Table 4.9
Environmental
Measurements from
1997 Pilot GPRA
Performance Plan
Findings from this pilot study led
EPA to initiate efforts to better
track and report on CSO control
program performance measures.
.J
4-27
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Action Plan for
Although EPA has been unable to
track environmental benefit
information at a national or state
scale, EPA has continually solicited
monitoring data to gauge the
effectiveness of the CSO Control
Policy. EPA has participated in a
number of internal and external
outreach efforts to collect information
on the effectiveness of the CSO
Control Policy in reducing CSO
frequency, volume, and pollutant
loadings (described in Section 4.7 of
this report). In addition, during the
data collection phase for this report,
EPA identified a number of
documented instances in which
implementation of the CSO Control
Policy has resulted in environmental
benefits. These results are described
further in Section 6.7 of this report.
to
to CSO
Several other EPA programs directly
or indirectly track environmental
results related to CSO control. These
efforts, although not the direct result
of the CSO Control Policy, show how
offices, programs, and initiatives can
be coordinated to help identify, define,
and remediate CSO-related discharges.
This section describes several efforts
addressing CSOs.
The goal of EPA's BEACH program,
announced in 1997, is to reduce the
risk of disease to users of recreation
waters by focusing on several key
objectives: strengthening water quality
standards for bathing beaches,
improving state and local government
beach programs, better informing the
public, and promoting scientific
research to better protect the health of
public beach users.
Initial efforts focused on current water
quality standards, improving
understanding of current state and
local programs through national and
local conferences, and identifying
scientific needs. EPA also started its
annual survey of state and local
agencies that monitor water quality at
beaches. The voluntary National
Health Protection Survey of Beaches
collected information about local
beach monitoring, agencies
responsible for beach programs, and
detailed information about advisories
and closures at specific beaches. In
March 1999, EPA published the Action
Plan for Beaches and Recreational
Waters (EPA, 1999b), a multi-year
strategy describing the Agency's
programmatic and scientific research
efforts to improve beach programs
and research.
The scope of these activities changed
on October 10, 2000. The BEACH Act
amended the CWA, in part, to include
Sections 303(i) and 406. The
amendment addresses fecal
contamination in coastal recreation
waters. Three significant provisions of
the BEACH Act amended the CWA to:
Include Section 303(i), which
requires states and authorized
tribes having coastal recreation
waters to adopt new or revised
water quality standards by April
2004 for pathogens and pathogen
indicators for which EPA has
published criteria under CWA
Section 304(a). The BEACH Act
4^28
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
further directs EPA to promulgate
such standards for states that fail
to do so.
Sections 104(v)and 303(i) also
require EPA to study issues
associated with pathogens and
human health and to publish new
or revised CWA Section 304(a)
criteria for pathogens and
pathogen indicators for coastal
recreational waters based on that
study. Within three years after
EPA's publication of the new or
revised Section 304(a) criteria,
states with coastal recreation
waters must adopt new or revised
water quality standards for all
pathogens and pathogen
indicators, to which EPA's new or
revised Section 304(a) criteria
apply, that are as protective of
human health as those published
by EPA. If they are not as
protective, EPA shall propose
regulations for the state for its
coastal recreation waters.
Include a new Section 406, which
authorizes EPA to award grants to
states and authorized tribes for the
purpose of developing and
implementing a program to
monitor for pathogens and
pathogen indicators in coastal
recreation water adjacent to
beaches used by the public, and to
notify the public if water quality
standards for pathogens and
pathogen indicators are exceeded.
To be eligible for the
implementation grants, states and
authorized tribes must develop
monitoring and notification
programs consistent with
performance criteria published by
EPA under the Act. The BEACH
Act also requires EPA to perform
monitoring and notification
activities for waters in states that
lack a program consistent with
EPA's performance criteria, using
grants funds that would otherwise
have been available to those states.
EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (OGWDW) seeks to
protect public health by ensuring safe
drinking water and protecting ground
water. The Source Water Protection
Program aims to prevent
contamination of drinking water
supplies. OGWDW's source water
protection guidance identifies CSOs as
a source of pollution in source water.
In addition, under OGWDW's Source
Water Assessment Program (SWAP),
states should analyze existing and
potential threats to the quality of the
public drinking water and submit a
SWAP to EPA for review and approval.
A state SWAP includes: a delineation
of the source water protection area; a
contaminant source inventory; a
determination of susceptibility of the
public water supply to contamination
from the inventoried sources; and
release of results of the assessments to
the public. EPA has approved 52
SWAP programs. EPA expects states to
complete all assessments no later than
three years after EPA approval of the
program. Sewer lines, including CSOs,
are identified in EPA's State Source
Water Assessment and Protection
Guidance (EPA, 1997d) as potential
sources of drinking water
contaminants.
4-29
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Louisville, KY has received EPA and state
grants to develop a watershed approach to
sewer system management. CSO control
planning, information management, water
quality monitoring, and customer service are
organized by watershed within the service
area. GIS data, such as the service area map
shown,are available online.
4,9.3 the Use of
Since the late 1980s, EPA has initiated
several programs and activities
designed to foster protection of water
quality on a watershed basis. In 1994
EPA signed the NPDES Watershed
Strategy to encourage watershed-based
permitting and program integration
(EPA, 1994c). The NPDES Watershed
Strategy specifically established a
framework and plan to integrate
NPDES programs with other water
programs for a more effective and
efficient application of resources.
More recently, EPA and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
issued the Clean Water Action Plan:
Restoring and Protecting America's
Waters (EPA, 1998). The Plan provides
a blueprint for restoring the nation's
waterways. A key tool for achieving
clean water goals is the watershed
approach, which helps identify cost-
effective pollution control strategies.
In developing the CSO Control Policy,
EPA and CSO stakeholders
acknowledged the importance of
encouraging the evaluation of
proposed CSO control needs on a
watershed basis and in coordination
with other point and nonpoint source
controls required to protect water
quality. The CSO Control Policy also
acknowledged the site- and watershed-
specific considerations that exist for
CSOs, and provided flexibility in how
pollutants contained in CSOs would
be reduced to meet the objectives and
requirements of the CWA. As
described further in Chapter 5, several
states have used this flexibility to
address CSOs on a watershed basis.
Although EPA has provided a variety
of technical assistance related to
implementing programs on a
watershed basis, guidance on using the
watershed approach while developing
long-term CSO control plans has been
limited. OECA's 2000 Compliance and
Enforcement Strategy for Combined
Sewer Overflows and Sanitary Sewer
Overflows, which is described in more
detail in Section 4.4.3 of this report,
also encourages regions to develop
CSO/SSO response plans that
recognize wet weather planning on a
watershed basis.
4.10Findings
CSO
EPA has issued guidance,
supported communication and
outreach, and provided
compliance assistance and
financial support for CSO control.
Guidance on the NMC,
monitoring and modeling,
financial capability, LTCPs, and
permit writing was issued in a
timely manner. Other guidance
lagged and may have hindered full
implementation of the CSO
Control Policy.
EPA issued Guidance for
Coordinating CSO Long-Term
Planning with Water Quality
Standards Reviews on August 2,
2001.
EPA has fostered technical
research activities in CSO control
through support of and funding
for ORD initiated research and
community demonstration
programs.
4-30
-------
Chapter 4^CSO Control Policy Status: EPA
EPA issued the Compliance and
Enforcement Strategy for Addressing
Combined Sewer Overflows and
Sanitary Sewer Overflows in 2000.
EPA has taken 32 administrative
actions and 35 civil judicial
actions (five since issuance of the
CSO Control Policy, 16 under the
National Municipal Policy, and 13
other) related to CSO controls.
Cases brought under the National
Municipal Policy were an
important force in bringing about
early CSO control initiatives at
major municipalities.
4-31
-------
Chapter 5
CSO Control Policy Implementation
Status: NPDES Authorities and Other
State Programs
TH1 PA's 1994 CSO Control Policy
!""i assigns primary responsibility
J^Jfor its implementation and
enforcement to NPDES authorities
and water quality standards
authorities. The major provisions of
the CSO Control Policy are as follows:
NPDES authorities will
issue/reissue or modify permits, as
appropriate, to require compliance
with the technology-based and
water quality-based requirements
of the CWA NPDES
authorities should ensure the
implementation of the minimum
technology-based controls and
incorporate a schedule into an
appropriate enforceable
mechanism...
The water quality standards
authorities will help ensure that
development of the CSO
permittees' long-term control plans
are coordinated with that review
and possible revision of water
quality standards...
NPDES authorities include both
permitting and enforcement staff, the
distinct roles of which are outlined in
the CSO Control Policy and detailed
in Table 5.1. NPDES authorities are
usually state environmental agencies,
but are EPA regional offices where
states have not obtained the authority
to issue and enforce NPDES permits.
State water quality standards
authorities are responsible for
adopting, reviewing, and revising
water quality standards. The specific
role of the state water quality
standards authority, as defined by the
CSO Control Policy, is described in
Table 5.1.
As shown in Table 5.2, 32 states
(including the District of Columbia)
have CSO permittees in their
jurisdiction. State agencies are the
NPDES authority in 28 of these states.
Programs in Alaska, the District of
Columbia, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire are administered by EPA
regional offices.
States and territories without CSO
permittees within their jurisdiction, as
certified by the state and confirmed by
In tliis
5.1 Policy Development and
Support
5.2 NPDES Permitting
5.3 Water Quality Standards
5.4 Compliance and
Enforcement
5.5 Guidance,Training and
Compliance and
Technical Assistance
5.6 Communication and
Coordination
5.7 Financial Assistance
5.8 Performance Measures
5.9 Findings
5-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table 5.1
Roles and
Responsibilities
The CSO Control Policy describes
specific expectations for NPDES
permitting and enforcement
authorities, and state water quality
standards authorities in
developing and implementing
CSO controls that meet CWA
objectives and requirements.
NPDES Permitting
Reassess/revise CSO
permitting strategy
Incorporate CSO-conditions
(e.g., NMC and LTCP)
Review documentation of
NMC implementation
Coordinate review of LTCP
components throughout
LTCP development process
and accept/approve
permittee's LTCP
Coordinate review and
revision of water quality
standards, as appropriate
Incorporate implementation
schedule into an
appropriate enforceable
mechanism
Review implementation
activity report
NPDES Enforcement
Monitor compliance with
January 1,1997 deadline for
NMC implementation and
documentation
Take appropriate
enforcement actions against
dry weather overflows
Monitor compliance with
permit requirements
Ensure CSO requirements
and schedules for
compliance are
incorporated into
appropriate enforceable
mechanisms
Incorporate implementation
schedules longer than three
years in ajudicial court
order
State WQS Authority
Review water quality
standards in CSO-impacted
receiving water bodies
Coordinate review with
LTCP development to
ensure long-term controls
will be sufficient to meet
water quality standards
Revise water quality
standards as appropriate,
subject to EPA approval
Sou rce: Combined Sewer Overflow Guidance for Long- Term Control Plan
the EPA regional office, are listed in
Table 5.3.
As of June 2001, the 32 states with
combined sewer systems hold a total
of 859 CSO permits. The permits
authorize discharges from 9,471 CSO
outfalls. The numbers of CSO permits
and permitted outfalls in each state are
shown in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2,
respectively. Historically, the reported
number of CSO permits nationwide
has varied from fewer than 900 to
more than 1,500. Similarly, the
reported number of CSO outfalls has
ranged from fewer than 9,000 to
approximately 15,000. Comparisons of
historic CSO permits and outfalls
estimates with those developed for this
report are inappropriate due to
improvements in the quality of
information available on CSSs and
changes in the way they are permitted.
For example, since the issuance of the
1989 National CSO Control Strategy,
the number of CSO permits has
declined steadily as states have
undertaken efforts to better identify
CSSs. A number of permits were
reclassified when system
characterizations revealed "leaky"
sanitary systems, rather than
combined sewers. Conversely, recent
decisions by NPDES authorities have
increased the number of CSO permits
in some states (e.g., Pennsylvania, New
Jersey) through the issuance of general
permits to communities with CSSs
and CSO outfalls, but without
treatment plants. Previously, these
collection systems often received
permit coverage through the facility
treating its wastewater. Collection
systems with no associated POTW are
often referred to as "satellite collection
systems."
This chapter documents how NPDES
authorities and state water quality
standards authorities have
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
implemented and enforced the CSO
Control Policy. Areas addressed
include:
Pre-policy CSO strategies
developed by NPDES authorities
in response to the 1989 National
CSO Control Strategy.
Efforts of NPDES authorities to
meet the requirements of the CSO
Control Policy.
Enforcement and compliance
strategies being applied to ensure
compliance with the CWA as soon
as practicable.
Compliance assistance activities by
states to help local governments
comply with CSO requirements.
Information management systems
and techniques developed to
facilitate CSO Control Policy
implementation.
Mechanisms for internal and
external communication and
participation in CSO Control
Policy implementation.
Region State
1
9
10
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Permitting Authority
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
EPA Region 1
EPA Region 1
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Env. Control
Maryland Department of the Environment
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Dist. of Columbia EPA Region 3
Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Kentucky Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
Tennessee Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
Illinois Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Indiana Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Michigan Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Minnesota Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Ohio Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Iowa Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Kansas Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Missouri Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Nebraska Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
South Dakota South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
California California State Water Resources Control Board
Alaska EPA Region 10
Oregon Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Washington Department of Ecology
Table 5.2
States With CSO
Permits
As of 2001 , 32 states (including the
District of Columbia) have CSO
permits.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
5-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Measures of environmental
impacts and benefits of the CSO
Control Policy.
Funding mechanisms for CSO
program implementation.
5.1 Policy Development and
Support
T""li rior to the issuance of the
JM**1 National CSO Control Strategy,
-JL some states (e.g., Illinois, Ohio,
and Washington) developed state
strategies or regulations requiring
CSO planning and abatement in
varying degrees. Other states
implemented requirements for CSO
control through administrative orders
(e.g., Tennessee) or through
enforcement mechanisms on a case-
by-case basis (e.g.,
Wisconsin—Milwaukee, New
York—New York City). As described in
Chapter 2, however, the National CSO
Control Strategy prompted many
NPDES authorities to initiate CSO
control activities.
5.1,1 to to the
CSO
The National CSO Control Strategy
contained some elements that
originated in existing state programs,
including the suggestion, drawn from
Illinois' six minimum measures, that
NPDES authorities consider requiring
BMPs to be applied as BAT on a BPJ
basis. Furthermore, the National CSO
Control Strategy urged states to
develop a CSO permitting strategy or
certify that no combined sewer
Table 5.3
States With No CSO
Permits
As of 2001,19 states, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Tribal Nations, and two territories
report having no active CSO
outfalls. Each state or tribal
agency has certified this
assessment, either verbally or In
writing, to its EPA Region.
Region State/Territory Notes
Puerto Rico No CSOs per Region's verbal certification.
US Virgin Islands No CSOs per Region's verbal certification.
Alabama
Florida
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
Hawaii
Nevada
Pacific Islands
Tribal Nations
10 Idaho
September 1988 letter certifying no known CSOs.
October 1992 letter noting elimination of Florida's last CSO.
September 1988 letter certifying no known CSOs.
October 1988 letter certifying no known CSOs.
October 1990 letter certifying no known CSOs.
September 1989 letter noting elimination of Arkansas'last CSO.
October 1989 letter certifying no known CSOs.
August 1989 letter certifying no known CSOs.
September 1989 letter certifying no known CSOs.
August 1988 letter certifying no known CSOs.
Region verbally certified elimination of Colorado's last CSO.
November 1990 letter certifying no known CSOs.
November 1990 letter certifying no known CSOs.
November 1990 letter certifying no known CSOs.
November 1990 letter certifying no active CSOs.
October 1990 letter certifying no known CSOs.
October 1990 letter certifying no known CSOs.
Verbally certified no known CSOs to Region on October 1990.
No CSOs per Region's verbal certification.
No CSOs per Region's verbal certification.
September 1990 letter certifying no active CSOs.
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
Figure 5.1
Distribution of CSO
Permits by Region and
State
CSOs are found throughout the
United States, but are most heavily
concentrated in the Northeast and
Great Lakes regions.
10
1 3 _
AK OR WA
8
1
5
107107
93
52
CA
9
Ml MN OH Wl
Total Permits: '••
2
74
31
NJ NY
1
44
Cl MA ME NH Rl VT
155
58
IA KS MO NE
7
GA KY TN
4
DC DE MD PA VA WV
3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Figure 5.2
Distribution of CSO
Outfalls by Region and
State
Similar to the distribution of CSO
permits, CSO outfalls are also
concentrated in the Northeast and
Great Lakes regions.
!_..
Total Outfalls: ll.fl
10
5
1,421
2
1,098
122
1
311
229
J 44 87 64
CTMAMENH R! VT
1,662
784
99
7
GA KY TN
4
DC DE MD PA VA WV
3
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
systems operated within their
boundaries by 1990. The overall goal
for the CSO permitting strategies was
compliance with the CWA. The
strategies included provisions to
eliminate dry weather overflows and
to minimize the impacts of CSOs.
A majority of states with CSO permits
(20 of 32) developed CSO strategies by
the 1990 deadline. Those states
submitting strategies after the deadline
tended to be states with large numbers
of CSO communities (e.g., Indiana,
New York, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia). All permitting authorities,
except New York, had strategies in
place by 1991. New York finalized its
strategy in 1993.
CSO strategies ranged from detailed
documents discussing statewide
approaches for implementation of
CSO controls within the NPDES
program framework (e.g., Maine,
Michigan, and Oregon), to lists of
current CSO permits noting how each
was or would be addressed (e.g.,
Alaska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin).
Typically, the latter approach was
reserved for NPDES authorities with
few CSO permits.
Just as CSO strategies varied from
state to state, so did procedures for
strategy implementation.
Implementation procedures typically
added CSO strategy elements to
reissued permits or included CSO
strategies as part of a state regulation
or code.
CSO strategy requirements were added
to NPDES permits as early as 1990
(Illinois) and as recently as 1999
(Connecticut). Notably, most NPDES
authorities did not complete a full
five-year permit cycle between the
issuance of its own CSO strategy and
1994, when the CSO Control Policy
was published. This means that
NPDES authorities would not
necessarily have added CSO
requirements from its strategy in all
CSO permits before the CSO Control
Policy was issued.
5,1.2 to to the 1994
CSO
As described in Chapter 2, the CSO
Control Policy defined roles for and
provided guidance to NPDES
authorities, water quality standards
authorities, and CSO communities on
the selection and implementation of
CSO controls. Specifically, the CSO
Control Policy expected that NPDES
authorities would:
Review and revise, as appropriate,
state CSO permitting strategies
developed in response to the
National CSO Control Strategy.
Develop and issue permits
requiring CSO communities to
immediately implement the NMC
and document implementation,
and to develop and comply with
an LTCR
Promote coordination among the
CSO community, the state water
quality standards authority, and
the general public during LTCP
development and implementation.
Consider evaluating water
pollution control needs on a
watershed basis, and coordinate
CSO control with the control of
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
other point and nonpoint sources
of pollution.
Recognize the difficulty for some
small communities in meeting the
formal elements of LTCP
development, and that compliance
with the NMC and a reduced
scope LTCP may be sufficient.
Consider sensitive areas, use
impairment, and the permit
holder's financial capability in the
review and approval of
implementation schedules.
NPDES authorities generally took one
of four approaches in responding to
the CSO Control Policy:
CSO to
CSO Control Policy
NPDES authorities
revised their existing CSO
strategies, adding elements to their
permitting approach to match
components of the CSO Control
Policy.
of
NPDES
authorities did not respond
immediately to the CSO Control
Policy, but continued to
implement existing CSO strategies
while determining if or how to
incorporate components of the
CSO Control Policy into their
permitting programs.
or
CSO NPDES
authorities continued to use
existing strategies or developed
new strategies advocating
approaches beyond or outside the
context of the CSO Control Policy.
Developed CSO
on a This
approach was generally used by
NPDES authorities with fewer
than five CSO permits within their
jurisdiction. These authorities
typically worked with the CSO
communities to develop site-
specific CSO control programs,
incorporating elements of the
CSO Control Policy as applicable.
A profile of each state, including the
NPDES authority's approach to
regulating CSOs, is provided in
Appendix B.
CSO to
Requirements
The following NPDES authorities
revised existing strategies to be
consistent with the CSO Control
Policy:
Region 1 in Massachusetts
Region 1 in New Hampshire
Connecticut
Georgia
Indiana
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Missouri
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
Ohio
West Virginia
These NPDES authorities updated
procedures to add components
contained in the CSO Control Policy.
In general, changes were made to CSO
permits during renewal. Typically,
permits were not re-opened to include
new provisions. In addition, these
NPDES authorities often steered the
CSO program by advocating a
preferred approach for CSO control,
such as sewer separation or
transportation of wet weather flows to
a POTW for minimum required
treatment. NPDES authorities'
interpretations of NMC and LTCP
requirements are discussed in more
detail in Section 5.4 of this report.
of
CSO
Some NPDES authorities
implementing CSO control programs
or strategies prior to issuance of the
1994 CSO Control Policy chose to
continue implementation of the
existing programs while evaluating
how or if to include the provisions of
the CSO Control Policy. NPDES
authorities using this approach
included:
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan
Vermont
Two of these NPDES authorities
(Michigan and Illinois) adjusted
programs to include select elements of
the CSO Control Policy, while another
(Vermont) believed its existing
approach to be adequate. One NPDES
authority (Iowa) assigned a low
priority to CSOs, given the limited
numbers of CSOs and other
competing program priorities,
including urban storm water and
agricultural runoff. Examples of this
range include:
Illinois began implementing one
of the nation's first CSO control
programs in 1985. Its state CSO
policy contained many guiding
principles identified in the
National CSO Control Strategy,
including a state-defined
presumption approach. By the
time of the 1994 CSO Control
Policy, Illinois was nearly 10 years
into the implementation of its
state policy. In response to the
CSO Control Policy, Illinois
incorporated requirements for the
three additional BMPs into
permits so that CSO permits
would comply with the NMC
requirements. Since all Illinois
CSO communities had been
required to meet state CSO
treatment requirements, no
provisions were made to require
LTCP development, unless post-
construction compliance
monitoring determined the need
for additional CSO controls. Prior
CSO control infrastructure
planning may have been included
in municipal or facility plans.
Vermont's 1990 CSO strategy
advocated sewer separation and
required four BMPs for
optimizing the performance of
combined sewer systems. The
Vermont strategy also required
Chicago had one of the nation's earliest
large-scale CSO control programs. As of
2001, Chicago's Tunnel and Reservoir Project
(TARP) has cumulatively captured 565 billion
gallons of combined sewage that would
otherwise have flowed to area receiving
waters.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
that an administrative order (AO)
be issued to CSO communities
that opted not to pursue sewer
separation. The AO required such
communities to identify control
options and funding needs.
Vermont provided state grants and
interest-free loans to facilitate and
accelerate CSO planning and
projects. Rather than changing its
approach to align with the CSO
Control Policy, Vermont
continued implementation of its
1990 CSO strategy. To date, 20 of
27 original CSO communities
have completed their sewer
separation projects and are no
longer considered by the state to
be CSSs.
Iowa's 1990 CSO strategy met the
requirements of the National CSO
Control Strategy and identified
several additional components
requiring:
An inventory of all CSO
discharge points.
An evaluation of current
water quality standards and
stream use designations and
technology-based limitations
for wet weather CSO water
quality impacts.
A state rule-making process
for implementing and
enforcing the strategy.
A process for including the
provisions in the strategy in
the NPDES permitting
process.
Given the limited number of CSO
permits and other priorities in its state
water program, Iowa took a wait-and-
see approach to determine if the CSO
Control Policy would be revised before
revising its state strategy. In 2001, Iowa
began including NMC and LTCP
requirements in reissued CSO permits,
for communities not proceeding with
separation.
or
CSO
Some NPDES authorities developed
and implemented programs with
notable variation on the measures
outlined in the CSO Control Policy.
NPDES authorities using this
approach included:
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Washington
Permitting authorities often developed
approaches based on priorities for
wastewater pollution control as related
to CSOs (e.g., New York), the desire to
emphasize abatement of specific
pollutants associated with CSO
discharges (e.g., New Jersey), the need
or desire to be more prescriptive at a
state level (e.g., Pennsylvania,
Washington), or the decision to
integrate CSO controls within a
watershed management approach.
Examples include:
New York uses its Environmental
Benefit Permit Strategy (EBPS) to
establish priorities for reissuing
permits based on the
environmental benefits to be
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
gained by modifying the permit,
rather than reviewing permits in
chronological order. Under the
EBPS, permits receive a numerical
score for each of 15 factors
applicable to that particular
permit. Two factors are specific to
CSO control: permit requirements
to implement the 15 BMPs, and
permit requirements to develop
and submit an LTCP. New York's
goal is to revise the top 10 percent
of state-issued NPDES permits
based on the priority ranking list
each year.
Under the New Jersey Sewerage
Infrastructure Improvement Act
(enacted in 1988), the state
initiated a program that, in part,
provides planning and design
grants for the development and
implementation of solids and
floatables control measures, and
for the identification and
elimination of dry weather
overflows. Communities with CSO
discharges are required to capture,
remove, and properly dispose of
all solid and floatable materials
from CSO discharges that would
have been captured with a 1/2-
inch bar screen. All CSO points
must be controlled.
Pennsylvania's strategy identifies
two requirements for CSO permits
prior to the implementation of the
NMC and development of an
LTCP: a system inventory
characterization report
(identifying all outfalls, providing
engineering drawings of the
outfall structures, and
determining if outfalls discharge
to sensitive waters); and a system
hydraulic characterization report
(containing a detailed analysis of
the hydraulic capacity of the
system and a statistical analysis of
area precipitation data related to
overflow events). While these
components are typical of the
NMC and LTCPs, Pennsylvania
considers the reports prerequisites
to the development and
implementation of CSO controls.
In 1987, Washington State codified
(State Code 173-245 WAC) its
approach of reducing CSO
discharges to no more than one
untreated event per average year,
including implementation of
several BMPs and development of
a CSO facilities reduction plan.
Washington asserted that the
components of its state program
met or exceeded the CSO Control
Policy in all areas except public
participation. Washington now
requires increased public
participation in CSO planning and
includes such provisions through
permit conditions upon
reissuance.
CSO Control on
a
In response to the National CSO
Control Strategy, NPDES authorities
with fewer than five CSO permits
typically submitted a list of the CSO
permits, noting how each was or
would be addressed. With the issuance
of the CSO Control Policy, these
NPDES authorities incorporated
elements of the Policy into site-specific
programs, as appropriate. NPDES
authorities using this approach
included:
New Jersey provides CSO communities with
planning and design grants for solids and
floatables control measures, such as nets like
the system used in North Bergen.
J-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Region 3 (District of Columbia)
Region 10 in Alaska
California
Delaware
Kansas
Minnesota
Nebraska
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Virginia
Wisconsin
Some NPDES authorities (California,
Delaware, District of Columbia,
Kansas, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia) adjusted
permits to include elements of the
CSO Control Policy in one or more of
its CSO permits. Nebraska has not
implemented the CSO Control Policy.
Some NPDES authorities (Alaska,
Minnesota, Wisconsin) indicated that
their CSO communities had
implemented CSO control plans that
rendered changes to permits in
response to the CSO Control Policy
unnecessary.
A variable and evolving set of CSO
controls resulted from these different
approaches and schedules, which were
incorporated into permits as the
permits were reissued. This variability
is discussed further in Section 5.2.
5.2 NPDES Permitting
Jt s discussed in Chapter 2 of this
|_Jl report, CSOs are point source
JL ^discharges subject to NPDES
permit requirements, including both
technology-based and water quality-
based requirements of the CWA. The
CSO Control Policy specifically
expects NPDES authorities should, at
a minimum, include requirements in
CSO permits for the following:
...demonstration of
implementation of the nine
minimum controls and
development of the long-term
control plan...
... implementation of a long-term
CSO control plan ...
As of June 2001, 859 CSO permits for
CSSs regulated discharges from 9,471
CSO outfalls. Each of the 859 permits
contained a site-specific list of CSO
outfalls. In addition, most NPDES
authorities have imposed
requirements for, or initiated action
resulting in, implementation of CSO
controls:
94 percent of CSO permits include
enforceable requirements to
implement low-cost BMP
measures to mitigate CSO-related
impacts.
82 percent of CSO permits include
an enforceable requirement to
develop a CSO facilities plan
outlining more capital intensive
plans for CSO control.
Further, the requirements for CSO
control employed by the majority of
NPDES authorities are similar to those
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
outlined in the CSO Control Policy.
Specifically:
86 percent of CSO permits include
enforceable requirements to
implement the NMC, or
analogous BMP measures.
65 percent of CSO permits include
an enforceable requirement to
develop an LTCR
This section describes individual
approaches taken by NPDES
authorities for CSO control, and
compares these approaches with the
NMC and LTCP elements described in
the CSO Control Policy. In addition,
Appendix B contains profiles of each
state, including information on the
permitting, enforcement, compliance
assistance (where noted), and water
quality standards programs in each
state.
5,2,1 for
As shown in Figure 5.3, 807 (94
percent) of the 859 CSO permits have
requirements to implement one or
more BMPs to mitigate the impacts of
CSO discharges. Further, Figure 5.3
shows that 740 of the 807 permits
with requirements to implement
BMPs are specifically required to
Category
implement the NMC (or a set of
BMPs that include or are analogous to
the NMC).
Figure 5.3 also shows that of the 52
permits that have no requirements to
implement any BMPs:
14 permits had committed to full
sewer separation prior to the
issuance of the CSO Control
Policy, and have not been required
to implement the NMC.
21 permits are expired and have
not been reissued since the
inception of the CSO Control
Policy.
17 permits have been reissued
since the CSO Control Policy
without requirements to
implement BMPs to mitigate the
impacts of CSOs.
Figure 5.4 provides a state-by-state
summary of the number of CSO
permits with requirements to
implement one or more BMPs, as well
highlighting those states with BMP
requirements that include or are
analogous to the NMC.
#of Permits Percent
•'""' Permit Requires NMC and Documentation 740 86.1%
V Permit Requires Some BMPs 67 7,9%
Permit Does Not Require BMPs
f Permit Not Reissued Since 1994 21 2,4%
V Reissued Without Requirements 17 2,0%
^ Permittee is Separating 14 1,6%
Total Permits 859 100.0%
Most states require CSO BMPs in permits. Of
the NMC, the first six measures are the most
widely implemented.
Figure 5.3
Status of NMC
Requirements in CSO
Permits
740 of 859 CSO permits have a
requirement to implement the
NMC. An additional 67 permits
have requirements to
implement a set of BMPs that
are less rigorous than the NMC.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Figure 5.4
j CSO Permits With Requirements to Implement the NMC
!
i
i
L.
29 of 32 states require implementation of BMPs in one or more of their CSO permits. States
with no BMP requirements account for fewer than 1 percent of CSO permits.
1
i
i
i
i
Region/State # Permits
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
CT
MA
ME
NH
Rl
VT
NJ
NY
DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
GA
KY
TN
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
Wl
IA
KS
MO
NE
SD
CA
10 AK
OR
WA
Total
5
23
44
5
3
7
31
74
1
2
8
155
3
58
8
17
3
107
107
52
3
93
2
15
3
9
2
1
3
1
3
11
859
NMC
Required
5
23
42
5
3
0
30
72
1
1
8
153
3
58
8
13
3
61
93
52
3
77
0
1
3
4
0
1
3
0
3
11
740
NMC Some BMPs [ZlJ BMPs Not Required
SomeBMPs BMPsNot , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Required Required Q 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
0 i
0 r:::::::::::::j
2 ^zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz«
0
0 t
0
1 ZZZZZZZZZZZZJ
2 •
0
1 :•
8 :::::>
2 ^zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
0
0 i i
0 r::::>
4 ZZZZZT-I
0
0 t
14 ^ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZi«««««ii
0 ^zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
0 i
16 [•••i
2 •
0 r
0 i
5 i =
2 •
0 L-
0 L
1 •
0 i
o =
52
permits hawe some BMP requirements, including with NMC requirements.
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
Most NPDES authorities require
implementation of BMPs by
incorporating appropriate language
into permits when reissued. Figure 5.5
shows that NPDES authorities have
required implementation of the NMC
in 740 of the 859 CSO permits. These
requirements are included in 697
permits; 29 require NMC in another
enforceable mechanism such as an
administrative order. Enforcement
actions for NMC requirements are
generally the result of a failure to meet
a schedule or other requirement
prescribed in a permit. For the
remaining 14 permits, EPA was unable
to determine the mechanism used to
require NMC implementation.
NPDES authorities often use
discretion to determine the site-
specific applicability of each minimum
control or best management practice.
Specific BMPs may not be required
where not applicable or when it is
beyond the legal purview of the
NPDES authority or the permittee.
Examples of this discretion include:
New Jersey has determined that it
cannot legally include
requirements to implement the
minimum control targeting the
review and modification of
Category
pretreatment programs in the
majority of CSO permits issued to
smaller satellite communities.
Wastewater treatment in New
Jersey is typically provided by
regional wastewater treatment
authorities serving smaller satellite
communities, and the satellite
communities typically do not have
jurisdiction for the pretreatment
program.
New York evaluates the
applicability of each of its 15
BMPs on a case-by-case basis, and
incorporates only those BMPs
deemed appropriate into the
permit. For example, communities
that operate regional wastewater
treatment plants handling
combined sewage, but that lack
responsibility for the collection
system, are exempted from
implementing a pollution
prevention program. Similarly,
communities that operate satellite
collection systems but that do not
own or operate the POTW are not
required to develop a WWTP wet
weather operating plan.
In cases where the NPDES authority
documented a site-specific
determination to exclude one or more
f of Perm its Percent
Mechanism to Require NMC
'•. Permit 697 94.2%
~" Enforcement Action 29 3,9%
W No Data 14 1,9%
Total Permits Reqyiring 740 100.0%
Figure 5.5
Mechanism Used to
Require NMC
Implementation
The majority of NMC requirements
are contained in permits. However,
29 permits have an associated
enforcement action requiring
implementation of the NMC.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
of the NMC from a permit, the permit
was still included in the 740
considered to include (or to be
analogous to) the NMC.
CSO
Most states (29 of 32) have established
a suite of BMPs for mitigating the
impacts associated with CSO
discharges. Specifically:
25 states require implementation
of the NMC.
Two states (New York and
Washington) require a greater
number of BMPs than the NMC.
Two states (Vermont and Iowa)
require a set of BMPs less rigorous
than the NMC; Iowa adopted the
NMC in early 2001 but has
incorporated the requirements in
only one permit.
Seventeen states require implement-
ation of the NMC (or an equivalent
suite of BMPs) in all CSO permits.
The most common reasons given by
NPDES authorities for not requiring
the NMC in every permit include:
CSO permits are part of NPDES
permit backlog and have not been
reissued since the publication of
the CSO Control Policy in 1994.
The community committed to
sewer separation prior to the
issuance of the CSO Control
Policy, and the NPDES authority
has not required the community
to change its approach.
In three states (Alaska, Nebraska, and
Wisconsin), CSO permits lack
requirements to implement any of the
NMC. Together, these states account
for less than 1 percent of the CSO
permits nationwide (5 of 859). In two
of these states (Alaska and Wisconsin),
the NPDES authority required
significant CSO control activities prior
to issuance of the CSO Control Policy.
The decision not to establish NMC
requirements in these states was made
because the CSO communities were
well into implementation of CSO
controls prior to the issuance of the
CSO Control Policy. Both of
Nebraska's CSO permits are up for
renewal in 2001, and the state has
indicated that the reissued permits will
contain requirements to implement
the NMC. Region 10 has also
indicated that it will add requirements
to implement the NMC in Alaska's
lone CSO permit upon reissuance.
5,2,2
As shown in Figure 5.5, 718 (82
percent) of the 859 CSO permits
include requirements to develop and
implement CSO facilities plans to
control CSO discharges. Further,
Figure 5.6 shows that 559 of the 718
are required to develop and
implement CSO facilities plans that
are consistent with the LTCP
framework outlined in the CSO
Control Policy.
Figure 5.6 also shows that of the 141
permits currently lacking
requirements to develop and
implement a CSO facilities plan:
39 permits are expired and have
not been reissued since the
inception of the CSO Control
Policy.
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
Category
"• Permit Requires LTCP
^ Permit Requires Facility Plan1
Permit Does Not Require Facility Plan
W Reissued Without Requirements
y Not Reissued Since 1994
Total Permits
#of Permits Percent
559
159
65.1%
18.5%
102 11.9%
39 4.5%
859
Figure 5.6
Status of Facility Plan
Requirements in CSO
Permits
718 CSO permits have
requirements to develop and
implement a CSO facilities plan.
Nearly two-thirds of CSO permits
require a facility plan consistent
with the LTCP framework outlined
in the CSO Control Policy.
Includes plans for complete separation.
102 permits have been reissued
since the CSO Control Policy
without requirements to develop a
CSO facilities plan.
Most NPDES authorities require LTCP
development by incorporating
appropriate language into permits at
reissuance. Figure 5.7 shows that
NPDES authorities have required
LTCP development in 559 of the 859
CSO permits. These requirements are
included in 457 permits; 102 require
LTCP development through another
enforceable mechanism such as an
administrative order. Enforcement
actions generally result from one of
two sets of circumstances:
CSO discharges cause or
contribute to an exceedance of
applicable water quality standards,
and therefore a water quality-
Category
based effluent limit (in this case
LTCP requirements) is necessary.
If the permittee is unable to
immediately comply with the
LTCP requirements, an
enforcement order is issued
concurrently with the permit,
including a schedule requiring the
development and implementation
of an LTCP.
Failure to meet a compliance
schedule or other requirement
prescribed in a permit.
The majority of enforcement actions
related to LTCP development and
implementation are in states where the
NPDES authority asserts that all CSO
discharges have the reasonable
likelihood to cause or contribute to
nonattainment of water quality
standards. These include Region 1 (the
#of Perm its Percent
Mechanism to Require LTCP
¥ Perm it 457 81.8%
V Enforcement Action 102 18,2%
Total Permits Requiring LTCP SSi
Figure 5.7
Mechanism Used to
Require LTCPs
Most requirements to develop and
implement an LTCP are issued in
permits, but 18 percent of LTCP
requirements are part of an
enforcement order. Notably,
several states use enforcement
orders, rather than permits, to
require LTCP development and
implementation.
j-17
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Figure 5.8
CSO Permits With Requirements to Develop and
Implement an LTCP
31 of 32 states have a framework for CSO control planning; of these, 25 states have
frameworks consistent with the CSO Control Policy.
Region/State
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
CT
MA
ME
NH
Rl
VT
NJ
NY
DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
GA
KY
TN
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
Wl
IA
KS
MO
NE
SD
CA
AK
OR
WA
Total
f Permits
5
23
44
5
3
1
31
74
1
2
8
155
3
58
8
17
3
107
107
52
3
93
2
15
3
9
2
1
3
1
3
11
859
LTCP
5
20
31
4
3
0
0
33
1
1
8
144
3
58
8
13
3
0
87
51
0
62
0
1
3
4
0
1
1
0
3
11
559
Other
Facility
Plan
0
1
8
1
0
7
4
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
107
1
1
3
13
0
6
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
159
No ^S Other Facility Plan CZ3 No Facility Plan
Faci|ity i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i
Plan 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0 ID
2 ^^^«
5 I mm
0
0 :::
0
0 j
1 :•
0 -in:
9
0 < i
0 ^^^^^^^^^^
0 r:::j
3 IDHH--
0 n
0
19 imiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.^^^™
0 i
0
1 H ! ^^^^^^^
2 .
8 =
o -
4 _
1 7
0
2 .
0
0 i i
0
141
permits have facility plan requirements, including
permits requiring LTCPs.
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
NPDES authority for Massachusetts
and New Hampshire), Vermont,
Maine, and Maryland.
Figure 5.8 provides a state-by-state
summary of the number of CSO
permits with requirements to develop
and implement a CSO facilities plan. It
highlights states in which
requirements for facilities planning are
consistent with the LTCP framework
outlined in the CSO Control Policy.
CSO
Most states (31 of 32) have established
a framework for CSO facilities
planning to meet the water quality-
based requirements of the CWA for
CSOs. Of these 31:
25 have established a framework
that includes the LTCP
components outlined in the CSO
Control Policy.
Five (Alaska, Illinois, Minnesota,
Vermont, and Wisconsin) require
engineering design studies for
CSO facilities plans and, often,
achieved implementation of
significant CSO control prior to
issuance of the CSO Control
Policy.
One (New Jersey) is awaiting
completion of its TMDL process
(i.e., planning on a watershed
basis) before implementing
additional CSO controls,
rendering separate LTCPs
unnecessary.
Only Nebraska has established no
framework for CSO facility
planning. Both of Nebraska's CSO
permits are up for renewal in
2001. The state has indicated that
the reissued permits will contain
requirements for LTCP
development and implementation.
In most of the 25 states requiring
LTCPs, formal LTCP requirements
mirror the CSO Control Policy and
offer two bases for LTCP development
(the presumption approach and the
demonstration approach). Several
states, however, have advocated a
preferred approach for CSO control.
These approaches include:
85 percent capture, by volume, as
included in the definition of the
presumption approach.
Transporting all wet weather flows
to the POTW for minimum
treatment prior to discharge.
Capacity to provide treatment for
flows generated by a specific
design storm.
Sewer separation.
Sixteen states require development
and implementation of a CSO
facilities plan in all CSO permits. The
most common reasons given by
NPDES authorities for not requiring
LTCP development and
implementation in a CSO permit
include:
Long-term CSO control planning
efforts are beyond the financial or
technical capabilities of small
communities.
CSOs are not a top permitting
priority, given a limited number of
CSOs and competing programs
c -
*J
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Sailing in Milwaukee Harbor, Wl. During LTCP
development the CSO Control Policy expects
states and CSO communities to collect data
to characterize the receiving water.This data
may then be used to support the review of
water quality standards.
such as TMDLs, urban storm
water, and agricultural runoff.
CSO permits are part of the
NPDES permit backlog and have
not been reissued since issuance of
the CSO Control Policy in 1994.
5.3 Water Quality Standards
F1 "the CWA provides flexibility to
| water quality standards
JL authorities to adapt water
quality standards to reflect site-specific
conditions, including those related to
CSOs. Further, the CSO Control Policy
anticipates:
... the review and revision, as
appropriate, of water quality
standards and their
implementation procedures when
developing CSO control plans to
reflect site-specific wet weather
impacts of CSOs.
The CSO Control Policy expected that
permit writers would promote
coordination between permittees and
water quality standards authorities
during the development of the LTCP.
This coordination was expected to
facilitate the review of water quality
standards and, if appropriate, their
revision, based on site-specific impacts
of CSOs and the implementation of
CSO controls that would ultimately
support the attainment of water
quality standards.
EPA's water quality standards
regulations provide that designated
uses can be removed only if a
reasonable basis exists for determining
that (1) current designated uses
cannot be attained after implementing
the technology- and water quality-
based controls required by the CWA
and (2) that the current designated
uses are not existing uses. In
determining whether a use is
attainable, the regulations require that
the state conduct and submit a use
attainability analysis (UAA). The UAA
is a structured scientific assessment of
the physical, chemical, biological, and
economic factors affecting the
attainment of the use in a water body.
Another option available to states for
modifying water quality standards is
the adoption of a variance. A variance
is a temporary change (generally three
to five years, with renewals possible) to
the water quality standard. The
variance is specific to a discharger for
a particular pollutant. The variance
does not relieve other dischargers
along a common water body segment
from any requirement to provide
necessary treatment to attain water
quality standards. When adopting a
variance, the state must determine
that:
The designated use is not an
existing use.
The designated use is not
immediately attainable with
implementation of the
technology-based controls of the
Clean Water Act and with
reasonable, cost-effective BMPs to
control nonpoint sources.
The designated use is not
attainable during the duration of
the variance based on any of the
factors in 40 CFR 131.10(g) (1) (6).
Since the underlying designated use
remains, and further environmental
5^20
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
progress can be attained with the
implementation of the LTCP, the rigor
of the analyses and the level of
demonstration used for a variance are
generally less than those required for a
permanent change in the use. Because
a variance is a change in the water
quality standards, however, the same
requirements apply for a variance as
for a new or revised standard (e.g., an
opportunity for public review and
comment, and EPA approval or
disapproval of the variance).
5,3,1
LTCP
Implementation
The implementation of CSO controls
identified in a well-designed and
operated LTCP may lead to the
determination that a water body has
the potential of supporting improved
aquatic life. Under this circumstance,
states would upgrade their designated
aquatic life use for the water body.
Alternatively, implementation of CSO
controls may not necessarily ensure
the attainment of water quality
standards within the CSO receiving
water. During LTCP development, the
CSO Control Policy expects states and
CSO communities to collect data to
assess baseline conditions in the
receiving water and evaluate the
potential effectiveness of any proposed
controls in improving water quality
and supporting the uses of the water
body. If the data show that even with
the installed controls, CSOs will
continue to contribute to the
impairment of water quality
standards, the NPDES authority is
expected to work with the CSO
community to evaluate other CSO
control alternatives. If, however,
chemical, physical, or economic
factors appear to preclude attainment
of the use, the data collected during
the LTCP development process may be
used to support revisions to water
quality standards. Revisions could
include adoption of uses that better
reflect the water quality that can be
achieved with a level of CSO control
that does not cause substantial and
widespread economic and social
impact.
In the seven years since EPA issued the
CSO Control Policy, coordination of
LTCP development and
implementation with water quality
standards reviews has not progressed
as quickly as expected. Therefore, at
the urging of Congress, EPA recently
published Guidance: Coordinating CSO
Long-term Planning with Water
Quality Standards Reviews (EPA,
2001c), as discussed in Section 4.5 of
this report.
5,3,2 for
for
CSO
A few states have developed
approaches reconciling their water
quality standards with overflows that
will remain after the implementation
of a well-designed CSO LTCP.
Summaries of the actions taken by the
states are provided below.
Indiana
All waters in Indiana are designated
for full-body contact recreational use
and for support of a well-balanced
aquatic community. State Senate
Enrolled Act (SEA) 431, enacted on
March 17, 2000, provides a
mechanism whereby CSO
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Augusta, capital of Maine—one of several
states to have developed procedures for
coordinating water quality standards reviews
with LTCP development. Maine is currently in
the process of developing implementation
procedures for its process.
communities may apply for a
temporary suspension of designated
use, provided the criteria set forth in
the statute are met. These criteria
include:
Determining the designated use to
be suspended, and the existing use
for the water body.
Identifying all uses and sensitive
areas.
Identifying stakeholders and
organizing a citizens' advisory
committee.
Documenting plausible
alternatives for CSO control.
Determining how quickly the CSO
community can afford to
implement the selected CSO
control alternative.
Developing an implementation
schedule.
Conducting a UAA to
demonstrate that attaining the
designated use is not feasible due
to one of the six factors listed in
40CFR131.10(g).
Committing to periodically
reviewing the LTCP to implement
cost-effective control alternatives.
The Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM)
released a final draft Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Long-Term Control
Plan Use Attainability Analysis
Guidance in April 2001 (IDEM, 2001).
The guidance is for CSO communities
interested in seeking temporary
suspensions under SEA 431 while
implementing an LTCP.
Maine
Maine worked with stakeholders to
develop modifications of the state's
water classification program to allow
CSO communities to request a
variance that includes temporary CSO
subcategories. The site-specific CSO
subcategories remove designated uses
for short periods of time after wet
weather events and snowmelt in areas
affected by CSOs. This allows CSO
communities to continue to make
progress in solving CSO problems
without violating state water quality
standards. The Maine Legislature
enacted the legislation in 1995.
Highlights of the law include:
CSO subcategories allow for
temporary removal of designated
but not existing uses impacted by
CSOs. Each subcategory includes
an area and a time duration. CSO
communities submit flow and
load data to the state to assist in
the determination of subcategory
area and duration.
Prior to applying for CSO
subcategories, CSO communities
must have approved LTCPs. LTCPs
must place a high priority on
abatement of CSOs that impact
waters with the greatest potential
for public use or benefit, and must
contain an implementation
schedule for CSO abatement. The
LTCP will be considered the UAA.
During, or following, development
of the LTCP, the CSO community
will conduct public hearings to
5^22
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
gain input from stakeholders on
the areas affected by the variance.
If the variance is approved, the
CSO community must provide
public notice describing
limitations on use of the water
body.
Approval of a CSO subcategory
does not relieve other dischargers
from any requirement to provide
necessary treatment to comply
with water quality standards.
Maine will periodically review all CSO
subcategories. If the CSO community
fails to comply with the
implementation schedule in its
approved LTCP, the variance may be
revoked and the state may take
enforcement action for permit
violations. Maine received a 104(b) (3)
grant from EPA in FY 2001 to develop
implementation procedures for the
1995 legislation and to pilot test its
application.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts amended its water
quality standards in 1996 to include a
CSO subclassification in its use
classification system for receiving
waters with substantial numbers of
CSO outfalls. The application of a
CSO subclassification requires EPA
approval of a UAA. Massachusetts uses
the UAA to evaluate the attainability
of the designated use, particularly
whether CSO controls would likely
cause substantial and widespread
economic and social impact.
For example, the Class B (CSO)
subclassification requires that CSO
controls be sufficient to meet water
quality standards 95 percent of the
time, generally no more than four
CSOs per year. A UAA must be
developed that demonstrates achieving
greater than 95-percent control would
cause substantial and widespread
economic and social impact. The
commonwealth must make the UAA
available for public review and
comment and receive EPA approval
prior to applying the Class B (CSO)
subclassification to a particular water
body. The standard suspends only the
bacteriological criteria; toxic
pollutants are not affected.
To date, only the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (provider of
water and sewer services to the greater
Boston metropolitan area) has
completed a UAA and justified the
need for a CSO subclass.
Illinois' existing water quality
standards program framework
presumes compliance with water
quality standards upon the
completed implementation of a
CSO facility plan that meets the
criteria for the state-derived
presumption approach.
Michigan rules allow the use of
alternate design flows (i.e.,
alternate to 7Q10 low flows or
95% exceedance flows) when
determining water quality-based
requirements for intermittent wet
weather discharges such as treated
combined sewer overflows.
New Hampshire has also
developed a surface-water partial-
use designation called Temporary
Partial Use (TPU) or Class B
(TPU). A designation of Class B
Massachusetts has developed
subclassifications for receiving waters with
different numbers of CSO outfalls.
Communities must complete a UAA to
qualify fora subclassification.To date, only
the Metropolitan Water Resources Authority,
which serves the Greater Boston area, has
completed a UAA.
5^23
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
(TPU) is made only if the
community planning process,
watershed planning efforts and a
UAA demonstrate that the
allowance of minor CSO
discharges is the most
environmentally protective and
cost-effective option available.
Furthermore, this designation is
only allowed in "non-critical
resource areas." Critical areas
would include beaches, shellfish
habitats, drinking water intakes,
and endangered species habitats.
Four communities in Ohio have
requested water quality standards
reviews and submitted biological
monitoring data as part of their
CSO control plans. The state
conducted the reviews but made
no changes in standards as a result
of these reviews.
Pennsylvania has indicated that it
does not currently intend to
review water quality standards in
conjunction with LTCP
development and implementation,
but will explore water quality
standards reviews in their next
triennial review.
5,3,3
Reports
Urban water quality may be affected
by a combination of CSOs, storm
water discharges, other point sources
and nonpoint source runoff. The CSO
Control Policy encourages permitting
authorities to:
... evaluate water pollution control
needs on a watershed management
basis and coordinate CSO control
efforts with other point and
nonpoint source control activities.
Section 303 (d) of the CWA establishes
the TMDL process. The TMDL
process provides a mechanism for
integrating the management of both
the point and nonpoint pollution
sources that may contribute to a water
body's impairment. In addition, the
TMDL process can be used to expedite
water quality-based NPDES
permitting and can lead to technically
sound and legally defensible decisions
for attaining and maintaining water
quality standards.
Under the authority of Section 303(d),
states are expected to develop TMDLs
for water quality-limited waters where
technology-based effluent limitations
or other legally required pollution
control mechanisms are not sufficient
or stringent enough to implement the
applicable water quality standards. As
part, of this effort, every two years
states submit a report to EPA
identifying water quality-limited
waters still needing TMDLs, including
a priority ranking of water bodies. A
summary, by state, of the number of
water segments impacted by CSOs is
included in Appendix N.
5.4 Compliance and
Enforcement
la JT any states have issued
1 % / 1 compliance and
JL, W jiL enforcement policies to
coordinate regulatory activities and to
inform municipalities of compliance
expectations and enforcement
consequences. Based on available
5^24
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
information, state CSO compliance
and enforcement policies can be
grouped into three categories:
Enforcement policies promulgated
by the state.
Enforcement policies resulting
from state participation in the
National Environmental
Performance Partnership System
(NEPPS).
Enforcement initiatives based on
EPA policies.
State-promulgated and state NEPPS-
based CSO policies are discussed
below.
CSO
Policies
Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and West
Virginia each promulgated CSO
enforcement policies. The CSO
policies of Indiana and Ohio illustrate
the range of approaches taken by state
CSO enforcement authorities.
Indiana's Final Combined Sewer
Overflow Strategy, issued in 1996,
is intended to bring Indiana's
CSOs into compliance with the
requirements of the CWA and
Indiana's goal of all state surface
waters meeting water quality
standards by 2005. Indiana's
Strategy recommends that CSO
enforcement activities focus on:
enforcement of the dry weather
overflow prohibition, CSO permit
documentation requirements, and
the state's minimum water quality
criteria.
Ohio's 1995 CSO Strategy includes
a dry weather overflow
prohibition. The Strategy
recommends that Notices of
Violation (NOV) be issued for
occasional dry weather overflows
and the use of administrative or
judicial actions to eliminate dry
weather overflows. Ohio's strategy
also suggests several enforcement
mechanisms to enforce CSO
permits. These include NOV to
address violations of interim
schedule dates not affecting final
deadlines, as well as administrative
or judicial actions to address
major delays in meeting interim
schedule dates.
CSO
on the
The objectives of the NEPPS include:
Facilitating joint EPA and state
planning and priority setting.
Providing states with greater
flexibility with regard to resource
allocation.
Fostering the use of integrated and
innovative strategies for
addressing natural resource
questions.
In order to implement NEPPS, states
and their respective EPA regional
offices develop a Performance
Partnership Agreement (PPA). PPAs
are designed to detail joint priorities
and methodology for implementation
of NEPPS at the state level.
In Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois,
Massachusetts, and Wisconsin, state
CSO policies grew out of NEPPS
Ohio EPA initiated an enforcement action
against the City of Akron in 1995 for
violations of the CWA related to CSO
discharges to the Cuyahoga River. Akron
continues its efforts to implement CSO
controls, including storage/conveyance
tunnels, sewer separation projects, and
detention basins.
5^25
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
The State of New York has primary
responsibility for inspection of CSO
communities, such as New York City. The
State has its own inspector training system
and uses an inspection tracking system
independent of the NPDES PCS data base.
agreements with EPA. Examples
include:
The PPA between Connecticut
and EPA for FY 2000 and 2001
addresses POTWs and municipal
sewerage systems in general, as
well as CSOs, and authorizes the
state to perform CSO inspections.
In the past, NOVs were only
issued to POTWs for effluent limit
violations. As a result of
Connecticut's PPA, however, the
state's enforcement program is
working to include all permit
violations, such as those occurring
during sample collection and
analyses, record keeping, bypass
reporting, and illegal discharges.
Illinois' FY 2001 PPA with EPA
recommends that EPA use a
"place-based" approach (e.g.,
considering greater Chicago as one
entity) in directly assisting Illinois.
EPA's goal is to ensure that its
resources, as well as the state's, are
optimized. Toward that end, that
PPA recommends that EPA
provide direct assistance in the
following areas: performance of
wet-weather inspections, with
emphasis on CSO and SSO
inspections; pretreatment POTW
seminars; and facilitation of
seminars for industrial users.
5,4,2
States conduct most NPDES
inspections. State-initiated CSO
inspections of municipal facilities
often are part of an overall NPDES
compliance inspection (see Section 4.4
of this report). CSO-specific
inspections may result from citizen
complaints, discrepancies in discharge
monitoring reports, routine reviews,
or other sources. State-level CSO
inspection programs either are wholly
state administered or are
collaborations between a state and an
EPA region, and may be part of an
enforcement investigation or the result
of an enforcement action (e.g., notice
of violation). With the exception of
Nebraska, CSO inspections have been
conducted in all states with CSO
permits. The various state inspection
programs are characterized in
Appendix O.
CSO
California, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Virginia, and Washington have
primary responsibility for the
administration and implementation of
CSO compliance inspection programs.
For example:
New York conducts inspections
through its regional offices. New
York has its own inspector
training program and has a listing
of guidance documents in its
Technical & Operational Guidance
Series (TOGS). TOGS provides
users a link to the Integrated
Compliance Strategy System,
which is the state's plan for
dealing with wet weather issues.
New York maintains an inspection
tracking system independent of
PCS. The state uses this system to
identify facilities to be inspected
and to determine enforcement
activities. Although New York
participates in quarterly
significant non-compliance
teleconferences with Region 2, the
5^28
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
state has primary responsibility
for CSO inspection and control.
Iowa is responsible for CSO
inspections. Iowa offers inspector
training, schedules inspections,
and tracks inspection activities in
a state matrix. These inspections
have not focused on CSOs and
compliance with the CSO Control
Policy.
Kentucky has NPDES enforcement
authority and conducts regular
inspections of NPDES permittees.
The inspections have not focused
on CSOs and compliance with the
CSO Control Policy. Region 4 has
assisted Kentucky in some CSO
inspections emphasizing
compliance with the NMC. The
region also visits Kentucky on an
annual basis in order to
coordinate CSO activities with the
state.
Michigan conducts its NPDES
inspections, which include a state-
developed evaluation of CSO
facilities, through its eight regional
offices. CSO data are tracked in
regional databases overseen by the
state. Michigan is working with
Region 5 to expand its CSO
inspection program efforts to
include federal concerns and
ensure a uniform inspection
approach throughout the region.
CSO
Inspections
Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, and West Virginia each have
cooperative agreements with EPA
regarding CSO and NPDES
inspections. Examples of these types of
agreements include:
Ohio's NPDES inspections follow
the procedure recommended in
the NPDES Compliance Inspection
Manual (see Section 4.5.1 of this
report). These inspections address
CSOs and are conducted annually
with Region 5. When resources
allow, Ohio and Region 5
undertake joint inspections of
NPDES facilities. When Ohio is
unable to inspect all identified
facilities within the agreed time,
Region 5 will administer some
inspections. Following an
inspection, any follow-up
information is entered into a data
base Ohio uses to track
inspections and compliance
activities. Information from these
data bases is fed into PCS. Ohio is
coordinating with Region 5 to
have its inspectors take part in the
regional CSO inspector training
program.
Georgia has three CSO
communities. One is the City of
Atlanta, which is under a consent
decree to bring its CSO facilities
into compliance with the CWA
and the Georgia Water Quality
Control Act. Georgia and Region 4
performed joint inspections of the
Atlanta CSO facilities and worked
cooperatively in developing the
federal court-ordered consent
decree. Georgia and Region 4
work together to monitor the
progress of the consent decree and
conduct inspections. Georgia
5^27
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
conducts inspections in its other
two CSO communities.
Indiana, by agreement with
Region 5, conducts 75 percent of
the state's NPDES inspections at
CSO sites and the region conducts
the remaining 25 percent. Indiana
cooperates closely with Region 5
regarding CSO inspections.
Indiana, for example, sends its
inspectors to the region for
training, uses regional guidance
documents and checklists, and
participates in teleconferences
with the region to discuss cases of
significant non-compliance.
Indiana also coordinates with
Region 5 to determine the
components of its CSO inspection
checklist.
Massachusetts meets with
Region 1 on a quarterly basis to
discuss CSO inspections and the
results of those inspections. The
state has a PPA with the region
under which funds are shared to
help Massachusetts keep facilities
in compliance with regulations,
including the CSO Control Policy.
Vermont follows EPA guidance
about inspections and has a
relationship with Region 1
whereby the region conducts
inspections when Vermont is
unable to do so. Vermont and the
region communicate quarterly
about major facilities that will be
inspected and what the level of
inspection should be at each.
CSO by
State CSO inspections also may occur
in response to enforcement activities.
CSO inspections in Georgia,
Pennsylvania, and Washington have
resulted from this process.
5,4,3 CSO
For this report, EPA reviewed
individual NPDES permit compliance
information and performed a Lexis-
Nexis search to document state
enforcement activities. This process
identified 136 state-initiated
enforcement actions (primarily
administrative actions, such as
administrative compliance orders) that
include CSO violations. This number
is an estimate, as EPA was unable to
verify each state action that included
CSO violations. Documentation of
state CSO enforcement activities was
not completed in a uniform manner,
so dates for all settlements were
unavailable. A summary of available
information regarding state-initiated
CSO enforcement actions is presented
in Appendix P.
Although some states (e.g.,
Massachusetts) have not initiated
administrative or civil judicial actions
against CSO violations, they formally
join EPA in its actions and/or become
involved in the review and approval of
LTCPs, water quality standards review,
and oversight of implementation of
subsequent CSS improvements.
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
States enforce CSO compliance in a
variety of ways. Water-quality effluent
limit violations and failures to meet
compliance schedules have been the
most common reasons for state-
initiated enforcement actions. Based
on available information, most states
have initiated administrative
enforcement actions to address CSO
violations. A list of 92 administrative
actions is included in Appendix P.
EPA's review of available state-
initiated CSO enforcement cases
revealed one CSO civil judicial action.
The case is listed in Appendix P.
Forty-three CSO facilities have been
subject to enforcement actions
resulting from state actions or joint
state-EPA actions. The majority of
cases are administrative actions
resulting in an administrative order.
Summaries of these cases are included
in Appendix P.
5.5 Guidance, Training and
Compliance and Technical
Assistance
f| jf ost guidance and
1 \ / 1 compliance assistance
JL w JL documents being used by
NPDES authorities and CSO
communities have been produced by
EPA (see Section 4.2.1). However,
some states have produced permit
boiler-plate language for CSOs
addressing issues related to
implementation of their CSO
program. Some states have also
developed training programs to assist
their staff in administering CSO
programs. The following sections
discuss some of these state specific
materials.
5,5,1
In many cases, NPDES authorities
developed standard language to
include in NPDES permits to address
CSOs and incorporated this language
into guidelines for CSO permit
writers. For example, Region 1
developed a policy memorandum that
included draft fact sheet language for
CSO permits, model permit language,
and guidance on documenting and
implementing the NMC (Region 1,
1996). This information is used in
CSO permits in Massachusetts and
New Hampshire (and previously in
Maine), where Region 1 is the NPDES
authority.
Other cases in which permitting
authorities have developed documents
to assist in implementation of the
CSO Control Policy include the
following:
Maine developed a guidance
document, Program Guidance on
Combined Sewer Overflow Facility
Plans, that provides information
on monitoring, selection of BMPs,
and development of a CSO master
plan (the functional equivalent of
anLTCP).
Michigan produced a 1994
Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Program Manual (MDNR, 1994)
to assist staff in implementation of
the state's CSO permitting
strategy. The manual provides
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
In addition to compliance and enforcement
inspections, New Jersey provides CSO
communities with onsite consultations and
technical assistance services. The state is
developing a manual to provide state and
local inspectors with standard operating
procedures.
detailed information on
Michigan's CSO program. It also
contains a discussion of the
elements needed to implement the
program and guidance on
determining compliance.
Pennsylvania developed a strategy
document that defines the state
program and approach, discusses
permitting options for small and
large POTW and satellite
communities, explains special
exemptions from LTCP
requirements, establishes an
implementation strategy, and
provides an enforcement policy
for the program.
5,5,2
Some permitting authorities have
sponsored workshops and training
courses. For example:
Pennsylvania has offered CSO
workshops for small communities.
The workshops served as a forum
for better communicating CSO
program requirements, answering
questions from CSO communities,
and providing an opportunity for
CSO communities to voice
concerns to the state.
New York provides training for
operators of municipal facilities in
conjunction with EPA. This
program includes training
specifically for operators of
facilities served by combined
sewer systems. New York also
provides a number of services to
its inspectors and CSO
communities, including: training
materials and on-site assistance
for developing effective wet-
weather operating plans; the
Technical & Operational Guidance
Series website; and an Integrated
Compliance Strategy System that
collects information on New
York's entire compliance assistance
program.
Illinois offers a wastewater
operator certification program
that includes CSO operator
certification. Illinois' website also
provides links to other providers
of certification training.
5,5,3
Assistance
Compliance assistance includes on-site
assistance, website materials, and
distribution of outreach materials to
support compliance with regulatory
requirements. EPA's review found that
a limited number of CSO states
provide compliance assistance to help
communities meet CSO permit
requirements.
A review of websites for states with
CSO discharges (Table 5.4) indicated
that even states with relatively large
numbers of CSO communities did not
have CSO compliance information
readily available. A few states, however,
have programs to assist communities
with CSO compliance.
The five states highlighted below offer
CSO inspection guidance, and
technical assistance.
Maine trains its inspectors to
perform all aspects of wet weather
control.
5^30
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
Region State/Territory
CSO-Related Internet Site(s)
1 CT http://dep.state.ct.us/index.htm
http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/index.htm
ME http://www.state.me.us/dep/blwq/engin.htrrrfengin
MA http://www.state.ma.us/dep/dephome.htm
NH http://www.des.state.nh. us/waterjntro.htm
http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/wwt/web-9.htm
Rl http://www.state.ri.us/dem/
http://www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/benviron/water/quality/index.htm
VT http://www.state.vt.us/wtrboard/
2 NJ http://www.state.nj.us/dep/
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/
NY http://www.dec.state.ny.us/
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/index.html
3 DE http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/
MD http://www.mde.state.md.us/index.html
PA http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wsm/facts/fs2655.htm
VA http://www.deq.state.va.us/
http://www.deq.state.va.us/water/
WV http://www.dep.state.wv.us/
DC http://www.environ.state.dc.us
4 GA http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/
KY http://www.nr.state.ky.us/nrepc/dep/dep2.htm
TN http://www.state.tn.us/environment/
http://www.state.tn. us/environment/water.htm#Program
5 IL http://www.epa.state.il.us/
IN http://www.state.in.us/idem/
http://www.state.in.us/idem/water/facmang/compliance.html
Ml http://www.deq.state.mi.us/
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/cso%5Fsso/cso%5Fsso%5Findex.html
MN http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/index.html
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater.html
OH http://www.epa.state.oh.us/oepa.html
Wl http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/environmentprotect/water.html
7 IA http://www.state.ia.us/government/dnr/organiza/epd/comp_enf/index.htm
http://www.state.ia.us/government/dnr/organiza/epd/wastewtr/wastwtr.htm
KS http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/
http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/water/index.html
MO http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/homedeq.htm
http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/homewpcp.htm
NE http://www.deq.state.ne.us/
SD http://www.state.sd.us/denr/denr.html
8
9
10
Table 5.4
Online Information
Resources
Stats environmental agencies offer
communities a range of information
resources including fact sheets,
compliance checklists, information
on water quality standards, etc. This
list contains links to agency home
pages as well as links to CSO
information pages, where available.
.J
CA http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/
AK http://www.state.ak.us/dec/deh/water/drinking.htm
OR http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/
WA http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wqhome.html
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Illinois provides a CSO inspection
checklist in conjunction with
Region 5.
Indiana provides a CSO
inspection checklist in
conjunction with Region 5.
New Jersey is developing an
inspection manual to provide state
and local inspectors with standard
inspection operating procedures.
Pennsylvania trains its inspectors
twice each year and provides a
compliance manual for use as
guidance.
5.6 Communication and
Coordination
F I "she CSO Control Policy expects
1 that the permit writer should
JL play a critical role in the
development and implementation of
CSO controls. The permit writer is
expected to coordinate with the CSO
community, review interim LTCP
deliverables and other submissions,
and participate in the consensus-
building process with other
stakeholders. The permit writer is also
expected to serve as the point of
contact for coordination with state
water quality standards and
enforcement authorities, as
appropriate.
5,6,1
Within an NPDES authority, the
organizational structure to support
full implementation and enforcement
of all aspects of the CSO Control
Policy is often decentralized. Some
NPDES authorities (e.g., Michigan,
New York, Pennsylvania) have regional
offices with varying degrees of
responsibility for the development,
implementation, and enforcement of
the NPDES program. In some states
(e.g., Illinois, Massachusetts, Vermont,
West Virginia), responsibility for the
water quality standards program is in
an agency distinct and separate from
the NPDES authority. The permit
writer's responsibility is to ensure
open and informed lines of
communication among all interested
parties.
Many NPDES authorities use
electronic spreadsheets and databases
to track the status of efforts by CSO
communities to develop and
implement NMC and LTCP. These
electronic files are easily shared across
programs and offices, thereby
facilitating communication. Examples
of CSO tracking systems developed by
NPDES authorities are presented in
Appendix Q.
5.8,2
Several NPDES authorities have
undertaken coordination of the
activities of CSO communities
discharging to the same receiving
water. EPA's Combined Sewer
Overflows Guidance for Permit Writers
offers:
The permit writer may also be able
to assist communities in
coordinating aspects of its CSO
control programs with each other.
This might be particularly
beneficial for adjacent
communities discharging to the
same receiving water.
5^32
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
Examples of actions by NPDES
authorities to coordinate the activities
of CSO communities discharging to
the same receiving water are presented
in the following summaries.
New Jersey uses a watershed
process to develop watershed
restoration plans that include CSO
controls. During the watershed
process, water quality standards
and uses are considered as
management responses are
developed. Possible management
responses include TMDLs, LTCP
development and implementation,
and other appropriate activities.
New York determined that the
nine CSO permits with outfalls
impacting the Hudson River in the
vicinity of Albany should be
modified simultaneously. The
concurrent modification of these
permits is intended to promote
comprehensive and coordinated
planning.
Region 3, working with the Water
and Sewer Authority for the
District of Columbia, organized a
Special Panel on Combined Sewer
Overflows and Storm Water
Management in the District of
Columbia. The Special Panel
provided an opportunity for
federal land holders and other
local and regional multi-
jurisdictional government agencies
to provide input and
recommendations for CSO control
within the District of Columbia.
The Special Panel highlighted the
need for implementation of a
watershed approach and
cooperation with Maryland to
improve water quality within the
District of Columbia.
5.7 Financial Assistance
1% T PDES authorities are
| \ 1 concerned with two primary
JL 1 financial obligations with
regard to CSOs: funding the state
program's operation and assisting
CSO communities in securing funds
necessary to implement CSO control.
The primary mechanism for funding
state CSO programs is the federal
assistance EPA provides to NPDES
authorities and other agencies
responsible for implementing water
pollution control programs through
Section 106 Water Pollution Control
Program Grants. These grants are
discussed in Section 4.8.3 of this
report. No state-level data exist on
grant totals or prioritization of grants
for specific programs.
State-level data exist for the
appropriation of categorized listings
for the State Revolving Fund (SRF).
The SRF is a low-interest loan
program administered by the states
but funded by the federal government
and the states. CSO municipalities are
eligible for SRF funding under a
special combined sewer category
(Category V). Between 1988 and 2000,
over $2.0 billion was identified as
being used for CSO projects.
Figure 5.9 shows trends in SRF loans
for CSO projects over time. This
general pattern suggests that demand
for SRF loans for CSO control
associated with the 1989 National CSO
Control Strategy and the 1994 CSO
Control Policy may have lagged the
issuance of these documents by a few
5^33
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
years. It also suggests that the demand
for SRF loans for CSO projects will
continue to increase as more CSO
communities work to implement
LTCPs.
From 1988 to 1994 (pre-CSO Control
Policy), over $700 million in SRF loans
was used for Category V projects.
Since 1994, over $1.3 billion has been
used for Category V projects. Figure
5.10 shows the distribution of the SRF
money by state. Over both these
periods, Illinois, Michigan, and New
York have the highest SRF money
loaned for CSO projects. Since 1995,
many states requested noticeably
higher levels of SRF money for CSO
projects (indicative of controls from
the strategies and policies being put in
place). A notable decline in SRF
Category V loans can be seen in
Vermont (approximately $19 million
less between 1995-2000, than 1988-
1994). This reduced level of SRF
funding reflects that Vermont's CSO
program focused on sewer separation
and is nearing completion, with 20 of
27 CSO communities having
completed sewer separation projects.
Most states have state funding and
administered grant and loan programs
other than the SRF loan programs.
Many of these programs include
provisions for infrastructure or
wastewater projects that may also be
used for CSO projects. Examples of
state-specific programs targeted to
CSOs include:
Maine's grant program funds up
to 25 percent of the cost for
completion of CSO Master Plans
(the functional equivalent of an
LTCP) to encourage communities
to identify CSO control
alternatives.
Connecticut has a provision that
allows for CSO projects to receive
a 50-percent grant and a 50-
percent SRF loan. Non-CSO
Figure 5.9
SRF Loans for CSO
Prqjects,1988—2000
SRF loans for CSO projects
reached more than $245 million in
1994 and began to rise again in
1998, reaching more than $400
million in 2000. This suggests that
funding for the implementation of
CSO controls lagged several years
behind the issuances of the 1989
Strategy and the 1994 Policy.
L.
$245.4rn
S410.6m
$272.8m
$180.1m
$19tt4rn
$169.5n
$168.1m
$157.8m
$139.6m
$121.5m
$0
$14.6m
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
5^34
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
Figure 5.10
Distribution of SRF Loans
for CSO Projects by State,
1988—2000
Communities in most states have used
SRF loans for CSO projects.
r
Region/State 1988- 1995-
1994 2000
CSO CSO
Loans Loans
Pillions) pillions)
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
CT
MA
ME
NH
R!
VT
NJ
NY
DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
GA
KY
TN
IL
IN
Ml
MN
OH
Wl
IA
KS
MO
NE
SD
CA
AK
OR
WA
$23.5
$0
$4.0
$1.1
$6.5
$27.7
$2.6
$178.7
MA
$0
$1.2
$2.6
$0
$0
$0
$0.7
$0
$143.8
$0
$231.6
$0
$9.4
$8.2
$0
$0
$25.5
$5.2
$0
$60.8
$0
$2.5
$0
$51.6
$100.9
$29.4
$8.9
$11.2
$8.9
$48.5
$147.5
NA
$0
$1.2
$0
$62.3
$2.8
$0
$0
$5.0
$322.3
$41.3
$297.4
$3.9
$57.0
$0
$0
$0
$10.1
$0
$0
$107.0
$0
$21.0
$1.3
$75.1
$100.9
$33.4
$10.0
$17.7
$36.6
$51.1
$326.2
NA
$0
$2.4
$2.6
$62.3
$2.8
$0
$0.7
$5.0
$466.1
$41.3
$529.0
$3.9
$66.4
$8.2
$0
$0
$35.6
$5.2
$0
$167.8
$0
$23.5
$1.3
1988-1994 Loans CZ3 1995-2000 Loans
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
National CSO Loan Award Summary (In Millions)
i7O: •;;,,>:•
f'.U:> :';-i:v,^
Total: '-!' "-..;:}- :;?-.'\
5^35
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
As part of Portland, Oregon's sampling and
monitoring program, the city regularly
monitors the Columbia Slough at nine
locations for parameters of concern. These
include: bacteria, toxics, and nutrients.
projects are eligible to receive a
maximum 20-percent grant.
While nearly two-thirds of CSO states
have a grant or loan program, most of
these are targeted toward small and/or
financially distressed communities,
and often have fairly low funding
levels. Such programs may help
initiate the CSO planning process, but
few of these programs would help
supplement financing large capital
expenditures associated with CSO
controls.
5.8 Performance Measures
Tr~Tl erformance measures are
§==** objective, quantifiable indicators
JL to track trends and results over
time. In the case of CSOs and CSO
impacts, the Combined Sewer Overflow
Guidance for Permit Writers suggests
that performance measures generally
fall into one of four categories:
Administrative measures that
track programmatic activities such
as the number of permits
requiring the NMC and LTCPs.
End-of-pipe measures that show
trends in CSO activity, such as
reductions in pollutant loading
and the frequency and duration of
CSO events.
Receiving water measures that
show trends in in-stream
concentrations of CSO pollutants,
such as dissolved oxygen and total
suspended solids.
Ecological, human health, and
designated use measures that show
trends in conditions relating to the
use of the water, such as beach
closures and restored habitat.
All NPDES authorities have a
mechanism for tracking administrative
performance measures. This
information, as collected from the
NPDES authorities, was summarized
and presented in Section 5.2 of this
report.
As part of the data gathering effort for
this report, EPA collected data readily
available from NPDES authorities that
could be used to assess and document
other performance measures
attributable to CSO control. More
than one-quarter of CSO permit files
(266 of 859) contained data on end-
of-pipe measures, such as frequency or
volume of CSOs, typically as part of a
permit application or as part of the
system characterization activities.
Information presented in this format,
however, is most often a "snapshot" of
current conditions, based on data
collected six to 18 months prior to the
submission of the report or
application. It is not possible to
establish meaningful trends in CSO
control with this data.
Several NPDES authorities include
requirements in CSO permits for
submission of end-of-pipe data on a
monthly or annual basis, but often
have no system for tracking the
measures from year to year. For
example:
Some NPDES authorities include
requirements in CSO permits to
estimate the volume and
frequency of overflows, by outfall,
as part of a monthly discharge
monitoring report (DMR). DMRs
5^38
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
are submitted to the NPDES
authority as hard copies, and the
NPDES authority has no
electronic system for tracking data
reported by CSO communities.
Some NPDES authorities include
requirements in CSO permits for
annual reports documenting the
continued implementation of the
NMC. These reports contain
information on end-of-pipe
measures such as the number of
dry weather overflow events
during the previous year. NPDES
authorities requiring these reports
have not established a system for
compiling the data reported.
Both cases illustrate situations in
which information that could be used
to assess benefits from program
implementation is filed with the
NPDES authority but is not easily
accessed and is therefore of limited
use.
EPA's review of CSO permit files
found that less than 10 percent
contained information on specific
programs geared toward tracking
CSO-related benefits by using
receiving water, ecological, human
health, or designated use measures of
success in CSO planning activities.
The activities included measuring in-
stream water quality to establish
background and pre-control
conditions, and monitoring in-stream
pollutant characteristics during wet
weather events. Documentation of
monitoring studies was most often
presented in an LTCP, annual reports,
periodic reports, or correspondence
files between communities and
NPDES authorities. No state has
developed a system for statewide,
CSO-specific assessment.
Data associated with receiving water
or ecological performance measures
are site-specific. This makes it difficult
to track performance measures at the
state level. The CSO community case
studies developed to support this
report indicate that information
available from CSO communities may
support an assessment using these
performance measures. Additional
discussion of these measures is
provided in Section 6.6 and included
in the case studies provided in
Appendix C.
5.9 Findings
CSO
Authorities
There are 859 CSO permits
regulating 9,471 outfalls.
CSO permits regulate outfalls in
32 states (including the District of
Columbia) within nine EPA
regions.
State agencies administer the
permitting programs in 28 states;
EPA is the NPDES permitting
authority for Alaska, the District
of Columbia, Massachusetts, and
New Hampshire.
CSO
Permit
All of the 32 states with combined
sewer systems developed CSO
strategies in response to the 1989
National CSO Control Strategy
and most have mechanisms in
place to address CSOs through
5^37
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
NPDES permits or CWA
enforceable mechanisms.
Upon issuance of the 1994 CSO
Control Policy, many state
strategies were updated; however,
state programs vary in the extent
to which they specifically follow
the provisions of the CSO Control
Policy:
27 require the NMC or a suite
of BMPs that include or are
analogous to the NMC.
25 have a framework for CSO
facilities planning that is
consistent with the LTCP
approach outlined in the CSO
Control Policy.
807 (94 percent) of CSO
communities are under an
enforceable requirement, either in
a permit or an enforceable order,
to implement some level of CSO
control.
740 (86 percent) are required to
implement a set of BMPs that
includes or is analogous to the
NMC.
559 (66 percent) require
development of an LTCP.
of LTCP
v.iih
Most NPDES authorities have not
established a process for
coordinating the review of LTCPs
and the development of CSO
permits with the water quality
standards authority to determine
if revisions to the water quality
standards are appropriate.
Three states (Massachusetts,
Maine, and Indiana) have
developed statutory frameworks to
address water quality standards in
CSO-impacted receiving waters.
Assistance
Enforcement actions initiated by
NPDES authorities are mainly
administrative orders used to
establish or enforce
implementation milestones and
deadlines for CSO controls. There
have been at least 173 actions to
date.
States have provided compliance
assistance to CSO permittees by
utilizing EPA-issued guidance
documents, developing state
guidance and training materials,
hosting workshops and
conducting outreach. Most states
attempt to incorporate CSO
compliance activities within the
overall NPDES compliance
programs for the state.
States perform compliance
monitoring of CSOs through
NPDES inspections programs.
States coordinate enforcement and
compliance activities with the
region.
Funding
The SRF loan program is the
principal mechanism used by the
states to provide funding for CSO
control projects ($2.08 billion
between 1989 and 2000).
SRF loans for CSO projects in 2000
were the highest ever, accounting
5^38
-------
Chapter 5—NPDES and Other State Authorities
for $411 million (12 percent of
total SRF assistance).
State-specific loan and grant
programs exist but offer limited
funding (generally available for
use in covering planning and
program development versus
implementation costs).
'erformance
Data necessary for measuring
administrative performance of
NPDES authority efforts to
implement the Policy are readily
available and tracked.
Data needed for understanding
and reporting environmental
benefits on a statewide basis are
not readily available.
Comprehensive state data
management and analysis on
environmental progress (including
load reductions associated with
CSO control) is not being
conducted.
c '
*J \,
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOV 1 8 1996
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: January 1, 1997, Deadline for Nine Minimum Controls in
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy
FROM: Robert Percias
Assistant
Offi
ninistrator
Eorceraent and Compliance Assurance
TO: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
State Directors
*S:he purpose of this memorandum is to call your attention to
the January lT 1997, deadline for implementation of the nine
minimum controls by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permittees that have combined sewer systems.
Implementation of the nine minimum controls is the first key
milestone identified in the Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Policy (CSO Policy) and is a top Agency priority, we emphasize
the importance of meeting this deadline,, and we urge you to take
the steps necessary to achieve it.
On April 19, 1994, EPA published its Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) Control Policy in the Federal Register (59 FR 18688). The
CSO Policy was developed during a negotiated policy dialogue
which included representatives from States, environmental groups,
and municipal organizations. CSOs consist of mixtures of
sanitary sewage, industrial wastewater and storm water runoff.
During storm events, a major portion of the combined flow may be
discharged untreated into the receiving water. As noted in the
CSO Policy (59 FR at 18689):
CSOs can cause exceedances of water quality
standards (WQS). Such exceedances may pose risks
to human health, threaten aquatic life and its
habitat, and impair the use and enjoyment of the
Nation's waterways.
The CSO Policy describes a phased process for achieving
control of CSOs and compliance with the technology-based and
water quality-based requirements of the Clean Water Act. The
Hecyel8d/R«cyclabl«
J~» <~\ Prtl»a«rtlltSoif*llwl»ln««»MC«l!-.ai
> eontiln»«llM«50%riCYe!«ai'S«<
-------
firs* 'phase involves prompt implementation of best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) /best conventional '
pollutant control technology (BCT) . ' At a minimum, BAT/BCT
includes the nine minimum controls, as determined on a best
professional judgment (BPJ) basis by the permitting authority
The first phase also includes development of a long-term CSO
stand01 Plan that WU1 provide for attainment of water quality
The nine minimum controls are measures that can reduce CSOs
and their effects on receiving water quality and that should not
require significant engineering studies or major construction
They are as follows: »•*"«.
* .Proper operation and maintenance;
* Maximum use of the collection system for storage-
* Review and modification of pretreatment requirements-
* Maximization of flow to the publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) for treatment;
* Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather; '
* Control of. solid and floatable materials in CSOs-
* Pollution prevention;
* Public notification of CSO occurences and impacts;
* Monitoring of CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO
controls. See 59 PR at 18691.
The nine minimum controls are to be implemented, with appropriate
documentation, "as soon as practicable but no later than
January 1, 1997.' 59 FR at 18691.
EPA's guidance Combined Seuer Ovar-f ] OWfi, , n,H^pM fm. ^-.
Minimum cfrnrrnln (HPA-832 -8-95-003, May 1995) discusses how to
implement the nine minimum controls and to document their
implementation. This document may be obtained through EPA's
Water Resource Center (Tel. 202-260-7786) (E-mail
waterpubs®epamail. epa.gov) or through the National Small Flows
Clearinghouse (Tel. 1-800-624-8301) .
As already noted, implementation of the nine minimum
controls is a top Agency priority, and we believe it is an
essential component of a municipality's CSO control program. We
intend to track the status of implementation closely during FY
1997 through a CSO program performance plan developed under the
^"^naV6? f Ormanc5 and Results Act . Under the performance
plan^ EPA Regional and State permitting authorities will be
expected to compile and report data to EPA Headquarters durincr
the second quarter of FY 1997, and periodically thereafter
regarding various aspects of CSO program- implementation,
including implementation of the nine minimum controls by their '
cso communities.
-------
The CSO Policy contemplates that implementation of the nine
minimum controls should become an enforceable obligation through
inclusion in "^n appropriate enforceable mechanism." 59 FR at-
18691. For those permits subject to renewal before January 1,
1997,. the new permits should include a provision requiring
implementation of the nine minimum controls by January 1, 1997.
For permits not subject to renewal before January i, 1997, the
permitting authority should reopen the current permit to add a
provision requiring implementation of the nine minimum controls
by January 1, 1997, if cause exists pursuant to 40 CFR I22.62(aj
or (b) or analogous State regulations. An administrative order
to require implementation of the nine minimum controls would
normally be appropriate in instances where the CSO permittee is
in violation of a permit condition, including violation of a
permit limit incorporating narrative standards (such as no '
discharge of floatables, or no discharge of toxics in toxic
amounts) or where there is a violation of a permit condition
prohibiting exceedance of a numeric State water quality standard.
EPA has encouraged permittees to move forward to implement
the nine minimum controls prior to inclusion of such a
requirement in a permit or other enforceable mechanism, -and we
recognize that many communities have made significant progress in
implementing the nine minimum controls and in developing or
implementing long-term control plans. Permittees should be
reminded that*EPA's approach, as stated in the CSO Policy, not to
seek civil penalties for past CSO violations will not apply
unless the nine minimum controls are implemented by January 1.
1997. See 59 FR at 18697.
EPA Regions and States are encouraged to continue compliance
assistance efforts to ensure implementation of the nine minimum
controls by January 1, 1997.
If you have questions concerning this memorandum, please
contact either John Lyon of the Office of Regulatory -Enforcement
(Tel. 202-5S4-4051) or Ross Brennan of the Office of Wastewater
Management (Tel. 202-260-6928).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, P.O. 20480 --
. . .: . •- : 'JAN |4
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Water quality-based and technolo^based CSO requirements
FROM: MichaelB. Cook/Dirertfir /! . it 1 L I I
Office
Eric Schaeflfer, Director
• Office of Regulatory Enfocement
TO: Water Division Directors^ Regions 1-10
Regional Counsels, Regions 1-10
Enforcement Division Directors, Regions 1, 2, 6, 8
«*m SinCe EPA released ** Combjned Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy, in 1994
(59#R 18688), questions have arisen concerning the relationship between the water quality-
based and technology-based requirements of the Clean Water Act to CSO.S, particularly where
enforcement cases are pending or imminent. This memorandum clarifies that:
1. Because CSOs are subject to the technology-based requirements of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), permitting authorities must .specifically determine best available technology
economically achievable (BAT)/best conventional pollutant control technology (BCD on
a case-by-case basis using best professional judgment (BPJ) during the permitting
process. Given the protectiveness of properly-applied water quality standards (WQS) we
expect the combination of the nine minimum controls (NMC) and water quality-based
RA?SSrteSCribedin *e Cl° Pf °y t0 be Senerally * least •* ^gent as any apphcable
BAT/BCT requirements. Therefore, evaluation of CSO controls beyond the NMC may
appropriately focus primarily on water quality issues.
2. Enforcemfiat, permitting, and water quality programs should coordinate closely to
T(*Q/*f1 &erf*»v*+an't s*** 4>1*>K — *— ..,J_— ____ ..*._ i* t • . _.._.:_.' ... *
there is a pending enforcement case, the enforcement remedy should be""consistent with
WQS and with both water quality-based and technology-based permit requirements
resulting from the CSO planning process.
Our expectation is that NPDES permitting, enforcement, and WQS staff would work on a
cooperative basis with the permittee, following the course described below. This process
SSL?E Fp^? pa"idPfon of the CS0 Discharger in the approach to CSO planning
described in EPA s policy and guidances. In enforcement cases, court-ordered litigation
schedules or senous lack of good faith in negotiations by a defendant may influence the process
for planning and selecting a CSO remedy. • . t«ut.css
Print*) wMh IOIT/CWMU irw on MW mil
-------
The CSO Policy encourages a watershed-based apprpacb to CSO planning. TheLTCT
should include extensive analysis of current water quality conditions, including the impacts of .
CSOs and other pollution sources on WQS attainment It should evaluate the cost, performance,
and likely water quality improvements associated with a wide range of CSO control alternatives
and evaluate control measures based on cost/performance criteria (as described iri EPA guidance).
as well as CWA requirements-
Data developed during LTCP development can inform decisions about the attainability of
designated uses and the appropriateness of any WQS revisions; Data contained in the LTCP can
inmany cases be used as the basis of a use attainability analysis. State and Federal WQS
authorities need to be involved throughout the planning process to ensure mat, if the LTCP is
based in part on anticipated changes to WQS, those changes are appropriate and satisfy Federal
regulatory requirements. ,
State and Federal NPDES authorities must coordinate throughout the planning process to
ensure that the. controls in the proposed LTCP will ensure that CSOs do not cause or contribute
to any exceedance of WQS, including any applicable revisions to WQS. Stakeholders, especially
groups representing environmental interests, should be encouraged to participate actively during
the development of the LTCP, including the consideration of potential WQS revisions.
Technology-based requirements •
The CSO Policy calls for all CSO communities to implement the NMC. For each CSO
community, the NPDES authority must determine on a best professional judgment (BPJ) basis
' whether the NMC satisfy the technology-based requirements of the CWA; considering the
factors identified at 40 CFR 125.3.' The LTCP must include sufficient information concerning
these factors to support a BPJ determination by the permitting authority. A BPJ analysis of any
potential technology-based controls beyond the NMC would typically be conducted on a system-
wide basis, rather than outfall-by-outfall. ' '
We expect that, given the protectiveness of properly-applied WQS, the NMC, combined
with water quality-based controls, will generally provide a level of CSO control that meets CWA
requirements and iftt least as stringent as technology-based controls identified on a BPJ basis.
Although, the permitting authority must still perform an analysis of technology-based .
requirements, the evaluation of potential CSO controls beyond the NMC may appropriately focus
primarily on water quality issues, as described in EPA guidance.2 • •
I. EPA, \99S. Combined Sewer Overflows — Guidance for Permit Writers (EPA 832*
B-95-008), p. 3-8. ; .
2. EPA, 1995. Combined Sewer Overflowst-r-Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan
(EPA832-B-95-002). '
-------
3.
Coordination of enforcement p'ermitfing. and water
When an enforcement action is pending,^enforcement, permitting, and WQS staff (boths
State and Federal) should coordinate closely throughout the'CSO planning process, with'the. geaV
of reaching consensus on a LTCP that will meet all expected water quality-based aruT
technology-based permit requirements and is consistent with the CSO Policy.
A During the planning process; enforcement staff should clearly articulate its views
concenungtheapotormatcnessofanyprdjjosedWQS revisiqns, proposed water quality-based
and technology-based permit requirements,~ahd the adequacy of CSO control alternatives.
Issues of concern between enforcement, permitting, and WQS staff should be elevated early in
the planning process to ensure agreement on the LTCPwhen it is completed.
Assuming that there is agreement that the LTCP wU meet me expected requirements of a
Phase 2 permit, the enforcement program would men negotiate a schedule in an enforceable
mechanism for implementation of the LTCP. If a LTCP assumes future revisions to WQS, the
implementation schedule may accounrfor such revisions if there is reasonable confidence that
these revisions will become effective in the near future (i.e..." that the WQS authority will in fact
proceed with such revisions expeditiously, and that EPA will approve mem). In such a case the
schedule should include a reopener provision in the event that the anticipated revisions do not in
fact occur. Such a reopener should require the implementation of specific controls, rather man a
return to the planning phase. < . • .
If EPA concludes that.it will disapprove the anticipated revisions toWQS andpromulgate
Federal WQS, then the enforcement remedy should provide for attainment of the expected
Federal WQS. Similarly, if EPA concludes that ft will object to an anticipated State-issued
pennft and issue a Federal permit if necessary; the enforcement remedy should be consistent
with the expected conditions of lie Federal permit.
If there is disagreement among EPA programs as to whether anticipated revisions to
WQS should be disapproved, or as to whether EPA should object to an anticipated Phase 2
permit, the relevant programs should attempt to resolve the issue, and elevate it if necessary. The
enforcement program should seek aremedy consistent with the resolution of the WQS and
permitting issues, in order to ensure that the enforcement remedy is consistent with the expected
WQS and permit requirements. '
If you have questions concerning this memorandum, please contact one of us, or have
your staff call John Lyon of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement at (202) 564-4051 or Ross
Brennan of the Office of Wastewater Management at (202) 260-6928.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAY 1 9 1998
MEMORANDUM
a
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Implementation of the CSO Control Policy
Robert Perciasepe
Assistant Admini:
Office of Water
Steven A. 1
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Water Management Division Directors, Regions 1-10
Regional Counsels, Regions 1-10
State Directors
The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss implementation of the Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Policy (CSO Policy) and identify areas where heightened efforts are necessary.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the CSO Policy on April 19,
1994 (59 FR 18688), following a negotiated policy dialogue among representatives from States,
environmental groups, municipal organizations, and EPA. The CSO Policy provides for a
phased process to bring communities with combined sewer systems into compliance with the
technology-based and water quality-based requirements of the Clean Water Act. To date, EPA
has released six guidance documents and continues to work with stakeholders to foster
implementation of the Policy.
The CSO Policy is now four years old and continues to be recognized as an example of
innovation and good government. In principle, EPA and its stakeholders continue to affirm the
Policy's key themes, such as permitting flexibility, stakeholder coordination and public
participation, financial capability as a factor affecting implementation schedules, and
examination of water quality standards as appropriate. In practice, however, many challenges
remain, and implementation of the Policy has not met some initial expectations.
Nine Minimum Controls. The CSO Policy's first key milestone was implementation of
the nine minimum controls by January 1, 1997. The nine minimum controls are measures that
can reduce CSOs and their effects on receiving water quality without requiring significant
engineering studies, construction activity, or financial investment. In a November 18, 1996,
memorandum to the Regional and State Directors, we communicated the importance of meeting
this deadline.
RecyelMOTtocydibl*
PrinUd with Soy/Canola Ink on pipw Dial
contain* «t IM« SC% rwyclW flWr
-------
Under the CSO Policy, implementation of the nine minimum controls should become an
enforceable obligation through inclusion in an appropriate enforceable mechanism. The Policy
describes how the nine minimum controls and other CSO requirements are to be included in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits (renewed permits or
reopened and reissued permits) or administrative orders. The November 18,1996, memorandum
reminded NPDES authorities that the approach identified in the CSO Policy — not to seek civil
penalties for past CSO violations — would not apply unless the permittee has no discharges
during dry weather and meets the objectives and schedules of the CSO Policy, including the
January 1,1997, deadline for implementing the nine minimum controls. By now, every CSO
community should be implementing the nine minimum controls, and most NPDES permits
should contain measurable, enforceable, and specific conditions requiring implementation of the
nine minimum controls, including submittal of appropriate documentation.
Although the January 1,1997, implementation deadline has passed, our best information
from EP^ Regions and States indicates that only about 52 percent of CSO communities are
currently implementing the nine minimum controls. Approximately another 25 percent have not
yet implemented the nine minimum controls but are under an enforceable requirement to do so in
the future.
There are several reasons for this. Many communities' permits have not yet been
reissued to include the nine minimum controls, and permittees are reluctant to implement the
nine minimum controls in the absence of an enforceable requirement Some States have focused
their efforts on requiring long-term control plans or have resisted using enforcement mechanisms
as implementation tools. We believe, however, that the nine minimum controls are an essential
element of any community's CSO program and that full implementation of the nine minimum
controls is crucial to the success of the CSO Policy. The goal of 100 percent implementation
remains a high Agency priority. We will continue to track implementation of the nine rnmirmmi
controls and coordinate with EPA and State enforcement authorities as necessary to foster
compliance.
We also stress the need for communities to provide appropriate documentation that they
have implemented the nine minimum controls and for NPDES authorities to review this
information thoughtfully. To date, although 52 percent of CSO communities have implemented
the nine minimum controls, approximately 42 percent have submitted documentation. The
Agencydoes not believe documentation is simply a "paperwork" exercise. Rather,
documentation describes the community's comprehensive effort to use the nine minimum '
controls to reduce the frequency, volume, and impacts of CSOs. Without strong documentation,
a CSO community and its permitting authority cannot meaningfully assess the effectiveness of
the nine minimum controls and the extent to which additional controls, if any, may be needed.
Long-Term Control Plans. The CSO Policy calls for initial ("Phase I") NPDES permits
to require development of a long-term CSO control plan as soon as practicable, but generally
within two years after issuance of the permit, Section 308 information request, of enforcement
action requiring a plan. The long-term control plan should include measures that provide for
compliance with the technology-based and water quality-based requirements of the Clean Water
Act, including attainment of water quality standards under either the "presumption approach" or
the "demonstration approach." The subsequent ("Phase II") permit should require immediate
implementation of the control measures in the long-term control plan. The long-term control
plan should include a fixed-date implementation- schedule. Requirements for expeditious
-------
implementation of the long-term control plan should be placed in an appropriate enforceable
mechanism.
Regions and States indicate that approximately 33 percent of CSO communities are
moving ahead to implement long-term CSO controls. Approximately another 28 percent are
subject to an enforceable requirement to develop a long-term CSO control plan. We do not have
adequate information to determine how much of the current CSO planning and control activity is
being undertaken consistent with the CSO Policy.
Long-term planning consistent with the CSO Policy is key to the success of local CSO
control efforts. We urge Regional and State authorities to work actively with permittees to
ensure that long-term control plans address important elements of the CSO Policy such as
characterization, monitoring, and modeling of the combined sewer system and receiving water;
public participation; evaluation of the cost and performance of alternatives; and coordination
with State water quality standards authorities and NPDES authorities. EPA Headquarters will
continue to track progress in the development of long-term control plans consistent with the CSO
Policy.
Water Quality Standards fWOSV Long-term CSO control plans must ensure that both the
technojogy-based arid water quality-based requirements of the CWA are met. -With respect to
water quality-based requirements, the CSO Policy provides that "[development of the long-term
plan should be coordinated with the review and appropriate revision of WQS and implementation
procedures on CSO-impacted receiving waters to ensure that the long-term controls will be
sufficient to meet water quality standards" (59 FR18694). The CSO Policy places a high
.priority on eliminating or redirecting CSOs that discharge to sensitive areas such as beach areas
and shellfish beds. Remaining overflows must neither cause nor contribute to a violation of
WQS.
In locations where uses have been designated without consideration for the wet weather
conditions of urban streams, it is appropriate to evaluate the attainability of WQS. The CSO
Policy recognizes the States' flexibility to review their WQS and encourages them to define
recreational and aquatic life uses more explicitly where appropriate. Such refinements could
define, for example, seasonal conditions or a particular size storm event when primary contact
recreation would not occur. In making such adjustments to uses, however, States must ensure
that downstream uses are protected and that the use is fully protected during other seasons or
after the storm event has passed. Furthermore, a use attainability analysis would be required in
such cases, since use attainability analyses are required prior to the removal of a designated use
or the modification of a use to one requiring less stringent criteria. Such a structured scientific
analysis is an appropriate mechanism for determining the attainability of a use. In any case, if a
State b#s a reasonable basis to determine that the current designated use could be attained after
implementation of the technology-based controls of the CWA, then the use could not be
removed.
We strongly encourage Regions and States to work with permittees to ensure that long-
term plans are developed consistent with WQS. We also encourage greater coordination among
EPA, States, and permittees in refining designated uses as appropriate in CSO-impacted
receiving waters. In many cases the permittee's development of a long-term control plan, and the
State's review and revision of WQS, will occur concurrently and interdependently. Site-specific
data collected as part of the development of the long-term control plan and data from watershed
analyses should assist States in evaluating the adequacy of the long-term control plan to
-------
contribute to the attainment of WQS. Such data will also provide important information
necessary for determining whether a use is attainable and, where the designated use is not
attainable, the appropriateness of a variance or other revision to the applicable WQS. Variances
may be appropriate, in limited circumstances on CSO-impacted waters, where the State is
uncertain as to whether the WQS can be attained and time is needed for the State to conduct
additional analyses on the attainability of the WQS.
Measuring Program Performance. The CSO Policy continues to have a high level of
support within EPA and among stakeholder groups. With visibility, of course, comes scrutiny.
Understandably, the Policy continues to provoke questions about how well a flexible approach
can address a costly and complex environmental issue. In addition, implementation of the CSO
Policy is occurring amid public demands that investments in pollution control yield tangible
environmental benefits.
Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), EPA developed a pilot
performance plan to track the implementation status of the CSO Policy. Program indicators
developed under the performance plan include progress in implementation of the nine minimum
controls, development of long-term plans, and reduction in the frequency, volume, and adverse
water quality impacts of CSOs. The data base developed to implement the performance plan will
continue to provide useful insights into the status of CSO Policy implementation and will be a •
useful program management tool.
Accountability for the CSO Program is also, embodied in the Agency's Strategic Plan
under GPRA for the water program. Objectives to be attained by 2005 currently include a
30 percent reduction from 1992 levels in annual point source loadings from CSOs, publicly
owned treatment works, and industrial sources. EPA's FY1998 goal is for 80 percent of CSO
communities' permits to be issued consistent with the CSO Policy; for FY 1999, the goal is 100
percent consistency.
We also encourage you to support efforts by CSO communities to develop other, locally
defined, indicators of progress in controlling CSOs. Locally defined measures of success can
provide meaningful incentives to select and implement CSO controls that not only meet CWA
requirements but are cost-effective, tailored to local water quality objectives, and likely to yield
results that the public, and specifically rate-payers, will support.
In closing, we urge you to help make the CSO Policy a success. We remind you that
implementation of the CSO Policy continues to be a high priority for the Water Program and is
among the top program priorities for the Office of Regulatory Enforcement in FY 1998. It is
essential that all CSO communities be moving aggressively toward two important goals: full
implementation of the nine minimum controls and coordination with NPDES and WQS
authorities in the development and implementation of long-term control plans. We welcome
continued dialogue among EPA Headquarters, Regional, and State permitting and enforcement
authorities on removing any identified impediments to achieving these goals.
J£ you have questions concerning this memorandum, please contact either Ross Brennan
of the Office of Waslswater Management at (202) 260-6928, or John Lyon of the Office of
Regulatory Enforcement at (202) 564-4051.
-------
Chapter 6
CSO Control Policy Implementation
Status: Communities
f I Ihe CSO Control Policy
I established implementation
JL objectives and responsibilities
for CSO communities in stating:
[Communities] with combined
sewer systems that have CSOs
should immediately undertake a
process to accurately characterize
their sewer systems, to demonstrate
implementation of the nine
minimum controls, and to develop
a long-term CSO control plan.
EPA's Guidance for Long-Term Control
Plan (EPA, 1995f) further outlines the
expectations of the permittees:
Evaluate and implement NMC.
Submit documentation on NMC
implementation by January 1,
1997.
Develop an LTCP and submit for
review to the NPDES permitting
authority.
Support the review of water
quality standards in CSO-
impacted receiving water bodies.
Comply with permit conditions
based on narrative water quality
standards.
Implement selected CSO controls
from the LTCP.
Perform post-construction
compliance monitoring.
Reassess overflows to sensitive
areas.
Coordinate all activities with
NPDES permitting authority, state
water quality standards authority,
and state watershed personnel.
This chapter describes activities by
CSO communities to meet these
responsibilities. Specifically, the
chapter provides a discussion of the
following:
National CSO demographics
Implementation of documented
CSO controls
Implementation of the NMC
Implementation of the LTCP
In tin's
6.1 National CSO
Demographics
6.2 Implementation of CSO
Controls
6.3 Implementation of the
NMC
6.4 Implementation of the
LTCP
6.5 Financial Considerations
6.6 Obstacles and
Challenges
6.7 Performance Measures
and Environmental
Benefits
6.8 Findings
Learn More About Them...
Additional information about a number of
the community CSO programs described
in this chapter can be found in
Appendix C. Case study communities
have this symbol + next to their names.
6-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Financial considerations
Obstacles and challenges
Performance measures and
environmental benefits
6.1 National CSO
Demographics
J^"" "\ ombined sewer systems vary
| greatly with respect to size,
'^^f design and performance. Much
of this diversity is attributable to site-
specific conditions and the evolution
of systems over time to accommodate
community growth and development.
This diversity was a key consideration
in the development and issuance of
the CSO Control Policy and the
emphasis placed on the need for site-
specific CSO controls. The
introduction to the CSO Control
Policy states:
The CSO Policy represents a
comprehensive national strategy to
ensure that municipalities,
permitting authorities, water
quality standards authorities and
the public engage in a
comprehensive and coordinated
planning effort to achieve cost
effective CSO controls that
ultimate meet appropriate health
and environmental objectives. The
Policy recognizes the site-specific
nature of CSOs and their impacts
and provides the necessary
flexibility to tailor controls to local
situation.
While no two CSSs are identical,
common attributes that influence the
implementation of CSO controls
include: the number and location of
outfalls, CSS area, treatment plant size,
population served, and the
characteristics of water bodies
receiving CSO discharge. The
following sections provide
demographic comparisons in these
broad areas to better characterize CSO
communities nationwide.
8,1,1 CSO of
Systems
Nationally, 859 CSO permits have
been issued to 772 CSO communities
in 32 states. These 859 CSO permits
regulate 9,471 CSO discharge points.
The geographic distribution of CSO
permits and CSO communities is
presented in Figure 6.1. CSO permits
have been issued to the owners and
operators of two types of systems with
CSO outfalls:
Combined sewer systems that
include a POTW.
Combined sewer systems that
convey flows a POTW owned and
operated by a separate entity
under a different permit for
treatment.
Communities that maintain and
operate combined sewer systems but
send wastewater flows to regional or
remote treatment works are often
termed satellite collection systems
(SCSs). As shown in Figure 6.2, the
859 CSO permits include 642
combined systems with POTWs, 185
SCSs, and 32 combined systems that
EPA was unable to classify due to
insufficient data.
6-;
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
6.1.2CSOSize
NPDES permittees are commonly
classified by NPDES authorities as
"major" or "minor" dischargers.
Facilities are designated as "major" if
the design discharge is greater than
1 mgd. Other facilities (with flows less
than 1 mgd) can be classified as major
on a case by case basis when NPDES
authorities want a specific permit to
have a stronger regulatory focus. The
major classification is used to guide
permitting, compliance, and
enforcement activities to ensure larger
sources of pollutants are given
priority. Major facilities are typically
inspected annually and must report
monthly effluent concentrations and
loadings. NPDES authorities must
record monthly operating and
performance data in PCS for major
facilities. In addition, EPA regions
review and approve issuance and
reissuance of the permit for major
facilities. Minor facilities generally
have less stringent requirements.
Based on PCS data for the 642 CSO
permits that include POTWs, EPA
found that 70 percent of the CSO
permits were classified as major
facilities (Figure 6.3). For these same
642 CSO permits, EPA was able to
obtain secondary treatment design
flow data for 615. For these 615 CSO
permits, EPA developed a frequency
distribution based on design flows for
POTWs serving CSSs (Figure 6.4).
As shown, about 50 percent of CSO
permits are associated with POTW
design capacities less than 2.5 mgd,
and 70 percent have design capacities
of less than 7.5 mgd.
M*»
°
Figure 6.1
Geographic
Distribution of CSO
Permits
CSOs are concentrated in the
Northeast and Great Lakes
regions.
o
,o
O
6-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Figure 6.2 H
Types
0,1 .6 iormal steps outlined in section
T^. /^n/~, /-I . 1 Ti 1. . U C. nf this Pnlirv hut thrniM he
i ne uou
of CSO Facilities that the de
The owner/operators of nearly 80 t*6 difficul
percent of CSSs have a POTW iurisdictio
within their jurisdiction. The
remainder send their wastewater
to a treatment facility At the
jurisdiction. f\utnoi
papula
Control roncy recognizes •"
ivelopment of an LTCP may re(luired thwuSh their permits or
t for some small other enforceable mechanisms to
. comply with the nine minimum
controls (II.B), public
discretion of the NPDES participation (II. C.Z), and
ity, jurisdictions with sensitive areas (II.C.3) portions of
tions under 75, 000 may not this Policy.
need to complete each of the
Region/State
1 CT
MA
ME
NH
Rl
VT
2 NJ
NY
3 DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
4 GA
KY
TN
5 IL
IN
Ml
MN
OH
Wl
1 IA
KS
MO
NE
8 SD
9 CA
10 AK
OR
WA
Total
POTW
5
16
35
5
2
7
13
63
1
2
4
91
2
51
1
17
3
62
104
24
2
89
14
3
8
2
2
1
3
10
642
Satellite No
Collection Information
System Available
1
9
1
18
11
4
37 27
1
7
7
45
3
28
1
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
185 32
Total LZJ Not Identified
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
5 >
23 zzzzziii
44 zzzzzzzzzzz
5 i i
3 K
7 zz
31 i
74 i
1 o
2 L
8 i
155 ciziziziziziziziziziziziiiiz .^^^^
3 t
58 i
0 i
o
1 7 zzzzz
3 L
107 i
107 ciziziziziziziziziziziziziziziz:i_
CO [
^J £_
3 i-
no i
c?*j '
2
15 LZZZZ
3 ii
9 zz:
2 D
1
3 i
1 (
3 u
11 i l
859
permits, '•:;•• k~ hawePOTWs, i 'C>v areSCSs, and -v'"-! were not identified.
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
Category
f of Permits Percent
Facility Size Classification
V Major
W Minor
Total Facilities
448
194
55S
70%
30%
100.0%
Figure 6.3
POTW Facility Size
Classification
The category of "major POTW"
includes any facility designed to
handle more than 1 mgd. More
than two-thirds of CSO facilities
are considered major.
EPA does not have population data by
permit for CSSs, but the flow
classification data presented in
Figure 6.4 can be used as a surrogate
measure. A common engineering
standard is that 10,000 people generate
1 mgd. Using this as a guide, 70
percent of the 615 CSO permits (with
available flow data) are for facilities
with secondary treatment design flows
less than 7.5 mgd, or a population of
less than approximately 75,000.
8.1,4 CSO Receiving Waters
EPA's review of NPDES files provided
data on the types of water bodies
receiving CSO discharges. Names for
these receiving water bodies were
available in 761 of the 859 CSO
permits, with many permits listing
multiple receiving waters. The use of
names for classifying water bodies
complicates environmental analysis, as
similar names may refer to very
different waters. For example, the term
"river" fails to distinguish free flowing
waters from tidally influenced rivers,
or to differentiate waters with
significant differences based on
geographic location. Also, names of
water bodies may often reflect a
historic name as opposed to a
classification based on volume, flow,
salinity, or other characteristics. At a
national scale, however, the data allow
a comparison of the distribution of
CSOs relative to receiving water types,
as presented in Figure 6.5. As shown,
CSOs most commonly discharge to
rivers and streams.
0.1—1.0 mgd IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1
1.0—2.49 mgd ^^^^^^^^D 18%
2.5—4,9 rngd CIIIIIIIIII115%
5.0—7.4 mgd 7%
7,5—9.9 mgd 5%
10.0—-24.9 mgd j M1%
25.0—49,9 mgd L^ 5%
50.0—99,9 mgd HZ 4%
100,0—1,200.0 mgd ^^ 5%
•30%
7.5 mgd—70%
Figure 6.4
Distribution of POTW
Facility Sizes
POTWs serving combined systems
range in size from 0.1 mgd to
1,200 mgd, but most are designed
to process less than 7.5 mgd.
.J
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Figure 6.5
Types of Waters
Receiving CSO
Discharges
Discharges occur to a wide variety
of freshwater and marine
environments, but most outfalls
are located on rivers and streams.
6.2 Implementation of CSO
Controls
H, JT any community-level CSO
1 % / 1 programs predate the CSO
J^ W jL Control Policy. The design
and operation of CSSs has required
municipalities to consider wet weather
flows and system capacities in
operating, upgrading, and expanding
service. As more NPDES authorities
initiated formalized CSO programs in
the 1980s, greater attention was paid
to the implementation of controls and
to research, development, and testing
of possible control alternatives.
Although this chapter of the report
focuses on community
implementation of controls in the
context of the CSO Control Policy,
other instances of documented
controls are discussed. Documented
controls include those resulting from
implementation of the NMC, LTCP
control alternatives, or other CSO
studies or planning efforts.
Many communities have either
separated their CSS or eliminated
overflows (through system
management or outfall elimination).
Prior to this report, national tracking
and estimates of communities that
had separated or eliminated CSOs
Category
were not available. Data gathered for
this report has established a baseline
of CSO facilities (including those that
have recently separated). Complete
separation, full outfall elimination, or
substantial completion of CSO control
efforts was found for 87 CSO permits.
8,2,1 of
Implementation
During visits to states and regions,
NPDES files for 781 CSO permits were
reviewed. Data on implemented
controls for another 30 CSO permits
were on file with EPA or were
provided by the NPDES authority or
the region. In discussing
implementation, any controls
documented for these 811 CSO
permits are considered.
Documentation types included NMC
implementation reports, draft and
final LTCPs, annual CSO reports,
other engineering and planning
documents, enforcement files, and
correspondence and communication
records maintained in the NPDES
files. In the case of annual reports,
documented controls were typically
for specific reporting periods (i.e., the
previous year) rather than a
comprehensive set of CSO controls
being considered and implemented.
EPA believes that more comprehensive
#of Waterbodies Percent
Types of CSO Receiving Waters
•_' Rivers
'"" Streams
f Other
V Oceans/Bays/Estuaries
^ Ponds/Lakes
Total CSO Receiving Waters
606
538
164
69
32
1,409
43%
38%
12%
5%
2%
100.0%
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
data on the implementation of CSO
controls resides with CSO
communities. Collection of data at the
CSO community level will be a focus
of the 2003 Report to Congress.
8,2,2
of CSO
In reviewing all data available for the
811 CSO permits, EPA found:
735 (91 percent) documented
implementation of some BMP-
type or structural control to
reduce or eliminate CSOs.
EPA found that a significant number
of CSO communities submitted
documentation to the NPDES
authority for significant structural
controls implemented outside the
scope of an LTCP. Specifically, 274 (34
percent) of the 811 CSO communities
submitted documentation for project-
specific CSO controls that do not meet
all LTCP requirements, as defined by
the CSO Control Policy, but surpass
the minimal capital investment
expectations of the NMC. These
controls cover a range of activities
including:
Developing and implementing wet
weather operating plans at
POTWs.
Using existing sewer system
evaluation study (SSES) as the
basis for a CSO control program.
Continuing implementation of
CSO facility plans that pre-date
the CSO Control Policy.
The remaining sections examine CSO
control implementation based on the
requirements identified in the CSO
Control Policy and assess the status of
policy implementation at the
community level.
6.3 Implementation of the
NMC
TT mplementation of the NMC was
| expected to be one of the first
,M= steps taken by CSO communities
in response to the CSO Control Policy.
The NMC are controls that can reduce
CSOs and their effects on receiving
water quality, do not require
significant engineering studies or
major construction, and can be
implemented in a relatively short
period (e.g., within a few years). The
CSO Control Policy states that the
CSO permittee:
... should submit appropriate
documentation demonstrating
implementation of the nine
minimum controls...
and
Richmond, VA has been implementing CSO
controls since the early 1980s.The storage
tunnel at the Falls of the James River, shown,
is part of the second phase of a plan that
included increased wet weather storage and
treatment capacity.
... this documentation should be
submitted as soon as practicable,
but no later than two years after
the requirement to submit such
documentation is included in an
NPDES permit or other
enforceable mechanism.
The CSO Control Policy goes
on to specify:
... documentation should be
completed as soon as practicable
but no later than January 1, 1997.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Documentation submitted to the
NPDES authority on
implementation of the NMC
should demonstrate:
- Alternatives considered for each
minimum control
: Actions selected and reasons for
selection
: Selected actions already
implemented
- A schedule showing additional
steps to be taken
: Effectiveness of the minimum
controls in reducing/eliminating
water quality impacts
The individual NMC are not
necessarily distinct and separate from
each other. Controls can be paired or
implemented in sequence to maximize
the anticipated benefit of the controls.
Many control activities can address
more than one of the NMC at the
same time (e.g., street sweeping can
address both the "control of
solids/floatables" and the "pollution
prevention" controls). In the
Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance
for Nine Minimum Controls (EPA,
1995b), EPA indicated that the NMC
are intended to be implemented in a
holistic manner to achieve the
ultimate goal of reducing CSO
impacts.
8,3,1,
EPA found documentation verifying
implementation of at least one of the
NMC in 627 (77 percent) of the 811
CSO permit files reviewed, as well as
documentation confirming
implementation of all of the NMC in
258 permit files. The number and
percentage of CSO permits
documenting implementation of each
of the NMC is presented in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 shows that more CSO
communities have implemented the
first six of the NMC than have
implemented the last three. The first
six controls were identified in the 1989
National CSO Control Strategy (in
which they were referred to as the six
minimum measures) and were to be
incorporated into state-wide
strategies.
The Guidance for Nine Minimum
Controls states:
The NPDES permitting authority
may choose to require the
municipality to keep some records
of NMC implementation on-site
rather than requiring all
documentation to be submitted.
Given this option and the data
limitations identified in Section 6.2.1,
Table 6.1 likely underestimates actual
implementation of the NMC.
8,3,2
for the
The CSO Control Policy and EPA's
guidance provide considerable
flexibility with respect to the type and
range of activities or programs that
may be undertaken to implement any
one of the NMC. EPA found
descriptions of specific NMC activities
implemented in files associated with
381 of the 627 files with documented
implementation. Table 6.2 presents the
10 most common NMC activities
undertaken by CSO communities and
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
NMC Category Number of
Documented
Implementations
1— Proper O&M
2 — Maximize use of collection system for storage
3 — Pretreatment program review and modification
4 — Maximize flow to the POTW
5 — Eliminate dry-weather overflows
6 — Solids and f I eatables control
7 — Pollution prevention
8 — Public notification
9 — Monitoring of CSO impacts and efficacy of controls
567
571
526
561
567
478
455
450
430
%of
811 Permits
Reviewed
70%
70%
65%
70%
70%
59%
56%
56%
53%
Table 6.1
Status of NMC
Implementation
Documentation
EPA reviewed 811 perm it files for
documentation of NMC
implementation. As the table
shows, the first six minimum
controls are more widely
implemented than the last three.
.J
the number and percentages of CSO
permit files documenting use of the
activity in information submitted to
the NPDES authority. A more detailed
list of CSO controls implemented by
CSO communities to address the
NMC is presented in Appendix R.
The following subsections describe the
individual NMC and provide select
examples of implementation activities
by CSO communities.
NMC 1—
for
the CSOs,
The effectiveness of this control relies
on a well-developed operation and
maintenance (O&M) program. An
O&M program generally should
include the following:
The organizations and people
responsible for various aspects of
the O&M program.
NMC Activity
Street sweeping and cleaning
Catch basin cleaning
Public education programs
Sewer flush ing
Screens and trash racks
In-sewer storage
Solid waste reduction and recycling
Infiltration and inflow control
Industrial pretreatment
NMC
Category
6
6
8
1
6
2
1
2
3
Area/foundation drain, roof leader disconnection 2
Implementation
Frequency
181
158
101
90
84
77
68
66
61
57
% of 381
Permits
Reviewed
48%
41%
27%
24%
22%
20%
18%
17%
16%
15%
Table 6.2
10 Most Frequently
Implemented NMC
Activities
EPA found 381 perm it files with
descriptions of specific activities
undertaken to implement one or
more of the NMC. Solids and
floatables control measures
dominated the top five activities.
Six of the NMC are represented in
this list.
.J
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Planning and budgeting for operations and
maintenance procedures is needed to
ensure that expensive capital equipment,
such as this vortex separation system in
Columbus, GA continues to function
properly.
The resources (i.e., people and
funding) allocated to O&M
activities.
Planning and budgeting
procedures for O&M of the CSS
and treatment facilities.
A list of facilities (e.g., tide gates,
overflow weirs) critical to the
performance of the CSS.
Written procedures and schedules
for routine, periodic maintenance
of major items of equipment and
CSO diversion facilities, as well as
written procedures to ensure that
regular maintenance is provided.
A process for periodic inspections
of the facilities listed previously.
Written procedures, including
procurement procedures, if
applicable, for responding to
emergency situations.
Policies and procedures for
training O&M personnel.
A process for periodic review and
revision of the O&M program.
An example of implementation:
New York City, NY
New York City increased
surveillance and maintenance of
CSO regulators and pump stations
and improved wet weather
operations at its wastewater
treatment plants. These efforts
contributed to a 96-percent
reduction of bypassed flow during
wet weather events, from 1,845 mg
in FY 1989 to 61.4 mg in FY 1998.
In addition, as part of its study to
reduce floatables discharge to New
York Harbor, New York City found
ways to adjust normal operation
and maintenance activities to
prevent floatables from entering
the system. An ongoing two-year
cycle for cleaning the more than
100,000 catch basins in the city
was initiated in 1996 (NYCDEP,
1997).
NMC 2: of the
for
This control depends on the
identification of potential storage
locations where simple or minor
modifications can be made to increase
in-system storage. Several activities are
used to implement this control:
Collection system inspection to
identify deficiencies, blockages, or
accumulation of debris that limit
storage.
Removal of deposits through
cleaning and sewer flushing to
restore full storage capacity.
Inspection, maintenance and
repair of tide gates to prevent tidal
intrusions from entering the
combined sewer system during
dry and wet weather conditions.
Adjustment of regulator settings
to increase in-system storage.
Modification of catch basin inlets
to retard inflow.
Elimination of direct connections
from roof leaders and basement
sump pumps to reduce flow to the
combined sewer system.
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
Detention of runoff in upstream
areas (parking lots, streets, ponds)
to increase storage in the
combined sewer system.
Coordination of pumping
operations to maximize storage in
the combined sewer system.
Examples of implementation:
Wilmington, DE
Leaking tide gates and poorly
adjusted regulator settings allow
substantial amounts of water to
enter sewer collection systems.
This unwanted inflow uses in-
system storage and adds to
treatment costs. The City of
Wilmington observed that at high
tide, river water was spilling over a
regulating weir at one of its largest
CSO outfall structures and into
the collection system. A simple,
inexpensive solution was
employed to increase the weir
elevation by 16 inches. Pump
station records indicated that this
modification reduced inflow by
5 mgd and increased in-system
storage by an equivalent amount
during periods of wet weather
flow. A more permanent solution
was implemented when the same
weir was reconfigured during
construction of a floatables
control unit (City of Wilmington
DPW, 2000).
Skokie, IL
Skokie implemented a city wide
program to retard the delivery of
surface runoff entering the CSS.
Berms were used to increase on-
street storage, and flow restrictors
were used to reduce the peak rate
of flow entering the CSS. Skokie
constructed 871 berms on streets
and installed more than 2,900
flow-restricting devices at catch
basins. In addition, most of the
roof drains were disconnected,
resulting in a substantial reduction
in wet weather flow entering the
CSS (EPA,1999c).
NMC 3: of
to
CSO are
For this control to be effective,
municipalities must develop an
inventory of non-domestic
dischargers, assess potential volume
and pollutant impacts, evaluate the
feasibility of modifying pretreatment
programs, and implement control
measures.
Examples of implementation:
4- Richmond, VA
The City of Richmond adapted its
pretreatment program to
implement this NMC. One key
activity is that several industries
retain storm water during wet
weather events and release flow to
the CSS after the event, when
sewer system capacity is available.
Another related activity is that the
discharge of water treatment plant
residuals to the combined sewer
system is stopped during wet
weather events (City of Richmond
DPU,2001).
To properly assess pretreatment
requirements in busy industrial areas like
New York Harbor, CSS operators must
maintain an inventory of the volume and
impact of non-domestic discharges to the
system.
Learn More About Them...
Additional information about a number of
the community CSO programs described
in this chapter can be found in
Appendix C. Case study communities
have this symbol + next to their names.
6-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
San Francisco's CSO Oceanside Water
Pollution Control Plant treats an average of
17 mgd during dry weather and has 65 mgd
peak flow capacity. During wet weather,
excess flow is stored in structures that
remove sediment and floatables before the
flows are transported to the plant for
treatment.
NMC 4: of to the
for
The objective of this control is to
reduce the frequency, volume, and
duration of CSO discharges by taking
full advantage of existing facilities to
transport and treat wet weather flows.
The effectiveness of this control relies
on a thorough understanding of the
hydraulic response of the CSS and
POTW during wet weather and
identification of modifications that
allow additional conveyance and
treatment. Considerations for this
control include:
Determining the capacity of
interceptors and pump stations
that deliver flow to the POTW.
Assessing POTW processed flows
during wet and dry periods.
Comparing current flows with the
overall design capacity of the
POTW and individual unit
processes.
Evaluating the ability of the
POTW to operate acceptably at
incremental increases in wet
weather flow and potential
impacts on the POTW's
compliance with effluent limits.
Identifying inoperative or unused
treatment facilities on the POTW
site that can be used to store or
treat wet weather flows.
Developing cost estimates for
physical modifications and related
O&M.
An example of implementation:
+ South Portland, ME
South Portland installed an
extensive system of real-time flow
monitoring equipment to help
characterize its collection system
and existing CSOs. All CSO
outfalls in the system are
continuously monitored, and the
duration, overflow rate, total
volume, and time of day of each
CSO is recorded. Flow monitoring
has provided many benefits for
South Portland's CSO abatement
program. The real-time flow data
provide basic information for the
city to understand CSS
performance, enable the progress
of the CSO abatement program to
be tracked, produce information
for comparison of CSO control
alternatives, and serve as an
important component of
compliance monitoring.
(Appendix C-South Portland case
study)
5: of
Dry weather overflows are illegal
under the CWA. The elimination of
dry weather overflows was a primary
goal of the National CSO Control
Strategy. The CSO Control Policy
reiterated the importance of
eliminating dry weather overflows and
made this activity a priority for both
implementation and enforcement.
CSO permits generally contain a direct
prohibition on dry weather overflows
and require the permittee to
document and report dry weather
overflows to the NPDES authority. Yet,
little data on the occurrence of dry
weather overflows exist for
compilation at the national level. CSO
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
communities are often required to
report the annual average number of
dry weather overflows observed
during reissuance of their NPDES
permits. CSO communities usually
calculate the annual average number
of dry weather overflows based upon
data one to three years prior to
submitting the NPDES application. Of
301 CSO permit files with associated
dry weather overflow information, 278
permits (more than 90 percent)
reported no dry weather overflows.
Several methods are used to alleviate
dry weather overflows:
Adjusting regulator settings to
keep peak dry weather flows
within the combined sewer
system.
Repairing and rehabilitating
regulators to correct problems.
Maintaining regulators to remove
dry weather overflow-producing
blockages caused by trash and
refuse.
Maintaining tide gates and
removing debris to ensure that the
gates close properly to prevent
tidal intrusions from entering the
combined sewer system.
Cleaning interceptors to remove
sediment, roots, and other objects
that restrict flow.
Repairing sewers to reduce
groundwater infiltration.
Examples of implementation:
4- Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA),
Boston, MA
Through a series of "fast-track"
CSO projects, MWRA was able to
eliminate dry weather overflows
caused by capacity problems or
other structural conditions in the
metropolitan Boston area. Control
of dry weather overflows is
currently managed through field
operations, including frequent
system inspections, routine
maintenance, and as-needed
maintenance to remove
obstructions and make other
repairs.
(Appendix C-MWRA case study)
* South Portland, ME
From 1996 to 1998, all of the dry
weather overflows experienced by
the City of South Portland
resulted from power or equipment
failures. The city installed backup
power sources at key system
locations and is utilizing its
network of continuous flow
monitors to quickly identify and
eliminate dry weather overflows.
South Portland reported no dry
weather overflows during 1999.
(Appendix C-South Portland case
study)
8: of and
in CSOs
Floatables controls can be
implemented in several ways;
effectiveness is highly dependent on
design, operation, maintenance, and
site-specific conditions. Principal
options for the control of solids and
floatables include:
6-13
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Floatables control is accomplished through
pollution prevention activities such as street
cleaning and public education, and through
physical controls, such as this netting system
serving the Cleveland, Ohio area.
Communities use a variety of pollution
prevention techniques to keep floatables
from entering the CSSs, including street
sweeping.
Prevention of extraneous solids
and floatables from entering the
CSS, by reducing the amount of
street litter and encouraging
households not to flush
inappropriate items (such as
personal hygiene products) down
the toilet.
Removal of solids and floatables
from CSOs, using physical
controls to keep floatables in the
CSS or capture floatables before
being discharged to receiving
waters. Controls under this option
include baffles, trash racks,
screens, catch basin modifications,
and end-of-pipe netting systems.
Removal of floatables from surface
waters after discharge to receiving
waters. The floatables controls
under this option include booms
and skimmer boats.
Examples of implementation:
4- North Bergen, NJ
North Bergen's solids and
floatables controls consist of a
netting system that captures solid
and floatable material one-half
inch and larger in diameter. The
city has installed three end-of-pipe
netting units, four in-line units,
and two floating units to comply
with the solids and floatables
control requirements of their
NJDEP permit. Each unit has
either two or four disposable mesh
nets which are removed and
disposed when full. North Bergen
estimates it captures and removes
over 40 tons of solids and
floatables in these nets each year
that otherwise would have been
discharged into the Hudson River
and various tributaries of the
Hackensack River.
(Appendix C-North Bergen case
study).
* South Portland, ME
South Portland utilizes contracted
sweeping services to sweep the
entire 104 miles of city roadways
each spring following the
application of sand and salt over
the winter. This process yields over
2,000 cubic yards of material
annually. City streets are
continually maintained by city
personnel during the summer and
fall, and an additional 1,000 cubic
yards of material is picked up
during this period. These activities
prevent solids and floatables from
entering the CSS.
(Appendix C-South Portland case
study and EPA, 1999d).
7:
The effectiveness of this minimum
control relies heavily on public
education and outreach. Pollution
prevention activities are far reaching
and provide environmental benefits
that go beyond CSO control. Specific
pollution prevention activities include:
Solid waste collection and
recycling
Product ban or substitution to
reduce problematic packaging
waste
Control of illegal dumping
Bulk refuse disposal
Hazardous waste collection
6-14
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
Water conservation
Commercial and industrial
pollution prevention
Examples of implementation:
Seattle, WA
As part of its Water Smart
Technology Program, Seattle
Public Utilities offers financial
incentives and technical assistance
to commercial customers who
install water conservation
technologies. Incentives are
available for replacement of
cooling systems and cooling tower
modifications, water recycling
applications, cleaning processes,
toilets, laundry equipment, and
irrigation operations with water
efficient technologies. Technical
assistance is provided in the form
of water bill analysis, on-site water
audits, life cycle cost analysis,
building design, brochures, and
speaking engagements (Seattle
Public Utilities website).
4- Rouge River Program, Ml
As part of its outreach effort, the
Rouge River National Wet Weather
Demonstration Project in
Michigan initiated the "Rouge
Friendly Business Program." The
program works with small
business owners to help them
complete a facility management
self-assessment form. The
program then suggests the
implementation of source controls
such as storage and disposal of
non-hazardous materials, grease
handling, and managing outdoor
work areas. The program
recognizes and promotes
businesses that make the suggested
changes and demonstrate river-
friendly pollution prevention
practices. As of 2000, 25
businesses have been officially
recognized. As part of the
recognition, businesses receive a
certificate and a window decal
(EPA, 1999d).
NMC 8: to
the
of CSO
CSO
Public notification programs are
intended to reduce the exposure of the
general public to potential health risks
associated with CSO discharges.
Techniques used to implement this
measure depend on local
circumstances and the presence or
absence of CSO-impacted recreational
and commercial resources. Public
notification activities include:
Posting informational signs at
visible CSO outfalls and near
outfalls where the public has
access to the impacted shoreline.
Posting signs at affected use areas
(e.g., bathing beaches) where use
restrictions occur.
Placing notices in newspapers or
on radio or television to alert the
public to severe or recurring
problems.
Maintaining telephone hot lines or
websites to keep the public
appraised of problems and
changing conditions.
The Detroit Water and Sewerage Division
created Snoop-A-Saurus to increase
participation in its Rouge-Friendly Business
Program.The logo was also used by the
Rouge River National Wet Weather
Demonstration Project, which had more
public education funding, to broaden
exposure.
Oxbow Meadows is an environmental
learning center in Columbus, GA. Columbus
also maintains the Uptown Park CSO
Technology Demonstration Facility, which is
open for public tours and educational
activities.
6-15
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
The Allegheny County Health Department
raises orange flags labeled "CSO" near
outfalls in Pittsburgh to warn waterfront
visitors when CSOs cause or contribute to
elevated bacteria levels.
The effectiveness of this minimum
control relies upon the CSO
community's ability to tailor programs
around site-specific conditions and
keep information provided to the
public as current as possible. Public
notification is effective only if the
community is actively engaged and
educated.
Examples of implementation:
King County, WA
King County works jointly with
the City of Seattle and the Seattle-
King County Health Department
in posting signs at CSO locations
and undertaking public outreach.
The Health Department maintains
a CSO information line and a
website dedicated to CSOs that
addresses the following questions:
What is a CSO?
Are CSOs a new problem?
What is the CSO Public
Notification Program?
What does the warning sign
look like and mean?
Why are CSO warning signs
going up now?
What will happen if I go in
the water near a CSO sign?
What if my dog goes in the
water near a CSO sign?
Will I get sick from eating the
fish I catch near these signs?
What is being done to control
CSOs?
What can I do to keep local
water safe and clean?
How much rain does it take
for a CSO discharge to occur?
How long does water stay
contaminated after a CSO
discharge?
Can CSOs be eliminated?
(King County CSO Control
Program website).
Allegheny County, PA
The Allegheny County Health
Department implemented a public
notification program designed to
warn recreational users of health
risks in CSO-impacted waters in
the Pittsburgh area. The program
includes publishing advisories in
local newspapers and producing
public service announcements on
local television stations to educate
the public of the dangers
attributable to CSO discharges.
The department also places orange
warning flags that read "CSO" at
30 locations near CSO outfalls.
The flags are raised to warn
recreational users whenever CSO
discharges cause or contribute to
elevated levels of bacteria. The
flags are lowered when "safe" levels
have returned. The Health
Department also established a 24-
hour phone line to provide
advisory updates (CSO
Partnership website).
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
NMC 9: to
CSO the
of CSO
Understanding the characteristics of
the CSS, the hydraulic response to
rainfall, and impacts of CSO
discharges is critical to the success of
any control program. The expectation
of this control is the use of visual
reconnaissance and simple monitoring
methods to develop a basic
understanding of the combined sewer
system. More advanced monitoring
and modeling during LTCP
development and implementation
serve to supplement this control.
Examples of characterization measures
include:
Assemble maps, reports, and other
existing information to provide a
reference for CSO assessment.
Monitor and record the
occurrence and frequency of
overflows through visual
inspection, inspection aids such as
chalk and wood blocks, and
automatic monitoring equipment.
Track citizen inquiries, water
quality data, and other readily
available information on impacts
to recreational uses and other
impairments.
The effectiveness of this control
depends on utilizing available
monitoring data and the CSO
community's ability to develop and
implement simple monitoring
measures to characterize the combined
sewer system and the magnitude of
CSO impacts.
An example of implementation:
Randolph, VT
Randolph is using block testing at
its two CSO outfalls to determine
whether an overflow event has
taken place. Block testing is a
simple and inexpensive way to
evaluate the frequency of CSO
discharges. Block testing involves
resting a block of wood on the
dam or diversion structure at the
CSO outfall and checking on a
regular basis to see if it has been
dislodged by a CSO event. Block
testing is being used to confirm
the success of local sewer
separation efforts and best
management practices in reducing
overflows at Randolph's CSO
locations.
(Appendix C-Randolph case
study).
6.4 Implementation of the
LTCP
f'"~ "I oncurrent with the
1 implementation of the NMC,
%=/ the CSO Control Policy
expects that:
Permittees with CSOs are
responsible for developing and
implementing long-term CSO
control plans that will ultimately
result in compliance with the
requirements of the CWA. The
long-term control plans should
consider the site-specific nature of
CSOs and evaluate the cost
effectiveness of a range of control
options/strategies.
6-17
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
CSO communities are generally
expected to complete the development
of an LTCP within two years of being
required to do so in an NPDES permit
or other enforceable mechanism.
6,4,1 of
LTCP
Based on EPA's review of 811 CSO
permit files, 275 (34 percent)
permittees had submitted a draft LTCP
to the NPDES authority and 139
(17 percent) had documented
implementation efforts. The review
also revealed that NPDES authorities
had approved 155 (56 percent) of 275
submitted LTCPs as sufficient to attain
water quality standards. The review
showed that 30 CSO permittees
(11 percent of 275) had initiated
implementation of the LTCP while
awaiting approval by the NPDES
authority. Conversely, 38 CSO
permittees (14 percent of 275) with an
approved LTCP have not documented
with the NPDES authority that
implementation has been initiated.
Nine CSO permits (3 percent of 275)
had developed and submitted an LTCP
despite having no requirements to do
so. These nine cases reflect
municipalities that are not required to
develop an LTCP by their permit (see
discussion in Chapter 5 on reasons for
not having a requirement), but which
moved ahead with development and
implementation of CSO controls
within the scope of the CSO Control
Policy. In most of these cases,
municipalities had a basis for CSO
planning prior to the issuance of the
CSO Control Policy and adapted
planning efforts to be consistent with
the CSO Control Policy without being
required to do so.
LTCP
The CSO Control Policy identified two
general approaches for attaining water
quality standards: the "demonstration"
and "presumption" approaches. Both
approaches provide municipalities
with targets for CSO control that may
meet the water quality-based
requirements of the CWA, particularly
protection of designated uses.
Based on the 275 LTCPs filed with
NPDES authorities:
95 (35 percent) followed the
demonstration approach.
70 (25 percent) followed the
presumption approach.
110 (40 percent) used a
combination of the two
approaches, submitted LTCPs
prior to the issuance of the CSO
Control Policy, or not enough
information was obtained during
the file review to classify the
approach.
Additional information on the
demonstration and presumption
approaches is provided in Section
2.4.2 of this report.
8,4,3 CSO
for
In reviewing the NPDES authority
files, EPA found descriptions of 578
specific CSO controls, beyond the
NMC, that have been or will be
implemented by 268 permittees as
part of an LTCP, or other CSO control
program. Documentation of an
additional 280 specific CSO controls
was found for another 171 CSO
communities not required to develop
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
an LTCP. Based upon this review, these
858 controls documented by CSO
communities are classified as
collection system controls, storage
controls, or treatment controls. In
general:
Collection system controls are
measures that remove flow from,
or divert flow within, the CSS to
maximize the conveyance of flow
through the combined sewer
system to the POTW. This
category includes inflow/
infiltration control, pump station
capacity upgrades, expanded
interceptor capacity, regulating
devices and backwater gates,
inflatable dams, flow diversion,
real-time control, and sewer
separation.
Storage controls are measures that
temporarily store combined
sewage for subsequent treatment
at the POTW once capacity
becomes available. This category
includes in-line storage, retention
basins, and tunnels.
Treatment controls are measures
that reduce the pollutant load in
CSO discharges. This category
includes coarse screening, primary
sedimentation, increased
treatment plant capacity,
Category
swirl/vortex technologies, and
disinfection.
The number of CSO controls
documented in the permit files for
these three categories is presented in
Figure 6.6. The 10 CSO controls that
most frequently have been or will be
implemented as part of an LTCP are
presented in Table 6.3. A detailed
summary of all documented CSO
controls implemented by the CSO
communities as part of an LTCP is
presented in Appendix R. The CSO
controls implemented or selected for
implementation suggest that CSO
communities have considered a range
of controls as expected by the CSO
Control Policy.
As shown in Table 6.3, sewer
separation was the most widely
implemented CSO control. Complete
or limited sewer separation has been
implemented or planned by the
majority of CSO communities for
which documentation of CSO controls
was found in the NPDES authority
files. Limited sewer separation is a
prevalent solution for communities
that have small areas served by
combined sewers; these areas often
lend themselves to separation.
#of Permits Percent
Controls Implemented for LTCP
V Collection System Optimization/Control 387 45.1%
¥ Treatment 258 30.1%
? Storage 213
Total Controls 636 100,0%
Figure 6.6
Distribution of CSO
Control Measures
Implemented as Part of
an LTCP
CSO controls used as part of an
LTCP are relatively evenly
distributed between treatment
storage, and collection system
improvements. Notably, collection
system controls are dominated by
sewer separation actiwties.
.J
fi 1Q
u 13
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table 6.3
10 Most Frequently
Implemented LTCP
Controls
LTCPs usually employ a
combination of controls. Sewer
separation accounts for more than
half of CSO control measures
found in LTCP documentation.
Other measures are more
uniformly distributed in the
frequency analysis.
of an LTCP
The CSO Control Policy lists nine
minimum elements that should be
addressed, as appropriate, in the
development of an LTCP. This section
describes each element, discusses the
types of activities to be considered,
supplies supporting data where
available, and provides CSO
community examples for some of the
elements.
Modeling
The CSO Control Policy states:
Permittees with combined sewer
systems that have CSOs should
immediately undertake a process
to accurately characterize their
sewer system.
and
The purpose of the system
characterization, monitoring and
modeling program initially is to
assist the permittee in developing
appropriate measures to
implement the nine minimum
controls and, if necessary, to
support development of the long-
term CSO control plan.
System characterization, monitoring,
and modeling activities support the
selection and implementation of cost-
effective CSO controls. Hydraulic
responses of the combined sewer
systems to wet weather events need to
be understood to enable CSO
communities to estimate pollutant
loadings from CSOs. When the system
is properly characterized, the effect of
pollutant loads in receiving water
under existing conditions and under a
series of CSO control options can be
evaluated.
System characterizations range from
simple to more complex activities that
can include:
Delineating sewershed boundaries.
Gathering and reviewing existing
data on flow, hydraulic capacity,
receiving water quality, and
rainfall.
Identifying existing collection
system conditions and problems.
Control Number of % of 439 Permits
LTCP Control
Sewer separation
Sewer rehabilitation
Retention basins
Disinfection
Primary sedimentation
Storage tunnels and conduits
Upgraded WWTP capacity
Outfall elimination
Upgraded pump station capacity
Swirl concentrators/vortex separators
Category Implementations
Collection System 222
Collection System 73
Storage 71
Treatment 71
Storage 69
Storage 66
Treatment 64
Collection System 63
Collection System 53
Treatment 31
Reviewed
51%
17%
16%
16%
16%
15%
15%
14%
12%
7%
8^20
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
Quantifying CSO flows and
pollutant loads.
EPA's review of CSO files revealed that
369 (45 percent) of the 811 CSO
permit files reviewed contained
information on the miles of combined
sewer maintained by the CSO
community and/or the acres served by
combined sewers. This information
was typically required as part of the
NPDES permit application or
included in NMC documentation. The
CSO file review also revealed:
259 CSO files (32 percent) with
documentation of the frequency
of CSO events, by outfall, for one
or more years.
197 CSO files (24 percent) with
documentation of annual CSO
discharge volumes, by outfall, for
one or more years.
45 CSO files (6 percent) with
receiving water monitoring data.
In addition, EPA's review of CSO files
found that 121 (15 percent) contained
information indicating that the CSO
community intended to develop either
a collection system or receiving water
model to support development of an
LTCP.
Examples of implementation:
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
District (NEORSD)
NEORSD serves the greater
Cleveland metropolitan area. One
focus of NEORSD's CSO control
is Mill Creek Watershed, the
17,000-acre service area of the
Mill Creek Interceptor. System
characterization activities
implemented by NEORSD within
the Mill Creek Watershed Study
included:
Identifying 175 CSO and
storm water outfalls
discharging to Mill Creek and
its tributaries.
Monitoring at 17 sites to
characterize the volume and
characteristics of discharges
during storms.
Monitoring at a network of
four receiving water stations
to characterize flow and
quality during dry and wet
weather conditions.
Assessing aquatic life and
habitat at 11 sites in Mill
Creek for biological health
indicators including the
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation
Index, Invertebrate
Community Index, Index of
Biological Integrity, and
sediment quality and in-
stream toxicity.
(WEE, 1999b)
New York City, NY
New York City conducts extensive
combined sewer system and
receiving water monitoring. The
monitoring program data provide
the basis for the estimation of
CSO flows and loads, and for
receiving water quality
assessments. The major pollutants
of concern are bacteria, BOD,
solids, and toxics. By 1998 the city
had sampled 124 CSO outfalls for
up to five rainfall events, for a
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
total of 600 outfall sampling
events. The city has performed
over 46,000 analyses to determine
the characteristics of CSOs. In
addition, the city monitors 52
stations in New York Harbor
bimonthly on a year-round basis
to track trends.
New York City uses three models
to assess the relationship between
pollutant sources and water
quality response:
A landside model of the
combined sewer system that
simulates CSO loads in
response to rainfall inputs;
A hydrodynamic model of
circulation in New York
Harbor; and
A water quality model of the
Harbor that simulates the fate
and transport of pollutants.
The monitoring and modeling
program has helped the city to
identify priority areas and identify
appropriate control measures for
these locations (WEF, 1999b).
Coordination and communication
with the public and regulatory
agencies is important in establishing a
basis for communicating CSO issues
and in discussing proposed controls
during the LTCP process. Given the
potential for significant expenditures
of public funds to implement CSO
controls, establishing early
communication with the public is an
important first step in the long-term
planning approach, and crucial to the
success of a CSO control program.
The importance of public
participation is stressed in the CSO
Control Policy:
In developing its long-term CSO
control plan, the permittee will
employ a public participation
process that actively involves the
affected public in the decision-
making to select the long-term
CSO controls.
Examples include:
Birmingham, MI
The City of Birmingham designed
its public participation process to
educate and involve as many
citizens as possible. The process
included four primary
components:
Public hearings and
notification on siting and
funding alternatives for CSO
control and abatement
projects.
Creation of an Ad Hoc
Citizens' Advisory Committee
to review alternative CSO
abatement plans as well as
design concepts, including site
planning, architectural
considerations, and park
restoration considerations.
Development and distribution
of press background materials
(including identification of
appropriate contacts within
the city to respond to media
inquiries) prior to and
throughout the construction
of a 5.5 mg retention basin.
8^22
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
Direct mailing to residents in
the neighborhood where
construction took place.
(CSO Partnership website).
Wilmington, DE
The centerpiece of the City of
Wilmington's public participation
program was a series of three
public meetings on the
development of the LTCP. The
meetings included presentations
covering CSOs in the city, the
LTCP process, flow monitoring,
the use of computer models to
evaluate alternatives, and details
on CSO control alternatives under
consideration by the city,
including costs. Meeting attendees
were given the opportunity to
comment on the proposed
controls and other aspects of the
planning process. The city
distributed questionnaires
designed to encourage attendees
to provide suggestions and
opinions on CSO control
alternatives, the appropriate level
of CSO control, priority areas for
CSO control, and paying for CSO
control. A summary of the
question-and-answer portion of
each meeting was prepared and
distributed to those in attendance
(City of Wilmington DPW, 2000).
of
The CSO Control Policy identifies
several categories of receiving waters
eligible to be classified as "sensitive
areas." CSO communities are expected
to identify and give the highest
priority to controlling CSOs that
discharge to sensitive areas during the
development of the LTCP. The CSO
Control Policy also provides that
communities discharging to sensitive
areas will be targeted for priority
attention from the NPDES authority.
Sensitive areas are defined by the
NPDES authority in coordination with
other federal and state agencies, where
appropriate, and include the
following:
Outstanding National Resource
Waters
National Marine Sanctuaries
Waters with threatened or
endangered species and their
critical habitat
Waters with primary contact
recreation (e.g., beaches)
Public drinking water intakes or
their designated protection areas
Shellfish beds
EPA found information on sensitive
areas in 250 (31 percent) of the 811
CSO permit files reviewed. Based on
this review, the number of permits
with CSOs discharging to the various
types of sensitive areas is summarized
in Table 6.4. As shown, primary
contact recreation waters are the
dominant type of sensitive area
impacted by CSO discharges.
This summary may not represent a
true national picture of discharges to
sensitive areas for two reasons. First,
CSO communities were given limited
guidance on the identification of
sensitive areas. Second, some states
classify all water bodies as primary
The CSO Control Policy expects CSOs that
discharge to sensitive areas, such as salmon
spawning streams, will be given highest
priority for controls.
8^23
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
contact recreation waters.
Nevertheless, CSO communities do
appear to be giving consideration to
sensitive areas in the development and
implementation of LTCPs.
Examples include:
4- Muncie, IN
Muncie's LTCP gives priority to
eliminating discharges to sensitive
areas. A subcommittee of Muncie's
Citizens CSO Advisory Committee
was established to determine those
areas along the White River
considered to be the most sensitive
with respect to parks, schools, and
places of public use. CSOs that
discharge to identified sensitive
areas are to be eliminated,
relocated, or treated (Appendix
C-Muncie case study).
4- San Francisco, CA
San Francisco's LTCP gives
priority to eliminating discharges
to sensitive areas. A CSO outfall at
Baker Beach in the Golden Gate
National Recreational Area was
eliminated on the basis of the
sensitivity of the habitat.
(Appendix C-San Francisco case
study)
* MWRA, Boston, MA
MWRA identified four receiving
waters with critical use areas
analogous to sensitive areas. The
presence of swimming or
shellfishing in each receiving water
made protection of these resources
a priority. MWRA's goal is to
reduce the frequency of overflows
to zero per year in these areas
through implementation of sewer
separation and CSO relocation. As
shown in Table 6.5, this
prioritization has reduced
overflows in two of the four
critical use areas, with full
implementation expected by 2008.
(Appendix C-MWRA Case Study)
of
The CSO Control Policy expects that
CSO communities will consider and
evaluate a reasonable range of control
alternatives during LTCP
development. Further, it expects that
LTCPs will evaluate options bounded
by full control and no control, so that
a reasonable assessment of cost and
performance could be made. As
evidenced by the top 10 CSO controls
presented in Table 6.3 and the detailed
summary of CSO controls contained
in Appendix R, CSO communities
Table 6.4
Sensitive Areas
Affected by CSO
Discharges
Primary contact recreation waters
are the sensitive areas most often
impacted by CSO discharges.
Number of
Type of Sensitive Area
Waters with primary contact recreation (e.g., beaches)
Other/unspecified
Public drinking water intakes/designated protection areas
Waters with threatened or endangered species/habitat
Shellfish beds
Outstanding National Resource Waters
National Marine Sanctuaries
CSOs
178
45
10
9
7
1
0
% of 250 Permits
Reviewed
71%
18%
4%
4%
3%
<1%
0%
8^24
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
Critical Use Area
N. Dorchester Bay
S.Dorchester Bay (1)
Neponset River
Constitution Beach
CSO Control
CSO Relocation
Separation
Separation
Separation
1997 Baseline
78 per year
22 per year
17 per year
16 per year
2001
21 per year (2)
19 per year
0 per year (3)
0 per year (3)
Projected 2008
0 per year
0 per year
0 per year
0 per year
1. Treatment (screening and disinfection) provided in 1997
2. Modified baseline following additional characterization
3. Sewer separation completed in 2000
appear to have considered a range of
control alternatives as expected by the
CSO Control Policy.
Examples include:
4- Richmond, VA
Richmond considered a full range
of CSO control alternatives as part
of its Long Term CSO Control
Plan Re-Evaluation. The range of
alternatives included:
Sewer separation
In-system storage
Disinfection
High-rate filtration
Retention basins
Swirl concentrators
Sedimentation basins
Screening
Additional conveyance
capacity
BMPs and source control
Expansion of the POTW
CSO controls were evaluated based on
a thorough analysis of CSO volume
and frequency, water quality, financial
impacts, and public input. (Appendix
C-Richmond case study)
Cost/performance considerations
enable CSO communities to identify
and select the most cost-effective level
of CSO control, often referred to as
the knee-of-the-curve. This is the
point at which incremental pollution
reduction or water quality
improvement diminishes relative to
increased cost. As stated in the CSO
Control Policy,
The permittee should develop
appropriate cost/performance
curves to demonstrate the
relationship among a
comprehensive set of reasonable
control alternatives that
correspond to the different ranges
specified...this should include an
analysis to determine where the
increment of pollution reduction
achieved in the receiving water
diminishes compared to increased
costs.
This type of analysis provides
communities with information
necessary to compare LTCP control
alternatives in relation to
Table 6.5
MWRA Critical-Use
Prioritization Program
Results
MWRA developed its LTCP based
on a water body use and
sensitivity analysis. The program
reduced CSO discharges to
sensitive areas from 133 to 40 in
three years and is expected to
eliminate CSOs by 2008.
.J
Before selecting CSO controls such as tunnel
storage for wet weather flows, Richmond, VA
evaluated many alternatives in view of CSO
frequency and volume reductions, control
effectiveness, financial impacts, and public
input.
8^25
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
performance, cost and environmental
benefit in choosing the most
appropriate solution.
Examples include:
4- Muncie, IN
The Muncie Sanitary District
(MSD) is currently in the process
of selecting cost-effective CSO
abatement alternatives for the
LTCP. At least eight alternatives are
being evaluated using knee-of-the-
curve analysis. Storage basins,
increased pumping and
wastewater treatment capacity, in-
system storage, sewer separation,
and various combinations of these
controls are being considered.
Complete sewer separation and
"no action" are also included as
MSD evaluates alternatives for its
LTCP. Additionally, MSD is
considering the impact of local
sewage rate increases when
evaluating alternatives and
implementation schedule.
(Appendix C-Muncie case study)
The operational plan provides a
framework for the coordinated
operation of the CSS and all of its
facilities in a manner that reduces
overflows and provides maximum
levels of treatment to wet weather
flows. The CSO Control Policy states
that:
After agreement between the
permittee and the NPDES
authority on the necessary CSO
controls to be implemented under
the long-term CSO control plan,
the permittee should revise the
operation and maintenance
program developed as part of the
nine minimum controls to include
the agreed-upon long-term CSO
controls.
Maximizali
Pi.
;;§ of at
This LTCP element builds upon NMC
4, maximization of flow to the POTW
for treatment. The CSO Control Policy
expects that:
Figure 6.7
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Using Knee-of-the-
Curve
Knee-of-the-cur¥e analysis can
shed light on the cost-benefit
relationships between
alternatives. It is often the case
that the most expensive
alternative yields marginal
benefits in comparison to a more
affordable option.
L.
$50m
!{!> Alt. 7— —.4 overflow days per year
S4C
SSCrn
$20m
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
In some communities, POTW
treatment plants may have
primary treatment capacity in
excess of their secondary treatment
capacity. One effective strategy to
abate pollution resulting from
CSOs is to maximize the delivery
of flows during wet weather to the
POTW treatment plant for
treatment.
See example provided in Section 6.3.2
of this report.
Development of an implementation
schedule is typically based upon a
combination of financial,
environmental, and other site-specific
factors. The CSO Control Policy
expects that:
The permittee should include all
pertinent information in the long-
term control plan necessary to
develop the construction and
financing schedule for
implementation of CSO controls.
The scheduling and phasing of
construction activities can be based
upon the following:
Elimination of CSOs to sensitive
areas
Use impairment
Financial capability
Grant and loan availability
User fees and rate structures
Other variable funding
mechanisms and sources of
financing
In particular, the CSO Control Policy:
... recognizes that financial
considerations are a major factor
affecting the implementation of
CSO controls...[and]...allows
consideration of a permittee's
financial capability in connection
with a the long-term CSO control
planning effort, WQS review, and
negotiation of enforceable
schedules.
It should be noted that many of the
communities nearing full
implementation of controls or
realizing environmental benefits from
CSO controls have worked on CSO
abatement since the 1970s.
Monitoring
The CSO Control Policy expects that:
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 controls.
CSO communities are responsible for
conducting a monitoring program
during and after LTCP
implementation to aid in determining
the effectiveness of the overall LTCP
controls in meeting CWA
requirements and in attaining water
quality standards. Pre- and post-
construction monitoring data were
not typically found in the data
maintained in NPDES authority files.
Like most cities, Chicago maintains excess
primary treatment capacity to accommodate
wet weather flows. Shown is a primary
clarifier at a Chicago-area POTW.
8^27
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
6.5 Financial Considerations
f 1 uccessful implementation of an
"*%=, LTCP rests upon the ability of
%~,,J1 the CSO community to obtain
funding for the selected controls in a
sustained manner so that controls can
be implemented and paid for over
time. The financial capability of the
community is a major factor in
determining the implementation
schedule for the LTCP. In fact, the
CSO Control Policy expects:
NPDES permitting authorities
should consider the financial
capability of permittees when
reviewing CSO control plans.
The method of securing financing
is also important. The CSO
Control Policy states that each
municipality....is ultimately
responsible for aggressively
pursuing financial arrangements...
This section outlines the funding
options available to CSO communities
and describes the specific approaches
taken by several CSO communities to
secure funding to implement the
LTCP.
8,5,1
A variety of capital funding options
are available for CSO projects,
including:
CSO control self-
financing typically occurs through
the issuance of bonds,
establishment of special reserve
funds, or the funding of CSO
control projects with annual taxes,
water and sewer fees, or other
revenues.
SRF programs can offer low or
zero interest loans, guarantees of
repayment, bond insurance, and
refinancing of existing debt under
certain conditions.
The federal
government has several programs
that provide assistance for CSO
projects. Most are offered only to
small and economically
disadvantaged communities.
Twenty-eight states
have grant programs that vary
significantly in funding level and
restrictions.
Special assessment districts can be
used to fund projects for a specific
geographic area (require legal
arrangement to charge those
receiving the service for capital or
operating costs of the project). In
addition, proffers or exactions of
contribution of land, services, or
facilities from private sector
development companies for rights
to connect to a water/sewer system
in the future.
These funding options are not
available to every CSO community.
For example, some CSO communities
may have difficulty obtaining long-
term bond financing due to limited
experience in obtaining debt
financing. In addition, separate grant
or loan assistance programs for CSO
communities are not available in all
states. CSO communities generally
identify their best funding options
6*"
-L
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
after reviewing all the funding sources,
considering benefits and limitations,
and determining applicability.
Specific examples of funding option
combinations used by CSO
communities to cover the costs of
CSO control are presented below.
4- Burlington, IA
The City of Burlington used a mix
of Federal Community
Development Block Grants,
federal grants, and bonds to
finance CSO control. The city has
been working on a sewer
separation project in the Hawkeye
drainage basin since 1988. The
total cost of the project is
projected to be $13.3 million. In
1998, the city was awarded a
Federal Special Infrastructure
grant for $7 million. The city is
providing the local cost-share for
this project through bond issuance
and user fees.
(Appendix C-Burlington case
study)
Western Port, MD
The town of Western Port, with
approximately 2,750 residents,
developed a CSO control program
that cost nearly $1.5 million to
implement. Because of its
proximity to and involvement
with a local paper company,
Western Port was eligible for grant
funding from the Federal Bureau
of Mines and the Soil
Conservation Service. This grant
covered one-third of project costs.
The community also secured a
low-interest SRF loan from the
Maryland Department of
Environment. The SRF loan
covered another third of the
project costs. A grant from the
Federal Community Development
Block Grant program covered
one-fifth of the project costs, and
a county grant covered 3 percent
of the project. The net result was
financing from a number of
funding sources that enabled
Western Port to keep user fees at
an acceptable level of 1.2 percent
of median household income
(EPA, 1995d).
Randolph, VT
Preliminary engineering and
design work for Randolph's CSO
abatement program took place
between 1991 and 1994. This work
was funded through the State
Planning Advance Program, with a
total cost of approximately
$250,000. Randolph spent an
additional $2.66 million on LTCP
development and CSO abatement
by 1997. Funding for this
additional cost was obtained
through state grants (25 percent),
SRF loans (50 percent), and from
the town's annual operating
budget (25 percent).
(Appendix C-Randolph case
study)
6.6 Obstacles and Challenges
fTlhe CSO Control Policy
| establishes a consistent national
JL approach for controlling
discharges from combined sewer
systems to the nation's waters through
the NPDES permit program. As
described in the CSO Control Policy:
fi
U
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
CSO communities like Bayonne, NJ have
invested heavily in CSO control and sewer
rehabilitation, a necessity given the age of
their sewer infrastructure. Many, however,
express frustration over a perceived lack of
well-defined environmental endpoints for
CSO control.
The purpose of the [CSO] Policy is
to coordinate the planning,
selection, design, and
implementation of CSO
management practices and controls
to meet the requirements of the
CWA and to involve the public
fully during the decision making
process.
CSO communities have made progress
in developing and implementing CSO
controls as required by permits and, in
some cases, enforcement actions. But a
number of challenges remain before
the goals of the CSO Control Policy
and the CWA are achieved. These
challenges have been articulated by
CSO communities and their
consultants in a number of formal and
informal settings, including: panels
and outreach activities on the CSO
and other wet weather programs;
stakeholder meetings on wet weather
issues convened under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act; EPA-
sponsored listening sessions on
impediments to meeting the water
quality-based provisions of the CSO
Control Policy (EPA, 1999e), surveys
by stakeholders including AMSA and
the CSO Partnership (Appendix G),
and a stakeholder briefing on this
Report to Congress (Appendix I).
A common concern expressed by CSO
communities is that the application of
the CSO Control Policy has not
resulted in well-defined endpoints for
CSO control. In particular, the
presumption approach does not
ensure attainment of water quality
standards. CSO communities are faced
with the decision to move forward
with major capital investments for
CSO controls under the presumption
approach that may not meet water
quality-based objectives of the CWA,
and with no assurance that additional
CSO control will not be required.
EPA has identified the following key
concerns expressed by CSO
communities in the years since the
CSO Control Policy was released:
Need for additional financial and
technical resources
Complexity of water quality
standards review process
Uncertainty about the roles of
EPA and state regulatory agencies
Applicability of the watershed
approach and competing priorities
within water programs
This section presents additional
information on the challenges faced by
CSO communities in implementing a
level of control that meets the
expectations of the CSO Control
Policy.
8,8,1
The 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Report to Congress (CWNS) estimates
the investment necessary to address
the nation's municipal water quality
needs. CSO "needs" are the estimated
costs to complete all CSO control
projects eligible for SRF funding
under the CWA. Needs include costs
associated with facilities used in
conveyance, storage, and treatment of
CSOs. Annual operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs, however,
are not part of the CWNS. The CWNS
estimates that needs associated with
CSO controls, excluding O&M, total
8^30
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
$44.7 billion (in 1996 dollars). The
CWNS estimate is based on the
presumption approach to CSO
control, which provides primary
treatment for wet weather flows and
assumes four to six untreated overflow
events per year.
CSO communities raised concerns
that the CWNS underestimates the
actual level of control that will be
needed to meet the requirements of
the CWA. In particular, they noted the
presumption approach may not
provide a sufficient level of control to
provide for the attainment of current
water quality standards.
The CSO Control Policy identifies
attainment of water quality standards
as one of its fundamental objectives:
A primary objective of the long-
term CSO control plan is to meet
water quality standards, including
the designated uses, through
reducing risks to human health
and the environment by
eliminating, relocating or
controlling CSOs to the affected
waters.
Water quality standards consist of
designated uses, narrative or numeric
criteria to support these uses and an
antidegradation policy and
implementation procedures to protect
the water quality improvements
attained. There is considerable
variability in the criteria that states use
to protect recreational uses because
not all states have adopted EPA's
Ambient Water Quality Criteria For
Bacteria—1986 (see Table 6.6). The
BEACH Act of 2000, discussed above,
required Great Lakes and coastal states
to adopt by April 2004, the 1986 water
quality criteria for bacteria (E.coli
and/or enterococci).
EPA recommends that states and
tribes adopt these criteria for they are
more protective of human health for
gastrointestinal illness than fecal or
total coliform. EPA recognizes the
difficulties some states and tribes have
had in adopting E.coli or enterococci
as water quality criteria for bacteria
and drafted implementation guidance
to assist in the adoption process. EPA
expects to publish final
implementation guidance by the end
of 2001.
The CSO Control Policy encourages
CSO communities and states to
coordinate the development and
implementation of the LTCP with the
review and, if appropriate, revision of
water quality standards to ensure that
the CSO controls will be sufficient to
meet water quality standards. The
CWA and the CSO Control Policy
expect NPDES permits requirements
to ensure that CSOs will not interfere
with the attainment of water quality
standards.
CSO communities, states, and
environmental and CSO
constituencies have voiced a number
of different opinions on the timing of
water quality standards reviews in
relationship to the development and
implementation of the LTCP. EPA
recently published Guidance:
Coordinating Long-Term CSO Planning
with Water Quality Standards Reviews
to lay a strong foundation for
integrating CSO long-term control
planning with water quality standards
6-31
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table 6.6
Bacteriological
Indicators Used By
States
States vary in their use of indicator
bacteria to establish water quality
standards. Several states use a
combination of indicators, but
many rely solely on fecal coliform.
review. Many CSO communities and
other stakeholders do not understand
the water quality standards review
process, the analyses required to revise
the standards and the role the public
plays in influencing any revision to a
standard. The guidance outlines a
process to facilitate agreement among
CSO communities, states, and EPA on
the data to be collected and the
analyses to be conducted to support
both the LTCP development and water
quality standards reviews. Integrating
the processes should provide greater
assurance that CSO communities will
implement affordable CSO control
programs that meet appropriate water
quality standards.
CSO communities identified a
number of areas in which they feel the
CSO Control Policy is not explicit.
Specific concerns related to:
The attainment of water quality
standards with implementation of
LTCP.
Region
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
State
CT
ME
MA
NH
Rl
VT
NJ
NY
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
DC
GA
KY
TN
IL
IN
Ml
MN
OH
Wl
IA
KS
MO
NE
SD
CA
AK
OR
WA
Freshwater Indicator Bacteria
Enterococci/Fecal Coliform/Total Coliform
£ co//
Fecal Coliform/Total Coliform
£ co//
Fecal Coliform/Total Coliform
£ co//
Enterococci/Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform/Total Coliform
Enterococci
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
£ co//
£ co///Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
£co///Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
£Co///Enterococci/
Fecal Coliform/Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
£ co//
Fecal Coliform
Marine Indicator Bacteria
Enterococci
Enterococci
Fecal Coliform
Enterococci
Fecal Coliform
Enterococci/Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform/Total Coliform
Enterococci
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Enterococci/
Fecal Coliform/Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
8^32
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
The review and approval process
for LTCP.
The definition of "primary contact
recreation waters" as related to
sensitive areas.
of
Standards
The attainment of water quality
standards in urban waters often
cannot be achieved solely through
CSO control. Other point source
discharges, including storm water, and
contributing nonpoint sources must
also be controlled. Integration of
LTCP development in a watershed
context would alleviate some concerns
about meeting water quality standards
and equity. CSO communities are well
positioned to participate in watershed
efforts, but not well positioned to lead
them.
of LTCPs
Of the 275 LTCPs submitted by CSO
communities as of June 2001, 180 (65
percent) have received formal approval
from the appropriate NPDES
authority. The remaining
(unapproved) LTCPs are generally
being reviewed by the NPDES
authority, or being revised based on
comments or questions received
during the review process. CSO
communities are often unable or
unwilling to commit to the substantial
funding required to implement an
LTCP without prior review and
approval by the NPDES authority.
Further, EPA has not issued guidance
specific to the review and approval of
LTCPs. The combined result has been
delay in implementing some LTCPs.
Delays can result in the need to revise
an LTCP to reflect new data and cost
information.
The CSO Control Policy defines
sensitive areas to include:
(1) Outstanding National Resource
Waters, (2) National Marine
Sanctuaries, (3) waters that provide
habitat for threatened or endangered
species, (4) waters with primary
contact recreation, (5) waters used for
public water supply, and (6) shellfish
beds. NPDES permitting authorities,
however, have substantial discretion in
designating sensitive areas.
CSO stakeholders have voiced concern
that most states use
fishable/swimmable as their default
designated use. Consequently, if waters
with primary contact recreation is
interpreted broadly, it could trigger
sensitive area designations for a large
percentage of receiving waters
nationwide. These stakeholders assert
that during the CSO Control Policy
development negotiations, criterion 4
above was expressed in terms of
swimming or bathing beaches or
beaches with contact recreation. In the
CSO Control Policy, however, the
language reads, "waters with primary
contact recreation." Stakeholders
reiterated that this is a critical
distinction.
Marina on the Chicago River, Chicago. In
urban areas, CSO control alone will not
achieve attainment of water quality
standards. Other pollution sources must also
be evaluated and addressed, such as storm
water, nonpoint source runoff, and
commercial sources.
6-33
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
.-.:("-/*• •• B*"«W>J—,--«: >-{-. » vgpP' ••"••-
'•'-'-'^'fyj^i"'
i^iPfc^.^;";:
Louisville, KY changed its approach to water
quality monitoring to support its watershed-
based management program. Instead of
monitoring tojust to meet permit
requirements, subwatersheds are monitored
for water quality changes. The results are
used to support sewer system modeling,
planning, and management decision-
making.
The CSO Control Policy provides that:
"Permitting authorities are to
evaluate water pollution control
needs on a watershed management
basis and to coordinate CSO
control efforts with other point and
nonpoint source control activities."
Despite this provision, CSO
communities raised concerns over the
way EPA and NPDES authorities
compartmentalize the management of
water programs. This
compartmentalization impedes
holistic management of wet weather
water quality problems on a watershed
basis. Many CSO communities have to
implement controls and extensive
planning, monitoring, and reporting
efforts for a variety of wet weather and
related programs that are not well
coordinated at the NPDES authority
level. These include:
Phase I NPDES permit
requirements for municipal
separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s) serving communities with
over 100,000 population, and for
storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity, including
construction activity disturbing at
least five acres of land;
Phase II NPDES permit
requirements for MS4s serving
smaller communities and
construction sites (to be
implemented by March 2003);
Sanitary sewer overflow (SSO)
management activities under
permitting and enforcement
requirements developed by states
and EPA regions;
Source Water Assessment and
Protection Programs, under the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments, to identify potential
threats to areas serving as sources
of drinking water and to
implement protection efforts; and
TMDL studies, wasteload
allocations for point sources, and
load allocations for nonpoint
sources.
These programs often have separate
implementation schedules and
monitoring, outreach, and reporting
requirements. Leadership in
developing an LTCP to consider
watershed issues is often absent.
An example of a CSO community
taking the lead on watershed-wide
issues:
Louisville & Jefferson County
Metropolitan Sewer District,
KY (LJCMSD)
LJCMSD has worked to integrate
five local programs covered by
NPDES permits, including CSOs,
using watershed-based monitoring
and management strategies.
LJCMSD identified a lack of
coordinated monitoring and
assessment data as the biggest
obstacle to improving water
quality. Each permit program had
its own staff, priorities, operating
procedures, sampling program
databases, and lists of facilities.
Little information-sharing took
place between programs, and field
personnel were spread thin, with
8^34
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
two- and three-person teams
trying to cover enormous areas
during the same wet weather
event, often gathering different
samples at the same locations. It
was nearly impossible to establish
long-term monitoring sites
throughout LJCMSD for each of
the five NPDES programs.
LJCMSD developed a Combined
Annual Report (a unified report
format) that considers permit
requirements and watershed issues
as a whole. This effort has
improved the effectiveness of
LJCMSD's management activities
and the ability of LJCMSD to
track progress.
(Appendix C-Louisville &
Jefferson County Metropolitan
Sewer District case study)
6.7 Performance Measures and
Environmental Benefits
ll s a matter of policy, EPA
Ul encourages communities to
JL a monitor and track
environmental benefits associated with
CSO control. The CSO Control Policy
specifies:
...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.
The overall goal of the prescribed
post-construction monitoring is to
determine compliance with the CWA
and the overall effectiveness of the
LTCP in achieving water quality
standards. The CSO Control Policy
did not establish or recommend any
other programmatic measures of
performance for CSO communities
that could be used to quantify and
document the results and effectiveness
of CSO controls.
8,7,1
In 1996, AMSA, in cooperation with
EPA, published Performance Measures
for the National CSO Control Program
(AMSA, 1996). The purpose of the
report was to establish a
recommended series of performance
measures for use by communities to
track improvements and results
associated with CSO control. The
report identified and described 24
performance measures grouped into
four broad categories (Table 6.7).
These categories of performance
measures paralleled those identified
for permitting authorities'
consideration in EPA's Combined
Sewer Overflow Guidance for Permit
Writers (see Section 5.8 for a
discussion of these categories).
8,7,2 and
Establishing CSO performance
measures provides the foundation for
assessing loading reductions and
environmental benefits. The
administrative and end-of-pipe
categories provide a direct measure of
CSO reduction and controls. The
receiving water and ecological/human
health/resource use categories provide
a direct measure for assessment of
environmental benefits achieved from
CSO control.
6-35
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table 6.7
CSO Control
Performance Measures
A major part of CSO control is
assessing the effecti¥eness of the
controls and measuring
improvements in receiving waters.
Common sense, local conditions,
and cost-effectiveness should
drive the selection of performance
measures.
These indicators are generally the
result of analysis from extensive
monitoring and tracking programs.
Monitoring and tracking programs are
complicated by several factors. Chief
among them is that many measures,
particularly water quality measures,
require monitoring during wet
weather conditions. Monitoring
during wet weather conditions cannot
be scheduled in a routine manner, but
must instead be scheduled in response
to CSO-producing rainfall events.
Another complicating factor is that
weather conditions and rainfall totals
are highly variable from storm to
storm and year to year, making
comparisons difficult. Monitoring
programs need to be targeted and
implemented in a consistent manner
from year to year to be able to
establish pre-control baseline
conditions and to identify meaningful
trends over time as CSO controls are
implemented.
1 —Administrative
Documented implementation
status of NMC
Documented implementation
status of LTCP
Waste reduction
In practice, it is often difficult, and in
some instances impossible, to link
environmental conditions or results to
a single source of pollution, such as
CSOs. In most instances, water quality
is impacted by multiple sources, and
trends over time reflect the change in
loadings on a watershed scale from a
variety of environmental programs.
8,7.3
Although the methodology for this
report did not emphasize the
collection of data on loading
reductions or environmental benefits,
EPA did seek out existing, readily
available data that could be used to
measure of environmental benefits
attributable to CSO control. Most
relevant data and information were
based upon local data submitted by
CSO communities in annual or
periodic reports, and from
information collected and
documented in the case studies (see
Appendix C).
2—End-of-Pipe
Pollutant load reduction
BOD load
TSS load
Nutrient load
Floatables
3—Receiving Water
Dissolved oxygen trend
Fecal coliform trend
Floatables trend
Sediment oxygen demand trend
Trends of metals in bottom
sediments
Flow measurement
Wet weather flow budget
CSO frequency
Frequency in sensitive areas
CSO volume
Volume in sensitive areas
Dry weather overflow
4—Ecological/Human Health Resource Use
Shellfish bed closures
Benthic organism index
Biological diversity index
Recreational activities
Beach closures
Commercial activities
8^38
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
EPA's observations on tracking CSO
loading reductions and environmental
benefits are as follows:
Most of the available data
necessary to assess environmental
benefits originate from the CSO
communities in databases or
published reports.
Data submitted by CSO
communities on CSO control
program effectiveness and loading
reductions are not compiled at the
state level in a way that can be
easily assessed or distilled.
The limited available information
on environmental benefits comes
mainly from CSO communities
that initiated CSO controls prior
to the CSO Control Policy and
constructed facilities intended to
protect water quality and
designated uses. These
communities are farther along
than communities still in the
LTCP development and early
implementation stages.
Environmental benefits associated
with CSO control may also be
attributable and non-
distinguishable from other wet
weather program controls that
have been put in place.
While a national assessment of
performance measures could not be
undertaken, EPA's review of select
CSO community materials clearly
shows that major improvements in
flow and load reduction and water
quality have been documented in a
few cases. Examples of performance
measures and associated
environmental results for CSO
communities follow this discussion.
The information provided on
environmental results draws
substantially on material from CSO
communities that initiated CSO
control programs before the CSO
Control Policy. The benefits realized in
these CSO communities are likely to
be achieved by other communities as
more and more CSO control solutions
are implemented.
of
4- Chicago, IL
The frequency of CSO discharges
in Chicago has decreased from 80
per year to 15 per year due to
construction of the Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago's Tunnel and
Reservoir Plan (TARP) system. In
addition, the volume of combined
sewage captured and treated in
TARP reached a cumulative total
of 565 billion gallons in 2001.
(Appendix C-MWRD Case Study)
4- Saginaw, MI
The majority of the City of
Saginaw is served by combined
sewers, which discharge during
wet weather into the Saginaw
River. In 1990, an estimated 2,928
million gallons per year of CSO
was discharged. Development of a
plan to construct seven retention
treatment basins for CSO control
was also initiated in 1990.
Implementation of this plan
reduced overflows to 760 million
gallons of treated overflow per
year, and eliminated the direct
discharge of untreated combined
sewage under virtually all
circumstances. The range of
Table 6.8
Pollutant Removal
Capability of Retention
Treatment Basins on
the Saginaw River
Wet weather retention treatment
basins have helped reduce CSO
discharges by 75% and yielded
similar pollutant removal rates in
Saginaw, Ml.
..J
CSO Variable
Volume
BOD
TSS
Phosphorus
Ammonia
Percent Removal
22—59%
50—83%
50—82%
35—78%
39—84%
6-37
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
pollutant removal accomplished in
the retention treatment basins is
presented in Table 6.8.
(Appendix C- Saginaw Case
Study)
* LJCMSD
LJCMSD operates a combined
sewer system in a heavily
urbanized area that covers 24,000
acres. Within the system, 115
CSOs discharge to the Ohio River
and tributaries that cross through
Louisville and neighboring
communities. LJCMSD has
submitted a draft LTCP that
includes sewer separation and a
variety of other CSO controls.
Partial implementation of this
plan has yielded the elimination of
5 CSOs, a 27-percent reduction in
CSO frequency, and a 13-percent
reduction in CSO volume.
Substantial additional benefits are
expected to accrue when the LTCP
is fully implemented.
(Appendix C-Louisville &
Jefferson County Metropolitan
Sewer District case study)
of
New York City, NY
New York City has operated a
monitoring program to assess
pollution in the New York Harbor
since 1909. As stated in the 1998
New York Harbor Water Quality
Survey:
Through developments and
upgrades to New York City's
sewage treatment system, as well
as operational improvements
implemented over the past 10
years, and a suite of aggressive and
innovative pollution control
programs, the New York City
Department of Environmental
Protection has:
Virtually eliminated raw sewage
discharges.
Reduced illegal discharges by
more than 90 percent.
? Increased wet weather floatables
capture to almost 70 percent.
Reduced toxic metals loadings to
the waste stream from industrial
sources by over 90 percent.
As a result of these actions there is
strong evidence of improvement
to New York Harbor's water
quality and surrounding
environment. These range from
the reestablishment of breeding
populations of herons, egrets and
other waterfowl in several areas of
the Harbor, to improved benthic
communities in the lower New
York Bay and include:
The opening of all New York
City public beaches for the
first time since 1922 and the
lifting of wet-weather
swimming advisories for all
but three of the beaches.
The upgrading of 68,000 acres
of shellfish beds since 1985
and the removal of shell
fishing restrictions for 30,000
acres in Raritan Bay.
The reestablishment of
Hudson River Shortness
sturgeon.
8^38
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
A 50-90 percent reduction
from peak levels of priority
pollutants in fine-grained
sediment in the Hudson River.
Further evidence of
improvement in water quality
is presented in Figure 6.8,
showing long-term trends of
improving dissolved oxygen
(increasing) and fecal coliform
(decreasing) conditions in
New York Harbor. These
trends are due to a
combination of pollution
control programs including
CSO control, wastewater
treatment improvement and
expansion, and other point
and nonpoint source controls
(NYCDEP, 1999).
Dissolwed
Oxygen
Lewels
(Average)
Class SB—|
fish
propogation
and survival
:
\
/•
fish propogation
and survival
2,000 -
r
Maximum Concentration
\
$ FeeaS C of i forms
per 100 ml 200 •
(Geometric Mean)
-V
Maximum Concentration
1975
1980
1985
1995
2000
Figure 6.8
New York Inner Harbor
Water Quality
Improvements Due to
Pollution Controls
Over a 20-year period, dissolved
oxygen levels have increased and
fecal coliform counts have
decreased as a result of ongoing
pollution control programs,
including implementation of CSO
controls.
..4
fi "
U
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table 6.9
Pollutant Removal
Capability of Two CSO
Treatment Facilities in
Columbus, GA
Remote wet weather treatment
facilities, combined with
improvements to the CSS, have
reduced annual discharges of CSO
contaminants by at least 52%.
Columbus, GA
Columbus fully implemented CSO
control program includes POTW
upgrades, sewer separation, new
water resource treatment facilities,
and a variety of pump station and
collection system improvements.
Monitoring on the Chattahoochee
River shows that water quality and
beneficial use improvements have
been the direct result of CSO
control. The Chattahoochee now
meets water quality standards for
fecal coliform and other
parameters. The river in the
downtown area is also free of
trash, oil and grease, and other
sewage debris. In addition, the
City constructed a river walk and
other riverside amenities that
benefit residents and visitors in
conjunction with CSO controls. As
part of its LTCP, Columbus
constructed two remote facilities
to provide treatment for excess
wet weather flows. The
documented pollutant removal
capability of the two treatment
facilities is presented in Table 6.9.
(Appendix C-Columbus case
study)
Pollutant
BOD
TSS
Fecal coliform
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Removal as
% of Annual Load
55—61%
52—62%
95—99%
66—75%
62—83%
62—82%
•4 Rouge River Program, Ml
The Rouge River National Wet
Weather Demonstration Project
covers 467 square miles of mostly
urbanized areas in the greater
Detroit area of southeastern
Michigan. CSO controls have been
implemented since the late 1990s,
and the demonstration project's
monitoring program is beginning
to show environmental benefits
associated with CSO control.
Some of the key results and
accomplishments are:
About 30 miles of the Rouge
River that was CSO-impacted
in 1994 are now completely
free of uncontrolled CSO
discharges.
The first two years of performance
monitoring data for the first six
CSO basins shows the following:
About 72 percent, or 933
million gallons, of combined
sewage that previously went to
the river was captured and
treated at the Detroit POTW.
Previously untreated overflows
that occurred in excess of 50
times/year are now treated
and occur from one to seven
times per year.
Results from continuously
monitored stations show
improvements in river
dissolved oxygen conditions
due to upstream CSO control
projects and other watershed
management measures/
changes.
(Appendix C-Rouge River
Case Study)
840
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
Rochester, NY
Abatement of CSOs in Rochester
dates back to planning that
occurred in the 1960s and to
initiation of CSO controls during
the 1970s. The Monroe County
Rochester Pure Waters District
implemented numerous CSO
projects over the past three
decades. These include
construction of a deep rock
storage and conveyance tunnel
system, construction of new
treatment facilities, and
improvement of existing facilities.
Benefits associated with this
mature CSO control effort are
numerous and include increased
recreational use of previously
impacted waterways and land-
based riverfront redevelopment.
An example of the improved water
quality condition in the Genesee
River below the CSO area is
presented in Figure 6.9 (AMSA,
1996).
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN
The twin cities of Minneapolis
and St. Paul, Minnesota,
completed separation of their
combined sewer system in
summer 1996. This marked the
completion of a $332-million
program to eliminate over 21,000
acres of combined sewers. The
separation has reduced fecal
Figure 6.9
Genesee River Water
Quality Improvements
Due to CSO Controls
The City of Rochester has
documented a 20-year reduction
in fecal coliform below its CSO
outfall due to additional storage
and improved treatment
capabilities.
..J
•1,750
Maximum Geometric Mean
(200FC/100mL)
900
925
675
;749;
655
500
250
300
305 298 I I 305
310
200
175
100
125°-
175
130
45
81
42
'100 110
~ 17
Number of Fecal Coliforms per HOOmL (Geometric Mean}
99
10
11
11
5 5 5 " 6
6 6
7 8
July-August Awerage Rainfall (Inches)
1976n977;l978'1979;1980'1981=1982;l983;1984;1985'1986=1987'1988;1989;1990'1991 =1992-1993;199419951996 =19971998 ;1999'2000
841
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table 6.10
Benefits of CSO
Controls in San
Francisco Harbor
Since implementing CSO controls,
San Francisco has reduced the
number of CSO events and
pollutants of concern by an
average 88%, and beach closings
have been reduced by 94%.
L.
coliform levels in the Mississippi
River and has been credited with
the marked increase in game fish
population in the metropolitan
area near the twin cities.
An indicator of improved water
quality is the return of the may fly,
which requires clean water to
complete its life cycle (CSO
Partnership website).
4- San Francisco, CA
San Francisco has been engaged in
CSO planning and management
since 1970, and its LTCP was fully
implemented in the late 1990s.
The city has an ongoing sampling
program to evaluate the problems
caused by overflows and to assess
the environmental improvements
gained from the program's
implementation since 1972. CSO
volume and frequency and CSO
pollutant loads have been reduced
substantially since CSO controls
were implemented. Beach closings
were reduced, directly benefitting
the city's swimming, surfing, and
sailboard enthusiasts. A summary
of environmental benefits
associated with CSO control in
San Francisco is contained in
Table 6.10. (Appendix C-San
Francisco case study)
6.8 Findings
SO
There are 859 CSO permits issued
to 772 CSO communities.
642 permits regulate POTWs
serving combined sewer areas; 185
permits regulate SCSs.
EPA estimates:
30% serve areas with
populations less than 10,000
50% serve areas with
populations less than 25,000
70% serve areas with
populations less than 75,000
CSO outfalls are permitted to
discharge to the following types of
water bodies: rivers (43 percent),
streams (38 percent),
oceans/estuaries/bays (5 percent),
ponds/lakes (2 percent), and
others such as ditches, canals,
unclassified, etc. (12 percent).
>>O
Many municipalities have CSO
requirements in NPDES permits
or enforceable mechanism (e.g.,
order, decree) and are taking
action to address CSO controls.
Item
Number of CSO events
AnnuaieSQVoIume(MG)
Suspended Solids Discharge
BODS Discharge (tons/year)
Beach Postings (days/year)
Before CSO Control
58-80
7,500
(tons/year) 3,550
2,700
200
After CSO Control
1-10
1,350
450
300
12
% Reduction
75-98%
81%
87%
89%
94%
842
-------
Chapter 6—Communities
91 percent of communities have
implemented some CSO controls
as a result of permit or
enforcement requirements, or on a
voluntary basis.
77 percent documented
implementation of at least one of
the NMC as described in the CSO
Control Policy; 32 percent
documented implementation of
all NMC
The most commonly reported
measures to implement the NMC
were improving operation and
maintenance, maximizing
collection system storage,
maximizing flow to the POTW,
and elimination of dry weather
overflows.
34 percent have submitted draft
LTCPs; another 34 percent have
documented implementation of
CSO controls that were not
developed as part of an LTCR
Communities with LTCPs are
pursuing attainment of water
quality standards in roughly equal
measure under three approaches -
demonstration, presumption, and
a combination.
Communities are relying on a
wide range of technological
approaches to address CSOs
including storage (e.g. tunnels),
expanded treatment capacity,
sewer separation, and improved
conveyance.
Communities are using a
combination of local funding
sources, SRF loans, state grants
and loans and in special cases
—line item congressional
appropriations to fund CSO
controls.
bstaeles
CSO LTCP controls typically
involve major infrastructure
investments that often compete
with other infrastructure
activities.
Many reasons, including
institutional barriers, exist for the
lack of coordination between the
LTCP development and water
quality standards review processes.
States cite public pressure to
maintain their water quality
standards, EPA requirements for
UAAs, and the lack of water
quality monitoring data that could
be used to justify standards
revisions. Municipalities consider
the lack of a clear water quality-
based endpoint to be a major
impediment to development of
LTCPs that will provide for CWA
compliance, particularly when
urban waters are affected by more
than CSOs.
Municipal data on efficacy of the
NMC and LTCPs are highly
variable and not easily accessible
to EPA and the states. Municipal
data on the environmental and
public health impacts and
improvements are very site-
specific and not easily collected or
distilled.
CSO communities have to
implement controls and extensive
planning, monitoring, and
reporting efforts for a variety of
wet weather and related programs
843
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
that are not well coordinated at
the NPDES authority level. These
programs often have separate
implementation schedules and
monitoring, outreach, and
reporting requirements.
To the extent that environmental
data necessary to assess the
environmental impacts of CSO
and the benefits achieved from
CSO controls is collected at all, it
is done at the community level.
Most environmental benefits cited
in this report are site-specific and
generated from community-level
reporting or through research for
case studies.
The limited data available indicate
marked improvements in water
quality for some communities
implementing controls; however, it
is difficult to attribute
improvements to any one source
of controls when other wet
weather program controls are also
being implemented (e.g., storm
water, TMDLs, etc.).
844
-------
Chapter 7
Evaluation of the CSO Control Policy
4 ctivities undertaken by EPA,
jLjl states, and CSO communities
JL JLto implement and enforce the
CSO Control Policy were discussed in
Chapters 4, 5, and 6, respectively. This
chapter synthesizes the findings from
earlier chapters to evaluate the
progress of the CSO Control Policy in
controlling CSOs and protecting
human health and the environment.
In particular, this evaluation assesses
the CSO Control Policy in the
following areas:
General implementation and
enforcement.
Adherence to the four key
principles of the CSO Control
Policy.
Accomplishments attributable to
implementation and enforcement
of the CSO Control Policy.
This chapter concludes with a
discussion of next steps to be taken by
EPA based on report findings.
7.1 Implementation and
Enforcement of the CSO
Control Policy
r i ^here has been definite progress
I in implementing and enforcing
A CSO controls prior to, and as a
result of, the CSO Control Policy. The
strength of the CSO Control Policy is
its recognition of the site-specific
nature of CSOs and the flexibility
given to states and CSO communities
to develop cost-effective approaches to
achieving CSO control. The CSO
Control Policy provides a federal and
state level of recognition of the
importance of controlling CSOs,
stimulating dialogue at the local CSO
community level, and satisfying a need
to get communities moving toward
CSO control. Significant investments
have been made by some CSO
communities to reduce the frequency,
volume, and duration of CSOs.
Increased protection of human health
and water quality has been
documented in a number of these
cases.
In fills
7.1 Implementation and
Enforcement of the CSO
Control Policy
7.2 Observations Related to
the Four Key Guiding
Principles of the CSO
Control Policy
7.3 Accomplishments
Attributable to
Implementation and
Enforcement of the CSO
Control Policy
7.4 Next Steps
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
rfi
Storm drain stencil project in a New Jersey
CSO community. Most CSO permittees
generally follow the concept of the NMC in
their CSO control programs.
However, while progress has been
made with respect to implementation
and enforcement of CSO controls,
challenges remain. Outside of judicial
enforcement cases, there is limited
implementation oversight by EPA, and
there are still a number of CSO
communities that have not made
significant progress in controlling
CSOs. Further, the issuance of a policy
as opposed to a regulation impacted
implementation and enforcement of
CSO controls. The variability in
program implementation and
enforcement described in Section 7.2.2
is due in part to states' decision-
making (how to implement within the
NPDES process, what to require, what
could be required, and timing of
requirements). In some cases, states
obtain funds and legal support based
on new regulations which they must
implement, not policy. Additional
resources to implement and enforce
the CSO Control Policy were not
provided or prioritized by the states
themselves because it is a policy. Some
states must place NPDES-related
requirements into state regulatory
code and have been challenged by its
legislatures as to the necessity for a
regulation to implement a policy.
7.1,1
According to data collected for this
report, there are currently 772 CSO
communities with 859 NPDES
permits for CSSs in 32 states, which
authorize discharges from 9,471 CSOs.
Reductions in the number of CSS
permits and CSOs have been observed
since the issuance of the CSO Control
Policy. This is due to increased efforts
by states and CSO communities to
control CSOs (e.g., sewer separation,
more effective operation and
maintenance, etc.) and to the fact that
some systems had previously been
inappropriately identified as CSSs by
NPDES authorities.
Of the 859 NPDES permits that
authorize CSOs, a significant number
(740 or 86 percent) contain conditions
that generally follow those delineated
in the CSO Control Policy, and a
smaller number (67 or 8 percent)
contain other types of conditions to
control CSOs. There are 52 CSO
permits without enforceable
requirements to address CSOs. Where
the requirements to address CSOs
were absent from the NPDES permit, a
number of reasons were cited by
NPDES authorities: (1) CSO permits
are simply part of the permit backlog
and have not yet been reissued, (2)
CSOs may not be a top permitting
priority in states where only a small
number of CSOs exist, and (3) LTCP
efforts are beyond the financial or
technical capabilities of the
owners/operators of some CSSs.
In examining CSO controls, the
concept of the NMC has generally
been followed by NPDES authorities
and implemented by CSO
communities. As described in
Chapter 5, most NPDES authorities
have established a set of controls for
CSOs to meet the technology-based
requirements of the CWA, the
majority of which follow the NMC
delineated in the CSO Control Policy.
In some cases NPDES authorities took
advantage of the flexibility provided in
the CSO Control Policy. As a result,
the technology-based controls
required by some NPDES authorities
exceeded the NMC as identified in the
7-2
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of theCSO Control Policy
CSO Control Policy. Only a limited
number of NPDES authorities
regulating a small number of CSO
communities require less than the
NMC.
Based upon EPA's review of 811 CSO
permit files, 34 percent have submitted
LTCPs, and 17 percent have
documented some LTCP
implementation. NPDES authorities
have approved slightly more than half
of the submitted LTCPs as sufficient to
attain water quality standards. Several
reasons may explain the current status
of LTCP implementation:
Delays in issuance of NPDES
permits and enforceable
mechanisms to require LTCP
development and implementation.
Delays in issuance of guidance
related to LTCP development.
Although the basic guidance for
developing LTCPs was published
by EPA in 1995, specific guidance
related to financial capability
assessment and monitoring and
modeling guidance was not
published until 1997 and 1999,
respectively. In addition, EPA did
not issue guidance on how
development of LTCPs can be
better integrated with reviews of
water quality standards until
August 2001.
Delays in review and approval of
submitted LTCPs, possibly due to
the absence of explicit guidance,
criteria, training, and benchmarks.
Uncertainty on the part of CSO
communities on their ability to
attain water quality standards
without control of other sources.
Lack of oversight at all levels, and
a lack of information with which
to perform oversight (e.g., there
are no standard reporting
requirements).
Inadequate resources and funding
at the EPA, state, and local levels
to facilitate development, review,
approval, and implementation of
LTCPs.
7.1,2 and
As described in Chapters 4 and 5,
some focused CSO compliance (e.g.,
inspections and monitoring) and
enforcement activities have occurred.
For example, several states have
promulgated specific CSO
enforcement policies, while other
states and EPA regional offices have
developed a Performance Partnership
Agreement (PPA) from which state
CSO enforcement policies developed.
There also has been effective
coordination within EPA in
establishing compliance requirements.
EPA has issued three memoranda,
each intended to facilitate the
implementation, compliance, and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy.
Based on compliance and enforcement
data collected for this report:
Judicial cases brought by EPA
under the 1984 National
Municipal Policy were an
important factor in bringing
about early CSO control programs
in major municipalities.
Thirty-two administrative actions
and five judicial actions have been
initiated by EPA in response to
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
CSO inspections are typically performed in
conjunction with inspections of POTW
operations.
CSO-relateded violations of
NPDES permits or the CWA.
State enforcement actions
addressing CSO violations have
resulted in 92 administrative
actions, one civil judicial action,
and 43 joint state-EPA or other
state actions.
Even in light of these efforts, most
EPA regions and states continue to
approach compliance and
enforcement as part of routine
oversight of POTW operations (e.g.,
inspections of CSOs and CSO controls
are performed in conjunction with
inspections of POTW operations). In
response to the concern over the
threat to public health and the
environment resulting from CSOs,
EPA issued the Compliance and
Enforcement Strategy Addressing
Combined Sewer Overflows and
Sanitary Sewer Overflows in 2000
(EPA, 2000b) to increase federal and
state enforcement and compliance
assistance.
EPA has also initiated a variety of
compliance assistance activities to
promote compliance with the CSO
Control Policy requirements. This
compliance assistance, initiated by
EPA headquarters and regions, is
provided through training and on-line
systems, including the Local
Government Environmental
Assistance Network (LGEAN).
Compliance assistance for CSOs is also
being provided in a few states. More
needs to be done in this area at both
the federal and state levels.
While EPA has identified CSOs as a
national priority, oversight of
compliance and enforcement activities
has been difficult. Overall challenges
associated with compliance and
enforcement of CSO controls include:
Compliance and enforcement is
somewhat limited by a lack of
enforceable conditions in some
cases (e.g., see discussion in
Section 7.2.1 related to clear levels
of control). NPDES authorities
can evaluate compliance in terms
of whether a CSO community is
implementing the NMC, but it is
difficult to determine the
adequacy of implementation (e.g.,
is enough being done to maximize
flow through the treatment plant
or to control floatables?).
The level of CSO compliance
inspection and monitoring varies
from region to region and state to
state. As CSO occurrences are
rainfall driven it is difficult to
schedule sampling and compliance
inspections during wet weather.
7.2 Observations Related to
the Four Key Guiding
Principles of the CSO
Control Policy
r a -4 his section discusses whether
1 implementation and
JL enforcement of the CSO
Control Policy generally followed the
four key principles to ensure that CSO
controls are cost-effective and meet
the objectives of the CWA. The four
key principles are discussed in the
following subsections.
7-4
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of theCSO Control Policy
While the four key principles are used
as an analytical framework for
assessment of the CSO Control Policy,
it is acknowledged that some overlap
occurs among the principles.
7,2.1
to
and
As described in Chapter 2, provisions
contained within the CSO Control
Policy provide a number of options
for controlling CSOs under the
framework of the NMC and LTCPs.
The CSO Control Policy also
acknowledges that significant efforts
have already been undertaken by many
NPDES authorities and CSO
communities to control CSOs. The
CSO Control Policy provides for these
existing efforts:
...portions of this Policy may
already have been addressed by
permittees' previous efforts to
control CSOs. Therefore, portions
of this Policy may not apply, as
determined by the permitting
authority on a case-by-case basis.
The flexibility in the CSO Control
Policy allowed for site-specific control
solutions to be developed, previously
implemented controls to be credited
and considered, and for exceptions
from policy requirements if existing
controls demonstrated attainment of
water quality standards. However, in
light of this flexibility, data collected
for this report indicates that clear
levels of control from the standpoint
of definitive compliance end-points
have not yet been provided to a
number of CSO communities by
NPDES authorities.
NMC
As described in Chapters 5 and 6, the
NMC have provided a minimum
technology-based level of control for
CSOs. The examples of NMC
implementation provided in Chapter 6
and in the case studies presented in
Appendix C demonstrate that the
NMC contribute to reductions in CSO
volume, frequency, and duration, as
well as providing additional benefits.
The NMC have fostered better use of
existing CSS facilities to store and
convey combined sewage, and they
have given heightened priority to the
elimination of dry weather overflows.
They have also made CSO
communities more attentive to
pollution prevention and floatables
control. In addition, they have
informed the public about the
presence and dangers of CSOs
through posting and other measures.
There are, however, a number of
challenges remaining related to the
NMC centered on documenting
implementation and effectiveness.
The CSO Control Policy
acknowledged the necessity to
document the actions to be taken by
CSO permittees to implement the
NMC and to report on the
effectiveness of the NMC in reducing
or eliminating CSO impacts. It
expected CSO communities to
implement the NMC with appropriate
documentation by January 1, 1997.
Based on data collected for this report,
initial documentation of NMC
implementation was generally found
in NPDES permit files. However, there
was limited documentation related to
on-going implementation of NMC
activities. Documentation is needed to
The NMC have made CSO communities more
attentive to pollution prevention and
floatables control through activities such as
street sweeping and catch basin cleaning.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
CSO controls can be costly to implement.
Construction of the 7.2 mgd storage tunnel
in Richmond, VA cost more than $29 million.
The tunnel is one component of a three-
phased program.
confirm continued implementation of
selected controls, particularly in
instances where there are delays in
LTCP development.
The CSO Control Policy also
recommended documentation by CSO
permittees to assess the effectiveness of
the NMC in reducing and/or
eliminating water quality impacts, and
monitoring to characterize CSO
impacts and efficacy of CSO controls.
Generally, CSO permittees were found
not to be reporting these data as part
of documentation submitted to the
NPDES authorities. In most cases,
CSO permits only require one-time
documentation of the NMC. Only a
few NPDES authorities require annual
reporting on implementation of the
NMC. Further, as described in
Section 5.8 of this report, although
several NPDES authorities require
regular reporting on the volume and
frequency of CSO events, no data
management protocols exist for
tracking the results across time.
LTCP
As described in Chapter 6 and as
demonstrated in the case studies
presented in Appendix C, a number of
CSO communities have developed
successful LTCPs and are achieving
environmental benefits through
implementation. While many
communities are just beginning to
implement or have yet to implement
LTCPs, there is reason to believe that
the LTCP process is sound.
Communities with advanced LTCP
programs like New York City,
Columbus, Georgia, and San Francisco
are realizing the CWA objectives
anticipated in the CSO Control Policy.
Beach and shellfish bed openings and
attainment of water quality standards
have been observed and recorded.
Priority has been given to the control
of CSOs in sensitive areas. The CSO
communities that are less advanced in
LTCP implementation appear to be
using similar planning processes and
CSO controls, and can be expected to
achieve similar results in the future.
Many CSO communities find that
achieving water quality standards in
urban waters is complicated by other
sources of pollution including storm
water and other nonpoint sources. In
particular, some communities find
that complete control of CSOs does
not always lead to attainment of water
quality standards. Further, without a
TMDL it is difficult to identify an
equitable level of CSO control. In fact,
this dilemma of full control without
attaining water quality standards
causes some CSO communities to
question the value of initiating any
CSO controls. This uncertainty has
resulted in delays on the part of CSO
communities to commit to
development and implementation of
LTCPs.
The clear levels of control needed to
meet water quality standards are often
not defined. Some municipalities are
uncertain as to how to approach the
complexities related to controlling
CSOs, particularly in trying to balance
infrastructure investments and other
competing regulatory requirements.
Evaluation of the LTCP concept (i.e.,
does it provide clear levels of control
for CSOs and ensure compliance with
CWA requirements) is difficult
because many CSO communities are
still in the process of developing
7-6
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of theCSO Control Policy
LTCPs. Although only about a third of
CSO permittees have drafted LTCPs,
data were collected and reviewed to
assess the use of two approaches
(presumption and demonstration)
provided in the CSO Control Policy to
meet the water quality-based
provisions of the CWA.
Use of explicit performance criteria
such as those included in the CSO
Control Policy presumption approach
has helped communities design
LTCPs. Other CSO communities have
not used the presumption approach
due to the concern that any CSO will
cause or at least contribute to non-
attainment (see related discussion in
Section 6.5.3). This is particularly the
case when CSOs discharge to impaired
waters (i.e., discharge to waters listed
under CWA section 303(d) as not
achieving applicable water quality
standards).
A number of CSO permittees have
decided to follow the demonstration
approach for their LTCPs. In general,
following a demonstration approach
provides CSO communities with more
assurance that when completed and
implemented, LTCPs will result in
attainment of applicable water quality
standards.
Some CSO communities have
proposed a combination of
presumption and demonstration
approaches, for different receiving
waters.
Monitoring data to ascertain the
effectiveness of the presumption,
demonstration or combined approach
for controlling CSOs to meet the water
quality-based provisions of the CWA
were not available for review for this
report. Data for this analysis will
become available as post-construction
compliance monitoring programs are
initiated.
Finally, as described in Section 6.3.2 of
this report, a number of CSO controls
were identified in the LTCPs reviewed
for this report. Sewer separation (a
form of collection system control) was
the CSO control used most widely by
CSO communities. EPA believes that
sewer separation, if found to be
feasible in light of site-specific
constraints, was often selected because
it alleviates concerns related to
attainment of water quality standards
for CSOs. It also reflects that certain
states (e.g., Vermont) have encouraged
sewer separation as the preferred
control for CSOs. Many municipalities
choose site-specific separation in
service areas that are mostly served by
separate sewers and where migrating
the remaining connections from the
CSS to the separate system is feasible.
7,2.2 to
to the
of CSOs
The CSO Control Policy expected that
CSO permittees would:
...undertake a process to accurately
characterize their sewer systems, to
demonstrate implementation of
the nine minimum controls, and to
develop a long-term control
plan...consider innovative and
alternative approaches and
technologies that achieve the
objectives of this Policy and the
CWA.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Sewer separation tunnel installed by New
Brunswick, NJ. Sewer separation is the most
common long-term control used by CSO
permittees.
The CSO Control Policy also
advocated that selected approaches
and technologies be designed to:
...allow cost effective expansion or
cost effective retrofitting if
additional controls are
subsequently determined to be
necessary to meet WQS, including
existing and designated uses.
This section discusses the impact the
flexibility has had on implementation.
by
in CSO
As described in Chapter 2, in response
to the National CSO Control Strategy,
states were requested to develop CSO
permitting strategies to bring all wet
weather CSOs into compliance with
the requirements of the CWA. States
submitted and received approval of
state-wide permitting strategies. As
described in Section 5.2, some states
have adjusted the permitting strategies
to accommodate the provisions
contained in the CSO Control Policy.
In other cases, states were found to
continue to assert state priorities
related to water quality protection
programs, and some states were found
to operate on a project-specific basis.
Overall, EPA noted variability in how
the CSO Control Policy was
implemented and enforced among the
states that regulate CSOs. Some of the
variability noted by EPA stems from
the flexibility in the CSO Control
Policy, which has led to differences in
the approaches used by states to
implement the NPDES permit and
water quality standards programs. For
example, permit conditions for CSOs,
like any other point source discharger
in California, are based on basin plans.
New York uses an Environmental
Benefits Priority System to identify
those permits whose reissuance would
provide the greatest environmental
benefit. New Jersey issues permits,
including those for CSOs, on a
watershed basis. Some of the
variability noted is also based on the
relative importance placed on CSOs as
compared to other discharges within a
state. This was particularly noted by
several states in light of the pressures
to reduce NPDES permit backlogs. In
those states that contain a small
number of CSOs, EPA found that the
CSO Control Policy provisions were
primarily implemented on a CSO
permittee-specific basis.
EPA also found that although most
states require technology-based
requirements similar to the NMC,
certain states decided to require
controls different than the NMC, or
emphasized the use of one or more
particular control. For example, New
York requires CSO permittees to
implement 15 specific BMPs to
control CSOs which are essentially
equivalent to the NMC. New Jersey
initially emphasized the control of
solids and floatables to aesthetically
improve waters, and is now focusing
on use of disinfection to minimize
human health impacts.
Variability was also noticed among
state requirements to develop and
implement LTCPs. Some of this
variability was based on the decision
in several states to develop a preferred
state-wide approach to specifically
address CSOs. For example, Vermont
has advocated the use of sewer
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of theCSO Control Policy
separation as the means to control
CSOs. Michigan requires all CSO
permittees develop controls to meet a
design storm based presumption
approach. Massachusetts uses a
watershed-based approach to
prioritize CSO controls along with
other critical environmental needs.
Generally, the more prescriptive a state
was in terms of preferred approaches
to CSO control, the more advanced
program implementation was in
controlling CSOs. In part, this may be
due to the fact that state-wide
approaches provide definitive targets
for CSO permittees (e.g., the non-
negotiable approach used by Michigan
that requires either elimination of the
CSO or adequate CSO treatment in
accordance with specified design
requirements). Alternatively, some
CSO communities perceive the
flexibility provided to NPDES
authorities in the CSO Control Policy
has not been extended to the
communities, particularly in those
states with very prescriptive state-wide
approaches. Similarly, the flexibility in
the process for reviewing and revising
state water quality standards is
perceived to be unevenly applied (see
related discussion regarding water
quality standards in Section 7.2.4
below).
of of
CSO
The CSO Control Policy encourages
municipalities, NPDES and water
quality standards authorities, and the
public to work together to develop
cost-effective CSO controls that meet
water quality standards. The CSO
Control Policy states that
cost/performance evaluations should:
...include an analysis to determine
where the increment of pollution
reduction achieved in the receiving
water diminishes compared to the
increased costs... (this analysis)
should be among the
considerations used to help guide
selection of controls.
As described in the EPA Guidance for
Long Term Control Plan (EPA,1995f),
these analyses typically involve
estimating costs for a range of control
levels, then comparing performance
versus cost and identifying the point
of diminishing returns, referred to as
the "knee-of-the-curve." The EPA
guidance also recommends that CSO
permittees consider non-monetary
factors (e.g., environmental issues and
impacts, technical issues, and
implementation issues) that can
influence the selection of CSO control
alternatives.
According to the 1996 EPA Clean
Water Needs Survey (EPA, 1997b),
costs for all CSO control projects were
estimated to be $44.7 billion (in 1996
dollars). As discussed in Section 6.4.4
of this report, incremental increases in
levels of CSO controls considered may
result in significant increases in total
project costs. While it appears knee-
of-the-curve analysis is being
conducted and considered in
developing LTCP control
recommendations, it is only one
element considered in selectingCSO
control options.
7-9
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
to in
of the
Policy
Although the CSO Control Policy
provides and promotes flexibility in
controlling CSOs, the flexibility is
limited to CSO control. Many CSO
permittees are municipalities that are
also responsible for compliance with
other NPDES permit program
requirements such as effluent
limitations for discharges from the
POTW (including secondary
treatment standards and applicable
water quality-based effluent
limitations), management of biosolids,
implementation of a pretreatment
program, and control of discharges
from municipal separate storm sewer
systems. In addition, there are a
number of other programs, such as
the TMDL program for impaired
receiving waters, that may impact the
stringency of controls that must be
implemented for point source
discharges from municipal operations.
EPA is also considering proposing
revisions to the NPDES permit
regulations to improve the operation
of municipal sanitary sewer collection
systems and reduce the frequency and
occurrence of sanitary sewer
overflows.
Other than encouraging the evaluation
of proposed CSO control needs on a
watershed basis, the CSO Control
Policy does not discuss flexibility as it
relates to interaction and overlap in
related NPDES regulatory programs
and requirements (i.e., there is no
flexibility afforded to CSO
communities to balance other NPDES
program requirements with those
based on the CSO Control Policy).
However, there are some examples of
CSO communities that have
successfully worked with the NPDES
authority to balance NPDES program
requirements. For example, the
Louisville & Jefferson County
Metropolitan Sewer District has taken
the initiative to work with the State of
Kentucky to combine NPDES
program requirements so that
monitoring can be coordinated and
implemented on a watershed basis.
Coordination of programmatic
requirements has not only resulted in
more effective monitoring to assess
receiving water impacts (e.g.,
monitoring CSO, storm water, and
POTW discharges to the same
receiving water body at the same
time), but has assisted in prioritizing
and focusing future municipal
expenditures.
7.2,3 a to
of CSO
Controls
The CSO Control Policy described a
phased approach in permitting to
implement the CSO Control Policy.
Phase I permits were to be designed to
at least require immediate
implementation and subsequent
documentation of the NMC, and
development and submittal of an
LTCP generally within two years after
the effective date of the permit (unless
a longer schedule is determined to be
needed). Phase II permits were to
require continued implementation of
the NMC, implementation of the
LTCP including the selected controls
necessary to meet CWA requirements,
and implementation of the approved
post-construction compliance
monitoring program.
7-10
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of theCSO Control Policy
In general, the phasing concept of the
CSO Control Policy has been followed.
Most CSO communities were initially
required through a NPDES permit or
other type of enforceable mechanism
to implement the NMC and then
develop an LTCP.
of to
Requirements
Development and implementation of
LTCPs by CSO communities was
required through an enforcement
action in some instances (e.g.,
administrative order). Enforcement
actions are used in some cases to
accommodate the fact that NPDES
permits are limited in the way
compliance schedules may be
incorporated. If an LTCP for a CSO
community includes significant
structural controls (e.g., expanding
POTW capacity) that will take longer
to complete than allowed by the state
standards (e.g., water quality standards
do not allow for the issuance of a
compliance schedule as part of an
NPDES permit), then an enforcement
order is necessary to establish a
schedule for implementation. If the
schedule is for more than five years,
then a judicial enforcement order is
necessary. In these cases, a judicial
enforcement order is the only means
to establish a legally binding schedule
for implementation. Finally, an
enforcement action may be taken as a
result of non-compliance on the part
of a CSO permittee.
of
of CSO on
I
Financial capability is one of six
factors listed in the CSO Control
Policy for consideration when
developing a schedule for
implementation of CSO controls.
Financial capability may justify a
longer-term phased approach to
implementation of LTCPs and
implementation schedules.
According to the EPA Guidance on
Financial Capability Assessment and
Schedule Development (EPA, 1997e),
the financial capability determinations
and characterization of a
municipality's financial capability to
implement CSO controls can be based
on a number of measures. General
scheduling boundaries provided in the
financial capability guidance are
presented in Table 7.1 below.
EPA found that CSO communities do
perform a financial capability
assessment and factor the results of
the assessment into the
implementation schedule included as
part of the LTCP. In some cases, the
length of the proposed schedule for
completion of selected CSO controls
may be related to the effect of the
length of time provided for
amortization of CSO-related capital
investments.
EPA also found that NPDES
authorities do follow the EPA
guidance and negotiate
implementation schedules. However,
there is little in the way of
documentation to describe how
7-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table 7.1
Implementation
Schedule Based on
Financial Capability
EPA has issued guidance for
NPDES authorities on how to
relate community financial
capability to proposed
implementation schedules, EPA
found that authorities follow the
guidance, but do not document
their activities well.
financial capability has been used in
development and approval of CSO
controls or LTCPs.
As discussed in Chapter 6 and based
on the fact that many CSO
communities have yet to develop an
LTCP, it is expected that significant
municipal expenditures to control
CSOs will be required, and that issues
related to the financial capability of
municipalities to finance CSO controls
are likely to become more important.
The impact of future CSO control
expenditures and financial capability
will intensify financial impacts on
municipalities as they continue to deal
with degrading infrastructure and
other needs. It is expected that
municipal residents with lower
incomes may be faced with sharp
increases in sewer rates. Sizeable
populations within CSO communities
often already bear significant cost-
burdens.
The 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
estimated capital costs for all CSO
control projects to be $44.7 billion.
Based in part on the potentially
significant resources required to
develop and implement CSO controls,
a variety of federal and state funding
programs have been made available to
assist CSO communities. As described
in Chapters 4 and 5, states mainly use
the SRF to fund CSO control projects
Financial Capability Category
Low burden
Medium burden
High burden
($2.08 billion during the period 1989-
2000). SRF loans for CSO projects in
2000 were the highest ever, accounting
for $411 million (12 percent of total
SRF assistance). State-specific loan and
grant programs also exist, but offer
limited funding (generally available for
use in covering planning and program
development versus implementation
costs).
7.2,4 and as
CSO
As described in Chapter 2, the CSO
Control Policy encouraged a
comprehensive and coordinated
planning effort to control CSOs and
achieve applicable water quality
standards. The purpose of this
coordination was to ensure that any
CSO controls identified in the LTCP
would be coordinated with the review
and revision, as appropriate, of
applicable water quality standards.
Coordination would assist in ensuring
that proper data are provided to allow
for review and revision, as
appropriate, of the applicability of
water quality standards. This section
discusses how coordination with state
water quality standards has occurred
as a result of the CSO Control Policy.
Implementation Period
Normal engineering/construction schedule
Up to 10 years
Up to 15 years
7-12
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of theCSO Control Policy
Review and revision as necessary of
water quality standards within the
context of the CSO Control Policy
were rarely documented. There may be
a number of reasons that impede the
review process:
The water quality standards
regulations at 40 CFR Part 131
acknowledge there may be
instances where modifications to
or variances from applicable water
quality standards may be justified
to acknowledge site-specific
conditions of the discharge and
receiving water. However, revisions
to water quality standards are
generally not encouraged. This is
particularly true as it relates to
downgrading designated uses,
which requires a UAA that can be
resource intensive. Some types of
revisions are completely
prohibited; for example, the
removal of an "existing" use,
defined as a use that was being
attained in 1975. In addition, there
are a few states that, as a matter of
practice, will not accept requests
for modifications of water quality
standards.
The data and information to
support changes to designated
uses and associated water quality
standards can be collected most
cost-effectively as part of the
development of an LTCP, which
can be an expensive process.
There is uncertainty on the part of
communities about the process for
the review and revision, as
appropriate, of state water quality
standards. There has been a need
for guidance identifying explicit
data requirements to support
water quality standards review for
CSO receiving waters. EPA
published guidance concerning
the coordination of CSO controls
and water quality standards in
August 2001.
As described in Section 5.6.1, a few
states have developed specific
procedures for considering the
applicability of water quality standards
for CSO receiving waters. However,
most states have not specifically
accommodated water quality
standards reviews for CSOs (i.e., they
do not provide a specific method to
address changes to designated uses,
variances, or adjustment to water
quality criteria for CSO-impacted
water bodies as part of the LTCP
process). Rather, most states address
the review of water quality standards
for CSOs during a state-wide or
watershed based triennial review.
States have limited resources and
competing priorities for water quality
standards reviews, particularly for
waters with court-ordered TMDLs.
Therefore, the state may be unable to
accommodate a specific review
request.
EPA believes that greater levels of
coordination are needed among all
entities to support the development of
CSO control to meet appropriate
water quality standards and the review
and revision of these standards as
appropriate. This requires a more
intensive effort where permitting and
water quality standard activities are in
different organizational units.
Although three states have procedures for
considering the applicability of water quality
standards for CSO receiving waters, only
MWRA, the sanitary authority serving
Boston, has received CSO-related standards
revision.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Water quality standards reviews must
include sufficient data to support
designated use changes, site-specific
criteria development, and/or variance
requests. Often the data are not
available to properly evaluate
modification requests. In these cases,
the state, the CSO permittee, or both,
would bear the responsibility to
generate an appropriate data set to
allow for a determination. If
coordination is not occurring with all
interested stakeholders, then
additional resources may be needed to
address issues raised by these other
stakeholders.
EPA now recommends the use of E.coli
or enterococci for freshwaters and
enterococci for marine waters because
epidemiological studies show that
E.coli and enterococci are better
indicators of gastrointestinal illness
than fecal coliform. EPA recommends
the geometric mean of the samples
taken to not exceed the criterion and
the single sample maximum to be met
for a water body to fully support its
primary contact recreation use. Future
state decisions to adopt new indicator
bacteria will have implications for
CSO LTCPs designed based on existing
water quality standards.
7.3 Accomplishments
Attributable to
Implementation and
Enforcement of the CSO
Control Policy
-« T PA believes that implementation
fH of the CSO Control Policy by
JL—JEPA regions, states, and CSO
communities since 1994 has reduced
loadings and benefitted the
environment.
7,3.1
Reductions
As described in Chapter 4, EPA has
initiated efforts to track and report on
GPRA performance measures, and has
developed a national model to
estimate pollutant and flow reductions
attributable to implementation of
CSO controls by communities. For
purposes of this report, the GPRACSO
model was used to provide some
preliminary estimates of the
nationwide CSO reductions based on
various CSO management scenarios. A
brief summary of the GPRACSO
model and how the model was used to
derive estimates for this report is
presented in Appendix S. Overall, the
GPRACSO model attempts to evaluate
how CSS management has evolved
over a 10-year period. EPA applied the
GPRACSO model to obtain a basic
understanding of CSS management,
simplifying as necessary to obtain
system-wide estimates of overflow for
each CSS.
For purposes of this report, the
GPRACSO model was applied to
evaluate CSO volume and BOD
pollutant loadings associated with four
scenarios:
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of theCSO Control Policy
Baseline scenario—representing
CSO volumes and pollutant
loadings prior to issuance of the
CSO Control Policy.
Low-end current implementation
scenario—representing estimates
of CSO volumes and pollutant
loadings after implementation of
the CSO Control Policy. This
scenario represents conservative,
low-end estimates of management
measures that are currently in-
place.
High-end current implementation
scenario—representing less-
conservative, higher-end estimates
of implementation of
management measures to reduce
CSO volumes and pollutant
loadings.
Future expected implementation
scenario—representing a best-case
future scenario of CSO volume
and pollutant load reductions
assuming full implementation of
CSO controls.
As shown in Table 7.2, the GPRACSO
model predicts that approximately
1.46 trillion gallons per year of CSOs
occurred prior to issuance of the CSO
Control Policy, and over 1 billion
pounds per year of BOD were
discharged from CSOs. Currently, EPA
estimates untreated CSO volumes
range from 1.26 to 1.29 trillion gallons
per year, and BOD loadings range
from 915 to 930 million pounds per
year. The GPRACSO model predicts
that there has been between a 12
percent and 14 percent reduction
nationwide of untreated CSO volume
and BOD loadings, respectively, since
issuance of the CSO Control Policy in
1994.
Assuming full implementation of the
CSO Control Policy, approximately 1.3
trillion gallons per year of CSOs
would be treated nationally, and
approximately 600 million pounds per
year of BOD would be removed from
discharges from CSOs. As shown in
Table 7.2, this will require
communities with CSSs to provide
advanced primary treatment to an
estimated additional one trillion
gallons, or 35 percent more volume,
than is currently receiving this
minimum level of treatment.
It should be noted that EPA has
attempted to be conservative when
estimating reductions in overflows and
pollutant loadings. As described above,
only structural CSO controls, such as
improved POTW operations, were
considered (i.e., non-structural
controls such as enhanced
pretreatment requirements and
downspout disconnect programs are
not recognized). It should also be
noted that GPRACSO model results
Table 7.2
Pollutant Reduction
Estimates Based on
Implementation of CSO
Control Policy
EPA's GPRACSO model was used to
evaluate the potential reduction
to CSO volume based both on
current implementation and
future expected implementation.
Scenario
Baseline
Low-End Current I mple mentation
High-End Current Implementation
Future Expected Implementation
Annual Untreated
CSO Volume
(Trillion Gallons/Year)
1.46
1,29
1.26
0.20
Dry /Wet Weather
Volume Treated
(Trillion Gallons/Year)
2.80
2,97
3.00
4.06
Annual BOD
Discharged
(Million Pounds/Year)
1,070
930
915
480
7-15
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
sometimes indicated CSO volumes
and loadings actually increased over
the baseline condition. This occurs
wherever the service population or
acreage has increased, while POTW
treatment capacity has remained
constant (i.e., the dry weather sanitary
flows have increased, leaving less
capacity to treat wet weather flows).
7,3.2
to
CSO
The focus of the second Report to
Congress in 2003 will be the extent of
human health and environmental
impacts caused by CSOs and SSOs.
Although not the focus of this report,
this section describes some of the
accomplishments related to the
control of CSOs brought about by the
CSO Control Policy.
As described in Chapter 4, EPA does
not yet possess a data management
system that tracks reductions in CSO
frequency, duration or volume, or
improvements in water quality.
However, based on data collected for
this report, EPA observed a number of
accomplishments attributable to
implementation of the CSO Control
Policy. Many of these achievements
have directly contributed to reductions
in CSOs and protection of receiving
water quality. Accomplishments
include:
Stimulating implementation of
effective CSO controls—As
described throughout Chapter 6,
implementation and enforcement
of the CSO Control Policy has
stimulated many CSO
communities to take actions to
control CSOs. Some of these
activities, such as floatables
controls, have directly resulted in
improving the aesthetics and
recreation of receiving waters.
Other activities, such as increasing
capacity at POTWs to treat greater
volumes wet weather flows, have
resulted in flow and load
reductions, and in a few cases,
notable improvements to water
quality and protection of human
health have been documented.
Reducing dry weather
overflows—As described in
Section 6.2.1, particular
importance (both from a
permitting and compliance and
enforcement basis) was placed on
CSO permittees to eliminate dry
weather overflows. This focus is
important from a human health
and environmental protection
standpoint, as dry weather
overflows occur at times when
receiving waters are less able to
accommodate pollutant loadings
(as compared to when higher flow
conditions occur as a result of wet
weather). Data indicate that most
CSO communities have eliminated
chronic dry weather overflows,
and have inspections programs
designed to detect and eliminate
other occasional dry weather
overflows when they occur.
Protecting sensitive areas - As
described in Chapter 2, the CSO
Control Policy expects that CSO
permittees give highest priority to
controlling CSOs to sensitive
areas. Section 6.3.3 indicates that
more than 30 percent of the CSO
files reviewed noted CSO
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of theCSO Control Policy
discharges to sensitive areas. As a
result, a number of CSO
permittees have prioritized and
implemented specific programs
and initiatives to address
discharges to sensitive areas.
Raising public awareness - A
major component of the CSO
Control Policy was to ensure that
all stakeholders were aware of the
potential human health and
environmental problems
associated with CSOs, as well as
the types of controls available to
reduce the volume, frequency and
duration of CSOs. Raising the
awareness of all stakeholders
assists in ensuring that CSO
control options will be protective
of human health and the
environment, as well as securing
resource commitments for
developing and implementing
CSO controls.
7.4 Next Steps
4 s described throughout this
/j| report, significant efforts have
JL JUjeen made at all levels to
implement and enforce the CSO
Control Policy. However, more work
remains to ensure that human health
and the environment are adequately
protected from CSOs. Slower progress
than expected in the development and
implementation of LTCPs continues
for several reasons. Chief among them
are delays in the issuance of permits
requiring CSO controls, delays in the
issuance of guidance, and delays in
LTCP approval. In addition, there is a
reluctance on the part of CSO
communities to commit resources due
to actual or perceived uncertainties
related to definitive compliance
endpoints for CSO control.
EPA expects NPDES authorities, state
water quality standards authorities,
and CSO communities to actively
participate in the implementation and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy. EPA realizes the importance of
its role to lead future activities that
will ensure continued progress is made
in controlling CSOs. Based on the
findings from this report, there are a
number of activities EPA will pursue
in the future:
that All Are
Appropriately
Implement the "shall conform"
statutory mandate.
Begin efforts to implement
new CWA Section 402(q)(l),
which requires that future
permits or other enforceable
mechanisms for CSOs
conform to the CSO Control
Policy. These efforts will
include evaluating the need
for regulatory amendments,
policy statements or other
appropriate actions to ensure
implementation of CSO
programs consistent with the
CSO Control Policy.
All
Follow up with NPDES authorities
to ensure that CSO permits or
other enforceable mechanisms are
issued as soon as possible for
those CSO communities that have
not yet been required to control
CSOs. EPA will also work with the
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
states to ensure that permits and
enforcement actions (e.g. orders,
decrees) are consistent with the
CSO Control Policy, as required by
new CWA Section 402(q)(l). EPA
will issue guidance on this topic.
CSO
Control
Advocate CSO control on a
watershed basis.
Continue efforts to focus
protection of water quality on
a watershed approach and
support development of CSO
LTCPs on a watershed basis.
EPA will also continue efforts
to encourage integration of
wet weather programs,
including support in
facilitating the wet weather
pilot projects grant program
as described in an amendment
to Title I of the CWA.
Work with states to speed the
water quality standards review and
revision process.
Continue to work with states,
communities, and
constituency groups on
coordinating the review and
revision of water quality
standards with development
of LTCPs. EPA will establish a
tracking system for water
quality standards reviews on
CSO-receiving waters. EPA
will also assess the need for
additional guidance and tools
to facilitate the water quality
standards review process for
all sources, including CSO.
Strengthen CSO information
management.
Work to coordinate
information management
activities and strengthen
performance measurement
such that data generated by
CSO communities can be
collected and managed to
demonstrate the
environmental outcomes of
CSO control.
Improve compliance assistance
and enforcement.
CSOs will continue to be a
national compliance and
enforcement priority in fiscal
years 2002 and 2003. EPA will
work closely with NPDES
authorities and states to target
enforcement actions, where
appropriate, to ensure
compliance with the CSO
requirements in NPDES
permits or other enforceable
mechanisms. In addition, EPA
will develop and promote
compliance assistance tools.
Improve EPA and state oversight.
Review and strengthen
existing practices and
procedures used by EPA and
states to ensure CSO controls
are being implemented. This
review will include evaluation
of reporting requirements to
demonstrate ongoing
implementation of the NMC,
as well as examination of
procedures used to ensure
proper communication and
coordination during review
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of theCSO Control Policy
and revision of water quality
standards and implementation
procedures.
for the
hi Congress in 2003.
Initiate efforts to define the scope
and methodology for the second
Report to Congress due in
December 2003. In the second
report EPA is required to
summarize the extent of human
health and environmental impacts
caused by CSOs and SSOs, report
on the resources spent by CSO
communities to address these
impacts, and evaluate the
technologies used, including
whether sewer separation is
environmentally preferred for all
situations. EPA will build on CSO
data collected for this report and
develop a methodology for
addressing the challenges of
collecting and analyzing SSO data.
7-19
-------
December 15, 2000
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
H12273
SEC. 112. 'WET WEATHER WATER QUALITY, (a)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.—Section 402 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
"(q) COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.—
"(1) REQUIREMENT FOR PERMITS, ORDERS, AND
DECREES.—Each permit, order, or decree issued
pursuant to this Act after the date of enactment
of this subsection for a discharge from a munic-
ipal combined storm and sanitary sewer shall
conform to the Combined Sewer Overflow Con-
trol Policy signed by the Administrator on April
11, 1994 (in this subsection referred to as the
'CSO control policy').
"(2) WATER QUALITY AND DESIGNATED USE RE-
VIEW GUIDANCE.—Not later than July 31, 2001,
and after providing notice and opportunity for
public comment, the Administrator shall issue
guidance to facilitate the conduct of water qual-
ity and designated use reviews for municipal
combined sewer overflow receiving waters.
"(3) REPORT.—Not later than September 1,
2001, the Administrator shall transmit to Con-
gress a report on the progress made by the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, States, and mu-
nicipalities in implementing and enforcing the
CSO control policy. ".
(b) WET WEATHER PILOT PROGRAM.—Title I of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
"SEC. 121. WET WEATHER WATERSHED PILOT
PROJECTS.
"(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in co-
ordination with the States, may provide tech-
nical assistance and grants for treatment works
to carry out pilot projects relating to the fol-
lowing areas of wet weather discharge control:
"(1) WATERSHED MANAGEMENT OF WET WEATH-
ER DISCHARGES.—The management of municipal
combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer over-
flows, and stormwater discharges, on an inte-
grated watershed or subwatershed basis for the
purpose of demonstrating the effectiveness of a
unified wet weather approach.
"(2) STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRAC-
TICES.—The control of pollutants from munic-
ipal separate storm sewer systems for the pur-
pose of demonstrating and determining controls
that are cost-effective and that use innovative
technologies in reducing such pollutants from
stormwater discharges.
"(b) ADMINISTRATION.—The Administrator, in
coordination with the States, shall provide mu-
nicipalities participating in a pilot project under
this section the ability to engage in innovative
practices, including the ability to unify separate
wet weather control efforts under a single per-
mit.
"(c) FUNDING.—
"(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000
for fiscal year 2002, $15,000,000 for fiscal year
2003, and $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004. Such
funds shall remain available until expended.
"(2) STORMWATER.—The Administrator shall
make available not less than 20 percent of
amounts appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant
to this subsection to carry out the purposes of
subsection (a) (2).
"(3) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—The Admin-
istrator may retain not to exceed 4 percent of
any amounts appropriated for a fiscal year pur-
suant to this subsection for the reasonable and
necessary costs of administering this section.
"(d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 5
years after the date of enactment of this section,
the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a
report on the results of the pilot projects con-
ducted under this section and their possible ap-
plication nationwide.".
(c) SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS.—Title
II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1342 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
"SEC. 221. SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL GRANTS.
"(a) IN GENERAL.—In any fiscal year in which
the Administrator has available for obligation at
least $1,350,000,000 for the purposes of section
601—
"(1) the Administrator may make grants to
States for the purpose of providing grants to a
municipality or municipal entity for planning,
design, and construction of treatment works to
intercept, transport, control, or treat municipal
combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer
overflows; and
"(2) subject to subsection (g), the Adminis-
trator may make a direct grant to a munici-
pality or municipal entity for the purposes de-
scribed in paragraph (1).
"(b) PRIORITIZATION.—In selecting from
among municipalities applying for grants under
subsection (a), a State or the Administrator
shall give priority to an applicant that—
"(1) is a municipality that is a financially dis-
tressed community under subsection (c):
' '(2) has implemented or is complying with an
implementation schedule for the 9 minimum con-
trols specified in the CSO control policy referred
to in section 402(q)(l) and has begun imple-
menting a long-term municipal combined sewer
overflow control plan or a separate sanitary
sewer overflow control plan; or
"(3) is requesting a grant for a project that is
on a State's intended use plan pursuant to sec-
tion 606(c); or
"(4) is an Alaska Native Village.
"(c) FINANCIALLY DISTRESSED COMMUNITY.—
"(1) DEFINITION.—In subsection (b), the term
'financially distressed community' means a com-
munity that meets affordability criteria estab-
lished by the State in which the community is
located, if such criteria are developed after pub-
lic review and comment.
"(2) CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT ON WATER AND
SEWER RATES.—In determining if a community is
a distressed community for the purposes of sub-
section (b), the State shall consider, among
other factors, the extent to which the rate of
growth of a community's tax base has been his-
torically slow such that implementing a plan de-
scribed in subsection (b)(2) would result in a sig-
nificant increase in any water or sewer rate
charged by the community's publicly owned
wastewater treatment facility.
"(3) INFORMATION TO ASSIST STATES.—The Ad-
ministrator may publish information to assist
States in establishing affordability criteria
under paragraph (1).
"(d) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of the
cost of activities carried out using amounts from
a grant made under subsection (a) shall be not
less than 55 percent of the cost. The non-Fed-
eral share of the cost may include, in any
amount, public and private funds and in-kind
services, and may include, notwithstanding sec-
tion 603(h), financial assistance, including
loans, from a State water pollution control re-
volving fund.
"(e) ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING REQUIRE-
MENTS.—// a project receives grant assistance
under subsection (a) and loan assistance from a
State water pollution control revolving fund and
the loan assistance is for 15 percent or more of
the cost of the project, the project may be ad-
ministered in accordance with State water pol-
lution control revolving fund administrative re-
porting requirements for the purposes of stream-
lining such requirements.
"(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section $750,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 and 2003. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
' '(g) ALLOCA TION OF FUNDS. —
"(1) FISCAL YEAR 2002.—Subject to subsection
(h), the Administrator shall use the amounts ap-
propriated to carry out this section for fiscal
year 2002 for making grants to municipalities
and municipal entities under subsection (a) (2),
in accordance with the criteria set forth in sub-
section (b).
"(2) FISCAL YEAR 2003.—Subject to subsection
(h), the Administrator shall use the amounts ap-
propriated to carry out this section for fiscal
year 2003 as follows:
"(A) Not to exceed $250,000,000 for making
grants to municipalities and municipal entities
under subsection (a) (2), in accordance with the
criteria set forth in subsection (b).
"(B) All remaining amounts for making grants
to States under subsection (a)(l), in accordance
with a formula to be established by the Adminis-
trator, after providing notice and an oppor-
tunity for public comment, that allocates to
each State a proportional share of such amounts
based on the total needs of the State for munic-
ipal combined sewer overflow controls and sani-
tary sewer overflow controls identified in the
most recent survey conducted pursuant to sec-
tion 516(b)(l).
"(h) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Of the
amounts appropriated to carry out this section
for each fiscal year—
"(1) the Administrator may retain an amount
not to exceed 1 percent for the reasonable and
necessary costs of administering this section;
and
"(2) the Administrator, or a State, may retain
an amount not to exceed 4 percent of any grant
made to a municipality or municipal entity
under subsection (a), for the reasonable and
necessary costs of administering the grant.
"(i) REPORTS.—Not later than December 31,
2003, and periodically thereafter, the Adminis-
trator shall transmit to Congress a report con-
taining recommended funding levels for grants
under this section. The recommended funding
levels shall be sufficient to ensure the continued
expeditious implementation of municipal com-
bined sewer overflow and sanitary sewer over-
flow controls nationwide. ".
(d) INFORMATION ON CSOS AND SSOS.—
(1) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 3
years after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency shall transmit to Congress a report
s ummarizing—
-------
H12274
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE
December 15, 2000
(A) the extent of the human health and envi-
ronmental impacts caused by municipal com-
bined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer over-
flows, including the location of discharges caus-
ing such impacts, the volume of pollutants dis-
charged, and the constituents discharged;
(B) the resources spent by municipalities to
address these impacts; and
(C) an evaluation of the technologies used by
municipalities to address these impacts.
(2) TECHNOLOGY CLEARINGHOUSE.—After
transmitting a report under paragraph (1), the
Administrator shall maintain a clearinghouse of
cost-effective and efficient technologies for ad-
dressing human health and environmental im-
pacts due to municipal combined sewer over-
flows and sanitary sewer overflows.
-------
Appendix B
Profiles of State CSO Programs
B.1 Connecticut
B.2 Maine
B.3 Massachusetts
B.4 New Hampshire
B.5 Rhode Island
B.6 Vermont
B.7 New Jersey
B.8 New York
B.9 Delaware
B.10 District of Columbia
B.11 Maryland
B.12 Pennsylvania
B.13 Virginia
B.14 West Virginia
-------
-------
State Profile
Connecticut—Region 1
CSO Permits
5
Permitted CSO Outfalls
122
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CDEP)
Online Resources
http://dep.state.ct.us/index.htm
http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/index.htm
Massachusetts
O CSO Permits
909 18 Mile
Rhode Island
New York
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
W NMC
*/ SomeBMPs
•./' NoBMPs
Total
Number of Permits
5
0
0
5
Percent
100%
0%
0%
100%
Facility Plan Requirements
V LTCP
>F Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
100%
0%
0%
100%
Program Highlights
Connecticut has encouraged
sewer separation.
All CSO communities have done
at least some sewer separation.
NMC and LTCP were not required
where complete separation was
underway.
CDEP's initial CSS assessments
identified 14 CSO permittees;
there are currently five CSO
permittees.
CT-1
-------
-------
State Profile
Maine—Region 1
CSO Permits
44
Permitted CSO Outfalls
229
NPDES Authority
EPA Region 1 (through December 2000)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP)
(as of January 2001)
Water Quality Standards Authority
MDEP
Online Resources
http://janus.state.me.us/dep/blwq/
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
CANADA
CANADA
Vermont
- —.Konnebec ,.;Q°; .-,«•; ..'
rdro- Q^
scoggm;;_>,
^ M fc>
( New ';
'HampshiresC
Atlantic Ocean
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
BMP Requirements
'"" NMC
^! Some BMPs
V No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
V LTCP
V Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
42
0
2
44
31
8
5
44
95.5%
0%
4.5%
100%
70.4%
18.2%
11.4%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
MDEP first issued Program Guidance on Combined Sewer Overflow Control Plans in
January 1990, which outlined components of effective CSO programs. The guidance
encouraged communities to convey wet weather flows to the WWTP for primary
treatment and disinfection. In 1994, MDEP released Program Guidance on Combined
Sewer Overflow Facility Plans, which includes information on developing monitoring
plans, implementing best management practices, and selecting controls when
developing a CSO Master Plan.The concepts discussed in this document are similar to
those outlined in EPA's 1994 CSO Control Policy. Maine has also provided grants (for 25
percent of funding needs) to assist municipalities in completing its CSO Master Plans.
Plans submitted to the state since 1990 show that nearly all Maine communities have
focused abatement efforts on sewer separation, transporting wet weather flows to the
WWTP for treatment, or some combination thereof. Sixteen communities in Maine
completed separation of its combined sewers prior to the CSO Control Policy.
Program Highlights
Nearly all Maine communities
have focused CSO abatement
efforts on transporting wet
weather flows to the WWTP for
treatment, sewer separation, or
some combination thereof.
42 communities are required (in
permits) to implement NMC (two
of the 44 CSO permittees are not
required to implement NMC); all
have complied. Of these, 34 are
required to implement LTCPs: 30
of those required have submitted
LTCP documentation to the state,
and 26 LTCPs have been
approved.
Changes to Maine's water quality
standards and designated uses
were made in 1995 to allow CSO
communities to request
temporary CSO subcategories,
which may suspend designated
uses for short periods following
wet weather events.
Maine has provided grants (for 25
percent of funding needs) to
assist municipalities in
completing CSO Master Plans.
Initial CSS assessments of the
state identified 60 CSO
permittees; there are currently 44
CSO permittees.
ME-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Permitting Program
Prior to January 2001, EPA's Region 1 office served as the NPDES authority for the State
of Maine. Maine issued state waste discharge licenses to any discharger receiving an
NPDES permit from the EPA Region with similar terms.
Permits issued since 1994 have generally conformed with the CSO Control Policy. All of
the 42 Maine communities with permit requirements to implement the NMC have
complied. Of these, 34 communities also have enforceable requirements to develop
LTCPs.The eight, out of the 42, communities without LTCP requirements are typically
small communities and are actively implementing sewer separation. Currently, 30
communities with requirements to develop LTCPs have submitted plans to the state, and
the state has approved 26 plans. To date, 21 of the 60 communities in Maine, identified in
the pre-1994 assessment of the state, have fully controlled its CSOs, and another 18 are
working to implement approved control plans.
Water Quality Standards Program
Following a two-year stakeholder process, changes to Maine's water quality standards
and designated uses were made in 1995 to allow CSO communities to request
temporary CSO subcategories. The site-specific CSO subcategories will remove
designated uses for short periods of time (determined on a site-specific basis) after rain
storms and snow melt in areas affected by existing CSOs. The application of the
subcategories is determined based on modeling and monitoring data developed by the
community. This change allows communities to continue to make progress in controlling
CSOs without undue financial hardship and to meet State water quality standards. Maine
received a grant from EPA in 2001 to pilot test the application of the temporary CSO
subcategories in select communities.
Enforcement Program
Most ongoing enforcement actions within the State of Maine have been initiated by EPA
Region 1's Water Enforcement Program. EPA Region 1 currently has nine CSO-related
enforcement actions in Maine. The majority of these focus on CSO Master Plan
implementation schedules that exceed five years. Maine also has its own enforcement
authority; it has initiated three CSO-related consent decrees to communities failing to
comply with the terms of their license.
-------
State Profile
Massachusetts—Region 1
CSO Permits
23
Permitted CSO Outfalls
311
NPDES Authority
EPA Region 1
Water Quality Standards Authority
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP)
Online Resources
www.state.ma.us/dep/dephome.htm
j Vermont j New Hampshire
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
New York
Connecticut (Rhode K ^ ?"
I Island-"•''•.'£•',
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
Program Highlights
BMP Requirements
V NMC
V Some BMPs
V No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
~ LTCP
V Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
23
0
0
23
20
1
2
23
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
100%
0%
0%
100%
87.0%
4.3%
8.7%
100%
The primary approach in Massachusetts has been the use of the NPDES permitting
process to initiate CSO planning and to follow up with combined enforcement and
compliance assistance efforts to help communities initiate projects and develop
program milestones and schedules. Communities are required to implement less-costly
controls (i.e., NMC) as an initial means to abate CSOs. For those requiring more long-
term solutions, the community must develop a phased approach for identifying and
implementing control solutions. The community is encouraged (through the LTCP
process) to use technologies that maximize environmental benefits. Elimination of CSOs
is preferred; where elimination of CSOs is determined to be infeasible, a protocol has
been developed for considering alternate class/designations, variances, and partial use
designations. The long-term planning efforts are formalized in administrative orders,
consent decrees, or other enforceable mechanisms. This approach was formalized in
MDEP State CSO Control Policy.
Massachusetts'CSO Program is
coordinated through EPA Region 1
and MDER
NMC are required in all CSO
permits.
21 communities have LTCP
requirements in their
enforcement orders, 15
communities have submitted
LTCPs,and 10 communities have
had LTCPs approved.
Massachusetts developed a
watershed-based approach for
CSO control planning and a
protocol for UAA that reflects
CSOs.
Massachusetts developed an
approach for water quality
standards evaluation and
redesignations.
Initial CSS assessments of the
state identified 26 CSO
permittees; there are currently 23
CSO permittees.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Massachusetts was the first State to initiate a watershed-based approach to prioritize
CSO controls along with other critical environmental needs. Massachusetts also is one of
the three states that has established use category designations for CSO-impacted
waters. In addition, it has identified a UAA process for communities that believe
achieving levels set in the State standards is not feasible or appropriate for a specific
water body.
Permitting Program
EPA Region 1's NPDES Permit Task Force issues wastewater discharge permits for
Massachusetts. CSO communities are typically issued Phase I NPDES permits that require
implementation and documentation of the NMC, containing a special CSO section that
the CSO community meet water quality standards or equivalent. The CSO section also
includes a narrative requirement. Therefore, if the CSO community implements the NMC
and cannot effectively eliminate the CSOs, the permittee is in violation of the permit.
EPA Region 1 and MDEP are now in the process of developing Phase II CSO permits
which will establish effluent limits for those communities that have completed their LTCP
planning process.
Water Quality Standards Program
MDEP establishes and reviews water quality standards. DEP developed the State CSO
policy, which in turn led to the formal protocol for classifying and evaluating CSO-
impacted waters. MDEP's CSO policy and water quality standards approach serve as the
basis for CSO permitting and enforcement activities conducted by EPA Region 1.
MDEP developed a hierarchical list of surface water classifications to regulate CSO
discharges where CSO elimination was determined to be infeasible, based on the
frequency and impact of each overflow. The regulatory options for CSOs include:
Class B—indicates that CSO discharges have been eliminated.
Class B(CSO)— a partial use designation indicating that elimination of all CSO
discharges is not feasible and that the impacts from the remaining CSOs will be
minor.
A designation of Class B(CSO) is made only if MDEP community planning process and
watershed planning efforts demonstrate that the allowance of minor CSO discharges is
the most environmentally protective and cost-effective option available. In general,
MDEP does not consider the Class B(CSO) designation to be a significant downgrading of
water quality, but believes that current water quality standards would be met most of
the time, and that the CSO impacts from the minor discharges are at a level comparable
with the water quality goals. Furthermore, this designation is only allowed in "non-critical
resource areas." Critical areas would include beaches, shellfish habitats, drinking water
intakes, endangered species habitats, etc.
Specifically, MDEP's CSO control policy allows Class B(CSO) designations for discharges
that can meet water quality standards more than 95 percent of the time (equivalent to
control of untreated CSO discharge up to a three-month frequency storm; each event
assumed to last a period of four days). The highest achievable/affordable control to meet
this level of standards must be identified and implemented through the LTCP process. A
UAA must be developed for communities to document that achieving a higher level of
CSO control is not feasible or appropriate.
MDEP also allows for variances and partial use designation for CSO-impacted waters.
Variances allow for short-term modifications of Massachusetts water quality standards
when interim control measures or further analyses are warranted.Thus, variances allow
communities to comply with temporary water quality standards in their NPDES permits
-------
Profile: — 1
while progress is being made to comply with the existing standards. Variances are issued
by MDEP and can be both discharger- and pollutant-specific, and are time-limited; they
do not change the current water body class designation (e.g., Class B). MDEP grants
partial use designations (based on results from a UAA) in CSO-impacted waters, where
MDEP is certain that the designated uses or standards cannot and will not be attained
on a permanent basis. Partial use generally indicates a short-term impairment of uses
and can be defined by seasons or a particular storm event when a use such as primary
public recreation contact and bathing will be unattainable in CSO-impacted waters. The
use must be fully protected downstream, in other seasons, or during smaller storm
events.
In areas where MDEP determines that designated uses cannot and will not be melon a
permanent basis, MDEP will then consider a change in classification from Class B to Class C
(a downgrading of water quality). This option is a last resort and must be based on UAA
findings that the designated use cannot be reasonably attained.
To date, MDEP has listed portions of Boston Harbor as Class B(CSO) and has approved
variances for the CSO-impacted areas of the Charles and Mystic Rivers.
Enforcement Program
EPA Region 1's Water Enforcement Program is responsible for conducting compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities. Region 1's Office of Ecosystem Protection (OEP)
issues NPDES permits. Most CSO communities are under a Consent Degree or an
Administrative Order in Massachusetts. EPA Region 1 requires (in permit) that the CSO
community must meet water quality standards. If this cannot be achieved through the
NMC required in the permit, the community is in a noncompliance situation. Region 1
then intervenes and works with the community to develop an approach and a schedule
for initiating and developing a LTCRThis is formalized in an enforceable schedule within
an Administrative Order and then reaffirmed during reissuance in the Permit Fact Sheet
developed by OEP.
-------
-------
State Profile
New Hampshire—Region 1
CSO Permits
5
Permitted CSO Outfalls
44
NPDES Authority
EPA Region 1
Water Quality Standards Authority
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES)
Online Resources
www.des.state.nh.us/waterjntro.htm
www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/wwt/web-9.htm
CANADA
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
_..•• O.
Vermont
Maine
• M&rrimack'.
Atlantic Ocean
Massachusetts
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
N umber of Perm its Percent
BMP Requirements
•7 NMC
V Some BMPs
'• / No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
V LTCP
V Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
5
0
0
5
4
1
0
5
100%
0%
0%
100%
80%
20%
0%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
EPA Region 1's approach in New Hampshire has primarily relied upon the use of the
NPDES permitting process to initiate CSO planning and follow-up. Combined
enforcement and assistance efforts have been used to help communities initiate
projects, develop program milestones, and establish schedules. Communities are
encouraged to implement less costly, nonstructural controls (i.e., NMC) as a means to
abate its CSOs. For those requiring more long-term solutions, the community must
develop a phased approach for identifying and implementing control solutions,
encouraging the use of technologies that maximize environmental benefits (through the
LTCP process). The long-term planning efforts are formalized in administrative orders,
consent decrees, or other enforceable mechanisms. In 1987 EPA Region 1 developed an
NPDES Policy for Control of CSOs that was used to address all of the CSOs in the state.
Program Highlights
EPA Region 1 and NHDES
coordinate New Hampshire's CSO
program.
NMC are required in all CSO
permits.
Enforcement and compliance
assistance lead the development
and schedule for long-term CSO
planning efforts.
New Hampshire developed an
approach for water quality
standards evaluation and
redesignations.
Initial CSS assessments of the
state identified six CSO
permittees; there are currently
five CSO permittees (Berlin,
Nashua, Portsmouth, Lebanon,
and Manchester).
NH-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Permitting Program
EPA Region 1's NPDES Permit Task Force issues wastewater discharge permits for New
Hampshire. CSO communities are typically issued NPDES permits that require
implementation and documentation of the NMC for control of CSOs outlined in a special
CSO section. In this section, the permit also requires in a narrative statement that the
CSO community must meet water quality standards or equivalent. Therefore, if the CSO
community implements its NMC and cannot effectively eliminate its CSOs, the CSO
community is in violation of its permit.
Water Quality Standards Program
The NHDES establishes and reviews state water quality standards. The state's 1989 CSO
control strategy outlines the two step-process:
Determine the volume and strength of CSO discharges and its impact on the water
quality of the receiving waters.
Where it is determined that CSOs violate New Hampshire's Surface Water Quality
Regulations (N.H. Administrative Rules, Env-Ws 1700), the community must then
develop a comprehensive CSO Facility Plan (i.e., LTCP) to determine the most cost-
effective solution to abate CSO pollution.
New Hampshire has also developed a surface water partial-use designation called
Temporary Partial Use (TPU) or Class B (TPU). A designation of Class B(TPU) is made only
if the community planning process and watershed planning efforts demonstrate that the
allowance of minor CSO discharges is the most environmentally protective and cost-
effective option available. In general, NHDES does not consider the Class B(TPU)
designation to be a significant downgrading of water quality, but believes that current
water quality standards would be met most of the time and that the impacts from the
CSO discharges would be at a level comparable with the water quality goals.
Furthermore, this designation is only allowed in "non-critical resource areas." Critical
areas would include beaches, shellfish habitats, drinking water intakes, and endangered
species habitats.
Enforcement Program
EPA Region 1's Water Enforcement Program is responsible for conducting compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities in New Hampshire. Region 1's Office of Ecosystem
Protection (OEP) issues NPDES permits. Most CSO communities are under a Consent
Degree or an Executive or Administrative Order in New Hampshire. EPA Region 1 requires
(in permit) that the CSO community must meet water quality standards. If this cannot be
achieved through the NMC (required in the permit), the community is in a
noncompliance situation. EPA Region 1 intervenes and works with the community to
develop an approach and schedule for initiating and developing an LTCP.This is
formalized in a schedule within an Administrative Order.The schedule is then reaffirmed
during permit reissuance in the Permit Fact Sheet developed by OEP.
NH-2
-------
State Profile
Rhode Island—Region 1
O CSO Permits
0 20
40 Miles
CSO Permits
3
Permitted CSO Outfalls
87
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM)
Online Resources
www.state.ri.us/dem/
www.state.ri.us/dem/programs/benviron/water/quality/index.html
Connecticut
Blackstorie '••
---; : River
Massachusetts
Narragansett ^
Bay
Atlantic Ocean
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
Program Highlights
BMP Requirements
V NMC
?' Some BMPs
'•/ No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
V LJCP
W Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
Rhode Island's 1990 CSO policy
requires primary treatment or
equivalent for all CSO discharges;
higher levels of treatment are
required when necessary to meet
water quality standards.
A stakeholder-based LTCP was
developed by the Narragansett
Bay Commission. A three-phase
abatement plan has been
approved that limits CSO events
to four per year. The primary
control is deep rock tunnel
storage and pump-back for
treatment.The final design of
Phase I has been approved
(except for pump station and
instrumentation and controls).
Newport has built two CSO
abatement facilities, but the older
facility does not comply with
state or federal CSO policy. RIDEM
is requiring further planning to
assess the need for additional
controls at both facilities.
RI-1
-------
-------
State Profile
Vermont—Region 1
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
CSO Permits
7
Permitted CSO Outfalls
64
NPDES Authority
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VDEC)
Water Quality Standards Authority
Vermont Water Resources Board (VWRB)
State Online Resources
www.state.vt.us/wtrboard/
CANADA
Lake Champlain
New York
-
, Connecticut *
": : River ;
. • - o • ;.-''"
O
O
, O
ll
Maine
New Hampshire \
Atlantic Ocean
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
t'77 NMC
V Some BMPs
• / No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
Jjjjfjj^^ v TOP
5t1^;?f r^S-^jj ? Other Facility Plan
V^^sV^sf './ No Facility Plan
^^£&' j0tai
Number of Permits Percent
0 0% 1
7 100% I
0 0% !
1 100% !
0 0% !
7 100% i
0 0%
7 100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Program Highlights
VDEC published a state Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy in1990.The state CSO
policy included a listing of Vermont's CSO communities and outlined a strategy for CSO
compliance. The strategy required communities to identify all overflow structures within
their collection systems as part of the permit application process. Once the overflows
were identified, VDEC determined which outfalls were subject to the guidelines of the
state CSO policy.
CSO outfalls that were not in compliance with Vermont water quality standards and
federal minimum technology-based limitations were issued an administrative order
outlining a compliance schedule. Administrative orders were generally issued
immediately following issuance of the community's NPDES permit. The state CSO policy
encouraged complete elimination of CSOs (e.g., sewer separation) when other CSO
control alternatives were determined to be technically and economically equal.
All CSO requirements have been
handled through administrative
orders.
Vermont provided up to 50
percent of the total cost for CSO
correction projects through state
grants and interest free loans.
Initial CSS assessment by VDEC
identified 27 CSO permittees. 20
of these communities have
separated their systems, leaving
seven CSO permittees.
VT-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Communities that opted for CSO separation were required to be able to capture and
provide full treatment for a minimum design flow generated by a 24 hour, 2.5-inch
rainfall. Vermont provided funding up to 50 percent of the total cost for CSO correction
projects through state grants and interest free loans. The majority of communities in
Vermont (20 out of 27) chose sewer separation as their primary method for CSO control.
Permitting Program
Vermont's NPDES permits do not require CSO communities to implement the NMC.
However, communities that receive approval from VDEC to continue to operate CSO
outfalls are required by the state CSO policy to implement a series of BMPs as part of
their CSO corrective plan. The BMPs required by VDEC are similar to a subset of the NMC
and include:
Solids and floatables control
Proper operation and maintenance of the collection system
Maximum use of collection system storage
Maximization of flows to the wastewater treatment facility
Approximately 40 percent of the CSO communities in Vermont were required in either
their permits or administrative orders to implement a combination of the state BMPs as
part of their CSO control plan. Vermont did not require CSO communities to submit a
formal document for their LTCR Instead, communities were required under
administrative orders to submit a preliminary engineering report that outlined their CSO
correction plans and funding needs. Following submission of each engineering report,
VDEC adjusted statements in the community's administrative order regarding the
compliance schedule, based on project needs and funding availability.
Water Quality Standards Program
VDEC is responsible for determining if approved CSO discharges are in compliance with
water quality standards. Disinfection is required for all CSO discharges under the state
CSO policy. VDEC may require additional in-stream monitoring, either through the
community's permit or administrative order, to ensure attainment of water quality
standards. Over 30 percent of the communities were required to develop a monitoring
program. Under the state CSO policy, communities are required to eliminate all CSOs that
discharge to Class B waters. Vermont does not have a specific procedure for the
reclassification of CSO receiving waters. Communities that determine complete CSO
elimination to be unattainable can follow the standard state procedure and petition
VWRB to reclassify the receiving water. The majority of communities in the state achieved
compliance with state water quality standards by eliminating all CSO outfalls through
sewer separation.
Enforcement Program
Vermont required implementation of CSO controls through state-issued administrative
orders. Communities that did not meet the requirements set in the administrative order
were issued a consent order. Only four communities in Vermont received a state-issued
consent order for violation of administrative orders. Approximately 74 percent of the
communities in the state have completed construction on their CSO control projects.
During the next permit cycle, VDEC plans to review the effectiveness of each
community's CSO control plan. If the community continues to be in violation of the state
CSO policy, VDEC will issue another administrative order outlining any additional
requirements and compliance schedules the community must meet. To date, only one
community has been issued a second administrative order, because its sewer separation
project did not completely eliminate all CSO discharges for the required design flow.
VT-2
-------
State Profile
New Jersey—Region 2
New York
Connecticut
CSO Permits
31
Permitted CSO Outfalls
274
NPDES Authority/Water Quality Standards Authority
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Online Resources
http:/www.state.nj.us/dep/
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
r* . .
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Long
Islan
New York
Atlantic Ocean
Delaware
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
V NMC
V Some BMPs
'V No BMPs
Total
Number of Permits Percent
;r\l
HJ
Facility Plan Requirements
'V LJCP
'?/ Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
30
0
1
31
0
4
27
31
96.8%
0%
3.2%
100%
0%
12.9%
87.1%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
New Jersey has highly regionalized collection, conveyance, and treatment systems with
portions of the sewer systems owned/operated by different local government entities.
The wastewater treatment facilities generally serve multiple local governments.
Collection systems and corresponding CSO points are generally owned/operated by
municipalities, while conveyance and treatment facilities are owned/operated by
independent treatment authorities; however some utility authorities do own/operate
CSOs.
The CSO program is administered using a combination of individual and general NPDES
permits. The program requires CSO communities that own or operate any portion of a
CSS to develop and implement technology-based control measures, including the NMC.
These enforceable commitments also initiate the first phase of LTCP planning activities
by requiring development of calibrated and field-verified SWMM models of the CSS.
Program Highlights
New Jersey has highly
regionalized collection,
conveyance, and treatment
systems with portions of the CSSs
owned/operated by different
local government entities.
The CSO program is administered
using a combination of individual
and general NPDES permits.
NJDEP provides substantial
funding for the planning, design,
and construction of CSO control
facilities and for infrastructure
rehabilitation and improvement.
LTCP development is
incorporated into the ongoing
state-wide watershed
management and TMDL process
in accordance with the TMDL
development schedule contained
in a Memorandum of
Understanding with EPA Region 2.
NJDEP has adopted and is
implementing a comprehensive
solids and floatables control
requirement,supported with
state financial assistance.
NJ-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
NJDEP has adopted a far-reaching solids and floatables control requirement that has
resulted in reductions to the size of areas served by CSSs and the number of CSO
outfalls. CSO communities are required to capture, remove, and properly dispose of all
solids and floatables materials from all CSOs on an enforceable compliance schedule.
Under the New Jersey Sewerage Infrastructure Improvement Act (SNA, enacted in 1988),
NJDEP initiated a program that provides planning and design grants for the
development and implementation of solids/floatables control measures and for the
identification and elimination of dry weather overflows. Grants are awarded for
implementation of control measures that capture and remove solids/floatables materials
from CSO discharges and that remediate or modify the CSS to eliminate dry weather
overflows. Most often, "in-line" or "end-of-pipe" screen technologies have been selected.
New Jersey estimates that $340 million will be spent for the planning, design, and
construction of solids and floatables control measures. LTCP development is
incorporated into the ongoing statewide watershed management and TMDL process, in
accordance with the TMDL development schedule contained in a Memorandum of
Understanding with EPA Region 2.
NJDEP uses the SRF Program to assist in the construction of CSO control facilities and
infrastructure rehabilitation and improvement.
Permitting Program
NJDEP serves as the NPDES authority. The CSO program is administered using a
combination of individual and general permits. The general permit contains regulatory
requirements applicable to collection and conveyance systems and CSOs. Approximately
16 local government entities and approximately 231 CSOs are regulated under the
general permit. The general permit contains appropriate provisions of the NMC
applicable to owners/operators of collection and conveyance systems and CSOs,
including:
Prohibition of dry weather overflows
Solids/floatables control
Development and implementation of proper operation and regular maintenance
programs
Maximization of flow to the WWTP
Public notification/reporting requirements
The general permit also initiates LTCP development, by requiring the development of
calibrated and field-verified SWMM models of the CSS
Regulatory requirements applicable to wastewater treatment systems are generally
contained in individual NPDES permits. Each wastewater treatment facility and any CSOs
owned by the treatment authority are regulated under an individual permit issued to the
treatment facility. Individual NPDES permits issued to wastewater treatment authorities
contain appropriate provisions of the NMC applicable to owners/operators ofWWTPs,
including:
Maximization of conveyance and treatment of wastewater at the WWTP
Minimization of nondomestic discharges (during wet weather)
Development and implementation of proper operation and regular maintenance
programs
If the treatment authority also owns or operates CSOs, then the permit contains
provisions similar to those in the general permit.
NJ-2
-------
State Profile: New Jersey— 2
Water Quality Standards Program
The water quality standards program is also administered by NJDER NJDEP is using a
watershed process to develop watershed restoration plans. During the watershed
process, water quality standards and uses will be considered as NJDEP develops
management responses that may include TMDLs, LTCPs and other appropriate activities.
CSO communities have not yet formally approached NJDEP to request the initiation of
changes to the surface water quality standards.
Enforcement Program
NJDEP uses a range of enforcement actions to implement CSO controls and has initiated
numerous enforcement actions against communities determined to be out of
compliance with the CSO provisions of their NPDES permits. NJDEP has entered into
judicial consent orders in state superior court with five CSO communities, including one
that was the result of a citizen's suit, and has entered into administrative consent orders
with six CSO communities. In addition, NJDEP has filed complaints in state superior court
against two CSO communities that are in noncompliance with their NPDES permits, and
is currently developing administrative consent orders with four additional local
government entities.
NJ-3
-------
-------
State Profile
New York—Region 2
CSO Permits
74
Permitted CSO Outfalls
1,098
NPDES Authority/Water Quality Standards Authority
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC)
Online Resources
www.dec.state.ny.us/
www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/index.html
O CSO Communities
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
,-! k Vermont
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Atlantic Ocean
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
:7 NMC
'F Some BMPs
V No BMPs
Total
Number of Permits Percent
Facility Plan Requirements
'V LTCP
V Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
72
0
2
74
33
1
40
74
97.3%
0%
2.7%
100%
44.6%
1.4%
54.1%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
NYSDEC first issued its Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy (the Strategy) in
October 1993. The Strategy provided guidance to NYSDEC staff on developing NPDES
permit conditions, compliance, and enforcement strategies, surveillance, and technical
reviews to address the abatement of CSO impacts. The goal of the Strategy was the
elimination of all CSO-related water quality impairments, and it gave special emphasis to
controlling floatable materials. The Strategy also recognized that the state's CSO
problems and abatement needs were dominated by the major metropolitan areas: New
York City, Buffalo, and Syracuse.
Twelve BMPs designed to minimize the water quality impacts of CSOs were outlined in
the Strategy. Six of the BMPs were equivalent to the six minimum measures required by
the CSO Control Strategy. NYSDEC has since added three BMP measures, such that the
set of 15 BMPs cover activities and actions described by eight of the NMC. The ninth,
Program Highlights
33 of the 74 New York CSO
communities are required to
develop LTCPs.These LTCPs cover
71 percent of the CSO outfalls in
the state.
NYDEC developed a set of 15
BMPs, which it asserts are
equivalent to eight of the NMC.
The ninth,"pollution prevention"
is addressed through several
alternate BMPs designed to
minimize pollution.
The suite of applicable BMPs for
each community is determined
on a site-specific basis..
NYDEC implemented its
Environmental Benefits Permit
Strategy to identify permits
whose reissuance would provide
the greatest environmental
benefit.
NYDEC is participating in New
York City's Use and Standards
Attainment (USA) Project to
assess highest reasonably
attainable use for its CSO-
impacted waters.
Initial CSS assessments identified
90 CSO permittees; there are
currently 74 permits.
NY-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
"pollution prevention"is addressed through several alternate BMPs designed to minimize
pollution.The 15 BMPs are:
Development of a CSO maintenance and inspection program.
Optimization of the collection system to maximize in-system storage.
Consideration of CSOs in approved industrial pretreatment programs.
Maximization of flowtoWWTPs.
Development and implementation of a wet weather operating plan.
Prohibition of dry weather overflows.
Elimination or minimization of floatable and settleable solids in discharges.
Replacement of combined sewers with separate sewers to the greatest extent
possible.
Prohibition on introduction of new sources of storm water.
Prohibition of new connections in areas with recurring sewage back-ups.
Prohibition of the discharge or release of septage or hauled waste upstream of a CSO.
Implementation of practices and technologies to control runoff from new
development.
Installation and maintenance of signs at CSO outfalls.
Characterization and monitoring of the CSS.
Submission of annual reports summarizing BMP implementation.
Applicability of the 15 BMPs is determined on a site-specific basis, but 72 of 74 New York
CSO communities currently have permit requirements to implement at least one of the
BMPs.
Permitting Program
NYSDEC issued its Environmental Benefit Permit Strategy (EBPS) in September 1992. The
EBPS established a process for prioritizing reissuance of permits based on the
environmental benefits that would be gained, rather than reviewing permits in
chronological order. NYSDEC'sgoal is to revise the top 10 percent of the state-issued
NPDES permits on the priority ranking list each year. This equates to approximately 60
NPDES POTW permits per year.
Under the EBPS, each permit receives a numerical score for each of 15 factors as they
apply to that particular permit. The two factors relevant to CSO control are permit
requirements to implement the 15 BMPs, and permit requirements to develop and
submit an LTCR Each factor is then multiplied by a "water quality enhancement
multiplier" (which ranges from 1-10) that describes the benefit of modifying the permit
to address the factor.
In response to an EPA Office of the Inspector General audit survey, NYSDEC reviewed all
of the NPDES permits with CSOs and elevated the priority of any permits that have
deficiencies with respect to CSO controls. As a result, most of the permits for CSO
communities will be reviewed within the next three years. Currently 33 of New York's 74
CSO communities have permit requirements to develop LTCPs; these 33 LTCPs cover 71
percent, of the state's 1,098 CSO outfalls.
-------
Profile: York— 2
Water Quality Standards Program
Only New York City has approached the state to request a review of water quality
standards for its CSO-impacted waters. New York City initiated a use and standards
attainment (USA) project to assess the highest reasonably attainable use for its CSO-
impacted waters. NYSDEC also anticipates that Buffalo and Syracuse may have an
interest in standards reviews, but they have not yet initiated a formal process with
NYSDEC.
The goals of the New York City USA Project are as follows:
= Define, through a public process, more specific and comprehensive long-term
beneficial use goals for each water body, including habitat, recreational, wetlands and
riparian goals, in addition to water quality goals, thus maximizing the overall
environmental benefit.
Develop technical, economic, public, and regulatory support for prioritizing and
expediting implementation of projects and actions needed to attain the defined
goals.
Provide the technical, scientific, and economic basis to support the regulatory process
needed to define water quality standards for the highest reasonably attainable use to
allow water quality standards to be attained upon implementation of recommended
projects.
Enforcement Program
NYDEC uses both NPDES permits and enforceable orders to require implementation of
minimum measures and LTCP requirements in CSO communities. This has resulted in a
high rate of compliance with state submittal schedules and implementation progress.
NYDEC issued permits to New York City on September 27,1988, requiring that CSO
abatement be addressed by a series of Facility Planning Programs. Facility plans were to
be developed for nine area-specific segments: Flushing Bay, Paerdegat Basin, Jamaica
Bay, East River, Inner Harbor, Outer Harbor, Coney Island Creek, Newtown Creek, and the
Jamaica Drainage Area tributaries. New York City failed to start and/or complete facility
plans by the specified date for the Inner Harbor, Outer Harbor, East River, and the Jamaica
Bay Tributaries. As a result of these violations, DEC and New York City signed an Order of
Consent dated June 25,1992.The order established a 14-year compliance schedule to
plan, design, and construct CSO abatement (storage) facilities which will prevent
violations of dissolved oxygen and coliform permit limits. Although significant progress
has been made, New York City is not in compliance with some of the requirements of this
order.
The Amended Consent Judgement for Onondaga County (Syracuse) requires the
implementation of an LTCP designed to meet the presumption approach with a
commitment to spend approximately $1454150 million on CSO controls. Binghamton-
Johnson City is under a consent order to implement an LTCP to meet the presumption
approach.
In addition, a number of CSO communities in New York are under enforcement orders
related to violations at their WWTPs. These violations can often be traced to the wet
weather impacts that the CSS is having on the operation of its treatment facility.
NY-3
-------
-------
State Profile
CSO Permits
2
Permitted CSO Outfalls
39
Delaware—Region 3
Pennsylvania
Maryland
O CSO Permits
909 18 Miles
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC)
Online Resources
www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/
New Jersey
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
Program Highlights
BMP Requirements
~ NMC
V Some BMPs
•./ No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
'v LJCP
'"f' Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
50%
0%
50%
100%
50%
50%
0%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Delaware currently has two CSO communities. The Division of Water Resources within the
DNREC is responsible for administering the NPDES program.The Division developed its
CSO Strategy in 1991, prior to the adoption of EPA's CSO Control Policy. Because of the
small number of CSO communities, the Division chose to address each CSO community
on a case-by-case basis, incorporating the appropriate permit conditions to address each
community's CSOs as its NPDES permit came up for renewal.
Delaware has two CSO
permittees: Seaford and
Wilmington.
Seaford has been working to
separate its eight CSOs through
sewer separation.Work has
progressed as funding becomes
available. One CSO was
eliminated prior to the
development of the community's
CSO control plan in 1994. Two
CSOs were eliminated in 1996,
one in 1997, and three in 2000.
Separation of the one remaining
CSO is expected to be completed
by 2003.
The NPDES permit for Seaford
was reissued with an effective
date of September 1,2000. An
extension for the reissued permit
requires elimination of all CSOs
within 30 months of the permit's
effective date (i.e., no later than
January 31,2003).
Wilmington has drafted an LTCP
that outlines a strategy
combining underground storage,
pump station upgrades, and
sewer separation to minimize the
number of overflows and provide
treatment for 85 percent of the
combined flow reaching the
sewer system.
DE-1
-------
-------
State Profile
Washington, District of Columbia—Region 3
CSO Permits
1
Permitted CSO Outfalls
60
NPDES Authority
EPA Region 3
Water Quality Standards Authority
District of Columbia Department of Health (DCDOH)
Online Resources
www.environ.state.dc.us
www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/cso/index.htm
Maryland
O CSO Permit
1 0 1 2 Miles
Virginia
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
BMP Requirements
V NMC
T7 Some BMPs
••„• No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
T7 LTCP
f'" Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
Program Highlights
The District of Columbia Water
and Sewer Authority (WASA) is
the sole CSO permittee.
EPA Region 3, as the NPDES
authority, requires NMC
documentation and LTCP
submission.
DCDOH reviews and comments
on the LTCP, determines
compliance with water quality
standards, and serves on the CSO
stakeholder committee.
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Approximately one-third of the District of Columbia is served by a CSS. The community
has implemented the NMC and is in the process of developing its LTCP. The proposed
CSO Control Program includes three storage tunnels, pump station rehabilitation,
regulator improvements, and low impact development retrofits. There are a total of 60
CSO outfalls listed in the District of Columbia's NPDES Permit that discharge to Rock
Creek, the Anacostia River, the Potomac River and tributary waters.
Permitting Program
EPA Region 3 is the NPDES authority for the District of Columbia. Documentation of the
NMC was submitted to EPA Region 3 in 1996, with follow-up reports in 1999 and 2000.
WASA began developing its LTCP in 1998, and submitted a draft LTCP to EPA Region 3
and DCDOH in June 2001.
DC-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Through the review of the LTCP and water quality certification process, DCDOH exercises
regulatory authority. DCDOH has submitted to EPA a final TMDL for BOD in the
Anacostia River that includes an allocation for CSOs.
Water Quality Standards Program
DCDOH is responsible for the development, issuance, and enforcement of the District of
Columbia's water quality standards program. The District of Columbia had wet weather
provisions in its water quality standards in prior years, but these have since been
removed at the request of EPA Region 3. As part of the LTCP, WASA is requesting that wet
weather provisions be brought back into the water quality standards program.This
request will be reviewed by DCDOH.
Enforcement Program
EPA Region 3 is responsible for ensuring enforcement and compliance with NPDES
permits within the District of Columbia. DCDOH is responsible for ensuring attainment of
water quality standards within the District of Columbia through the District of Columbia
Water Pollution Control Act of 1985.
DC-2
-------
State Profile
CSO Permits
8
Permitted CSO Outfalls
58
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
Online Resources
www.mde.state.md.us/index.html
Maryland—Region 3
Pennsylvania
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
0- 4 i Atlantic Ocean
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
BMP Requirements
V? NMC
v>v" Some BMPs
'./ No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
r" LTCP
V Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
0
0
8
0
0
8
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
Program Highlights
All eight CSO communities are
required to implement NMC in
their permits.
All eight CSO communities are
required to implement LTCPs
under administrative or judicial
orders, as well as through their
permits.
Smaller communities are subject
to a less formal implementation
process.
Maryland is attempting to
negotiate consent decrees with
five communities currently under
administrative orders for failing to
develop an LTCP.
Initial CSS assessments of the
state identified nine CSO
permittees; there are currently
eight CSO permittees.
MD-1
-------
-------
State Profile
Pennsylvania—Region 3
New York
CSO Permits
155
Permitted CSO Outfalls
1,662
O CSO Permits
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP)
Online Resources
www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wsm/facts/fs2655.htm
r\\ •
Ohio
W.Virginia
New
Jersey
Maryland
Dela-
ware
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Nu mber of Permits Percent
BMP Requirements
'7 NMC
V Some BMPs
\/ No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
"v LJCP
V Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
153
0
2
155
144
2
9
155
98.7%
0%
1.3%
100.0%
92.9%
1.3%
5.8%
100.0%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
PADEP developed its initial state CSO Strategy based on the 1989 National CSO Control
Strategy. In 1995, PADEP revised the Strategy to include the elements identified in the
CSO Control Policy. The revised Strategy required municipal dischargers to identify CSO
locations and implement the NMC with additional long-term controls being required, as
necessary, to comply with water quality standards. CSO communities undergoing
reissuance of an NPDES permit, or those eligible for and seeking coverage under a
general CSO permit, were issued permits that reflected the Strategy's requirements and a
compliance schedule.
Permitting, enforcement, and compliance activities related to the revised Strategy were
delegated to the regional PADEP offices. PADEP encouraged communities to use the
national guidance documents available for NMC and LTCPs in meeting their permit
requirements. PADEP also co-hosted an EPA-funded two-day workshop for officials from
communities with CSSs to better engage them in the program in 1997.
Program Highlights
Pennsylvania has the greatest
number of CSO communities
(155) and CSO discharge points
(1,662) in the nation.
PADEP developed a 1991 State
CSO Strategy, which was revised
in 1995 to reflect the 1994 EPA
CSO Control Policy; a State Policy
is expected in 2001.
PADEP is not currently
considering revisions to State
water quality standards for CSO-
impacted areas, but will explore
them in the upcoming triennial
review.
55 CSO communities have
submitted LTCPs (three in draft
format) and 24 have been
approved by the state (two
conditionally). NMC
documentation has been
submitted by 112 communities.
The number of CSSs identified in
the state rose from an initial 147
to 155, primarily due to inclusion
of combined satellite collection
systems.
PA-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Permitting Program
PADEP's six regional offices (Northeast, Southeast, Southcentral, Northcentral, Southwest,
and Northwest) are responsible for NPDES permitting (including CSOs) within their
geographic areas. In response to the initial state CSO Strategy, PADEP began requiring
implementation of the six minimum measures (or NMC) in permits of CSSs.When the
Revised Strategy was issued in 1995, PADEP added the remaining three NMC and the
LTCP requirements, which have been included in permits reissued since 1995.
PADEP also developed a CSO general permitting process. General permits were made
available only to small communities that met specific eligibility requirements and mainly
included satellite collection systems that operate and maintain a CSS, but send
wastewater to another town or regional facility for treatment. Notice-of-intent submittal
requirements for coverage under a CSO general permit were minimal; however, coverage
included many of the same CSO requirements as the individual NPDES permit.
Most CSO communities in Pennsylvania have CSO requirements in their permits.
Approximately 112 communities have submitted NMC documentation and 55 have
submitted LTCPs (three in draft format).
Water Quality Standards Program
Development and implementation of water quality standards in Pennsylvania is also a
primary responsibility of PADEP. A change in water quality standards must be approved
through an independent regulatory review commission, submitted to the Environmental
Quality Board for review and approval, and then sent to the state legislature for final
approval. Based on the involved state process for altering standards and negative
connotations of lowering or downgrading water quality standards, PADEP does not
believe UAAs or revisions to state standards for CSO-impacted waters are workable.
These issues will be explored in the upcoming triennial review.
Enforcement Program
PADEP regional offices are responsible for enforcement and compliance activities,
including review of all CSO documents and reports required to be submitted according
to the NPDES permit compliance schedule. PADEP activities have focused on getting
requirements into NPDES permits, ensuring that CSO programs are being initiated, and
reviewing submitted documentation.The Southwest Regional PADEP office, having the
most CSO communities, has a review system in place for NMC based on the suggested
evaluation checklist provided in the EPA publication, Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls.
Informal enforcement notices of violations and noncompliance with the NMC are often
issued, and consequently, updates to NMC documentation are required to demonstrate
full implementation of the NMC. The other regional offices have incorporated
enforcement of the CSO requirements through normal permitting and enforcement
activities within the regional water quality management programs.
As permits that have CSO requirements expire and facilities apply for reissuance, PADEP
determines their overall compliance status. EPA Region 3 has enforcement oversight, and
has indicated that permits that are not in compliance with the schedule listed in the
expiring NPDES permit should be brought into compliance through an enforcement
action (rather than reissuing the permit with a new/revised compliance schedule).
PA-2
-------
State Profile
1 1
/ 1
CSO Permits O cso Permits j\
•2 20 0 20 40 60 Miles J
/
Permitted CSO Outfalls \ / ,/
99 '"' \J* W.Virginia
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority \ /
\ if
Virginia — Region 3
Pennsylvania
i --.-•'" ''^ "^v Maryland ^.-'••f;
:- ' / \/^DBtnctofcf >.- i
jr .• "Potomac^ f)J'"~ ;
r / River -:9 ,;|::|.; ':
Shenandoah „ ••• -Sf^.'-W "'•';• -'"-':
River -. ""• V '<«• *-fjf
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Kentucky
(VDEQ)
State Online Resources
www.deq.state.va.us/
www.deq.state.va.us/water/
'~s-y''James .Qv, -,!'"
River '-—"'•
Tennessee
North Carolina
Atlantic Ocean
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
V? NMC
;' •, v>v" Some BMPs
''••.. ; ":7 No BMPs
Total
Number of Permits
3
0
0
3
Percent
100% !
0% !
o% i
100% I
Program Highlights
Facility Plan Requirements
r" UCP
y Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
3
0
0
3
100%
0%
0%
100%
Lynch burg is using sewer
separation and interceptor
replacement as components of its
CSO implementation.
Richmond implemented the NMC
and developed an LTCP that
provides controls for each CSO
outfall and is designed to protect
sensitive areas. Primary LTCP
controls include a storage tunnel
and retention basin. CSO planning
was coordinated with watershed-
based receiving water monitoring
and earned Richmond First Place
in EPA's 1999 CSO Control
Program Excellence Awards.
Alexandria has separated its
entire CSS, except for Old Town.
The City is using the NMCs as its
LTCR Alexandria is required to
submit annual reports to VDEC
documenting the volume
frequency and duration of
overflow events, based on results
of a collection system model.
Initial CSS assessments by VDEC
identified four CSO permittees;
there are currently three CSO
permittees.
VA-1
-------
-------
State Profile
West Virginia—Region 3
CSO Permits
58
Permitted CSO Outfalls
776
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP)
State Online Resources
www.dep.state.wv.us/
www.dep.state.wv.us/wr/OWR_Website/index.htm
'._' CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
Kentucky
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
BMP Requirements
'V NMC
V Some BMPs
'••„•• No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
V" LTCP
'=? Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
58
0
0
58
58
0
0
58
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
West Virginia has adopted EPA'sCSO Control Policy, with some additional requirements
specific to the state. All NPDES permits for communities with CSOs contain requirements
to comply with the NMC and to develop an LTCP. WVDEP has not issued any enforcement
orders for violations of these permit requirements.
State-specific requirements include documentation of implementation of the NMC in a
report titled "CSO Final Plan of Action,"and documentation of a required water quality
study that must be conducted by each permittee on its CSO receiving waters. To date, 54
communities have submitted CSO Final Plans of Action, with 43 communities
documenting implementation of all of the NMC.
The purpose of the water quality study is to evaluate the water quality impacts of CSOs
on receiving waters. Communities are required to collect dry weather receiving water
samples at least once a month, and wet weather receiving water data during at least
Program Highlights
The NMC are required in all West
Virginia CSO permits. 54 of 58
communities have documented
some implementation of the
NMC, and 43 have implemented
all of the NMC.
LTCPs are required in all CSO
permits. To date, 16 LTCPs have
been received by WVDEP and one
has been approved.
WVDEP requires that all CSO
communities conduct water
quality studies, which evaluate
water quality impacts of CSOs on
receiving waters. Approximately
21 communities have submitted
water quality studies.
Initial CSS assessments by WVDEP
identified 56 CSO permittees;
there are currently 58 CSO
permittees.
WV-1
-------
Appendix B
Profiles of State CSO Programs
B.15 Georgia
B.16 Kentucky
B.17 Tennessee
-------
-------
State Profile
Tennessee
O CSO Permits
50 0
CSO Permits
8
Permitted CSO Outfalls
19
NPDES Authority/Water Quality Standards Authority
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division (GDNR-EPD)
State Online Resources
www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/
Alabama
Georgia—Region 4
South Carolina
Atlantic Ocean
Florida
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
"7 NMC
; '. W SomeBMPs
/ 77 NoBMPs
Total
Number of Permits
8
0
0
8
Percent
100%
0%
0%
100%
Program Highlights
Facility Plan Requirements
V LTCP
Tf Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
100%
0%
0%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Georgia has three CSO communities, dominated by the large Atlanta system, which holds
six of the state's eight CSO permits. In 1989, there were six CSO communities; over time,
half of those cities have separated and are no longer considered CSO communities by
GDNR-EPD. All CSO communities have adopted the NMC as a result of CSO permit
requirements.
Due to a recent court ruling in an enforcement action, both GDNR-EPD and EPA Region 4
are reviewing Atlanta's CSO documents, including the recently submitted Atlanta CSO
Remedial Measures Report. Atlanta's CSO program will likely cost approximately
$1 billion when completed.
Columbus has an advanced demonstration facility for CSO treatment technologies.
Studies at the facility have involved exploring various vortex separation and filtration
Georgia has eight CSO permits
covering three CSO communities:
Atlanta, Albany, and Columbus.
AllCSSsare meeting
requirements associated with the
NMC, as a result of State law
requiring CSO elimination or
upgrade in the early 1990s.
The State does not consider LTCPs
to be completed until post
construction compliance
monitoring has been conducted;
therefore, no systems in Georgia
have completed LTCP
requirements.
Initial GDNR-EPD assessments
identified six CSO communities.
Three have since completed
separation projects, leaving three
CSO communities in the state.
GA-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
processes for pollutant removals, as well as various disinfection methods for pathogen
inactivation. Columbus has spent approximately $95 million on CSO controls.
Permitting Program
The NPDES program is administered through GDNR-EPD. The NMC are required for all
systems; however, there is no regular reporting mechanism for communities to send this
information to the state. Draft LTCPs have been developed by the communities.The
state, however, does not consider LTCPs to have been completed until all monitoring has
been conducted.Therefore, no systems in Georgia have completed the LTCP
requirements.
Water Quality Standards Program
In Georgia, the water quality standards officials do not have direct interaction with the
CSO program as the LTCPs are being developed or reviewed. The City of Atlanta is
requesting a water quality standards review as part of its effort to develop and
implement an LTCP.
Enforcement Program
GDNR-EPD has enforcement authority for CSOs in Georgia. The City of Atlanta is under a
Federal Consent Decree regarding its CSO program. Because of the complexity of the
issues in Atlanta, and as a result of a lawsuit in district court, the State of Georgia, EPA
Region 4, and a Federal districtjudge all have some degree of authority over Atlanta's
program. EPA Region 4 and GDNR-EPD havejoint review authority over Atlanta's LTCP.
Atlanta did not achieve compliance with the NMC on schedule and has other non-CSO
related violations.
-------
State Profile
Kentucky—Region 4
O CSO Permits
50 0
CSO Permits
17
Permitted CSO Outfalls
299
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (KDEP)
State Online Resources
www.nr.state.ky.us/nrepc/dep/dep2.htm
100 Miles
Illinois
Ohio
Indiana
Missouri
West Virginia
Virginia
Tennessee
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
.-- ••- BMP Requirements
... *> '- r? NMC
'- - - - - ... . „„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„„
V Some BMPs
-.-==- —--::,-,. :::__,n__ .
.; •'./ No BMPs
Total
...-• Facility Plan Requirements
./- ' -- v LTCP
'""""^Vli- . V Other Facility Plan
;
No Facility Plan
'•..„ .••' Total
Number of Permits
13
0
4
17
13
1
3
17
Percent
76.5%
0%
23.5%
100%
76.5%
5.9%
17.6%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Program Highlights
KDEP began its CSO control program in the early 1990s. Kentucky implemented the
program by developing standard CSO-related permit language for its NPDES permits.
This standard language requires an approved Combined Sewer Operational Plan (CSOP).
The CSOP has three principal objectives:
Ensure that if CSOs occur, they occur only as a result of wet weather.
Bring all wet weather CSO discharges into compliance with technology-based and/or
water quality-based requirements of the CWA.
Minimize the impacts of CSOs on water quality, aquatic biota, and human health.
The specified contents of the CSOP follow the NMC and LTCP provisions of the CSO
Control Policy, although the terms "NMC" and "LTCP" are not explicitly used in the permit
language. Nonetheless, the NMC requirements are outlined in the standard permit
Of the seven CSO communities
that have implemented and
documented the NMC,six have
also submitted and initiated
LTCPs. For the remaining 10 CSO
communities, NMC and LTCP
documentation is in progress or is
not required. No community is
overdue with itssubmittals.
Kentucky explicitly promotes a
comprehensive watershed
management approach for all
point and nonpoint sources in the
CSO permit language. Covered
sources include storm, separate
sanitary, and combined sewer
systems.
Kentucky encourages use of the
presumption approach over the
demonstration approach in
developing LTCPs.
Initial CSS assessments of the
State identified 18 CSO
permittees; there are currently 17.
KY-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
language. In addition, the CSO community is required to evaluate and select alternatives
for CSO controls, as well as develop a schedule of implementation, which is updated
annually in required CSOP annual reports. When selecting long-term CSO controls and
performance goals, the state encourages use of the "presumption approach" over the
"demonstration approach.".
Other components of KDEP's approach involve watershed management and flood
protection.The state promotes, explicitly in the CSO permit language, a comprehensive
watershed management approach for all point and nonpoint sources, including storm,
separate sanitary, and combined sewer systems. CSO-related permit language also
requires coordination of the implementation of community flood protection programs
and CSO abatement programs, such that implementation of one program does not
adversely impact the other.
Permitting Program
Since the early 1990s, all NPDES permits covering CSO communities have contained a
Special Conditions section for CSOs. This section lists the authorized overflow locations
and states that this authorization is premised on the conditions outlined within the
permit. The conditions generally include implementation of the NMC and development
and implementation of an LTCP. The elements of the NMC and the LTCP are to be
documented in the CSOP, which must be approved by the state. Annual updates to the
CSOP must also be submitted to the state to maintain compliance with the permit.
Seven of the 17 CSO communities have implemented and acceptably documented the
NMC. Six of these seven communities have also submitted and initiated implementation
of LTCPs, but no community has completed implementation of an LTCR (The single sewer
separation project that has been completed was not done as part of an LTCR)
For the remaining communities, NMC and LTCP documentation is either in progress and
not yet due to the state, or not required. Four CSO communities do not have
documentation requirements, although they do have NMC and LTCP language in their
permits. Submittals are not considered necessary since: 1) two communities have an
inactive system, i.e., rarely have overflows; 2) one community is in the process of
separating its collection system; and 3) one community is deactivating its treatment
facility and connecting its collection system to another CSS where documentation is
required.
Water Quality Standards Program
A formal state process for review and evaluation of water quality standards exists;
however, none of the CSO communities have requested a water quality standards review
to date. Consequently, no review of water quality standards for a CSO receiving water has
been conducted.
In general, KDEP staff responsible for the water quality standards program are not
involved in the CSO planning process, and generally do not give CSO-impacted waters
any special consideration during the triennial review process for water quality standards.
Enforcement Program
No enforcement order within the State of Kentucky is CSO-related. One CSO community
is involved in an enforcement action, but it is not specifically related to a CSO issue.
NPDES permits are the only enforceable mechanism used to date for the NMC and LTCP
requirements in CSO communities, and this has resulted in general compliance with
state submittal schedules and progress in implementation.
KY-2
-------
State Profile
Tennessee—Region 4
CSO Permits
3
Permitted CSO Outfalls
50
NPDES Authority
Tennessee Department of Environmental
Conservation (TDEC)
Online Resources
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
Missouri
Kentucky
Virginia
North Carolina
Arkansas ^Mississippi River
www.state.tn.us/environment/
www.state.tn.us/environment/water.htm#Program
Mississippi
Alabama
~\ South Carolina
Georgia
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
BMP Requirements
V NMC
? Some BMPs
7 No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
V LTCP
'••=•' Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
Program Highlights
CSO communities were required
to submit a CSO study by
administrative order.
All CSO permits require
communities to implement BMPs
similar in scope to the NMC, and
to monitor CSO discharges.
Bristol and Knoxvilie chose
complete sewer separation as
their primary control. Bristol had
completed separation prior to the
CSO Control Policy.
Initial CSS assessments by TDEC
identified five CSO permittees.
Two have since been separated
and there are now only three.
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Tennessee began addressing CSOs in the mid-1980s. Each CSO community was issued an
administrative order by TDEC that required the submission of CSO study and outlined a
compliance schedule. CSO outfalls identified in the study were included in the
community's NPDES permit. All CSO communities were required in their permits to
implement several BMPs as part of their CSO control plan. The BMPs required by TDEC are
analagous to the NMC. CSO communities are also required to monitor the frequency,
duration, and pollutant loading from CSO outfalls.TDEC uses the monitoring information
to help characterize the water quality impacts of the CSO discharges.
Two cities completed separation projects and are no longer considered by TDEC to be
combined systems. As part of their CSO control plans, the three remaining communities
chose a combination of wastewater treatment plant and pump station upgrades,
optimization of in-line storage, construction of sewage holding tanks, and
implementation of primary treatment at CSO outfalls.
TN-1
-------
-------
State Profile
Illinois—Region 5
CSO Permits
107
Permitted CSO Outfalls
813
NPDES Authority
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)
Water Quality Standards Authority
Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB)
Online Resources
http://www.epa.state.il.us/
O CSO Permits
50 0 50 100 Miles
Wisconsin
Lake
-~T ^~1 Michigan
,J* l.{
Iowa
Missouri
Indiana
Kentucky
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
' "I ^>x " NMC
| t^TrY
1 i^?M V Some BMPs
'•• ''• ''lj;S^
•• ''-^^f 7 No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
^ff.l$2%& • •: -: ITPn
:<^l%^^ V LTCP
n^ ~^-^?^?-^.
i^:^S^^s=~^ '^ Other Facility Plan
'C^\ " ^' Ilt5;
'• r^-^=^'73r" '•••' No Facility Plan
J-Vo,l' --rS^>--
^^"' Total
Number of Permits Percent
61 57.0%
46 43.0%
0 0%
107 100%
0 0%
107 100%
0 0%
107 100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
IEPA has treatment standards in place for CSOs under Section 306.305 of the Illinois
Code. The treatment standards presume that CSO communities are meeting water
quality standards as long as they are meeting three conditions:
= All dry weather flows and the first flush of storm flows, as determined by IEPA, shall
meet applicable effluent standards;
= Additional flows, up to ten times the average dry weather flow for the design year,
shall receive a minimum of one hour retention for primary treatment and 15 minutes
retention for secondary disinfection; and
= Flows in excess of ten times dry weather flow shall be treated to the extent necessary
to prevent depression of oxygen levels and accumulations of sludge deposits, floating
debris, and solids.
Program Highlights
Illinois' program includes an
approach pre-dating the 1994
CSO Control Policy in establishing
control criteria presumed to
protect water quality and
allowing a demonstration that
some other criteria are protective.
61 of the CSO communities are
implementing the NMC. The
remaining 46 have implemented
the six minimum measures
identified in EPA's 1989 CSO
Strategy. Permits issued since
1994 require the NMC; however,
public notification is required
only for CSO discharges to
sensitive areas.
CSO treatment is often provided
in the form of primary treatment
at the headworks of the WWTR
There is one federal enforcement
action involving a CSO
community in Illinois.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
State Profile: Illinois— 5
Communities can alternatively apply for an exception to the above requirements, and
IPCB has approved exceptions for 21 CSO communities that did not need to meet the
requirements of Section 306.305. These "exception" communities, which include Aurora,
Cairo, and Alton, generally have reduced requirements written into their IPCB orders.
Illinois asserts its CSO program is similar to the federal CSO Control Policy because the
Section 306.305 treatment standard is similar to the presumption approach in the
federal policy, while the exception procedure is similar to the demonstration approach.
CSO treatment is often provided in the form of primary treatment at the headworks of
the WWTR
Permitting Program
IEPA is the NPDES authority. Illinois has 107 CSO communities, of which 61 are required
to implement the NMC. Compliance with the NMC is typically documented in Operation
and Maintenance reports or Municipal Compliance Plans produced by the communities.
All CSO communities have permit requirements for the six minimum measures identified
in the EPA's 1989 National CSO Control Strategy; notices were issued in 1994 that the
additional three measures would be required. Most communities responded and have
had updated operational plans approved. Permits issued since 1994 include
requirements for all of the NMC. Illinois does not require public notification of CSO
events, except in designated sensitive waters.
Including Chicago, 56 permittees in Illinois are included in the Chicago Tunnel and
Reservoir Project (TARP). Nearly all of these communities have satellite collection
systems that use the treatment plants of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), but have their own CSO outfalls. Many of these
communities, whose permits were issued in 1994 and have not yet been reissued, are
awaiting reissuance of the MWRDGC permit. They will be covered under an associated
general permit.
Plans for controlling CSOs were primarily developed prior to the CSO Control Policy and
included in municipal or facilities plans. Recently issued permits are now requiring that
CSO communities develop monitoring plans to verify whether the controls put in place
have achieved the goals of protecting water quality. If monitoring indicates that water
quality objectives are not being met, new control plans will have to be developed.
Water Quality Standards Program
Water quality standards are the underjurisdiction of IPCB. Illinois bacterial standards are
based on a geometric mean fecal coliform level of 200 cfu/100ml, with no more than 10
percent of samples exceeding 400 cfu/100ml. This standard is applicable May through
October.
The State asserts that most communities in Illinois are meeting the requirements of
Section 306.305, which is presumed to meet water quality standards in Illinois. As
mentioned previously, 21 CSO communities have an exception to Section 306.305.
Enforcement Program
Through a Performance Partnership Agreement, EPA is providing IEPA with direct
compliance and enforcement assistance in the following areas: performing wet-weather
inspections, with emphasis on CSO and SSO inspections; offering pretreatment WWTP
seminars; and facilitating seminars for industrial users of specific WWTPs. There is one
federal CSO enforcement action in Illinois. IEPA does not have administrative order
authority.
IL-2
-------
State Profile
CSO Permits
107
Permitted CSO Outfalls
NPDES Authority
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
O CSO Permit
50 0
Illinois
Indiana—Region 5
Lake
Michigan
O
Water Quality Standards Authority
IDEM; public comment and disputes handled by Indiana Water Pollution Control Board (WPCB)\O
i
Online Resources
www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wsm/facts/fs2655.htm )
Michigan
CP; '
o o
Ohio
Kentucky
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
Program Highlights
BMP Requirements
""• NMC
t? Some BMPs
V No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
r"/ LTCP
vf; Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
93
0
14
107
87
1
19
107
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
86.9%
0%
13.1%
100%
81.3%
1.0%
17.7%
100%
IDEM issued its Final Combined Sewer Overflow Strategy in May 1996. Amendments
were in accordance with EPA's 1994 CSO Control Policy. The IDEM final strategy enhances
the previous 1991 State CSO strategy's six minimum control requirements by including
three additional controls and adding a requirement for the development of an LTCR
Operational plans that were previously submitted by communities to document
implementation of the six minimum controls would have to be updated via the NPDES
permit process or through permit modification to account for the newly added
minimum controls.
Indiana has 107 CSO permits,
covering 105 CSO communities.
Most permits issued since 1994
require NMC (93 out of 107).
Previously, permits required only
six minimum controls.
Indiana communities report
compliance with the first eight
NMC through submission and
approval of Operation and
Maintenance Plans; the ninth
NMC is satisfied through Stream
Reach Characterization and
Evaluation Reports (SRCER).
Most permittees are required to
develop LTCPs (87 of 107). Five
have been submitted to date.
A law passed in 2000 (SEA 431)
will allow temporary suspension
of designated use following a
storm event; guidance has
recently been provided for
communities on this provision.
Initial CSS assessments of the
state identified approximately 130
CSO permittees; there are
currently 107 CSO permittees.
IN-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Permitting Program
IDEM is the NPDES authority. CSO communities are required to implement the NMC; 93
of 107 permits have NMC requirements. CSO communities are also required to submit a
CSO Operational Plan as part of the Operation and Maintenance Plan documents. The
Operational Plan (CSOOP) serves as the reporting mechanism for documentation of the
NMC.ASRCER is required for most communities; it addresses the monitoring
requirement of the NMC. Several small communities and communities that are planning
to separate its sewers do not have requirements to develop SRCERs.
LTCPs are required in 87 of 107 NPDES permits, however most of the LTCP due dates are
in 2001 and beyond. Some communities that are separating their sewers or whose
permits have not been recently renewed do not have LTCP requirements. Five
communities have submitted LTCPs; none have been approved.
IDEM conducts inspections of CSO facilities on an annual or biannual basis. About 75
percent of the inspections are conducted by IDEM, while EPA Region 5 conducts the
remaining 25 percent.
Water Quality Standards Program
The Indiana WPCB is the rule-making arm of the IDEM water group and is responsible for
reviewing and revising water quality standards. Use attainability analyses and water
quality standards reviews are conducted by IDEM. In 1990, Indiana required that all
waters at all times must support full-body contact uses. The state defines full-body
contact as a daily maximum level for E.coliof 235 cfu/100ml, which has subsequently
been judicially interpreted as an end-of-pipe standard. Partly as a result of this decision,
the legislature adopted SEA 431 in 2000 to allow targeted relief from this requirement,
provided specific criteria are met.
Under SEA 431 CSO communities may request a suspension of designated use for no
more than four days after CSO discharge. IDEM guidance on SEA 431 provisions was
issued in May 2001. Between 50-75 percent of CSO communities are expected to take
advantage of the SEA 431 suspension of use. Such suspensions of use are considered to
be changes to water quality standards and must be reviewed and approved by EPA.
Suspensions of use are not likely to take place in areas that are genuine swimming areas,
such as the beaches on Lake Michigan.
Enforcement Program
Several CSO communities have been issued warnings of noncompliance, generally for
failure to develop a CSOOP or a SRCER. In 2000, seven communities received a warnings
of noncompliance. An additional two communities are expected to be referred to
enforcement for failure to develop a SRCER in 2001. Five additional communities have
already been referred to enforcement for failure to develop a CSOOP, SRCER, or both.
IN-2
-------
State Profile
Michigan—Region 5
O CSO Perm its
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
CSO Permits
52
Permitted CSO Outfalls
297
NPDES Authority/Water Quality Standards Authority
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)
State Online Resources
www.deq.state.mi.us/
Lake Superior
Wisconsin
Illinois
CANADA
CANADA
Lake Erie
Indiana
Ohio
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
•-..., BMP Requirements
V NMC
\ : V' Some BMPs
••./ No BMPs
-'------. i- - : : -
Total
i1 -.... Facility Plan Requirements
'/ •. r" LTCP
: : J V Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
Number of Permits
52
0
0
52
51
0
1
52
Percent
100% i
0% i
0% i
100% i
98% i
0% i
2% !
100% i
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Program Highlights
MDEQ requires that all CSO communities implement the NMC, and develop an LTCR
Although Michigan did not place emphasis on solids and floatables control during the
interim/initial phases of the CSO Control Plans, control of solids and floatables has been
required as part of the construction phase of the LTCR Michigan requires that
communities either eliminate (via sewer separation) or provide "adequate treatment" of
CSOs. Adequate treatment is defined as follows:
= Retention and full treatment of the one-year, one-hour design storm.
= Primary treatment of the ten-year, one-hour design storm (primary treatment is
defined as 30-minute detention time).
=? Limited treatment of flows above the ten-year, one-hour design storm.
Michigan requires design storm-
based "adequate treatment" as a
basis for the LTCP design. CSO
communities may propose
alternate treatment levels similar
to EPA's "demonstration
approach."
The Rouge River Valley (Metro
Detroit) is the largest CSO project,
encompassing 48 communities
(20 permits).
48 of 52 CSO communities have
submitted LTCPs and received
State approval.
MI-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Communities that meet these requirements are presumed to meet water quality
standards, corresponding to a more protective standard than the presumption approach
outlined in EPA's 1994 CSO Control Policy. Some communities are attempting to
demonstrate that they can achieve water quality standards with lesser treatment than
that required under Michigan's adequate treatment definition.This approach is explicitly
allowed in the permit.
In addition to the design standards above, approximately 25 communities have
separated their sewers and are no longer considered CSSs. Several others have
eliminated CSO outfalls.
Permitting Program
MDEQ is the NPDES authority. Michigan's CSO program is implemented in two phases.
Phase I requires operational improvement to minimize overflows, overflow monitoring,
and construction of interim CSO control projects where feasible. Phase I also requires
development of a final program leading to elimination or adequate treatment of CSOs.
Phase II is the implementation of the final program in subsequent NPDES permits. All
communities have submitted LTCPs, and all plans have had some degree of approval,
with the exception of some projects and communities in the Rouge River watershed.
A special case in the State of Michigan is the Rouge River Watershed in and around
Metro Detroit, which includes 48 communities and is spread over three counties in
southeast Michigan. The Rouge River is a National Demonstration Project for wet
weather pollution control and watershed management. Approximately 20 CSO-related
NPDES permits are associated with communities in the Rouge River area. In many cases,
these permits include several co-permittees, including the county and neighboring
communities. Total costs for CSO control in the Rouge River watershed are expected to
total $1-$3 billion when all controls are implemented by approximately 2005.
Water Quality Standards Program
MDEQ hasjurisdiction over the water quality standards program. In general, Michigan
water quality standards staff are not involved in LTCP reviews, except when a community
is attempting to demonstrate that it can achieve water quality standards with lesser
treatment than that required under Michigan's "adequate treatment" approach. All
communities meeting the design standards specified for CSO control are presumed to
meet water quality standards.
Michigan rules allow the use of alternate design flows (i.e., alternate to 7Q10 low flows or
95 percent exceedance flows) when determining water quality-based requirements for
intermittent wet weather discharges such as treated combined sewer overflows.
Enforcement Program
In cases where municipalities have been unwilling or unable to agree to corrective
program schedules acceptable to MDEQ, enforcement actions have been taken. Several
"Director's Final Orders" have been issued to communities to develop and implement an
LTCP. In addition, there is litigation and a consent order in the Rouge River Watershed.
EPA Region 5 and the federal district court are also actively reviewing progress in the
Rouge River CSO program.
-------
State Profile
CSO Permits
3
Permitted CSO Outfalls
9
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Online Resources
www.pca.state.mn.us/water/index.html
South Dakota
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
Minnesota—Region 5
North Dakota \Rivec-
CANADA
- .. •
" LakeSuperior
Michigan
Wisconsin
Iowa
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
V NMC
/ '• >?' SomeBMPs
\ ' '•,; NoBMPs
''-• -'' Total
Facility Plan Requirements
^jjjj^ V LTCP
it^^^SsSr^i '=:• Other Facility Plan
'''.fe-~=5V-> ,-C^::f '• •' No Facility Plan
"^\t'i^6&~'
^^^~' Total
Number of Permits
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
3
Percent ^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Program Highlights
Sewer separation has been
required in permits since the late
1970s, before issuance of the CSO
Control Policy. Permit conditions
are essentially the NMC, and
separation is the LTCP.
A 10-year, $331 million sewer
separation program in
Minneapolis, St. Paul, and South St.
Paul was more than 95 percent
complete when the CSO Control
Policy was published in 1994.
Separation was completed in 1996.
Minneapolis and St. Paul still have
eight outfalls that are capable of
having a CSO; however, the two
CSOs belonging to St. Paul have
not overflowed within the past 5
years. The cities monitor inflow
and infiltration sources and will
close the regulators when they
have verified that sufficient flow
has been removed. Five to six
regulators may remain open to
protect upstream facilities. South
St. Paul has no remaining outfalls
and is no longer a CSO
community.
In 1993, the City of Red Wing
began a program to separate all
remaining combined sewers
within 10 years.The program is on
schedule.
-------
-------
State Profile
Ohio—Region 5
Michigan
Lake Erie
CSO Permits
93
Permitted CSO Outfalls
1,421
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)
Online Resources
www.epa.state.oh.us/oepa.html
O-'--
o-.
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
^S%
o
Muslqngunj" _"_ p
>? o • ;"' "/er ' q
. u' £5 - - #
.•••'oo 6.° °..;:
-SclotoRiver y--^""
Pennsylvania
Ohio River
"'•••^•-J
West Virginia
Kentucky
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
\7 NMC
.-..';••.. \ z? SomeBMPs
; "'J \ '••: NoBMPs
Total
"! ••-... ..i---'1"
Facility Plan Requirements
•~? LTCP
a..y - .. | ' • 'i? Other Facility Plan
3/p?--"-"' _...-•' ; './ No Facility Plan
. ' Total
''"• •''
Number of Permits
11
0
16
93
62
13
18
93
Percent
82.8% I
0% !
17,2% !
100% !
66,7% !
14.0% I
19,4% !
100% !
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Program Highlights
OEPA issued its revised CSO Strategy in 1995, which closely follows EPA's CSO Control
Policy. Prior to 1995, OEPA required six minimum measures for CSO communities.The
major provisions of Ohio's CSO Strategy require communities to:
Develop an Operational Plan that includes documentation of the NMC.
Conduct wet weather stress testing to maximize the ability of the wastewater plant to
treat wet weather flows.
= Develop an LTCR
There are some exceptions to the requirement to develop an LTCR Small communities
that are separating their sewers are not required to develop an LTCR Communities that
do not discharge to State Resource Waters, bathing waters, or within 500 yards of a
public water supply intake, and for which there are no documented water quality
Operational Plans are required by
Ohio's CSO Strategy to document
implementation of the NMC.
80 percent (62 out of 77 required)
of CSO communities have
submitted Operational Plans. 16
communities a re not required to
implement the NMC. Of these,
three have not had permits
renewed since 1995 and 13 are
completing separation projects.
LTCPs are required for 62 of the 93
CSO communities. 25 LTCPs have
been submitted to date and nine
have been approved.
Small communities that are
separating sewers are not
required to develop LTCPs.
Initial CSS assessments of the
State identified 101 CSO
permittees; there are currently 93
CSO permittees.
OH-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
impacts attributable to CSOs, initially must characterize and monitor the collection
system, but are not immediately required to develop a full LTCR Development of an LTCP
may be required pending a review of the characterization and monitoring data or future
stream survey results. Approximately 35 percent of CSO communities fall in this latter
category.
Most Ohio CSO communities are using the presumption approach in their LTCPs,
choosing to capture and provide treatment for 85 percent of wet weather flows reaching
the collection system. Only a handful of communities are currently working with the
demonstration approach as the basis for their LTCPs.
Permitting Program
Prior to 1995, OEPA only required six of the minimum measures to be implemented. For
three CSO communities which have not had permits renewed since that time, the NMC
are not required. For all others (except for 13 communities that are completing
separation projects) the NMC are required by their NPDES permits. Operational Plans are
the mechanism by which Ohio communities report on the implementation of the NMC.
Approximately 80 percent of communities have submitted these plans to the state.
LTCPs are required for approximately 62 of the 93 communities. Small communities
planning to separate its sewers are not required by the state to develop an LTCR The
state has received 25 of the required LTCPs to date, nine of which have been approved.
Water Quality Standards Program
Ohio has an active in-stream biological monitoring program to assess water quality and
compliance with standards. Bacterial standards in Ohio water bodies are set for fecal
coliform and E. coli; however, only fecal coliform standards are included in NPDES
permits.The fecal coliform standards are:
Designated Use
Secondary recreation
Primary recreation
Bathing beaches
Water Quality Standard
No more than"! 0 percent of samples can exceed 5000
cfu/100ml_
Geometric mean cannot exceed 1000 cfu/100ml_
No more than 10 percent of samples can exceed 2000
cfu/100mL
Geometric mean cannot exceed 200 cfu/100ml_
No more than 10 percent of samples can exceed 400 cfu/100ml_
The bacterial standards apply only during the May through October recreation season.
Most water bodies in Ohio are classified for primary recreation, while bathing beach
standards apply only at actual bathing beaches. Four communities in Ohio have
requested water quality standards reviews and submitted biological monitoring data as
part of its CSO control plans; reviews have been conducted as a result. No changes in
standards have resulted from these reviews.
Enforcement Program
When an enforcement action is brought in Ohio, the entire NPDES permit is examined,
not only the CSO provisions. OEPA has used both Judicial Consent Orders and
Administrative Orders in its enforcement program, with the majority of enforcement
actions taking the form of Judicial Consent Orders. OEPA has issued enforcement orders
for: NMC implementation (three) LTCP development (two); and LTCP implementation
(four). (There is overlap between the categories.) In addition, OEPA hasjoined in EPA
Region 5 enforcement actions in Youngstown and Toledo.
-------
State Profile
Wisconsin — Region 5
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 '10 60 Miles
Lake Superior
CSO Permits
2
Permitted CSO Outfalls
123
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
State Online Resources
www.dnr.state.wi.us/environmentprotect/water.html/
Minnesota
Michigan
r--x ;.-:
.-'•• -:
Michigan
Iowa
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
" NMC
• '; V Some BMPs
'•„•• No BMPs
Total
Number of Permits
0
0
2
2
Percent
0%
0%
100%
100%
Facility Plan Requirements
V LTCP
W Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
0
2
0
2
0%
100%
0%
100%
Program Highlights
Wisconsin has two CSO
permittees; Superior and
Milwaukee.
The Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District has maintained
an in-line storage system (ISS) for
the conveyance and storage of
wet-weather flows since 1994.
This system consists of a series of
tunnels having a total capacity of
400 million gallons and a
combined length of more than 20
miles. Since 1994, the ISS has kept
more than 37 million gallons of
untreated CSO and SSO from
entering area waterways,
including Lake Michigan. Between
1994 and 2000, CSOs decreased
from approximately 40-60 events
per year to an average of 2.5
events per year.
The City of Superior operates a
satellite treatment facility for
combined wastewater.The permit
requires this facility to meet
secondary effluent treatment
limitations.
The NMC have not formally been
required in permits, since CSO
facility plans were issued prior to
the issuance of the CSO Control
Policy.
-------
-------
State Profile
Iowa—Region 7
O CSO Permits
so o so
South Dakota
CSO Permits
15
Permitted CSO Outfalls
102
NPDES Authority/Water Quality Standards Authority
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
Online Resources
www.state.ia.us/government/dnr/organiza/epd/comp_enf/index.htm
www.state.ia.us/government/dnr/organiza/epd/wastewtr/wastwtr.htm/
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Missouri
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
^Y. ^~v_ V NMC
0^^, ^X^H ¥ Some BMPs
t^S^^So^ '•..' No BMPs
T^S^ Total
Facility Plan Requirements
,^2'A ' 'V LJCP
tASSvX '•. ?;; Other Facility Plan
'•^~5j^v' / ..' •; No Facility Plan
"'•^ i ••' Total
Strategy for CSO Control and N
Number of Permits
1
14
0
15
1
6
8
15
PDES Permitting
Percent
6.1%
93.3%
0%
100%
6.1%
40.0%
53.3%
100%
IDNR based its CSO program on the 1989 National CSO Control Strategy and formalized
its state strategy in 1990 to:
Eliminate dry-weather CSOs (ensure that CSOs occurred only during wet weather
events).
Encourage communities to separate sewers where possible.
Bring all CSO discharge points into compliance with technology-based requirements
of the CWA and applicable state water quality standards.
Minimize the impacts of wet-weather overflows on water quality, aquatic biota, and
human health.
The strategy also outlines an approach and time frame for inventorying all CSO
discharge points; evaluating current water quality standards criteria and stream use
Program Highlights
The current state CSO strategy
was developed in 1990 and
requires evaluating hydraulic
capacity and incorporating the six
minimum measures into
operations and maintenance
plans; the strategy was
incorporated into NPDES permits
issued/reissued through the mid-
1990s.
Some CSOs were addressed
under FEMA-funded hydraulic
capacity separation and upgrade
projects following Mississippi
River floods.
IDNR is working to incorporate
the NMC and LTCPs into permits,
with stakeholder involvement, as
they are reissued.
13 of 15 facilities have
documented capacity upgrades,
separation, hydraulic
rehabilitation, and general
improvements to treat more wet-
weather flows; these
improvements are generally
included in facility planning
documents and capital
improvement plans, or were
formalized through a compliance
schedule in an enforceable order
for hydraulic overloads.
IA-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
designations, and technology-based limitations for wet-weather CSO water quality
impacts; a rule-making process within the state for implementing the strategy; and a
process for including this in the NPDES permitting process.
After the CSO Control Policy was developed, Iowa chose to continue with
implementation of its current state strategy, citing the following rationale: time and
investment in formalizing the Iowa state strategy, uncertainty of whether or not the CSO
Control Policy would be modified and/or made law, similarity of the six minimum
measures and the new NMC, lack of formal state program funding for the CSO program,
and prioritization of permitting backlogs.
Permitting Program
Since inception of its CSO strategy through 1999, IDNR included a section called "Special
Conditions—Combined Sewer Overflows" in all NPDES permits covering CSO
communities that had not been identified as moving forward with complete separation.
Generally, this condition included the following provisions:
Documentation specifying the collection system as having both combined storm and
sanitary sewers with CSOs.
The hydraulic capacity determined within 6 months of issuance date, for each sewer
between the point of overflow and the treatment facility.
An operational plan, developed and submitted within nine months of issuance date,
with the objective of meeting the six minimum measures outlined in the National
CSO Control Strategy and implement the approved plan within one year.
A re-opener clause related to possible changes in state standards or effluent limits
related to CSOs.
During the last round of permit reissuance, EPA Region 7 objected to IDNR not including
the CSO Control Policy program elements in NPDES permits for CSO communities. IDNR
now has an approach of contacting the CSO communities to develop a
consensus/stakeholder approach and time frame for implementing the NMC and
developing an LTCR This approach is formalized in a special CSO section of the reissued
permit. Beginning in 2000, reissued permits include a special condition with the
following stipulations:
Development and submission of an operational plan for implementing the NMC
within six months of permit issuance;
Implementation of the operational plan within 24 months of issuance and
documentation of implementation;
Submission of an LTCP within 36 months of issuance;
Provision not to discharge any pollutant at a level that causes or contributes to an in-
stream excursion above the numeric or narrative criteria in Iowa's water quality
standards; and
A re-opener clause that addresses changes in water quality standards, information
indicating that the proposed level of CSO controls aren't meeting water quality
standards, or new information generated from the LTCR
To date, one CSO community permit has been reissued with identified milestones for
implementing the CSO Control Policy objectives in the NPDES permit, and three others
are pending reissuance. Of the original 20 CSO communities identified, five have
completely separated their systems, and one community was found not to have a
combined sewer system. Recently, Iowa issued a draft permit to the City of Des Moines
for its CSOs, effectively increasing the number of Iowa permits by one. Des Moines had
been covered under a regional wastewater treatment provider's permit.
-------
State Profile: Iowa— 7
Based on the 2000 Amendments to the CWA, IDNR plans on evaluating the codification
of the CSO Control Policy and determining how to formally incorporate the Policy into its
state regulatory program.
Water Quality Standards Program
While a process for evaluation of water quality standards was identified in the IDNR CSO
Strategy, the approach was not formalized or implemented state-wide. IDNR staff
responsible for the water quality standards program are not involved in the CSO
planning process, have not conducted any reviews for receiving waters impacted by
CSOs, and generally do not give CSO-impacted waters any special consideration during
the triennial review process for water quality standards.
Enforcement Program
Ongoing enforcement actions within Iowa's CSO communities are not specifically CSO-
related. Administrative orders and other actions, at the state and regional level, have
been issued to address effluent limits and loadings issues related to hydraulic capacity
problems during wet weather conditions. Those orders within CSO communities have
led to CSO planning, abatement, and elimination.
IA-3
-------
-------
State Profile
Kansas—Region 7
O CSO Permit
CSO Permits
3
Permitted CSO Outfalls
71
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE)
Online Resources
www.kdhe.state.ks.us/
www.kdhe.state.ks.us/water/index.html
Nebraska
Colorado
Oklahoma
Iowa
Cl
Missouri
Arkansas
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
""• NMC
'' '. t? SomeBMPs
V NoBMPs
Total
Number of Permits
3
0
0
3
Percent
100%
0%
0%
100%
Program Highlights
Facility Plan Requirements
r"/ LTCP
''f; Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
100%
0%
0%
100%
All three CSO communities
(Kansas City, Atchiston, and
Topeka) have submitted plans for
implementation of the NMC. All
three NMC plans have been
approved by KDHE and the
communities are implementing
them.
Permits for all three CSO
communities require submittal of
an LTCR Kansas City and Topeka
have submitted their LTCPs for
review by KDHE, these plans are
presently under review.
The NPDES permit for Atchison,
effective September 1,2001,
requires completion of an LTCP by
October 1,2004.
KS-1
-------
-------
State Profile
O CSO Permits
CSO Permits
9
Permitted CSO Outfalls
49
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Online Resources
www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/homedeq.htm
www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/homewpcp.htm
Nebraska
b
Kansas
Oklahoma
0
Missouri — Region 7
0
O
Illinois
-0: .....
'
Kentucky
Arkansas
Tennessee
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
I""' r? NMC
'• ^ SomeBMPs
''•• ;''••' /; V NoBMPs
'"•'' ;.. ...--- Total
Number of Permits
4
0
5
9
Percent
44.4%
0%
55.6%
100%
Program Highlights
Facility Plan Requirements
Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
4
1
4
9
44.4%
11.2%
44.4%
100%
CSO planning for Kansas City has
been a high priority due in part to
highly-publicized CSO/SSO
problems in Brush Creek. Kansas
City is implementing the NMC
and developing an LTCR
The City of Cape Girardeau is
nearing completion of their sewer
separation program.
The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
District has submitted an LTCP to
MDNR.
The City of Sedalia and MDNR are
negotiating effluent limitations
for a CSO treatment project.
Missouri will be reissuing expired
permits with requirements for the
NMC and LTCPs.
MO-1
-------
-------
State Profile
Nebraska—Region 7
CSO Permits
2
Permitted CSO Outfalls
26
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ)
State Online Resources
www.deq.state.ne.us/
www.deq.state.ne.us/Programs.nsf/pages/WQD
South Dakota
Wyoming
Iowa
Colorado
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
_-"-"'
River
Missouri
Kansas
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
Program Highlights
BMP Requirements
r: NMC
^ Some BMPs
•./ No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
~ LJCP
"f Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
0
0
2
2
0
1
1
2
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
50%
50%
100%
The Cities of Omaha and
Plattsmouth are Nebraska's only
CSO dischargers.The City of Ord,
which was previously identified as
having some combined sewers,
has eliminated CSO discharges.
Omaha has voluntarily
implementied the NMC and is
developing a watershed approach
to LTCP development.
Neither community has a CSO
requirement in its current permit.
CSO requirements will be added
to the Plattsmouth general
NPDES permit when it is reissued,
and Omaha will have a separate
CSO permit by the end of 2001.
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Plattsmouth discharges to the Missouri River. Permit requirements to address CSO
discharges will be included in the reissuance of its general NPDES permit, which is
currently under review.
Omaha, which discharges to the Missouri River and tributaries, has voluntarily
implemented the NMC. The management plan for implementing the NMC was submitted
to NDEQ in 1997. This management plan continues to be revised as necessary to reflect
operation and maintenance changes.
Omaha is also in the process of collecting background information so that a watershed
approach can be used in developing an LTCR Elements of the watershed-based LTCP
include defining baseline conditions, developing the range of beneficial uses, defining
CSO and non-CSO control levels, and the selection and implementation of a CSO control
program. NDEQ anticipates issuing a separate CSO permit to the City of Omaha before
the end of 2001.
NE-1
-------
-------
State Profile
South Dakota—Region 8
CSO Permits
1
Permitted CSO Outfalls
1
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
South Dakota Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (SDENR)
State Online Resources
www.state.sd.us/denr/denr.html
North Dakota
Montana
Wyoming
O CSO Permit
20 0 ?') 'In 6')Mlles
Nebraska
Minnesota
Iowa
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
BMP Requirements
V7 NMC
^ Some BMPs
77 No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
™v LTCP
1::f Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
Program Highlights
South Dakota's one CSO
community, Lead, chose sewer
separation as its primary CSO
control.
Sewer separation is
approximatelylO percent
complete.
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Lead, South Dakota's only CSO community, has one outfall. It was originally listed in the
permit for the local sanitary district; however, following the release of EPA's CSO Control
Policy, the sanitary district requested that the CSO outfall be removed from its permit and
the community be permitted directly. In December of 1996, the SDENR issued a CSO
permit to the community. The permit required implementation and documentation of
the NMC and development of an LTCR The LTCP was approved in January of 1999, and it
recommended sewer separation as the primary CSO control. The community has
completed approximately 10 percent of the proposed sewer separation and plans to
achieve full separation within the next few years.
SD-1
-------
-------
State Profile
California—Region 9
Oregon
CSO Permits
3
Permitted CSO Outfalls
41
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs)
Online Resources
www.swrcb.ca.gov/
Nevada
O CSO Permits
100 0 100 ?00 Miles
Arizona
Pacific Ocean
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
BMP Requirements
~ NMC
V Some BMPs
7 No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
V LTCP
V Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
3
0
0
3
1
2
0
3
100%
0%
0%
100%
33%
67%
0%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
California's State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers water rights, water
pollution control, and water quality functions for the state as part of the California EPA.
Operating under the umbrella of the SWRCB are nine RWQCBs, whose missions are to
develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans that will best
protect the beneficial uses of the state's waters. The RWQCBs are region-specific,
recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology and hydrology within the
large and diverse State of California. RWQCBs develop "Basin Plans" for each major
watershed, issue NPDES permits, take enforcement action against violators, and monitor
water quality.The two CSO communities (San Francisco and Sacramento) fall within the
governance of RWQCB Region 2 (San Francisco Bay) and RWQCB Region 5 (the Central
Valley), respectively.
Program Highlights
California's RWQCBs develop
Basin Plans which include CSO
planning.
California has three CSO permits
covering two CSO communities:
San Francisco and Sacramento.
San Francisco's CSO approach was
developed prior to EPA's 1994
CSO Control Policy; NMC were
implemented and an LTCP was
not required because of pre-
policy planning efforts.
Sacramento's CSO program was
adapted to meet CSO Policy
requirements; NMC were
implemented, and an LTCP was
approved and is being
implemented.
Provisions were developed for
variations to State water quality
standards and designated uses.
Initial CSS assessments of the
State identified four CSO
permittees; currently there are
three CSO permittees.
CA-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Sam Bay CSO
In the mid-1970s, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB approved a Master Plan and
Environmental Impacts Statement and Report developed to address San Francisco's
CSOs. These planning efforts led to the implementation of a series of structural and in-
system controls prior to the development of the CSO Control Policy. Site-specific
solutions were developed and implemented based on San Francisco's sewer system (two
distinct systems; many steep slopes hindering storage in the system), with the overall
objective of addressing CSO impacts on public health in high-contact areas such as
public parks, beaches, and recreation areas.
CSO
In the early 1990s, the Central Valley RWQCB required Sacramento to initiate planning to
address hydraulic capacity issues that were resulting in frequent CSOs, SSOs, and street
flooding. After the development of the CSO Control Policy, the Central Valley RWQCB
required that the previously initiated planning effort include the provisions identified in
the Policy. This approach was formalized by requiring NMCand development of an LTCP
in the NPDES permit.The LTCP focused on reducing flow into the system and increasing
both storage and treatment capacity.
Permitting Program
The RWQCBs issue NPDES permits within California, with input and oversight by EPA
Region 9. All CSO facilities have special conditions within the permit that outline facility
requirements, which are based on the community's status in planning and implementing
CSO controls. All California NPDES permits for CSOs have narrative language requiring
the ongoing operation of the system through use of the NMC.
In the San Francisco area, two NPDES permits contain CSO provisions.The San Francisco
Bay RWQCB has included special CSO language in both permits requiring the NMC and
certifies that all NMC have been implemented. LTCPs are not required in San Francisco as
pre-policy planning efforts led to nonstructural and structural controls that meet its
water quality objectives (see discussion under Water Quality Standards Program below).
In Sacramento, the Central Valley RWQCB administers one NPDES permit to the City of
Sacramento for the CSS and wet weather treatment facilities. The Central Valley RWQCB
formalized the requirements for NMC and the development of an LTCP in the 1996
reissuance of the NPDES permit. The RWQCB has certified that all NMC are in place and
that projects identified in the approved LTCP will be completed by 2001.
Water Quality Standards Program
By law, the RWQCBs are required to develop, adopt, and implement Water Quality
Control Plans (Basin Plans) for major watersheds. Basin Plans provide the framework for
protection of water quality in California; they also include identification of beneficial
uses, water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses, and an implementation program
to ensure that beneficial uses are protected. All basin plans undergo triennial reviews.
The SWRCB developed two state-wide water quality control documents: Water Quality
Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan) and Water Quality Control Plan
for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and
Estuaries of California (Thermal Plan). These plans describe objectives and effluent
limitations for ocean waters. None of the plans specifically address CSO-impacted waters;
however, general provisions are cited which consider modifications to water quality
objectives in cases where compliance would be prohibitively expensive or technically
impossible.
-------
State Profile: California— 9
The San Francisco RWQCB has issued two orders related to CSO-impacted water quality
standards:
= The Board Order, issued in 1979, allowed for different long-term average overflow
frequencies (1,4, or 10) per year for specific overflow points within San Francisco's
Bayside combined sewer system. The order was based on CSO planning information
(i.e., facility costs to achieve specific overflow frequencies and associated water
quality benefits), staff findings, and public input. The approach identified in the order
was expected to provide adequate protection of beneficial uses.
In 1979, the SWRCB also issued (and EPA Region 9 approved) an exception to all water
quality standards in the Ocean Plan for shoreline CSOs for San Francisco's Oceanside
combined sewer system (OrderWQ79-16).The general findings, issued in 1979,
indicated that this exception would not compromise the protection of ocean waters
for beneficial uses. This approach would therefore be presumed to provide an
adequate level of control to meet the water quality-based provisions of the CWA (and
thus numerical limits applicable to treated shoreline CSOs were not needed).
There are no known CSO-related water quality standards actions within the Central
Valley RWQCB.
Enforcement Program
The RWQCBs have authority to implement and enforce the water quality laws,
regulations, policies, and plans to protect the waters of the state. RWQCBs have a number
of formal and informal enforcement mechanisms that can be issued to CSO
communities. For the two CSO communities in California, one enforcement action has
been issued for violations of state water quality provisions directly related to CSOs. A
Cease and Desist Order was issued to Sacramento requiring them to address chronic
CSOs, SSOs, and sanitary sewage erupting from manholes during wet weather events.
This order initiated Sacramento's pre-CSO Policy planning efforts and eventually led to
the development and implementation of its LTCR
CA-3
-------
-------
State Profile
Alaska—Region 10
CSO Permits
Permitted CSO Outfalls
Arctic Ocean
O CSO Permit
NPDES Authority
EPA Region 10
Water Quality Standards Authority
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
State Online Resources
www.state.ak.us/dec/deh/water/drinking.htm
Canada
"Hs
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
'•7 NMC
; • V SomeBMPs
'-,.• NoBMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
: LTCP
jt^^s^fSife^-rui '^?' Other Facility Plan
V^rSv^vi--^^ \; No Facility Plan
''t^ZSf' Total
Number of Permits
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
Percent
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Because Alaska has one CSO community (Juneau/Douglas), a state-wide CSO approach
or strategy was not developed. The community chose to eliminate CSOs through
systematic separation of its combined sewer, starting with separation in the lower, flatter
areas and integrating sewer separation with other capital improvement projects.To
reduce the overall number and severity of CSOs, the community also developed a
protocol for routing more flow to the treatment facility as the separation work
progressed. Implementation of this approach is ongoing.
Program Highlights
Alaska's one CSO community,
Juneau/Douglas, chose sewer
separation as its approach for
long-term CSO control.
EPA Region 10, the permitting
authority, is proposing to require
the NMC and separation plan as
an LTCP alternative during re-
issuance of the permit in
December 2001.
Permitting Program
EPA Region 10 is the NPDES authority for Alaska; ADEC certifies the permits issued by the
region. Since the community committed to separate its combined system, EPA Region 10
did not formalize the components identified in the CSO Control Policy into the last
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
NPDES permit (1996). EPA Region 10 included a CSO section in the permit requiring
monitoring and reporting of CSOs.The current permit expires in 2001, and Region 10
indicates that the new permit will include provisions for implementing and reporting the
NMC and for formalizing the sewer separation schedule.
Water Quality Standards Program
ADEC is responsible for the development, issuance, and implementation of Alaska's
water quality standards. State standards do not allow for or address variances or
amendments to current water quality standards for CSO-impacted waterways. The
community's approach (i.e., separation) will eliminate the need for the state to consider
variances or amendments to current water quality standards.
Enforcement Program
Both EPA Region 10 and ADEC are responsible for enforcement and compliance of
NPDES permitting within the State of Alaska. There are no documented enforcement
efforts or activities related to CSOs.
AK-2
-------
State Profile
Oregon—Region 10
CSO Permits
3
Permitted CSO Outfalls
99
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
Online Resources
http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/
O CSO Permits
20 0 20 40 60 Miles
Pacific Ocean
Washington
ij *
rDoschutas River
* * \
Snake River -I
Idaho
California
Nevada
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
BMP Requirements
V NMC
>' \ ? SomeBMPs
''•• •' " NoBMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
V LJCP
(' \ W Other Facility Plan
'./ No Facility Plan
'"••• •-'' Total
Number of Permits
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
3
Percent
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
Prior to the 1989 National CSO Control Strategy, ODEQ had a mechanism in place for
addressing overflows. The program generally did not differentiate between overflows
from combined and separate sanitary sewers. In 1981, the Oregon Environmental
Quality Commission (EQC) adopted rules specifying that:
Sewerage Construction programs should be designed to eliminate raw sewage
bypassing during the summer recreation season (except for a storm event
greater than the 1 in 10'year 24-hour storm). A program and timetable should
be developed through negotiations with each affected source. Bypasses which
occur during the remainder of the year should be eliminated in accordance with
an approved longer term maintenance based correction program. More
stringent schedules may be imposed as necessary to protect drinking water
supplies and shellfish growing areas." (OAR 340-41-034(3) (f)).
Program Highlights
All three CSO communities
(Astoria, Corvallis, and Portland)
are under a stipulation and final
order to reduce CSOs.
Corvallis is eliminating overflows
through the construction of
additional treatment facilities
(scheduled for completion by
December 2001).
Portland and Astoria are in the
process of constructing additional
treatment facilities.
Oregon's overflow reduction
program predates the CSO
Control Policy (and the 1989
National CSO Control Strategy).
Initial CSS assessments of the
State identified 30 CSO
permittees. There are currently
three CSO permits.
OR-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Oregon's policy provided a means to prioritize overflows for reduction or elimination.
For example, overflows that contribute to shellfish contamination were among the first
targeted for elimination. Many CSO communities within the Willamette Valley that
experienced overflows during the summer recreation period were required to undertake
corrective action to eliminate summer overflows; other CSO communities that were
under a longer term permit schedule elected to separate its systems.
As the program progressed and permits came up for renewal, all CSO communities with
reported outfalls were placed under a compliance schedule to eliminate overflows in
accordance with the EQC policy, or were required to assess the frequency and duration
of overflows to aid in determining further compliance actions that may be needed.
Although these actions did not anticipate EPA's 1989 National CSO Control Strategy,
Oregon's program did acknowledge the CWA objectives to address point sources of
pollution that can affect compliance with water quality standards and beneficial use
protection.
OR-2
-------
State Profile
Washington—Region 10
CANADA
CSO Permits
11
Permitted CSO Outfalls
219
NPDES/Water Quality Standards Authority
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Online Resources
Pacific Ocean
www.ecy.wa.gov/
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wqhome.html Q CSO Permits
Columbia.
River J
Columbia;
•. , River '--
Spokane O
River
Snake River -.,
Idaho
20 0 20 40 60 Mlies
Columbia River
Oregon
Status of CSO Policy Requirements
Number of Permits Percent
BMP Requirements
V NMC
"^ Some BMPs
'•,• No BMPs
Total
Facility Plan Requirements
'~- UCP
W Other Facility Plan
No Facility Plan
Total
11
0
0
11
11
0
0
11
100%
0%
0%
100%
100%
0%
0%
100%
Strategy for CSO Control and NPDES Permitting
In 1985, the Washington state legislature enacted law within the state code to begin CSO
planning through Ecology. The goal of the code was to achieve the greatest reduction in
CSO discharges as soon as possible. In response to this code, Chapter 173-245 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC), "Submission of Plans and Reports for
Construction and Operation of Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Facilities," was
developed and enacted in 1987 to enable Ecology to administer the program. The
principal features of the code required the development of a CSO reduction plan to
reduce overflows to an average of no more than one per year. Required components of
the reduction plans are as follows:
= Documentation of CSO activity—Complete a field assessment and mathematical
modeling study to determine CSO locations, overflow frequency, and overflow
quantity, and to characterize the discharge and assess historical impacts.
Program Highlights
The state program was initiated in
1987 and allows one average
annual overflow.
The state program requires a CSO
reduction plan, which Ecology
equates to an LTCR Annual
reporting and five-year updates
to CSO reduction plans are also
required.
All CSO communities have
submitted NMC documentation,
and all but one (a newly
permitted facility) have submitted
and are implementing CSO
reduction plans.
A CSO compliance schedule is
included in the NPDES permits.
Initial CSS assessments of the
state identified 15 CSO
permittees; there are currently 11
permittees.
WA-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Analysis of control/treatment alternatives—Consider and assess use of BMPs (e.g.,
sewer ordinances, pretreatment, sewer maintenance programs, I/I programs, etc.),
storage and disinfection, routing more flow to the plant, site/outfall treatment, and
separation.
Analysis of selected treatment/control projects—Analyze water quality impacts of the
control projects.
Priority ranking—Rank the selected control alternatives to ensure impacts to sensitive
areas are the highest priority and other projects are ranked based on cost-
effectiveness and overall environmental benefits.
Schedule—Propose a schedule for achieving the greatest reduction as soon as
possible (if more than five years; include the priority projects over the first five years).
Ecology evaluated its program and determined that it exceeded or met the goals of
EPA's CSO Control Policy, certifying that CSO reduction plans equated to LTCPs. The only
deficiency noted was in meeting the public participation component, which was not
listed in the Ecology requirements. Ecology is working to ensure this requirement is met
by CSO communities as they develop their controls and programs.
Permitting Program
NPDES permitting is handled through the four regional Ecology offices; three offices
have CSO-permitted facilities with more than 70 percent of the facilities under the
management of the Northwest regional office. All regional offices have included CSO
conditions within the NPDES permit for CSO communities requiring the following:
A list of CSO outfall locations.
Annual reports on CSO activities and overflows for the past year and planned projects
for the next year.
A CSO reduction plan amendment, due upon renewal of the permit.
A compliance schedule.
All CSO facilities have submitted NMC, and all but one (a newly permitted collection
system) have submitted and are implementing controls identified in its CSO reduction
plans. As permits are reissued, Ecology is attempting to include additional CSO
conditions to ensure that public participation is addressed in CSO planning at all
facilities.
Water Quality Standards Program
Water quality standards revisions and triennial reviews are conducted by Ecology's
headquarters office. No special considerations are given to CSO-impacted waters, as the
state's policy on CSOs (no more than one annual average overflow) is believed to enable
communities to meet water quality standards. There are no provisions or plans for
allowing revisions or variances to water quality standards within state waters.
Enforcement Program
Enforcement of the CSO program is handled through Ecology and inherently is included
in the review of the annual CSO reports, progress made in meeting water quality
objectives, and progress made in completing projects as outlined in the CSO reduction
plan. Ecology staff can issue compliance or other enforcement orders that are
incorporated into a compliance schedule attached to the NPDES permit. EPA Region 10
also has program oversight; however, there are no known EPA-enforcement actions
related to CSO compliance in Washington.
-------
Appendix C
CSO Community Case Studies
C.1 Atlanta, Georgia
C.2 Bremerton, Washington
C.3 Burlington, Iowa
C.4 Chicago, Illinois
C.5 Columbus, Georgia
C.6 Louisville-Jefferson County,
Kentucky
C.7 Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority, Boston,
Massachusetts
C.8 Muncie, Indiana
C.9 North Bergen, New Jersey
C.10 Randolph,Vermont
C.11 Richmond, Virginia
C.12 Rouge River Wet Weather
Demonstration Project, Detroit,
Michigan
C.12 Saginaw, Michigan
C.14 San Francisco, California
C.15 South Portland, Maine
C.16 Washington, DC
C.17 Wheeling, West Virginia
-------
-------
Community Case Study
Atlanta, GA—Region 4
Number of CSO Outfalls
10 (originally)
7 (currently)
Combined Sewer Service Area
19 square miles
Sewer Service Area
260 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
194 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
South River, Chattahoochee River
O Outfall
A, Wastewater Treatment Plant
//! Combined Sewer Area
Atlanta constructed seven CSO control facilities,
covered under six permits, which provide
treatment to wet weather flows prior to discharge.
The city separated approximately 15 percent of
CSS area in the early 1990s.
Additional proposed controls include two storage
and treatment systems and localized sewer
separation.
Photo: Trash screens at Atlanta's Intrenchment Creek
CSO Center. Courtesy of/Wan (.a Department of Public Works
Program Highlights
Settlement of a civiljudicial
enforcement action for violation
of the Clean Water Act and
Georgia Water Quality Control Act
has required the city to develop
and implement additional CSO
controls.
Controls implemented as of 2000
have reduced CSO volume by 60
percent and solids loading by 75
percent.
The LTCP proposed by Atlanta in
March 2001 will reduce overflow
events from 60 to four per year
per outfall.
Background on Atlanta CSOs
The CSS service area is centered in central downtown Atlanta. The city is situated on a
ridge between the South River to the southeast and the Chattahoochee River to the
northwest. Most of the city's CSOs are in the headward area of small watersheds that are
tributary to these rivers.The CSO facilities are grouped according to the watershed in
which they are located.
Atlanta's CSS covers approximately 19 square miles. It represents a small fraction of the
city's sewer service area of 260 square miles, but it includes the most highly developed
section in the Metro Atlanta region. This CSS area in the downtown business district
serves approximately 103,000 residents and a daytime population of 202,000. Based
upon a sewer system evaluation and survey of the East Side sewers, the city estimates
that there are approximately 200 miles of combined sewers in the entire CSS.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Atlanta has four permitted POTWS: R.M. Clayton, Utoy Creek, Intrenchment Creek and
South River.These facilities treated over 54 billion gallons of wastewater in 2000. There
are also seven CSO treatment facilities covered under six permits.
A civil judicial enforcement action was taken jointly against Atlanta by the EPA, the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources-Environmental Protection Division (GDNR-
EPD), Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., the Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Inc.,
and W. Robert Hancock, Jr. for violations of the CWA and Georgia Water Quality Control
Act. Extensive CSO activity by the city during the last three years was undertaken in
connection with the resulting CSO consent decree.
Status of Implementation
Atlanta constructed seven CSO control facilities in the mid-1980s and early 1990s to
provide a level of CSO treatment that met state and federal regulations. The city also
separated a 3.4-square-mile portion of the CSS area.
Three CSO treatment facilities, McDaniel, Custer, and Intrenchment Creek (the latter two
covered under one permit), are located in east Atlanta. These facilities were constructed
in the mid-1980s. Each one treats wet weather combined wastewater flows in a different
manner.
McDaniel CSO Facility - Low flows, up to 5.5 mgd, are captured and diverted to the
South River wastewater treatment plant. In the event of higher flows, flow exceeds
the interceptor sewer capacity and enters a 6 MG storage vault. While the vault is
being filled, the stored storm water-sewage mixture is pumped to the sanitary sewer
at a rate of 3 mgd. Any excess flow is coarse bar screened, disinfected, and routed over
a weir into a tributary of the South River.
Custer CSO Facility - Low flows are captured in a sanitary interceptor. When flows
exceed 20 mgd, a gate closes the entrance to the interceptor sewer and all flow is
routed over a weir through coarse bar screens into a concrete channel that leads to
the Custer CSO Facility. High flows to the Custer CSO Facility are routed into a storage
tunnel that connects to the Intrenchment Creek CSO Treatment Facility—or over the
weir into Intrenchment Creek when the tunnel capacity is exceeded.
Intrenchment Creek CSO Facility - The storage tunnel between the Custer outfalls
and this facility is designed to capture and treat the first 30 to 34 MG of wet-weather
flow to the tunnel. At the Intrenchment Creek CSO Treatment Facility, the captured
flow is subjected to a physical and chemical treatment process and the effluent is
then discharged into Intrenchment Creek.Treated effluent discharged from this
facility contains lower concentrations of pollutants than discharges from the other
East Area facilities, meeting the original 1985 reduction goal for biochemical oxygen
demand and total suspended solids.
The four CSO facilities in the West Area of Atlanta are Greensferry, North Avenue, Tanyard
Creek, and Clear Creek.These CSO facilities provide rotating fine screens and disinfection
treatment.
An extensive system characterization and sampling program was conducted under a
consent decree during 1999 and 2000 to characterize the CSS and discharges. EPA and
GDNR-EPD approved the evaluation program on March 10,1999 and approved the
resulting evaluation report on September 21,2000. To the best of the city's knowledge,
this was the most extensive CSO characterization in the nation to date. In addition to the
intensive system characterization, the city monitors overflows monthly as part of its
permit conditions.
-------
Community Case Study: Atlanta, GA— 4
Creation of Maintenance, Operations, and Management Systems (MOMS) plans provided
guidance to city personnel regarding the O&M requirements of each of the city's CSO
facilities, as well as management strategies to control CSOs.The completed MOMS plans
were submitted in December 1998 and were approved by EPA and GDNR-EPD in June
1999. The development of the MOMS plans addressed the NMC. There have been at least
two dry weather overflows covered under the Consent Decree for which EPA and GDNR-
EPD imposed a stipulated penalty. The overflows were due to non-sewer related
problems (water line break and drinking water plant backwash).
The city has kept citizens informed of CSO developments with an informational website.
Six Citizen Advisory Groups have been formed, and these groups have been given tours
of CSO facilities and invited to attend public meetings to learn of developments in
managing CSOs.
LTCP
The city submitted a proposed LTCP to EPA and GDNR-EPD in March 2001 under the
requirements of the consent decree. The Administrative Order requires that EPA and
GDNR-EPD authorize a plan, and that the city implement the plan by mid-2007, unless an
alternative schedule is approved. It is the city's goal to complete the CSO consent decree
agenda according to the schedule put forth in the Administrative Order.
The construction of two storage and treatment systems and the partial separation of
additional areas are proposed in the LTCR The storage and treatment systems will reduce
the current number of overflows from approximately 60 or more per year to an average
of four per year. CSO volume and pollution reduction at the outfalls will be at least 80
percent. Although there is already a significant improvement in the East Area with the
storage units installed there, it will require three times more storage volume to reduce
the number of events to only four per year. Reducing the number of discharges below
the average of four per year increases the required storage (and cost) exponentially for
only small improvements in pollutant reduction.
Costs and Financing
The city has invested about $244 million (1994 dollars) in the existing control facilities.
This figure includes the total capital costs of planning, design, and construction of the
CSO treatment facilities.The city has also spent $500 million for integrated wastewater
treatment system improvement program and sewer system repair and relief projects,
some of which provide additional treatment capacity in the sewer system. This figure
does not include the capital cost of implementing the CSO consent decree activities to
date, which were approximately $15 million. All of these capital activities were funded by
bonds paid by the general funding available from the wastewater utility. The proposed
LTCP is expected to require an additional capital cost of about $950 million (2001
dollars).
Financing for the preferred LTCP option is uncertain. While the city has good credit
ratings and bonding capacity, the total funding needs may outpace the bonding
capacity unless there are significant rate increases. The impact of the whole wastewater
program, funded solely by monthly sewer bills, could be at least 2.6 times the current
rate.This may constitute a high impact on households in Atlanta and could raise issues
about the affordability of the program. The city is seeking assistance from EPA and
GDNR-EPD to address this issue.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Water Quality Issues
CSO treatment is provided at each CSO outfall. The West Area CSO facilities have rotating
fine screens and disinfection treatment. The East Area CSO facilities have storage and
more advanced treatment. Even with these controls, the federal court ruled that Atlanta's
CSOs were violating water quality standards. Because there is little opportunity for
dilution at the outfall points, enforcement of water quality standards is at the end-of-
pipe.
The CSO sampling results confirmed several characteristics widely known about storm
water runoff and CSO. This evaluation also identified compliance issues for metals and
toxicity, such as:
Each sewershed needs individual consideration for developing representative
concentrations.
The hardness of both the CSO effluent and rainfall is relatively low, resulting in more
stringent water quality criteria.
The Intrenchment CSO Facility met the average and the maximum bacteria criteria.
Fecal coliform levels from the Westside facilities still occasionally exceed the
maximum criteria.
Highly variable first flush effects were observed early in runoff events.The range of
these effects was different from event-to-event and was not always present for every
pollutant.
Residual chlorine from the CSO treatment facility occasionally caused acute toxicity,
based on whole effluent toxicity tests, whereas heavy metals did not cause toxicity.
Dechlorinated effluent did not cause toxicity.
The city collected supplemental storm water data using clean methods to better
characterize metals and to determine contributions from parking lots and parks.
Urban storm water discharges present challenges similar to CSO for complying with
water quality standards. However, the majority of pollutants discharged from the CSO
outfall were attributed to the deposition of sanitary sewage in the sewers during dry
weather, rather than from storm water. The only storm water constituent that made a
significant contribution was zinc.
Enforcement Issues
The extensive CSO control activity during the last three years was undertaken in
connection with the settlement of a civiljudicial enforcement action taken jointly by the
EPA, GDNR-EPD, Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., the Chattahoochee
Riverkeeper, Inc., and W. Robert Hancock, Jr., for violations of the Federal Clean Water Act
and Georgia Water Quality Control Act. The city is working diligently to meet all consent
decree deadlines and will continue to implement its CSO and SSO programs under the
settlement terms. The CSO consent decree calls for compliance by mid-2007, unless
otherwise amended, and the SSO consent decree calls for compliance by 2014. In
addition to the implementation of corrective CSO and SSO measures, the settlement
requires Atlanta to create a greenway corridor and to clean up selected streams, as well
as to pay a cash penalty of $3.2 million.
-------
Community Case Study: Atlanta, GA— 4
The initial projects implemented in the mid-1980s in the East Area had the primary goal
of reducing oxygen demanding substances in the South River. In addition to adding
storage to the two CSO
Observed Summer Dissolved Oxygen Levels in the South River
sewersheds, the South
River and Intrenchment
Creek wastewater
treatment plant discharges
were relocated to the
Chattahoochee River. As
shown in the figure at
right, dissolved oxygen
levels improved in the
South River as a result, with
reductions in CSO volume
(60 percent), the number of
CSO discharges (84
percent), and total CSO
loadings (75 percent for
total suspended solids).
Despite these improvements, the federal court still found that further improvements
were necessary. The proposed LTCP calls for load reductions of approximately 85 percent.
Working closely with EPA, GDNR-EPD the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper and other
environmental organizations, the city has had no Discharge Monitoring Report violations
at Atlanta's wastewater treatment facilities. However, the city has had dry weather
overflows for which they have paid stipulated penalties.
The Atlanta Wastewater Systems Improvement Program accelerated ongoing sewer
improvements, including a capacity certification program for new development and an
intensive evaluation of sewer pipe conditions throughout the city. Many of the
immediate sewer replacement and rehabilitation projects required under the terms of
the SSO consent decree are projects that are included in the 1994 Bond Referendum
approved by the voters (final bond issuance did not occur until 1999). Most of the major
projects have been designed and some are under construction. Many moved forward as
a result of the lawsuit and bills passed by the Georgia Legislature. A number of the
projects originally included in the 1994 Bond Referendum have become outdated and
must be redesigned.
All consent decree construction completion deadlines associated with the LTCP have
been met to date. Interim improvements required to protect public health were
completed for the East Side CSO facilities.
The city completed an extensive and thorough assessment of the CSS system. They are
working with a citizen advisory group, environmental organizations, EPA, and GDNR-EPD
to evaluate an array of long-term solutions to Atlanta's CSO water quality problems.
Tyler Richards, City of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA. Personal communication with Limno-Tech, Inc.
staff on details of the CSS overflow plan and program, summer 2001.
-------
Community Case Study
Bremerton, WA—Region 10
Number of CSO Outfalls
19 (originally)
16 (currently)
Combined Sewer Service Area
5.2 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
32.5 mgd (primary)
7.6 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
Port Washington Narrows, Dyes Inlet and Sinclair Inlet of Puget Sound
O Outfall
/\. Wastewater Treatment Plant
; /' Combined Sewer Area
East
Bremerton
Kitsap County, WA
Sewer separation projects were initiated
in 1983.
The city ordinance provides
reimbursement for storm water
separation projects on private property
(e.g. disconnecting roof leaders from the
combined sewer system).
Bremerton has used off-line storage and
increased conveyance capacity in the
sewersheds where controls have been
implemented.This approach is also
planned for other sewersheds.
Program Highlights
CSO outfalls have been reduced
from 19 to 16.
As of 2000, Bremerton achieved a
69 percent reduction in CSO
volume and a 56% reduction in
frequency of overflow events
from baseline conditions.
A consent order requires the city
to limit CSOs to no more than one
event per year at each outfall by
December 2008.
Photo: City of Bremerton and
Bremerton Naval Shipyard.
Courtesy of US Navy.
Background on Bremerton CSOs
Bremerton's collection system serves 36,000 residents of the city and a small
unincorporated portion of Kitsap County.The sewer system consists of 188 miles of
gravity sewers, 33 pump stations, and 16 miles of force mains. The combined sewer
service area comprises 5.2 square miles in ten sewersheds serving East Bremerton and
West Bremerton. Inverted siphons carry sewage from East Bremerton under the Port
Washington Narrows. All of the city's sewage is treated at the Charleston POTW, along
with wastewater from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, other U.S. Navy facilities, and
Kitsap County Sewer District No. 1. This plant has an average flow of 7.6 mgd and a
maximum design flow of 32.5 mgd. It discharges into Sinclair Inlet, southwest of the City.
Excess flows from the CSS are discharged from 16 outfalls located along the Port
Washington Narrows and Sinclair Inlet of Puget Sound; 70 to 90 percent of this excess
flow is estimated to be storm water or rain induced infiltration (Rll).
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Status of Implementation
The City of Bremerton began addressing CSOs in the late 1970s and separating its
sewers in 1983. State legislation requires the city to limit CSOs to no more than one
event at each outfall annually by 2011. The city agreed to meet a 2008 schedule specified
in a federal consent decree resulting from a third party Clean Water Act lawsuit. Storm
water discharge from new developments into the CSS is prohibited.The city must
update its CSO reduction plan with each 5-year NPDES permit cycle, and submit a status
report each May on implementation activities. The report provides details on the past
year's frequency and volume for each CSO, and whether overflow at a site has increased
over the baseline annual condition. Documentation of the previous year's CSO reduction
accomplishments and planned projects for the next year are also included.
In 1992, the city completed its first CSO reduction plan in accordance with Washington
State Department of Ecology (Ecology) guidelines (CH2M Hill, 1992). This plan included:
Documentation of the CSO system and improvements.
Computation of baseline annual frequency and volume of CSO discharges.
Sampling and analysis of CSO discharges effluent and sediment at CSO structures and
outfalls.
Evaluation and selection of general control, reduction and treatment methods.
Description (including costs) and evaluation of alternatives and recommendation of
CSO reduction projects.
Analysis of the effects of the proposed projects on the WWTP operation.
Recommendations for future studies.
Preparation of an implementation schedule and financing plan.
The 1992 CSO reduction plan proposed sewer separation as the primary means to reach
the one event per year level in many of the city's sewersheds.
CSO volume and frequency data became available in 1994 when the CSO and rainfall
monitoring system went on-line. Monitoring helped to identify sewersheds that receive
direct storm water inflow and areas that had large amounts of Rll. It was found that large
amounts of roof and parking lot drainage from private properties goes directly into the
CSS. A city ordinance provides funding authority for a program to assist private property
owners with development and implementation of storm water separation projects by
January 2002 and beyond, as funds are available. This program is called the Cooperative
Approach to CSO Reduction.
Bremerton has published three educational brochures, hosted workshops, developed an
internet website, and produced a how-to video that covers the CSO reduction program
goals and requirements (Berthiaume, 2000). Private property owners willing to
disconnect storm water inflow can obtain free technical assistance, site assessments and
detailed planning from a city representative.The City Council approved a reimbursement
schedule that pays the property owner based on the type of connection and the effort it
will take to redirect the storm water to its yard, the street, or other conveyance.
Separation work completed in the right-of-way is provided at no cost to the property
owner. The city representative and property owner work together under this program to
complete the site assessment. The method of separation is agreed to in a signed
contract. When the separation work has been completed, the property owner calls for a
post-separation inspection. If completed per the agreement, payment is made to the
property owner and the property status is updated in the city's wastewater account
data base. Bremerton established a fee schedule for private properties that have
improperly connected storm water to the sanitary sewer system. If a private property has
a storm water connection to the sanitary sewer system, the existing storm water fee,
based on a per account or equivalent impervious surface unit, is increased 25 percent
annually, beginning in 2002 to 100 percent of the fee by January 2005.
-------
Community Case Study: Bremerton, WA— 10
In 1999, Bremerton developed a hydrologic and hydraulic conveyance model to support
facility planning.The city also carried out additional work including an inflow and
infiltration study, installation of flow meters, and smoke and dye testing. The city initiated
a source-tracing program to be implemented if contaminants in CSOs exceed marine
chronic water quality criteria.
Bremerton updated its CSO Reduction Plan in 2000 (HDR, 2000). CSO reduction
alternatives were evaluated based on an October 30,1997 storm event. This storm has a
one-year recurrence interval with a high intensity accumulation of rainfall at the end of
the storm with two days of wet antecedent conditions. The storm produced a high flows
well suited for developing improvements primarily associated with increasing
conveyance capacity. Reduction options that were considered included sewer
separation, removal of Rll, increased conveyance capacity,storage, and treatment.
Significant findings included:
Separation should be continued, but only to provide a long-term benefit for
collection and treatment of sanitary sewage. Separation will not reduce the overflows
to one event per year since a major portion of the extraneous flow during major
events is from Rll.
Removal of Rll is feasible only when cost-effective and achievable within the
schedule.
Providing some storage offers valuable benefits, particularly when combined with
onsite treatment or conveyance, but is not cost effective in all sewersheds because of
site limitations and the volume of combined sewage.
Increased conveyance capacity is needed to prevent overflows, but downstream
impacts on the sewers and increased flow to the WWTP need to be considered.
Treatment of CSOs at the old Manette WWTP site was the most cost effective method
of reducing untreated overflows from East Bremerton.
Many of the controls were completed in 2000. Flow slipping (intentional blocking of
storm water from entering the CSS at catch basins for the purpose of routing, or slipping
it, elsewhere) and installation of new storm water sewer mains also contributed to
reduced CSO discharges during 2000.
Bremerton addresses all of the NMC in its annual reports. Monitoring of CSOs and
receiving water bodies began in 1995, and there are no ongoing problems with dry
weather overflows or floatables. The city has water conservation, rain barrels, recycling,
and hazardous waste disposal programs in addition to the programs previously
described. The city sweeps all major streets every six to ten weeks, and cleans each catch
basin annually. The city also initiated planning in individual storm water basins. These
efforts all reduce contaminants in CSOs. Upgrades to wastewater collection system
controls and the installation of a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system have increased overall system reliability.
Costs and Financing
Bremerton completed CSO control projects in three sewersheds at a capital cost of
approximately $17 million. It is estimated that an additional $27 million is needed to
complete improvements for the seven remaining sewersheds. Annual operation and
maintenance costs are currently $4.5 million and are expected to increase to $6.0 million
by 2008. The city's wastewater utility has no bonding capacity until 2007. Therefore,
outside financial resources are necessary to complete the program. Existing projects
were funded through Interfund Loans, Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) loans, Centennial
Clean Water Funds (CCWF) loans/grants, State Revolving Funds (SRF) loans, and user fees.
Future projects will be funded by these sources plus direct congressional grant
appropriations ($3.48 million to date). Current debt service for funding CSO projects
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
through these programs adds $1.1 million to the annual cost to the wastewater utility.
Assuming $40 million for CSO programmatic capital loan requirements, it is anticipated
that annual debt service will increase to $2.6 million in 2008 providing existing low
interest loan terms.
Local match requirements are a significant issue for the city. EPA regulations preclude
using SRF as matching funds for grants and PWTF also does not allow using grant funds
as match.The current implementation schedule is dependent on several revenue
assumptions, including continued annual consumer rate increases consistent with
inflation, a minimum 1 percent system growth, third party recovery from ongoing
litigation, and financing with loans or grants. Without the financing and sufficient match,
the city will not be able to meet the implementation schedule. According to the 2000
Washington Water and Wastewater Rate Survey, Bremerton has some of the most
expensive wastewater rates in the state (number 36 of 39 surveyed, ranked from lowest
to highest) at $45.10 per month (Black and Veatch, 2000).
The Cooperative Approach to CSO Reduction program is supported by a grant from the
CCWF and matching funds from Bremerton. Revenues from the grant will be expended
by mid-2002 and the city plans to continue the program with O&M funds through 2005.
Beginning in January 2002, revenues collected from the new storm water fee will be
used to offset the cost of design, construction and the operation and maintenance of the
new CSO reduction facilities that are needed to control and treat the extra water from
the remaining improper connections.
Water Quality Issues
Water quality issues in Puget Sound include a ban on commercial harvesting of shellfish,
threats to public health, and threats to endangered species. Sinclair and Dyes Inlets have
documented water quality problems from a variety of sources, including failing septic
systems, urban runoff, industrial and military sites, and CSOs. Efforts to address these
sources of pollution have helped to improve, but have not solved, water quality
problems in the area.
The Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District has issued a closure advisory for all species
of shellfish, crab, bottom fish, and rockfish in Dyes Inlet, Port Washington Narrows, and
Sinclair Inlet due to chemical or biological pollution.The closure to commercial
harvesting of shellfish, due to point and nonpoint pollution, impacts the economy,
reducesjobs, and causes the public to avoid the use of beaches. Additionally, the health
district has issued an advisory for areas that periodically experience high levels of point
and nonpoint pollution during heavy rains.This advisory includes Dyes Inlet, Port
Washington Narrows, and Sinclair Inlet. Public use of Port Washington Narrows includes
four major waterfront parks and more than seven other public access sites. Year-round
recreational uses of these waters such as sport fishing, scuba diving, and swimming
increase the potential risk to the general population.
The US Navy's ENWEST program is developing a model that can be used by the
Washington State Department of Health (DOH) to determine the transport and fate of
fecal coliform if the city were to have an overflow event. This is a cooperative program
among the Navy, EPA, Ecology and other organizations. Shellfish beds have been
periodically monitored since they have been closed to harvest since 1969. Significant
efforts have been made to reduce point and nonpoint pollution.
The Dyes Inlet currently meets water quality standards for shellfish. However, due to the
existence of CSO structures and the potential for an overflow event, the DOH has not
opened these shellfish beds for commercial harvesting. Discussion of re-certifying the
shellfish beds in Dyes Inlet for restricted or limited harvesting is possible once DOH has a
tool to calculate the fate and transport of fecal coliform due to a CSO.
There are 22 square miles of critical nearshoresalmonid habitat that surround the CSO
outfalls and range up to four miles downstream of the discharges. CSOs potentially affect
the Chinook and Chum Salmon and Bull Trout, which are threatened under the
-------
Community Case Study: Bremerton, WA— 10
Endangered Species Act. Studies are underway to determine the actual extent of the
threat and the effects of reducing pollutant sources.
Enforcement Issues
In 1993, Bremerton entered into a Consent Decree that further addressed its CSOs but
did not include sewer moratoriums. Amendments to this decree were adopted in 1999
through mediation (Ballbach, 1999).The city agreed:
To achieve a 95 percent reduction in CSO flows by 2003, subject to extraordinary
events and extreme year anomalies.
To accelerate the CSO reduction schedule to achieve the goal of one overflow per
year or less at each outfall by December 2008.
To pay for a Financial Feasibility Study if schedule modifications become necessary.
In November 2000, a second citizens group issued a notice of intent to file suit against
the city for failure to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree.
Bremerton has eliminated three CSO outfalls. As shown, the city's efforts have reduced
CSO volume by 69 percent from baseline conditions (City of Bremerton, 1999).The city
also reduced the annual number of overflow events by 56 percent. In 2000, the City
achieved a 96 percent reduction in
volume, and an 89 percent
reduction in frequency of overflow
events. Nine of 16 CSO outfalls
overflowed only once or did not
overflow at all in 2000 (Bertiaume,
2000). Some of the reduction can
be attributed to the unusually low
rainfall (20 inches less than
normal). However, Bremerton
believes it is on the way to
achieving a goal of one overflow or
less per outfall on an annual basis.
Annual CSO Volume and Rainfall
165
175
173
188
120
65
78
Measured volume (MG)
60
54
I i 2 m
• Baseline Estimate (MG)
59
34
1997
Rainfall (inches)
1998 i 1999
2000
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Ballbach, D. 1999. Mediation Resolution, Agreed Amendments to September 27,1993
Consent Decree. Signed by the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance and the City of Bremerton.
Berthiaume, Chance, and City of Bremerton. 2000. "City of Bremerton's CSO Reduction
Program and Drinking Water Quality & Conservation."
http://www.cityofbremerton.com
Black and Veatch, 2000.2000 Washington Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. Seattle, WA.
CH2M Hill, 1992. Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan. Prepared for the City of
Bremerton,Washington. 1992.
City of Bremerton, 1999. Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction Plan—Amendment No. 2.
Bremerton, WA.
HDR, 2000. Bremerton CSO Reduction Plan Update. Prepared for the City of Bremerton,
Washington. 2000.
-------
Community Case Study
Number of CSO Outfalls
20 (originally)
11 (currently)
Combined Sewer Service Area
2.9 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
18 mgd
Receiving Water(s)
Mississippi River
Burlington, IA—Region 7
O Outfall
A. Wastewater Treatment Plant
','•//- Combined Sewer Area
Burlington has been separating
portions of its CSS since the 1970s
through major street reconstruction
projects.
Work on eliminating individual
CSOs started in 1982.
As part of a 1996 CSO study, a
number of CSO control alternatives
were evaluated, but the city
decided to continue to pursue
sewer separation.
Photo: Great River Bridge over the Mississippi River
in Burlington.
Courtesy of Ha wkeye Magazine
Program Highlights
CSO outfalls have been reduced
from 20 to 11.
Burlington developed a plan to
eliminate CSO discharges with
sewer separation that will be
completed by 2017.
Burlington has merged a wide
array of television inspection and
existing sewer system information
in a common, detailed data base
to facilitate inspection and
reporting.
Background on Burlington CSOs
Burlington, Iowa is a hilly city located on the banks of the Mississippi River with a
population of 27,500. The city's sewer system is a mix of sanitary, storm, and combined
sewers. Combined sewers were commonly constructed until the 1960s and primarily
serve the downtown area. Downtown Burlington is the largest retail center in Southeast
Iowa containing more than 75 shops and restaurants.
The sewer system serves 5,250 acres through 135 miles of sewers, and has 10,451
customer connections. Sixsewersheds and 1,870 acres (36 percent of the sewer system)
are served by combined sewers. The Hawkeye basin comprises two thirds of the city's
sewer system and 18.5 percent (664 acres) of the drainage area is combined. The South
and Market Street sewersheds, the next largest in size (493 and 273 acres respectively),
are 100 percent combined. The Cascade sewershed is the next largest at 318 acres, and
32 percent (102 acres) combined. The Angular and Locust sewersheds represent 273 and
65 acres of combined sewers, respectively. Four other minor sewersheds, the Silver,
Gnahn, Osborn, and Harrison, serve a combined area of 91 acres.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Burlington operates an activated sludge wastewater treatment plant with an average
design flow of 9.0 mgd and a peak flow capacity of 18.0 mgd.The city has worked on
eliminating CSOs through separation and has reduced CSO outfalls from 20 to 11. The
wastewater treatment plant and the remaining CSOs discharge to the Mississippi River.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has designated this stretch of the
Mississippi for primary contact recreation (Class A) and as a significant resource warm
water (Class B-WW).
Status of Implementation
The DNR's "Special Conditions for CSOs" requires that the city: (1) determine the
hydraulic capacity of the sewers between the CSO and the wastewater treatment plant;
and (2) develop an operational plan for the combined system. Burlington has adopted a
long-range goal of separating the combined sewer systems to comply with DNR and EPA
requirements. The City has separated storm and sanitary sewers on major street
reconstruction projects since the 1970s. Implementing the long-range goal will extend
through 2017 because of the significant cost to completely separate the sewer system.
Burlington eliminated five CSOs through sewer separation projects between 1982 and
1993. In 1993, the City submitted the Report of Combined Sewer Overflows: Part 1 to the
DNR (City of Burlington, 1993). The City concluded that the capacity of the sewers was
adequate for current average dry weather flows, except for the Hawkeye sewershed.
Anticipated development in the Hawkeye sewershed, combined with significant inflow
from Hawkeye Creek and an unnamed tributary, was predicted to exceed the capacity of
that system, which was calculated to be 15.4 mgd. Burlington also identified dry weather
overflows at three locations.
In 1995, the city submitted the Report of Combined Sewer Overflows: Part 2 to the DNR
(City of Burlington, 1995). This report addressed NMC activities that are described in the
following summary. The city identified a number of repairs to the sewer system and CSO
outfalls, located a number of dry weather overflows and CSOs for elimination, and found
a previously unknown CSO at a lift station.
NMC
Proper O&M
Maximize collection system storage
Review pretreatment requirements
Maximize flow to POTW
Prohibit CSO during dry weather
Control solids and floatables
Pollution prevention
Public notification
Monitoring
Activity
Clean, inspect, monitor flows. Conduct regular
inspections by wastewater treatment plant
personnel after every rainfall event.
Raise dam heights. Disconnect all roof drains
and smoke test entire collection system to
locate unnecessary sources of inflow.
Develop storm water management plans to
control storm water from new development
sites.
Raise dam heights to increase flow.
Replace pipe at CSO 016. Separate 26 acres
at Gnahn and Osborn.
Study alternatives once data are available.
Institute a recycling program.
Publish results of CSO monitoring in the
newspaper.
Install monitoring at seven active CSOs to
measure number of activations, quantity of
water discharged, water quality, and notify
wastewater treatment plant personnel.
-------
Community Case Study: Burlington, IA— 7
Burlington prepared a 20-year CSO Control Plan in 1996. This plan outlines a 20-year
capital improvement program, describes the condition of the sewers, provides flow
monitoring information, and analyzes potential flow conditions during a standard storm
(5-year, 1-hour event, 2 inches of rain). A number of CSO control alternatives were
evaluated. Inlet control storage, in-line storage, off-line storage, deep tunnel storage, and
swirl concentrators/disinfection were eliminated due to ineffectiveness or cost. The City
elected to use separation as the primary means of CSO control, and established six
phases to be implemented by 2017.The schedule and costs associated with each phase
is summarized below.
Phases and Outfalls Addressed Schedule Cost
1. Modify CSO and sewers,separate 1996 $1.5 million
combined areas, and conduct inspections and
eliminate improper private connections
(eliminate eight CSOs; modify five others).
2. Separate the Hawkeye sewershed 1998 to 2002 $13.3 million
(eliminate one CSO).
3. Separate the Cascade CSS 2003 $ 3.1 million
(eliminate two CSOs).
4. Separate the Locust, Harrison, and South 2003 to 2007 $ 5.0 million
sewersheds (eliminate one CSO).
5. Separate the Angular sewershed 2008to2012 $4.9million
(eliminate one CSO).
6. Separate the Market sewershed (eliminate 012) 2013 to 2017 $ 7.3 million
(eliminate one CSO).
Total Cost $35.1 million
Many of the Phase 1 controls were completed in 1996. Work on Phase 2, the Hawkeye
Sewer Separation Project, began in early 1999. The Hawkeye Project has three parts and
is expected to take five years to complete. Part 1 of the Hawkeye project includes
studying the system (flow monitoring, manhole inspection, smoke testing, dyed water
flooding, line cleaning and television inspection) to identify sewer capacities and proper
sizing of sanitary trunk lines, and to identify sources of unknown inflow such as roof
drain, back yard inlets, etc. Burlington used this opportunity to develop an innovative
approach to sewer television inspection and reporting, where the information collected
on the sewer system was delivered on digital video discs (DVD). A wide array of
television inspection and existing information on the sewer system was merged into a
common, detailed data base management system. This approach saved time in
collecting, annotating, analyzing and reviewing information as well as providing
permanent records with a design life of at least 100 years (Carhoff, 2000). These data are
also being entered into a county-wide CIS that should be available in 2002.
Part 2 of the Hawkeye Project consists of separating storm water inlets. The city intends
to implement a storm water management plan for each of the main trunks entering the
Hawkeye sewer. Part 3 consists of installing sanitary trunk sewers into the Hawkeye
trunk sewer to convey sanitary flow to the wastewater treatment plant. Storm water will
be conveyed in the existing trunk sewer to local receiving waters.
After the Hawkeye Project is completed, the city will reevaluate the 20-year plan.
Separation will continue to the maximum extent possible, and the city will consider
using innovative end-of-pipe treatment technologies to address remaining overflows.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Costs, Financing and Results
Burlington used a mix of Community Development Block Grants, federal grants, and
bonds to finance CSO control. Prior to the initiation of the Hawkeye project, the city
spent more than $2.9 million to separate sewers within 464 acres of the service area and
to eliminate five CSOs.
The Hawkeye Sewer Separation Project is a $13.3 million project, where 82 percent of the
budget will fund sewer construction, 13 percent inspection and smoke testing, and the
remaining 5 percent repairs to the trunk sewers. In 1998, the city was awarded a federal
special infrastructure grant for $7 million. The city is providing the local cost-share
through bond issuance and user fees. When complete, the Hawkeye Sewer Separation
Project should eliminate 60 overflows per year and 1.5 mgd of CSO discharged to the
Mississippi River.
The city is facing an additional $20.3 million cost to implement the remainder of the 20-
year CSO Control Plan and is seeking a grant to support this completion. The 20-year
implementation schedule and financing for the plan are both critical issues for
Burlington. Many of the residents are on fixed incomes or earning low wages, and
cannot afford increased sewer rates. Federal grant funding is therefore a key component
of the city's LTCR
Carhoff, Bob. 2000. "Computer Technology Improves Sewer TV Inspection and Reporting."
Public Works, March, pp. 42-43.
City of Burlington, Iowa. 1993. Report of Combined Sewer Overflows: Part 1. City of
Burlington, Burlington, IA.
City of Burlington, Iowa. 1995. Report of Combined Sewer Overflows: Part 2. City of
Burlington, Burlington, IA.
-------
Community Case Study
Chicago, IL—Region 5
Number of CSO Outfalls
408
Combined Sewer Service Area
375 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
2,434 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
Addison Creek, Calumet River, Calumet Sag Channel, Chicago River,
Chicago Ship Channel, Des Plaines River, Flagg Creek, Grand Calumet River,
Little Calumet River, North Shore Channel, Oak Lawn Creek, Salt Creek,
San & Ship Canal, Weller's Creek
O Outfall
A Wastewater Treatment Plant
f/i Combined Sewer Area
City of
Chicago
Large diameter, deep rock tunnels are used to capture,
convey, and store wet weather flows.
Reservoirs are currently being constructed to provide
flood control and additional CSO control benefits.
Photo: New deep rock tunnel, part of Chicago's
extensive Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP).
Courtesy
Program Highlights
Construction of CSO control
projects began in 1975.
As of 2000,93% of all CSO outfalls
have been intercepted byTARR
To date,TARP tunnels have
captured and facilitated the
treatment of more than 565
billion gallons of CSOs.
Background on Chicago CSOs
CSOs and CSO control are a complex regional issue in the greater Chicago metropolitan
area where there are a total of 408 CSOs along 81 miles of waterways. The majority of the
outfalls are regulated through NPDES permits issued to 52 municipaljurisdictions,
including the City of Chicago. The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago (MWRDGC) maintains regional treatment facilities and has responsibility for
outfalls near the plants and along the interceptors. The MWRDGC combined sewer
service area comprises 375 square miles and serves a population of over 3 million. It is
estimated that there are over 5,000 miles of sewers within the combined sewer area. The
rated treatment capacities of the seven MWRDGC water reclamation plants (WRPs) are:
CHI-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
WRP Design Average Flow (mgd) Design Maximum Flow (mgd)
Stickney 1,200 1,440
North Side 333 450
Calumet 354 430
Klrie 52 110
Egan 30 50
Hanover Park 12 22
Lemont 2 4
Total 1,983 2,506
Status of Implementation
MWRDGC is implementing a two-phased approach to address CSO and flood control
known as the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, or TARP. The construction of large diameter,
deep rock tunnels for the storage of combined sewage is the centerpiece ofTARP
Phase I. The construction of reservoirs to primarily address flooding issues is the main
component ofTARP Phase II.
TARP Phase I is the MWRDGC's LTCR TARP Phase I captures, conveys, and stores wet
weather combined sewer flows in excess of interceptor capacity until they can be
pumped out to existing WRPs for full advanced secondary treatment when plant
capacity becomes available following storms.TARP Phase I consists of 109.4 miles of
tunnels 9 to 33 feet in diameter, three tunnel dewatering pumping stations, over 250
drop shafts, and over 600 associated near-surface connecting and flow regulating
structures. CSOs are intercepted at all outfalls. The system is designed to facilitate
capture and treatment of the CSO first flush from all storms, and all of the CSO from the
smaller, more frequent storms. This equates to a reduction of approximately 84 percent
of the pollution load. Reservoirs being built under TARP Phase II are primarily intended
for flood control and are not part of the LTCR although they will provide additional CSO
pollution control benefits.
TARP was developed through ajoint effort of the State of Illinois, Cook County, the City of
Chicago, and the MWRDGC. It represents a hybrid of the best eight of over 50 water
management plans proposed and studied beginning in the mid-1960s.TARP has been
designed to protect Lake Michigan and Chicago-area waterways from CSO pollution, and
to significantly reduce local basement flooding. Officially adopted by the MWRDGC in
1972 with construction beginning in 1975,TARP was the first comprehensive Clean Water
Act CSO control plan developed for a major metropolitan area.
The design for TARP is based on the presumption approach. The storage tunnels built
under Phase I are designed to pick up all 408 CSOs within the service area, but were
designed to work with the reservoir system, which is not yet complete. The result has
been that when multiple storm events occur within a short period of time, the storage
tunnels sometimes do not drain completely, producing short-term capacity reductions.
Since the CSOs serve as CSS emergency relief points,TARP has cautioned all 52 member
cities and villages not to disconnect their outfalls unless they feel confident their local
sewer systems are adequate to handle wet weather flows without surcharging that may
lead to street or basement flooding.
Approximately 75 TARP Phase I construction contracts have been completed, with only
two remaining. As of September 2001,93.4 miles of tunnel system were complete and in
operation, 8.1 miles of tunnel were under construction, and 7.9 miles of tunnel were
expected to be under construction by late 2001. Of the 2.3 billion gallons of CSO storage
tunnel capacity, 2.1 billion gallons (92 percent) are online. Phase II, reservoir construction,
is not as far advanced. A summary ofTARP progress follows.
-------
Community Case Study: Chicago, IL— 5
Tunnels and Related Facilities (Phase I)
System Construction Costs Miles Total Miles Complete
Mainstream
Calumet
O'Hare
Des Plaines
Total
$1,142
$711
$64
$469
$2,386
40.5
36.7
6.6
25.6
109.4
40.5
20.7
6.6
25.6
93.4
Reservoirs (Phase II)
System Construction Costs
McCook
Thornton
O'Hare
Total
$521
$105
$48
$674
Capacity Total
(Billion Gallons)
10.5
4.8
0.4
15.7
Capacity Complete
(Billion Gallons)
0
0
0.4
0.4
There are no dry weather overflows in the service area. The potential for dry weather
flow is greatly reduced by a number of factors including:
The inherent design of the sewer system.
Infiltration and inflow (I/I) control programs implemented in separate sewer areas
in local villages and cities upstream of the combined sewer area.
MWRDGC 's sewer construction permit programs governing sewer connections
tributary to its interceptors and treatment plants.
MWRDGC's own O&M programs and sewer rehabilitation efforts on its 550-mile
interceptor sewer system.
Costs and Financing
TARP Phase I construction progress has been continuous since beginning in 1975.
Construction contracts totaling more than 2.2 billion dollars of the budgeted $2.4 billion
have already been spent (91 percent). Annual O&M costs between1997 and 1999
averaged $8.1 million per year. The construction cost for the final TARP Phase I tunnel
(the Little Calumet Leg Tunnel) is estimated to cost $160 million.
Early federal and state construction grants greatly reduced the MWRDGC's direct cost-
share for the project. After cessation of the federal construction grants program, the
MWRDGC committed itself to completing TARP exclusively utilizing its own funding
resources. However, due to the large costs involved, funding availability has been the
primary reason that construction has not progressed faster.
TARP's large scope, high implementation cost, and unique, untested nature has sparked
hot debate and heavy news media coverage, including a segment on CBS' "60 Minutes"
While evaluated as being the most cost-effective solution,TARP opponents offered
alternatives they believed to be cheaper and as effective. Other solutions were proposed
including smaller scale decentralized facilities, roof-top and street storage, park storage,
sewer restrictions, relief sewers, downspout disconnection, and basement sewer backup
prevention devices. All suggestions were evaluated, and it was found that none of the
TARP alternatives would achieve the stated goals.
After $739 million in TARP construction contracts had been awarded (75 percent
federally funded) in 1979, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
report, Combined Sewer Flooding and Pollution—A National Problem: The Search for
Solutions in Chicago (GAO, 1979). This report analyzed TARP's cost versus it's objectives. A
conclusion was in the form of a question: "Both phases of TARPand associated projects
offer a promising solution to the (CSO) problem. But can the country afford it?" The GAO
recommended ceasing further federal funding of TARP until a reassessment was made to
see if less costly alternatives existed, and to consider adopting more flexible water
quality goals for the waterways affected by CSOs.The MWRDGC and local political
leadership vigorously objected to both recommendations and to GAO's estimate of
TARP's cost, which was three to four times higher than the MWRDGC's estimated cost.
More studies were conducted and TARP was reaffirmed as the most cost-effective
alternative.
Water Quality Issues
MWRDGC conducts several water quality monitoring programs in the Chicago and
Calumet waterway systems. Water quality samples are taken on a weekly basis for
general chemistry and metals. In addition, dissolved oxygen monitoring is conducted on
a continuous basis with in-place monitors. MWRDGC also conducts fish population
surveys to track changes in the numbers offish and fish species present in waterways.
The results of these studies have documented dramatic improvement in water quality.
MWRDGC believes that the completion of TARP Phase I (its LTCP) will result in
compliance with the water quality standards.
By letter dated June 28,1995, the State of Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
concurred with the MWRDGC advising that "the Agency believes that the completion of
TARP will be adequate to meet water quality standards and protect the designated used
of the receiving waters pursuant to Section I.C of the CSO Control Policy.
TARP tunnel fill levels and pumpout are measured to determine total CSO capture during
storm events. Major portions of the TARP tunnel system were placed in operation
beginning in the mid 1980s, with new segments coming on-line afterwards. To date, the
93.4 miles of completed TARP tunnels have captured and facilitated treatment of over
565 billion gallons of first and second flush combined sewage that would have
otherwise spilled to local rivers and streams.
The frequency of CSO occurrences has decreased from nearly 100 times per year to less
than 15 times per year.
Marked visible improvement in the condition of waterways has spurred recreational and
other uses of the Chicago River including tourism and sightseeing, boating, canoeing,
and fishing. Once perceived by many as a virtual open sewer, the river system has been
cleaned up by TARR This has brought about enhanced real estate values and booming
riverside development, including hotels, office/apartment buildings, restaurants,
riverwalks, marinas, and canoe/kayak launches. Fish, including various species of game
fish, and other aquatic wildlife, have returned to the river system in dramatic numbers.
The year 2000 Bassmaster Fishing Tournament was held in Chicago on its restored
waterways.
TARP has received much recognition and numerous awards from government agencies
and technical/professional organizations for its innovative and effective design and
performance.The project has garnered favorable press from local media for its
performance, and much local support from local villages and cities.
-------
Community Case Study: Chicago, IL— 5
GAO, 1979. Combined Sewer Flooding and Pollution—A National Problem: The Search for
Solutions in Chicago, CED 79-77. Washington, DC.
MWRDGC, 1998. Report No. 98-23: Water Quality Improvements in the Chicago and Calumet
Waterways Between 1975 and 1993 Associated with the Operation of Water Reclamation
Plants, the Tunnel and Reservoir System, and Instream and Sidestream Aeration Stations.
Chicago, IL.
-------
Community Case Study
Columbus, GA—Region 4
Number of CSO Outfalls
16
Combined Sewer Service Area
4.1 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
42 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
Chattahoochee River
Alabama
O Outfall
A, Wastewater Treatment Plant
Combined Sewer Area
Two water resources facilities (WRFs)
provide direct treatment of CSOs. One
WRF is a national demonstration facility
used to evaluate alternative technologies
to remove CSO contaminants and
provide environmentally sensitive
disinfection. Technologies evaluated
include flow controls, screening, grit
handling, vortex separation, compressed
media filtration, UV disinfection,
chlorination and dechlorination.and
other disinfection methods. The other
j
WRF provides CSO pumping, screening,
vortex separation with chlorine disinfection, grit handling, and residuals disposal.
Vortex separation facility under construction.
A strategically placed sanitary relief line is used to transport half of the sanitary
sewage to the wastewater treatment plant, outside the bounds of the CSS.
Remaining CSO discharges have been relocated downstream of public access areas.
Program Highlights
Columbus' CSO program has
been fully implemented.
Compliance monitoring and
performance testing continue.
The Chattahoochee River now
meets water quality standards for
all criteria including bacteria.
An extensive public education
program involving numerous
public hearings, news articles,
water bill flyers, watershed
workshops, and seminars was a
key component of the
development and
implementation of the LTCR
Background on Columbus, GA CSOs
The Columbus CSS extends over 2,600 acres of the old downtown area draining to the
Chattahoochee River. Until controls were implemented, there were 5,200 acres of
combined sewer with 16 CSO outfalls to the river. The average annual river flow is 6,500
cfs, with a flow of 3,500 cfs on average in summer and a regulated low flow of 1,160 cfs.
Prior to CSO control, elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria and visible sewage debris
often plagued the Chattahoochee. Columbus began to implement CSO controls in 1995,
including two water resources facilities (WRFs). One of the WRFs, in Uptown Park, also
serves as a CSO technology testing facility.
con
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Status of Implementation
The Columbus Water Works (CWW) has fully implemented an LTCP based on the
demonstration approach of the CSO Control Policy. The LTCP was implemented by
December 31,1995, in compliance with Georgia State law.The Columbus program
included characterization of the system and receiving water impacts, implementation of
the NMC, pilot testing of alternative technologies, long-term planning, structural
controls, and post-construction monitoring to demonstrate compliance with water
quality standards.
Program development activities culminated in a $95 million capital program that
included:
Municipal treatment plant upgrades
Sewer separation
Diversion structure
Collector and transport conduits
Pumping stations
Two CSO treatment facilities (WRFs)
Associated river walk, trail and parks
Five-year technology demonstration testing
The technology demonstration part of the program evaluated technologies for pollutant
removal (including screening, vortex separation, filtration processes, flow controls) and
several disinfection methods (including ultraviolet light, sodium hypochlorite, paracetic
acid and chlorine dioxide). Sodium bisulfite dechlorination was also evaluated for
dechlorination (Boner, 2001). Sewer separation was focused mainly in the upstream
catchments where this type of solution made economic sense or had a high benefit-to-
cost ratio. One strategically placed sanitary relief line eliminated half of the sanitary
sewage that entered the CSS.
Columbus began its sampling program in 1990 and has continued the monitoring of
area streams, rivers, and municipal infrastructure since then. From 1990 to 1993 the city
conducted wet weather sampling of CSOs, streams, rivers and pilot facilities constructed
to evaluate alternative CSO treatment technologies. CWW subsequently conducted two
national demonstration programs to evaluate CSO controls. These programs included 38
monitoring stations on streams, river, and CSO control facilities including individual
process components.
A wet weather monitoring program has been the focal point of Columbus' effort to
understand wet weather pollution, its impact on the environment, and cost-effective
means to control and reduce the problem. Watershed monitoring stations included flow
measurement, automatic sampling and multi-parameter continuous-probe
measurements. Analytical tests included £ Co//and fecal coliform bacteria,
cryptosporidium and giardia,suspended solids and particle distribution, oxygen
demands, nutrients and metals. Probe measurements included dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, pH, temperature, and conductivity. Aquatic biology and habitat measurements
in over 30 locations were monitored on a quarterly and/or biannual schedule to assess
macroinvertebrates and fish populations over a two-year period. Monitoring was
conducted to:
Quantify CSO pollutant loadings
Measure watershed health and impacts of wet weather pollution
Determine performance of the various technologies tested
-------
Community Case Study: Columbus, GA— 4
Calibrate the EPA BASINS model
Develop a framework for area TMDLs
Show compliance with the CSO Control Policy for the controls implemented
Characterization findings show that all of these objectives were achieved, and that
several protocols for monitoring and modeling have significant national benefit. The
CWW monitoring, modeling and technology performance testing was peer reviewed by
the Water Environment Research Foundation.
In concert with the CSO Control Policy development, CWW evaluated the optimization of
its system and organization together with its long-term planning to address NMC
requirements. The NMC were identified for the Columbus system, implemented, and
documented in a June 1995 report to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources -
Environmental Protection Division, the NPDES permitting authority.
The system has been surveyed and hydraulically modeled, and there are no dry weather
sewer overflows.
An extensive public education program involving public hearings, news articles, water
bill flyers, watershed workshops, and university seminars has been conducted during the
planning, implementation, and subsequent testing phases of the CWW CSO program. A
continued program is being provided through CWW activities and support of
organizations such as Leadership Columbus, the Oxbow Environmental Learning Center,
Adopt-A-Stream, and River Kids.
Columbus developed its LTCP based on the demonstration approach of the CSO Control
Policy. Demonstration requires that remaining CSOs after implementation of controls
must not preclude the attainment of water quality standards or contribute to water
quality impairment. In Columbus, this determination is made through a TMDL allocation
process. Columbus was able to quantify pollutant contributions and link the source and
the ability to attain water quality standards to water quality targets. This analysis led to a
level of CSO control beyond which there is no "reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to exceedances of water quality standards." The result was a post-
construction Phase II CSO NPDES Permit that had no numeric limits other than
"performance standards based on average design conditions and consistent with the
facilities implemented and demonstrated." Columbus continues to monitor the receiving
water and CSO effluent. The data are aggregated with the calibrated BASINS model
output to demonstrate on a periodic basis (monthly if possible) that the source
contributions and comparison with ambient monitoring data add to the database
supporting the TMDL allocation process.
Costs and Financing
Funds for the initial assessment studies, design and early construction were obtained
through revenue bonds.To obtain the necessary additional funds, the issue was taken to
the public through a series of hearings, workshops and through other outreach vehicles.
Incorporating the river walk and park amenities into the project played a key role in
drawing public interest to the river and the need for water quality and human health
protection. An environmental learning center supported by CWW was created through a
partnership with the Columbus State University. The center has since become the focal
point for community discussions on environmental resources and municipal
infrastructure issues.
CWW furthered its public involvement by developing alternative financing methods
including a special options sales tax (SPLOST),Ad Valorem tax, water and sewer rate
increases, and a user fee approach.The SPLOST approach was put before public vote and
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
won. The net result was that the facilities were paid in full shortly after the construction
was completed. This reduced the potential water rate user costs by eliminating the long-
term indebtedness and interest that normally accompanies municipal infrastructure
projects.
Capital costs for the CSO program are delineated in the table below.The total capital
expenditure of $95 million is based upon 1995 completed construction cost. Sewer
separation costs amounted to $15,000 per acre. The municipal treatment cost
component is not included in the $95 million CSO program because it serves other
purposes in addition to CSO, but enables compliance with the NMC by maximizing flow
to the wastewater treatment plant, or POTW.
CSO Program Element 1995 Construction Cost
Municipal Treatment $8,500,000
Sewer Separation $5,100,000
Transport Systems $43,359,593
Uptown Park WRF $22,711,160
South Commons WRF $22,126,000
Technology Demonstrations $1,736,000
Total $95,000,000
The CWW has an annual CSO operating budget of $1 million which includes labor,
power, chemicals, spare parts, materials and equipment replacement. Capital and
operating costs by process for the Uptown Park WRF are shown in the tables below. The
CWW Annual Operations and Maintenance
CSO Control Cost % of Total
Grit Handling $104,880 i 48%
Dechlorination $25,871 [11111112%
Comp. Media Filtration $21,400 LIIIJ10%
Chemical Disinfection $19,174 [11119%
Vortex Separation $16,320 i 7%
Trash Screening $13,480 LlJ6%
UV Disinfection [115%
Flow Controls i 3%
Total
major capital costs are in the structural components.The dominant operating costs are
associated with grit handling and removal.
-------
Community Case Study: Columbus, GA— 4
CWW Capital Costs
CSO Control Capital Cost % of Total
Vortex Separation $4,8 million IIIIIIIZIIII
Trash Screening $2,4 million
Comp. Media Filtration $1.2 million IIIIJ10%
UV Disinfection $1,2 million 110%
Flow Controls $1.2 million IIIIJ10%
Grit Handling $0,7 million |6%
Dechlorination $0,2 million
Chemical Disinfection $0,2 million
Total Capital Cost $12.0 million
140%
120%
Water Quality Issues
Water quality and beneficial use improvements have been the direct result of the CSO
control program in Columbus. The Chattahoochee River now meets water quality
standards for all criteria including bacteria.The river, especially in the downtown area
and location of the CSOs, is aesthetically free of trash, oil and grease and other sewage
debris.The old CSO outfalls are no longer visible.
Enforcement Issues
Georgia Law enacted in 1990, and amended in 1991, required five CSO cities in the state
to eliminate or control their CSO problem to meet water quality standards by December
31,1995. The CWW was placed under a CSO NPDES Permit, issued March 31,1992, and
accompanied by an Administrative Order requiring implementation of planning, design
and construction of control facilities. The permit also required regular monitoring and
reporting of discharges from the existing CSOs. CWW completed all requirements of this
permit and Order ahead of schedule.
In 1997 and 1998, the NPDES permit renewal was negotiated with the benefit of having
two years of operational and monitoring data of the CSOs, the river, and a start of a
calibrated EPA BASINS model of the urban watershed. The negotiated CSO permit is
considered a post-Phase II permit with regard to the CSO Control Policy. The permit
requires that the facilities be operated in accordance with the demonstrated CSO
program. The permit requires monitoring of the facility discharges and receiving water.
The results are reported in a mass balance spreadsheet that allows the comparison of
the accumulated source contributions and the downstream measurements.
The Columbus CSO program is fully implemented. Compliance monitoring and
performance testing continues. Columbus has plans to implement an integrated real-
time monitoring network that will collect and manage the data for compliance
reporting, measure watershed restoration progress, and provide early warning of
watershed disturbances for drinking water protection. The monitoring network will
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
include urban area creeks and river, CSOs and treatment plants. Watershed
characterization data including near real-time displays will be available to the public via
the internet.
Performance testing at the Uptown ParkWRF has generated the data necessary to
evaluate combinations of the technologies tested. The alternative evaluation process
considered the annual distribution of rainfall and runoff events such that annual yields
(quantity per acre per year) and the reduction in yield can be assessed versus the cost for
the treatment scenario. The costs and benefits for different treatment levels provided by
technologies demonstrated in Columbus were also evaluated. For example, the capital
cost per pound of total suspended solids removal increased from $27 per pound at the
63 percent removal rate to $63 per pound at the 80 percent removal rate.
A new bromine-based chemical is being tested with potential for higher treatment rate
capabilities with minimal residuals. This technology evaluation is being undertaken
through a collaboration of the Georgia Institute of Technology, the chemical
manufacturer, and CWW. It is anticipated that other partnerships will be generated to
evaluate various CSO technologies at the Uptown ParkWRF.
The primary goal of the Columbus CSO
control program was to reduce fecal coliform
bacteria to levels meeting water quality
standards in the Chattahoochee River.
Watershed measurements and aTMDL
formulation were required to make this
determination. Area watersheds were
monitored over a three-year period and the
BASINS model was calibrated from the
measured data. The results of this evaluation
show that the CSOs do not cause or
contribute to water quality standards
violations. As shown in the table at right, the
fecal coliform removal rate was extremely
successful, but other pollutants of concern were also significantly reduced.
The 30-day geometric mean fecal coliform represents all contributing sources and is well
within the summer and winter water quality criteria of 500 and 1,000 colonies per
100 ml. The maximum daily standard of 4,000 colonies per 100 ml was exceeded
periodically (a few days within a two-year period), but was attributed to urban and
suburban streams that discharge to the river. Remaining bacteria attributable to CSO
after treatment is a small fraction of that contributed by the urban and rural watersheds.
The next challenge for the area is to implement management strategies that will focus
on urban watershed protection including area drinking water supplies. In accomplishing
these goals, policies and ordinances will be developed and watershed technologies will
be demonstrated. Ultimately site-specific criteria defining water body use and protective
measures will be developed. The regional and local partnerships and the environmental
education network established by CWW will continue to be the focal point of these
efforts.
Most of the future needs for Columbus will be associated with storm water controls. The
costs of urban watershed management could be very large and demand a sound-
science approach to test alternative technology. Columbus has initiated several projects
to evaluate wet weather control strategies in which performance results will be applied
on a broader basis to quantify costs and benefits of watershed restoration.
Pollutant
BOD
TSS
Fecal coliform
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Removal as
% of Annual Load
55—61%
52—62%
95—99%
66—75%
62—83%
62—82%
Boner, Mark. Wet Weather Engineering and Technology (WWETCO), Columbus, GA.
Personal communication with Limno-Tech,lnc. staff on details of the combined sewer
overflow plan and program. Summer 2001.
-------
Community Case Study
Louisville, KY—Region 4
Indiana
Number of CSO Outfalls
115
Combined Sewer Service Area
375 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
250 mgd (primary)
140 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
Ohio River
O Outfall
A Wastewater Treatment Plant
//'"Combined Sewer Area
The Louisville and Jefferson County
Metropolitan Sewer District
(LJCMSD) has initiated in-line
storage projects, separation projects,
storage basin projects, and pilot CSO
treatment projects.
LJCMSD is currently working to
expand wet weather capacity at its
treatment plant by 40 percent, from
250 to 350 mgd.
Photo: Inflatable dam at the Sneads Branch CSO.
Background on Louisville CSOs
The Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (LJCMSD) provides sewer
service as well as storm water utility management to the Louisville, Kentucky community.
The sewer customer base is just over 198,000 and has grown at a rate of 12 percent over
the past five years. Sewer service is provided by a combination of separate sanitary
sewers and combined sewers. The total length of sewers within the service area is over
3,000 miles including 680 miles of combined sewers built before 1995. The combined
sewer service area is heavily urbanized and covers approximately 24,000 acres. There are
currently a total of 115 CSO outfalls within the CSS.
Wastewater flow is treated at the Morris Forman Wastewater Treatment Plant (MFWTP).
MFWTP is capable of providing full secondary treatment for up to 140 mgd and primary
treatment for an additional 110 mgd during wet weather periods. A project is currently
underway which will increase the wet weather primary treatment capacity from 250 mgd
to 350 mgd.
Program Highlights
Five CSO outfalls have been
eliminated.
CSO frequency has been reduced
by 27 percent and CSO volume
has been reduced by 13 percent.
This keeps 681 million gallons per
year of combined sewage out of
local receiving waters.
LJCMSD's program to install
backflow prevention devices in
homes to eliminate sewer
backups has been used as a
national model.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Status of Implementation
Win*
All of the NMC have been implemented, and LJCMSD provided NMC documentation to
the State of Kentucky. Many of the NMC activities were being implemented by LJCMSD
before the CSO Control Policy was issued in 1994.
LJCMSD established a maintenance program in the 1980s to focus on inspection and
maintenance of CSO outfalls. Each CSO outfall is inspected on a set schedule. The
frequency of the inspection ranges from daily to monthly depending on the particular
outfall size, history of the discharge, and past maintenance problems. Dry weather
overflows have essentially been eliminated through regular maintenance activity.
Regularly scheduled cleaning of over 25,000 storm water catch basins in the CSS result in
the removal of over 600 tons/year of street debris and litter. This program reduces
pollutant discharge from CSOs and prevents plugging and dry weather blockages in the
sewer system.
For notification of overflows, LJCMSD located signs at each CSO outfall to inform the
public of the outfall and the reason for the outfall. The public is asked to call LJCMSD
customer service if a dry weather overflow is occurring. During extreme wet weather
events, LJCMSD purchases time on local radio stations to inform the public to stay out of
the streams for safety reasons. LJCMSD's website (www.msdlouky.org) has additional
information about CSOs and water quality.
LJCMSD developed a flow-monitoring program in 1991 to characterize the CSS. Flow
monitors were installed at 50 locations throughout the CSS. This information was used to
develop and calibrate a SWMM model to simulate the combined system. Long-term
quality samplers are located at 12 overflow locations. Permanent real-time flow monitors
are in place in three locations and additional locations are planned as part of real-time
control projects.
LJCMSD has developed an LTCP as required by their NPDES permit and has been
implementing the plan within five-year increments for which the LJCMSD Board can
commit funding. The plan is dynamic. It will continue to evolve and improve based upon
new data (water quality impacts, land uses), new technology, and emerging regulations.
The LTCP has been submitted to the State of Kentucky. LJCMSD is working to implement
the LTCP, although it has not yet been approved by the state.
The LTCP is based upon a mixture of the presumption and demonstration approaches
described in the CSO Control Policy. The combined sewer area in Louisville is divided into
three regions. CSO controls in Region 1 are based on the presumption approach, and
CSO controls in Regions 2 and 3 are based on the demonstration approach. Region 1
discharges to streams, which in turn discharge to the Ohio River; Regions 2 and 3
discharge directly to the Ohio River.
LJCMSD has prioritized activities outlined in its LTCP so that controls for overflows
impacting sensitive areas are implemented first. One key effort has been to address
overflows in the most upstream areas of Region 1 that are located in a public park. The
location of these outfalls increases the risk of the public coming in contact with CSO
discharges and therefore the control of these CSOs has been given a high priority.
To date, LJCMSD has spent an estimated $25 million in implementing its LTCR Full
implementation will cost an estimated $210 million; this projection will be affected by
the availability of funding for CSO control and the complexity of completing projects in
fully urbanized areas.
-------
Community Case Study: Louisville, KY— 4
LJCMSD is using its resources as efficiently as possible to implement the high priority
control identified in its LTCR The specific control measures outlined in the LTCP are
continually reviewed in light of changing technology, improved understanding of the
system, and the performance of controls that have been implemented. It should also be
noted that LJCMSD has numerous programs that result in water quality improvements.
LJCMSD attempts to allocate resources based on a combination of regulatory
requirements, customer needs, and water quality benefits.
Water Quality Issues
Based on extensive and ongoing watershed monitoring, LJCMSD believes that, because
of the impacts of heavy urbanization, meeting current water quality standards in many
local CSO receiving waters will be difficult. In fact, LJCMSD believes that when the LTCP
is fully implemented, water quality standards will not be attained. For example, fecal
coliform standards will still be exceeded about 30% of the time. Meeting current water
quality standards will require an integrated effort that addresses not only CSO
discharges, but also other point and non-point discharges (including storm water and
sanitary sewer overflows). To help prioritize and address the many programs, LJCMSD is
initiating a "Water Quality Tool" computer program that will work to predict the benefits
of various projects in specific watersheds and compare them. This "Tool" is being
developed by merging the computer models HSPF and SWMM.
Enforcement Issues
LJCMSD has been aggressively addressing CSOs to improve water quality through O&M
efforts as well as capital projects. Dry weather overflows have been virtually eliminated.
Various capital projects to eliminate overflows have been completed along with two
pilot projects to treat CSO discharges. The State of Kentucky has chosen, for now, to
address CSO issues through the permitting program rather than through enforcement.
Therefore, to date, no communities in Kentucky have been issued enforcement actions
related to the development and implementation of CSO controls, as described in the
CSO Control Policy.
A range of projects have been successfully implemented to date. LJCMSD has initiated
in-line storage projects, separation projects, storage basin projects, and pilot CSO
treatment projects. These pilot treatment projects are being reviewed by both Water
Environment Research Foundation and NSF International.
In an effort to address one of the key issues of CSOs - human contact - LJCMSD has been
installing backflow prevention devices in the basements of homes to eliminate sewer
backup from surcharged combined sewers. This program has become a national model
with 5,100 homes protected to date.
LJCMSD has developed a county-wide geographic information system (CIS) to catalogue
and track all aspects of the sewer system (i.e., pipe length, pipe type, etc). Upgrades will
include condition ratings and other sewer operation and maintenance information. Work
order tracking for operation and maintenance activities has recently been implemented.
These attributes are recorded and attached to the infrastructure assets within the CIS.
Visual representation of reductions in average CSO volume and frequency for LJCMSD
Regions 1,2, and 3 and a system-wide description of pollutant load reductions are
provided in the accompanying graphs. These numbers reflect the effect of the system
improvements and form the basis for measuring the achieved reductions in overflow
volumes and frequencies for each region and the CSS as a whole.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Based on system improvements implemented between July 1993 and July 1999:
Five CSOs have been eliminated through various projects, including separation.
Average annual CSO volume has been reduced from 5,153 million gallons per year
to 4,472 million gallons per year, a reduction of 681 million gallons per year, or
13 percent.
The frequency of CSO discharges was reduced from 5,361 overflows per year to 3,898,
representing an overall reduction of 27 percent.
CSO loads of biological oxygen demand were decreased from 3.2 million pounds to
2.9 million pounds per year, an overall decrease of eight percent.
CSO loads of total suspended solids were decreased from 7.2 million pounds to
6.5 million pounds per year, an overall decrease of 10 percent.
LTCP storage projects now under construction will provide further reductions in CSO
frequency, volume, and pollutant loading. Based on a system assessment, LJCMSD has
also begun implementation of a real-time control project that will result in additional
reductions in the next five years.
AMSA, 1994. Approaches to Combined Sewer Overflow Program Development: A CSO
Assessment Report. AMSA, Washington D.C. November 1994.
-------
Community Case Study
Number of CSO Outfalls
84 (originally)
63 (currently)
Combined Sewer Service Area
14 square miles
Sewer Service Area
407 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
1,270 mgd (primary)
540 (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
Charles River, Upper Mystic River, Alewife Brook
MWRA, Boston, MA—Region 1
1 Boston
2 Cambridge
3 Somrnerville
4 Chelsea
5 Quincy
6 Milton
7 Brookline
8 Newton
9 Watertown
10 Belmont
11 Arlington
12 Medford
13 Everett
14 Maiden
15 Revere
16Winthrop
O Outfall
Wastewater Treatment Plant
: Combined Sewer Area
The current expanded treatment plant capacity is
540 mgd of secondary treatment and 1,270 mgd
of primary treatment.
Five CSO treatment facilities provide screening,
disinfection, and dechlorination for more than
half of CSO discharges.
A network of 70 temporary and 200 permanent
flow meters was used to assess system function
and develop a collection system model.
Photo: New dechlorination system at the Cottage
Farm POTW. Courtesy of
Background on Boston CSOs
The Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) provides wastewater services to 43
communities, including the City of Boston and the surrounding metropolitan area. It
owns and maintains 228 miles of interceptor sewers that receive wastewater from 5,400
miles of municipal sewers at over 1,800 separate connections.
As a result of a civil judicial action initiated by EPA, MWRA was required to implement
secondary treatment and CSO controls. MWRA's LTCP addresses 84 CSO outfalls
permitted to MWRA or to the Boston Water and Sewer Commission, the City of
Cambridge, the City of Chelsea or the City of Somerville (the "CSO communities"). Some
of the outfalls have been closed through NMC and LTCP efforts completed to date. Flows
at six of the outfalls presently receive screening, disinfection and dechlorination at five
CSO treatment facilities owned and operated by MWRA. More than half of the CSO flow
discharged to area waters passes through these five facilities.
Program Highlights
21of 84 CSO outfalls have been
eliminated.
15 additional CSO outfalls will be
eliminated when the CSO plan is
fully implemented by 2008.
It is estimated that CSO volume
has been reduced from
approximately 3,300 million
gallons in 1988 to 850 million
gallons in 2000.
MWRA worked with the State of
Massachusetts to collect data
sufficient to support revision of
water quality standards for
segments of the Charles River and
the Upper Mystic River and
Alewife Brook.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
MWRA's CSS area covers 14 square miles, with a service population of 550,000 people.
The separate sewer service area is 393 square miles, with a service population of about
two million people. All wastewater flow is conveyed to the new Deer Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant, which was upgraded in 1999 to expand capacity and provide secondary
treatment.
The Deer Island Wastewater Treatment Plant has an average dry weather design flow of
480 mgd. It currently treats an average dry day flow of 330 mgd and an average daily
flow (dry and wet days) of 375 mgd. The plant has a primary treatment capacity of
1,270 mgd and a secondary treatment capacity of 540 mgd. Flows that exceed 540 mgd
are bypassed around secondary treatment, blended with primary and secondary
effluent, and discharged through MWRA's 9.5-mile ocean outfall.
Status of Implementation
In 1987, MWRA entered into a stipulation in the Federal Court Order in the Boston
Harbor Case by which it assumed responsibility for development and implementation of
an LTCP for its CSO outfalls, as well as outfalls owned and operated by its CSO
communities. In December 1994, MWRA completed the Final CSO Conceptual Plan and
System Master Plan (the "Conceptual Plan"), in which MWRA recommended short-term
and long-term CSO control plans (MWRA, 1994). The LTCP was developed in the context
of a system-wide master plan and in accordance with the new CSO Control Policy issued
by EPA in April 1994. In addition to CSO control, the master planning process considered
system improvement strategies that addressed transport capacity, treatment capacity,
and infiltration/inflow removal.
The Conceptual Plan recommended more than 100 system optimization projects that
could be implemented immediately at relatively low cost to maximize wet weather
conveyance and in-system storage in the short-term. For the long-term, it recommended
28 wastewater system improvements covering a range of CSO control technologies that
targeted site-specific CSO impacts and site-specific water quality goals.
In August 1997, MWRA completed the Final CSO Facilities Plan and Environmental
Impact Report (the "Facilities Plan"), which carried the Conceptual Plan projects through
facilities planning and state environmental review processes, resulting in some plan
changes (MWRA, 1997).The Facilities Plan recommended 25 projects to control CSO
discharges to 14 receiving water segments.
For each of the projects in the plan, design, and construction milestones have been
incorporated into the Federal Court schedule. To date, seven of the 25 projects are
complete, and an additional 11 projects are in construction. All projects are to be
completed by November 2008.
System Characterization
The key performance measures used by MWRA in developing the plan and monitoring
achievement of plan goals are frequency and volume of CSO "in a typical rainfall year".
The typical rainfall year was developed by MWRA using 40 years of rainfall records and
approved by EPA. MWRA conducted a metering and modeling program in 1992-1993 to
support development of the LTCP. Meters were installed at more than 70 CSO outfall
locations for a period of at least several months. MWRA also utilized data from more than
200 permanent flow meters it maintains throughout its collection system. MWRA
conducts receiving water and sediment sampling to track water quality trends, including
fecal coliform, enterococci, anthropogenic viruses and bacteriophage, chlorophyll,
nutrients, DO, clarity, toxic contaminants and other parameters.
To meet long-term NPDES monitoring requirements, MWRA is evaluating hydraulic
models and will select and build an appropriate model for future applications to assess
system and facility optimization. When it becomes available, the new model will be used
-------
Community Case Boston, MA^Region 1
to estimate CSO discharges for NPDES reporting purposes and to assess system
performance as MWRA continues to implement the LTCR Along with this new hydraulic
model, the MWRA will implement permanent meters located in the collection pipes and
at each of the CSO facilities, headworks and pumping stations. Temporary meters will be
installed at or just upstream of CSO outfalls. Installation and collection of data from
temporary meters will be scheduled on a rotating subsystem basis, with preference
given to those outfalls for which the information is most critical (e.g..where a CSO
control project has been completed and performance verification is desired). At CSO
treatment facilities, the NPDES permit requires sampling and monitoring activities, and
MWRA performs additional sampling and monitoring for routine operational control
purposes. MWRA's NPDES permit includes limits on bacteria, residual chlorine, toxicity
and pH at CSO treatment facilities.
MWRA submitted its NMC compliance documentation on December 31,1996. Dry
weather overflows caused by capacity problems or other structural conditions were
eliminated in the early 1990's through a series of fast-track CSO projects. Control of dry
weather overflows is now managed through field operations efforts, including frequent
system inspections and routine and as-needed maintenance, to remove obstructions.
Public notification is provided through the posting of signs at every CSO outfall, and
through a flagging system at beaches and in other high-use recreational areas, such as
the Charles River.
LTCP
MWRA's LTCP was developed using the demonstration approach. This included
utilization of a watershed-based analysis to consider CSO and non-CSO sources and the
potential for attainment of water quality standards in each of 14 receiving water
segments in or as a tributary to Boston Harbor or Dorchester Bay.The contribution of
CSO discharges to water quality degradation was evaluated in detail, and a baseline
water quality assessment was performed in 1993-1994. The 1997 Facilities Plan became
the primary source of information for a use attainability analysis (UAA) that was prepared
by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to support its
approval of the CSO plan, including review and revision of water quality standards.
The CSO plan proposes elimination of CSO discharges to critical use areas (i.e. beaches
and shellfish areas), significant reduction or treatment of discharges to less sensitive
waters, and means to control floatable materials where CSO discharges will remain. All 25
projects in MWRA's LTCP were approved by EPA and DEP in 1997-1998, and are included
in the Federal Court Order in the Boston Harbor Case, with detailed design and
construction milestones. However, MWRA is reevaluating several projects, which may
result in significant project changes that will have to be approved. In addition, the level
of CSO control for the Charles River and for the Upper Mystic River/Alewife Brook is
under review, pursuant to water quality standards variances issued by DEP. Final water
quality standards determinations are expected to be made at the end of the variance
periods (currently October 2001 and March 2002).
As of May 2001, CSO discharges have been eliminated at 21 of the 84 outfalls. An
additional 15 outfalls are scheduled to be closed to CSO discharges by 2008, when the
CSO plan is fully implemented.
The capital cost for design and construction to implement the LTCP is estimated to be
$548 million (in 2001 dollars). Approximately $110 million has been spent. Annual O&M
cost for the CSS is estimated to be $2 million per year.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Water Quality Issues
Implementation of the NMC has resulted in the elimination of dry weather overflows and
a significant reduction in CSO discharges.The CSO reductions to date are primarily due
to capital-intensive programs to increase conveyance capacity to the new Deer Island
Treatment Plant, and to CSO system optimization plans that maximized in-system
storage through weir raising and tide gate repair/replacement. Receiving water sampling
programs show steady water quality improvement over the past decade.
Completion of MWRA's LTCP is intended to bring CSO discharges into compliance with
water quality standards. Final decisions on what those standards should be for the
Charles River, Alewife Brook and Upper Mystic River will not be made until additional
water quality information is collected and evaluated by MWRA and the DER pursuant to
conditions in the water quality standards variances. In all receiving water segments,
water quality standards may at times continue to be violated due to non-CSO sources
(e.g., storm water) following full implementation of CSO controls in the LTCP.
Enforcement Issues
Development and implementation of the LTCP are subject to detailed schedule
milestones in the Federal Court Order in the Boston Harbor Case. MWRA's recently
renewed NPDES permit (Phase I CSO) also requires implementation of the plan. Phase II
CSO requirements are expected to be added to the permit soon, and will require CSO
discharges to meet the Facilities Plan CSO activation frequency and volume predictions,
as the CSO plan is implemented.
Results and Accomplishments
MWRA estimates that total annual volume of CSO discharge has been reduced from
about 3.3 billion gallons in 1988 to about 850 million gallons today, primarily through
improvements to its Deer Island Treatment Plant and transport system. Seven of the 25
CSO construction projects that make up the LTCP are complete, and 11 more are in
construction. Full implementation of the LTCP is predicted to further reduce discharges
to about 400 million gallons, with approximately 95% of the remaining CSO flows
receiving screening, disinfection and dechlorination.
In addition to closing 21 of the 84 outfalls to date, MWRA has virtually eliminated
residual chlorine in chlorinated effluent from its CSO treatment facilities, which process
more than half of the approximately 850 million gallons of CSO presently discharged to
metropolitan Boston waters in a typical year.
Kubiak, David, Massachusetts Water Resource Authority, Boston,MA. Personal
communication with Limno-Tech, Inc. staff on details of the combined sewer overflow
plan and program. Summer 2001.
MWRA, 1994. Final CSO Conceptual Plan and System Master Plan. Boston, MA.
MWRA, 1997. Final CSO Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Boston, MA.
BOS-
-------
Community Case Study
Muncie, IN—Region 5
Number of CSO Outfalls
30 (originally)
24 (currently)
Combined Sewer Service Area
10.2 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
27 mgd (tertiary)
Receiving Water(s)
White River, Buck Creek
O Outfall
A Wastewater Treatment Plant
~//~\Combined Sewer Area
Muncie's CSO abatement efforts
have focused on sewer separation
and treatment plant upgrades.
Better O&M practices (e.g., sewer
flushing and street sweeping) have
improved system performance
during wet weather.
The presumption approach was
used as the basis for development
of the LTCP scheduled to be
submitted to the state by November
2001.
A SWMM model was used in system
characterization and to evaluate the
collection system/controls.
Photo: The White River, one of Muncie's two
CSO receiving waters.
Courtesy of Nathan Bilger
Program Highlights
CSO outfalls have been reduced
from 30 to 24.
Muncie has implemented the
NMC.
Muncie is working on a Use
Attainability Analysis (UAA) to
request a temporary suspension
of designated uses during wet
weather.
Muncie recently completed a
$5 million sewer separation
projects in response to a 1985
enforcement action.
Background on Muncie CSOs
The Muncie Sanitary District (MSD) provides sewer service to the City of Muncie, Indiana
and to a number of developments outside the city. The Muncie Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) has a capacity of 27 mgd (Huyck, 2001). It is anticipated that the MSD
service area will continue to grow.Two newly developed sewer systems in surrounding
areas are expected to eventually discharge to the WPCF.
Status of Implementation
MSD prepared a Stream Reach Characterization & Evaluation Report (SRCER) in 1999 to
meet a requirement of its NPDES permit (Amlin, 1999). The SRCER details the impacts of
CSOs on the White River. MSD used a SWMM model to facilitate SRCER development and
to evaluate its combined sewer system. Total inflow to the collection system, average
annual pollutant loadings, and average annual discharge loadings were calculated from
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
the SWMM model simulations.The SRCER also includes proposed controls for CSO
abatement. SRCER recommendations were considered in the development of Muncie's
LTCR described below.
MSD has implemented the NMC as described in EPA's 1994 CSO Control Policy. A CSO
Operational Plan, required by the state, serves as a reporting mechanism for eight of the
nine minimum controls. MSD Operational Plan was approved March 24,2001.The SRCER,
also required by the state, fulfils the monitoring requirement of the ninth minimum
control.
MSD has collected water quality and biotic data from affected areas of the White River
through baseline studies for the past 26 years. Results of the baseline studies are
presented in the SRCER. While the data show dramatic improvement in the water quality
in the White River through Muncie, as measured by both chemical and biological indices,
improvements are not only due to CSO abatement efforts. Improvements in water
quality likely reflect the composite of pollution abatement programs, including CSO
control efforts, sewer cleaning, street sweeping, and public education. Currently, MSD is
enumerating E. coli populations, on a weekly basis, above and below the MSD CSO
outfalls known to potentially affect the water quality of the West Fork of the White River.
MSD has not experienced dry weather overflows. As part of its maintenance program,
MSD has recently purchased two newjet-vactor trucks and one new street sweeper. Two
sweepers are used five days per week, weather permitting. Thejet-vactor trucks clean
sewers and manholes on a continuous basis, five days per week.
MSD public notification activities include public meetings and sign placement near the
CSO outfalls. Recently, MSD and the Citizen's CSO Advisory Committee held two
meetings regarding the LTCR MSD has prepared warning signs to be placed at selected
CSO outfalls to warn citizens about possible health hazards as a result of CSO discharges.
The signs direct observers to call MSD if they witness dry weather overflows. Brochures
describing the LTCP have been prepared, and MSD plans to distribute them when the
LTCP has been finalized. In addition, MSD plans to use its web site to explain CSOs and
intends to develop a video for public information and education.
To date, sewer separation and treatment plant upgrades have been important
components of MSD's CSO abatement efforts. In addition, MSD has improved the
operation of the existing combined system with more extensive O&M practices (e.g.,
street sweeping and sewer cleaning).
MSD is using the presumption approach in developing its LTCP. Under the terms and
conditions of its NPDES permit, MSD must submit an LTCP by November 2001. As stated
above, information obtained from SRCER and SWMM model is being used to develop the
city's LTCR MSD is currently in the process of selecting the CSO abatement alternatives
for its LTCP.
Muncie's draft LTCP gives priority to eliminating discharges to sensitive areas. Public
input is also an important component of the LTCP and is required by EPA and Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). A subcommittee of the Muncie
Citizens CSO Advisory Committee has been established to determine those areas along
the White River considered to be the most sensitive (e.g., parks, schools, and places of
public use). CSOs that discharge to sensitive areas will be eliminated, relocated, or
treated.
Costs and Financing
MSD has spent over $5 million on sewer separation over the past 10 years. Currently,
MSD is spending $15.5 million for improvement and renovations to itsWPCF to provide
better treatment of sewage and combined sewage. Upon approval of the LTCP by IDEM,
-------
Community Case Study: Muncie, IN— 5
additional funds will be appropriated for improvements to the WPCF, the conveyance
system, and storage facilities. MSD has spent in excess of $200,000 in engineering fees
for SWMM modeling, and $550,000 has been spent for two newjet-vactor trucks and a
new street sweeper. MSD spends approximately $340,000 per year to keep thejet-vactor
trucks and street sweepers operating continuously five days per week.
MSD is currently in the process of selecting cost-effective CSO abatement alternatives for
its LTCR Eight CSO control alternatives under consideration are described in the table
below.The impact of local sewage rate increases are considered by MSD when
evaluating alternatives and implementation schedule. MSD is working on the financial
capability assessment that is required by IDEM when scheduling CSO control projects.
The State Revolving Loan program is an important funding source for CSO control
projects.
Alternative CSO Volume CBODLoad Overflow
(MG/year) (Ibs/year) Days/Year
Cost
Description of Alternative
1 434
2 358
3 188
4 286
5 41
5a 27
6 40
7 0
78,328
64,621
56,571
52,524
6,315
5,173
3,743
0
113
42
42
113
42
4
29
0.4
$0
$6,755,000
$22,176,000
$6,027,000
$15,687,000
$19,815,000
$31,108,000
$45,410,400
"No Action"
In-system storage
Partial sewer separation
Increased pumping and WPCF primary treatment
25 MG storage basin, increased pumping, WPCF
treatment, and in-system storage
25 MG storage basin, increased pumping, in-
system storage, and separation at CSO 28
25 MG storage basin, increased pumping, WPCT
treatment, in-system storage, and partial sewer
separation
Complete sewer separation
An evaluation of modeling results and monitoring data indicates that the presumptive
criteria for the LTCP can be met through the implementation of Alternative 5a at a cost
of $19.8 million (in 2000 dollars). Alternative 5a involves a combination of CSO controls
including a 25 million gallon storage basin, increased pumping and WPCF treatment, in-
system storage, and sewer separation. It is the most cost-effective solution for the MSD
CSO control plan, as shown on the "knee-of-the-curve" graph below.
SSOrr
•> Alt. 7— —.4 overflow days per year
S4C
S3C
S20m
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Affordability constraints make the elimination of all CSOs (e.g..Alternative 7) unfeasible.
Elimination of all CSOs is estimated to cost $45-65 million. IDEM has not approved any of
the CSO abatement alternatives considered by MSD for its LTCR including Alternative 5a.
MSD is scheduled to submit its LTCP in November 2001 for state review.
One of the greatest needs for MSD is the replacement of some of the sewer
infrastructure. Many of the sewers are approaching 100 years in age and need to be
replaced or restored. For example, the main interceptor from the downtown area to the
WPCF is 100 years old. It needs to be completely lined and structurally repaired.The
preliminary estimate for this repair work is approximately $2 million, and is included in
the cost-effective alternative for CSO reduction.
Water Quality Issues
MSD believes that the implementation of the NMC has reduced the frequency and
duration of overflows over the past several years, primarily through sewer cleaning
activities. However, data is not available to document the reductions.
The MSD stream monitoring program has found that non-CSO sources of pollution
greatly affect the White River. Consequently, MSD believes that compliance with existing
water quality standards will not be achieved even if all CSOs are eliminated. MSD is
working on an IDEM required Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) to support a request for a
temporary suspension of designated uses during wet weather.
Enforcement Issues
In 1985, IDEM issued an Agreed Order to MSD as a result of a fish kill in the White River,
attributed to pollutant levels from a "first flush" of the CSOs. The $5 million sewer
separation project, mentioned above, was completed as a result of the Agreed Order.
Since 1985, no fish kills attributable to MSD CSO discharges have occurred.
MSD has spent $5 million on sewer separation projects. MSD has also improved O&M
practices within the collection system (e.g..street sweeping five days per week). In
addition, upgrades are being made to the WPCF to increase the treatment efficiency at
the plant. MSD has eliminated six CSOs to date.
MSD applied a SWMM model to evaluate its collection system and to investigate impacts
of its CSOs on the White River. A SRCER was produced to document model findings,
describe monitoring efforts in the White River, and present recommendations for future
CSO abatement efforts. MSD is currently in the process of developing its LTCP, and the
SRCER has been instrumental in this process. The ultimate goals of the MSD LTCP are as
follows:
Capture "first flush" of the CSOs.
Remove solids and floatables.
Decrease bacterial levels.
Reduce discharges to the minimum level affordable.
Eliminate CSOs to sensitive areas.
-------
Community Case Study: Muncie, IN— 5
Amlin, Eugene RE., 1999. Stream Reach and Characterization and Evaluation Report.
Muncie, IN.
Huyck, Richard, Director, Bureau of Water Quality, Muncie Sanitary District. Personal
communication with Limno-TechJnc. staff on details of CSO system and CSO control
planning in Muncie, and review of case study. Spring/Summer 2001.
-------
Community Case Study
North Bergen, NJ—Region 2
Number of CSO Outfalls
10
O Outfall
A Wastewater Treatment Plant
£$
u Combined Sewer Area
Combined Sewer Service Area
1.8 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
10mgd
Receiving Water(s)
Bellmans Creek, Penhorn Creek, Cromakill Creek, Hudson River
Secaucus
Jersey
City
•Weekawken
Hoboken
The minimum controls required by
the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
permit have been implemented.
Solids and floatables control has
been installed at all CSO outfalls.
Netting technology is used at most
outfalls to control floatables. There
are two end-of pipe chambers,
three in-line chambers, two
floating trash traps, and one
manually-cleaned bar rack.
Photo: Solids and floatables controls, such as the
nets pictured here, are installed at all North Bergen
CSOs. Courtesy of NJDEP
Program Highlights
North Bergen has reduced the
number of overflow points from
13 to 10.
The solid and floatables control
facilities have captured more than
68 tons of debris that would have
been discharged to the Hudson
River and various tributaries of
the Hackensack River.
Approximately 40 tons per year of
solids are removed by in-line and
end-of-pipe netting systems.
Background on North Bergen CSOs
The township of North Bergen, New Jersey has a population of approximately 48,000.
North Bergen is served by a CSS that covers 1,130 acres. The North Bergen Municipal
Utilities Authority (NBMUA) is responsible for all CSOs and control systems within the
township. Two wastewater treatment plants service the township. The Central Treatment
Plant services the West Side of North Bergen and lies within the Hackensack River
drainage basin. The Woodcliff Treatment Plant services the East Side of North Bergen and
lies within the Hudson River drainage basin.
There are currently 10 CSO outfalls in the North Bergen CSS that are regulated by 36 flow
control chambers. Six of the flow control chambers have mechanical regulators which
limit the flow to the interceptor by means of a sluice gate and a float mechanism. The
other 30 chambers use static control devices such as weirs, baffles, or orifices to control
flow to the interceptor and allow excess overflow to the CSO outfalls.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Status of Implementation
NBMUA's control plan has focused on solids and floatables control (Fischer, 2001). Solids
and floatables controls have been installed at all CSO outfalls to capture half-inch in
diameter and larger materials. Nine CSO outfall pipes have been retrofitted with netting
technology, and one CSO outfall uses a stationary bar rack for floatables control. The
start-up date for the entire CSO control system was December 17,1999.
Other infrastructure improvements made by NBMUA as part of their efforts to control
CSOs include installation of a new vortex valve regulator upstream of an existing pump
station, and installation of a separate 48-inch combined sewer outfall pipe that
eliminated the older systems which combined the plant outfall and the CSO.
NBMUA completed a Combined Sewer Overflow Characterization Study in 1997 (Killam,
1997). NBMUA plans to conduct additional flow and water quality monitoring as part of
its CSO control plan. The monitoring information will be used to develop a
SWMM/EXTRAN model of the CSS. The monitoring and modeling plan is currently under
review by NJDER
NBMUA has implemented the minimum controls required by their NPDES permit,
including:
Prohibition of dry weather overflows
Solids and floatables control
Development and implementation of proper operation and maintenance (O&M)
programs
Maximization of flow to the publicly owner treatment works (POTW)
Public notification/reporting requirements
LCjsfisi
The control plan adopted by NBMUA focuses on the control of solids and floatables.
Cost estimates have been computed for disinfection at outfalls that may be added at a
future date. Full LTCP development is incorporated into the ongoing statewide
watershed management and TMDL processes.
Costs and Financing
The $3.9 million solids and floatables project was funded through a low interest loan
provided by the NJDEP and the New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust (NJEIT).
By using the NJDEP/NJEIT loan, the NBMUA saved the users of the system nearly $1.5
million compared to conventional financing. Cost estimates to add disinfection with
ultraviolet lamps have been performed as part of the planning process. Disinfection at
nine CSO outfalls is expected to cost approximately $24.2 million.
Budget tracking for CSO-related O&M has been set up, but sufficient data is not yet
available to estimate annual O&M costs. O&M primarily consists of changing out the
netting bags and disposing of the collected solids. Nets are changed out approximately
once per month at each of the sites.
Enforcement Issues
In September 1993, NJDEP issued an Administrative Order citing NBMUA for failing to
meet the CSO permit discharge requirements. In January 1996, NBMUA entered into an
Administrative Consent Order to submit, among other things, an Interim/Final Solids and
-------
Community Case Study: North Bergen, NJ— 2
Floatables Control Plan. The Interim/Final Solids and Floatables Control Plan was
approved by NJDEP in July 1996 and involved reducing the number of CSO outlets from
13 to 10 and installing solids and floatables netting devices at each of the CSOs
(EPA, 2001).
Since installing the netting systems in 1999, the solid and floatables control facilities
have captured more than 68 tons of debris that would have been deposited in the
Hudson River and various tributaries of the Hackensack River. It is estimated that over 40
tons of solids will be removed per year through implementation of the Solids and
Floatables Control Plan. The tracking of the debris captured is a measure that is well
understood by the public.
Lack of historical operating information on the technology was a hurdle for this project.
At the time of the planning study, netting technology in in-line chambers had not been
installed or operated as a solid and floatable collection technique anywhere in the
United States. NBMUA now has extensive experience operating solids and floatables
control facilities and can provide other CSO communities with construction and
operational information needed to make decisions utilizing netting technology for CSO
solids and floatables control.
EPA, 2001. Combined Sewer Overflows in Region 2: Audit Report of the Inspector General.
New York, NY.
Killam, 1977. Combined Sewer Overflow Characterization Study. Milburn, NJ.
Fischer, Robert, Executive Director, North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority. Personal
communication with Limno-Tech, Inc. staff on details of the combined sewer overflow
plan and program. Summer 2001.
-------
Community Case Study
Randolph, VT—Region 1
Number of CSO Outfalls
6 (originally)
3 (currently)
Combined Sewer Service Area
Undetermined
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
0.4 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
White River
O Outfall
A Wastewater Treatment Plant
'.c/;. Combined Sewer Area
Randolph has implemented the six
minimum controls required in its
NPDES permit.
Sewer separation has been the
principal CSO control
implemented. Randolph has
disconnected 44 of its 52 catch
basins from the CSS.
Randolph is planning to upgrade
its wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) as part of the next phase of
its CSO control efforts.
Photo: Three branches of the White River flow
through Randolph. Gifford Bridge, shown, is
located on the Second Branch.
Program Highlights
CSO outfalls have been reduced
from six to three through sewer
separation.
Sewer separation has reduced the
duration of overflows at the
WWTP by 80 percent.
The target date for completing
implementation of CSO controls is
2006.
A February 2001 Administrative
Order requires Randolph to
implement a sampling protocol
and monitoring for its three
remaining outfalls.
Background on Randolph CSOs
Randolph has a population of 2,270 and is located in the Green Mountains in central
Vermont, approximately 27 miles from the state capital Montpelier.The exact size of the
combined sewer system is small but undetermined, and centered in the older downtown
area.
Status of Implementation
Randolph has completed sewer separation projects in three stages. The main CSO
abatement project was completed in 1996, when 44 of 52 catch basins were separated
from the collection system in the village area. New storm water collection systems were
also constructed throughout much of downtown Randolph and adjacent residential
areas at this time. More work was completed in 1997 and 1999 when an additional six
catch basins were separated. At the present time, it is estimated that three catch basins
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
remain connected to the sanitary system. No monitoring to assess the effectiveness of
the work completed is available. At the direction of the State of Vermont, Randolph is
undertaking an eight-month study to determine the effectiveness of CSO efforts
implemented to date, and to determine if additional work may be required.
The State of Vermont has not required CSO communities to implement all of the NMC as
part of their NPDES permits. Nonetheless, on a community-specific basis, the state has
required that systems employ a series of BMPs. As required by their permit Randolph has
documented implementation of the following BMPs:
Proper O&M programs for the sewer system and the CSOs
Maximum use of the collection system for storage
Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment
Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather
Pollution prevention
Monitoring
The State of Vermont does not require CSO communities to submit formal
documentation for its long-term CSO control plans. Instead, communities are required to
submit engineering reports to outline their CSO abatement plan and funding needs. On
February 3,1993, Randolph submitted the final engineering report of the "Evaluation of
Combined Sewer Overflows for Randolph" to the state. This report was approved on
November 19,1993. To date, sewer separation has been the principal focus of the town's
abatement efforts to eliminate CSOs.
The State of Vermont uses a design storm approach to CSO elimination. In Vermont,
communities that opted for sewer separation were required to be able to capture and
provide full treatment for a minimum design flow generated by a 24-hour, 2.5 inch
rainfall.
Randolph completed their initial control plan in November 1996. Upon further
investigation, it was determined that the completed sewer separation projects were not
fully successful in controlling CSOs. Bypasses still occurred at the WWTP during rain
events. Further data was needed to evaluate the town's CSO abatement program, and to
plan future abatement projects.The CSO control plan was reopened, and the target date
for implementing the revised control plan is 2006.
Preliminary engineering and design work for Randolph's CSO abatement program took
place between 1991 and 1994. This work was funded through a state planning advance
program, and costs were approximately $0.25 million. As of 1997, approximately $2.66
million had been spent for Randolph's main CSO abatement program and development
of its first LTCR Funding was provided through state grants (25 percent), through state
revolving loans (50 percent), and from Randolph (25 percent).
A capital plan has been proposed for the next stage of the CSO abatement program.
Randolph requested wastewater revolving loan funds on August 8,2000 to upgrade the
WWTP and to address inflow and infiltration issues and other CSO control needs. The
plan, which includes infrastructure repairs and sewer separation, spans six years (2001-
2006), and has a projected cost of $1.12 million. Approximately $0.5 million is related to
CSO control.The planned projects include sewer line replacement and upgrades,
collapsed and failing manholes replacement and reconstruction, and continued sewer
separation.
-2
-------
Community Case Study: Randolph, VT—
Enforcement Issues
Although Randolph has reduced CSOs events through sewer separation projects,
overflows still occur. Randolph experienced 17 overflows at the WWTP in the year 2000.
For this reason, the state issued an Administrative Order (1272 Order #3-1198) to
Randolph, dated February 8,2001. This Administrative Order requires Randolph to
develop a CSO monitoring plan/sampling protocol for its three existing CSO outfalls
(Kooiker,2001).
The Administrative Order requires Randolph to obtain composite samples of the
combined discharge from the WWTP during eight CSO events between March 1 and
September 30,2001. The composite samples will be analyzed for biochemical oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, and E.coli. to determine compliance with the permitted
discharge effluent limits. The other two CSO outfalls are also being monitored for
overflow events using "tattle-tale" blocks, or block testing. Blocks of wood will be placed
inside the overflow or pump station lines. Movement of disappearance of a block
following a precipitation event indicates that an overflow has occurred. A rain gage is
being used to document the cumulative rainfall amount, rainfall intensity, and rainfall
duration so that local precipitation events can be quantified and related to sewer system
performance.
The data collected from implementation of this monitoring plan will provide guidance
on remaining CSO control needs and help Randolph identify the best course of action
for future CSO abatement efforts. A CSO abatement program effectiveness report will be
submitted to the state (due September 30,2001) to fulfill the requirements set forth in
the Administrative Order.
Three CSO outfalls have been eliminated since Randolph initiated its CSO abatement
program. Only three known catch basins remain connected to the sanitary sewers as a
result of Randolph's sewer separation efforts. An 80 percent reduction in the duration of
CSOs has been observed at the WWTP. This reduction is based upon a comparison of
data collected from a recent 20-month period (1/1999-8/2000) with data collected prior
to the main CSO abatement project. Overflow (bypass) data at the Randolph WWTP are
provided in the accompanying graph. (Note: 1999 was a very dry year and 2000 was a
very wet year.)
Bypass History at Randolph WWTP (hours per year)
510
435
227
112
128
98
40
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
(Jan—Aug)
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Town of Randolph, 1993. Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflows for the Town of
Randolph, submitted to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR). Randolph,
VI
Kooiker, Brian, State of Vermont, Agency of Natural Resources, Department of
Environmental Conservation, Wastewater Management Division. Personal
communication. Spring/Summer 2001.
.4
-------
Community Case Study
Number of CSO Outfalls
31, plus 1 diffuser port in the James River
Combined Sewer Service Area
18.8 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
75 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
James River, Gillies Creek
Richmond, VA—Region 3
O Outfall
/V Wastewater Treatment Plant
',- ?f'-Combined Sewer Area
Richmond has implemented the NMC and
documents continued compliance in an
annual report submitted to the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Richmond utilizes a 50 million gallon
retention facility to capture and store for
later treatment wet weather flows from the
city's largest drainage basin.
Conveyance and retention facilities have
been employed to relocate CSO discharges
downstream of the Falls of the James, a well-
known recreation area frequented by
kayakers.
Photo: Construction of a 6.7 million gallon
storage tunnel along the Falls of the James.
Courtesy of Richmond DPI]
Background on Richmond CSOs
Richmond is the capital of Virginia and it is centrally located in the state. The population
of Richmond is approximately 210,000, and the city spreads out over 38,000 acres. The
CSS is owned and operated by the Department of Public Utilities (DPU), and it occupies
12,000 acres, or one-third of the city. The DPU also owns and operates a 75 mgd
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The James River bisects the city and is the center of
transportation and recreation activities. The Falls of the James area is an important
recreational resource and a component of the Virginia scenic river system. It consists of
sets of rapids and pools and adjacent parkland that provide substantial habitat and
attract Whitewater enthusiasts. There are 31 CSO outfalls within Richmond that discharge
to the James River or local urban creeks. The Shockoe Creek CSO is the largest, with a
drainage area of over 6,000 acres. It discharges to the tidal James Riverjust below the
Falls of the James.
Richmond has been actively implementing CSO controls for over 20 years in a three-
phase program. Phase I was completed in 1990 and Phase II will be completed in 2002.
Program Highlights
Richmond submitted a Draft
Long-Term CSO Control Plan Re-
Evaluation in May 2001 to the
DEQ.
LTCP Phase I and II controls have
reduced overflow volumes by
40 percent.
LTCP Phase I and II controls
provide an additional 131 days
per year in which water quality in
the James River meets water
quality standards, beyond the "no
CSO control"condition.
Restoration of the city's historic
canal system occurred as Phase II
CSO interceptors were placed in
an abandoned canal bed.
Restoration of the canal was a
centerpiece of a major downtown
revitalization project.
Sampling to support Phase III
controls indicates that upstream
bacteria loads will prevent
attainment of water quality
standards even if CSOs were
completely eliminated.
RICM
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
The plan for Phase III was submitted to the Virginia DEQ as a Draft Long Term CSO
Control Plan Re-Evaluation in May of 2001 (City of Richmond, 2001).
Status of Implementation
Richmond began addressing CSO problems back in the 1970s. Early studies including
monitoring and modeling led to the Phase I program. Completed in 1990, the major
components of Phase I were construction of the 50 million gallon Shockoe Retention
Facility and expansion of WWTP capacity from 45 to 70 mgd.
Phase II controls were planned in the late 1980s and implemented in the 1990s. Phase II
was focused on reducing CSO discharges to the Falls of the James. The major
components of Phase II included expansion of conveyance facilities on the south side of
the James River, expansion of conveyance facilities on the north side of the James River,
and construction of a 6.7 million gallon storage tunnel on the north side (scheduled to
commence operation in late 2001). Another aspect of Phase II was a requirement to re-
evaluate the CSO control plan following implementation and develop a Phase III plan.
Richmond has engaged in characterization monitoring and modeling activities for nearly
20 years. Key activities include:
Mapping the combined sewer are to characterize land use and surface features in
each drainage area.
Review of construction documents for collection system to determine sewer
diameter, length, and slope.
Implementation of collection system and receiving water monitoring programs.
Development and application of collection system and receiving water models.
Richmond has identified and implemented control measures under each of the NMC.
Documentation was submitted to DEQ in December 1996 (City of Richmond, 1996) and
has been followed by annual reports on continued compliance. Highlights of the NMC
program include:
Adjustment of CSO regulator controls to optimize storage in interceptor system.
Formation of a 24-hour on-call team to respond to reported dry weather overflows.
On-going public education programs, including offering advice on proper disposal of
waste (e.g..household wastes, leaves, use of fertilizers).
Continued use of BMPs to control pollutants from runoff.
Installation of continuous flow monitors and wet weather overflow samplers at the
Shockoe CSO to monitor frequency and volume, with annual reports provided to
DEQ.
Richmond has been developing and refining its LTCP for over two decades.The
continuing objective is to abate or eliminate the adverse impacts to the James River
from CSOs through the use of innovative and low maintenance solutions.
Richmond developed a thorough characterization of its CSS through extensive
inspections, monitoring and modeling. Monitoring programs have been implemented to
quantify:
Flow and pollutant concentrations at the Shockoe CSO outfall and other select
outfalls within the CSS.
Storage in the Shockoe Retention Facility.
")
^ L
-------
Community Case Study: Richmond VA Region 3
Water quality conditions in the James River above the CSO discharges, through the
Falls of the James area, and along a 20-mile area below Richmond.
Richmond also developed computer models of the collection system and CSO-impacted
waters for use in the analysis of CSS performance, receiving water impacts, and the
evaluation of control alternatives. Monitoring data was used to calibrate and verify the
models.
A full range of CSO control alternatives were evaluated as part of the LTCP development.
This evaluation included:
Sewer separation
In-system storage
Disinfection
High-rate filtration
Retention basins
Swirl concentrators
Sedimentation basins
Screening
Additional conveyance capacity
BMPs and source control
Expansion of theWWTP
The selection of a preferred plan for Phase III involved analysis of CSO volume and
frequency, water quality, financial impacts, and public input.The preferred plan builds on
projects completed under Phases I and II. The components of the plan for Phase III
included:
Expansion of the Shockoe Retention Facility
Expansion of wet weather treatment capacity at the WWTP
Disinfection at key outfalls
Control of solids and floatables at remaining outfalls
Costs and Financing
Richmond has used a variety of funding sources including bonds, low-interest loans from
the state, and federal grants to underwrite the cost of constructing, operating and
maintaining CSO control facilities. To date, the city has spent nearly $221 million on
capital improvements in the CSS and invests another $6.7 million annually on CSO-
related operations and maintenance activities.The city estimates that implementation of
the Phase III controls will cost an additional $242 million.
Water Quality Issues
The implementation of Phases I and II of the city's CSO control program have
significantly improved aesthetics and water quality in the James River. Specifically, water
quality modeling indicates that these controls provide an additional 131 days per year in
which water quality in the James River meets water quality standards, beyond the no
CSO control condition. Receiving water modeling results from the Phase III re-evaluation
indicates that the upstream bacteria loads will prevent full attainment of the current
water quality standards even if the city completely eliminates CSO discharges.
RIC-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Enforcement Issues
Richmond signed a Special Order with the Virginia DEQ in 1985 that required the city to
develop and implement a CSO control program. In 1992, the State Water Control Board
issued a consent Special Order requiring implementation of additional controls
identified in Phase II of the city's CSO program. Then, in 1996, the DEQ amended the
Special Order to accelerate the north side CSO control projects. DEQ issued a consent
Special Order to the City in 1999, which advanced the schedule for the re-evaluation of
the CSO program in the context of EPA's CSO Control Policy. A draft plan describing the
proposed Phase III controls was submitted to the state in May 2001. The city also submits
annual detailed reports to the state to allow the state to monitor and verify compliance
with the Order.
Richmond has realized many benefits from its CSO control program.The city has reduced
overflow volume to the James River by more than 40 percent, from 3 billion gallons per
year to 1.8 billion gallons per year. Further, overflows to the sensitive park areas along
the James River have been reduced to an average of one event per year. All of the
overflows remaining in the park areas now receive local treatment to control solids and
floatables prior to discharge to the river. In addition to storage, the Shockoe Retention
Facility provides floatables control for more than two-thirds of all overflows.
Richmond's CSO projects have also provided tangential benefits including the
restoration of the City's historic canal system as Phase II CSO interceptors were placed in
the abandoned canal bed. The restored canal has become a focus for commercial and
recreational activities.
Richmond's efforts to control CSOswere recognized in 1999 as the city received a
National Combined Sewer Overflows Control Program Excellence Award from EPA. In
addition, the Richmond CSO Control Program has received awards and recognition from
local environmental and stakeholder groups and from users of the James River.
City of Richmond, Virginia. 1996. Combined Sewer System Documentation Report on Nine
Minimum Controls. Submitted to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,
Richmond,VA.
City of Richmond, Virginia. 2001. Draft Long-Term CSO Control Plan Re-evaluation.
Submitted to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA.
1C-'
-------
Community Case Study Rouge River Watershed, Ml—Region 5
Number of CSO Outfalls
168
Combined Sewer Service Area
93 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
1,700 mgd (primary)
930 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
Rouge River and tributaries
O Outfall
AL Wastewater Treatment Plant
V^'Combined Sewer Area
Canada
Wayne
County
Photo: Retention basin under
construction in Dearborn, Ml.
CSO control activities in the Rouge River
Watershed are focused on sewer separation
and construction of local retention treatment
basins.
The NMC have been implemented for all
uncontrolled CSOs for which the construction
of permanent control facilities is not imminent.
Under its NMC program the City of Detroit
installed outfall control gates at seven CSOs to
eliminate CSO discharges during small events.
A total of 10 retention treatment basins and one
tunnel represent the major new CSO facilities that
are planned, under construction, or in operation.
Background on Rouge River Watershed CSOs
The Rouge River Watershed occupies 438 square miles in southeastern Michigan. The
south and east portions of the watershed are highly urbanized and include parts of
Detroit and its suburbs. The Rouge River Watershed is home to approximately 1.5 million
people spread across 48 communities and 3 counties. The Rouge River itself extends for
more than 100 miles, with 50 miles flowing through accessible public parklands. The
Rouge River discharges to the Detroit River and affects water quality conditions in that
water body as well as Lake Erie. Congress appropriated money through EPA and Wayne
County, Michigan in 1992 for the Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration
Project (Rouge Project). The Rouge Project is a comprehensive program to manage wet
weather pollution to restore the water quality of the Rouge River. This cooperative
watershed management effort between federal, state and local agencies is supported by
multi-year grants from the federal government with additional funding from local
communities.
Program Highlights
The Rouge River National Wet
Weather Demonstration Project
coordinates CSO implementation
in 16 CSO communities in
conjunction with other non-CSO
restoration efforts on a watershed
basis.
About 30 miles of the Rouge River
that were CSO-impacted in 1994
are now completely free of
uncontrolled CSO discharges.
The amount of combined sewage
captured for treatment has
increased due to construction of
CSO retention treatment basins.
Untreated overflows in excess of
50 times per year have been
reduced to treated overflows
occurring one to seven times per
year where retention treatment
basins have been implemented.
Monitoring indicates improved
dissolved oxygen conditions
associated with the
implementation of CSO controls
in the Rouge River.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
As of 1994, there were a total of 168 permitted CSOs discharging into the Rouge River
and its tributaries. These outfalls, owned and operated by Wayne County, the City of
Detroit, and 14 other CSO communities, are concentrated in the lower portions of the
watershed. Several of the permitted outfalls are reported to be overflow structures
which discharge to interceptors, which then discharge into the Rouge River or one of its
tributaries.There are 40 CSO outfalls that discharge to the Detroit River that are not
included in the Rouge River case study. The combined sewer area comprised 20 percent
of the watershed in 1994, or 60,000 acres. All dry weather flows and some wet weather
flows from these CSSs are delivered to the Detroit POTW along with other flows from
outside the watershed. The Detroit POTW has a primary treatment capacity of 1,700
mgd and a secondary treatment capacity of 930 mgd.
Status of Implementation
Michigan's equivalent to the NMC has been implemented for all uncontrolled CSOs for
which the construction of permanent control facilities is not imminent. The most
significant NMC capital expenditure was the construction of outfall control gates at
seven combined sewer outfalls in the Rouge River watershed owned by the City of
Detroit. During wet weather events, these gates have eliminated CSO discharges during
small rain events by maximizing the use of in-system storage. Other measures have not
required significant capital expenditures.
Each CSO community with uncontrolled CSOs has taken measures to prevent the
occurrence of dry weather overflows. Each CSO community reports CSO discharges to
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), which provides public
notification by posting the reported information on a website. State law also requires
CSO permittees to self-report to downstream communities and one major local
newspaper.
LTCPs are implemented in three phases as established through NPDES permits:
Phase I— elimination of raw sewage and the protection of public health for
approximately 40 percent of the combined sewer area.
Phase II— elimination of raw sewage and the protection of public health for the
remaining combined sewer area.
Phase III— meet water quality standards in the Rouge River.
Under Phase I, six communities separated their sewers and nine communities
constructed a total of 10 retention treatment basins. Each of these retention treatment
basins is sized for different design storms, and several employ innovative technologies.
These facilities also incorporate a variety of additional features or variations in
compartment sizing and sequencing in order to improve their effectiveness. The
retention treatment basins capture most wet weather flows for later conveyance to the
Detroit POTW for treatment. Flows from very large wet weather events that are not
captured by the retention treatment basins receive screening, skimming, settling, and
disinfection prior to discharge. These projects have effectively eliminated or controlled
the discharge of untreated sewage from approximately half of the watershed's CSOs.
Working with the CSO communities, MDEQ established rigorous "Criteria for Success in
CSO Treatment" to evaluate whether the CSO basins met the Phase I goals of elimination
of raw sewage discharges and protection of public health. MDEQ established a work
group that included state personnel, CSO permittees and consultants to assess the
evaluation process.
A detailed evaluation study of the CSO retention treatment basins constructed thus far is
underway to examine the performance of the facilities and the water quality impacts of
their discharges. Basin influent and effluent flow and water quality are monitored for at
least two years at each facility. In addition, river monitoring is performed to identify
-------
Community Case Study: Rouge River Watershed, Ml— 5
benefits associated with CSO control. The results of the evaluation study, coupled with
efforts to control storm water and other pollution sources in the watershed, will provide
the basis for the Phase II and Phase III CSO control program to address the remaining
water quality issues. The information gained from the evaluation of design storms and
control technologies will also be useful nationwide in determining cost effective CSO
controls to meet water quality standards.
It is important to note that MDEQ has concluded that all six of the CSO treatment
facilities that have completed data collection are currently meeting the Phase I criteria of
the elimination of raw sewage and the protection of public health. In addition, the first
three CSO basins evaluated are achieving the Phase III goal of meeting water quality
standards at times of discharge, except for meeting the yet-to-be-evaluated total residual
chlorine standard.
Costs and Financing
CSO-related capital expenditures are funded by a combination of federal and local
funding sources, with some communities using state revolving loan funds. Local funding
is being generated by sewer rate increases, or issuance of general obligation bonds that
are repaid through property taxes. Capital expenditures for Phase I CSO projects in the
watershed total about $350 million, with another $5 million spent annually on CSO-
related O&M. Another $1.3 billion of capital expenditure is needed to complete
implementation of LTCP facilities in the watershed, along with $15 million annually for
additional CSO-related O&M.
Water Quality Issues
Before implementation of CSO controls began in 1994, excursions of the water quality
standards for dissolved oxygen and bacteria occurred frequently in CSO-impacted
reaches of the Rouge River and its tributaries. Evidence of raw sewage was visible in the
river during wet weather events, and visible on river bank vegetation and woody debris
after events. Implementation of the NMC.the Phase I CSO control projects, and other
watershed management measures has resulted in significant improvement in river
conditions. In river reaches now free of uncontrolled CSOs, exceedances of the dissolved
oxygen standard have been almost eliminated, the amount of bacteria in the river during
wet weather events has been greatly reduced, and visible evidence of raw sewage has
been eliminated. However, completion of the LTCP will not result in complete
compliance with water quality standards due to other pollution sources within the
watershed.
Enforcement Issues
Several enforcement actions have been taken by MDEQ relative to the Phase I CSO
control projects:
One project was aborted due to construction problems, and MDEQ issued an
administrative consent order requiring the community to complete a revised CSO
control project. This project is currently under design.
One project is not yet complete due to construction delays and an enforcement
action was initiated to ensure its timely completion.
An amended federal consent judgment was issued in part for the failure to complete
three projects on schedule. These projects are now complete and operational.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Some of the key results and accomplishments of the Rouge Project are as follows:
About 30 miles of the Rouge River that were CSO-impacted in 1994 are now
completely free of uncontrolled CSO discharges.
Two years of performance monitoring data for the first six CSO basins shows the
following:
About 72 percent (933 million gallons) of the combined sewage that
previously went to the river was captured and treated at the Detroit
POTW.
= Untreated overflows in excess of 50 times per year have been reduced to
treated overflows occurring one to seven times per year.
= Even in areas with remaining uncontrolled CSOs upstream, continuous
dissolved oxygen data are showing dramatic improvements in river
conditions due to upstream CSO control projects and other watershed
management measures/changes.
As shown in the figure below, on the Main Rouge River (Military Road monitoring
station) the percent of continuous dissolved oxygen levels meeting or exceeding water
Dissolved Oxygen Increases at Main and Lower Rouge Monitoring Stations
Military Road Plymouth Road
95% 96%
69%
77% 79% I 79%
64% I I 66% 67% |
M/°60%61% i ! , 57% , i
39% j
i I 31%
Percent of samples meeting or exceeding WQS for DO
6.9 6.9
6.1 6.3
5.9 5.9 6'1 5.9 58
Michigan WQS for 5'5 5.4 S°5
DO—minimum
5.0 mg/L >. .
Mean DO concentration (mg/L)
1994 1995 1996 1997:1998; 1999; 2000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 ;2000
quality standards increased from less than 60 percent in 1998 to 95 percent in 2000. On
the Lower Rouge River (Plymouth Road monitoring station) the percent of continuous
dissolved oxygen levels at or above water quality standards increased from less than 30
percent in 1994 to 96 percent in 2000 (see figure, below).
-------
Community Case Study: Rouge River Watershed, Ml— 5
Work groups have reached consensus with MDEQ that the first six CSO retention
treatment basins evaluated are meeting MDEQ-defined criteria for protecting public
health and eliminating raw sewage. Additionally, work groups have reached consensus
with MDEQ that the first three CSO basins evaluated are achieving MDEQ-defined criteria
for achieving water quality standards at times of discharge, except for meeting the yet-
to-be-evaluated total residual chlorine standard.
In addition to the above, the aesthetics of the Rouge River and its tributaries are greatly
improved, and there is evidence of aquatic habitat improvement. Recreational use of the
Rouge River is increasing.
Ed Kluitenberg, Applied Science, Inc. Personal communication with Limno-Tech, Inc. staff
on details of the combined sewer overflow plan and program. Summer 2001.
Rouge River Project Web Site (http://www.wcdoe.org/rougeriver/).
-------
Community Case Study
Saginaw, Ml—Region 5
Number of CSO Outfalls
16
Combined Sewer Service Area
16.1 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
32 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
Saginaw River
O Outfall
A Wastewater Treatment Plant
Y/i Combined Sewer Area
Saginaw/]
Township '
1 South
'City of Zilwaukee
Carrollton Township
'City of Saginaw
Retention treatment basins with
disinfection facilities have been the
focus of Saginaw's CSO control
efforts.
Construction of relief sewers was
initiated to provide capacity to bring
wet weather flows to the retention
facilities.
Saginaw also considered sewer
separation but found the costs to be
prohibitive.
Program Highlights
20 of 36 CSO outfalls have been
eliminated as part of Saginaw's
CSO Control Program.
Seven of the remaining CSO
outfalls have facilities that provide
primary treatment and
disinfection.
Saginaw continues to monitor
upstream and downstream
bacteria levels during CSO
discharge events and report the
results to both the state and local
county health departments.
Background on Saginaw CSOs
The City of Saginaw is located in the east central portion of Michigan's lower peninsula.
The city lies within the Saginaw River Watershed, and the river runs through the city for
approximately five miles.The Saginaw River flows 15 miles northward from the City of
Saginaw into Saginaw Bay, in the southeastern section of Lake Huron. Saginaw Bay is
widely used for fishing, boating and recreation. Both the Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay
have been defined as two of 42 "areas of concern" by the International Joint Commission
on the Great Lakes.
Saginaw owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and collection system
that serve Saginaw as well as the neighboring communities of Zilwaukee, Carrolton
Township, Kochville Township, and portions of Saginaw Township. Much of the collection
system is combined with CSO outfalls that discharge during wet weather into the
Saginaw River. Saginaw's WWTP began as a primary treatment facility in 1952. Secondary
treatment facilities and phosphorus removal equipment were added to the plant in 1975.
The WWTP began treating wastewater of the neighboring communities in 1991.
(Vasold,2001).
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
System Characterization
The combined sewer service area covers approximately 10,325 acres. Only a small
portion of Saginaw (200 acres) is served by separate sewers. There were 36 permitted
CSO outfalls in Saginaw in 1990, consisting of 31 sewage regulator chambers and five
storm water and combined sewer pumping station relief points. The number of
permitted CSO outfalls was reduced to 16 by 2000, and includes seven CSO outfalls
where primary treatment and disinfection are provided.
The Saginaw WWTP has a 32 mgd capacity during dry weather and 70 mgd during wet
weather. Seven CSO retention treatment basins (RTBs) have been constructed to provide
primary treatment and disinfection, as shown below.
Facility Capacity Treatment Discharge Year In
(mgd) Methods Volume (mgd) Service
Hancock
Weiss
Webber
Emerson
Salt/Fraser
Fitzhugh
14th Street
3.5
9.5
3.6
5.0
2.8
1.2
6.8
Primary sed, skimming, disinfection
Swirl cone, disinfection
Primary sed, skimming, disinfection
Primary sed, skimming, disinfection
Primary sed, skimming, disinfection
Primary sed, skimming, disinfection
Skimming, settling, vortex sep,
51.3
248.0
34.8
33.4
2.0
2.8
36.6
1977
1993
1994
1994
1995
1994
1992
Cost
(Millions)
$6.6
$16.9
$6.6
$15.9
$22.9
$4.8
$8.5
disinfection
The pollutant removal effectiveness varied among the RTBs, as shown below.
Facility Name
Hancock
Weiss
Webber
Emerson
Salt/Fraser
Fitzhugh
14th Street
Volume
22%
29%
38%
36%
48%
42%
59%
BOD
50%
54%
52%
57%
60%
57%
83%
TSS
51%
77%
61%
39%
68%
84%
79%
Phosphorus Ammonia
40%
55%
33%
38%
53%
56%
76%
39%
68%
62%
67%
73%
85%
80%
Status of Implementation
Saginaw considered two alternatives for control of its CSOs: sewer separation and
storage and treatment. A cost comparison of the two alternatives was conducted in
1990, and the results are as follows:
Alternative Construction Cost Present Worth
(Millions) (Millions) (Millions)
Sewer Separation $309.8 $285.1
Storage and Treatment $170.8 $78.1
Annual Equivalent Cost
$31.0
$18.0
The storage and treatment alternative was selected because of the cost advantage. This
alternative was then divided into Phases A, B and C. Phases A and B have been
completed, resulting in the elimination of all untreated CSOs.
-------
Community Case Study: Saginaw, Ml— 5
Phase CSO Control(s)
C*
Storage for the two-inch, one-hour storm event
Two-thirds of storage volume will be provided for settling, skimming, and
disinfection
Additional collector sewers and retention basin capacity, in order to
eliminate all untreated combined sewer overflows
Additional retention basin capacity to meet the MDEQ definition of
adequate treatment (total retention of the one-year, one-hour rainfall event
and one-half hour detention of the ten-year, one-hour event.)
'Note: Whether or not Phase C will be required will be determined by the MDEQ after
review of a facilities evaluation report. The determination will be based on whether
additional controls are necessary to comply with water quality standards.
Saginaw has implemented the NMC. There are no dry weather overflows in Saginaw's
system, except in emergency situations. When CSO discharges occur, state and county
officials, as well as local media are contacted as part of the city's notification procedure.
Within 24 hours, volume estimates are furnished, and a written report is supplied within
five days of the conclusion of the overflow event. Upstream and downstream £ Co//
levels are monitored during CSO discharge events, and reported to the state and to the
Bay and Saginaw County Health Departments.
Saginaw has adopted a modified version of the presumption approach in its LTCR Phase
C of the CSO Control Plan is to construct additional capacity in the retention and
treatment basins to meet Michigan's presumption approach. Twenty of 36 CSO outfalls
have been eliminated.
Capital costs for Phase A were approximately $80.7 million. Capital costs for Phase B
were approximately $24.5 million. The primary funding mechanism employed by
Saginaw to cover the costs of CSO control was the Michigan Clean Water State Revolving
Fund. The average household user cost in Saginaw is currently approximately $243 per
year (debt service, operation, maintenance, and replacement). Phase B projects are
anticipated to increase costs by approximately $32 per year. Estimated costs for Phase C
projects are $65.6 million.
Results and Accomplishments
It was estimated in 1990 that nearly three billion gallons per year of untreated CSO was
discharged by the City of Saginaw. Implementation of Phase A and Phase B CSO controls
are estimated to have reduced the volume of overflow to 760 million gallons per year, a
74 percent reduction. Direct discharge of untreated combined sewage has been
eliminated under virtually all circumstances with the completion of Phase B CSO
controls.
The City of Saginaw received a first place award in EPA's National CSO Control Program
Excellence Awards in 1998 for progress made in implementing its CSO Control Program.
John Vasold, Saginaw Wastewater Treatment Division, Saginaw, Ml. Personal
communication with Limno-Tech, Inc. staff on details of the combined sewer overflow
plan and program. Summer 2001.
-------
Community Case Study
Number of CSO Outfalls
43 (originally)
36 (currently)
Combined Sewer Service Area
49 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
272 mgd (primary)
194 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
Islais Creek, San Francisco Bay, Pacific Ocean
San Francisco, CA—Region 9
Treasure Island
O Outfall
A, Wastewater Treatment Plant
V\ Combined Sewer Area
San Francisco completed
implementation of its LTCP in 1997;
initial CSO control began in the early
1970s.
Wet weather treatment facilities
provide 272 mgd of primary
treatment and disinfection for wet
weather flows.
Storage and transport structures hold
flow until treatment plant capacity
becomes available.
Photo: Islais Creek CSO Wet Weather Treatment
and Storage Facility
Program Highlights
CSO outfalls have been reduced
from 43 to 36.
CSO events have been reduced by
over 75 percent, and CSO volume
by 81 percent.
An estimated 94 percent
reduction in beach postings has
occurred since implementation of
CSO controls.
CSO control has improved City
assets and enhanced water
quality of nearshore areas of the
Bay and Ocean.
Background on San Francisco CSOs
The combined sewer service area of the City and County of San Francisco is
approximately 31,360 acres and serves an estimated population of 800,000. There are no
significant separated sewer service areas within the city. There are six main drainage
basins within the service area and approximately 898 miles of combined sewer.
Prior to the implementation of CSO controls, an average of 7.5 billion gallons of CSO
discharged during the wet weather season (October to April) each year. The overflow
frequency was approximately 58 times per year, and there were 43 CSO outfalls. All of the
CSOs discharged into marine waters.
The city and County of San Francisco own and operate three wastewater treatment
plants in addition to the storage/transport facilities constructed for CSO control. The
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) is the city's largest wastewater treatment
plant and has a peak secondary treatment capacity of 150 mgd. The plant discharges
through an outfall to San Francisco Bay. The outfall has a capacity of 100 mgd, and flows
SF-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
in excess of 100 mgd are discharged to Islais Creek, a saltwater embayment. The
Southeast WPCP was expanded in 1982 to provide a wet weather capacity of 250 mgd
for peak wet weather flows. This was achieved using the 150 mgd of available secondary
treatment capacity and 100 mgd of primary treatment capacity.
The North Point Wet Weather Facilities serves an area of approximately 6,500 acres in the
northeastern part of the city. The facilities provide primary treatment (i.e., screening and
settling), disinfection, and dechlorination of combined wet weather flows up to 150 mgd.
The Oceanside WPCP has a peak secondary treatment capacity of 43 mgd and a wet
weather treatment capacity of 65 mgd. The capacities of the treatment facilities used by
San Francisco to treat dry weather and wet weather flows are summarized in the table
below.
Treatment Plant Secondary
Capacity
(mgd)
Southeast WPCP
North Point Wet Weather Facilities
Oceanside WPCP
Total
150
None
43
103
Primary
Capacity
(mgd)
100
150
22
272
Peak Flow
Capacity
(mgd)
250
150
65
465
Status of Implementation
CSO History
Planning for CSO control began in the early-1970s. The city Department of Public Works
assessed various measures to upgrade treatment and control CSOs between 1970 and
1974. The Wastewater Master Plan was approved in concept by the San Francisco Board
of Supervisors in January 1975. Based upon this planning effort, the San Francisco
Regional Water Quality Control Board issued the city its first NPDES permit for the CSO
structures. This permit was issued in the mid-1970s and set monitoring requirements
and tentative control levels at some of the structures, as well as requiring additional
studies of CSO control measures. In late 1978 and 1979, the permits were revised and
the required CSO control levels were established based upon cost-benefit analyses.
The revised permits allowed a long-term average of 10 overflows per year where the
shoreline usage is predominantly industrial and maritime, between eight and four
overflows per year in areas where water contact recreation occurs, and only one
overflow per year in an area where there are shellfish beds. The permits also require
that:
Wet weather treatment facilities are at maximum capacity before CSOs are allowed.
Industrial source control and BMPs to control nonpoint source pollution must be
implemented.
Floatables are contained in the storage/transport structures.
Treatment plant effluent, CSOs, and receiving waters are monitored for pollutants.
Beaches are posted following CSO events.
To intercept the flows, a series of large underground storage and transport structures
(referred to as storage/transport boxes) were constructed along San Francisco's
shoreline. Gravity and pumping are used to transport the stored wet weather flows to
the treatment plants as treatment plant capacity becomes available. In addition to these
-------
Community Case Study: San Francisco, CA— 9
storage/transport boxes, the treatment plants were upgraded to expand the secondary
and wet weather treatment capacities.
The system is designed and operated so that all dry weather flows are kept in the sewer
system and routed to either the Southeast WPCP or the OceansideWPCP for treatment.
In wet weather the storage/transport boxes allow primary sedimentation to occur and
are designed to remove floatables and reduce suspended solids concentration by
approximately 30 percent. The capacities of these structures are summarized in the
accompanying table. After a rain event, the settled solids are conveyed to the
wastewater treatment plants. Therefore, all overflows from the storage/transport boxes
receive some treatment prior to discharge through the outfalls.
WPCP System Storage/Transport Structure Capacity (mgd)
Westside Core System Westside 50.0
Richmond 10.0
Lake Merced 10.0
Bayside Core System Northshore 17.5
Mariposa 0.7
Islais Creek 37.0
Yosemite/Fitch 11.5
Sunnydale 5.7
Channel 28.0
Total 170.4
The Bayside Core System consists of seven miles of underground storage/transport
boxes. These boxes drain to major pump stations where all dry weather flows are
pumped to the Southeast WPCP for treatment before being discharged into San
Francisco Bay. During wet weather, the North Point Wet Weather Facilities are brought
online. Flows in the boxes exceeding the combined wet weather capacity of the
Southeast WPCP and the North Point Wet Weather Facilities receive partial treatment in
the boxes before discharge.
The Westside Core System consists of a 2.5 mile long storage/transport box, the
Oceanside WPCP, and the Southwest Ocean Outfall. The city has also constructed
consolidation conduits, tunnels, and new pump stations to intercept overflows and
divert them to the storage/transport boxes.
In addition to the massive capital improvements, the city embarked on a program of
toxics source control and pollution prevention. The Water Pollution Prevention Program
was developed in response to several state and federal permits, orders, and waste
minimization strategies. It consists of best management practices targeting educational
and technical outreach, increased inspection and sampling of non-traditional pollutant
sources, mandated waste minimization, and storm water pollution prevention plans.
San Francisco has implemented the NMC. Wet weather-related monitoring activities
include characterization of CSO discharges for various chemical constituents. Following
a CSO event beaches are posted as not meeting state recreational water contact
standards. Local surf shops and swim clubs are contacted and a toll free recreational
water quality hotline is available to the public. The city is also in the process of
developing access to EPA's BEACH Watch website.
San Francisco completed implementation of its LTCP in 1997 and the planned capital
improvements for controlling CSOs to the allowed number of annual overflows. The city's
LTCP gave priority to eliminating discharges to sensitive areas; a CSO outfall at Baker
SF-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Beach in the Golden Gate National Recreational Area has been eliminated given the
sensitivity of the habitat and potential human exposure.
Costs and Financing
The total capital costs associated with completing the LTCP were approximately $1.45
billion. The annual CSO-related O&M costs are approximately $20 million. Nearly $700
million in federal and state grants were received by San Francisco to assist in the
planning, design, and construction of the CSO control system. The remaining $750
million, raised by revenue bonds and to be repaid by sewer rater, were city funds.
The North Point Wet Weather Facilities, which are more than 50 years old, are in need of
improvement. Certain equipment is obsolete and some spare parts are no longer
available on the market. Pollutant removal is less than optimal and in some instances
discharges approach current effluent limits. With the consideration of future expansion,
an upgrade is being planned for the facilities. The project involves: 1) upgrading primary
sedimentation tanks and equipment with high rate clarification units, 2) replacing
chlorine-based disinfection system with a more environmentally-friendly, medium
pressure, ultraviolet radiation disinfection system capable of achieving current NPDES
fecal coliform standard, and 3) upgrading ancillary equipment (pre-treatment, pumps,
piping, electrical/instrumentation) to meet needs of treatment processes. The upgrade is
projected to cost $38 million.
There are also plans to increase the capacity of the outfalls in conjunction with the North
Point upgrades described above. The outfalls were constructed in the 1950'sand the
diffuserswere added in the 1970's. Both are necessary to meet the discharge permit
requirements of a minimum 10:1 dilution. Since the North Point Facilities are used for
wet weather treatment only, and are not always in operation, barnacles and crustaceans
inhabit the outfall system and have created blockages, thereby reducing its capacity and
efficiency. The projected cost for increasing the capacity of the outfalls from 150 mgd to
300 mgd is $22 million.
Depending on the outcome of current negotiations between the city and the Navy, the
city may be responsible for system upgrades and expansion at Hunters Point and
Treasure Island. San Francisco's remaining needs also depend on potential changes to
water quality standards previously discussed.
Water Quality Issues
Since 1972 the city has conducted ongoing sampling to evaluate the impacts of CSO
discharges and to assess the environmental improvements gained from CSO control. On
the Westside, where prior to the program as much as 83% of the storm flows were
discharged untreated at the Pacific Ocean shoreline, only 13% of the storm flows are
discharged at the shoreline and all of this overflow receives partial treatment.
Although San Francisco's LTCP has been completely implemented there are unresolved
issues regarding water quality standards compliance. The state anticipates that it will be
reviewing the appropriateness of the water quality standards in the near future. The city
may have to implement additional programs depending on the outcome of that review.
CSO volume and frequency have been reduced greatly since CSO controls have been
implemented. Citywide pollutant reductions resulting from the city's LTCP are
summarized as follows:
SF-4
-------
Community Case Study: San Francisco, CA— 9
Item
Number of CSO events
AnnualCSQVolume(MG)
Suspended Solids Discharge
6005 Discharge (tons/year)
Beach Postings (days/year)
Before Control
58-80
7,500
(tons/yr) 3,550
2,700
200
After Control
1-10
1,350
450
300
12
% Reduction
98-75
81
87
89
94
San Francisco developed its LTCP in conjunction with the regulatory agencies and
started to implement the plan in 1974. Within 20 years the following systems were
complete: (1) theWestside system, which reduced overflows to eight times per year into
the Pacific Ocean along the central portion of Ocean Beach; (2) the Northshore system,
which reduced overflows to four times per year along the northshore of the city the
Golden Gate and Bay Bridges; (3) the Channel system, which reduced overflows to 10
times per year from the Bay Bridge to Mission Creek; and (4) the Sunnydale/Yosemite
system, which reduced overflows to one time per year south of Islais Creek to the
southern city boundary.
In 1994, the Lake Merced Transport system was tied to theWestside system, which
further reduced overflows to the Pacific Ocean from the southwestern section of San
Francisco. Shortly thereafter the Islais Creek system was completed, which reduced
overflows to 10 times per year from Mission Creek to Islais Creek along the eastern
boundary of the city. In 1997, the Richmond Transport connected flow from the
northwestern edge of the city to the Westside system, diverting flow that previously
spilled onto Baker and China Beaches.
Prior to CSO control implementation, San Francisco beaches were routinely posted from
October to April during the wet weather season for not complying with state
recreational water contact standards. Rainfall in excess of 0.02 inches per hour resulted
in CSOs around the entire city. As CSO control structures were put in service, the number
of CSOs to San Francisco shoreline areas have been reduced as described above. The
number of CSOs that occur is dependent upon the amount of annual rainfall and the
duration and intensity of each rainfall event.
From 1994 through 1996, a significant portion of control structures were in place and the
number of days the beaches were posted ranged from 196 to 217, while rainfall ranged
from 23.7 to 26.3 inches. In 1997, the first partial year of complete CSO control
implementation, the number of days beaches were posted dropped to 54, but rainfall
was only 19.1 inches. In 1998, the first complete year of full implementation, the number
of days beaches were posted dropped to 48 and rainfall was significantly higher,
measuring 33.5 inches. Since 1998, annual rainfall in San Francisco has ranged from 22
to 27 inches and the days that beaches were posted decreased to between eight and 15
days. In recent years, beaches remain posted only while sampling indicates that bacteria
concentrations are above state bacteria standards. This is typically only a period of one
to three days. An estimated 94% reduction in beach postings has occurred due to
implementation of CSO controls. As shown in the following figure, these reductions have
been achieved during both wet and dry years.
SF-5
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
5454 , 5454 . 5454
CSO Frequency and Rainfall at Lincoln/Vicente and Lake Merced Overflow Structures
58 59
,|| , > Lake Merced —. Lincoln/Vicente
44 ; 45 < • ; | | ; ; ; ; ; ;
: , ; i 41 40 ; i i . ; ; . ; ;
50
1212 '
, 1414
I" I I4 \2 \2 |<||6 i 1
6 6
Number of CSOs per year
40
26
19
20
16
29
30
21
24 24
17
12
14
17
20
21
Rainfall (inches)
1984 • 1985 • 1986 ' 1987 !
1 1989 ' 1990 • 1991 ' 1992 ' 1993 ! 1994 ' 1995 ' 1996 ! 1997 ' 1998 • 1999
This reduction in the numbers and volume of CSO events during the past 25 years has
facilitated the transition of San Francisco's coastline from industrial uses to tourist,
recreational, and residential uses by improving and enhancing the water quality of
nearshore areas of the bay and ocean. The continuing economic development of the
Fisherman's Wharf area south to Pac Bell Park and the water contact recreation enjoyed
at Crissy Field, Fort Point, Baker, and Ocean Beaches (all within the Golden Gate National
Recreational Area) have been supported in part by the control and treatment of
combined sewer overflows (Lavelle, 2001).
San Francisco Bay has been listed for several pollutants under CWA Section 303(d). The
listing has resulted in a need for developing TMDLs for certain pollutants, such as copper
and nickel. The outcome of TMDLs may require further control measures for CSOs. These
control measures have not been determined at this time.
Jane Lavelle, San Francisco Planning Bureau, Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco,
CA. Personal communication with Limno-Tech, Inc. staff on details of the combined
sewer overflow plan and program. Summer 2001.
SF-6
-------
Community Case Study
South Portland, ME—Region 1
Number of CSO Outfalls
35 (originally)
25 (currently)
Combined Sewer Service Area
12 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
56 mgd (primary)
22.9 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
Fore River, Casco Bay
O Outfall
A Wastewater Treatment Plant
Combined Sewer Area
Cape
Elizabeth
South Portland's program has
relied on sewer separation,
removing private inflow sources
(roof leaders and sump pumps),
expansion of wet weather
treatment capacity, and upgrading
sewer lines.
Technical advice and financial
incentives have been used to
encourage inflow control.
Wet weather wastewater treatment
plant capacity was expanded from
12 mgd to 56 mgd.
Photo: Lighthouse at Portland Head on Casco Bay.
Photodisc
Program Highlights
25 of 35 CSO outfalls have been
eliminated.
80 percent reduction in CSO
volume was achieved between
1988 and 1993.
Real time flow monitoring is used
to quantify flows. All CSO outfalls
are continually monitored.
The Friends of Casco Bay have
recognized South Portland for the
positive impact of its CSO control
program on the Bay.
Background on South Portland CSOs
South Portland has a population of 22,300 and is located in southern coastal Maine.
South Portland is served by a CSS which is comprised of 16.6 miles of combined sewer
pipes that cover an area of 7,680 acres. CSOs in the system discharge directly (or
indirectly via ponds, creeks, and brooks) to the Fore River and Casco Bay. Both of these
water bodies are classified by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
for swimming, fishing, and shellfish harvesting. Casco Bay was also designated by EPA as
an Estuary of National Significance in 1987. It is an important economic resource for
Maine, supporting commercial fishing, tourism, shipping, manufacturing, and service
businesses.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Status of Implementation
South Portland initiated their CSO Control program in 1988. City staff inventoried,
numbered and mapped all of the sewer pipes, catch basins, and manholes. Thirty-five
CSO outfalls were identified. Inflow and infiltration was high in the city's aging sewer
system. The average age of the system was approximately 50 years, and the oldest sewer
pipes date to the 1880s (City of South Portland 1992 and 1993).
South Portland installed an extensive system of real-time flow monitoring equipment to
characterize their CSS and existing CSOs.AII CSO outfalls in the system are continuously
monitored, and the duration, overflow rate, total volume, and time of day of each CSO is
recorded. South Portland also maintains rain gauges to be able to correlate overflow and
precipitation events. Flow monitoring has provided many benefits for South Portland's
CSO control program.The real-time flow data: (1) provide basic information for the city to
understand CSS performance, (2) enable the progress of the CSO control program to be
tracked, (3) produce information for comparison of CSO control alternatives, and (4) serve
as an important component of compliance monitoring. South Portland has maintained
rainfall records and flow records from the CSO outfalls and pump stations since 1992.
Other monitoring efforts related to the CSO program include collection of bacteria data
(enterococci) at swimming beaches. These efforts have enabled South Portland to collect
site-specific data on existing CSOs, and to calculate pollutant loadings and receiving
water impacts. This comprehensive monitoring program has also aided the development
of South Portland's LTCR
The NMC were required for South Portland as part of the DEP CSO Discharge License,
and an enforcement action (consent agreement with EPA Region 1, dated January 28,
1992). South Portland has been recognized by the DEP for its implementation and
documentation of the NMC, considered to be one of the best of 44 Maine CSO
communities (City of South Portland, 1997).
Proper O&M was recognized to be an important component of CSO control. The city's
sewer maintenance division is responsible for cleaning and inspection of the collection
system. In addition, they maintain an emergency on-call system to quickly identify,
eliminate, or mitigate any problems that might arise. No dry weather overflows occurred
in 1999. In the previous three years, dry weather overflows occurred due to power or
equipment failures that have since been corrected with backup power arrangements.
Because South Portland continuously monitors flows at all CSO outfalls, dry weather
overflows are quickly discovered and eliminated.
Signs are placed at all CSO locations to inform the public of possible wet-weather
hazards. The signs are regularly checked and replaced if damaged or missing. The Willard
Beach outfall is recognized as a sensitive area for CSO activity because it is a public
swimming area. Bacteria testing has been performed at the outfall twice weekly during
the summer since 1991. While beach closings have occurred, none corresponded directly
with CSO discharges.
South Portland has implemented an aggressive program to reduce inflow to the CSS.
Homes and commercial establishments with roof leaders and basement sump pumps
directly connected to the CSS were identified. South Portland provided technical and
financial support to owners to have roof leaders and sump pumps redirected from the
CSS. A summary of CSO source control measures implemented by South Portland
follows.
-------
Community Case Study: South Portland, ME—
Source Control Activity and Progress as of 1999 Purpose
Roof Leader Disconnection—257 homes Stormwater Inflow Reduction
Sump Pump Removal—213 removed Stormwater Inflow Reduction
Catch Basin Cleaning—460 tons debris annually Pollution Prevention
Street Sweeping—2,000 cy debris removed annually Pollution Prevention
Annual community hazardous waste collection Pollution Prevention
South Portland has been implementing CSO controls since 1988. The LTCP is based upon
the demonstration approach. Priority has been given to eliminating the CSO discharges
near the bathing beach, a sensitive area. Sewer separation, adjustment of weir heights,
upgrading of pumps stations, upgrading of POTW capacity, and many other in-system
controls have contributed to substantial reductions in the number of CSO outfalls and
the volume of CSO discharge.The types of in-system control measures implemented
since 1988 by South Portland are listed below.
System Controls Implemented as of 1999
Infiltration/inflow control
Real-time flow control (50% overflow decrease
realized by adjusting weirs)
Sewer cleaning
Manhole/pump station maintenance
Sewer rehabilitation
Sewer separation (680 acres separated
between 1986-1998)
Outfall elimination
In-line netting
Baffles (installed at 11 locations in CSS)
Screening improvements at discharge point
In-line storage (weirs adjusted to maximize
in-line storage)
Upgraded pump stations (6 pump stations
upgraded)
Upgraded POTW capacity (with additional
wet weather primaries)
Collection System Optimization
and Control
Collection System Optimization
and Control
Collection System Optimization
and Control
Collection System Optimization
and Control
Collection System Optimization
and Control
Collection System Optimization
and Control
Collection System Optimization
and Control
Floatables Control
Floatables Control
Floatables Control
Storage (In-Line and Off-line)
Storage (In-Line and Off-line)
Storage (In-Line and Off-line)
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Costs and Financing
South Portland has spent over $9 million to control CSOs. Most of this has been financed
through voter-approved bonding. Costs for sewer separation of 680 acres of the
combined system were approximately $6 million and the separation projects scheduled
over 10 years. Capital costs for the POTW upgrade were $9.2 million, but only a small
portion of this is associated with CSO control. The cost to upgrade six pump stations was
$1.3 million. Capital costs for planned LTCP controls are $13.8 million, including $5
million for partial sewer separation (to be complete by December 2005). Annual O&M
costs are approximately $350,000 per year.
Enforcement Issues
South Portland was the first non-National Municipal Policy referral in EPA Region 1 in
which the EPA sought relief for wet weather discharges only. As part of the consent
agreement (entered into court on April 16,1992), South Portland paid $30,000 in
penalties for violations of the CWA and its Maine CSO Discharge License. The consent
agreement required, among other things, that yearly CSO progress reports be submitted
to the DER
South Portland initiated its CSO control program in 1988. The city's initial CSO master
plan focused on maximizing flow to the POTW. This involved increasing pump station
capacity, maximizing flow (conveyance capacity) to the treatment plant, and upgrading
treatment and storage capacity at the plant. The current CSO control program primarily
relies upon separating and upgrading (replacing) sewers and removing private inflow
sources through roof leader and sump pump redirection. The removal of inflow and
infiltration sources has eliminated approximately 700 million gallons per year from
entering the CSS. Overall, South Portland had achieved an 80 percent reduction in total
CSO volumes in an average rainfall year by 1993. In addition, 25 of 35 CSO outfalls have
been eliminated through sewer separation and other system improvements.
Prior to the POTW upgrade, 60 percent of the total CSO volume was discharged at the
plant. Secondary treatment capacity at the POTW was upgraded from 12 to 22.9 mgd.
Wet weather flows in excess of the upgraded secondary treatment capacity are diverted
to empty storage/treatment tanks for primary treatment. CSO bypass of secondary
treatment is permitted under peak flow conditions. In total, maximum treatment
capacity was expanded to
Summer CSO Volume Reductions, 1992—1997
56
approximately 56 mgd (22.9
mgd secondary, plus 33 mgd of
primary treatment). The wet
weather treatment capacity has
not been exceeded since the
upgrade.
South Portland has also
observed a reduction in
summer CSOs. Monitored
volumes for summer CSOs from
1992 through 1997 are shown
in the figure at right. South
Portland has been recognized
by the Friends of Casco Bay for
its positive impact on the Bay.
27
Annual summer
CSO volume
(million gallons)
17
10
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
-------
Community Case Study: South Portland, ME—
City of South Portland, Maine. 1992. Combined Sewer Overflow Sewer System Evaluation
Report. Report submitted to Maine Department of Environmental Protection and EPA
Region 1. South Portland, ME.
City of South Portland, Maine. 1993. Combined Sewer Overflow Facilities Plan. South
Portland, ME.
City of South Portland, Maine. 1997. Combined Sewer Overflows: Documentation for Nine
Minimum Controls. Report submitted to Maine Department of Environmental
Protection. South Portland, ME.
Pineo, David, Engineering Department, City of South Portland, ME. Personal
communication with Limno-Tech, Inc. staff on details of the combined sewer overflow
plan and program. Summer 2001.
-------
Community Case Study
Washington, D.C.—Region 3
Number of CSO Outfalls
60
Combined Sewer Service Area
20.2 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
1,076 (primary)
740 mgd (secondary)
370 mgd (advanced)
Receiving Water(s)
Rock Creek, Anacostia River, Potomac River
Maryland
Virginia
O Outfall
A Wastewater Treatment Plant
ft
4^1 Combined Sewer Area
Phase I CSO Controls were
completed in 1991 and
featured the Northeast
Boundary Swirl Facility,
inflatable dams for in-system
storage, expanded pumping
capacity, and expanded wet
weather capacity at the
Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Plant at Blue Plains.
NMC measures include regular
inspections of critical facilities
such as outfalls, regulators, pump
stations and tide gates; maximizing
storage in the
collection system through use of
inflatable dams; and pretreatment
of industrial flows.
Photo: Potomac River in Georgetown, Washington, D.C.
Background on Washington, D.C. CSOs
The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) operates a wastewater
collection system consisting of separate and combined sewers. Approximately one-third
of the District, or 12,955 acres, is served by a CSS. The remaining two-thirds is served by
separate sanitary sewers and a separate storm water system (SSWS).The combined sewer
service area is located primarily in the older central part of the District, and it was
primarily constructed by the federal government.
Wastewater from the District and surrounding suburban areas is treated at WASA's
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant at Blue Plains, a 370 mgd regional facility. Most of
the flow that is conveyed to Blue Plains from suburban jurisdictions passes through the
CSS. During wet weather events, the combined sewer portion of the system produces
Program Highlights
NMCs were implemented and
documented in 1996 with
updates in 1999 and 2000.
The draft LTCP was submitted in
June 2001 to EPA Region 3 and
the DC Department of Health, and
is based upon the demonstration
approach.
The recommended CSO control
program includes three storage
tunnels, pump station
rehabilitation, regulator
improvements, and low impact
development retrofits.
The estimated cost to implement
the recommended CSO controls is
approximately $1 billion.
Compliance with the
requirements of the CWA will not
be accomplished unless other
sources are controlled in
conjunction with CSO control.
Incorporation of wet weather
provisions in water quality
standards has been requested.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
CSOs that discharge into receiving waters.There are a total of 60 CSO outfalls listed in
WASA's NPDES permit that discharge to Rock Creek, the Anacostia River, the Potomac
River and tributary waters. The WASA NPDES permit is administered by EPA Region 3.
Status of Implementation
WASA and its predecessor organizations have been addressing CSO issues for several
decades and have spent over $35 million for CSO abatement. Phase I CSO controls were
completed in 1991 and featured: the Northeast Boundary Swirl Facility, inflatable dams
for in-system storage, expanded pumping capacity, and expanded wet weather
treatment capacity at Blue Plains.
WASA has an NMC program in place to address CSOs. WASA first provided
documentation on its NMC program in December 1996 (DMA, 1996). In July 1999 WASA
prepared a report which updated the earlier NMC documentation (EPMC III, 1999). The
summary report provided an update on various activities undertaken by WASA as part of
the NMC program and included recommendations for enhancement of several activities
associated with this program. An NMC Action Plan prepared in February 2000 details a
schedule for implementing recommended enhancements. Examples of measures that
have been implemented include:
Regular inspections of critical facilities such as outfalls, regulators, pump stations and
tide gates.
Maximization of storage in the collection system through the use of inflatable dams.
Inspections and maintenance of regulators and outfalls to prevent and correct dry
weather overflows.
Operation of the Northeast Boundary Swirl Facility to control CSOs and floatables.
Operation of skimmer boats on the Anacostia and screens at certain pump stations to
control floatables.
Installation and demonstration evaluation of an end-of-pipe netting system for
floatables control at CSO outfall 018.
Placement of signs at outfalls for public notification.
Development of a CSO web page on the WASA website.
Major maintenance projects such as the cleaning of the Eastside Interceptor and the
sonar inspection of the Anacostia siphons.
Long
WASA initiated development of an LTCP in 1998. Extensive monitoring and modeling was
undertaken to characterize the system during LTCP development. Flow and water quality
monitoring in both the CSS and SSWS were employed to determine the hydraulic
response of the system to rainfall. Receiving water monitoring was used to assess in-
stream conditions, impacts, and upstream sources. The evaluation of CSO control
alternatives involved development and application of CSS and SSWS models and
receiving water models for Rock Creek, the Anacostia River and the Potomac River.
WASA submitted a draft LTCP to EPA Region 3 and the District of Columbia Department
of Health in June 2001 (EPMC III, 2001). The recommended CSO control program is based
upon the demonstration approach. The major elements of the draft LTCP and associated
costs are summarized by receiving water in the following table. It is anticipated that
WASA's final recommended LTCP will be submitted to the regulatory agencies for
approval at the end of 2001.
-------
Community Case Study: Washington, District of Columbia— 3
Recommended LTCP Component
Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost
(in millions) (in millions)
System-wide low-impact development retrofit $3
Anacostia River System Improvements— $816
pump station rehabilitation, additional tunnel
storage, and new interceptor
Rock Creek System Improvements— $39
partial separation, additional tunnel storage,
and monitoring
Potomac River System Improvements— $170
additional tunnel storage, pump station
rehabilitation and dewatering
Blue Plains WWTP excess flow treatment $22
improvements
Total $1,050
$0.2
$9.1
$0.5
$2.7
$0.4
$12.9
As shown below, the recommended LTCP is expected to reduce the volume and
frequency of CSOs.
LTCP Alternative
Anacostia Potomac Rock System
River River Creek Total
CSO Overflow Volume (MG/year)
No Controls 2,142 1,063 49 3,254
Phase I Controls (1991) 1,485 953 52 2,490
Recommended LTCP 96 157 11 264
Number of Overflows Per Year
No Controls 75 74 30 —
With Phase 1 Controls (1991) 75 74 30 —
Recommended LTCP 4 12 4 —
Cost and Financing
Implementation of the recommended CSO control program is estimated to cost more
than $1 billion (2001 dollars). WASA conducted a financial capability assessment and
affordability analysis to evaluate the impact of the recommended program on
ratepayers.The analysis considered existing rates, the rate increase associated with
WASA's current non-CSO capital improvements, and the rate increase associated with the
addition of the recommended CSO control program.
Using EPA guidance, wastewater treatment costs, including the recommended CSO
control program, are projected to impose a medium burden based on median
household income. For lower income households, current wastewater treatment costs
are projected to impose a medium burden without any additional CSO controls.
Addition of the recommended CSO control program greatly increases the burden level.
At this time, WASA cannot predict whether financial assistance in the form of grants or
other mechanisms will be available. Without such assistance, the cost of implementing
CSO controls will place a major burden on rate payers, particularly those least able to
afford it.
A 20-year implementation schedule for the recommended control plan was developed
based on the financial capability assessment and practical aspects associated with long
linear construction operations. WASA identified several early action items where
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
implementation can proceed without waiting for approval of the complete LTCR Early
action items include low impact development retrofits, rehabilitation and improvements
at pumping stations, completion of sewer separation in Luzon Valley, and monitoring
and regulator improvements along Rock Creek.
Water Quality Issues
Water quality assessment concentrated on bacteria and dissolved oxygen. The CSO
control program is expected to significantly reduce bacteria concentrations in all
receiving waters, and improve dissolved oxygen levels in the Anacostia River. However,
current water quality standards will not be attained in Rock Creek and in the Anacostia
River unless upstream point and nonpoint sources are controlled in conjunction with
CSO control.The draft LTCP includes a suggestion to revise provisions in the current
District of Columbia water quality standards to reflect the wet weather nature of CSOs.
The LTCP meets the allocation requirements of the Anacostia TMDL for biochemical
oxygen demand as published by the DC Department of Health (DC Department of
Health, 2001).
DC Department of Health, 2001. Biochemical Oxygen Demand Total Maximum Daily Load
for the Anacostia River. Washington, DC.
Delon Hampton and Associates (DHA), 1996. CSO Abatement Program: Nine Minimum
Control Compliance Report. Prepared for WASA. Washington, DC.
Engineering Program Management Consultant (EPMC) III, 1999. Combined Sewer System
Nine Minimum Controls Summary Report - Draft. Prepared for WASA. Washington,. DC.
Engineering Program Management Consultant (EPMC) 111,2001. Draft Report: Combined
Sewer System Long Term Control Plan. Prepared for WASA. Washington, DC.
-------
Community Case Study
Wheeling, WV—Region 3
Number of CSO Outfalls
259 (originally)
211 (currently permitted)
168 (reported by City)
Combined Sewer Service Area
11 square miles
Wastewater Treatment Capacity
25 mgd (primary)
10 mgd (secondary)
Receiving Water(s)
Ohio River,Wheeling Creek, and Caldwell Run
O Outfall
A Wastewater Treatment Plant
sf
€ Combined Sewer Area
Clearview
Ohio
County
Triadelphia
Proposed CSO control efforts
focus largely on sewer separation
projects at critical locations.
The City of Wheeling has installed
wire mesh traps to capture solid
and floatable debris at key CSO
outfalls.
Photo: Suspension bridge over Ohio River.
Program Highlights
91 of 259 outfalls have been
eliminated.
The estimated capture of wet
weather flows for treatment has
increased from 25 percent to
40 percent.
A declining population and a
declining industrial and
residential revenue base has led
to reduced revenue for operation
of sewer and wastewater facilities.
Financial limitations of the city
restrict expenditures to $1 million
per year for sewer separation, but
nearly $30 million is needed for
priority CSO control projects.
Background on Wheeling CSOs
The City ofWheeling is located in the northern panhandle of West Virginia. The Wheeling
Water Pollution Control Division (WPCD) operates a CSS that covers 7,040 acres, and a
POTWwith a secondary treatment capacity of 10 mgd. There are 168 CSOs in Wheeling.
The WPCD has made progress in implementing CSO controls in the face of several
challenges. One challenge is steep topography. The City is surrounded to the north, east,
and south by steep terrain, and it is bounded to the west by the Ohio River. The steep
terrain on three sides results in rapid runoff to the CSS. As little as 0.1 inches of rain will
cause flows received at the POTW to increase by three to four times their average daily
flow, and CSOs begin to occur. Another challenge is that various components of the city's
CSS date back to the mid-1800s, leading to substantial inflow and infiltration. Wheeling is
also facing a declining population and a depressed financial condition. Ultimate
compliance with water quality standards may be nearly impossible for the community
unless the full benefit of the flexibility provided in the CSO Control Policy is utilized.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Status of Implementation
The WPCD has completed several CSO discharge characterization studies, has
implemented the NMC, and has submitted an LTCP to the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) for approval.
Wheeling developed a Conceptual Plan for the Analysis and Minimization of Combined
Sewer Overflow Discharges \n~\993. The plan outlined CSS deficiencies and prioritized
subsequent CSO control activities.The plan was based on collection system analysis
using SWMM and STORM models. At the time of this report, the annual percent capture
of total flow entering the CSS was estimated to be 25 percent, with virtually 100 percent
capture during dry weather flow conditions. In addition to the conceptual plan,
Wheeling has also completed several studies in effort to characterize its CSO discharges,
including:
Analysis of water quality upstream and downstream of CSO discharges.
Monitoring of rates and durations of representative discharges during rainfall
conditions.
Analysis of the quality of representative discharges.
Wme
Wheeling developed its implementation plan for NMC in August 1996 (Smith
Environmental Technologies Corporation, 1996). This plan was approved by the DEP and
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) in December 1996. The
City has successfully demonstrated implementation of each of the NMC. Examples of
activities conducted to fulfill the NMC requirements include:
Daily inspection and maintenance of the collection system.
Modification of CSO structures and sewer cleaning to maximize in-system storage.
Installation of wire mesh traps for solids and floatables control.
Maximization of flow to the WWTP (assisted by use of a CSO-related bypass).
Flow monitoring and sampling.
Development and distribution of educational and public notice materials.
Dry weather overflows continue to occur. These overflows are attributed to temporary
blockages in the collection system, and to occasional surface water tie-ins that drain into
overflow pipes. During dry weather conditions, the drainage from these tie-ins does not
contact sanitary sewage flowing in the collection system. All observed dry weather
overflows are immediately inspected when identified or reported, and blockages are
removed.
Wheeling submitted its LTCP on April 28,2000 in accordance with their compliance
schedule. The LTCP is under review by the DER
The proposed LTCP follows the demonstration approach.This is considered the
necessary approach since the City cannot meet the 85 percent capture requirement of
the presumption approach. Wheeling's draft March 2001 permit requires that, at a
minimum, the LTCP must consist of continued maintenance and implementation of the
NMC, provided there are no adverse water quality impacts. As part of its LTCP, Wheeling
commits to the continued maintenance and implementation of the NMC.
The city submitted data (collected as part of the NMC requirements) to demonstrate no
adverse impacts to receiving water quality due to CSO discharges. This data is presented
-------
Community Case Study: Wheeling, WV— 3
in the 1998 report entitled Evaluation of Small System CSO Discharges on Water Quality
(City of Wheeling WPCD and BCM Engineers, 1998). It includes more than four years of
quarterly monitoring data collected during wet and dry weather periods at several
points along the Ohio River and its tributaries, including locations upstream and
downstream of CSO outfalls. Parameters sampled include: pH, hardness, ammonia
nitrogen, total suspended solids, five-day biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved
oxygen, oil and grease, fecal coliform, total coliform, lead, zinc, cadmium, and copper.
The city is also undertaking small sewer separation projects at critical locations, outside
the scope of the proposed LTCP.
Costs and Financing
An April 2001 CSO Needs Survey for the City of Wheeling identified the most immediate
capital needs for the Wheeling wastewater collection and treatment systems (GGJ
Consulting Engineers, Inc., 2001). It was estimated that $29.5 million was needed to
complete priority projects directly related to CSO control, including sewer separation
projects at critical locations. An earlier 1989 engineering study estimated that complete
CSO control could cost up to $350 million (in 1989 dollars).
Wheeling lacks the funds necessary to complete priority projects. The WPCD's annual
budget of approximately $4 million is expended on existing O&M expenses and debt
service. The WPCD and the City of Wheeling Economic and Community Development
Departmentjointly expend approximately $1 million per year on priority sewer
separation projects within the City. These separation projects have been on-going for
more than 10 years.
The industrial and residential revenue base is decreasing. The city's population declined
by 70 between 1930 and1990. Between fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001,WPCD
revenues decreased by more than five percent. The remaining population has limited
resources to compensate for the losses. Approximately 17 percent of the city's
population lives below the poverty line, and more than 25 percent are on a low or fixed
income. Sewer rate increases have been pursued by the WPCD, but no increases have
been enacted since 1995. Wheeling has made several requests for state and federal grant
monies in recent years for their priority projects, but no grants have been provided to
date. Additional revenue bonds and SRF loans are being considered to assist in raising
funds.
Enforcement Issues
High river levels occur in the Ohio River during the winter and spring, due to runoff and
operation of locks and dams by the Army Corps of Engineers. Backflow preventers on
approximately 80 CSO outfalls along the Ohio River are not designed for high flow
conditions. Consequently, a substantial amount of river water enters the CSS through
approximately 80 CSO outfalls and is conveyed to the WWTP for treatment. This inflow of
river water disrupts system operations related to biological processes. The result is WWTP
permit effluent violations for biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and
mass limits, even at lower flows. Plant operators do what is possible with treatment
chemicals and system adjustments, but they are unable to fully address the problem. It
will cost the City approximately $1 million for improvements to prevent the river inflow.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Implementation of the NMC, sewer separation in priority areas, and other controls have
increased the flow captured for treatment from 25 percent to 40 percent of the 7.2
billion gallons entering the CSS annually, as shown in the figure below.
Storm water—18%
1.3 billion gallons
Total Flow Treated at
WWTP—40%
2.9
The City has reduced the number of CSO outfalls from 259 to 168. This reduction
includes 64 CSO outfalls that have been structurally modified to become inactive (i.e.,
plugged), and 27 CSO outfalls that have been eliminated through localized sewer
separation.
City of Wheeling WPCD and BCM Engineers, 1998. Water Pollution Control Division
Evaluation of Small System CSO Discharges on Water Quality. Report prepared for
submittal to the West Virginia DER Wheeling, WV.
GGJ Consulting Engineers, Inc., 2001. Capital Needs Improvement Project Review. Report
prepared for the City of Wheeling. Wheeling, WV.
King Campbell, Superintendent, City of Wheeling Water Pollution Control Division.
Personal communication with Limno-Tech, Inc. staff on details of the combined sewer
overflow plan and program. Summer 2001.
-------
Appendix D
List of Current CSO Permits
-------
-------
Appendix D
List of Current CSO Permits, Sorted by Region and State
EPA
Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
State
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Connecticut
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
NPDES Permit
No.
CT01 00366
CT0100412
CT01 00056
CT01 00251
CT0101010
ME01 00561
ME01 02423
ME01 02369
ME01 02075
ME0101796
ME0101702
ME0101681
ME0101532
ME0101478
ME0101214
ME01 00072
ME01 00439
ME01 00391
ME01 00323
ME01 00307
ME01 00285
ME0100153
ME0100111
ME01 00501
ME01 00048
ME01 00021
ME0100013
ME0100129
ME0100617
ME01 00951
ME01 00854
ME01 00781
ME01 00765
ME01 00749
ME01 00471
ME01 00625
ME01 00498
ME01 00595
ME01 00633
ME0101117
Facility Name
New Haven East Shore WPCF
Norwich WPCF
Bridgeport-West WPCF
Hartford MDC WPCF
Bridgeport-East WPCF
Presque Isle Sewer District
Randolph WWTF
Fort Kent Utility District
Portland Water District
Lincoln Sanitary District
City of Gardiner
Madawaska PCF
Belfast WWTF
Lewlston-Auburn WPCA
Bar Harbor WWTF
City of Brewer
Milo Water District
Mechanic Falls Sanitary District
Machias WWTP
Lisbon WWTF
Town of Kittery
Corrlna Sewer District
BucksportWWTF
Town of Dover-Foxcroft Wastewater
Department
Biddeford Wastewater Department
Bath WWTP
Augusta Sanitary District
Calais
Sanford Sewerage District
Paris WWTP
Kennebec Sanitary District
Bangor WWTP
Yarmouth
Winterport Sewerage District
Old Town PCF
Skowhegan WPCP
Orono Water Pollution Control Facility
Rockland WWTF
City of South Portland
Saco WWTP
Number of
Outfalls
19
15
32
44
12
1
1
4
35
1
2
2
2
1
4
7
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
4
13
6
23
1
2
1
3
12
1
3
9
1
3
10
6
D-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
State
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
NPDES Permit
No.
ME0101265
ME01 00005
ME0100196
ME01 00722
ME01 00846
ME01 00897
ME0101010
ME0101494
ME01 00994
MA0100137
MA01 00455
MA01 02351
MA0101630
MA0101621
MA0101508
MA0101389
MA01 00382
MA01 00986
MA01 00447
MA01 00897
MA01 00781
MA01 00633
MA01 00625
MA01 00552
MA0101168
MA0101338
MA0101192
MA0101877
MA0101974
MA0101982
MA01 02997
MA01 03331
NH01 00447
NH01 00366
NH01 00234
NH0100170
NH0100013
RI01 00293
Facility Name
Cape Elizabeth-Portland Water District
Auburn Sewerage District
Town of East Millinocket
Wlnslow Sanitary District
Westbrook/Portland Water District
Hamden
Hallowell Water District
Falrfleld
Lewiston
MontagueWPCF
South Hadley WWT
MWRA, Deer Island WWTP
Holyoke WPCF
Haverhill WWTF
Chicopee WPCF
West Springfield
Fall River WWTP
Fitchburg WWTF
Greater Lawrence Sanitary District
Taunton WWTP
New Bedford WWTF
Lowell Regional WWU
Gloucester WPCF
Lynn WWTF
Palmer WPCF
Town of Ludlow CSOs
Boston Water and Sewer Commission
Chelsea
City of Cambridge
Somerville DPW
Worcester Combined Overflow Facility
Springfield CSOs
City of Manchester WWTF
City of Lebanon WWTF
City of Portsmouth
Nashua WWTF
Berlin PCF
Newport City Hall
Number of
Outfalls
1
11
1
2
5
1
1
2
30
3
3
12
15
23
40
1
19
27
4
1
35
9
5
4
21
1
37
4
11
3
1
32
26
7
2
8
1
3
-------
Appendix D
EPA
Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
State
Rhode Island
Rhode Island
Vermont
Vermont
Vermont
Vermont
Vermont
Vermont
Vermont
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
NPDES Permit
No.
RI01 00072
RI0100315
VT0100196
VT01 00871
VT01 00579
VT01 00404
VT01 00285
VT01QQ153
VT0100374
NJ0020028
NJ0020591
NJ0020141
NJ0108707
NJ0034339
NJ0029084
NJ0026182
NJ0026085
NJ0025321
NJ0024741
NJ0024643
NJ0021016
NJ0020923
NJ01 08898
NJ0034517
NJ01 09240
NJ0111244
NJ01 17846
NJ01 08880
NJ0109118
NJ01 08758
NJ0020141a
NJ0108715
NJ0108731
NJ01 08766
NJ0108782
NJ01 08791
NJ0108812
NJ01 08847
NJ0108871
NJ01 08723
Facility Name
Narragansett Bay-Pawtucket
Narragansett Bay
MontpelierWWTF
Rutland WWTP
St. Johnsbury WWTF
Vergennes WWTF
Randolph WWTF
Burlington Main WWTF
Springfield WWTF
Bergen County WWTP
Edgewater MUA
Middlesex County Utility Authority
Passaic Valley
North Bergen MUA
Woodcliff
Camden County MUA
North Hudson-Adam Street
West New York MUA
Joint Meeting Sewage Treatment
Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission
Trenton Sewer Utility
North Bergen
Bluff Road
City of Bayonne CSOs
Town of Kearny
East Newark
City of Patterson
Ridgefield Park Village
Newark
Perth Amboy
Guttenberg Town
City of Rahway
City of Hackensack
City of Elizabeth
Camden County MUA
City of Camden
Gloucester City
Town of Harrison
Jersey City MUA
Number of
Outfalls
28
56
16
3
20
0
3
1
21
0
7
0
0
0
1
0
11
2
0
0
0
1
9
2
32
10
1
31
6
30
18
1
3
2
34
1
31
7
7
27
D-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
State
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
NPDES Permit
No.
NY0026131
IMYQQ26221
NY0026212
IMY0026204
NY0026191
IMY0026182
NY0026174
IMY0026247
NY0026158
IMYQQ26255
NY0026115
IMY0026107
NY0026018
IMY0025984
NY0025780
IMY0025151
NY0026166
IMY0027081
NY0029173
IMY0029114
NY0029050
IMY0028339
NY0028240
IMY0027961
NY0026239
IMY0027545
NY0027073
IMY0027057
NY0026875
IMYQQ26867
NY0026689
IMY0026336
NY0026310
IMY0026280
NY0027766
IMY0020494
NY0023256
IMYQQ224Q3
NY0022136
IMY0022039
Facility Name
Ward Island WPCP
NYCDEP Rockaway WWTP
NYCDEP 26th Ward
Newtown Creek WPCP
NYCDEP-Hunt's Point WPCP
NYCDEP Coney Island WPCP
NYCDEP Oakwood Beach WPCP
North River WPCF
NYCDEP Bowery Bay WPCP
PoughkeepsieWPCP
NYCDEP Jamaica WPCP
Port Richmond WPCF
Plattsburgh WPCP
Watertown WPCP
Oneida County WPCP
Carthage West WPCF
NYCDEP Owls Head WPCP
Syracuse Metro WWTP
Waterford WWTP
City of Oswego, East Side STP
Glens Falls WWTP
Frank E. VanLare STP
Saratoga County Sewer District 1
Dunkirk WWTP
Tallman Island WPCP
Clayton Village WTF
Red Hook WPCP
LockportWWTP
Albany North WWTP
Albany South WWTP
Yonkers Joint WWTP
Niagara Falls WWTP
Newburgh WPCP
North Tonawanda WWTP
Lewiston Master S.D.
Boonville WWTP
Village of Holley STP
Little Falls WWTP
Erie County S.D. #6
Hudson STP
Number of
Outfalls
77
27
3
83
28
4
57
50
52
6
7
36
14
17
1
0
16
62
4
6
1
6
0
1
20
2
34
29
0
0
26
9
12
13
1
1
1
3
1
10
D-4
-------
Appendix D
EPA
Region
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
State
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
Delaware
Delaware
District of Columbia
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
NPDES Permit
No.
NY0021903
IMYQQ21873
NY0020818
IMY0020516
NY0020389
IMYQQ2Q29Q
NY0020117
IMY0024414
NY0020621
IMYQQ29262
NY0029106
IMY0028410
NY01 83695
IMYQQ87971
NY0036706
IMY0033545
NY0031208
IMY0031194
NY0029939
IMY0029831
NY0029807
IMY0029351
NY0035742
IMY0029297
NY0024406
IMY0024481
NY0026026
IMY0030899
NY0031046
IMY0031429
NY0033031
IMY0099309
NY0248941
IMY0025747
DE0020320
DE0020265
DC0021199
MD0021601
MD0021636
MD0021598
Facility Name
Auburn STP
Medina WWTP
Potsdam WPCP
ScheneetadyWPCP
Catskill WWTP
Amsterdam WWTP
Gouverneur STP
BInghamton- Johnson City Joint WWTF
WellsvilleWWTP
Owego STP
Oswego-West Side STP
Bird Island WWTF
Washington County S.D. 2
Rensselaer County
Ticonderoga S.D. #5 WPCP
Village of Coxsackle STP
Dock Street STP
Massena WWTP
Tupper Lake WPCP
Ogdensburg WWTP
Canastota WPCF
Kingston WWTF
Chemung County-Elmira S.D. STP
Owasco S,D, 11 Overflows
Binghamton CSO
Lewiston ORF
Rensselaer CSO
WatervIIet CSO
Cohoes CSO
Utica CSO
Green Island CSO
Troy CSO
City of Mechanicville CSO
Albany CSO
Wilmington
Seaford WWTF
District of Columbia WWTP
Patapsco WWTP
Cambridge WWTP
Cumberland WWTP
Number of
Outfalls
16
13
1
2
5
3
1
0
3
8
1
65
11
0
2
3
0
10
3
17
7
7
11
3
7
1
8
5
16
82
3
49
3
12
38
1
60
2
14
16
D-5
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
State
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
NPDES Permit
No.
MD0021571
MD0067423
MD0067407
MD0067547
MD0067384
PA0028223
PA0027014
PA0027120
PA0027197
PA0027227
PA0026689
PA0028207
PA0026671
PA0036650
PA0037711
PA0038920
PAG066134
PA0027421
PA0021571
PA0020346
PA0020397
PA0021237
PA0026832
PA0021539
PA0026743
PA0022209
PA00231 75
PA0026174
PA0026182
PA0026191
PA0026662
PA0021521
PA0070386
PA0037818
PA0092355
PA0070041
PA0046159
PA0043885
PA0043877
PA0043273
Facility Name
Salisbury WWTP
Frostburg CSOs
Allegany County CSOs
LaVale CSOs
Westernport Town
Corry City Municipal Authority
Altoona City Authority-East
Warren City
Harrisburg Authority
Farrell City
Philadelphia Water Department -
Northeast
Reynoldsville Sewer Authority
Philadelphia Water Department -
Southwest
TItusvlIIe City
Everett Borough Municipal Authority
Burn ham Borough
Township of Lett
Norrlstown MWA
Marysville Municipal Authority
Punxsutawney Sewer Authority STP
Bridgeport Borough
Newport Borough Municipal Authority
Ellwood City Borough
Williamsburg Borough
Lancaster City
Bedford Borough Municipal Authority
Kane Borough
Franklin City General Authority
Lansdale Borough
Huntlngton Borough
Philadelphia Water Department -
Southeast
Smethport Borough
Shenandoah STP
Saltsburg Borough STP
North Belle VernonWPCP
Mahanoy City (MCSA) STP
MSA of Houtzdale Borough
Greater Pottsville Area Sewer Authority
Greater Pottsville Area Sewer Authority
(West End)
HoIIldaysburg Regional WWTP
Number of
Outfalls
2
15
3
3
3
3
1
4
61
6
59
6
83
5
5
7
2
3
4
6
3
1
1
4
2
1
4
2
6
35
1
13
6
16
1
1
54
4
4
D-6
-------
Appendix D
EPA
Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
State
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
NPDES Permit
No.
PA0042234
PA0039489
PA0026107
PA0096229
PA0037044
PA0026492
PA0027006
PA0026981
PA0026921
PA0026913
PA0026905
PA0026891
PA0038164
PA0027057
PA0026476
PA0026361
PA0026352
PA0026310
PA0026301
PA0026204
PA0026158
PA0026140
PA0026581
PA0027430
PA0036820
PA0028673
PA0028631
PA0028436
PA0028401
PA0027693
PA0027651
PA0027626
PA0027022
PA0027456
PA0027049
PA0027391
PA0027324
PA0027111
PA0027103
PA0027090
Facility Name Number of
Outfalls
Kittanning Borough STP
Garrett Boro SIP
Wyoming Valley Sewer Authority
Maria nna-West Bethlehem STP
Ford City WTP
Scranton WWTF
Tamaqua Borough Sewer Authority
City of Duquesne STP
Hazelton WTP
McKeesartWPCP
ConnellsvilleSTP
Charleroi STP
Borough of Confluence
Williamsport Sanitary Authority Central
Coaldale Landsford-Summitt Hill TP
Lower Lackawanna Valley Sanitary
Authority
Coraopolis WPCF
Clearfleld Municipal Authority
Erie City STP
Oil City STP
Monongahela Valley WWTP
Rochester Area Joint Sewer Authority WTP
Scottsdale STP
Jeannette WWTP
Galeton Borough Authority
Borough of Gallltzln WWTP
Mid-Cameron Authority
Elizabeth Borough STP
Dravosburg Borough STP
MInersvlIIe Sewer Authority
West Newton Borough STP
Kiski Valley STP
Altoona West STP
Greater Greensboro STP
Williamsport Sanitary Authority West Plant
Upper Allegheny Joint Sanitary Authority
STP
Shamokin-Coal Township Joint Sewer
Authority
New Kensington STP
DELCORA Chester STP
Lackawanna River Basin Sewer Authority -
Throop
9
2
54
1
3
69
16
4
14
28
16
12
2
3
6
24
6
9
20
16
21
3
8
5
4
6
1
6
1
10
13
32
1
39
1
19
5
5
26
25
D-7
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
State
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
NPDES Permit
No.
PA0027081
PA0027065
PA0027570
PA0026557
PA0026824
PA0025755
PA0021610
PA0024686
PA0024716
PA0024864
PA0021407
PA0024511
PA0025224
PA0024490
PA0021113
PA0025810
PA0020940
PA0020702
PA0023469
PA0025950
PA0021148
PA0023736
PA0023248
PA0022331
PA0022306
PA0022292
PA0022241
PA0021814
PA0024589
PA0023701
PA0020681
PA0024163
PA0024341
PA0024406
PA0024449
PA0024481
PA0021687
PA0023558
PA0025984
PA0026069
Facility Name Number of
Outfalls
Lackawanna River Basin Sewer Authority-
Clinton
Lackawanna River Basin Sewer Authority-
Arch bald
Brush Creek STP
Municipal Authority of the City of Sunbury
Clairton STP
Borough of Freeport STP
Blairsville Borough STP
Mid Mon Valley WPCP
Freeland WWTP
Llgonler Boro STP
Point Mariah WWTP
Redbank Valley Municipal Authority
St. ClairSAWWTP
Rockwood Boro STP
GlassportSTP
Shade-Central City STP
Tunkhannock Borough Municipal Authority
Fayette City WWTP
Honesdale STP
City of Monongahela
Mt. Pleasant STP
TrI-Borough Municipal Authority WWTP
Berwick Area Joint Sewer Authority
West Elizabeth WWTP
Brownsville Municipal Authority-Shady
Avenue STP
Ebensburg WWTP
California Borough STP
Mansfield WWTP
Leetsdale STP
Midland Borough Municipal Authority STP
SewickleyWWTP
Cambria Township Sewer Authority (Revloc
STP)
Canton Borough Authority
Mt. Carmel Municipal Authority
Youngwood Borough STP
Meyersdale STP
Wellsboro Municipal Authority
Ashland Borough
Allegheny County Sanitary Authority
Latrobe Borough
9
16
3
6
5
6
16
8
1
2
6
2
7
5
5
3
2
2
20
1
6
2
4
1
4
2
3
4
6
1
4
1
1
19
2
5
2
9
21
18
D-8
-------
Appendix D
EPA
Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
State
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
NPDES Permit
No.
PA0026042
PA0020613
PA0020125
PAG066102
PAG066109
PA0217611
PAG062201
PAG062202
PAG064801
PAG066101
PAG066103
PAG066104
PAG066105
PAG066106
PAG066107
PAG064802
PAG066110
PAG066108
PAG066129
PAG066130
PAG066131
PAG066132
PAG066127
PAG066126
PAG066119
PAG066111
PAG066112
PAG066113
PAG066114
PAG066115
PAG066116
PAG066128
PAG066118
PAG066120
PAG066121
PAG066122
PAG066123
PAG066124
PAG066125
PAG066117
Facility Name
Bethlehem WWTP
Waynesbug STP
Boro of Monaca STP
Braddock Borough
McDonald Sewage Authority
City of Pittsburgh
Easton City
Lackawanna River Basin Authorlty-Mooslc
Shamokin City
Pitcairn Borough
Borough of Homestead
Bureau of Wllmerdlng
Borough of Rankin
Girty's Run JSA, Millvale
Township of Stowe
Coal Township
Borough of Crafton
Larimer Avenue CSO
Mayview State Hospital
Export Borough
Freedom Borough
East Rochester Borough
Munhall Boro
Carnegie Borough
Borough of Etna
Emsworth Borough
Borough of McKee Rocks
Borough of Asplnwall
Borough of North Braddock
Ferndale Borough
West View Borough
Borough of Swlssvale
Borough of Turtle Creek
Borough of East Pittsburgh
City of Arnold
East Conemaugh Borough
Borough of West Homestead
Dale Borough
Sharpsburg Borough
City of Unlontown
Number of
Outfalls
3
2
6
8
20
217
2
4
33
1
1
9
2
9
7
33
4
2
2
5
3
1
4
1
8
1
3
3
1
5
2
1
10
3
2
2
2
7
6
28
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
State
Virginia
Virginia
Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
NPDES Permit
No.
VA00631 77
VA0024970
VA0087068
WV01 05279
WV0023205
WV0024473
WV0024392
WV0023353
WV0023302
WV0023299
WV0023264
WV0024732
WV0023183
WV0023175
WV0023167
WV0023159
WV0023124
WV0023094
WV0022080
WV0022063
WV0023230
WV0029289
WV0084042
WV0054500
WV0035939
WV0033821
WV0024562
WV0032336
WV0024589
WV0028118
WV0028088
WV0027472
WV0027324
WV0026832
WV0025461
WV0024848
WV0021881
WV0033804
WV0022039
WV0020273
Facility Name
Richmond WWTW
Lynch burg STP
Alexandria CSOs
City of Piedmont
Charleston
Marllngton
Keyser
Fairmont
City of Clarksburg
IMItro
City of Moundsville
City of Hinton
Beckley
St. Albans
Marti nsburg
Huntington
City of Morgantown
Princeton
Town of Bethany
City of Parsons
Wheeling
City of Bellngton
Flatwoods-Canoe Run PSD
City of Shin nston
Boone County PSD
City of Logan
City of Wayne
Buckhannon
Welch
Dun bar
Weston
New Marti nsville
Monongah
Wellsburg
City of Bridgeport
Town of Davis
Kingwood
Terra Alta
Point Pleasant
City of Folia ns bee
Number of
Outfalls
31
64
4
58
1
1
43
84
7
5
6
2
12
1
23
33
1
3
4
211
7
6
12
1
12
3
6
28
16
5
4
6
10
11
3
3
2
5
-------
Appendix D
EPA
Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
State
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virgin la
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virgin la
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virgin la
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virgin la
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virginia
West Virgin la
West Virginia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Georgia
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
NPDES Permit
No.
WV0021865
WV0021857
WV0021822
WV0021792
WV0021 750
WV0021741
WV0020681
WV0020621
WV0022004
WV0020150
WV0020141
WV0020109
WV0020028
WV0020648
WV0023221
WV0024449
WV0035637
WV0035912
WV0081434
WV0084310
WV01 00901
GA0036854
GA0036838
GA0036871
GA0037109
GA0037117
GA0037125
GA0037133
GA0037168
KY0020095
KY0022799
KY0035467
KY0027413
KY0026115
KY0026093
KY0025291
KY0024058
KY0022861
KY0022411
KY0022373
Facility Name
Town of Farmington
City of Philippi
Grafton
Petersburg
Marmet
Smithers
Mullens
Montgomery
Richwood
Moorefield
McMechen
Town of West Union
CityofElkins
City of Benwood
Vienna
City ofWestover
Cedar Grove
City of Kenova
City of Barrackville
Greater Paw Paw Sanitary District
Nutter Fort
CityofAIbanyCSOs
Columbus CSO
Atlanta-Clear Creek
Atlanta-Tanyard Creek
Atlanta- Proctor Creek/North
Atlanta-Proctor Creek/Greenferry
Atlanta-McDanlel Street
Atlanta-lntrenchment and Custer Avenue
Owens boro-West
Paducah WWTP
Catlettsburg WWTP
Prestonsburg WWTP
Loyall WWTP
Harlan WWTP
PIkevIIIeWWTP
PinesvilleSTP
E.C. McManis WWTP
Morris Forman WWTF
Ashland WWTP
Number of
Outfalls
3
13
35
2
3
3
3
5
2
3
3
7
19
9
2
5
1
2
9
10
2
10
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
10
17
1
6
1
3
6
15
115
8
D-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Kentucky
Tennessee
Tennessee
Tennessee
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
NPDES Permit
No.
KY0021512
KY0021466
KY0021440
KY0020711
KY0020257
KY0022926
TN0024210
TN0020656
TN0020575
IL0030660
IL0029424
IL0029467
IL0029564
IL0029831
IL0029874
IL0030015
IL0030384
IL0030503
IL0030783
IL0031216
IL0031356
IL0031852
IL0033472
IL0034495
IL0030457
IL0068365
IL0035084
IL0043061
IL0037818
IL0023272
IL0023281
IL0023825
IL0028053
IL0028061
IL0028088
IL0028231
IL0028321
IL0028622
IL0028657
IL0023388
Facility Name
Vanceburg WWTP
Northern Kentucky S.D. f 1
Morganfield WWTP
Henderson WWTP
MaysvilleWWTP
Worthington WWTP
Chattanooga
ClarksvlIIe
Nashville
City of Peru STP
LaSalle WWTP
LawreneevllleSTP
Lincoln STP
Mattoon WWTP
City of Metropolis STP
Morton STP 2
Ottawa STP
QuincySTP
Rock Island
Spring Valley WWTP
Taylorville S.D. STP
Wood River STP
East St. Louis CSOs
Pekln STP 1
Pontiac STP
Marshall STP
City of Casey STP
Prophetstown STP
MinonkSTP
Milford STP
Gibson City STP
Cairo STP
MWRDGC Stickney, West-Southwest STP
MWRDGC Calumet Water Reclamation
Plant
MWRDGC-Northside Water Reclamation
Plant
Cowden STP
S.D. ofDecaturMainSTP
Efflngham STP
Fox River WRD-South STP
Havana STP
Number of
Outfalls
5
74
2
15
11
3
18
2
30
23
3
4
3
5
1
2
14
7
5
9
2
1
2
4
5
3
1
3
3
4
3
3
19
15
9
2
4
4
16
2
D-12
-------
Appendix D
EPA
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
NPDES Permit
No.
IL0027464
IL0027839
IL0027731
IL0024996
IL0025135
IL0026450
IL0027367
IL0047741
IL0021253
IL0021377
IL0021601
IL0021661
IL0021792
IL0021873
IL0021890
IL0020818
IL0021113
IL0021059
IL0020184
IL0020621
IL0023141
IL0022462
IL0022322
IL0022331
IL0022519
IL0022543
IL0022675
IL0022161
IL0021971
IL0021989
IL0022004
IL0052426
IL0052469
IL0044920
IL0044890
IL0052451
IL0052434
IL0044881
IL0052418
IL0044954
Facility Name
City of Alton STP
Canton-West STP
Bloomington/Normal WRD/STP
CItyofOglesbySTP
Beardstown S.D.
Dixon STP
Addison
MWRDGC James C. Kire WRP
Monmouth Main WWTP
Paris STP
Fairbury STP
Jacksonville STP
Wenona WWTP
City of Belleville STP fl
ShelbyvilleSTP
Fox Metro Water Reclamation District
City of Morris STP
Marseilles STP
City of Oregon STP
Litchfleld STP
Galesburg Sanitary District
Farmer City STP
City of Georgetown STP
Granville STP
City of Joliet-Eastside STP
CityofBataviaWWTF
CarlinvilleSTP
Watseka STP
Sugar Creek STP
Spring Creek STP
CityofStreatorSTP
Village of DoItonCSOs
Village of Melrose Park CSO
Village of River Grove CSO
Brookfield CSOs
LIncoInwood CSOs
Skokie CSOs
City of Calumet City CSOs
Summit CSOs
Village of Lyons CSOs
Number of
Outfalls
6
4
11
7
1
9
3
1
7
2
12
3
2
18
3
1
6
2
10
2
41
3
1
4
12
1
2
7
3
7
17
3
1
6
7
2
2
7
4
3
D-13
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
NPDES Permit
No.
IL0044911
IL0045012
IL0052442
IL0045080
IL0037800
IL0036536
IL0033618
IL0033588
IL0028592
IL0047147
IL0021423
IL0046795
IL0044733
IL0029416
IL0048518
IL0045039
IL0045047
IL0045055
IL0045063
IL0045071
IL0044725
IL0037885
IL0043133
IL0045021
IL0045098
IL0045101
IL0046175
IL0046418
IL0042901
IL0039551
IL0044717
IL0066818
IL0069981
IL0070505
IL0072001
IL0052477
IN0020044
IIMQQ2QQ95
IN0020001
IIM0020109
Facility Name
Village of Schiller Park CSO
Chicago CSOs
City of Blue Island CSOs
City of Harvey CSOs
City of Peoria CSOs
City of Evanston CSOs
Village of Villa Park CSOs
LaGrange Park CSOs
Metro East S.D. CSOs
Village of Maywood CSOs
Village of Hartford CSO
Village of River Forest CSOs
Park Ridge CSOs
Lansing CSO
Aurora CSOs
Village of Western Springs CSOs
Village of Arlington Heights CSO
Village of South Holland CSOs
Village of Calumet Park CSO
Village of North Riverside CSOs
Dixmoor CSO
CityofMarkhamCSO
Posen CSO
Riverside CSOs
Village of Riverdale CSOs
Village of Forest Park CSOs
Village of Morton Grove CSOs
Franklin Park CSOs
Village of Burnham CSOs
Village of Lemont CSOs
Des Plaines CSO
Hlnsdale CSOs
Wilmette CSO
City of Elgin CSOs
Bloomington CSOs
Village of Miles CSOs
City of Alexandria WPCP
Portland Municipal STP
RidgevilleWWTP
Greenfield
Number of
Outfalls
1
231
4
7
18
14
4
3
4
8
1
4
4
1
15
3
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
5
4
2
2
4
3
2
1
4
1
12
6
10
4
16
3
0
D-14
-------
Appendix D
EPA
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
NPDES Permit Facility Name Number of
No. Outfalls
IN0020117
IIMQQ2Q125
IN0020133
IIM0020168
IN0020176
IIM0020222
IN0025585
IIM0025666
IN0025658
IIM0021016
IN0025640
IIM0021067
IN0025631
IIMQQ25755
IN0025607
IIM0025763
IN0025577
IIM0025232
IN0024821
IIM0024805
IN0024791
IIM0024775
IN0024741
IIM0024716
IN0025615
IIM0032875
IN0039314
IIM0038318
IN0035696
IIM0033073
IN0032972
IIM0025674
IN0032956
IIM0024554
IN0032719
IIM0032573
IN0032476
IIM0032468
IN0032336
IIM0032328
MontpelierWWTP
Royal Center WWTP
Greensburg WWTP
City of IMoblesvIIIe WWTP
Monticello Municipal STP
Attica
City of Marion WWTP
City of Madison WWTP
Washington Municipal STP
Tell City WWTP
City of Mishawaka WWTP
Rockport WWTP
Muncie Sanitary District
City of Cos hen WWTP
City of Terre Haute POTW
City of Crownpolnt WWTP
LaPorte Municipal STP
Town of Akron WWTP
West Lafayette WWTP
Warsaw WWTP
Warren
Wakarusa WWTP
City of Wabash WWTP
Veedersburg WWTP
William Edwin Ross WWTP
City of Kokomo Municipal Sanitation Utility
City of Decatur WWTP
Mllford
Mt. Vernon WWTP
Evansville East WWTP
Civil Town of Speedway WWTP
City of Elkhart WWTP
Evansville Westside WWTP
City of Sullivan WWTP
Elwood
City of Columbus POTW
Anderson WWTP
Lafayette
Connersville
City of Peru WWTP
4
2
3
7
5
2
8
7
6
5
18
1
25
6
10
5
1
3
5
1
4
6
7
4
5
30
4
1
3
8
3
39
15
5
15
3
19
13
5
16
D-15
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
NPDES Permit
No.
IN0032191
IIM0031950
IN0032964
IIM0021628
IN0022683
IIMQQ22624
IN0022608
IIM0022578
IN0022462
IIM0022420
IN0022411
IIM0024660
IN0021652
IIMQQ22977
IN0021474
IIM0021466
IN0021385
IIM0021369
IN0021342
IIM0021296
IN0021270
IIM0021245
IN0022144
IIM0023604
IN0024520
IIM0024473
IN0024414
IIM0024406
IN0024023
IIM0023914
IN0023752
IIM0022829
IN0023621
IIM0022934
IN0023582
IIM0021105
IN0021202
IIM0023302
IN0023183
IIM0023132
Facility Name
City of Fort Wayne WWTP
Indianapolis-South Port
City of Crawfordsville WWTP
Hartford City
Town of Crothersville WWTP
Columbia City WWTP
City of Clinton POTW
Chesterton Municipal STP
Butler
Boonville
City of Bluffton WWTP
Elden Kuehl Pollution Control Facility
Eaton
Gary WWTP
Tipton Municipal STP
Nappanee
City of Knox WWTP
Berne
Oxford WWTP
City of Angola WWTP
Rushville
Town of Brownsburg WWTP
Albion
City of Logansport WWTP
City of South Bend WWTP
City of Seymour WWTP
Rensselaer
Town of Redkey POTW
Paoli Municipal STP
City of New Castle WWTP
Michigan City
East Chicago S,D,
Lowell Municipal STP
Frankfort
LigonierWWTP
Falrmount
Plainfield Municipal STP
Jeffersonville
Indianapolis-Belmont
City of Huntlngton WWTP
Number of
Outfalls
41
0
2
17
4
16
6
1
1
1
1
2
2
13
8
13
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
16
42
1
16
6
8
8
2
2
1
1
6
16
5
16
133
14
-------
Appendix D
EPA
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
NPDES Permit
No.
IN0023060
IIMQQ24562
IN0023736
IIM0020664
IN0020672
IIM0020711
IN0020745
IIM0021211
IN0020362
IIM0020427
IN0020451
IIM0020516
IN0020567
IIM0020656
IN0020770
IIM0020940
IN0020877
IIM0020907
IN0020958
IIM0020991
IN0020346
IIM0022560
IN0050903
MI0026069
MI0020214
MI0022802
MI0022284
MI0022152
MI0021695
MI0021440
MI0021083
MI0020656
MI0020362
MI0023001
MI0020591
MI0023973
MI0025631
MI0025577
MI0022853
MI0022918
Facility Name
Hammond WWTP
Summitville
Markle WWTP
AvIIIa WWTP
Auburn WWTP
Waterloo Municipal STP
Ossian WWTP
Brazil Municipal STP
North Manchester STP
Bremen WWTP
North Vernon WWTP
Wlnamac Municipal STP
South Whitley Municipal STP
City of Kendallville WWTP
Middletown
Remington Municipal STP
North Judson Municipal STP
Rossville
FortvilleWWTP
Plymouth Municipal STP
New Haven STP
Chesterfield WWTP
City of Aurora WW Collection System
Grand Rapids WWTP
Norway WWTP
Detroit WWTP
Bay City WWTP
Adrian WWTP
Blissfield WWTP
Wakef ield WWSL
Croswell WWTP
MarysvlIIe WWTP
Manistee WWTP
Gladwin WWTP
St.ClairWWTP
Saglnaw Township WWTP
MenomineeWWTP
SaginawWWTP
East Lansing WWTP
EssexvIIIe WWTP
Number of
Outfalls
20
3
2
4
4
3
6
4
8
4
2
5
2
1
4
1
2
2
12
10
4
3
2
19
1
86
5
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
15
2
1
D-17
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Minnesota
Minnesota
Minnesota
Ohio
Ohio
NPDES Permit
No.
MI0023833
MI0023701
MI0023647
MI0023515
MI0023400
MI0023205
MI0024058
MI0026077
MI0025453
MI0025500
MI0025534
MI0025542
MI0026085
MI0025585
MI0051811
MI0051829
MI0051837
MI0051560
MI0051551
MI0051462
MI0026115
MI0026735
MI0028819
MI0036072
MI0037427
MI0043982
MI0051802
MI0048879
MI0051471
MI0051489
MI0051497
MI0051501
MI0051535
MI0051543
MI0048046
MIMQQ24571
MN0025470
MIMQQ46744
OH0024139
OH0022471
Facility Name Number of
Outfalls
Port Huron WWTP
NilesWWTP
Mt. Clemens WWTP
Manlstlque WWTP
Lansing WWTP
Iron Mountain-Kingsford WWTP
Sault Ste Marie WWTP
Grosse Polnte Farms CSO
Martin RTB
Milk River CSO
Birmingham CSO
Dearborn CSO
Grosse Pointe Shores CSO
Chapaton RTB
Dearborn Heights CSO
Redford Township CSO
Inkster/Dearborn Heights CSO
Wayne County/Livonia/Westland CSO
Wayne County/ Livonia CSO
Wayne County/ Inkster/Dearborn Heights
CSO
Oakland County SOCSDS 12 Towns RTF
St. Joseph CSO
River Rouge CSO
Southgate/Wyandotte CSO RTF
Oakland County-Acacia Park CSO
North Houghton County W&SA CSO
Livonia CSO
Crystal Falls CSO
Wayne County/I nkster CSO
Wayne County/Dearborn Heights CSO
Wayne County/Westland CSO
Wayne County/Westland/Wayne CSO
Wayne County/Redford/ Livonia CSO
Wayne County/Garden CIty/Westland CSO
Bloomfield Village CSO
Red Wing
MCWS-St. Paul
MCWS-Ml n neapo Us
City of Bowling Green
DeshlerWWTP
19
8
1
1
32
1
7
7
2
1
1
20
0
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
5
1
2
1
2
1
2
10
7
1
0
8
0
1
1
2
6
1
14
D-18
-------
Appendix D
EPA
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
NPDES Permit
No.
OH0025151
OH0025135
OH0025127
OH0025003
OH0024929
OH0024899
OH0024759
OH0024741
OH0025291
OH0024686
OH0025364
OH0023981
OH0023957
OH0023914
OH0023884
OH0023833
OH0023400
OH0023396
OH0022624
OH0028118
OH0024732
OH0026565
OH0027987
OH0027952
OH0027910
OH0027898
OH0027740
OH0027511
OH0027332
OH0027197
OH0025160
OH0026671
OH0022322
OH0026522
OH0026514
OH0026352
OH0026263
OH0026069
OH0026026
OH0026018
Facility Name
Forest WWTP
Find lay Water Pollution Control Center
Fayette WWTP
City of Elyria WWTP
Delphos WWTP
Defiance
Columbus Grove
Columbus-Southerly
Fremont WWTP
City of Clyde WWTP
City of Girard WWTP
City of Avon Lake
Village of Attica
Ashtabula
Village of Ansonia WWTP
City of Akron
City of Wauseon
Ohio City
MarshallvilleWWTP
CItyofWillard
Columbus-Jackson Pike
Village of Mingo Junction
Warren
WapakonetaWWTP
Van Wert
Utica
Toledo
Steubenvllle
City of Sandusky
Portsmouth
Fort Recovery WWTP
Newark WWTP
Put-In-Bay WWTP
Middletown WWTP
MiddleportWWTP
Marlon Water Pollution Control
City of McComb WWTP
City of Lima WWTP
Lancaster WWTP
Lakewood WWTP
Number of
Outfalls
3
18
15
27
7
43
4
2
13
4
5
14
12
3
3
38
7
5
1
2
29
6
4
4
6
1
38
16
17
10
3
26
3
8
13
3
3
19
31
9
D-'
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
State
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
NPDES Permit
No.
OH0025852
OH0025771
OH0026841
OH0022578
OH0020192
OH0020117
OH0020001
OH0020338
OH0020451
OH0020974
OH0022110
OH0021831
OH0021725
OH0021491
OH0021466
OH0021326
OH0021261
OH0021148
OH0021105
OH0020214
OH0021008
OH0027481
OH0020940
OH0020893
OH0020851
OH0020664
OH0020591
OH0020559
OH0020524
OH0020486
OH0021016
OH0028177
OH0028185
OH0028223
OH0028240
OH0029122
OH0031062
OH0043991
OH0048321
QH0049999
Facility Name
Ironton WWTP
Hicksville
Oak Harbor
Green Springs WWTP
Village of Bradford
North Baltimore
Upper Sandusky
Village of Pauldlng
City of Milford WWTP
Delta WWTP
Newton Falls WWTP
MontpelierWWTP
Pomeroy
Bremen
McConnelsville
Village of Payne WWTP
ElmoreWWTP
Village of Pandora WWTP
HamlerWWTP
Toronto WWTP
Perrysburg Water Pollution Control
Springfield STP
Arcanum WWTP
Napoleon WWTP
Bluffton WWTP
Crestline WWTP
Woodville
Village of Caldwell WWTP
Village of Swanton
Village of Greenwich WWTP
Village of Genoa
Woodsfield WWTP
Wooster
City of Youngstown WTP
ZanesvilleWWTP
Village of GIbsonburg
Euclid
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Dunkirk
Eastern Ohio Regional Wastewater
Authority
Number of
Outfalls
9
3
9
1
9
2
1
2
2
11
28
4
13
1
9
2
5
10
6
7
4
58
14
3
20
1
18
23
27
14
6
5
3
80
25
3
18
126
6
47
0^20
-------
Appendix D
EPA
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
7
1
1
State
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Iowa
Kansas
Kansas
Kansas
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
Missouri
NPDES Permit
No.
OH0052604
OH0052876
OH0052922
OH0052744
OH0052949
OH0058971
OH0058408
OH01 26268
OH0094528
OH0020613
OH01 05457
WIL024767
WI0025593
IA0042609
IA0020842
IA0021059
IA0023434
IA0025917
IA0027219
IA0032433
IA0036641
IA0042650
IA0043079
IA0047961
IA0058483
IA0058611
IA0035947
IA0076601
KS0038563
KS0039128
KS0042722
M00024911
M001 17960
M00050580
M00025178
M00025151
M00024929
M00023221
M00023043
M00023027
Facility Name
City of Norwalk
Port Clinton
City of Bucyrus
City of Fostorla
Tiffin
Luckey STP
Metamora
Lisbon WWTP
Village of Malta
Village of New Boston
Hamilton County Commissioners
Milwaukee MSD-Jones Island
Superior Sewage Disposal System
CityofKeokukSTP
City of Lake City STP
City of Spencer STP
City of Muscatine STP
City of Mediapolis STP
City of Ft. Madison STP
City of Washington WWTP
City of Council Bluffs STP
City of Waterloo STP
City of Burlington STP
CItyofWapelloSTP
City of Williams STP
Ottumwa STP
City of Clinton STP
Des Molnes CSOs
Kansas City WWTP
Atchison City WWTP
Topeka City of Oakland STP
Kansas City, Blue River STP
Moberly East WWTP
Cape Girardeau WWTP
MSD, Bissell Point WWTP
MSD,LemayWWTP
Kansas City, Westside STP
Macon WWTF
St. Joseph WWTP
Sedalla North WWTP
Number of
Outfalls
3
2
22
5
39
4
12
9
10
2
182
120
3
9
1
4
5
1
9
8
5
7
12
2
1
10
10
18
58
7
6
5
8
3
3
12
2
6
2
8
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
EPA
Region
7
7
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
State
Nebraska
Nebraska
South Dakota
California
California
California
Alaska
Oregon
Oregon
Oregon
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
Washington
NPDES Permit
No.
NE0021121
NE0036358
SD0027481
CA0037681
CA0038610
CA0079111
AK0023213
OR0027561
OR0026361
OR0026905
WA0024074
WA0023973
WA0023744
WA0020257
WA0024490
WA0029181
WA0024473
WA0037061
WA0029548
WA0029289
WA0031682
Facility Name
Plattsmouth WWTF
Omaha Missouri River WWTF
City of Lead
Oceans! de WPCP and Westslde Wet
Weather CSO System
Bayside Wet Weather Facilities WPCP
Sacramento Regional County S.D.
Juneau-Douglas WWTP
City of Astoria WWTP
CityofCorvallisWWRP
City of Portland Columbia Blvd WWTP
City of Mt. Vernon WWTP
City of Port Angeles WWTP
City of Bellingham WWTP
City of Anacortes WWTP
Everett WPCF
West Point STP
Spokane WWTP and CSOs
City of Olympla
Snohomish WWTP
Bremerton WWTP
City of Seattle Collection System
Number of
Outfalls
1
25
1
7
28
6
3
38
6
55
2
5
2
3
18
34
24
3
2
16
110
D-22
-------
Appendix E
Summary of CSO-Related Civil Judicial
Actions Taken By EPA Prior to
Issuance of the CSO Control Policy
-------
-------
Appendix E
Civil Judicial Actions Taken by EPA Under the National Municipal Policy
Region State Case Name/City Name
CSO Violation
Outcome
1 MA Boston
MA City of New Bedford
MA Lowell
MA Lynn
CSOs causing impairment to
Boston Harbor.
Violation of CWA, and later
consent decree.
CSO bypasses, dry weather
overflows in violation of permit.
Violation of CWA and later
consent decree.
Went to trial resulting in court order for
CSO abatement schedule; $425,000
penalty.
Modified judicially ordered consent
decree (filed 12/07/87, amended
04/28/95} modified schedule for CSO
abatement; $150,000 penalty.
Operation and maintenance
improvements, elimination of dry
weather overflows, submittal of CSO
facility plan; $180,000 Civil Judicial
penalty. Amended 6/29/01 to require
separation.
Judicially ordered consent decree (filed
11/02/89, amended 11/15/94) required
CSO facility plan and schedule for CSO
abatement; $95,000 penalty.
ME CityofBangor
ME City of South Portland
NJ North Bergen Township
PA City of Philadelphia
IL Metropolis
CSOs in violation of NPDES
permit and three administrative
actions.
CSOs in violation of NPDES
permit.
Failure to meet construction
schedule for CSO abatement.
CSOs from prison facility.
Judicially ordered consent decree
(issued 04/09/91, modified 06/28/91)
required facilities plan and CSO
abatement projects implementation;
$20,000 penalty.
Judicially ordered consent decree (filed
04/16/92, amended 08/18/94) required
POTW upgrade and CSO abatement
program for NPDES permit compliance;
$30,000 penalty.
Judicially ordered consent decree
required schedule to achieve
compliance; $56,000 penalty.
Judicially ordered consent decree;
$225,000 penalty.
Failure to meet construction Judicially ordered consent decree
schedule in administrative order, required correction of CSO overflow
structure; $17,500 penalty.
E-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Civil Judicial Actions Taken by EPA Under the National Municipal Policy—Continued
Region State Case Name/City Name
CSO Violation
Outcome
IL
Paris
IN Boonville
IN Hammond
IN Madison
Ml Wayne County
OH Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer
District
OH Portsmouth
CSOs causing water quality
problems.
CSO separation, testing, and first flush
treatment; $20,000 penalty.
Wet weather untreated discharge Judicially ordered 1987 consent decree
from CSOs; dry weather required City to adequately maintain
overflows. the CSS and improve plant operations;
$26,000 penalty.
Violation of judicially ordered
consent decree; dry weather
CSOs.
CSOs, inadequate O&M, and
effluent limit violations.
Judicially ordered consent decree
required implementation of plan to
eliminate CSOs and dry weather
overflows; $1,272,604 penalty.
Judicially ordered consent decree
required development of CSO
management plan; $30,000 penalty.
CSOs contributing to public Judicially ordered 1994 consent decree;
health advisories against $413,000 penalty.
swimming and nutrient loadings
stimulate plant and algae growth
in downstream water bodies
including Lake Erie,
Unauthorized dry weather
discharges from CSOs.
CSOs causing water quality
standards exceedances in the
Scioto and Ohio Rivers.
Judicially ordered consent decree;
$750,000 penalty.
Judicially ordered 1i92 consent decree;
$32,000 penalty.
-------
Appendix E
Other Civil Judicial Actions Taken by EPA Prior to 1994
Region State Case Name/City Name
CSO Violation
Outcome
1 MA Fall River
1 MA Fall River
1 MA Gloucester
1 MA Swampscott
Unauthorized CSO discharges. Administrative order, filed 1987.
Unauthorized CSO discharges. Administrative order, filed 1989.
Failure to complete CSO study Consent Decree (filed 11730/88).
and treatment plan as required
by administrative order.
Failure to construct a secondary Judicial enforcement action filed 5/5/88
facility; failure to meet requiring completion of CSO analysis
construction schedule; and development of a schedule for
exceedance of effluent limits. construction of CSO facilities.
1 ME Portland
1 NH Portsmouth
2 NY Niagara Falls
Unauthorized CSO discharges.
NY Poughkeepsie
NY Utica
Administrative consent order for CSO
abatement schedule.
Unauthorized CSO discharges. Consent decree required LTCP,
Dry weather overflows;
inadequate O&M of CSS.
Dry weather overflows;
discharging raw sewage into
Hudson River.
Violation of effluent limits for
BOD and TSS; dry weather
overflows; O&M violations.
Consent decree (issued 3/13/87)
required City to eliminate all dry
weather overflows and submit final
plans for repairs necessary to the CSS.
Consent decree (signed 3/31/88)
required City to eliminate all dry
weather overflows; $55,000 penalty.
Consent Decree (filed 6/2/77) required
City to eliminate dry weather overflows
and conduct an SSES; $5,000 penalty.
OH Bedford
CSOs exceeding discharge limits; Consent Decree (filed i/30/85) required
inflow and infiltration the City to conduct a CSO facility study
deficiencies In collection system, and Implement a plan for appropriate
treatment of CSOs; $27,500 penalty.
5
10
OH Wellston
Ml Menomlnee
WA Central ia
CSO discharges due to improper Consent Decree (filed 10/13/87).
O&M; unpermitted bypass.
Unauthorized CSO discharges. Consent Decree (filed 4/21/88).
Infiltration and inflow into Consent Decree (filed 9/28/88).
collection and treatment
systems; inadequate O&M.
E-3
-------
Appendix F
Data Base Documentation
-------
-------
Appendix F
Data Base Documentation
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this appendix is to document the onsite data collection effort for the CSO Report to Congress. The goal was to collect
as much information on CSO communities as was available at the state and regional NPDES authorities(see Chapter 3 of this report
for overall report methodology) .Teams were deployed to review NPDES authority files and to conduct introductory interviews with
the state CSO coordinator, a representative from enforcement, and a representative from water quality standards.The data collection
strategy focused on obtaining information necessary to comply with the requirements in the 2001 CSO Report to Congress. Data
emphasized were the facility name, NPDES permit number, number of CSO outfalls, permit requirements for documentation of the
NMC and development of an LTCR and implementation of the NMC and LTCR Other data, such as population and service area
demographics, collection system characteristics, type of CSO controls being implemented, etc. were recorded as available during the
file reviews. After collection, all data were processed into a relational Data Collection System (DCS) that serves as the basis for a
comprehensive national database for the CSO program (currently under development).
The following sections of this appendix further describe the data collection effort:
• Section 2.0 documents the data collection and data entry processes.
• Section 3.0 describes the relational data base structure and content (i.e., data elements).
• Section 4.0 explains the QA/QC process to ensure data quality and completeness.
2.0 Data Collection
The data collection effort consisted of onsite NPDES authority interviews and file reviews. EPA data collection teams visited permitting
authorities for nearly 90 percent of the CSO communities in the nation. During these visits, CSO coordinators and enforcement and
water quality standards representatives were interviewed to characterize each state's approach and perspective towards
implementing the CSO Control Policy. Following the interviews, collection teams reviewed permits and related files for each of the
NPDES authority's CSO permittees.
Teams used two types of data collection forms to guide staff interviews and record file data. The first form was developed to facilitate
discussions with the state CSO coordinator, a state water quality standards representative, and a state enforcement representative. A
second form was developed to capture data collected during the file review for each CSO permit. The interview and data collection
orms are included as Appendix F-1. Upon leaving the site, forms were processed, information was entered into the DCS (further
discussed in Section 3 of this appendix), and copies were then filed for future reference. Details about the data collection teams,
onsite interviews, and file review processes are described in the sections following.
2.1 Col lection Teams
Collection teams consisted of a team leader and one to three team members. The team leader's responsibilities included
coordinating site visits, serving as advisor to the data collection team, developing state fact sheets, and reporting on state programs,
protocols, and findings. Team leaders were generally engineers who were well-versed in wastewater engineering; planning and
technologies; CSO controls and the CSO Control Policy; and overall federal, state, and local roles in the NPDES permitting process.
A one-day training session for all data collection team members included an overview of the CSO Control Policy, explanation of CSO
systems and control technologies, and mock training exercises. The exercises consisted of reviewing information that would typically
be found onsite and completing sample data collection forms. Team members were able to interact and pose questions to aid in
understanding the collection materials as well as CSO concepts and terminology. Team member responses and rationale were
reviewed/critiqued at the end of the class. Feedback and further direction was provided. Data collection forms were revised based on
feedback from the trainees.
F-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
2.2 Site Visits
2.2.1 Interviews
Collection teams requested interviews with the CSO coordinator and representatives from enforcement and water quality standards.
The inter views served to establish an understanding of how states implemented the CSO Control Policy within the context of existing
programs.
The state CSO coordinators served as the central point of contact, and acquainted the teams with state protocols and the types of
information that might be available during the file review. The CSO coordinators were asked to estimate the number of communities
with NMC or LTCP permit requirements; the number of NMC documents or LTCPs that have been received; and the number of these
documents that had been approved to date. Other state CSO requirements, reporting and protocols were also discussed. This
interview was generally conducted prior to or upon arrival at the site, and provided insight in to subsequent interactions with the
enforcement and water quality standards staff in the area of CSO control.
State enforcement staff were interviewed to determine the state's approach for enforcing the CSO Control Policy, interaction with the
regions on enforcement, primary types of enforcement actions taken for CSO-related permits, and any specific enforcement actions
taken to date primarily because of CSOs. Water quality standards representatives were interviewed to understand the state's approach
to considering CSO-impacted waters in relation to water quality standards reviews and revisions.
2.2.2 NPDES File Reviews
The file review process followed the introductory interview. Team members reviewed each CSO permit. The amount of time spent for
review and data compilation ranged from 15 to 60 minutes per permit file. Types of documents considered in the file review process
included:
• NPDES files (individual and general permits and permit applications)
• Report files (NMC documentation, LTCPs, annual reports, etc.)
• Inspection reports (especially those discussing the collection system, CSO outfalls, or implementation of either the NMC or LTCP)
• Enforcement and compliance files
• Correspondence files
• State policy or regulation specifically targeting CSOs and/or wet-weather water quality standards
• Others (O&M reports discussing WWTP implementation of the NMC, engineering studies on theWWTP or collection system, and
watershed studies discussing CSO impacts on receiving water quality)
Team members recorded data and supplemental notes for the CSO permittee on the data collection form.
2.2.3 Data Collection Form
The data collection form was developed to simplify and standardize the data collection process. Form data elements were initially
based on data needs identified for this report and on types of data typically maintained in NPDES permits, permit applications, NMC
reports and LTCPs. The data collection form was first applied during a review of Maine's files. Adjustments to the form were made.
The revised form was re-evaluated during the onsite review of Illinois' files. Final adjustments were made and this refined form was
used for all subsequent reviews.The form design used proven form techniques to promote consistency. Subjective data elements
were eliminated or avoided, and a limited number of carefully considered responses to each question were provided as check boxes
or yes/no responses when possible. The form consists of 11 sections and is provided as Appendix F-1. Descriptions of each of the 11
sections follow.
FacilityInformation.!^ facility information section documents identifying characteristics for each permittee including facility name,
mailing and facility addresses, NPDES permit number, contact persons, type of permitted facility, and other permittee characterization.
Development and Evaluation of Alternatives.!^ development and evaluation of alternatives section captures information
regarding NMC and LTCP requirements and implementation. Team members were asked to determine whether each permittee was
required to implement the NMC, whether that requirement was established in a permit or some other type of enforceable action,
which controls were being implemented, and whether documentation had been submitted to the NPDES permitting authority.
Similar data were collected for LTCPs, along with the overall status of LTCP implementation and types of approaches taken.
Documented CSO controls completed apart from a formal LTCP requirement were also noted. When possible, data collected were
supplemented with narrative notes.
F-2
-------
Appendix F
Selection and Implementation ofControis.The selection and implementation of controls section collects data the characterizating
CSO controls implemented or being implemented. A look-up table of categorized, CSO controls technologies (further discussed in
section 3.2 of this appendix) was provided. Controls were broadly categorized as being either a source or in-system control. Source
controls keep storm water or pollutants out of the CSS; whereas in-system controls require modification of the CSS to treat combined
flow. Control implementation date and estimated capital costs were recorded where available. Control data was supplemented with
notes on control implementation issues (including types of controls considered, financial considerations, etc.).
Effectiveness of Structural Controls. The effectiveness of structural controls section contains monitoring data and/or pollutant
removal efficiencies for CSO control technologies. Data areas include pilot tests performed, pre-construction or post-construction
monitoring data collected, and ambient receiving water data compiled.
Collection System Information. The collection system information section contains data that characterizes entities served by the CSO
permit. An entity could be a town, region, or municipal district. Data elements include the physical service area, system attributes,
and demographic data on populations served.
Flow and Treatment Information. The flow and treatment information section contains data elements for average daily flow to the
WWTP, design and peak flow capacity, and additional CSO treatment types that might be unique to the permittee.
Discharges and Other Disposal Methods. The discharges and other disposal methods section includes the number of CSO permitted
outfall points, yearly dry weather overflows, and discharge points with effluent receiving full or partial treatment. The details of
specific outfalls, if available, are characterized in a later section.
System Characterization. The system characterization section contains data that describes the entire sewer system. Percentages of
the sewer network consisting of each type (combined or separate), as well as sewer length and service area (acreage) are the key data
elements. Where available, data reflecting changes in the system throughout time are recorded. CSO discharges to sensitive areas are
also characterized in this section.
Receiving Water Description. The receiving water description section contains lists each water body that receives discharge from
either the WWTP or CSO outfall. Data elements include the receiving water name, watershed, and data on whether or not a CSO-
related water quality standards review had been conducted.
Water Quality Data. The water quality data section records any water quality data being collected as part of a CSO study. If available,
documents reporting data for typical parameters were photocopied and attached to the data collection form.
Outfall Description. The outfall description section records information on each of the CSO outfalls, including location (both street
address and longitudinal/latitudinal coordinates, if available), number of annual CSO events, estimated annual CSO volume, and
whether the outfall is treated or untreated.
2.3 Data Entry [ "'"" ** ***"*****" " ***-•—*** ' "»*—" -•** • • "** -j
After data collection teams gathered the necessary f •=*?.» \ I
information during site visits, completed data collection | '''"•"-*"• ! j
forms were transmitted to the data management team. The j; Jlil"l;ll'M'"": I
data management team was comprised of a data team
leader, a data manager, and the data entry team. The data
manager and data entry team reviewed the collection form,
resolvedissues of missing or indecipherable information,
and performed data entry and data QA/QC.
The data manager evaluated all incoming data forms for
completeness and consistency. Prior to form review, the
data manager met with the data collection team leader to
gain a better understanding of the NPDES authority's
protocols for implementing the CSO policy, and to ensure
that permittees in different states were characterized
similarly. All data collection forms were reviewed and
annotated to facilitate data entry. Incomplete and
Figure F-1. DCS Data Entry Form
questionable field entries were flagged for follow up with the data team leader, the state, or the region. After this review and follow-
up procedure was completed, the data collection forms were initialed by the data manager and distributed to a data entry team (see
section 3 of this appendix). The data entry team used an electronic data entry form designed in Microsoft Access to transfer
information from the collection forms into the DCS. Figure F-1 shows a screen capture of the Access data entry form. Data entry staff
completed this process by initialing and placing a copy of the form in a filing system dedicated for this purpose. Additional QA/QC
steps taken with regard to the data are described in Section 4 of this appendix.
F-3
-------
eport to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
3.0 CSO Report to Congress Data Collection System
Microsoft Access 2000 was used to develop the CSO Report to Congress DCS to facilitate logging data gathered from NPDES
authority file reviews into an electronic, relationally-linked, queriable, flexible platform. Flexibility was considered essential to
accommodate new demands as results of the data collection effort were tested, and to allow future expansion and data transfer. Data
contained in the DCS will serve as the basis for a more comprehensive, national relational data base system for the CSO program.
The primary structure of the DCS is described in detail in Section 3.1 of this appendix. Next, Section 3.2, discusses the peripheral
components of the DCS that were added to facilitate data entry, aid in data queries, and to assist with QA/QC.
3.1 Primary Structure of the DCS
The DCS consists of 36 linked tables whose
organizational structures are loosely based upon the
outline established in the CSO Data Collection Form.
Figure F-2 diagrams the tables, relationships, and key
fields of the DCS.
Tables are named according to the data contained
(from the data collection form) and their relationship to
the NPDES permit number (a unique identifier for
permits). For example, if a table contains data that has a
one-to-one relationship with the NPDES permit number
(a single entry for each permittee), "(1)"follows the
table name. If a table contains information having a
one-to-many relationship with the NPDES permit
number (several entries for each permittee), "(Many)" is
appended to the table name. Descriptions for each
table (including field names, formats, and descriptions)
are listed in the following sections. The title for each
Figure F-2. DCS Tables, Relationships and Key Fields
section corresponds to the related subdivision on the data collection form. As displayed in this figure, fields highlighted in bold text
are primary key fields, which contain values that uniquely identify the data. Fields formatted in italic text are linked to primary key
fields of another table. Field descriptions followed by "(Lookup)" restrict data entries to a predefined list from a lookup table. Lookup
tables are discussed section 3.2 of this appendix.
3.1.1 Facility Information
"Facility Information (1)" is the main table from which all other tables are referenced. It contains basic information about each
permittee such as NPDES number, facility name, location, and contact information.The primary key field for this table is the NPDES
permit number, which is linked to all of the tables in DCS. This link ensures that data relating to each permittee can be appropriately
identified. Table attributes of'Facility Information (1)"are listed in Table F-1.
3.1.2 Development and Evaluation of Alternatives
Table"Dev & Eval of Altrntvs (1)"contains data regarding NMC and LTCP implementation. NPDES permit number is the primary key
field. Table F-2 attributes are detailed in Table F-2.
Demonstrated implementation of the NMC is captured in a separate table entitled "NMC Implemented (Many)" The primary key field
for this table (and all other tables having a one-to-many relationship) is ID: a unique, sequential number generated by Access. By
formatting this table with a one-to-many relationship, each permittee can be associated with several NMCs, as demonstrated in Table
F-3.
Each entry in this table has a corresponding NPDES permit number and a selection number that describes the NMC (1-9).To indicate
which of the NMCs were implemented, either the applicable NMC corresponding numbers, or one of the additional options, were
selected. Additional options include"AII 9 controls have been implemented"(111),"None of the NMC have been implemented" (999),
and "Cannot determine" (888). Table attributes of "NMC Implemented (Many)" are listed in Table F-4.
F-4
-------
Appendix F
Table F-1: Facility Attributes of Facility Information (1)
^^^H Field Name
NPDES
Facility name
Abbrev
State (Fac)
City (Fac)
Zip (Fac)
Street (Fac)
City (Mail)
State (Mail)
Zip (Mail)
Street (Mail)
County
Contact Person
Title
Phone number
Fax number
Permit Issue
Perm its Exp
Permit Eff
Permittee Type
Website
Total Pop
Trtmnt Fac
Status
Category
Format
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Date/Time
Date/Time
Date/Time
Number
Text
Number
Text
Text
Text
Description ^^^^H
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Name of the facility, town, or sanitary authority holding the NPDES
permit
Common abbreviation of the permittee's name
State where the facility Is located (Lookup)
City where the facility is located
Zip code for the facility
Address for the facility
City in the facility's mailing address
State in the facility's mailing address (Lookup)
Zip code in the facility's mailing address
Mailing address
County in which the facility is located
Cognizant official for the facility
Title of cognizant official
Contact number for cognizant official
Fax number for cognizant official
NPDES permit issuance date
NPDES permit expiration date
NPDES permit effective date
The permittee may be classified as owning both a WWTP and collection
system (WWTP), or a satellite collection system only (SCS). (Lookup)
Permittee's website
Population served by the permittee
Facility that treats sanitary flow if the permittee is a satellite collection
system
A flag signaling that the permittee has completely separated (S) or
eliminated (E) its discharge points
The permittee may be classified as a MAJOR or MINOR depending on
WWTP flow (classification from EPA's PES data base)
F-5
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table F-2: "Dei/ & Eval ofAltrntvs (1)"
^^^H Field Name
NPDES
ReqforNMC?
NMC enf or per?
NMC enf dscrptn
NMC Docu Submitted
NMC sub date
Req to develop LTCP?
LTCP Req date
LTCP enf or per
LTCP enf descrptn
LTCP Submitted to State?
LTCP submit date
LTCP approved by State
LTCP a ppr date
LTCP pred compl w/ WQS
LTCP imp Initiated?
LTCP init Date
LTCP Imp complete?
LTCP compl date
Coll Sys Mdl Dvlpd
LTCP approach
Target Date for LTCP Imp
Capital Cost of LTCP
controls
Current Trtmnt%
CSO cntrls outside LTCP?
NMC im pets In LTCP?
Table Attributes
Format
Text
Number
Number
Text
Number
Date/Time
Number
Date/Time
Number
Text
Number
Date/Time
Number
Date/Time
Number
Number
Date/Time
Number
Date/Time
Number
Number
Date/Time
Number
Number
Number
Number
Description ^H
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Is the permittee required to Implement the NMC? (Lookup)
If so, are the NMC being required via and ENFORCEABLE mechanism
or a PERMIT? (Lookup)
Description of the enforceable mechanism, if applicable
Has NMC documentation been submitted to NPDES authority?
(Lookup)
Date NMC documentation was submitted to NPDES authority
Is the permittee required to develop a LTCP? (Lookup)
Date the LTCP Is required to be submitted to the NPDES authority
Is the LTCP being required via an ENFORCEABLE mechanism or a
PERMIT? (Lookup)
Description of the enforceable mechanism, if applicable
Has the LTCP been submitted to the NPDES authority? (Lookup)
Date LTCP was submitted to NPDES authority
Has the LTCP been approved by the NPDES authority? (Lookup)
Date the LTCP was approved by the NPDES authority
Does the LTCP predict compliance with current water quality
standards? (Lookup)
Has LTCP implementation begun? (Lookup)
Date LTCP implementation began
Has the permittee completed LTCP Implementation? (Lookup)
Date LTCP implementation was completed
Has the permittee developed a collection system model? (Lookup)
The LTCP approach may be either 1) PRESUMPTION or 2)
DEMONSTRATION. (Lookup)
Target date for completing LTCP implementation
Capital cost of implementing all controls outlined in LTCP
% Volume of combined sewage in collection system which is
captured for treatment
Has the community implemented CSO controls outside of a LTCP?
(Lookup)
Were the impacts of the NMC considered in the LTCP? (Lookup)
F-6
-------
Appendix F
Table F-3: Example of One-to-Many Data Relationship
ID NPDES Selection Description
40 ST0000001
41 STQQQGQQ1
42 ST0000001
1 Proper O&M programs for the sewer system and the CSOs
2 Maximum use of the collection system for storage
4 Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment
Table F-4: "NMC Implemented (Many)"Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID
NPDES
Selection #
AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
Text The National Pol I utant Discharge Eli m i nation System permit nu mber
Number NMC that were implemented by the permittee. (Lookup)
LTCP methodology (presumption or demonstration) data is maintained separately from the table"Dev & Eval of Altrntvs (1)'.'
Permittees choosing the presumption approach are noted as having one of three primary goals (as defined in EPA's LTCP Guidance).
"Presumption Approach (1)" contains information on whether an LTCP is based on average number of overflows, a 85 percent capture
by volume or an 85 percent reduction in the pollutant mass. The demonstration approach data includes whether the permittee has
collected baseline water quality data, developed a systems model, and demonstrated compliance with effluent limitations. This data
is contained in "Demonstration Approach (1)"table. The attributes for these tables are listed in Tables F-5 and F-6, respectively.
Table F-5: "Presumption Approach (1)"Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID
NPDES
Selection #
AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Number NMC that were implemented by the permittee. (Lookup)
Table F-6: "Demonstration Approach (1)"Table Attributes
Field Name
NPDES
Cllctd bslne rec'v wtr dta?
Prfmd Rc'v wtr mdlng?
Dmstrte compl w/ eff Imts?
Format Description
Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Number H as the permittee col lected data tor base 11 ne cond iti ons 1 n the
receiving waters? (Lookup)
Number Has the permittee performed receiving water modeling? (Lookup)
Number Has the permittee demonstrated compliance with effluent limits?
(Lookup)
F-7
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
3.1.3
Selection and Implementation of Controls
Table "Slctn & Imp of Controls (Many)" includes data on CSO control technologies that were or are being implemented. The Number
field in this table relates to a "lookup table:" a predefined list of common control technologies that can be referenced by number
(similar to the way that the NMC are referenced by a unique number). Lookup tables are described in more detail in Section 3.2 of
this appendix. "Slctn & Imp of Controls (Many)" also lists estimated completion dates and capital costs for each control. Table
attributes are detailed in Table F-7.
Table F-7: "Slctn & Imp of Controls (Many) "Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
NPDES Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Type of Control Number CSO controls may be either source or in-system controls. (Lookup)
Number Text A LTI predefined list of common CSO control technologies. (Lookup)
Date Date/Time Date the selected controls were implemented
Cost N umber Estimated capital cost of specified CSO controls
3.1.4
Effectiveness of Structural Controls
Table "Effectiveness of Controls (1)"contains data regarding pilot tests and monitoring data for structural controls that have been
implemented. The primary key field for this table is the NPDES permit number. Table attributes are listed in Table F-8.
Table F-8: "Effectiveness of Controls (1)" Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
NPDES Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Type of Control Number CSO controls may be either source or in-system controls. (Lookup)
Number Text A LTI predefined list of common CSO control technologies. (Lookup)
Date Date/Time Date the selected controls were implemented
Cost Number Estimated capital cost of specified CSO controls
F-8
-------
Appendix F
Data for ambient receiving water monitoring that was available at the NPDES authority is included in the"Ambnt Rec'v Water Data
Cllctn (1)" table. If a list of specific monitored parameters was available, the data was captured separately in"Ambnt Rec'v Wtr
Parameters (Many)"table. Table attributes are shown in Tables F-9 and F-10, respectively.
Table F-9: "Ambnt Rec'v Wtr Data Cllctn (l)"Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
NPDES Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Type of Control Number CSO controls may be either source or in-system controls. (Lookup)
Number Text A LTI predefined list of common CSO control technologies. (Lookup)
Date Date/Time Date the selected controls were implemented
Cost Number Estimated capital cost of specified CSO controls
Table F-W: "Abnt Rec'v Wtr Parameters (Many)"Table Attributes
Field Format Description
Name
ID
NPDES
Prmtr
AutoNumber
Text
Text
A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
The ambient receiving water parameter that was studied
3.1.5
Collection System Information
CSO permittees might treat wastewater, or own or maintain collection systems for several towns, regions, or municipal districts. Data
about these "entities" such as population and collection system type (combined or separate) are stored in the"Collection System
Information (Many)"table.Table attributes are listed in Table F-11.
Table F-11: "Collection System Information (Many)"Table Attributes
Field Format Description
Name
ID
NPDES
Prmtr
AutoNumber
Text
Text
A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
The ambient receiving water parameter that was studied
F-9
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
3.1.6
Flow and Treatment Information
WWTP capacity and average daily flow are stored in the "Flow and Treatment Information (1)" table. When available, data includes
design and peak flow capacities. Table attributes are listed in Table F-12.
Table F-12: "Flow and Treatment Information (1) " Table Attributes
Field Name
NPDES
Ann Avg Dly Flw (MGD)
Prmry Trtmnt Cpcty (MGD)
Scndry Trtmnt Cpcty (MGD}
Pk Flw Prmry Trtmnt Cpcty (MGD)
Pf Flw Scndry Trtmnt Cpcty (MGD)
CSO bypasses?
Partly Trtd Eff & Trtd Flws Crnbnd?
Format Description
Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
number
Number Annual average daily flow
Number Design primary treatment capacity
Number Design secondary treatment capacity
Number Peak flow primary treatment capacity
Number Peak flow secondary treatment capacity
Number Are CSO-related bypasses authorized? (Lookup)
Number Are partially treated effluents combined with fully treated
f laws prior to discharge? (Lookup)
When available, additional data for CSO treatment at (or before) the WWTP (other than secondary treatment) was collected. Common
treatment types include lagoons, storm water retention basins, and swirl concentrators. These data are stored in the "Other Treatment
Types (Many)" table. This table was established with a one-to-many relationship because a particular permittee might utilize several
different treatment technologies. Table attributes for "Other Treatment Types (Many)" are listed in Table F-13.
Table F-13: "Other Treatment Types (Many)"Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
NPDES Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Type Text Alternative or additional CSO treatment (other than primary or
secondary)
Capacity (MGD) N urn ber Capacity provided by the alternative treatment
3.1.7
Discharges and Other Disposal Methods
Table "Dischrgs& Othr Displ Mthds (1)"contains data for permitted CSO outfalls, emergency overflow points, and dry weather
overflows to waters of the U.S. The primary key field is NPDES number, which associates this information with other details about
each permittee. See Table F-14 for the structure of "Dischrgs & Othr Displ Mthds (1)" table.
F-10
-------
Appendix F
Table F- 7 4: "Dischrgs & Othr Displ Mthds (1) " Table A ttributes
Field Name
NPDES
I Dschg Pnts Ree'vScndry
Trtmt
# Dschg Pnts Rec'v Prmry
Trtmt
f OrgnlCSP Points
# Crrnt CSO Points
CSO Pnts Chng Date
# Emergency Ovrflws
Avg DWQ/yr
Format
Text
Number
Number
Number
Number
Date/Time
Number
Number
Description
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
number
Number of discharge points with effluent receiving full (secondary)
treatment
Number of discharge points with effluent receiving partial
(secondary) treatment ONLY
Original number of CSO permitted outfall points
Current number of CSO permitted outfall points
Date CURRENT number of CSO points was/is effective
Number of constructed emergency overflows prior to the WWTP
Average number of dry weather overflows per year
3.1.8
System Characterization
The "System Characterization (1)" table
contains data about the make-up of the
collection system. The percentage of the
collection system consisting of combined
sewers, the length of the pipes in the
combined sewer system, and the total
number of acres served by the collection
system as a whole are all included. The
properties of "System Characterization (1)"
are shown in Table F-15.
Table F-15: "System Characterization (l)"Table Attributes
Field Name
NPDES
% Grgnl Crnbnd
% Crrnt Cmbnd
Dstnc Orgnl Cmbnd
Orgnl cb units
Dstnc Crrnt Cmbnd
Crrnt cb units
Ttl Length Srvd
Ttl Length Units
Acres Orgnl Cmbnd
Acres Crrnt Cmbnd
% Orgnl Sprt
% Crrnt Sprt
Dstnc Orgnl Sprt
Orgnl sp units
Dstnc Crrnt Sprt
Crrnt sp units
Acres Orgnl Sprt
Acres Crrnt Sprt
Ttl ACTS Srvd
Senstv Areas?
Format
Text
Number
Number
Number
Text
Number
Text
Number
Text
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Text
Number
Text
Number
Number
Number
Number
Description
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Original percentage of the collections system that was comprised of
combined sewers
Current percentage of the collection system that is comprised of
combined sewers
Original combined collection system length
Unit for the original CSS length measurement
Current combined collection system length
Unit for the current CSS length measurement
Total (CSS+SSS) collection system length
Units for the total collection system length measurement
Acres originally served by the combined collection system
Acres currently served by the combined collections system
Original percentage of the collection system that was comprised of
separate sanitary sewers
Current percentage of the collection system that is comprised of separate
sanitary sewers
Original separate sanitary system length
Unit for the original SSS length measurement
Current separate sanitary system length
Unit for the current SSS length measurement
Acres originally served by the separate sanitary collection system
Acres currently served by the separate sanitary collection system
Total acres served by the collection system
Are there any CSO discharges to sensitive areas? (Lookup)
F-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
If a permittee has CSO discharges to sensitive areas, relevant data are located in the "Sensitive Areas (Many)"Table. The table
references a lookup table: a pre-defined list of common sensitive areas. Lookup tables are described in detail in Section 3.2 of this
appendix. Any receiving water sensitive area designations that are not on the pre-defined list must be recorded in the"0ther
Sensitive Areas (Many)" table. Table attributes are listed in Tables F-16 and F-17, respectively.
Table F- 7 6: "Sensitive Areas (Many) " Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
NPDES Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Sensitive Areas Number A predefined list of sensitive area classifications for the waterbody.
(Lookup)
Table F-17: "Other Sensitive Areas (Many)"Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
NPDES Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Other Sensitive Text Receiving water sensitive area categories that were not on LTCP
Area predefined list
3.1.9
Receiving Water Description
Water bodies that receive discharge from either the WWTP or CSO outfalls are listed in the "Receiving Water Description (Many)"
table. Data captured in this table include the watershed effected by the discharge and whether a CSO water quality standards review
has been completed. Table attributes are listed in Table F-18.
Table F-18: "Receiving Water Description (Many)"Table Attributes
Field Name
Num
NPDES
Receiving Water
Watershed
CSO WQS Review Complete?
Format Description
AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
number
Text Receiving waters for the WWTP discharge and CSO discharge
points
Text Watershed i nfI uenced by the perm ittee's discharges
Number Has a CSO-related water quality standards review been
performed for the receiving water? (Lookup)
F-12
-------
Appendix F
3.7.70
Water Quality Data
Where available from the NPDES authority, wet weather monitoring data were recorded in the"Water Quality Data (Many)"table. The
most commonly measured water quality parameters are listed. Other water quality parameters monitored were recorded in the
"Other WQ Parameters (Many)'.' To allow maximum flexibility, both of these tables were formatted with a one-to-many relationship.
Table attributes are listed in Tables F-19 and F-20, respectively.
Table F-19: "Water Quality Data (Many)"Table Attributes
Field Name
ID
NPDES
Rec Water
BOD
BOD units
CBOD
CBOD units
DO (mg/L)
TSS
TSS units
Fecal (MPN/100ml_)
E.Coii(MPN/100mL)
Enterrococci (MPN/100ml_)
Format
AutoNumber
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Description
A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
number
Receiving waters on which wet weather or CSO studies were
performed
Measured BOD walue
Units of BOD measurement
Measured CBOD value
Units of CBOD measurement
Measured DO value
Measured TSS value
Units of TSS measurement
Measured fecal coliform value
Measured E. Coli value
Measured enterroccoci value
Table F-20: "Other WQ Parameters (Many)"Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
NPDES Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Waterbody Text Waterbody for which water quality data was collected
Other Parameter Text Water quality parameter studied that was not on LTI predefi ned list
Unit Text Units for the water quality parameter
Val ue Text Measured val ue for the water quality parameter
3.1.11
Outfall Description
Outfall data is maintained in two tables: one that lists outfall locations (longitude, latitude, and street addresses, if available), and
another that contains CSO discharge characteristics (number of annual CSO events, average annual discharge volume). Data is
recorded for multiple outfalls and years. To accommodate these variables, the tables"0utfall Location (Many)" and "Outfall
Characteristics (Many)" both have one-to-many relationships. An NPDES number and a permittee assigned outfall number identify
each outfall. Table attributes are listed in Tables F-21 and F-22, respectively.
F-13
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table F-21: "Outfall Location (Many)"Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
NPDES Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Waterbody Text Waterbody for which water quality data was collected
Other Parameter Text Water qual ity parameter studied that was not on LTI predef i ned list
Unit Text Units for the water quality parameter
Value Text Measured val ue for the water qual ity parameter
Table F-22: "Outfall Characteristics (Many)"Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
NPDES Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Waterbody Text Waterbody for which water quality data was collected
Other Parameter Text Water qual ity parameter studied that was not on LTI predefined I ist
Unit Text Units for the water quality parameter
Value Text Measu red value for the water quality parameter
3.1.12
Notes
During the onsite NPDES authority file review, supplemental narratives were included to clarify implementation of the NMC and LTCR
to adequately describe types of controls implemented, and to provide necessary system characterization data. These supplemental
data are recorded in the"Notes (1)"tsable, the attributes of which are listed in Table F-23.
Table F-23: "Notes (1)"Table Attributes
Field Name Format Description
ID AutoNumber A unique sequential number generated by ACCESS
NPDES Text The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit number
Waterbody Text Waterbody for which water quality data was collected
Other Parameter Text Water qual ity parameter studied that was not on LTI predefined I ist
Unit Text Units for the water quality parameter
Value Text Measu red value for the water qual ity parameter
3.2 Additional Components of the DCS
Lookup tables simplify data entry, add a built-in level of quality control, and facilitate DCS queries by providing a predefined list of
commonly used values for a user to choose from. These items can each be referenced by a unique numerical value. In the DCS,
lookup tables are used to provide Yes/No answers, a list of state abbreviations, lists of CSO control technologies and other information
that is generally more static or predefined. The following are the key lookup tables for the DCS.
F-14
-------
Appendix F
"Permittee Type (Lookup)" (Table F-24) was created for the Facility Information table. All CSO permittees fall into one of the following
two categories: Publicly Owned Treatment Works- POTW (WWTP) or satellite collection system (SCS).CSO permittees that operate a
POTW connected to a combined sewer area were categorized as WWTP, while permittees that only operate a combined sewer
collection system and transfer flow to a POTW were categorized as an SCS.
Table F-24: "Perm/tee Type (Lookup)"Table
Permittee Type Description
WWTP
SCS
Permittee owns a WWTP and a collection system
Permittee owns a satellite collection system ONLY
"Enf or Per (Lookup)" (Table F-25) was developed to describe NMC and LTCP implementation in the "Devand Eval of Altrntvs (1)"
table. During data collection, team members were required to complete fields noting how the NMC and LTCP were being required (or
not being required). If this could not be determined, a question mark was chosen. This methodology was continued throughout the
data entry process; however most of these uncertainties were resolved during the QA/QC process.
Table F-25: "Enf or Per (Lookup) " Table
Response Description
1 ENF The requirement is being implemented through an enforcement action
2 PER The requirement is being implemented through a permit
3 ? The requirement is being implemented through an unknown method
Table F-26: "NMC Implemented (Lookup)"Table
Selection Controls Implemented
1 Proper O&M programs for the sewer system and the CSOs
2 Max! m urn use of the col lection system for storage
3 Review of pretreatment requirements to minimize CSO impacts
4 Max! m ization of flow to the POTW for treatment
5 Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather
6 Control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs
7 Pollution Prevention
8 Public Notification
9 Monitoring
111 Al I 9 controls have been implemented
888 Cannot determine which controls have been implemented
999 No controls have been implemented
"NMC Implemented (Lookup)" (Table F-26) was developed for the "Devand Eval of Altrntvs (1)" table to allow only the selection
number to be recorded and stored in the DCS (the textual description could be relationally-linked and accessed via the lookup table).
F-15
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
"LTCP Approach (Lookup)" (Table F-27) and "Presumption (Lookup)" (Table F-28) were developed to describe LTCP development.
According to EPA's LTCP guidance document, permittees must use either a presumption or demonstration approach in developing
their LTCR If the presumption approach is chosen, implementation must satisfy one of three goals listed in the "Presumption
(Lookup)" table.
Table F-27: "LTCP Approach (Lookup)"Table
Approach Description
1 PRESUMPTION
2 DEMONSTRATION
"Presumption approach" as defined by US EPA's LTCP guidance document
"Demonstration approach" as defined by US EPA's LTCP guidance document
Table F-28: "Presumption (Lookup)"Table
1 Limit # overflow events per year
2 Captu re at least 86% wet weather eombi ned sewage volume per year
3 Eliminate or reduce mass of pollutants to 85% capture requirement
"Selection and Implementation of Controls (Many)" stores the control ID from a list of commonly used CSO control technologies:
"Source N In System Controls (Lookup)" (Table F-30). Controls fall under one of two categories: source or in-system ("Control Types
(Lookup)" in Table F-29).
Table F-29: "Control Types (Lookup)"Table
Control Description
Type
3 Source Source controls prevent storm water from entering the collection system
4 In System In System controls require some type of modification to the collection system
F-16
-------
Appendix F
Table F-30: "Source N In System (Lookup)" fable
^^^H Number
1.1
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.10
2.11
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.S
2.6
2.1
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.2
Description Number
Animal waste removal
Solid waste reduction and recycling
Storm drain stenciling
Street sweeping/cleaning
Water conservation
Catch basin cleaning
Commercial/industrial pollution
prevention
Enforcement of litter laws
Fertilizer and pesticide management
Industrial pretreatment
Public education programs
Sediment and erosion control
Snow removal and deicing control
Area drain, foundation drain, and
roof leader disconnection
Stormwater infiltration sumps
Constructed wetlands
Basement sump pump redirection
Flow restrictions and catch basin
inlet modification
Flow slipping
Grassed swales and infiltration
trenches (new construction)
Infiltration basins (new construction)
On-street surface storage
Porous pavements
Storm water detention basins
Baffles (only certain locations)
Catch basin hoods
4.20
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.1
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.1
6.10
6.11
6.2
6.3
6.4
Description ^^^^H
Outfall Elimination
Combined sewer flushing
Tidegates
Flow diwersion
Flow throttling devices
Hydroslide™ flow regulator
Infiltration/inflow control
Inflatable dams
Abandoned pipelines
Storage tunnels and conduits
Upgraded pump station capacity
Upgraded WWTP capacity
Catch basin storage tanks
Earthen basins
First flush tanks
In-receiving water flow balance
In-sewer storage
Lagoons
Concrete retention tanks
Closed concrete retention tanks
Abandoned primary facilities
Primary sedimentation
Swirl concentrators and vortex
separators
Carbon adsorption
Carrier-enhanced settling
Compressed media filters
F-17
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table F-30: "Source N In System (Lookup)" fable Continued
Number
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4,15
4.16
4,17
4.18
4,19
4.2
Description Number
Catch basin trash buckets
Containment booms and barrier
curtains
Continuous deflective separation
systems
Floating netting units
In-line netting
Skimmer vessels
Screens and trash racks
Air-regulated siphons
Manhole maintenance
Motor- or hydraulically operated
sluice gates
Polymer injection
Raal-time flow control
Sewer rehabilitation
Sewer separation (in limited areas)
Static flow control
Submerged catch basin outlets and
siphons
Turbo™ vortex valves
Variable flow control
Bending weirs
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
Description
Dissolved air flotation
Fine screens and microstralners
Flocculation (w/ chemical treatment
for removal at the WWTP)
Helical bend regulator/concentrator
High rate filtration
Biological aerated filters
Contact stabilization
Fluidized bed filtration
Rotating biological contactors
Treatment lagoons
Trickling filtration
Calcium hypochlorita
Chlorine gas
Chlorine dioxide
Ozone
Peracetlc add
Sodium hypochlorite (high rate
addition)
Ultraviolet radiation
Disinfection (unspecified type)
The "System Type (Lookup)" table (Table F-31) lists the three collection system types. This lookup table was used in conjunction with
the "Collection System Information (Many)" table.
fable F-31: "System Type (Lookup)"Table
System
Type
1 Combined
2 Separate
3 Mixed
Description
Collection system is comprised of combined sewers
Col lection system is comprised of sanitary sewers
Collection system is comprised of a combination of combined and sanitary sewers
F-18
-------
Appendix F
"Sensitive Areas (Lookup)" table (Table F-32) was developed to provide a list of the most common receiving water sensitive area
designations. If a permittee discharged to a sensitive area other than one given, the data entry team selected option #7 and then
described the classification in another table.
Table F-32: "Sensitive Areas (Lookup)"Table
Sensitive Areas
1 Outstanding National Resource Waters
2 National Marine Sanctuaries
3 Waters with threatened or endangered species
4 Primary contact recreation waters
5 Public drinking water intakes
6 Shellfish beds
7 Other
CSO outfall data was often given as an average of several years or a modeled estimate. "Outfall Data Type (Lookup)" (Table F-33) lists
the most common data types. All outfalls can be described as being either treated or untreated, as defined in "Trtd or Untrtd
(Lookup)" (Table F-34).
Table F-33: "Outfall Data Type (Lookup)"Table
Data Description
Type
1 AVG Signals that the data collected is an average of several values
2 AVG2 Signals that the data collected is a 2-year average
3 AVG3 Signals that the data collected is a 3-year average
4 EST Signals that the data collected is a modeled esti mate
5 ? The data type is unknown
Table F-34: "Trtd or Untrtd (Lookup)"Table
ID T & U Description
1 T CSO discharge point is treated
2 U CSO discharge point is untreated
F-19
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
4.0 Quality Assurance And Control Protocol For The Data Collection System
The data collection effort for the CSO Report to Congress involved several stages of QA/QC. As previously mentioned, the first stage
began onsite where team leaders reviewed completed data collection forms, clarified details as necessary, and initialed the forms
indicating approval. Upon transmittal of the forms from the data collection team to the data management team, the data manager
reviewed the forms for consistency and completeness. Data inconsistencies and anomalies were flagged by the data manager and
resolved based on discussions with the data team leader or, if necessary, the permitting authority. The data manager and data team
leader performed random reviews of the CSO permit files, in comparing data on the completed forms with the data entered in the
DCS. Data entry patterns causing errors were brought to the attention of data entry team members' in order to limit propagation of
erroneous data into the DCS. Several data base queries were developed to detect illogical responses, data entry errors, and missing
data. These queries were applied continuously as new data was entered into the DCS. Summaries of the data stored in the DCS were
sent to the state and regional CSO Coordinators for review and correction. Updates to the DCS were made based on state and
regional responses, and revised summaries were resent for a final verification. These QA/QC levels helped not only to verify data
accuracy, but also to ensure that different state CSO programs were characterized in a consistent manner.
This section focuses on the DCS QA/QC process, which consisted of both automated and manual components.
4.1 DCS Automated Queries
Automated queries for the DCS were developed to provide a level of efficiency in QA/QC that could not be accomplished through
manual review. Manual file review could be biased because no two auditors are alike and identical reviews from one data collection
form to the next could not be guaranteed. Automated queries would allow global DCS reviews without human review bias or error,
and could be performed very quickly, affording more time for the development and application of additional QA/QC queries.
Automated queries also provided a means to compare expected responses with actual query results to further screen out impossible
or improbable data.
The most basic type of automated query sorted and compared actual data with expected values in order to reveal errors (e.g., "null"
(i.e., missing) values - fields for which values were required but none recorded.) The following types of QA/QC steps applied used this
methodology:
• Typographic errors for data with specific numeric formats such as phone numbers and outfall latitudinal and
longitudinal coordinates were detected and corrected.
• NPDES numbers and permit issuance and expiration dates were screened for formatting errors and then matched
against a prior EPA data base of CSO permittees. Results were verified using PCS.
• Current and original outfall counts were compared-when the current number was greater than the original,
results were verified using the data collection forms and through contacting the state or regional CSO
Coordinator.
• Null values for NMC and LTCP requirements were detected and corrected.
• Any "?", blank, or N/A responses for LTCP and NMC implementation was verified with the data collection form
and, if necessary, the permitting authority.
A second type of automated query was developed based on logical response progressions to groups of questions. For example, if
"no" was recorded for the requirement to implement the NMC, then there should be no response recorded for a follow-up question.
The reverse is also true-if there was a requirement to implement the NMC then there must also be data listed describing
implementation.This method was used to filter nonsense or unlikely responses for permittees meeting the following conditions:
• Permittees that were required to implement NMC and complete LTCPs, but data did not indicate how that
requirement was executed (permit or enforcement action).
• Permittees that were required to implement the NMC, but did not have accompanying data describing which
controls were implemented. This query also helped reveal permittees incorrectly marked as not having a NMC
requirement.
• Communities that were not required to develop LTCPs, but were not recorded as having implemented CSO controls
outside of an LTCR
• Permittees that were required to develop an LTCP, but had null values for submittal status.
F-20
-------
Appendix F
• Permittees that have submitted LTCPs, but had null values for approval status.
• Communities that were required to develop an LTCP but not implement the NMC.
• Permittees that were defined as being Satellite Collection Systems (SCSs), but listed no facilities where sanitary flow
was being treated. This query also helped identify permittees that were incorrectly recorded as being SCS.
It is possible that permittees might meet any of the conditions listed above, however these situations were uncommon enough to
warrant confirmation with the data collection form, and if necessary, the NPDES permitting authority.
4.2 DCS Manual Queries
While automated queries provide a reliable method of QA/QC, many tasks were still be performed manually. One example of a data
type best verified via a manual assessment isWWTPflow information. For example, there are facilities with 1.0 mgd flow capacities
and facilities with 100 mgd capacities. It would be difficult to develop a query that could reliably conclude which of these entries
might be a typographic error. It is much simpler to visually compare service population statistics or average daily flow to design
treatment capacity in order to uncover inconsistencies. The technique used for these manual queries often started with a computer-
based query. Data was further analyzed by referring to the data collection forms and through conversations with state and regional
CSO Coordinators.The following types of data were best suited to manual verification:
• WWTP flow data
• CSO control technologies
• LTCP cost estimates
• Service populations
• Estimated annual CSO discharge volume
• Estimated number of annual CSO events
4.3 Data Validation/Verification
The DCS QA/QC process concluded with data validation and verification. Each state was provided with a narrative fact sheet
describing the state's permitting, enforcement and water quality standards programs as relative to CSOs. As is evident from the data
collection form (see Appendix F-1), more data was collected and input into the DCS (where available) than was utilized. For review
purposes, a summary of specific DCS data used in this first CSO Report to Congress was distributed with the fact sheets (see example
in Appendix F-2). The data summary contained the facility name, location , NPDES permit number, permit issuance and expiration
dates, NMC and LTCP requirements, LTCP submittal and approval details, and outfall counts for each CSO permittee.
Comments/corrections received from both the EPA region and the permitting authority were then incorporated into the DCS.
F-21
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Appendix F-1: Data Collection Forms
PART I: INTERVIEW WITH STATE CSO COORDINATOR
Contact Person:
Mailing Address:
Web Site:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Number of current permits requiring NMCs
Number of enforceable mechanisms requiring NMCs
Communities having implemented NMCs 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Communities submitting NMC documentation 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
NMC documentation reviewed/approved by State 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Permits requiring LTCP development 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Are there any CSO control requirements for communities too small to develop LTCPs? YES NO
If yes, communities implementing CSO controls outside LTCP 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Number of LTCPs received, to date:
Number of LTCPs approved, to date:
For completed LTCPs, is permittee in compliance with WQS? YES NO
Have WQS staff been involved in LTCP reviews? YES NO
Has a coordination team of CSO stakeholders been formed? YES NO
Number of requests for CSO-related water quality standards reviews:
WQ data collected sufficient to perform a standards review? YES NO
CSO-related enforcement actions undertaken by the State for failure to implement NMCs:
CSO-related enforcement actions undertaken by the State for failure to implement LTCPs:
Where are these enforcement actions documented?
Estimated dollars spent state-wide on CSO controls
Estimated needs for additional CSO controls
NOTES:
F-22
-------
PART la: INTERVIEW WITH STATE WQS COORDINATOR
Appendix F
Contact Person:
Mailing Address:
Web Site:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Have WQS staff been involved in the LTCP reviews?
YES
NO
To your knowledge, have any CSO communities requested WQS reviews as part of the LTCP process?
YES
NO
If so, have the communities submitted sufficient data to support a WQS review?
YES
NO
Have any WQS reviews for CSO receiving waters been initiated?
YES
NO
Have any communities received variances for CSO discharges?
YES
NO
Have any CSO-related WQS revisions been completed?
YES
NO
Does the State have a formal process for reviewing WQS for CSO-impacted waters?
YES NO
Are all CSO impacted waters on the States list of impaired waters?
YES NO
Are CSO impacted waters given special consideration during your triennial review process?
YES
NO
Post implementation of LTCPs, will the permit meet WQS?
YES
NO
NOTES:
F-23
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
PART Ib: INTERVIEW WITH STATE ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR
Contact Person:
Mailing Address:
Web Site:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Have enforcement staff been involved in the LTCP reviews?
YES
NO
What types of enforcement orders has the State used for CSO compliance?
Judicial Order
Administrative Order
Consent Decree
How many enforcement orders has the State issued related to NMC implementation?
Of these, how many were for noncompliance with a permit requirements?
How many were to keep NMC requirements out of the permit?
How many enforcement orders has the State issued related to LTCP development?
Of these, how many were for noncompliance with a permit requirements?
How many were to keep the requirement to develop an LTCP out of the permit?
How many enforcement orders has the State issued related to LTCP implementation?
Of these, how many were for noncompliance with a permit requirements?
How many were to keep LTCP implementation schedules out of the permit?
What is the role of the EPA Regional office in enforcement actions in the State?
NOTES:
F-24
-------
Appendix F
Onsite Review.
Office Review.
Data Entry.
PART II: CSO COMMUNITY/FACILITY INFORMATION
A. FACILITY INFORMATION
Facility Name:
Mailing Address:
Facility Address:
(NOT P.O. Box)
NPDES Permit #:
Iss. Date: / / Exp. Date: / /
Permittee Type (Circle One): WWTP and CSOs
Website:
Contact Person:
Title:
Telephone Number:
Abbreviation:
County:
Effect. Date: / /
CSO outfalls only
FAX:
B. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Requirement to implement nine minimum controls?
YES
NO
Being implemented through an ENFORCEABLE mechanism or a PERMIT?
Controls Implemented (Check all that apply)
n All 9 required controls have been implemented.
n 1. Proper O&M programs for the sewer system and the CSOs
n 2. Maximum use of the collection system for storage
n 3. Review of pretreatment requirements to minimize CSO impacts
n 4. Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment
n 5. Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather
n 6. Control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs
n 7. Pollution prevention
n 8. Public notification
n 9. Monitoring
n None of the NMC have been implemented.
n Cannot determine which controls have been implemented.
NMC Documentation submitted to State?
YES (Date: / /.
NO
*Use the following codes in the source column: (P) Permit; (A) Permit Application; (L) LTCP; (AR) Annual Report; (0) Other
F-25
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Requirement to develop LTCP?
IF YES - THEN COMPLETE
O
YES NO 9nsit€
Being implemented through an ENFORCEABLE mechanism or a U1TIC£
PERMIT? E P ' DC
LTCP submitted to the State?
LTCP approved by the State?
LTCP predict compliance with current WQS?
LTCP implementation initiated?
LTCP implementation completed?
Was a collection systems model developed?
YES (Date
YES (Date
YES (Date
YES (Date
Were the impacts of the NMCs considered in the LTCP?
: / / ) NO ?
: / / ) NO ?
YES NO ?
: / / ) NO ?
: / / ) NO ?
YES NO ?
YES NO ?
Current treatment (% of vol of combined sewage collected in the CSS captured for treatment):
LTCP APPROACH (Choose one and com]
PRESUMPTION
check one to describe approach:
limit # of overflow events per
year
capture at least 85% of wet
n weather combined sewage vol
per year
eliminate or reduce mass of
n pollutants equlvto 85% capture
OR
Has the community implemented CSO controls outside of a
SSES, TMDLs, Watershed Management Plans?)
3lete the appropriate sections)
DEMONSTRATIVE
answer each of the following questions;
Has the permittee collected
data for the baseline Y N ?
conditions In the rec waters?
Has the permittee performed
rec water modeling?
Has the permittee
demonstrated compliance Y N ?
with effluent limitations?
LTCP(e'g" YES NO ?
Revi
Revi
taEn
NOTES FOR SECTION B - NMC and LTCP or other Narrative Information on Implementation
;w
;w
:ry
*Use the following codes in the source column: (P) Permit; (A) Permit Application; (L) LTCP; (AR) Annual Report; (0) Other
F-26
-------
Appendix F
Onsite Review.
Office Review.
Data Entry.
C. SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROLS - Please refer to Appendix A, CSO Control
Technologies, and list controls according to their reference numbers.
Source controls
(controls to keep storm water or pollutants out of the CSS)
In-System controls
(controls that require modification of the CSS)
Target date for completing LTCP implementation:
Date Completed
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Date Completed
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Estimated capital cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
Estimated capital cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
Capital cost of implementing all controls outlined in LTCP: $
NOTES FOR SECTION C -Controls
Solutions/alternatives considered/financial hardships; possible case study elements - use reverse if needed
D. EFFECTIVENESS OF STROCTOEAL CONTROLS
Were any pilot tests conducted? YES NO ?
Is pre-construction monitoring data available? YES NO ?
Is post-construction monitoring data available? YES NO ?
Has the permittee documented pollutant removal efficiencies? YES NO ?
Has ambient receiving water data been collected? YES NO ?
If yes, what parameters were monitored?
W How frequently was data collected?
L,_ What were the beginning and ending sampling dates?
/ / / /
Is the data adequate to support a WQS review? YES NO ?
*Use the following codes in the source column: (P) Permit; (A) Permit Application; (L) LTCP; (AR) Annual Report; (0) Other
F-27
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Onsite Review.
Office Review.
Data Entry.
1. COLLECTION SYSTEM INFORMATION - Provide information on entities served by the WWTP (name, estimated
population, and whether the collection system is comprised of combined or separate sanitary sewers. If the entity is comprised of both
system types, list eaeh type separately)
ENTITY
POPULATION TYPE OF SYSTEM
TOTAL POPULATION SERVED:
If permitted for OUTFALLS ONLY (no treatment
fac.), list treatment facility and/or town receiving flow:
F. FLOW AND TREATMENT INFORMATION
Annual average daily flow (MGD otherwise LIST UNITS):
Design primary treatment capacity (MGD):
Design secondary treatment capacity (MAD):
Peak flow primary treatment capacity (MGD):
Peak flow secondary treatment capacity (MGD):
Other available treatment types (list treatment type and maximum daily flow allowed):
Are CSO-related bypasses authorized?
YES
NO
Are partially treated effluents combined with fully treated flows prior to discharge? YES
NO
G. DISCHARGES & OTHER DISPOSAL METHODS - This section is ONLY concerned with discharges to waters of
die U.S. List how many of eaeh of the following types of discharge points are wilhin the municipal collection system.
Original number of CSO PERMITTED outfall points:
Current number of CSO PERMITTED outfall points:
Date:
Number of constructed emergency overflows prior to the WWTP (e.g.
relief at pump stations):
Average number of dry weather overflows per year:
Number of discharge points with effluent receiving full (secondary)
treatment:
Number of discharge points with effluent receiving partial (primary)
treatment ONLY:
*Use the following codes in the source column: (P) Permit; (A) Permit Application; (L) LTCP; (AR) Annual Report; (0) Other
F-28
-------
Appendix F
Onsite Review.
Office Review.
Data Entry.
H, SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATION
SYSTEM TYPE % of Sewer Network
,_. , _, Original
Current
„ t_ _ Original
Current
TOTALS (if not broken out - length and acres):
Are there any CSO discharges to sensitive areas?
Sewer Length
(indicate units) Acres Served
YES NO ?
iu n Outstanding National Resource Waters
§ n National Marine Sanctuaries
o
j n Waters with threatened or endangered species
0.
i n Primary contact recreation waters, such as bathing beaches
S£ n Public drinking water intakes or their designated protection areas
0 n Shellfish beds
CO
JU n Other (specify):
NOTES FOR SECTION H - System Charaeteriiation
Note information on land-use, area rainfall/precipitation; special information about flu area/system
I. RECEIVING WATER DESCRIPTION - Complete this section for each receiving water that receives discharge from
either the WWTP or CSO point(s). Try to determine if these bodies are listed on flu 303(d) Hit as impaired waterbodies and why.
Receiving Water Name Name of Watei
shed CSO-related WQS review completed?
YES NO ?
YES NO ?
YES NO ?
YES NO ?
YES NO ?
J. WATER QUALITY DATA - Photocopy and attach data collected for wet weither or CSO studies.
n BOD/TBOD
n jqq
n no
n Fpral rnlifnrmq
n E rn|i
a MPtRls
a Other (specify)
*Use the following codes in the source column: (P) Permit; (A) Permit Application; (L) LTCP; (AR) Annual Report; (0) Other
F-29
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Data Collection Form Appendix A: CSO Control Technologies
Source Controls
1.0 Pollution Prevention
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
Animal waste removal
Catch basin cleaning
Commercial/industrial pollution prevention
Enforcement of litter laws
Fertilizer and pesticide management
Industrial pretreatment
Public education programs
Sediment and erosion control
Snow removal and deicing control
Solid waste reduction and recycling
Storm drain stenciling
Street sweeping/cleaning
Water conservation
2.0 Stormwater Inflow Reduction
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
Area drain, foundation drain, and roof leader disconnection
Basement sump pump redirection
Flow restrictions and catch basin inlet modification
Flow slipping
Grassed swales and infiltration trenches (new construction)
Infiltration basins (new construction)
On-street surface storage
Porous pavements
Stormwater detention basins
Stormwater infiltration sumps
In System Controls
3.0 Floatables Control
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
Baffles (only certain locations)
Catch basin hoods
Catch basin trash buckets
Containment booms and barrier curtains
Continuous deflective separation systems
Floating netting units
In-line netting
Skimmer vessels
Screens and trash racks
4.0 Collection System Optimization and Control
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
Air-regulated siphons
Bending weirs
Combined sewer flushing
Elastomeric tidegates
Flow diversion
Flow throttling devices
Hydroslide™ flow regulator
Infiltration/inflow control
Inflatable dams
Manhole maintenance
Motor- or hydraulically operated sluice gates
Polymer injection
Real-time flow control
Sewer rehabilitation
Sewer separation (in limited areas)
Static flow control
Submerged catch basin outlets and siphons
Turbo™ vortex valves
Variable flow control
Outfall Elimination
5.0 Storage (In-Line and Off-Line)
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
Abandoned pipelines
Catch basin storage tanks
Earthen basins
First flush tanks
In-receiving water flow balance
n-sewer storage
Lagoons
Open concrete retention tanks
Closed concrete retention tanks
Storage tunnels and conduits
Upgraded pump station capacity
Upgraded WWTP capacity
6.0 Physical Treatment
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
Abandoned primary facilities (see comment)
Carbon adsorption
Carrier-enhanced settling
Compressed media filters
Dissolved air flotation
Fine screens and microstrainers
Flocculation (w/ chemical treatment for removal at the WWTP)
Helical bend regulator/concentrator
High rate filtration
Primary sedimentation
Swirl concentrators and vortex separators
7.0 Biological Treatment
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
Biological aerated filters
Contact stabilization
Fluidized bed filtration
Rotating biological contactors
Treatment lagoons
Trickling filtration
8.0 Chemical Treatment
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
Calcium hypochlorite
Chlorine gas
Chlorine dioxide
Ozone
Peracetic acid
Sodium hypochlorite (high rate addition)
Ultraviolet radiation
F-30
-------
Appendix F
Appendix F-2: Examples DCS Summary Report
(for state and regional review and validation of data)
CSO PERMITTEE SUMMARY REPORT ATTACHED
Please review the attached summary of CSO permittees. Make corrections andannotations directly on the report. Limno-Tech, Inc. staff
(contractor support) will be contacting you to discuss your questions and changes.
The following is an explanation of the headers/fields in the report (FIELD - DESCRIPTION/NOTES):
1. Status - S (separated), E (eliminated), null/blank (active)
2. NPDES - NPDES Permit Number
3. Facility Name - Facility Name
4. City - Facility City
5. Permit Issue - Permit Issuance Date
6. Permit Exp. - Permit Expiration Date
7. Req for NMC? - Does this facility have a requirement to implement the NMC?
8. Req to Develop LTCP? - Does this facility have a requirement to develop an LTCP as defined in the CSO Control Policy
9. LTCP Permit or Enfor - If LTCP required (8=Yes), is it required in the NPDES permit or some other enforcable mechanism?
10. LTCP -Submitted? - Has the LTCP been submitted?
11. LTCP- State Approv.? - Has the LTCP been approved by the state (or permitting authority)?
12. LTCP - Approach - presumption or demonstration approach
13. CSO Controls Outside LTCP? - Have their been any CSO controls implemented outside of a LTCP (e.g., hydraulic upgrades,separation not
through LTCP, pre-Pol icy CSO planning and control efforts, etc.)
14. Org CSO Outfalls - Original number of CSO outfalls (original or previously documented)
15. Curr CSO Outfalls - Current number of CSO outfalls (as currently permitted)
F-31
-------
to Congress on of the CSO Control Policy
O to
oo =
O TO
T_ ^ CO CN1 LT3
C£
<
O
Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_
TO *~
oooooooooooooooooo
-. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,-1OO
= ^
O
Q- .ti o 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:
OE1*-
I— PC Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_Q_
Q
£ O oooooooooooooooooooooo
8 § S 8 5
LO g 5
S 5
i^/ '— ^^ '— "• ' ^~~. -^-~,
co m ^ S co ° '-
E - c
I §> i
E < I
1 p «
TO S' —
^: ir -K
O ^
Br
1 s
<
'o
E - c
I 8) i
E < I
31 P *
&fel
11
o o _3
>)>>>)>) O
O O O O oo
8 i
l£
1 $
Olym
E -S
oo O O
O) CO
O) CO CN1 T—
o
oo
o
i
F-32
-------
Appendix G
AMSA and CSO Partnership
CSO Survey Summary
-------
-------
Appendix G
Summary of AMSA and CSO Partnership Surveys
1.0 Purpose of the AMSA and CSO Partnership Surveys
The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) and the CSO Partnership conducted independent, confidential
surveys of their respective CSO community members during Spring 2001 to assess the status of CSO control programs. The
survey forms used by AMSA and the CSO Partnership are attached in Appendix G-1.The respondents to these surveys
represent regulated entities that own and operate combined sewer systems. AMSA members tend to be large- to medium-
sized communities. CSO Partnership members tend to be small- to medium-sized communities.
Twenty-three of the approximately 85 member communities responded to the CSO Partnership survey. Twenty-seven of
the estimated 58 AMSA CSO communities participated. While there was some overlap in the questions posed in each
survey, the results are, for the most part, survey-specific. Where applicable, EPA combined responses from both surveys and
summarized in this appendix.The number of respondents (n) is noted with each survey result.
2.0 Program Implementation Status
The AMSA and CSO Partnership surveys included questions pertaining to implementation status of CSO control programs.
Specifically, survey questions addressed the implementation of the CSO Control Policy with respect to the NMC,
development and implementation of LTCPs, and reduction of CSOs since 1994.
Seventy percent of respondents to both surveys indicated full implementation of the NMC (n=47).The CSO Partnership
also asked its members, "Of the NMC, which was the most effective in reducing CSO volume, frequency and/or duration?"
Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment and proper operation and regular maintenance programs were identified
as the most effective NMC. The ranked results from the CSO Partnership survey are shown in Table G-1.
Table G-1: Effectiveness of NMC in reducing CSO volume, frequency, and duration (n=18)
(CSO Partnership survey, 2001)
Rank NMC Description
1 Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment
2 Proper operation and regular maintenance programs
3 Review and Modify Pretreatment Requirements
3 Eli miration of CSOs du ring dry weather
5 Maximization of storage in the collection system
5 Control of solid and floatable material in CSOs
5 Pollution prevention programs to reduce contaminants in CSOs
8 Public notification
8 Monitoring to characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of controls
AMSA respondents were also surveyed about the status of LTCPs. Eighty percent of the AMSA respondents had developed
an LTCP (n=25). Of those with LTCPs, 48 percent had been approved. An additional AMSA question focused on the choice of
LTCP approach. Of the 21 AMSA respondents, 50 percent of the LTCPs were based upon the demonstration approach, 43
percent were based upon the presumption approach, and 19 percent were based on both approaches or were unspecified.
The extent to which LTCPs have been implemented among AMSA survey respondents is given in Table G-2.
G-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Table G-2: Status of LTCP Implementation
(AMSA survey, 2001)
Level of LTCP Implementation
0-25 percent
25-50 percent
50-75 percent
75-100 percent
Number of Respondents (n=22)
11
3
4
4
As can be seen in Table G-2, half of the AMSA respondents (n=22) have implemented at least 25 percent of CSO controls
outlined in an LTCP.
The CSO Partnership requested data on the implementation of CSO controls in its survey. Specifically, the survey asked,
"How does your NPDES authority require implementation of CSO controls?" Of the 22 respondents, 61 percent indicated
that implementation of controls was required through a permit, 23 percent were required through an enforceable order,
and 16 percent were required via other methods. In addition, the CSO Partnership asked its members about monitoring: if
they engage in regular, periodic flow monitoring of the combined sewer system. Fifty-nine percent of CSO Partnership
respondents conduct such monitoring (n=22). Furthermore, 45 percent of CSO Partnership respondents indicated that they
monitor receiving water quality during wet weather conditions (n=22).
The majority of all survey respondents indicated that they have recognized reductions in CSOs, including dry weather
overflows. Seventy-nine percent of respondents to both surveys (n=43) indicated that they had reduced CSOs since 1994.
The percent reduction in CSO frequency (n=23) and volume (n=29) submitted by respondents to both surveys is presented
in Table G-3.
Table G-3: Percent reduction in CSO frequency and volume
(AMSA sruvey, 2001; CSO Partnership survey, 2001)
Level of Reduction in CSO
Reduction Frequency
Number of Respondents
(n=23)
Reduction in CSO Volume
Number of Respondents
(n=29)
0 - 25 percent
25-50 percent
50-75 percent
75-1 00 percent
7
5
2
9
8
9
3
9
With regard to dry weather overflows, 62 percent of CSO Partnership respondents stated that they had dry weather
overflows before 1994 (n=20). A follow-up question found 67 percent of the respondents had reduced dry weather
overflows by 75 percent to 100 percent since 1994 (n=9). CSO Partnership members were also asked to quantify the
percentage of CSO outfalls that have been totally eliminated. Twenty-two members responded and of these, 41 percent of
the respondents indicated that they had eliminated at least 35 percent of CSO outfalls. In total, respondents had eliminated
132 (of a total of 395) CSO outfalls.
-------
Appendix G
3.0 Benefits
The CSO Partnership survey addressed benefits associated with CSO control and abatement measures by requesting its
members to identify environmental benefits specifically attributed to the implementation of CSO control measures.The
majority of respondents identified some benefits directly attributable to CSO controls (n= 22). Only six of 25 AMSA
respondents indicated that full implementation of the LTCP will result in attainment of water quality standards. Benefits
identified in the CSO Partnership survey are presented in Table G-4.
Table G-4: Benefits identified as specifically attributable to CSO controls
(CSO Partnership survey, 2001)
Benefit
Improved aesthetics
improvement in ambient water quality
Drinking water source protection
Prevention of beach closures
Improvement in public health
Shellfish bed re-openings
Improved recreational use
Protection of sensitive areas
Percent of respondents (n=22)
83 percent
78 percent
6 percent
0 percent
39 percent
6 percent
50 percent
56 percent
4.0 Costs and Financing of CSO Control
Costs and financing for CSO control were investigated in both the AMSA and CSO Partnership Surveys. AMSA surveyed its
members about how much of capital improvement plan (CIP) budgets are dedicated to LTCP implementation. Fifteen
members responded: seven respondents dedicate between 0-25 percent, five respondents dedicate 25-50 percent, and
three respondents dedicate more than 50-70 percent of the CIP to the LTCP. None of the 15 respondents dedicate more
than 75 percent of the CIP to the LTCP.
The CSO Partnership survey also asked two questions related to capital costs of CSO control.The first was, "What is your
estimate of the investment in capital costs that your community has made to date?" The second question was, "What is
your estimate of the additional capital costs that is necessary to comply with the CSO Control Policy?" Capital investments
made to date and additional investments needs ranged from less that $100,000 to greater than $1 million. A breakdown of
the survey results related to capital costs is shown in Table G-5.
Table G-5: Capital costs related to CSO control
(CSO Partnership survey, 2001)
Capital Costs
Investment Made
to Date (n=20)
Additional Investment to
Comply with CSO Control
Policy (n=18)
< $100,000
$100,000 to $1 million
$1 million to $10 million
$10 million to $100 million
> $100 million
4
4
4
7
1
1
4
8
3
2
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
In addition, the CSO Partnership surveyed its members about operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.The CSO Partnership first
requested an estimate by the CSO community of the investment in annual O&M costs that the community has made to date. Ten of the
18 respondents indicated that annual O&M costs to date were less than $100,000. The second question was, "What is your estimate of the
additional annual O&M costs that is necessary to comply with the CSO Control Policy?" The O&M cost estimates are given in Table G-6.
Table G-6: O&M costs related to CSO control
(CSO Partnership survey, 2001)
O&M Costs
Annual O&M Costs
to Date (n=18)
Additional Annual O&M to
Comply with CSO Control
Policy (n=15)
< $100,000
$100,000 to $1 million
$1 million to $10 million
10
7
1
6
5
4
Financing was also considered in the CSO Partnership survey.The survey asked how member communities have funded CSO controls to
date. Among the 22 respondents, self-financing was the most prevalent form of fund ing; 82 percent of the respondents use this funding
source. Other funding sources include SRF loans (55 percent), state grants (32 percent), federal grants (18 percent), and other funding
sources (5 percent).
5.0 Obstacles to Full Attainment of CSO Control
Lastly, the CSO Partnership survey asked respondents to rate factors as obstacles to full attainment of CSO control. Among the 19
respondents, financial resources was recognized as the most important obstacle; data and guidance to support LTCP development were
found to be less significant obstacles. The ranked results are presented in Table G-7.
Table G-7: Obstacles to full attainment of CSO control (n=19)
(CSO Partnership survey, 2001)
Rank Obstacle
1 Financial resources
2 Complexity of water qual ity standards review process
3- Tie Other priorities within water programs
3- Tie Uncertainty about the roles of EPA and State regulatory authorities
5 Sufficient time
6 Data to support LTCP development and implementation
7 Guidance to support LTCP development and implementation
G-4
-------
Appendix G-1: AMSA and CSO Partnership Survey Instruments
&s*Cy'**r?. ."^V'S^ C5O SO'^VE' V*
unrf ?.i I'm^'iVii" ..!fti* w-M'h*M'tf ^Avivr /irtm, ynif rs fi-irij -!f ff,?. 11 f VI ftv ^/ifiiiii'drr, ^l-fi¥
i. MiFS
Appendix G
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
l*t-tntf
C ni8:1j-iii 1-iit-S'hiiinliMil
V:-.,'
^•IK\: _ _______^^
I'ragnnn Mam*.
LJ '"ill -it 1". 1"! ,;' v.'! -;«,;>" :v,|!iili:"i.-.iii - ':••• !i> • --'-if,," :, i. M 1 tr.'^K'J-
r: I'-.-il -.>!;. r >.il %I i-, Jiirilij,' lir-, .«V,-:'-l-,>
: : t •. t -i- .. - -I -v • -.,1 ,./,..] I", iii;ii'h- '»..- .-= i.ii-- i ; -; '<> <: :-.
': ': !\.'-i!ii ••.<:> .'ii .•: li-ll i 'IV '••\. .:•>;- vi-« .: •.' 'J A( h -I|>.-.«1<.
r.-^r^H^^^^^hi,.^.,,:,^,,™,,,.^
1 1 •:.••,-;. .-.! .|.T.-|,:|-.S;.I ' .-lif ",-1:1! ! ••.•!•. I'kiiMl Kl'i
V. '.!,.-
\^^jScxsrii!s;(^; ;.-•« i- ^^;»»^ t^^i* I'M S1" *<
"T •. •'
\ -^
-- ^
~
-------
Appendix G
f'mt • .\rK-nljliili
il» !%%»g\
\Mi i •? A V.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
-------
Appendix G
,A>|, IJ.ri ~;i! ''•
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
TheC'S-U f4;ip,ncfsh:,p iiis^ekip&i iht •!Ml«wn>i« c.'iioderiiiuLHini:} to ^hi^i-n i:;ikiiiiiaiie:
on UK jialti di'.d elk-el^ Click's u-l CSO cutEiyl tlr^t IUIK^IW:-;:^. I'LC^SC l:ikt' o o^isK'in •!(.'•
i;>-">!fii»k;|.;; ;n»J fyljii'-i jl'if x.irii,". )i.•-.; I'K'H""1^!?;; !<"< M_I"|"«.™1 \"\i~ ";l';i"i" -'iriilrr-i
ulYis-rKheiniv IVsH'.ii;-" ;h uccl H-.II-I-; I SO^cinsiv-l iitiL-n.tjur.k'iioi'liins viill. I :^S. ii-.PA
C'Viinhiucti .Server Ovtrdow (C'SOji Pi^lJev Surney
Eil'- li:R\ B'V 3;^l'\il l;v:ll..-.ii:!l.-'i.. .IK i;irlcui<.-»l- .,..: ii i t. 'M I \ \ iSl
l'ie.;i*i- Kcturn Uy April 31), 2W11
Siiiv^r serv.i: IT area i.atrc:»i
Tht Polkv
t. Hoft J-.vs ) -.lan XPDI-I.S.iiiithi'nrv reyuuethc iir;p:i;!iic-nt;i:-.i!n-;i!:{"S(>i:-.-rjrnin'
Nine
2;i. WhciuliJ \i'-.i 'li>i fully itusla'ii^ii" i«c N'/ni: \Lriiiiiura ( iinrroU'.1
i a n '~i!h 'vviir 1
I'h. i' M l:ic XIRJ: Miiuin'iuii i,/ui'iln:>Sh. 'iviii^h u;i< il^ irosl elfccine in rvducii:!^. L SO
-------
Appendix G
Iri lidihlHtii li» MIL' Nin>,' \F:mmir?i C'iiniTii1-., plif;ivj ilcwyihr isnx iilliiT I'jfK", of iii
«>;'i\l I'llC^urV'i '* HO ll.'iVi;: iriFil-k'lTii'Ul.lN:; "''Ml I"--:!1--;' lli\"i? ClH'v'liVi; Kl I\'ij?i,"lll;:; t.'SO
i.ptC"'.;}. tiunrion OT 7\isl!i.a|-:Ri 'ujcl'iirj;^'1
. Dal vtj.;i fiH^-n: (3r\ 'A vsilhci:' ( 'Vti ll-.»^s ht'ifJi
pi(!C 'irc
I;In sin ring C'SO CV
1 I low h:ivi< \c'«ii IUiKfs'«-! ("Si)
G-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
.«pp!y|
Scir.1ini.MVi,-;; SI?! isciM-
ij-h. \^liai i* your «;-a:n'-:it!; o:' Ih.v ac:H:li<~;-iai -jn''"c-s:n:(:;i:
KM,-/'
:o cuirpiy v. i-h 1:10 (."SO
A ni ; i i;i H 'ML M
I'SIV:
ivducrj-in in ri\-i|iieic}-
rvducl.on in viiiiirac
-------
Appendix G
/;:« \iiii spi.Vili,:;:.!!'. ;i~!nhu?i; lit i.'Sl ) v'unlrol ri\jyv.!ri>. \ mi
h^xcnli-.^ ofhcacts
Shell 1 1.^ I'cit ic-orjciiitiyni !rii".rii\ c'.'iicn u.. a-iinliicii! '.'i
'.'. Plc,I>C -nil Vii1i.ii |?> ";i:,C ihi "u! !uv. ill;; r^i.lnr» .is i'»Nls,iCli:!-U« }'<)lii' I'tll ,il1.:;irBlcni »,:•!' t' SO
'UHUV-b. v>i'j u ^L.lk" ii?':: id 5. v, A\\ I bt'iil-1 ll'a: L';:i>! I'lir-'f-Ici'ikilu1 .ical 5 v'ca'tt die yfi'itlC'-I
'ldlolE,.:.
sU'.il;i:-h:i,' In v.i""vM i. I ('Is ik"» i:l>t'f"nctil ;n«i :.li!|'ii;,'il>i'ii:,»lii:,:!i
ki'Ui, in Mt;t|v:til Mil' ii-.rxi'l.^pi^iciil ^ml i!ii|!"i,--!;n.:iil-;ilrr>ii
i ill i rircl in"ic
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
l C'S'3 K
-------
Appendix H
Forms Used to Guide
Data Collection Effort
-------
-------
Forms Used to Guide Data Collection Effort
PART I: INTERVIEW WITH STATE CSO COORDINATOR
Appendix H
Contact Person:
Mailing Address:
Web Site:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Number of current permits requiring NMCs
Number of enforceable mechanisms requiring NMCs
Communities having implemented NMCs
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Communities submitting NMC documentation
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
NMC documentation reviewed/approved by State
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Permits requiring LTCP development
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Are there any CSO control requirements for communities too small to develop LTCPs?
YES
NO
If yes, communities implementing CSO controls outside LTCP
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Number of LTCPs received, to date:
Number of LTCPs approved, to date:
For completed LTCPs, is permittee in compliance with WQS?
YES
NO
Have WQS staff been involved in LTCP reviews?
YES
NO
Has a coordination team of CSO stakeholders been formed?
YES
NO
Number of requests for CSO-related water quality standards reviews:
WQ data collected sufficient to perform a standards review?
YES
NO
CSO-related enforcement actions undertaken by the State for failure to implement NMCs:
CSO-related enforcement actions undertaken by the State for failure to implement LTCPs:
Where are these enforcement actions documented?
Estimated dollars spent state-wide on CSO controls
Estimated needs for additional CSO controls
NOTES:
H-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
PART la: INTERVIEW WITH STATE WOS COORDINATOR
Contact Person:
Mailing Address:
Web Site:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Have WQS staff been involved in the LTCP reviews?
YES
NO
To your knowledge, have any CSO communities requested WQS reviews as part of the LTCP process?
YES
NO
If so, have the communities submitted sufficient data to support a WQS review?
YES
NO
Have any WQS reviews for CSO receiving waters been initiated?
YES
NO
Have any communities received variances for CSO discharges?
YES
NO
Have any CSO-related WQS revisions been completed?
YES
NO
Does the State have a formal process for reviewing WQS for CSO-impacted waters?
YES
NO
Are all CSO impacted waters on the States list of impaired waters?
YES
NO
Are CSO impacted waters given special consideration during your triennial review process?
YES
NO
Post implementation of LTCPs, will the permit meet WQS?
YES
NO
NOTES:
H-2
-------
PART Ib: INTERVIEW WITH STATE ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR
Appendix H
Contact Person:
Mailing Address:
Web Site:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
Fax Number:
Have enforcement staff been involved in the LTCP reviews?
YES
NO
What types of enforcement orders has the State used for CSO compliance?
Judicial Order
Administrative Order
Consent Decree
How many enforcement orders has the State issued related to NMC implementation?
Of these, how many were for noncompliance with a permit requirements?
How many were to keep NMC requirements out of the permit?
How many enforcement orders has the State issued related to LTCP development?
Of these, how many were for noncompliance with a permit requirements?
How many were to keep the requirement to develop an LTCP out of the permit?
How many enforcement orders has the State issued related to LTCP implementation?
Of these, how many were for noncompliance with a permit requirements?
How many were to keep LTCP implementation schedules out of the permit?
What is the role of the EPA Regional office in enforcement actions in the State?
NOTES:
H-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
ONSITE REVIEW.
OFFICE REVIEW.
DATA ENTRY
PART II: CSO COMMUNITY/FACILITY INFORMATION
/
13
A. FACILITY INFORMATION
Facility Name:
Mailing Address:
Facility Address:
(NOT P.O. Box)
NPDES Permit #:
Iss. Date: / / Exp. Date: / /
Permittee Type (Circle One): WWTP and CSOs
Website:
Contact Person:
Title:
Telephone Number:
Abbreviation:
County:
Effect. Date: / /
CSO outfalls only
FAX:
B. DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Requirement to implement nine minimum controls?
YES
NO
Being implemented through an ENFORCEABLE mechanism or a PERMIT?
Controls Implemented (Check all that apply)
n All 9 required controls have been implemented.
n 1. Proper O&M programs for the sewer system and the CSOs
n 2. Maximum use of the collection system for storage
n 3. Review of pretreatment requirements to minimize CSO impacts
n 4. Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment
n 5. Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather
n 6. Control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs
n 7. Pollution prevention
n 8. Public notification
n 9. Monitoring
n None of the NMC have been implemented.
n Cannot determine which controls have been implemented.
NMC Documentation submitted to State?
YES (Date: / / )
NO
Use the following codes in the source column: (P) Permit; (A) Permit Application; (L) LTCP; (AR) Annual Report; (0) Other
H-4
-------
Appendix H
ONSITE REVIEW
OFFICE REVIEW
DATA ENTRY
Requirement to develop LTCP?
F YES - THEN COMPLETE
O
z
YES NO ?
Being implemented through an ENFORCEABLE mechanism or a PERMIT? E P ?
LTCP submitted to the State? YES (
Date: / / ) NO ?
LTCP approved by the State? YES (Date : / / ) NO ?
LTCP predict compliance with current WQS?
LTCP implementation initiated? YES (
YES NO ?
Date: / / ) NO ?
LTCP implementation completed? YES (Date: / / ) NO ?
Was a collection systems model developed?
Were the impacts of the NMCs considered in the LTCP?
Current treatment (% of vol of combined sewage collected ir
LTCP APPROACH (Choose one an
PRESUMPTION 0
check one to describe approach:
D limit # of overflow events per year
capture at least 85% of wet
n weather combined sewage vol per
year
eliminate or reduce mass of
pollutants equiv to 85% capture
Has the community implemented CSO controls outside of a
TMDLs, Watershed Management Plans?)
YES NO ?
YES NO ?
i the CSS captured for treatment):
d complete the appropriate sections)
R DEMONSTRATIVE
answer each of 1he following questions:
Has the permittee collected data
for the baseline conditions in Y N ?
the rec waters?
Has the permittee performed
rec water modeling?
Has the permittee demonstrated
compliance with effluent Y N ?
limitations?
LTCP(e.g.,SSES, ^ NQ ?
NOTES FOR SECTION B - NMC and LTCP or other Narrative Information on Implementation
Use the following codes in the source column: (P) Permit; (A) Permit Application; (L) LTCP; (AR) Annual Report; (0) Other
H-5
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
ONSITE REVIEW
OFFICE REVIEW
DATA ENTRY
C. SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROLS - Please refer to Appendix A, CSO Control
Technologies, and list controls according to thek reference numbers.
Source controls
(controls to keep storm water or pollutants out of the CSS)
In-System controls
(controls that require modification of the CSS)
Target date for completing LTCP implementation:
Date Completed
/ /
__ / /
/ /
/ /
__ / /
__ / /
Date Completed
/ /
__ / /
/ /
/ /
__ / /
__ / /
/ /
Estimated capital cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
Estimated capital cost
$
$
$
$
$
$
Capital cost of implementing all controls outlined in LTCP: $
NOTES FOR SECTION C -Controls
Solutions/alternatives considered/financial hardships; possible case study elements - use reverse if needed
D. EFFECTIVENESS OF STRUCTURAL CONTROLS
Were any pilot tests conducted? YES NO ?
Is pre-construction monitoring data available? YES NO ?
Is post-construction monitoring data available? YES NO ?
Has the permittee documented pollutant removal efficiencies? YES NO ?
Has ambient receiving water data been collected? YES NO ?
If yes, what parameters were monitored?
W How frequently was data collected?
y_ What were the beginning and ending sampling dates?
/ / / /
Is the data adequate to support a WQS review? YES NO ?
Use the following codes in the source column: (P) Permit; (A) Permit Application; (L) LTCP; (AR) Annual Report; (0) Other
H-6
-------
Appendix H
ONSITE REVIEW.
OFFICE REVIEW.
DATA ENTRY
E. COLLECTION SYSTEM INFORMATION - Provide information on entities served by the WWTP (nune, estimated
population, ind whether the collection system is comprised of combined or separate sanitary sewers. IF Hie entity is comprised of both
system types, li
ENTITY
POPULATION TYPE OF SYSTEM
TOTAL POPULATION SERVED:
If permitted for OUTFALLS ONLY (no treatment
fac.), list treatment facility and/or town receiving flow:
F. FLOW AND TREATMENT INFORMATION
Annual average daily flow (MGD otherwise LIST UNITS):
Design primary treatment capacity (MGD):
Design secondary treatment capacity (MAD):
Peak flow primary treatment capacity (MGD):
Peak flow secondary treatment capacity (MGD):
Other available treatment types (list treatment type and maximum daily flow allowed):
Are CSO-related bypasses authorized?
YES
NO
Are partially treated effluents combined with fully treated flows prior to discharge? YES
NO
G. DISCHARGES & OTHER DISPOSAL METHODS - This section is ONLY concerned with discharges to waters of
Hie U.S. List how many of each of the following types of discharge points are within the municipal collection system.
Original number of CSO PERMITTED outfall points:
Current number of CSO PERMITTED outfall points:
Date:
Number of constructed emergency overflows prior to the WWTP (e.g.
relief at pump stations):
Average number of dry weather overflows per year:
Number of discharge points with effluent receiving full (secondary)
treatment:
Number of discharge points with effluent receiving partial (primary)
treatment ONLY:
Use the following codes in the source column: (P) Permit; (A) Permit Application; (L) LTCP; (AR) Annual Report; (0) Other
H-7
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
ONSITE REVIEW
OFFICE REVIEW
DATA ENTRY
H. SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATION
SYSTEM TYPE
Combined Sewer
Separate Sewer
Sewer Length
% of Sewer Network (indicate units) Acres Served
Original
Current
Original
Current
TOTALS (if not broken out - length and acres):
Are there any CSO discharges to sensitive areas? YES NO ?
UJ n Outstanding National Resource Waters
§ n National Marine Sanctuaries
o
j n Waters with threatened or endangered species
Q.
tt, n Primary contact recreation waters, such as bathing beaches
^ n Public drinking water intakes or their designated protection areas
° n Shellfish beds
jif n Other (specify):
NOTES FOR SECTION H - Sj»tem Characterization
Note information on land-use, area rainfall/precipitation; special information about the area/system
I. RECEIVING WATER DESCRIPTION - Complete this section for each receiving water that receives discharge from
either Hie WWTP or CSO point(s). Try to determine if these bodies are listed on the 303(d) list as impaired waterbodies and why.
Receiving Water Name Name of Watershed CSO-related WQS review completed?
YES NO ?
YES NO ?
YES NO ?
YES NO ?
YES NO ?
J. WATER QUALTn
n BOD/CBOD
n TSS
n DO
D Fecal Coliforms
n E. coli
D Enterrococci
n Metals
n Other (specify)
7 DATA - Photocopy and attach data collected for wet weather or CSO studies.
Use the following codes in the source column: (P) Permit; (A) Permit Application; (L) LTCP; (AR) Annual Report; (0) Other
H-8
-------
Appendix I
Stakeholder Meeting Summary
July 12-13,2001
Chicago, Illinois
-------
-------
Appendix
Summary of EPA Stakeholder Meeting, Chicago, Illinois July 12-13,2001
Introduction
On July 12-13,2001, the U.S. EPA Office of Water held a meeting in Chicago at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel to discuss the upcoming
Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). The meeting provided an invaluable opportunity for the Agency to hear
directly from the most experienced CSO stakeholders from across the country about the state of CSO Policy implementation. It also
was an opportunity for participants to discuss the initial findings of the draft Report to Congress that will be completed in September
2001.
The main goals of the meeting were to:
• Present and discuss the data, report methodology, and analysis of the Report to Congress.
• Discuss the implications of the major findings of the Report.
• Discuss participants' experiences under the CSO Policy.
• Discuss future directions, including activities related to the Wet Weather Quality Act of 2000.
Appendix 1-1 includes a list of attendees from the meeting, and the Agenda is included as Appendix I-2. This summary below recaps
the presentations that were given that outline the contents of the report and the resulting discussions. This summary is organized
into the following major sections:
• Opening Remarks
• CSO Policy Overview
• Module 1: Methodology
• Module 2: CSO Policy Activities by EPA
• Module 3: Describing CSOs and CSO Communities
• Module 4: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Authorities and Other State Programs
• Module 5: CSO Activities by Permittees
• Summary of Day 1
• Opening Remarks for Day 2
• Preliminary Findings Discussion
• Additional Findings Suggested by Participants
• Additional Comments from Stakeholders
• Closing Remarks
Opening Remarks by Tom McSwiggin, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Tom McSwiggin, Director of Permits for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency opened the meeting by welcoming participants
to Chicago and providing background on CSO activities in the Chicago area during the past 30 years. From the 1970s until today,
Chicago has spent more than $5 billion on CSO control. Mr. McSwiggin explained that development and other land use projects
resulted in a decision by the city to reverse the flow of the Chicago River, and that this reversal exacerbated flooding in the city and
made CSOs a more important and visible problem. In 1972, Chicago required that all dry weather overflows and first flush have
primary treatment and disinfection, and all other flows must have solids removal. In implementing this requirement, the city realized
that wet weather overflows were a bigger problem than originally thought, and that their handling would require looking at sewer
redesign, expansion and treatment capacity. Mr. McSwiggin stressed that an important issue in moving forward was the philosophy
that the costs of treatment should be weighed against environmental benefits.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Mr. McSwiggin noted that since the early 1970s, there have been success stories related to Chicago's CSO program. Although Chicago
has not implemented all aspects of the CSO Policy, Mr. McSwiggin believes the Chicago area is fulfilling all federal requirements for
CSO controls. Since Chicago began so early, Mr. McSwiggin felt that when the CSO Control Policy was released in 1994, they were
already ahead of the curve. Mr. McSwiggin stated that, as with many cities, some think that the city has made significant achievement,
while others feel that current controls have not gone far enough.
CSO Policy Overview—Jeff Lape, Acting Director, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater
Management, U.S. EPA Headquarters
Mr. Lape thanked the participants for coming and explained that the main goals of the meeting were to:
(1) Share with participants what the research on the status of CSO control has yielded so far and what story it might tell (day 1).
(2) Discuss the implications of this information (day 2).
(3) Solicit comments on the CSO program (day 2).
Mr. Lape explained that the nation's sewers were built largely between the 1850s and 1950s for the purpose of transporting waste
away from human population centers. This original infrastructure has a single set of pipes in which stormwater and sewage are
combined and designed to overflow when capacity is exceeded during storm events.
He discussed the history of CSO controls at EPA and the development of the 1994 CSO Control Policy. In 1989, EPA released the
National CSO Strategy. At that time, EPA felt that CSOs needed to be addressed as point sources, but the question of what control
would be enough was unanswered. In order to address that question, EPA sought advice from experienced stakeholders,
municipalities, states, associations, and environmental groups through a Management Advisory Group (MAG) created in 1992. A
subset of the MAG developed a recommendations paper called the Consolidated CSO Framework that formed the basis for the 1994
CSO Control Policy. He reminded the participants that, at the time, the CSO Control Policy was endorsed by all members of the MAG
as a thoughtful and progressive policy. The MAG included representatives from the following organizations:
• American Public Works Association
• Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
• Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA)
• Center for Marine Conservation
• CSO Partnership
• Environmental Defense Fund
• Lower James River Association
• National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies
• National League of Cities
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Sewage Treatment Out of the Park
• Southern Environmental Law Center
• Water Environment Federation
When the CSO Control Policy was released, EPA and some stakeholders (most prominently Senator Max Baucus) recommended that
Congress endorse this Policy. In December 2000, Congress passed an appropriations bill that makes the CSO Control Policy
mandatory.
Key principles of the CSO Control Policy that set it up for success are the following:
• Establishes clear levels of control for achieving water quality requirements.
• Provides sufficient flexibility (especially financial) to municipalities.
• Allows for a phased approach to implementation.
• Calls for the review and revision (as necessary) of water quality standards.
I-2
-------
Appendix
Key elements of the Policy include:
• Nine Minimum Controls (NMC)
• Long-Term Control Plans (LTCPs)
• Coordination with review and revision of water quality standards
• Implementation
• Monitoring
Mr. Lape explained that in Phase I of CSO implementation, the NPDES permit should include implementation of the NMC and
development and submittal of an LTCR Municipalities should also prepare a report documenting implementation of the NMC within
two years and comply with the water quality standards by the state's due date. Phase II NPDES permits should contain:
• Requirements to implement technology-based controls.
• Narrative requirements for CSO controls.
• Water quality-based effluent limits under Section 122.44(d)(1).
• Compliance with the state's Water Quality Standards numeric performance standards.
• A reopener clause for failures.
• Implementation assessment and monitoring to assess effectiveness.
• Assessment of overflows to sensitive areas.
• Requirements for maximizing treatment for wet weather.
Mr. Lape characterized the CSO Control Policy as a unique approach to a challenging problem. First, the Policy was designed to have
stakeholder input from the beginning. Secondly, it describes a process rather than a level of control. This process was designed to
maximize environmental benefits while considering affordability. While the CSO Control Policy is process-based, it provides a clear
framework for deciding on a level of control that will comply with the Clean Water Act.
The Wet Weather Water Quality Act (WWWQA) of December 2000 amended the Clean Water Act. The WWWQA called for this Report
to Congress, due September 1,2001 (focused on implementation and enforcement), and a second Report to Congress (focused on
environmental water quality impacts), due in 2003. The WWWQA also effectively made the CSO Control Policy mandatory. Finally, the
WWWQA sets a completion date of July 31,2001, for guidance on water quality standards as related to LTCP development. This
guidance is one that EPA has been working on for several years but has only recently completed for Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review. It will reinforce the notion of coordination and ensure that the data will support the review of water quality
standards.
The 2001 Report to Congress will be primarily descriptive and focus on answering following questions:
• What activities has EPA undertaken to implement provisions of the CSO Control Policy?
• What activities have states/NPDES authorities undertaken to control CSOs?
• What approaches have communities undertaken to control CSOs?
• What controls and CSO abatement measures have been successful?
• How successful has the CSO Control Policy been in controlling and abating CSOs?
Although the new Administration's appointees have yet to be confirmed, Mr. Lape gave participants some sense of what major areas
of emphasis the current Office of Water leaders have identified:
(1) Watersheds—identify problems "on-the-ground" and tailor solutions (Mr. Lape called participants' attention to a new book called
Regulatory Craft by Malcolm Sparrow, which many managers in EPA were reading and using to think about a new paradigm for
improving the functioning of regulatory agencies)
(2) Infrastructure improvements
(3) Sound data and information
(4) Performance measures/outcomes
(5) Brownfields
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
(6) Invasive/nuisance species
Mr. Lape then pointed out that a copy of the strategic plan for NPDES permits was included in the meeting materials if participants
wanted additional detail.
Mr. Lape introduced members of his staff and personnel from the Regions that were present: Beverly Bannister (EPA, Region 4 Water
Management Division Director), Linda Murphy (EPA, Region 1 Water Management Division Director), Pat Bradley and Tim Dwyer
(program managers in charge of the Report to Congress), and Kevin DeBell.
Mr. Lape said he hoped that participants at this meeting could assist EPA in validating its current findings, discuss the implications of
these findings, provide insight regarding CSO implementation, discuss directions for the CSO Policy, and provide suggestions on
methodology for the next report. He told the group that a summary of the discussion at this meeting would be created, shared with
the group, and included as an appendix to the report. In addition, he explained that he was confident that this dialogue would be
helpful to EPA in honing the report.
Module 1: Methodology—Kevin DeBell, U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
Mr. DeBell explained that EPA is preparing the report in response to the charge from Congress to review and report on the
implementation and enforcement of the CSO Control Policy. He explained that until last December the Policy was not mandatory,
which meant that there was likely to be a variety of interpretations of what the Policy intended and various levels of adoption. As a
result of that variety, EPA decided to try to collect primary and secondary information from federal, state, and local data sources rather
than rely on a projection of the whole based on partial data.
EPA also based this Report to Congress on information gathered from existing sources, rather than modeling results. These are also
recognized as imperfect sources because recording of CSO activities varies widely among implementors. This Report to Congress is
the first comprehensive look at the implementation of the CSO Policy. The steps used to collect information for the report included:
• Culling information from existing national programmatic databases (SRF; 104(b)(3); PCS; etc.) and headquarters programmatic
files.
• Conducting state visits and reviewed 790 permit, inspection, and enforcement files.
• Interviewing NPDES and water quality standards authorities.
• Developing a state profile for each CSO state describing CSO implementation activities.
• Supplementing programmatic data with 15 to 20 municipal case studies. These municipal case studies will serve to illustrate a
cross section of implementation activities and help Congress understand important challenges and successes in CSO control.
• Identifying and documented data gaps.
• Supplementing programmatic data with modeling results.
• Performing a comprehensive literature search.
This report will not address the costs of implementation and the associated environmental benefits in a comprehensive manner. That
information has been called for in the 2003 Report to Congress.
Independent information generated by CSO stakeholders will be used to verify or contrast data collected by EPA. It will not be
included as independent data. Sources included in the Report to Congress are:
• Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters Report
• Water Environment Federation Water Quality Standards Experts' Conference
• Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies Case Studies and Survey of Members
• Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies Performance Measures Report
• CSO Partnership Survey
• Center for Marine Conservation information
Question: Did EPA consider the Inspector General's (IG's) Report?
Response: EPA has looked at the report and meets regularly with the IG. EPA does not intend to fold data from the IG's report into
this report but will use some of the case study information. The IG's report was fairly restrictive in that it focused on only three of the
NMC.
-------
Appendix
Suggestion: Include the information from the New York case study because several critical issues regarding CSO control are
highlighted, namely the difficulty of siting CSO outfalls on public land (need an act of the legislature).
Question: What type of data will be culled from the stakeholder sources?
Response: The stakeholder information will be used across the results from the analysis of primary EPA, state, and municipal sources.
Suggestion: Include information from the Natural Resources Defense Council Testing the Waters report, which includes reasons cited
for beach closings and documentation of environmental impacts. The next update of the annual report is due in August.
Question: Did EPA look at the 303(d) list?
Response: Yes. That list, along with the 305(b) list, was included in the EPA data.
Module 2: CSO Policy Activities by EPA—Ross Brennan, U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
Mr. Brennan began his presentation by explaining that after the release of the CSO Control Policy in 1994, everyone had high hopes.
EPA poured a lot of resources into implementation of the Policy, which continues today. The challenge that EPA faces is moving
forward with the most effective mix of activities. Because the CSO Policy was not a regulation, EPA spent considerable effort clarifying
and interpreting what the Policy meant, including the following memoranda:
• CSO Deadline Memorandum (1997)—reiterated the deadline for LTCPs
• CSO Implementation Memorandum (mid-1988)—explained who is out there and what they are doing
• Water Quality-based and Technology-based CSO Requirements Memorandum
In addition, EPA developed a Compliance and Enforcement Strategy for CSOs and SSOs that stated the Agency was following a strong
enforcement stance for both of these issues. The Agency was also holding itself accountable by including performance measures for
CSOs under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures.
In addition to the clarification of the Policy, EPA developed seven separate permitting guidance documents that addressed
implementation of NMC, development of LTCPs, permitting, monitoring and modeling, funding, and schedule development. An
eighth guidance on the integration of LTCPs and water quality standards was never completed, but is now being finalized to meet
Congress1 July 31,2001, deadline.
Mr. Brennan pointed out that the two components of successful CSO implementation involve permitting and enforcement. These two
components are interrelated. To help ensure that CSOs are incorporated into the NPDES program, EPA has conducted many permit
writing training courses. In addition, it has developed fact sheets on technologies to help inform permit writers and the regulated
communities about the latest technology. The Agency also has developed Memoranda of Agreements with Regions that outline
enforcement plans.
Mr. Brennan emphasized the importance of communication and coordination in carrying out the CSO program. He noted that
stakeholders have been involved heavily in the process. EPA holds frequent conference calls with the CSO coordinators in the 32
states implementing programs, and they have held listening sessions that have involved a wider array of stakeholders.
Mr. Brennan noted that the Agency uses a number of tools to solicit and maintain the volume of information being tracked about the
CSO program, including the Local Government Environmental Assistance Network (LGEAN), which helps with information distribution
to local governments; the EPA Needs Survey, which helps to identify the cost of controls; the Permit Compliance System database,
which helps to identify the universe of facilities; and the water quality inventory, which can help to identify impaired water bodies.
Finally, Mr. Brennan reviewed the status of financial assistance efforts to date for CSO projects. He highlighted that in 2000, over $400
million was made available for CSO projects through the State Revolving Fund (SRF). Since 1994, six entities have been issued
cooperative agreements under CWA Section 104(b)(3) for innovative CSO projects. Although the Agency is aware that some money
provided to states under Section 106 Water Pollution Program Support Grants is used for CSO activities, grants are not program
specific and states are not required to report on how the grant was used, so no specific funding information is available.
At the end of his presentation, Mr. Brennan acknowledged that it is still a challenge to move forward in an environment of limited
funding and a need to achieve water quality standards. He observed that EPA now better understands the challenges faced by
regulated entities than in the early 1990s, when the Policy was developed.
Question: Has anyone revised their water quality standards?
Response: Some states have moved ahead in this arena, such as Massachusetts and Indiana, but lack of movement is an issue overall.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Comment: NPDES permitting process provides an inadequate vehicle for public participation. Since so many lawsuits are being filed
against permits, the public participation activities have focused largely on preparing for litigation.
Comment: EPA has much guidance, but leadership is lacking. Leaving water quality standards revision to the states and
municipalities is a political nightmare. The costs are high to implement controls, yet few politicians want to look "ungreen." This is an
arena where federal leadership is needed.
Comment: EPA should intervene and take over the programs where necessary when permit backlogs are a big issue.
Comments: Some participants expressed that some stakeholders were making it difficult to revise water quality standards downward
and that was a problem. Others felt that there was a need to address water quality standards, but not necessarily revise them
downward.
Question: What is the nature of the enforcement actions?
Response: The Agency is still collecting these numbers, but initial estimates are that EPA has taken approximately 20 civiljudicial
actions and 23 administrative actions and the states have taken about 110 administrative actions. EPA also acknowledged that
current systems, including PCS, are incomplete, inaccurate, and obsolete.
Module 3: Describing CSOs and CSO Communities—Ross Brennan, U.S. EPA Headquarters,
Office of Water
Mr. Brennan explained that this section of the report attempts to summarize the current CSO universe. The summary data are as
follows:
• There are CSOs in nine of the 10 EPA Regions (none in Region 6).
• There are CSOs in 32 states, concentrated in the Northeast and Midwest. Many of these are along river valleys, which reinforces
the need for a watershed approach.
• There are 860 permits that include CSOs (some municipalities have multiple permits and some permits cover multiple
municipalities).
• There are 9,520 CSO outfalls.
• Four states (Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania) have over 50 percent of the CSOs nationally.
• Ten states comprise 85 percent of the CSO universe.
• Fourteen states have fewer than 10 CSOs each.
• Nineteen states have no CSOs.
Further detail about the distribution of the permits is as follows:
• Of the 860 permits, 670 of these permits are with POTWs.
• 70-percent of the permits are with majors (more than 1.0 mgd or greater than 10,000 population).
• There are 193 with satellite collection systems.
• 40 of the 860 are unknown.
Question: What was the cause for the decrease in the numbers of CSSsfrom 1976, when there were thought to be 1,300 CSSs, to 860
now?
Discussion from EPA and participants: There could be several causes for the change in the number. One explanation is that a
percentage of these communities have separated their sewers. Another explanation is that the definition being used in 1976 is not
the same is it is now, meaning that many communities with separate sewer systems with storm drains are not called CSSs now, but
may have been counted previously. Another possible explanation is that the satellite systems may be counted differently. EPA also
explained that this is really the first time that they feel they have a good handle on the number of CSSs. The original number of
between 1,300 and 1,400 was based on the Needs Survey, which had a discrepancy when compared to the CSO coordinator
information. Participants suggested that EPA explain carefully the definition currently being used and possible explanations for the
dramatic change in number. EPA should take credit for improvements where appropriate, including systems that have been
separated, and then explain the remaining gaps where possible.
Question: Are you using the same definition of satellite systems as used in the SSO discussion?
I-6
-------
Appendix
Response: Yes.
Comment: Tell Congress that, while there are 860 permits, this represents many more political jurisdictions.
Comment: The definition of CSO should be clarified from an enforcement perspective and the new SSO rules; communities would
rather fall under the more flexible CSO umbrella.
Question: Is the old estimate of cost for CSO controls $43 million?
Response: Yes.
Question: How was the 70/30 major versus minor split determined?
Response: Major or minor is not always population or flow based. Many of these communities are under 10,000, but we used the
major/minor field in PCS.
Module 4: NPDES Authorities and Other State Programs—Pat Bradley, U.S. EPA Headquarters,
Office of Water
Mr. Bradley began his presentation by explaining that states and NPDES authorities have two major roles: (1) issuing permits and (2)
taking enforcement actions and providing compliance assistance. State water quality authorities are responsible for assisting in
conducting water quality standards reviews and revisions. These staff do not often closely coordinate their efforts. Indiana,
Massachusetts, and Maine have formal processes for establishing water quality standards, and at least one state has announced that
they will not do reviews or revisions.
Currently, 28 of the 32 states are NPDES authorized. Alaska, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire have their
respective EPA Regional offices as their NPDES authority.
The 1989 CSO Control Strategy (precursor to the 1994 Policy) called for the elimination of dry weather overflows (DWOs), minimizing
the impacts of CSOs through the adoption of the six minimum measures and development of a CSO control strategy (or certification
of no CSOs) by 1990. A majority of the states met the 1990 deadline for development of a control strategy. All but one developed a
strategy by 1991.
States took one of four major approaches to control CSOs. They are as follows:
(1) Revised existing state strategy to match federal CSO Control Policy (CT, GA, IN, KY, ME, MD, MA, NH, OH, WV).
(2) Continued using existing state strategy (IL, IA, Ml, MO, VT).
(3) Adopted state requirements either beyond (more stringent than) or outside (aside from) the federal CSO Control Policy; such as:
I New Jersey—watershed approach
I New York—15 best management practices (BMPs)
I Pennsylvania—requires system characterization and water quality reports
I Washington—limits to one overflow per year.
(4) Developed CSO control programs on a site-specific or community-by-community basis (AK, CA, DE, DC, KS, MN,NB, OR, RI,SD,TN,
VA,WI; this approach was generally taken by states with less than 4 or 5 CSSs).
Data on Implementation of the NMC:
• Requirements for the NMC were included in 87 percent of permits.
• NMC were adopted by 22 of the 32 states.
• Four states continue to require the Six Minimum Controls (1989 CSO Strategy).
• Two states developed BMPs that exceed requirements of the CSO Policy.
• Four states do not do not require implementation of the NMC.
Data on Implementation of LTCP:
• LTCP development is required with 64 percent of permits.
• Twenty-five states established framework for long-term control planning to meet water quality standards.
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
• Less than half of the 25 states have enforceable requirements for all CSO permittees to develop LTCPs, due to different priorities,
permit backlog issues, and cost.
• Seven states do not require LTCPs.
Mr. Bradley explained that states have two primary financial obligations: (1) funding the state's CSO program and (2) assisting
permittees in securing funds necessary for CSO controls. The following statistics are from the State Revolving Fund (SRF):
• 1988 - 1994, $700 million spent on CSO controls.
• 1994-2000, $1.3 billion spent on CSO controls.
• Illinois, Michigan, and New York spend the most SRF monies on CSO projects.
• 17 states have additional state financial assistance of some kind (loans, bonds, grants).
Question: How much of this problem of permits not having NMC and LTCPs is due to a permit backlog issue?
Response: About 34 of the 112 permits that do not require the NMC are a result of backlog issues.
Comment: Some states have asked for NMC reports as part of the permit process, but they do not show up in the permit themselves.
The compliance may be higher than is indicated by these numbers.
Question: What does enforcement mean given the "shall conform" language of the WWWQA?
Response: Now that the law has changed, and depending on how you interpret "shall conform," states that are issuing permits (after
December 2000) that do not include NMC and LTCPs could be inconsistent with the law and vulnerable to legal challenge.
Question: Since 1994, we have had a non-binding policy and states and communities have chosen a variety of approaches to
respond to the Policy. How do we reconcile that with the fact that the Policy is now law?
Comment: EPA should require that all communities do the NMC. If some want to do more, that is OK, but at a minimum you must do
the NMC. The thrust of the report should be that we have a policy, not much has been done and we need to get moving on it.
Comment: The report should convey the other challenges that states face, such as competing water programs [i.e., storm water,
concentrated animal feedlots (CAFOs)]. CSOs have suffered because the CSO Control Policy was not a regulation.
Comment: Before the Policy, many states were doing nothing. These results actually show tremendous progress. Communities
deserve a lot of credit for the progress that has been made in CSO controls, particularly since communities are challenged with old
infrastructure. Flexibility has helped, but much more funding in the form of grants is needed. Please show financial burden on states
of CSO control in the Report to Congress. The communities have the financial data. Without federal assistance, rate payers are being
stressed.
Response: EPA said they would address financial burden and related environmental benefits in the 2003 report.
Comment: Several stakeholders stressed that the SRF monies are not a complete solution to CSO controls. Some states add points to
these loan dollars, in some cases making them less desirable than private loans. Others reminded EPA that these are loans, and some
communities, especially small ones, really need grants to be able to do the work they need to do to comply with the Policy. Simply
pouring more money into the SRF will not help everyone.
Module 5: CSO Activities by Permittees—Pat Bradley, U.S. EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
Mr. Bradley explained that EPA estimates that there are 860 CSO permits that cover 777 communities located in 32 different states. Of
860 permits, 765 had data available on the type of receiving water body as summarized below:
• Streams (38 percent)
• Rivers (43 percent)
• Ponds/lakes (2 percent)
• Oceans/estuaries/bays (5 percent)
• Other (12 percent)
The following data were shared with the group on CSO control priorities:
-------
Appendix
• 301 of the 765 permit files reviewed had information about dry weather overflows; of these 301,278 permittees noted no dry
weather overflows.
• 452 of the 765 permit files reviewed had information on the miles of sewer maintained or acres served.
• 255 of the 765 permit files reviewed have documented the frequency of CSO events, by outfall, for one or more years.
• 195 of the 765 permit files reviewed document annual CSO discharge volumes by outfall, for one or more years.
• 47 of the 765 permit files reviewed have received water monitoring data.
Implementation of the NMC varied greatly. Below are data on the percentage of permits that had documentation on the various
types of NMC implemented:
1. Proper operation and maintenance (O&M)—75 percent
2. Maximize use of collection system for storage—75 percent
3. Pretreatment program review and modification—68 percent
4. Maximize flow to the POTW—74 percent
5. Eliminate dry weather overflows—76 percent
6. Floatables control—62 percent
7. Pollution prevention—59 percent
8. Public notification—59 percent
9. Monitoring—56 percent
The following is a list compiled of the most common activities employed to implement the NMC.
NMC Activity NMC Number of Permits I
Street cleaning
Catch basin cleaning
Public education
Sewer flushing
Screens and trash racks
In-sewer storage
Solid waste reduction and recycling
Infiltration and inflow control
Industrial pretreatment
Area drain, foundation drain and roof leader disconnection
6
6
8
1
6
2
7
2
3
3
182
159
102
91
84
76
68
67
61
58
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Implementation of LTCPs:
• 282 of the 786 permits have submitted LTCPs.
I 28 percent followed the demonstration approach.
I 36 percent followed the presumption approach.
I 36 percent followed a combination of demonstration and presumption or different approach altogether.
• 180 of the 282 LTCPs submitted have been approved.
• 232 of the 786 have submitted documentation for project-specific CSO controls that do not meet all the requirements for an
LTCR but go beyond minimal capital investment expectations of the NMC.
The following is a list compiled of the most common activities employed to implement LTCPs.
LTCP Control CSO Control Category Number of Permits 1
Sewer separation
Sewer rehabilitation
Retention basins
Primary sedimentation
Disinfection
Storage tunnels and conduits
Upgraded wastewater treatment plant
capacity
Outfall elimination
Upgraded pump station capacity
Swirl concentrators and vortex separator
Collection system
Collection system
Storage
Storage
Treatment
Storage
Treatment
Collection system
Collection system
Treatment
223
72
71
69
67
66
64
62
53
31
Of the 786 permit files, 254 contained information on sensitive areas. Primary contact recreation waters was by far the most often
cited type of sensitive use cited by communities. Some states, such as Indiana, have categorized all of their waters as primary contact
recreation waters. The following is the breakdown of reported sensitive areas where CSOs are located or are impacting sensitive
areas.
• Waters with threatened or endangered species—9
• Shellfish beds—8
• Public drinking water intake—10
• Primary contact recreation waters—179
• Outstanding National Resource Waters—1
• Other/unspecified—47
According to the CSO Partnership, the large majority of CSO program improvements are self funded (82 percent). Fifty-five of the
projects employ the SRF. Thirty-two percent utilize state grants, 18 percent federal grants, and five percent other sources.
1-10
-------
Appendix
Question: Does the definition of oceans/estuaries/bays match the definition in the Beaches Act? If so, five percent seems low since a
major impetus pushing CSO control in the early 1990s were the concern over coastal impacts. Perhaps focusing on this five percent
would give us the biggest bang for the buck.
Response: These categories were based on what the permit language said, not any standard definition. It is possible that more are
oceans/estuaries/bays if the Beaches Act definition is used.
Question: Did you ask communities for receiving water data?
Response: We checked the permit files, but did not contact communities. We will go directly out to communities for the 2003 report.
Comment: Collecting data is a good start, but telling an accurate story is important as well. For example, while five percent of
receiving waters may be coastal, if measured by population, the impact goes up dramatically.
Comment: It is important to note that before the CSO Policy, two-thirds of communities had dry weather overflow, now 278 of 301
report no dry weather overflows.
Question:The dry weather overflow number seems low. What could account for that?
Response: People do not like to report dry weather overflows. Also, there is a different interpretation of what dry weather overflow
means.
Question: How many permit files were reviewed?
Response: 786 files were reviewed in 16 states.
Comment: It seems as if the ninth minimum control (monitoring) is not being implemented. Is anyone monitoring to see if they
need an LTCP?
Response: Generally, they are doing monitoring to characterize their system, they are not conducting stream monitoring.
Comment: The Report to Congress should convey that environmental impact monitoring is not being conducted as intended in the
CSO Control Policy to determine if LTCPs are warranted.
Comment: Include the percentage of communities that have completed their LTCPs.
Comment: It would be nice to have information broken out by size of community, flow, and rainfall as well.
Question: Will enforcement data be in the report?
Response: Yes.
Comment: Participants emphasized that the report should be useful to Congress. For example, point out progress and ensure that
Congress understands that without additional funding it will be difficult to make more progress. We need to send the message to
Congress that we need to spend the $40 billion necessary to repair this problem.
Summary of Day 1— Jeff Lape, Acting Director, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater
Management, U.S. EPA Headquarters
We received a mandate for this report seven months ago. We realized that we did not have data, information, or analyses on which to
base a progress report. Since that time, we have tried to define the universe, document progress, and list results but have
encountered a paucity of data from previous analysis. Many of the necessary data collection tools are not in place for CSOs, let alone
the entire NPDES program. Data system management (electronic, geo-referenced, and available systems) will be a priority for the
NPDES program in the future.
1-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Opening Remarks, Day 2—Mike Cook, Director, Office of Wastewater Management,
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Mr. Cook discussed the political context, the state of water quality, and infrastructure issues as they affect CSOs. He told the group
that EPA's Administrator is putting greater focus on wet weather issues, particularly as they feed into a larger context of having a
holistic watershed approach for dealing with water quality problems. EPA's budget request for CSOs was $450 million.
Mr. Cook explained that there is a paucity of good water quality data. The state 305(b) lists are the primary source of data in this area.
According to this source, 40 percent of the nation's water bodies have been characterized, but some have limited data. We do have
good data on a few sources, such as in Boston and Chicago. We do know that many waters are impaired and that many of these
impaired waters are targeted by TMDLs. Also, many of these impaired waters are in urban areas. These urban areas should remain the
focus. EPA has court orders in 19 states to review TMDLs, some of which deal with point sources such as CSOs.
The new Administration has been influenced by a report from the National Academy of Sciences, which places an emphasis on
biomonitoring and suggests keeping the TMDL program moving using an adaptive management approach. The report states that
many water quality standards were put in place 25 or more years ago and are no longer appropriate. Before initiating work on
TMDLs, EPA should look at the water quality standards and determine if they are appropriate.
Mr. Cook reminded the group of the frequent discussions at the federal and state levels about the cost of new regulatory
requirements and unfunded mandates (e.g., arsenic standards, effluent guidelines), but explained that these discussions paled in
comparison to the cost of replacing an aging wastewater infrastructure, which is estimated at $1-2 trillion, not including the cost of
private connections. EPA estimates the cost of SSOs control to be $80-90 billion alone. These costs will only rise, so Mr. Cook believes
that the time to act is now, but reminded the group to realize that progress will be incremental. Long-term strategies will be
successful only when measured in decades.
He also commented that the social costs associated with future infrastructure needs are significant. Affordability will take on more
importance as costs for these improvements rise. Mr. Cook explained that because the income of 60 percent of the nation's poorest
citizens has remained steady, but sewerage rates have increased steadily, wastewater costs take a larger percentage of overall
household costs. This causes two main problems for communities faced with significant infrastructure improvement needs: (1) poorer
communities will not be able to afford improvements at all and (2) large communities may still be able to afford the user fees overall,
but within the larger community there will be an increasing population that cannot afford the fees.
He reminded the group that this problem will be felt most severely at the local level, since local communities will bear most of the
cost of infrastructure improvements. There will be political problems associated with this issue. For example, political difficulties have
already been felt by politicians in California due to beach closures.
Preliminary Findings Discussion
The group then reviewed six preliminary findings designed to stimulate discussion and refine thoughts on how to interpret the data
presented on Day 1.
Finding #1: The CSO universe is small (compared to the total POTW universe), regionally concentrated, diverse, and dynamic.
EPA estimates that today the total number of permits covering CSSs is 860.
• The participants generally agreed that first finding has nothing to do with what was asked for by Congress (i.e., what EPA has
done to enforce the Policy) and therefore does not warrant a finding. Findings should really be more punchy and tell the story
better.
• Should delete the word "small" because it diminishes the importance of the CSO problem. Instead, the report might want to
state that 43 million people are served by CSSs and which Congressional districts are affected.
• Focus the report on how EPA, the states, and municipalities have implemented and enforced the CSO Control Policy.
• Incorporate downstream miles of waters impacted, beach closings, and lost recreational opportunities.
1-12
-------
Appendix
Finding #2: Issuance of the CSO Control Policy focused attention on the CSO problem and gave momentum to EPA
development and implementation activities.
• For the most part, participants agreed that the Policy was a catalyst for action by EPA and all stakeholders. One asked that the
sub-topics present more information. Another asked that the report focus on impacts on people and the environment, not on
"administrative bean counting" and paperwork.
• In disagreement with the finding, one stakeholder suggested that public attention gave momentum to create the Policy, not that
the Policy created attention and momentum.
• Change the bullet that says "EPA has inspected." States have also done inspections.
• Put it all in the context of need. How much money has been spent? Say what the needs are today. Do not assume that data
from the 1996 Needs Survey is current.
• Convey that there was an immediate benefit from the Policy. The NMC were immediately implemented (in some places).
• EPA does not implement this program, states and municipalities do.
• Point out that the general population is benefitting from CSO controls that the Policy catalyzed. The cities are now focusing on
other issues—they look at all aspects of wet weather control. There is an additional private sector economic benefit.
Finding #3: The vast majority of states have incorporated some CSO Control Policy provisions into state permitting and/or
enforcement approaches. State CSO programs remain highly diverse, and some aspects of state implementation of
CSO Control Policy provisions have differed from the framer's expectations.
• Participants were concerned that there is a lack of consistency in implementation and enforcement.
• One stakeholder commented that these data are taken from enforceable documents only. Due to the permit backlog, voluntary
activities would not be reflected in this analysis.
• Another pointed out that a state with 76 permittees can only negotiate one to two new permits each year. These constraints
account for the diversity in CSO Control implementation.
• Tim Dwyer, EPA Headquarters Office of Water, noted that EPA had not provided guidance on water quality standards review until
mandated in FY1999. Also, no metrics exist to evaluate the success of NMC and LTCPs (e.g..reduction in volume,flow, and
duration of CSO discharges). Please see the section on water quality standards review for more detail.
• Mention that more water quality reviews have occurred, but they are not all documented. Please see the section on water
quality standards review.
Finding #4: Most municipalities have a clearer understanding of CSO control requirements as a result of CSO Control Policy.
Adoption of BMPs to reduce CSO discharges is widespread. Progress in long-term, capital-intensive projects has
been slower. Nationwide there are success stories in communities where CSO discharges have been eliminated or
substantially controlled.
• One stakeholder asked for discussion of water quality standards reviews in this section.
• Explain what the federal government, states, and municipalities have done to enforce the NMC.
Finding #5: The CSO Control Policy is unique with respect to its genesis, content, coordination, and flexibility. These qualities
make its implementation different from other water pollution control efforts and make objective assessment of
progress more difficult.
1-13
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
• Participants generally agreed that this finding was unimportant and could either be noted as a footnote or be cut completely.
They did not want the findings to state that the Policy was unique, rather that the CSO problem is. They also wished to note that
the flexibility built into the Policy cannot be utilized to its full degree if water quality standards revisions are not occurring.
• Another criticism was that the only flexibility in the Policy to date is in NMC implementation.
• Meeting water quality standards, as opposed to technology-based standards, is a primary difficulty in CSO Policy
implementation.
• The Policy needs tinkering. There are many components to the water quality equation, and this needs to be made clear.
Finding #6: States and communities have accomplished important environmental objectives as part of their CSO control efforts
to date. However, despite the CSO control efforts on the part of EPA, states, and municipalities, much more needs to
be done. More environmental data are needed to fully assess effectiveness of CSO controls and the attainment of
environmental outcomes, including water quality standards. Information reporting and management, as it currently
exists in most cases, is inadequate to determine accomplishments.
• The general consensus of the group was that much more needs to be done on collecting and monitoring information.
• Finding number two is misleading because only state permit files were addressed. Should either drop or make more explicit.
• One stakeholder requested that cost information be included in this finding.
• Point out that once CSO work has been done, a stream still may not be clean.
• Another stakeholder pointed out that wet weather monitoring is complicated and that many municipalities lack the technical
expertise to design and implement a monitoring program. It was requested that the finding convey this difficulty.
Additional Findings Suggested by Participants
EPA should put everything in the context of greater watershed management. Explain how CSOs are one of the things that impact
water quality and that CSO control is a step towards overall watershed improvement. Describe what water quality is, what revisions
entail, and the details of the one existing water quality standards review. Mention that other water quality reviews have occurred, but
they are not all documented. Say that revisions are not occurring. Explain use attainability analysis and explain that if revisions do
not occur, the cost of control is going to rise (the cost of control is based on the assumptions of the presumptive approach, 4-6
overflows/year). Explain that the Policy was intended to encourage permitting people to meet with water quality standards people,
but these meetings are not occurring. Water quality standards people need to be engaged more.
EPA needs to exercise more leadership regarding water quality standards revisions. Start by talking about it more in the report.
Perhaps the review can be incorporated more with the LTCP process. The public consultation process is not occurring and that is an
area where EPA can have some impact.
Since 1994, the CSO Control Policy has been non-binding, so the regulated community has developed varied levels of response. The
role of NPDES authorities in the CSO issue has been less forceful than in other EPA policies. Now, with the addition of the "shall
conform" language, stakeholders want more guidance from EPA to enforce the Policy in a consistent manner. Some NPDES
authorities have actively enforced the CSO Policy and encouraged EPA to report details on enforcement actions.
1-14
-------
Appendix
There needs to be better public education about the costs and consequences of CSO control. Action has been spurred in some cases
because of sewer crises, which dissolves opposition, but some communities have approved sewer improvements without
understanding what that would actually entail. They are now having trouble making payments. The lack of grant money places much
of the financial burden on municipalities. Long-term schedules must be reasonable in light of funding capabilities. Involvement by
Congressional and state representatives increases funding options and decreases local share.
Elaboration on funding options was requested by some participants. It was requested that EPA make some mention that some states
issue SRF loans with additional interest that may deter use of these funds. Many stressed that grants would be more helpful to small
communities than loans. Many participants were concerned about the funding burden to local communities and requested that this
report illuminate the costs of CSO abatement. There was agreement that the flexibility inherent in the CSO Control Policy eased some
of the burden, but that additional state and federal assistance was needed. The schedule of payments should be long-term, not short-
term, and be tailored to the public's ability to pay. Extending schedules for implementation and payment would help defer costs. The
SRF infrastructure is in place, but may need to be adapted for CSO control. The possibility of providing grants through Clean Water
SRF programs was noted. A good model for this is the Drinking Water SRF.
Some stakeholders questioned the equity of CSO funding. Distribution of income in urban areas and regional economics make some
less able to pay. One stakeholder claimed that in Saginaw, Michigan, a city which undertook expensive CSO controls, 25 percent of
the ratepayers cannot pay their bills and that bond payments on detention basins will bankrupt the city within five years. Assistance
to economically disadvantaged communities will not necessarily help large, urban areas, which might require financial assistance but
do not meet the criteria. Some suggested making zero or negative interest loans through the SRF or providing an equivalent tax
incentive for users. Perhaps SRF could be changed to make grants available to poor communities, though safeguards would be
necessary to prevent abuse. There was some disagreement of the viability of loans versus grants. Some suggested that grants would
encourage regulators to give to those who can show environmental benefits and for municipalities to better quantify those benefits
in order to get funding.
Additional Comments from Stakeholders
• Many participants felt that the distinction between CSOsand SSOswas not clear. Another wondered if the number of
communities that reported CSOs would rise again, as SSO controls become more stringent. An EPA representative noted that
many SSO communities would like to be treated like CSO communities when under enforcement actions.
• Clarify terminology: permittee versus CSO community; major/minor distinction; and definitions of SSO versus CSO. The definition
and inclusion of satellite communities should also be made explicit. Incentives for reporting CSOs versus SSOs should be
investigated.
• Make clear the distinctions between EPA, NPDES permitting authority, and states.
• Should convey that LTCPs are only plans and that actual spending has not happened yet.
• Define and explain urban wet weather problems.
• Distinguish between small, urban tributaries and complex river systems.
• Do not use the term "Best Management Practice."
• One stakeholder requested that local governments be given credit for implementation and that EPA claim to create only policy
and guidance.
• Note that the only monitoring data reviewed was at state or EPA level, not each permittee's data.
• report should describe enforcement processes and enumerate enforcement actions for CSO violations.
• Include a more detailed discussion of information management related to CSOs ("incomplete, inaccurate, obsolete").
• Identify the number of politicaljurisdictions (communities) in the 860 permittees. Try to incorporate 2000 Census data.
• Look beyond the permit files for NMC data. Some states have asked for NMC reports as part of the permit process—these would
not be reflected in actual permit files. Also, should look at permits issued prior to 1994 that have not been reissued.
1-15
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
• Report should have more detail of which CSO controls are being implemented.
• Report should list and discuss the number of communities that have completed LTCPs.
• Report should mention initial estimates of the size of the CSO community (1300) and the reason for the apparent decline in that
number to 860. The report should include the number of communities that have separated their systems.
• Answer the question of how many CSO discharges were in violation of water quality standards at the time of the Policy and how
many discharges are in violation today (hopefully the former is greater than the latter).
• Mention that some water quality reviews have occurred, but they are not all documented.
• Need standard metrics for permittees to quantify compliance (frequency of CSOs, volume, duration). What about biological
indicators? Many of the success stories are anecdotal, not based on documented and technical data.
• Explain what the federal government, states, and municipalities have done to enforce the NMC.
Some participants felt that this format does not answer the questions asked by Congress.
There is a need to address the context and intended audience of this report. This report is not intended to make
recommendations; it is to present what has been done to implement and enforce the Policy. The report should state progress,
needs, and how Congress can help.
Tell Congress that 43 million people are served by CSOs (how many Congressional districts?). Also, bring in regional and
downstream miles impacted, lost recreational opportunities, and beach closings.
The differences between the four approaches to the Policy taken by NPDES authorities should be made clear, as well as the legal
implications of the various approaches. Another participant wanted to simply state whether or not the NMC are required.
Include mention of other activities being performed by states that may compete with CSOs as a priority (e.g., CAFOs, storm
water, etc.). CSO enforcement has not been a priority because it has beenjust a policy for so long. One participant
recommended looking at the Inspector General's Report, with particular attention to siting concerns for water pollution control
projects in New York.
Report should discuss the obstacles to NPDES programs (CAFOs, storm water, etc.) as reason for flexibility in the CSO Policy.
Determine what goals and objectives EPA wants the report to accomplish. Then go back and write findings that focus on those.
Report should be structured around the three "legs" of the Policy: (1) NMC; (2) LTCP to meet water quality standards; and (3)
reviews and revisions of water quality standards. The third leg has not happened. NMC #9 ("monitoring to effectively
characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls") is not being faithfully implemented. Describe water quality
standards review process for Congress. Participants wanted more discussion on water quality standards review and revision and
a clear standard from EPA on how to conduct reviews of water quality standards.
Enforcement of the Policy should have a separate finding that includes actual data on enforcement actions.
Do not be shy in saying that the states have not done theirjobs.
State what EPA is planning to do in the future.
EPA should tell Congress that there are long-term social issues associated with CSOs related to the distribution of income in
cities. This is a social problem that resulted from the development of the country.
Closing Comments—Mike Cook, Director, Office of Wastewater Management, U.S. EPA Headquarters
Mr. Cook thanked the participants for coming and reminded them that EPA does not have time to gather all the information
requested, but they will do what is possible for the September 2001 Report and consider all of the comments for the 2003 Report. He
reminded participants that a summary of the meeting that reflects all of the group discussion will be sent out to the participants. EPA
still needs to do some thinking about what Congress will do with this report. There may be hearings based on the findings of the
report. They may respond legislatively. They may set aside some funding to address the problem, hopefully in a larger watershed
context.
1-16
-------
Appendix
Appendix 1-1—Attendees
Name
Shadab Ahmad
Beverly Banister
Emily Bergner
Andre Borrello
Pat Bradley
Ross Brennan
Robert Chominski
Mike Cook
Robert Coontz
Fred Cowles
Kevin DeBell
Joseph DiMura, PE
Tim Dwyer
Atal Eralp
Albert Ettinger
David Evans
Jim Filippini
Gordon Garner
Frank Greenland
Michael Irwin
Stephen John
Jeffrey Jordan
Carol Kocheisen
Louis Kollias
Richard Lanyon
Jeff Lape
Walter Brodtman
Dean Marriott
Tom McSwiggin
Rob Moore
John Murphy
Linda Murphy
Paul Novak
Jim Novak
Tim Oppenheim
Laurel O'Sullivan
Reed Phillips
Mark Poland
Joseph Rakoczy
Greg Schaner
Eric Seaman
Nancy Stoner
Phil Sweeney
Peter Swenson
Sharon Thomas
Edward Wagner
Mike Wagner
Clyde Wilber
LaJuana Wilcher
Affiliation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
US EPA Region 4
Prairie Rivers Network
City of Saginaw, Michigan
US EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
US EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
US EPA Region 3
US EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
US EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
US EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
US EPA Headquarters, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC)
McGuireWoods LLP
US EPA Region 5
Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, Kentucky
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Planning and Economics, Inc.
City of South Portland, Maine
National League of Cities (NLC)
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
US EPA Headquarters, Office of Water
US EPA Headquarters, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
City of Portland, Oregon
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Prairie Rivers Network
City of Bangor, Maine
US EPA Region 1
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
US EPA Region 5
Friends of the Chicago River
Lake Michigan Federation
City of Saginaw, Michigan
CSO Partnership
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Natural Resources Defense Council
US EPA Region 2
US EPA Region 5
Water Environment Federation
CH2MHNI
US EPA Region 1
Greeleyand Hansen.LLP
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae, LLP
1-17
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Appendix 1-2—Agenda
Agenda for Stakeholders Meeting on the Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows
July 12 -13,2001—Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois
CSO experts from around the country will gather to:
• Discuss the data, report methodology, and analysis of the Report to Congress;
• Discuss the implications of the major findings of the report;
• Discuss participants' experiences under the CSO Policy; and
• Discuss future directions, including activities related to the Wet Weather Quality Act of 2000.
Julj 12,
12:00-1:30 Lunch and Opening Remarks: Progress in Controlling CSOs
Opening Remarks—Tom McSwiggin, Bureau of Water, Permits Office, State of Illinois
Mr. McSwiggin is a long-time expert in the CSO field and was one of the founders of the 1994 CSO Policy. Mr. McSwiggin will
welcome participants to Chicago and offer views on his State's experiences in CSO control.
Progress in Controlling CSOs—Jeff Lape, Acting Director, Water Permits Division, U.S. EPA
Mr. Lape played an active role in the formation of the 1994 CSO Policy. He will provide an overview of the 1994 CSO Policy and
subsequent milestones.
1:30-1:45 Break
1:45-5:00 Briefing and Discussion of Major Elements of the 2001 Report to Congress
Using a briefing-discussion format, the group will participate in focused discussions of the major elements of the Report to Congress,
including methodology and scope, data gathered, and findings.
Evening Social event, to be determined
8:30- 8:45 CSO Policy and Future Directions
Michael B. Cook, Director, Office of Wastewater Management, U.S. EPA
Mr. Cook has been the Director of U.S. EPA's Office of Wastewater Management since 1991. Among his many duties, he is responsible
for managing the national NPDES program and is a noted leader in the environmental field. Mr. Cook will offer his views of the CSO
Policy and its future.
8:45-10:00 Interpreting the Data and Findings of the 2001 Report to Congress
Participants will discuss the major findings of the report as a whole. Key questions may include:
(1) Are the wide variety of approaches that currently exist for CSO control a negative or positive outcome of the CSO Policy?
(2) How does this flexible approach impact regulators? Municipalities?
10:00-10:15 Break
10:15-11:45 The Future Directions in CSO Control
In smaller discussion groups participants will discuss the CSO Policy in a broader context. Key topics will be determined based on
conversation from Day 1.
11:45-12:00 Closing Remarks and Next Steps
-------
Appendix J
Summary of CSO-Related
Enforcement Actions Initiated by EPA
After Issuance of the
CSO Control Policy
-------
-------
Appendix J
Civil Judicial Actions Taken by EPA Under the CSO Control Policy
Region State Case Name/City Name
Description
PA Erie
GA City of Atlanta
Action taken to address failure to comply with effluent
limits. Judicially ordered consent decree required
separation of 5,000 feet of sewer.
Action taken to address non-attainment of water quality
standards resulting from CSOs. Judicially ordered consent
decree required evaluation of CSO discharges and remedial
action plan completion by 07/01/07; $3.2 million penalty;
and $27,500,000 supplemental environmental project.
Hammond Sanitary District
OH City of Akron
Action taken to address 19,000 violations of the CWA;
judicially ordered consent decree; $225,000 penalty; $2.1
million to restoration; and $34 million in system
improvements.
Action taken to address CSOs causing violation of effluent
limits and failure to meet schedule for elimination of CSOs.
Judicially ordered consent decree: $290,000 penalty.
OH City of Port Clinton
Action taken to address violation of NPDES permit.
Judicially ordered consent decree required monitoring,
scheduled CSO abatement: $60,000 penalty.
J-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Administrative Actions Taken by EPA Under the CSO Control Policy
Region State Case Name/City Name
Description
1
MA Agawam
MA Agawam WWTP
MA Chicopee
MA Chicopee WPCF
MA Chicopee WPCF
MA Gloucester
MA Greater Lawrence SD
MA Holyoke
MA Holyoke WPCF
MA Ludlow
MA Ludlow WTP
Administrative compliance order (9/95) required abatement
schedule for CSOs to Connecticut River.
Action taken to address CSO discharges in violation of
permit. Administrative compliance order issued 12/30/96.
Administrative compliance order (9/95) required abatement
schedule for CSOs to Connecticut River.
Action taken to address CSO violations. Administrative
compliance order issued 06/06/97 required LTCP.
Action taken to address violation of perm it requirements
anddischargewithoutpermit AdministrativecompIiance
order (06/03/99) to eliminate dry weather overflows and
develop an LTCP.
Action taken to address violation of permit. 1989 Consent
Decree required LTCP development; LTCP received 4/01.
Action taken to address violation of permit requirements.
Administrative compliance order (06/24/99) ordered District
to develop an LTCP.
Administrative compliance order (9/95) required abatement
schedule for CSOs to Connecticut River.
Action taken to address CSO discharges in violation of
permit. Administrative compliance order issued 03/21/97,
Administrative compliance order (9/95) required abatement
schedule for CSOs to Connecticut River.
Action taken to address CSO discharges in violation of
permit. Administrative compliance order (issued 12/30/96)
required NMC.
MA Massachusetts Water Resources Administrative compliance order (05/13/96) required plan
Authority and enforcement actions to attain WQS.
MA South Hadley
Administrative compliance order (9/95) required abatement
schedule for CSOs to Connecticut River.
J-2
-------
Appendix J
Administrative Actions Taken by EPA Under the CSO Control Policy—Continued
Region State Case Name/City Name
Description
1
MA SouthHadleyWTP
MA Springfield
MA Springfield Regional WWTP
MA Springfield Water & Sewer
Commission
MA Taunton
MA Town of Fitchburg
MA Town of Haverhill
MA Town of Palmer
MA West Springfield
MA Worcester
ME Augusta
ME Biddeford
Action taken to address CSO discharges in violation of
permit. Administrative compliance order issued 03/14/97.
Administrative compliance order (9/95) required abatement
schedule for CSOs to Connecticut River.
Action taken to address CSO discharges in violation of
permit. Administrative compliance order issued 03/21/97.
Action taken to address CSOs. Administrative compliance
order for abatement of CSOs filed 11/14/00.
Action taken to address permit violations. Administrative
compliance order (9/24/94).
Action taken to address permit violations. Administrative
compliance order issued 07/96 required NMC and LTCP;
Town is proposing separation.
Action taken to address CSO discharges in violation of
permit. Administrative compliance order (08/09/99) to
complete Phase II of the LTCP by January 15, 2001.
Action taken to address CSO discharges in violation of
permit. Administrative compliance order issued 01/06/97;
penalty payment of $5,000.
Action taken to address CSO discharges in violation of
permit. Administrative compliance order (9/95) required
CSO abatement schedule.
Action taken to address permit violations. Administrative
consent order for NMC and LTCP.
Administrative compliance order for CSO abatement
schedule.
Administrative compliance order 04/22/94 required CSO
abatement schedule.
J-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Administrative Actions Taken by EPA Under the CSO Control Policy—Continued
Region State Case Name/City Name
Description
1
N H Lebanon WWTP & City STP
Action taken to address CSO discharges in violation of
permit. Administrative order (6/6/00) requires City to
eliminate six CSOs by 12/31/08 and to submit a plan to EPA
by 12/31/05 to eliminate the seventh CSO by 12/31/12.
NH Manchester STP
NH Nashua
IL City of Rock Island
IN
Bluffton POTW
IN
Fort Wayne
Action taken to address non-attainment of water quality
standards caused by CSOs. Administrative compliance
order (03/08/99) requiring CSO abatement and $5,6 million
supplemental environmental project (SEP),
Administrative compliance order required CSO abatement
by 12/31/19.
Action taken to address CSOs to environmentally sensitive
area and failure to implement the NMC. Administrative
compliance order filed 02/13/98 requires plant and sewer
improvements to reduce CSOs.
Action taken to address violation of permit by failure to
submit CSO plan. CSO plan received. Administrative
penalty order filed 6/6/00 requiring SEP and $30,000
penalty.
CSOs in violation of permit and SSO violations resulted in
the issuance of two administrative orders in 1995 and 1996.
OH Port Clinton
CSOs in violation of permit resulted in a 1995 administrative
order and subsequently ajudicial referral.
J-4
-------
Appendix K
Summary of Planned Research by
EPA's Office of Research and
Development
-------
-------
Appendix K
Summary of Planned CSO-Related Research
Research Need
Study Name Description
Develop monitoring methodologies to CSO Monitoring
measure the characteristics and impacts
of wet weather flows.
Provide a methodology with widespread applicability for statistically calculating
CSO quality data based on historical rainfall and WWTP quality data. Examine
wet weather monitoring programs nationwide to identify the wet weather
monitoring provisions of a NPDES permit and the relationship of monitoring to
the effectiveness of the storm water management program.
Determine wet weather flow receiving- Large River
water impacts and impaired beneficial Pollution
uses that can be attributed to chemical,
biological, and especially physical
stressors.
Develop a methodology to assess the wet weather impacts of CSOs and other
point and NPSs of pollution within a watershed on a large river (the Ohio River)
and for evaluating the effectiveness of alternative CSO control measures.
Water Body Impacts Develop a baseline assessment of the risks to aquatic life, and human health in
Model the Duwamish River and Elliott Bay in King County, Seattle, WA. This effort will
assess the following: (1) the baseline risk to aquatic life and humans who use
the River and Bay; (2) the benefits to be gained by various levels of CSO control;
and (3) the risks resulting from discharge of effluent to the Duwamish during
peak flows.
To assess the effectiveness of
disinfection techniques.
CSO Disinfection Assess the effectiveness of various disinfection techniques for CSOs, including
rapid oxidants and UV disinfection. Techniques for measuring microorganism
population that accounts for microorganisms that survive in the interstices of
the larger organic particles and in the micro-fractures of soil grains (e.g.,
blending the samples, sonification) will be used in assessing disinfection
effectiveness.
To address the goals of watershed Watershed
management projects. Modeling
Review existing computer models related to urban wet weather flows, to
determine which models are compatible with the watershed approach. The
models will then be studied to determine how they can be integrated to include
all drainage (SW, CSOs, SSOs, and NPSs) and receiving waters; and other
watershed relationships, such as: storm water-groundwater interactions;
sediment migration patterns; human and ecological risk from toxic substances;
control practices and pollution prevention effects; and atmospheric deposition.
Storm water- This project will interface storm water runoff with groundwater, to gain a better
Groundwater understanding of the groundwater connections to surface water. Naturally
Interactions occurring water isotopes during storm events will determine the components,
pathways, and residence time of subsurface WWF discharging into surface
receiving waters. These objectives will attempt to determine if isotopic
techniques can help performance evaluation of source controls and collection
system controls for abating CSOs.
Mill Creek Develop an integrated watershed management plan to assess and control CSOs
Watershed Plan and other pollution sources within the Mill Creek Watershed (Ohio). Establish a
process and develop decision criteria for selecting appropriate and cost
effective wet weather flow controls. Identify and resolve plan implementation
barriers. The ultimate goal of the project is to achieve community wide
consensus on an integrated implementation plan for the attainment of water
quality and ecosystem goals.
K-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Research Need
Study Name Description
Rouge River Demonstrate effective solutions to water quality problems facing an urban
Restoration watershed highly impacted by wet weather flows and develop potential
solutions and implement projects to restore water quality in the Rouge River,
Wayne County, Michigan. Develop tools for watershed analysis and planning.
Evaluate various wet weather flows control prototypes, including designs of
CSO detention basins and storm water runoff quality control BMPs.
To develop and demonstrate advanced CSO Measures
collection system design alternatives to Success
reduce wet weather overflows.
of The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) is working with
CSO stakeholders to determine the effectiveness of their CSO control programs
in achieving the objectives of the CSO Policy. The project will identify indicators
that stakeholders can use to effectively measure the success of CSO control
programs, that include: (l)programmatic, (2) in-stream, (3) end-of-pipe controls,
and (4) ecological and use attainability.
Flow Balance The project is an expansion of the original pilot-scale project initiated in 1987
Method (FBM) and will evaluate CSO capture effectiveness for WWTP pumpback. The earlier
phase of the project demonstrated that effective CSO control is achieved by the
FBM and its principals of operation and sea-worthiness.
Storage Facilities The scope of this project includes: (1) compiling existing data on the
Design effectiveness of CSO, storm water, and SSO storage, sedimentation, and
treatment methods; (2) verifying recommended storage/treatment approaches
through computer modeling; (3) finalizing a 1981 EPA report currently in the
draft final form entitled Storage/Sedimentation Facilities for Control of Storm
and Combined Sewer Overflows Design Manual; and (4) developing a second
volume to this document as a more detailed engineering manual for
storage/treatment optimization.
Real-Time Control
by Radar
Demonstrate application of a radar-based rainfall monitoring system, CALAMAR,
to maximize the in-line CSO storage capacity. CALAMAR will provide the
sewerage operators with advanced warning of storm water accumulation in
different catchments at a given time. This will allow the operators to store and
route the flow in the most efficient manner, optimizing the CSO in-line storage
capacity. It also prevents releases of untreated CSO during a rain event.
Develop and demonstrate high-rate
and high-efficiency treatment
technologies suitable for retrofitting
existing WWTPs as well as for new
installations.
CSO Vortex Controls A side-by-side, full-scale demonstration of three different types of vortex units
primarily for floatables removal and secondarily for other pollutant removals;
using three 43-foot diameter vortex units of varying depths. The results
obtained from this facility will have potential application to over 400 outfalls in
New York City. The sampling and analysis program includes: floatables
(sampled with small aperture mechanical screens at strategic points throughout
the facility), suspended solids, BOD, nutrients, and bacteria (sampled from multi-
port continuous flow stream sampling devices connected to automated
samplers).
K-2
-------
Appendix K
Research Need
Study Name Description
Retrofitting Control
Facilities
Investigate the retrofitting of existing sewerage systems to handle additional
wet weather flow (SSO, storm water and CSO) by: (1) increasing the hydraulic
loadings at the control facilities, and (2) increasing the amount of storage in the
conveyance system. It will investigate: (1) converting existing "dry-ponds"
(ponds that drain and go dry between storm events) to "wet-ponds" for
separate storm water systems to enable treatment through sedimentation, and
(2) converting or retrofitting primary settling tanks to dissolved air flotation and
lamellae and/or microsand-enhanced plate or tube settling. Retrofitting
processes will better enable communities to meet the CSO Policy.
CSO Concepts for Produce methodologies for applying CSO control and treatment methods to
Stormwater improve separate storm water systems. Examine applicable storage, treatment
and flow-control techniques currently practiced in CSO systems. The goal will be
to maximize the treatment capacity of the existing systems.
Vortex/ Disinfection Demonstrate on a full scale, the applicability of new processes for the treatment
Treatment of CSOs. Specific goals of this project include: providing comparative process
results for various treatment technologies; providing design criteria and capital
and O&M costs; determining efficient and appropriate control techniques
thereby reducing overall CSO control costs and more effectively solving the
pollution problem at its source; and determining cost-effective methods to
minimize hydraulic load impacts on the wastewater treatment plant, thereby
providing more capacity for handling wet weather flows, such as
infiltration/inflow, and preventing SSOs.
Crossflow Plate This project will demonstrate CSO treatment using an existing WWTP primary
Settlers settling tanks retrofitted with crossflow plate settlers. The successful application
of plate settling technology will provide a way to decrease cost of CSO control
and will decrease the need for newly constructed storage and treatment
facilities and additional land requirements.
High-Rate Ozonation will be evaluated as an alternative disinfection process for CSO; as
Ozonation conventional disinfection technologies cannot be readily applied to CSOs (due
to varying flow rates and resulting water quality). Ozonation is known to have
the highest oxidizing power, and due to its high reactivity with water, does not
carry residual. A one million gallon/day pilot project is proposed that will
provide for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a full-scale
ozone CSO disinfection system in Fresh Creek with the goal of reducing
microbial pollution to Jamaica Bay, New York.
K-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Research Need Study Name Description
Triple Purpose Demonstrate the successful CSO storage concept as applied to separate storm
Storage drainage, sanitary sewer, and combined sewer system discharges. Multipurpose
storage should include: storm water and inappropriate non-storm water
discharges from storm-drainage; CSO; and dry weather flows from combined or
sanitary sewers. Auxiliary storage functions may include sedimentation
treatment, flood protection, flow attenuation, dry weather flows capture and
attenuation, sewer relief, and low-flow augmentation.
Constructed This project supports the development and implementation of Constructed
Vegetative Vegetative Treatment Cells (CVTC) for CSO remediation. CVTCs function as a
Treatment Cells physical/biological treatment system. This demonstration will generate
(CVTC) monitoring, process control, and O&M data necessary to facilitate widespread
implementation of CVTC technology for CSO remediation.
CSO Optimization
Paper
Describes a strategy to optimize a CSO control system. This optimized system
maximizes the use of the existing system before new construction and sizes the
storage volume in concert with the WWTP treatment rate to obtain the lowest
cost storage and treatment system. The paper was peer reviewed by the Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE and was published in March
1997.
K-4
-------
Appendix L
List of Recipients of
National Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy Excellence Awards
-------
-------
Appendix L
CSO Control Program Award Recipients
Year Award City
Description of CSO Program
2000 1 st Place City of Saco, ME
Eight CSO construction and BMP projects including sewer separation, I/I
reduction, and constructing a new secondary clarifier. In 1997, the city enacted
a CSO impact fee to fund the CSO Capital Abatement Plans.
2nd Place City of Corvallis, OR
CSO remediation program that include storage (including a 10 MG storage
lagoon), transport, and treatment (a 35 mgd Wet Weather treatment facility and
a 3 mgd wastewater treatment plant expansion.
1999
1 st Place Richmond, VA
Phased CSO control program to protect the James River; components include
wastewater treatment plant improvements, disinfection, swirl concentrators
and storage basins. City's program will eliminate overflows to the major park
area along the James River during the summer and significantly enhance
recreational activities.
2nd Place- Auburn, NY
tie
Program uses a centralized high-rate treatment facility, in-line and off-line
storage of wet weather flows, and four regional high-rate treatment facilities to
eliminate overflows from its CSO and separate sewer system. Program
eliminated 31 of 35CSOsand SSOswith remaining four CSOs receiving high-
rate treatment for floatables and setteable solids removal and disinfection.
2nd Place- Columbus, GA
tie
Program includes sewer separation, diversion with floatables control, and
transport and treatment for solids removal and disinfection. Long-term
program integrated community development projects with public inputs
throughout process.
1998 1st Place Saginaw, I
Implemented a three-phased program based on six retention/treatment basins
(RTBs), two of which include vortex separators. Program added over 60 MG of
storage.
1997 1st Place Augusta, ME
Implemented First Phase of four-phase, 15-year CSO Control Program; major
components of program are a high flow management facilities at the WWTP and
elimination of 13 CSOs through BMPs, regulator adjustments, and selected
sewer seperations.
2nd Place West Lafayette, IN
Construction of a new interceptor sewer in conjunction with a new highway
bypass, saving ratepayers $1 million; construction of new wet weather
treatment facility to treat wet weather flows in excess of 22.5 mgd. Wastewater
treatment plant improvements allows West Lafayette to treat nearly 83 percent
of its annual wet weather volume; implementation of full CSO Control Program
will reduce annual untreated CSO volume by approximately 95 percent an the
duration of untreated CSO discharge by nearly 96 percent.
L-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Year Award City
Description of CSO Program
1996 1st Place Bangor, ME
Program focused on elimination of CSOs in two sensitive areas. Eliminated
eight of the city's 22 CSOs and reduced overflow occurrences for several others;
LTCP contains 23 projects including several multi-year sewer separation
projects, and upgrading of the treatment plant to handle 13 mgd of combined
sewage.
2nd Place Bath, ME
Developed CSO abatement program to address its 10 CSO outfalls to the
Kennebac River. Bath's LTCP consists of implementing creative and practical
BMPs, optimizing existing facility capacities, and developing systematic and cost-
effective capital improvement projects.
1994 1st Place Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago, Chicago,
IL
Developed two-phased $3.6 billion Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) project
designed to eliminate CSOs and significantly reduce basement flooding. The
completion of both phases was designed to reduce BOD loads to area's
waterways from CSOs by 99 percent and will reduce flood damage by nearly 65
percent.
2nd Place City of Lansing, I
Received Federal Construction Grant Program to improve the wastewater
collection and treatment system; improvement took the form of relocating
regulators out of the influence of the Grand River up the ten-year flood
elevation to prevent river back flow into the collection system. The City replaced
mechanical regulators with leaping orifice regulators designed to discharge to
the interceptor all dry weather flows.
1993 1 st place City of San Francisco, CA
$1.4 million in construction cost program to eliminate discharge of CSO to the
city's shoreline. The program constructed storage/treatment facilities to hold
combined stormwater at the wastewater treatment plant, and to provide
treatment for peak wastewater flows.
2nd place Decatur, Illinois
Constructed four satellite CSO treatment facilities and capture of first flush of
each storm event in tanks for later treatment at the treatment facility. As a
result, the odors and fish kills in the Sangamon River that were prevalent before
the CSO program were eliminated. Results of a July 1991 biological and water
quality survey indicated significant improvement in aquatic habitat over 40
miles of the river.
1992 1st place New York, NY
Innovative approach to CSO abatement and floatable capture; while proceeding
on plans on a large scale facility, operations-based projects provided some CSO
abatement at a major four-barrel outfall at a low-cost (approx $1/gallon).
2nd place Minneapolis-Saint Paul -
South Saint Paul, MN
Implemented 10-year program to eliminate CSO system. Achieved goal of 60
percent volume removal after the fifth year.
1991 1 st place Monroe County/City of
Rochester, NY
Program included BMP improvements to existing facilities, deep-rock storage
and conveyance tunnels, and wet weather preliminary treatment facilities;
cleaned and relined existing trunk sewers to handle increased flows; program
increased recreational use of the area's waterways, increased public awareness
of environmental issues and increased land-based recreation.
L-2
-------
Appendix M
Summary of Outcomes of
104(b)(3) Grants
-------
-------
Appendix I
Summary of Outcomes of 104(b)(3) Grants
Grantee
Description
Federal
Contribution
AMSA
Performance Measures for $294,000
CSQ Control; Grant
Number CX823736-Q1
9/1794 -1/31/97 AMSA developed a leries of performance measu rei for
utilities and local government agencies to use to track
benefiti asiociated with CSO control. The study received
input from a CSO stakeholder workgroup, focus group
meetings, environmental groups, and state and federal
permitting authoritiei. All 24 identified performance
measures were considered to be appropriate for general
uie by CSO communitiei; four of these were also found to
be appropriate for national tracking.
City of Indianapolis
Wet Weather Public
Education Program; Grant
Number GX825886-01
$112,000 7/24/97 - 7/31/99 Indianapolis designed an educational program to inspire its
residents to take action to improve water quality during wet
weather events. A video and slide presentation was created
to explain current wet weather issues facing Indianapolis
and the actions being taken by the city to address those
issues. The City of Indianapolis also established a Citizen
Advisory Committee (CAC) to assist city officials in selecting
media campaign messages and materials and to provide
input regarding cost/benefit decisions for water quality
improvement projects. Other components of the
educational program include a campaign plan, five
brochures, media kits and surveys to gauge
needs/knowledge base of the public.
Low Impact Development Feasibility of Apply! ng LI D $110,000
(LI D) Center Stormwater Micro-Scale
Techniques to Highly
Urbanized Areai in Order
to Control the Effects of
Urban Runoff in CSOi
4/9B - 4/00 A literature review was conducted to determine the
availability and reliability of data to asieis the effect!venesi
of LID practices for controlling Stormwater runoff and
reducing pollutant loadings to receiving waters.
Background Information concerning the uses, ownership
and associated costs for LID measures was also compiled.
ORSANCO
Wet Weather Study of $1,383,000
Ohio River; Grant Numbers
CX825699-01 and
CX824105-01
7/1/97 -12/31/01 ORSANCO developed a water quality model of the Ohio
River capable of assessing CSO impacts and evaluating CSO
controls on the river. The goal was to develop a model not
only for the Ohio River but one that was suitable for
evaluating other large rivers systems. In addition to CSO
loads, Stormwater and non-point source load estimates
were included in the model to demonstrate the effect other
wet weather pollutant sources have on large river systems.
Watershed planning and wet weather monitoring protocols
were also included in the model approach as a
demonstration on how to incorporate these concepts in a
large river system model.
M-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Grantee
Description
Federal
Contribution
CSO Partnership
Development of an
Outreach Mechanism and
Materials for CSO
Communitiei; Grant
Number CX823975 -01
$176,500 10/94 - 2/99 Thii assistance project wai deiigned to provide
informational outreach to CSO communities nationwide. To
reach thii goal, the CSO Partnership developed two
newsletter!: the CSO Update and its supplement CSO
Bulletins. These publications reported on regulatory,
financial, technological, and legiilativechangei in CSO
controls. The CSO Partnership also used the publications to
diitribute lurveys to municipal officials and other intereited
paritiei involved in CSO control. The information gathered
from the surveys on municipal concerns, questions,
experiences, and iniights were made available to EPA and
published in subsequent newsletters by the Partnership.
The mailing lilt for these publications include CSO
coordinators and stakeholders for over 1000 CSO
communities nationwide.
California State University Training Video
CSO Partnership
Development of CSO
Handbook for Small
Communitiei; Grant
Number X82 5552-01
$245,000 7/96 - 7/98 California State University developed a video training
program on how to effectively operate and maintain
collections systems. The video course was presented in the
form of six 30-minute sessions that were meant to
compliment the two volume EPA guide on Operation and
Maintenance of Wastewater Collections Systems. A user
survey was developed to be distributed with the video
training program. Survey results were shared with EPA
officials to provide comments on recommended
improvements for the training program and the need for
additional videotapes.
$181,000 4/91 - 4/99 Between November 1997 and Septem ber 1998, the CSO
Partnership preiented a leries of six workshopi on CSO
planning methodologiei and control technologiei for imall
communities. The workshops were held In six different
states, with each preientation ipecifically tailored to the
needs of the small CSO communities of the area. Special
emphasii wai placed on CSO control approaehei for
communities with a population of less than 10,000
residents.
M-2
-------
Appendix N
Summary, by State, of CSO Impacted
Water Body Segments from 303(d)
Lists
-------
-------
Appendix N
Summary, by State, of CSO Impacted Water Body Segments from 1996 303(d) Lists
State
ALASKA
CALIFORNIA
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA (DC)
GEORGIA
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
OHIO
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
TOTAL
# Waterbodies
Listed
48
540
177
159
37
588
111
333
157
1,292
153
241
139
706
34
152
53
45
91
945
128
727
869
565
78
137
328
315
113
672
518
101
10,512
Source Information
Reported?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
21 states
# Waterbodies listed as impaired due to:
Urban Runoff/Storm
CSO impacts Sewer impacts
26
10
21
8
16
4
8
21
7
10
4
5
140
21
64
68
245
34
3
19
1
1
6
46
23
89
2
26
4
652
N-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Summary, by State, of CSO Impacted Water Body Segments from 1998 303(d) Lists
State
ALASKA
CALIFORNIA
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA (DC)
GEORGIA
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
OHIO
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
TOTAL
# Waterbodies
Listed
58
509
224
377
36
584
738
209
157
1,107
231
228
196
907
272
144
180
114
226
1,059
627
882
1,183
1,039
127
161
352
197
883
1,317
722
552
15,598
Source Information _
Reported?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
32 states
# Waterbodies listed as impaired due to:
CSO impacts
1
20
11
17
1
17
30
10
36
7
150
Sewer impacts
25
95
75
224
217
5
12
13
8
93
176
120
85
56
5
24
1,233
N-2
-------
Appendix O
Summary of State Inspection
Programs
-------
-------
Appendix 0
Summary of State Inspection Programs
State Number of Frequency of Cause of Contact with Guidance Checklist Tracking Training
Facilities Inspections Inspection Region
Inspected
AK
CA
CT
DE
GA
IA
IL
IN
KS
Iff
ME
MD
MA
Ml
MN
MO
NE
1 CSO-lnspections
are conducted by
Region 10
Not Documented
Not Documented
1 CSO (Region 3)
Not Documented
3CSOs(byRagIon
7)
36 CSOs
Must Inspect 90
facilities per year
Not Documented
4 CSOs (by Region
4)
Not Documented
Not Documented
4 CSOs
Not Documented
Not documented
4 CSOs (by Region
7)
Not documented
Annual
No Informitlon
Annual
Annual for majors
3 to 4 years for
majors
Annual
Annual
No recent Maine
inspections
Annual
Annual for majors
Annual for
majors, 5 years for
minors
Not Documented
Annual for
majors, 5 years for
minors
Plinned
NPDES
CSO, scheduled
plan, citizen
complaint
NPDES scheduled
plan, citizen
complaint
DWO, citizen
complaints,
monthly report
discrepancy
Annual review,
DWO, schedule
NPDES, schedule.
citizen complaint
Annual permittee
report
NPDES, citizen
complaint, DWO
NPDES, response
to a problem
In the process of
separating
NPDES (CSOs are
not yet
permitted)
Not scheduled.
but regular
Monthly
Quarterly, some
emergency
meetings
Annual audit
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annually
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quirterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Protocol
No
Permit outline
No
State plan
Indiana uses tha
checklist as
guidance
No
Forms for annual
report, Guidance
in development
No
Stite Guidance
No
Under
development
No
No
No
No
Regional and
State CSO
checklists
State CSO
checklists
No
No
No
No
Being
redeveloped
Under
development
PCS
PCS
PCS
Stata
matrix and
PCS
PCS
PCS
PCS
PCS and
state
matrix
PCS and
State
matrix and
tracking
sheet
PCS ind
Stata
ditibase
PCS and
State
database
PCS
Stite Inspector
and operator
train! no
Developing
Inspector training
State inspector
training
EPA Inspector
training, Stite
operator
certification
Coordinating with
Region 5 for
inspector training,
State operator
training
No
Operator training
State inspector
training
State operator
certification
Stite operator
training
On-the-job
inspector training,
internal
EPA training of
inspectors
0-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
State Number of Frequency of Cause of Contact with Guidance Checklist Tracking Training
Facilities Inspections Inspection Region
Inspected
NH
NJ
NY
OH
OR
PA
R!
SD
TN
VT
VA
WA
Wl
WV
Not documented
Not Documented
3 csos
2 CSOs (by Region
5)
Not Documented
Not Documented
Not Documantad
Not Documented
Not documantad
Not documented
Not documented
Not documented
5 CSOs (by Region
5)
2 CSOs (joint
Region and State)
Annuil to
biannual
Annual
Annual
Annual for
majors, 3 years for
minors
Annual
Annual for
majors, 3 years for
minors
Biannual
Annual for
majors, biinnuil
for minors
Annual
Annuil for majors
Biannual
Not documantad
Not documented
NPDES
NPDES, citizen
complaint,
enforcement
support, non-
comDliance
NPDES,
enforcement
support, pa it of a
wet weather plin
NPDES, protocol
for response to
violation
NPDES, monitors
In outfalls
Schedule, citizen
complaint, DWO
NPDES, schedule,
citizen complaint
CSO
NPDES, schedule
NPDES
NPDES,
enforcement
action
CSO, knowledge
of problem
Quirterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
As naadad
Quarterly
Not scheduled,
but regular
contact
Quarterly
Quirterly
Infrequent
Quarterly
Under
davalopment
National manual,
developing State
manual
State Technical
ind Operational
Guidance Series
(TOGS)
State protocol
Not Documented
State Compliance
& Enforcement
Strategy, State
manual
Not Documented
No
National Manual
Strategy
EPA manual
Region 3
Guidance on
CSOs
No
Redeveloping
CSO checklist
No
Regional CSO
checklists
No
No
Checklist for
NPDES inspection
No
No
No
No
No
PCS
PCS
PCS and
state
matrix
PCS
PCS
PCS and
State
matrix:
eFACTS
PCS
PCS
PCS
PCS
PCS and
State
matrix
PCS and
state
matrix
State operator
training
On-thejob
inspector training,
State operator
certification
State training for
operatore ind
inspectors
Coordinating with
Region 5 for
inspector training
State Inspector
training and
operator
certification
State training for
inspectors, may
join Region 3
inspector training
EPA inspector
training and on-
the-job inspector
training
State operator
training
On-thejob
inspector training
Annual Stite
inspector training,
operator training
State operator
certification
State inspector
training and
operator
certification
0-2
-------
Appendix P
Summary of CSO-Related
Enforcement Actions Initiated By
States After Issuance of the CSO
Control Policy
-------
-------
Appendix P
Appendix P-1. Summary of State Enforcement Activities Through June 2001
Number of CSO Enforcement CSO Enforcement Action(s) Reasons for CSO
Actions to Date Enforcement Actions
AK
CA
CT
DE
DC
GA
IN
IA
KS
KY
ME
MD
Not Documented
1
Not Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
Cease and Desist Order (CDO)
to Sacramento
Violations of state water quality
provisions due directly to
combined sewer overflows.
City of Atlanta Is under a CSQ-
related Federal Consent Decree
Lawsuit In district court.
14
Not Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
3 initiated by DEP;
9 initiated by Region 1
Not Documented
Seven communities received
warnings for noncompliance In
2000
Failure to develop their
Operational Plan, Stream Reach
Characterization and
Evaluation Report or both.
RWQCB has initiated Sacramento's pre
CSO Policy planning efforts and
eventually led to the development and
implementation of its LTCP.
Two CSO communities In the state: one
is using sewer separation; the other Is
scheduled to be completed during
2001.
State of Georgia, Region 4, and Federal
District Judge all have some degree of
authority over the Atlanta CSO
program. GAEPDand Region 4 have
joint review authority for Atlanta's LTCP.
IEPA does not have authority to
administer Administrative Orders.
Two communities expected to be
referred in 2001; five others already
have been referred to enforcement.
Consent Decrees (DEP)
Failure to comply with terms of
state water-discharge licenses.
MA
Not Documented
Consent Degrees, Executive
Orders, or Administrative
Orders
Noncompliance with the water-
quality standards In NPDES
permit resulting from failure to
impIementNMC.
Only NPDES permits are used to enforce
NMC and LTCP
Region 1 maintained CSO Control Policy
Enforcement Authority through
December 2000; Consent decrees are
CSO related (DEP).
MDE is attempting to negotiate consent
decrees with five communities currently
under administrative orders for failing
to develop an LTCP.
The Region 1 Water Enforcement
Program coordinates with CSO
communities to develop a program for
developing and implementing an LTCP;
the program Is formalized In a schedule
within an Order.
P-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Summary of State Enforcement Activities Through June 2001— Continued
Number of CSO Enforcement CSO Enforcement Action(s) Reasons for CSO
Actions to Date Enforcement Actions
Remarks
MN
MO
NE
NH
NY
Not Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
Director's Final Orders (DFO);
litigation and Consent Orders
NPDES permits (September 27,
1988); Order on Consent (June
25,1992); Amended Consent
Judgement (ACJ) for
Onondaga County;
Enforcement Orders
OH
Not documented
Judicial Consent Orders;
Administrative Orders
OR
Not Documented
PA
Not Documented
Informal enforcement notices
of violation and
noncompliance issued by the
Southwest Regional PADEP
RI
SD
Not Documented
Not Documented
To develop and implement an
LTCP (DFO); Rouge River
Watershed (Litigation and
Consent Orders).
Address CSO abatement
through Facility Planning
Programs for nine segments in
New York City (NPDES permit);
Noncompliance with 1988
NPDES permit (Order on
Consent); require the
implementation of an LTCP
(ACJ); POTW violations
Not Documented
Reduce CSOs.
Not Documented
Region 5 and the federal district court
also actively review progress in the
Rouge River CSO program.
Minnesota is actively involved in a
sewer-separation program for CSO
control.
Many of the enforcement actions
require submission of the required
The 1992 Order on Consent established
a 14-j?ear compliance schedule
intended to facilitate the planning,
design, and construction of CSO
abatement and storage facilities; POTW
violations traced to the wet weather
impacts the CSO is having on the
operation of the POTW.
When an enforcement action is brought
in Ohio, the complete NPDES permit,
including CSO provisions, is examined;
Region 5 has joined OEPA in initiating
enforcement actions against
Youngstown and Toledo.
Enforcement Responses: One CSO
community has constructed additional
treatment facilities; two communities
are in the process of constructing
additional treatment facilities.
Region 3 indicates that permits that are
not in compliance, as per the schedule
listed in an expiring NPDES permit,
should be brought into compliance
through an enforcement action, rather
than reissued with a new or revised
schedule.
South Dakota's one CSO community has
chosen sewer separation as its primary
CSO control tool.
P-2
-------
Appendix P
Summary of State Enforcement Activities Through June 2001— Continued
Number of CSO Enforcement CSO Enforcement Action(s) Reasons for CSO
Actions to Date Enforcement Actions
Remarks
TN
VT
VA
WA
Wl
wv
Not Documented
Not Documented
Administrative orders; Consent
orders
To facilitate implementation of
CSO controls (Administrative
Orders); violation of the
Administrative Order (Consent
Order).
Not Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
Not Documented
The town of Randolph has been issued
a second administrative order because
sewer separation project did not
completely eliminated all CSO
discharges for the design flow.
Region 10 has administrative oversight.
P-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Appendix P-2. Civil Judicial Actions Taken by States After the Issuance of the CSO Control Policy
Region State Case Name/City Name
Outcome
NY
Syracuse Metro WWTP
Amended consentjudgement requires LTCP; NYSDEC
BMPs8-12.
P-4
-------
Appendix P
Appendix P-3. Administrative Actions Taken by State After the Issuance of the CSO Control Policy
| Region State
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 CT
1 ME
1 ME
1 ME
1 ME
1 ME
1 ME
1 ME
Case Name/City Name
Bridgeport (East)
Bridgeport (West)
Derby
Enfleld WPCF
Hartford
Jewett City
Middletown WPCF
New Haven East Shore WPCF
Norwalk
Norwich
Portland
Shelton
Waterbury WPCF
Augusta
Bath
Blddeford
Boothbay Harbor
Brewer
Bucksport
Saco
Outcome |
Administrative order by state to develop LTCP.
Administrative order by state to develop LTCP.
Administrative order by state to develop LTCP.
Administrative consent order required NMC.
Administrative order by state to develop LTCP.
Administrative order by state to develop LTCP.
Administrative consent order required NMC.
Administrative order by state to develop LTCP.
Administrative order by state to develop LTCP.
Administrative order by state to develop LTCP.
Administrative order by state to develop LTCP.
Administrative order by state to develop LTCP.
Administrative consent order required NMC.
Administrative order for CSO abatement schedule.
Administrative order to develop LTCP.
Administrative order 04/22/94 required CSO abatement
schedule.
Administrative consent order.
Administrative consent order.
Administrative order to develop LTCP.
Administrative order to develop LTCP.
P-5
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Administrative Actions Taken by State After the
| Region State
1 ME
1 Rl
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
2 NY
2 NJ
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
Case Name/City Name
Westbrook
Narragansett Bay Commission
Burlington Main WWTF
Burlington North End WWTP
Enosburg Falls WWTF
Ludlow
Lyndon
Newport
Richford WWTF
Rutland City
St. Johns bury
Swanton
Winooski
NYCDEP
Perth Amboy
Auburn STP
Binghamton CSO
Binghamton-Johnson City Joint
WWTF
Newtown Creek WPCP
North River WPCF
Issuance of the CSO Control Policy — Continued
Outcome |
Administrative order to develop LTCP.
Administrative consent order.
Administrative consent order required LTCP and
compliance schedule.
Administrative consent order required LTCP and
compliance schedule.
Administrative consent order required LTCP.
Administrative order required LTCP and compliance
schedule.
State administrative order required NMC and LTCP.
Administrative order required LTCP and compliance
schedule.
Administrative consent order for NMC and LTCP.
Administrative compliance order (8/8/94) required NMC
and LTCP.
Administrative order required NMC and LTCP.
Administrative order required NMC and LTCP.
Administrative consent order.
1 995 amendment to 06/24/92 consent order required
mapping, inspection, & O&M of CSOs.
Administrative consent order for NMC.
Administrative order required NYSDEC BMPs 8-10.
Consent order.
Consent order.
Consent order.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8 and 9.
P-6
-------
Appendix P
Administrative Actions Taken by State After the Issuance of the CSO Control Policy — Continued
| Region State
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
2 NY
3 PA
3 VA
3 VA
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
Case Name/City Name
NYCDEP 26th Ward
NYCDEP Bowery Bay WPCP
NYCDEP Coney Island WPCP
NYCDEP Jamaica WPCP
NYCDEP Oakwood Beach WPCP
NYCDEP Owls Head WPCP
NYCDEP Rockaway WWTP
NYCDEP-Hunt's Point WPCP
Port Richmond WPCF
Red Hook WPCP
Tallman Island WPCP
Village of Johnson City CSO
Ward Island WPCP
City of Monongahela
City of Lynchburg
City of Richmond
City of Belington
City of Benwood
City of Farmington
City of Follansbee
Outcome |
Consent order.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8 and 9.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8 and 9.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8-1 2.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8 and 9.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8 and 9.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8 and 9.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8 and 9.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8 and 9.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8 and 9.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8 and 9.
Consent order.
Consent order for NYSDEC BMPs 8-1 2 and floatables
control.
PADEP consent order 01/31/00 required
separation/construction of new sewer and planning.
Administrative order requiring NMC and LTCP.
Administrative order requiring NMC and LTCP.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
P-7
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Administrative Actions Taken by State After the Issuance of the CSO Control Policy — Continued
| Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
State
WV
wv
WV
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
wv
Case Name/City Name
City of Hinton
City of Kenova
City of Kingwood
City of Logan
City of Marlinton
City of McMechen
City of Montgomery
City of Moorefield
City of Mullens
City of Nutter Fort
City of Parsons
City of Philippi
City of Point Pleasant
City of Richwood
City of Shinnston
City of Sistersville
City of Smithers
City of Thomas
City of Westover
Danville Public Service District
Outcome |
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
P-8
-------
Appendix P
Administrative Actions Taken by State After the Issuance of the CSO Control Policy — Continued
| Region State
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
3 WV
Case Name/City Name
Flatwoods-Canoe Run Public Service
District
Greater Paw Paw Sanitary District
Town of Barrackville
Town of Bethany
Town of Cedar Grove
Town of Davis
Town of Marmet
Town of Monongah
Town of Petersburg
Town of Terra Alta
Town of West Union
TownofWinfield
Outcome |
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
Administrative order (4/30/99) required LTCP by 1/1/2002.
P-9
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Appendix P-4. Other Actions Taken by States
| Region State
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
1 VT
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
3 MD
Case Name/City Name
Barton WWTF
Brandon WWTP
Hardwick WWTP
Lundenburg Five District #2 WWTF
MontpelierWWTF
IMorthfield WWTF
Randolph WWTF
Springfield WWTF
St. AlbansWWTF
VergennesWWTF
Wilmington WWTF
Windsor Main WWTF
Allegany County CSOs
Cambridge WWTP
Cumberland WWTP
Frostburg CSOs
LaVale CSOs
Patapsco WWTP
Salisbury WWTP
Western port Town
Outcome |
Administrative consent order required LTCP and
compliance schedule.
Administrative consent order required LTCP and
compliance schedule.
Administrative consent order required LTCP and
compliance schedule.
Administrative consent order required LTCP and
compliance schedule.
Administrative consent order required LTCP, separation,
and schedule.
Administrative consent order required LTCP and
compliance schedule.
Administrative consent order for NMC and LTCP.
Administrative consent order required LTCP and
compliance schedule.
Administrative consent order required LTCP.
Administrative consent order for elimination of CSOs.
Administrative consent order required LTCP and
compliance schedule.
Administrative consent order required LTCP and
compliance schedule.
Administrative consent order required LTCP; will separate.
Administrative consent order required LTCP; will separate.
Administrative consent order required LTCP.
Administrative consent order required LTCP; will separate.
Administrative consent order required LTCP; will separate.
Administrative consent order required LTCP; will separate.
Compliance order (5/1 5/97) required NMC and LTCP.
Administrative consent order required LTCP.
P-10
-------
Appendix P
| Region State
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
3 PA
4 GA
4 TN
4 TN
4 TN
5 IN
5 IN
5 IN
5 Ml
5 Ml
5 Ml
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
5 OH
Other Actions Taken by
Case Name/City Name
Berwick Area Joint Sewer Authority
Coal Township
Harrisburg Authority
Shamokin City
Columbus CSO
Chattanooga
Clarksville
Nashville
City of Fort Wayne WWTP
City of Madison WWTP
Hammond WWTP
Grosse Pointe Farms CSO
Grosse Pointe Park CSO
River Rouge CSO
City of Fostoria
City of Girard WWTP
City of Sandusky
Eastern Ohio Regional Wastewater
Authority
Port Clinton
States — Continued
Outcome |
Compliance order required NMC and LTCP.
Compliance order required NMC and LTCP.
Action required NMC.
Compliance order required NMC and LTCP.
Administrative consent order required LTCP.
Administrative consent order for elimination of CSOs.
Administrative consent order (3/22/1990) required LTCP.
ACO (3/30/1990) required CSO abatement measures by
2001.
Administrative order for NMC and LTCP.
Consent decree for NMC and LTCP.
Consent decree for NMC and LTCP.
Required LTCP and sewer separation.
Compliance order required LTCP and outfall removal.
1994 CO required LTCP.
Compliance order (8/24/93) required LTCP.
Compliance order required NMC and LTCP.
Compliance order required NMC and LTCP.
Compliance Order required NMC and LTCP.
Consent Decree for NMC and LTCP.
p-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Other Actions Taken by States—Continued
Region
5
5
5
5
7
10
10
10
State
OH
OH
OH
OH
MO
OR
OR
OR
Case Name/City Name
SteubenvIIIe
Toledo
Van Wert
Village of Continental
Sedalla North WWTP
City of Astoria WWTP
CityofCorvalllsWWRP
City of Portland Columbia Blvd WWTP
Outcome
Compliance order required NMC and LTCP,
Administrative consent order (6/28/99) required LTCP.
Consent Decree for NMC and LTCP.
Compliance order required LTCP.
Compliance order for NMC; will eliminate or treat CSOs.
S&FO (1/7/93) eliminated CSOs that violate WQS.
S&FO required LTCP,
S&FO (8/91) with penalties; Amended S&FO (8/94).
P-12
-------
Appendix Q
Sample State Information
Management Systems
Used to Track Requirements
for CSO Control
-------
-------
Sample Information Management System:
Indiana Department of Environmental Management CSO Website
Appendix Q
MjwKS, iaisiti feisi:a-« >;!«««!. IMw
VMMiSii'*'
l*w*r Overflow
(«rri«n*»»ni»
if
« i^SiiiiEliii uiii ^IIWIKi 1 iff ir*i atw! inwl
Q-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Sample Information Management System:
^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
CSO Permittee
Agawam
BWSe(MWW)
Cambridge
Chilsia
Chicopee
Fill River
Fitchburg
Gloucester
GLSD
Haverhlll
Holyoke
Lowell
Ludlow
Lynn
Montague
HIM
New Bedford
Palmer
Somerville
South Hadley
Springfield
Taunton
West Springfield
Worcester
Number
MA0101320
MA010119
MA010197
MAOIOiai
MA0101508
MA01003I
MA010098
MA010Q62
MA010044
MA010162
MA0101630
MA010063
MA0101338
MA010055
MA010013
MA010235
MA0100781
MA0101168
MA010198
MA01004S5
MA0103331
MAoiooai?
MA0101389
MA01 02917
Permit
Date
9/29/1995
9/29/1 987
3/26/1993
3/23/1913
9/29/1995
12/J/2000
9/30/1992
6/26/1 ilS
9/29/1995
a/1 4/1 917
8/26/1985
9/29/1995
7/5/2000
11/2/2000
11/29/2000
9/29/1992
10/10/1915
4/14/1997
1/9/2001
9/28/1995
11/a/19»
Outfalls
12
53
13
5
40
19
27
4
4
23
15
9
5
4
3
J
38
21
12
11
32
1
6
1
Receiving Waters
Westfield River
Connecticut River
Boston Harbor
1 tributaries
Charles River
Alewife Brook
Mystic River
Chilsil Creek
Chicopee River
Connecticut River
Mount Hopi Bay
Taunton Rivir
Quit|Uiehin liver
Nashua River
Gloucester Harbor
Merrimack River
Spicket River
Merrlmack River
Little River
Connecticut River
MirrirnackRivir
Concord liver
Chicopee River
Lynn Harbor
Stacy Brook,
Siygys River
Connecticut River
Boston Harbor
Charlis, Mystic Rivirs
Buzzard's Bay
Clark's Cove
Acushnet River
Quibog River
Swift Rivir
Wire River
Mystic River
Alewife Brook
Connecticut Rivir
Byttiry Brook
Stony irook
Connecticut River
Chicopee River
& Mill River
Taunton Rivir
Connecticut River
Westfield River
Mill Brook
NMC
Submitted
12/23/1997
Jin-iJ
1/30/1997
Jan-i7
12/17/1996
1
11/20/1996
2/1/2000
Nov-98
Sip-i6
1/10/1997
Apr-IB
7
1
7
Jin-iJ
Jan-97
Dee-98
12/31/1996
12/31/1916
Apr-97
12/26/1916
12/23/1996
2/3/1991
Enforc.
Type
AO
CO
CO
CO
AO
CO
AO
CD
AO
AO
AO
CD
AO
CD
7
CO
CD
AO
CO
AO
AO
AO
AO
AO
Date
12/30/1996
(MWRfl
(MWRA)
(MWHA)
6/3/1999
7
7/9/1996
10/1/1 991
6/25/1999
8/8/1 Sffl
12/12/2000
11/10/1988
12/30/1996
2/1/2001
7
8/31/1998
(schedule
six)
7
12/30/1986
(MWRA)
7
11/15/2000
1
9/8/1995
9/19/2000
Long-Term
Submitted
MWHAPlin
MWRA Plan
MWRA Plan
Jul-99
(LTCP
Revision)
Jan-99
DLTCP
5/1/1892
CSOFP
Sip-00
DLTCP
5/31/2000
DLTCP
1990
CSOFP
10/2/2000
NPC/FP
7/31/1997
1991
CSOFP
7/6/1999
FLTCP
MWRA Plan
3/31/2000
DLTCP
7
Massachusetts
Plan
Approved Comments/Status
Proceeding with separation. Inspections
needed to confirm status
Proceeding with Separation, storage
throughout CSO area pursuant to
MWRA CSO Facilities Plin
Proceeding with Separation pursuant
to MWRA CSO Facilities Plan
re-evaluating CSO alternatives in
Alewife area
Prociiding with Separation and
Hydraulic Relef pursuant to MWRA
CSO Facilities Plan
in planning phase -Scope approved
DLTCP now due June 30, 2001
Dwp Tunnil Storage moving forward
J uly 1 191 report recommends
revision to 1892 plan (under review)
Draft Plan and Sewer Separation Study
submitted. More work needed
9/29/1992 City re-evaluation siww separation
Report Dui 4/2001
Planning underway
Draft LTCP due 7/31/01
Phasi II Planning underway
DLTCP due 1/1 5/01
Planning extension granted
City evaluating DBO procurement
DLTCP submitted 5/31/00
Schedule modification requested to
establish elite for DLTCP of 7/1/01
Separation moving forward. One outfall
remaining. City received SRF loan to
complete planning.
City to Implement compliti sewer
separation. Discharges to King's Beach
will to eliminated by 12/04, all CSOs
eliminated by 1 2/09
Sewer separation work done. Town has
received SRF loan for further LTCP work.
10/31/1987 Plan being Implemented, Variances
issued in the Charles and Mystic
Basins, Work will continue to 2010,
much separation work done. City to
submit scope for reassessment of
1991 plan.
Plan for Sewer Separation approved
and being implemented. SRF funding
obtained,
partial sewer separation being
implemented pursuant to MWRA plan
implementing sewer separation.
4 outfalls remain, AO sehiduli needs
modification.
DLTCP submitted 3/31/00
Phase I program moving forward.
FLTCP due March 2002
Assessment Report needed.
Separation being implemented. One
CSO remaining.
Scope approved for final planning work.
$54 million In CSO abatement work
already completed
DEP
Contact
Kurt Boisjolie
(413)755-2284
Kevin Brander
$78)661-7770
Kevin Brander
(978)661-7770
Kevin Brander
(978)661 -IJTO
Kurt Boisjolie
(413)755-2284
Dave Burns
(508)946-2738
Bob Kimball
(508) 792-7650
Kevin Brander
$78)661-7770
Kevin Brander
(978)661-7770
Kevin Brander
(978)661-7770
Kurt Boisjolie
(413)755-2284
Kevin Brander
(878) 661 -JJTO
Kurt Boisjolie
(413)755-2284
Kevin Brander
(178)661-7710
Kurt Boisjolie
(413)755-2284
Kevin Brander
(178)661-7710
Jeff Gould
(508) 946-2757
Kurt Boisjolie
(413)755-2284
Kevin Brander
(978)661-7770
Kurt Boisjolie
(413)755-2214
Kurt Boisjolie
(413)755-2284
Jeff Gould
(508)846-2757
Kurt Boisjolie
(413)755-2284
N ing Chen
(508)792-7650
Q-2
-------
Appendix S
GPRACSO Model Documentation
-------
-------
Appendix S
Documentation for the GPRACSO Model and Database
How the GPRACSO Model and Data Base Work
The GPRACSO model estimates the volume of overflow and pollutant loadings for communities with combined sewer systems. To
accomplish this, the model estimates the amount of wet weather flows that would be directed to a publically owned treatment works
(POTWs), and based on existing dry weather flows, estimates the volumes that become combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Hour-by-
hour estimates of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentration within the combined sewer system are used to estimate the
pollutant loadings in overflows and treated effluent from POTWs.
Wet-weather management algorithms within the model permit the user to estimate the management levels necessary to reach a
specified system-wide treatment level (e.g.,85 percent treatment of wet-weather flows). The management target may be reached
through a combination of POTW and end-of-pipe treatment, or through wet-weather storage. The GPRACSO model will also estimate
the effectiveness of secondary treatment bypass at POTWs with recombination of bypass flows, optimizing the system such that the
target monthly discharge concentration in effluent does not exceed a permit level (e.g., 30 mg/L of BOD).
The key model outputs include wet-weather and dry weather BOD loadings (or other pollutants) and discharge for each hour in the
typical rainfall year. The model output can be summarized weekly, monthly, or annually for individual sewersheds or individual
communities. The algorithms in the GPRACSO model can operate at multiple system scales. The only thing that establishes the scale
of the application is the data that is used to drive the GPRACSO model. Example system scales are the following:
• Simulating multiple separate sewersheds served by a single conveyance/treatment system
• Simulating multiple combined sewers communities within a single watershed that have separate conveyance/treatment systems
• Simulating all combined sewer communities in the nation
In estimating overflow volume, each individual combined sewer community is represented as a specified land acreage generating a
known quantity of dry weather flow and served by a known quantity of treatment (wet- and dry weather) and wet-weather storage.
For the "typical" rainfall year (pulled from long-term meteorologic records for each combined sewer community in the nation) each
hour's rainfall and temperature is evaluated to determine if runoff occurs and then if overflow occurs.
The interaction between the GPRACSO model and data base is analogous to an automobile where the model is the engine and the
data base provides the fuel. The GPRACSO data base was constructed by EPA to facilitate national assessment of CSO issues, and as
such contains National data on combined sewer systems. The GPRACSO data base contains system data that represents:
• Individual combined sewer communities, where individual systems are stand alone elements and do not exist as a part of a
larger regional sewer system
• Regional combined sewer communities, commonly encountered near large and well-established cities.
Wherever multiple combined sewer communities comprise a single regional system, the individual combined sewer communities are
condensed into a single data record within the GPRACSO data base representing the combination of related combined sewer
communities-totaling treatment capacity, wet-weather storage, and combined sewer service area. A "combined sewer community" is
used to generically refer to the entity (or data record in the GPRACSO data base) analyzed, whether it is an individual sewer system or
a totaled regional system. The GPRACSO model can evaluate all data records (approximately 700 combined sewer communities) in
the GPRACSO data base every time the model is "run," or analyze a single combined sewer community.
The GPRACSO data base consists of data from EPA Clean Water Needs Survey from 1992 and 1996, EPA's CSO data base, long-term
control plans (LTCPs), and Internet searches to identify most combined sewer community systems and identify interconnected
combined sewer community networks served by regional POTWs. In addition, for approximately 15 percent of the combined sewer
communities recent data has been obtained through a review of state NPDES permit records performed in the summer of 2001. The
GPRACSO data base contains information on how the Clean Water Needs Facility numbers relate to combined sewer community
names and NPDES numbers, and how complex combined sewer community systems connect to discharge into single regional
POTWs. For highly detailed assessments of the impacts of a single combined sewer community, the GPRACSO data base may not have
accurate information, but for EPA's efforts to summarize national conditions and assess policy options, the combination of the
GPRACSO data base and the GPRACSO model is sufficiently accurate.
The following sections provide a brief overview of the GPRACSO model algorithms and the key assumptions it makes.
S-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Simulating Dry weather Sanitary Flows
Average daily combined sewer community sanitary flows are based on discharge monitoring reports submitted to the Permit
Compliance System (PCS). Flow peaking factors are used to represent the hourly variation of sanitary flows about the average flow
rate, within the combined sewer system and then entering the POTW (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). For example, the typical minimum and
maximum inflows are 32 percent and 141 percent of the average reported POTW inflow. Wherever data is available for a combined
sewer community on both average and maximum POTW capacity, peaking factors were modified to account for this data.
Regardless of the conditions encountered, simulated average dry weather inflow into a POTW always matches the average inflow
obtained from the best available source for each combined sewer community. In addition, the maximum daily inflow never exceeds
the reported maximum POTW treatment capacity.
Hourly Dry weather Sanitary BOD Concentration Variation
In its current form, the GPRACSO model only analyses BOD pollutant loadings for dry weather and wet-weather conditions. While the
algorithm can be used to evaluate any pollutant, EPA established that BOD should be used as the indicator pollutant in assessing
national impacts of CSO management.
The GPRACSO model assumes that the average dry weather BOD concentration entering the POTW is 158 mg/L,with minimum and
maximum hourly values of 40 and 290 (mg/L) respectively. The diurnal variation in BOD concentration mimics typical system trend
reported by Metcalf & Eddy (1991). There were no other influences on hourly dry weather sewage concentration of BOD unless there
are additions to sanitary inflows from snowmelt or from discharge from wet-weather storage facilities.
Flow source #1: GPRACSO identifies that there is a snow pack present in the combined sewer community and that hourly air
temperature is above 32 degrees.
Model Response
From the calculated melt rate, an estimate of the
snowmelt is made, all of which is assumed to flow in to
the combined sewer system. The relative volumes of
dry weather sewage and snowmelt is used to calculate a
reduction in the BOD concentration entering the POTW.
Assumptions
It is assumed that snowmelt contains zero pollutant and as a result dilutes the inflow entering
the POTW.
Flow source #2: A combined sewer community has dedicated wet-weather storage available to capture any wet-weather flows in
excess of the POTW maximum treatment capacity.
Model Response
The GPRACSO model tracks on an hourly basis all of the
storage volume along with the amount of pollutant
(BOD) it contains.
Assumptions
GPRACSO assumes that the stored flow is discharged to the POTW as soon as there is
available treatment capacity (i.e., the hourly POTW inflow is less than the reported
maximum POTW treatment capacity).
Estimation of Overflow Volume
The GPRACSO model performs many hydrologic computations as it evaluates the potential and actual wet-weather inflow into the
combined sewer community system. The data sources used and the computations performed are as follows.
Typicalmeteorologic data was obtained for each combined sewer community based on a review of long-term data from the
National Weather Service (NWS). First, the combined sewer communities were geographically grouped based on hydrology into 84
common zones. Next, a typical rainfall year was identified for each zone. Asa rule, the typical year contained within +/-10 percent of
the annual average precipitation and has no single rainfall event larger than the two-year return period rainfall. Depending on zone
evaluated, the typical rainfall year presents between 30 and 80 possible overflow events for combined sewer communities within the
zone. The associated hourly temperature record was also retrieved from NWS records such that snow generation and melting could
be assessed during the GPRACSO simulation.
Runoff Estimation was performed using the rational method, which multiplies hourly rainfall by a single coefficient to calculate the
runoff depth. The coefficient was set to equal the overall impervious fraction of each combined sewer community. Land use/land
S-2
-------
Appendix S
cover CIS layers from USGS were used to help estimate the geographically weighted imperviousness for the land area found within
the political boundaries of the CSS communities (EPA, 1998).
Snowfall accumulation and melting was calculated using a degree-day approach applied on a hourly basis (McCuen,1989). Each
hour's temperature was evaluated to establish the potential snowmelt, and then snowmelt was simulated if a snowpack existed. The
GPRACSO model monitors the conditions in each combined sewer community to determine if snowpack is present and if it is
aggregating or shrinking in any simulated hour.
POTW wet-weather treatment estimation. The GPRACSO simulation assumes POTW secondary treatment capacity above the
simulated hourly dry weather inflow (the average POTW inflow multiplied by the appropriate hourly peaking factor) is available for
treating potential overflows. The GPRACSO model assumes that any inflow, up to the POTW's maximum treatment rate, is discharged
from the POTW at a concentration 87 percent less than the inflow concentration. The assumption is that POTWs provide a secondary
level of treatment for all flows treated during either wet- or dry-conditions. This treatment assumption works out to an average
discharge concentration under dry weather conditions of approximately 26 mg/L BOD, post-POTW treatment.
Information is available on the average and maximum flows for many POTWs in discharge monitoring reports found in PCS. Using
monthly reported values, the GPRACSO model sets the simulated average POTW inflow to the average reported inflow rate, and sets
the maximum (simulated) wet weather treatment capacity to the peak or maximum reported POTW discharge. When examining
future conditions, the year 2000 flows are used. For historic conditions, the appropriate discharge monitoring report (DMR) reports
are accessed and used to look back at management performance.
POTW secondary treatment bypass provides partial treatment (to a primary treatment level) for any flows in excess of the POTW's
maximum secondary capacity. Actual combined sewer community bypass can be evaluated using the GPRACSO model if facility-
specific information is added to the GPRACSO data base. For bypass flows, BOD inflow concentrations are assumed to be reduced 25
percent by the primary treatment. Bypass is only possible after all wet weather storage has been used during a wet weather event.
Wet weather end-of-pipe (EOF) treatment estimation. EOP treatment occurs only after both the maximum capacity of the POTW
and the wet weather storage is fully utilized during an overflow period. The GPRACSO model uses EOP as a last resort treatment, and
it cannot be used to drain stored overflows. EOP treatment is assumed to reduce influent BOD concentrations by 25 percent.
Wet weather storage simulation. The GPRACSO model has built-in algorithms for assessing the operations of wet weather storage
facilities designed to capture and hold potential overflow volumes until treatment capacity is available. The operation on wet
weather storage is simulated such that any hourly flows in excess of POTW treatment would go directly to wet weather storage. Only
after all available wet weather storage is filled and EOP/bypass capacity is exceeded will GPRACSO simulate/report an overflow.
Available POTW capacity for draining storage is defined as the difference between the maximum POTW treatment rate and the flow
entering the simulated POTW for any given hour.
Recognition of conveyance limits of combined sewer interceptor systems. The GPRACSO model assumes that the total interceptor
system discharging into a POTW has a capacity greater than the maximum treatment rate of the POTW. As a result, the limiting factor
in combined sewer community flow management is the POTW wet weather treatment capacity. It is acknowledged that this
assumption is not appropriate for some combined sewer communities, however, maximization of flows to the POTW is a required
minimum measure under EPA's CSO policy.
Estimation of Combined Sewer Community Overflow BOD Loads
The GPRACSO model attempts to recognize the major influences on combined sewer system BOD concentration in each hour that it
simulates. The influences accounted for include:
• Flushing of accumulated materials in the combined sewer community pipes
• The dilution of sanitary flows by storm water inflow late in the overflow periods
• The daily variation in sanitary flow rate and concentration
The first two influences are lumped into a single load or calculation, referred to as "storm water BOD load" which is the combination
of BOD flushed from pipes and BOD washed from the urban surface, independent of any sanitary inflow rates. To help estimate the
BOD loadings attributable to storm water (including the flushing of settled pollutant in pipes), the following exponential relationship
between time and BOD concentration was developed:
S-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Equation 1. C = (200 * 10-1.5*(t)) + 15
where
C = the BOD concentration in mg/L used to calculate the storm water load
t = time in hours since the overflow started
15 = the BOD concentration in mg/L assumed to be in urban storm water
Information from two data sources was used to develop the above relationship. The first data source is multi-event CSO monitoring
results of first-flush concentrations in combined sewers for a medium-sized east coast combined sewer community. The second data
source used to develop the relationship was from 90th percentile event mean concentration (EMC) BOD concentrations reported in
the EPA Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP).The first data source suggests that BOD concentrations at the very start of runoff
ranges between 200 and 400 mg/L, but that BOD concentrations decrease rapidly within the first hour of runoff. As a result, the
average first hour BOD concentration is set to be 215 mg/L, using the equation above. The second data source suggests a high-end
long-term urban runoff BOD concentration in the absence of CSOs is approximately 15mg/L, a feature also provided by the equation
above.
Calculation of hourly overflow concentration in storm water/sanitary mix. While the initial storm water inflows into the combined
sewer community cause a high concentration of flush load at the beginning of the overflow period, later in the overflow period
highly dilute storm water thins the more concentrated sanitary flows. As a result, the GPRACSO hourly model continuously mixes the
sanitary flow/BOD load with the storm water runoff/BOD load to calculate the average hourly concentration. It is assumed that the
mixing of sanitary and storm water is 100 percent complete for each hour simulated and that any overflows which occur will contain
the same pollutant concentration as what enters the simulated POTW. The logic used to select the uniform concentration for any
particular hour is:
If EventTime = 0 (the runoff hasjust started entering the CSS), then
CSCConc(ttt,0) = (200 * 10 15*(eventtime)) + 15
If EventTime > 0 (the overflow event is progressing), then
CSCConc(ttt,0) = (200 * 10 15*(eventtime)) + 15
If CSCConc(ttt,0) < DWBODconc * hours, then
CSCConc(ttt,0) = (HRDischarge(ttt,0) - HRDWF(ttt,0))
HRDWF(ttt,0) * DWBODconc
(CSCConc(ttt,0) +
hours) / HRDischarge(ttt,0)
EventTime
CSCConc
DWBODconc * hours
HRDischarge(ttt,0)
HRDWF(ttt,0)
= time since the start of the overflow event (hours)
= uniform concentration of the storm water/sanitary mixture
(mg/L) from the combined sewer community
= the sanitary flow concentration in the absence of overflow
(mg/L) for the "hour" under simulation
= the simulated total flow in the combined sewer (mg/d)
= the hour's sanitary flow rate in the absence of overflow
(mg/d)
The CSCConc(ttt,0) value is used to compute the overflow pollutant load, the inflow load entering the POTW, and the pollutant load
stored in any wet weather storage that may be present in the system. The assumed concentration for the first hour when overflow
occurs is 215 mg/L regardless of when it occurs in the day. For any subsequent hour in which overflow can occur, the BOD
concentration is the greater of (1) the value taken from Equation 1 based on the time elapsed since the start of the overflow, or (2)
the flow weighted combination of Equation 1 and the sanitary flow concentration based on daily variation. The first flush is
recognized as the strongest influence on concentration at the beginning of the event, the dominate role of storm water dilution is
recognized later in the event, and the daily variation in sanitary flow concentration is accounted for throughout the event.
S-4
-------
Appendix S
Removal efficiencies of POTWand EOF Treatments. All flows passing through POTWs are assumed to have a 87 percent reduction in
the inflow BOD load; the effluent concentration would be 13 percent of the influent concentration. All flows passing through EOP
treatment are assumed to have 25 percent reduction in the inflow BOD load; the effluent concentration would be 75 percent of the
influent concentration. For the purpose of estimating pollutant loadings, bypassed flows are assumed to have a 25 percent reduction
in inflow BOD concentration due to the primary treatment it receives.
Summary
Based on data within the GPRACSO data base, the GPRACSO model estimates combined sewer overflow volume, sanitary discharge
volume, and annual BOD load for approximately 700 combined sewer communities. Designers of the GPRACSO model have
attempted to estimate the annual performance expected under typical rainfall conditions based on historic POTW performance data.
Recent POTW upgrades and/or new wet weather management facilities may not be incorporated within the current version of the
GPRACSO data base. (Note, EPA is currently collecting data on CSS facilities which can be used to update the GPRACSO data base.) For
this reason, the estimates produced by the GPRACSO simulation may not fully recognize current management. In addition, model
estimates will vary from the actual overflow measured at any given community for any given year because of natural hydrologic
variation.
Extensive efforts were made to account for the majority of physical and hydrologic factors encountered in the generation of sanitary
and storm water flows, and the operation of wet weather treatment and storage. As a result, it is expected that the bulk of the model
error originates from errors in the basic system data (e.g, the combined sewer service acreage in each CSS). Where GPRACSO results
have been compared against much more detailed/sophisticated models, the results have been found to agree within +/-20 percent.
When compared against annual overflow estimates based on monitoring data (available for a limited number of cities), the GPRACSO
model has been found to be with +/- 20 percent. These error ranges are well within that encountered in total annual rainfall; when
identifying a typical rainfall year for each CSS the total annual rainfall was found to range +/- 30 percent throughout a 30 year period.
Inaccuracies related to mathematical model errors generated as the model solves internal algorithms are very small; mathematical
errors are less than 0.01 percent for the volume of water and less than 0.01 percent for the mass of pollutant.
S-5
------- |