COSl
k3O
\ \ /". ft r JL. V 5tjS^2ir-^>3 ^ ^,S-^iV'A
-------
-------
$90
(A
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES 1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2
ACTION REQUIRED 5
lv*"^
^ BACKGROUND 5
W
^ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. NPDES REQUIREMENTS NOT APPLIED TO CSOs 9
A. REGION 4'S OVERSIGHT ROLE DID NOT ADDRESS CSOs . 9
B. CSO POPULATION NOT IDENTIFIED IN REGION 4 ... 11
C. PERMIT APPLICATIONS BY CSO OWNERS NOT PROCESSED. 11
D. CSO DISCHARGES ARE NOT MONITORED 14
2. FAILURE TO ENFORCE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS . . . . . 21
3. CSO SYSTEMS NOT OPERATED TO MINIMIZE DISCHARGE OF . 29
POLLUTANTS
APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY 41
APPENDIX B - REGION 4 RESPONSE TO DRAFT AUDIT REPORT ... 44
APPENDIX C - DISTRIBUTION 51
2 HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
CO
LU
-------
-------
\
*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
SOUTHERN DIVISION, SUITE 276
1375 PEACHTREE STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
(404) 347-3623 AUDIT
(404) 347-2398 INVESTIGATIONS
REGIONAL OFFICE:
1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202-2733
(214) 655-6621 AUDIT
(214) 655-6610 INVESTIGATIONS
March 23, 1990
Memorandum
Subject:
From:
To:
Audit Report No. ElhlC9-04-0093-0100210
Review of Region 4's Regulation and Management of
Combined Sewer Overflows
Mary M. Boye
Divisional Inspeco
Southern Division
for Audit
Greer C. Ti dwell
Regional Administrator, Region 4
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
We have completed an audit of Region 4's regulation and
management of combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Our objective was
to determine if Region 4 and delegated states properly regulated
and managed CSOs in order to minimize their adverse environmental
impact on receiving streams. Specifically, we determined whether
the Region or state agencies to whom Region 4 delegated its
authority:
1. Properly regulated and managed CSOs through permits issued
under EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES);
2. Imposed timely and appropriate penalties for permit
violations or water quality standard violations attributed
to CSO discharges; and
3. Required CSO owners to properly operate and maintain
combined sewer systems and implement corrective actions
necessary to reduce or eliminate the adverse impact of CSO
discharges .
To accomplish our objective, we reviewed Region 4 and delegated
state consent orders, policies, procedures, permits and
-------
monitoring data. We also reviewed various reports and studies
prepared by state or local governmental agencies and consultants.
Finally, we visited selected cities impacted by CSOs and
discussed regulation and management of CSOs with Region, state
and local officials. Our review was limited to an evaluation of
delegated state performance and Region 4's oversight role of CSOs
located in Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee. These states were
selected for review primarily based on the large population of
CSOs reported by the states. The remaining five states in Region
4 reported only one CSO. The review covered activities and
functions administered from October 1, 1987 to April 30, 1989.
Audit work was conducted from April 6, 1989 to September 29,
1989.
Our examination was made in accordance with generally accepted
Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General
of the United States and included tests of management controls
and procedures to the extent considered necessary under the
circumstances. However, we found that management had not
developed and implemented sufficient procedures and controls to
properly regulate and manage CSOs in Region 4. Thus, we were
unable to rely upon management controls to identify the CSO
population or determine overflow frequency, volume or pollutant
level. Further, management's monitoring of CSO discharges was
not sufficient to quantify the extent such discharges violated
water quality standards. The findings section of this report
identifies the control problems found during our review and the
recommendations to strengthen management's control over program
administration.
We discussed report findings and recommendations with
representatives from the Region 4 Facilities Performance Branch
on January 29, 1990. They agreed that CSOs had not been properly
regulated in the past, but felt that current management practices
would improve their regulation and'control of CSOs.
Specifically, the National Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Strategy was recently issued by EPA Headquarters to ensure
consistent regulation of CSOs on a national basis. In addition,
the Region 4 delegated states had recently submitted their plans
to implement the national strategy. They felt that
implementation of the national strategy would address the
findings discussed in our report.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Water resources are adversely impacted by the systematic
discharge of pollutants from CSOs because Region 4 and the
delegated states of Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee have not
properly regulated municipalities that operate CSOs. Neither
Region 4 or its delegated states had issued discharge permits to
municipalities that operated CSOs or enforced Section 301 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) which prohibits the discharge of pollutants
-------
from point sources without a permit. Despite specific statutory
requirements, consistent efforts were not made to regulate CSOs
at the Region 4 and delegated state level until the National
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy was issued by EPA
Headquarters in August 1989.
Region 4 and its delegated states concentrated their efforts on
permitting the discharge of sanitary wastes or dry weather flows
at treatment facilities. Nashville, Tennessee had facilities for
treatment of excess flows during wet weather but was reluctant to
use them to the fullest extent because it might upset their
normal plant operations and cause permit violations.
Chattanooga, Tennessee was unable to make maximum use of its
excess flow facilities due to sewer system operational problems.
Use of excess flow facilities was not managed to ensure the most
effective treatment of wet weather flows and seemed to be on a
voluntary basis allowing municipalities considerable discretion
which often resulted in increased use of untreated CSO
discharges. Collectively, these conditions undermined the
integrity of the regulatory process, increased health risks and
discouraged corrective actions by CSO owners.
Our findings are summarized below and presented in detail in the
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS section of this report.
1. NPDES Requirements Not Applied to CSOs
Region 4 did not properly discharge its responsibility to
regulate CSOs in accordance with the CWA or NPDES program. The
NPDES program, established by Section 402 of the CWA is the
principal tool used by EPA and the states to control water
pollution from point sources. Region 4 and its delegated states
concentrated on regulating industrial and municipal point sources
under the NPDES program, but did not use this system to regulate
CSOs. Neither Region 4 nor its delegated states maintained an
accurate CSO inventory or responded to permit applications
received from CSO owners within their boundaries. This was
because Region 4 considered regulation of CSOs a low priority
until the National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy was
issued in August 1989, and did not allocate sufficient resources
to properly address its responsibility. Thus, CSO owners were
not required to comply with the standard monitoring, sampling,
treatment and reporting requirements established for permit
holders. This has led to the unregulated discharge of pollutants
into numerous water bodies in Region 4. Such discharges degrade
water quality and expose the public to increased health risks.
We recommend that the Regional Administrator fully implement the
NPDES Program and ensure expeditious compliance with the CWA.
Implementation plans should include development of a complete CSO
inventory, evaluation of water quality impacts caused by CSOs and
-------
issuance of permits/consent decrees which require compliance with
water quality standards.
2. Failure To Enforce Statutory Requirements
Region 4 and its delegated states did not take proper enforcement
actions against municipalities that operated illegal CSOs.
Penalty assessments and other sanctions authorized by the CWA
were not imposed even though CSO owners routinely discharged
pollutants without a permit. The pollutants received no treatment
prior to discharge and often violated water quality standards.
Enforcement actions were not taken against CSO owners because
Region and state personnel: (1) had not developed policies and
procedures that addressed violations by CSO owners; (2)
considered it more effective to devote resources to other
pollution sources; (3) felt that corrective actions were too
expensive to impose on CSO owners; and (4) assumed that dilution
reduced pollutants to an acceptable level. This has led to the
degradation of water quality and impaired the designated uses of
water bodies near CSO discharge points during wet weather. Based
on reports published by delegated states, approximately 175 river
miles and 4,400 lake acres in Tennessee and Kentucky have been
designated as unsafe for recreation or fishing due, in whole or
in part, to unregulated CSO discharges.
We recommend that the Regional Administrator establish an
oversight and monitoring program to review and evaluate delegated
state efforts to regulate CSOs.
3. CSO Systems Not Operated To Minimize Discharge Of Pollutants
The failure to regulate combined sewer overflows in Region 4
allowed cities with combined sewers to mismanage the operation of
the sewer systems causing excessive overflows of sanitary and
combined wastes. A 1979 EPA report estimated that nationally 40
million people are served by combined sewers. Based on 1962
census figures, Tennessee and Georgia had between 11% and 25% of
their respective populations served by combined sewers. Kentucky
was listed in the 26% to 50% category among the states in EPA
Region 4. The combined sewers also transport significant amounts
of industrial waste. The operation of the treatment works is
regulated through careful monitoring of the quantity and quality
of permitted discharges while unauthorized and untreated
discharges routinely occur upstream at combined sewer overflow
CSO points. The quantity and quality of the overflows could only
be estimated because most municipalities lacked the ability to
.adequately monitor them. The permissive attitude of Region 4 and
the states towards CSOs has also caused municipalities with
combined sewers to depend on overflows to relieve excess flows in
the separate sanitary sections of their sewer systems. This
-------
allowed the municipalities to minimize operational requirements
for the sewer systems at the expense of more frequent water
quality violations and possible exposure to public health
hazards.
We recommend that the Regional Administrator require states to
develop criteria for the efficient management of combined sewer
systems. As a minimum municipalities should have a combined
sewer flow management plan that documents operation and
maintenance requirements.
To provide a balanced report, we discussed our findings with
regional, state and local personnel. We also asked Region 4 to
provide written comments to our draft report dated February 5,
1990. Region 4 responded to our draft report on March 6, 1990.
We summarized their comments in our report and included the
verbatim response as Appendix B. Region 4 agreed with the intent
of our recommendations, but suggested revisions to the wording of
certain recommendations. In order to complete action on this
report, we request that Region 4 provide additional comments on
recommendations related to findings two and three and milestone
dates for implementation of all recommendations.
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Directive 2750, the action official is
required to provide this office a written response to the audit
report within 90 days of the audit report date.
BACKGROUND
Most major municipal areas in the United States are served by a
combination of sanitary sewers, separate storm sewers and
combined sanitary and storm sewers. The majority of combined
sewers, which transport both sanitary waste and storm water
runoff to sewage treatment facilities, were built more than 30
years ago for economical reasons. Although combined sewers are
cost effective and transport waste efficiently during dry
weather, their capacity is often exceeded during periods of
rainfall. When this happens, the excess flow by-passes the
treatment facilities and is discharged into a receiving stream
through a safety valve or regulator chamber commonly known as a
CSO. The combined sewer and sewage treatment plant capacity
determines the frequency, volume and duration of the overflow.
Light to moderate rainfall can trigger overflows when combined
sewer or treatment plant capacity is absorbed by sanitary waste
alone. Continued development in areas serviced by combined
sewers increases the frequency and volume of overflows, and can
ultimately lead to more serious dry weather overflows, which
-------
represent raw sewage undiluted by storm water.
The Agency estimated that there are between 15,000 and 20,000
CSOs currently in operation nationwide, but did not have an
accurate inventory by state or city. Region 4 initiated a CSO
inventory of its eight states in September 1988. The Region's
effort did not result in an accurate CSO inventory, but confirmed
that several cities in three states are adversely impacted by
CSOs.
The discharge of pollutants into the nation's water bodies is
regulated by the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
as amended by the 1977 Clean Water Act (CWA) and 1987 Water
Quality Act (WQA). Section 301 of the Act makes it illegal for
any person to discharge any pollutant without a valid discharge
permit. The authority to establish permit conditions to control
discharges from CSOs is contained in Section 402 (a) (1) of the
Act, which authorized the Administrator to impose such conditions
as may be necessary to carry out provisions of the Act. The
Administrator may also prescribe any monitoring, sampling
reporting or data collection requirements deemed necessary to
determine compliance with permit discharge limitations.
The CWA allowed EPA to delegate the responsibility for the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program to the states. The NPDES program is the principal tool
used by EPA and the states to control water pollution from point
sources. By issuing permits that limit the type and volume of
pollutants that can be discharged, EPA and states monitor and
control the amount of pollution entering a waterway.
The EPA is responsible for overseeing delegated states'
activities to ensure that the intent and objectives of the Act
were met. That is, EPA establishes environmental standards,
develops and issues regulations and guidelines, provides research
and technical support, awards and administers grants, and
enforces various environmental laws.
In Region 4, EPA has delegated the program to all states except
Florida. The delegated states are responsible for permit
issuance, compliance monitoring and enforcement of permit
conditions. The states develop permit conditions necessary to
ensure attainment of water quality standards at the point(s) of
discharge. The permittee must submit self monitoring reports to
the state indicating compliance status with permit conditions.
In the event of noncompliance the state is required to take
timely and appropriate enforcement actions to bring the permittee
into compliance with permit conditions.
When a NPDES program has been delegated to a state, EPA's
function is to provide oversight to ensure the program is being
operated in accordance with the CWA. EPA reviews the state
policy and operating procedures, permit issuance, conducts
-------
program audits and evaluates state monitoring and enforcement
activities. EPA can withdraw the authority delegated to the
state to administer the NPDES program if the state fails to carry
out the program as required.
Section 301 of the Act established effluent limitations for point
source discharges, other than public owned treatment works, such
as CSOs. As a minimum, CSOs were required to comply with the
best practicable control technology currently available on or
before July 1, 1977. CSOs are subject to more stringent effluent
limitations when necessary to comply with water quality standards
or meet compliance schedules established by state law or
regulation. On March 31, 1989, CSOs discharging toxic pollutants
were required to comply with the best available technology
economically achievable for each category or class of pollutant.
Section 309 of the Act gives the EPA its enforcement authority,
which includes both administrative and judicial actions. This
authority specifically includes enforcement of permits issued by
a state under an approved program. The Administrator is
obligated to enforce permit conditions or limitations by issuing
a compliance order or initiating civil action. Other violations
of the Act such as discharging pollutants without a valid permit,
are subject to the same enforcement actions.
Violations of permit conditions, compliance order issued by the
Administrator or other provisions of the Act are subject to civil
penalties of up to $25,000 per day of violation. Willful or
negligent violations are subject to penalties of up to $50,000
per day of violation,imprisonment for up to three years, or both.
Subsequent violations and violations which result in personal
endangerment carry even more severe penalties.
Construction projects must be included on a state priority list
in order to qualify for grant assistance. The state priority
system describes the methodology used to rank projects that are
eligible for grant assistance and gives higher priority to
projects in sensitive water quality areas. As a minimum, the
state's priority system must include the following criteria in
ranking eligible projects:
-The impairment of classified water uses resulting from
existing municipal pollutant discharges; and
-The extent of surface or ground water use restoration or
public health improvement resulting from the reduction of
pollution.
Prior to September 30, 1984, any CSO project that ranked high
enough on the state's priority list could receive funding from
the state's annual allotment of EPA grant funds. CSO projects
remain fully eligible for grant funding through September 30,
-------
1990, but are subject to restrictions. EPA grant assistance
expires on October 1, 1990, or earlier, if the state's Governor
elects to convert the state's annual allotment of grant funds to
loan funds. Upon expiration of EPA grant assistance, CSO
projects may still qualify for a loan from the state revolving
fund which is being jointly financed by EPA and the state. This
fund replaces the EPA grant program and must be maintained in
perpetuity.
Prior Audit Coverage
On September 7, 1989 we issued a report titled "REVIEW OF REGION
4'S NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM." The report disclosed that Region 4 and its
delegated states were not effectively enforcing municipal
discharge permits or assessing appropriate penalties against
chronic permit violators. However, Region 4 officials felt that
their response to permit violations by major municipal facilities
was adequate considering the level of resources committed to
enforcement activities. This report discusses Region 4's
regulation of municipalities that operate CSOs.
-------
FINDINGS AMD RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING NO. 1 - NPDES REQUIREMENTS NOT APPLIED TO CSOs
Region 4 did not properly discharge its responsibility to
regulate CSOs in accordance with the CWA or NPDES program. The
NFDES program, established by Section 402 of the CWA is the
principal tool used by EPA and the states to control water
pollution from point sources. Region 4 and its delegated states
concentrated on regulating industrial and municipal point sources
under the NPDES program, but did not use this system to regulate
CSOs. Neither Region 4 nor its delegated states maintained an
accurate CSO inventory or responded to permit applications
received from CSO owners within their boundaries. This was
because Region 4 considered regulation of CSOs a low priority
until the National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy was
issued in August 1989, and did not allocate sufficient resources
to properly address its responsibility. Thus, CSO owners were
not required to comply with the standard monitoring, sampling,
treatment and reporting requirements established for permit
holders. This has led to the unregulated discharge of pollutants
into numerous water bodies in Region 4. Such discharges degrade
water quality and expose the public to increased health risks.
A. Region 4's Oversight Role Did Not Address CSOs
Although CSOs have been subject to regulation as point sources
pollution since 1972, Region 4 had not placed any emphasis on
monitoring or controlling pollution discharged from CSOs. The
1986 National Guidance for Oversight of NPDES Programs clearly
defined the oversight responsibility of EPA regional offices by
stating:
The EPA has continuing responsibility for
implementation or oversight of the NPDES program in all
States, approved or not approved, in order to promote
the achievement of national program goals and
objectives, to ensure adherence to Federal and State
statutory and regulatory requirements implementing the
CWA, and to maintain reasonable national consistency.
At the time the NPDES programs were delegated to the states in
Region 4, 40 CFR 123.2 (g) stipulated that "no partial NPDES
programs will be approved by EPA. The State program must
prohibit all point sources discharges of pollution except as
authorized by a permit in effect under the State program."
Despite these requirements, Region 4 had focused its attention on
regulating municipal and industrial discharges and had not
addressed the failure of delegated states to implement NPDES
programs that regulate CSOs. Region 4 did not provide the
-------
necessary leadership or guidance to ensure that its delegated
states properly carried out their responsibility to regulate
CSOs. At the time of our review, regional goals and objectives
had not been established to ensure consistency in the management
of CSOs by delegated states. Further, Region 4 did not monitor
or evaluate the progress that delegated states made in regulating
CSOs.
Interviews with Region 4 personnel disclosed that CSO regulation
was not a national or regional priority until the National CSO
Strategy was issued. Region 4 felt its resources could be used
more effectively in other areas such as municipal and industrial
discharges.
In August 1988, EPA Headquarters issued a draft National Combined
Sewer Overflow Strategy (NCOS) which was later issued in final
form in August 1989. The strategy confirmed that CSOs were point
sources and that technology and water quality based permit
requirements applied to CSOs. The strategy outlined three
objectives:
1. To ensure that if CSO discharges occur, they are only as a
result of wet weather,
2. To bring all wet weather CSO discharge points into
compliance with the technology-based requirements of the CWA
and applicable state water quality standards, and
3. To minimize water quality, aquatic biota, and human health
impacts from wet weather overflows.
The strategy indicates it was not a new development or new
interpretation of water quality standards. Compliance dates were
stipulated in Section 301 of the CWA, namely, July 1, 1988. The
strategy required states to submit permitting strategies no later
than January 15, 1990. Region 4 must approve state strategies by
March 31, 1990. The strategy further stated that permits must be
written to ensure that CSOs do not cause water quality
violations. It also required monitoring to evaluate water
quality impacts and characterize the frequency, duration and
pollutant level of overflows.
The strategy did not alter requirements of the CWA. Permitting
and compliance dates for CSO point sources have already passed.
In addition, the strategy is limited to discharges generated by
combined sewers. Municipalities in Region 4 experienced a
combination of CSO and sanitary sewer overflows and bypasses,
none of which were properly regulated. This has caused water
quality problems and extended delays in realizing the objectives
of the CWA. These problems are discussed in more detail in the
following sections of the report.
10
-------
B. CSO POPULATION NOT IDENTIFIED IN REGION 4
Although the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 required
that all point sources, such as CSOs, be identified and
permitted, neither Region 4 or its delegated states had adequate
information to regulate, manage or evaluate CSOs. The FY-1986
National Guidance for Oversight of the NPDES Program recognized
that a data management system was essential to the successful
operation of an NPDES program. It required that NPDES Programs
have:
Clear identification of the regulated community as
evidenced by the existence and use of established
procedures for maintaining a complete, accurate, and
up-to-date automated data system that includes all
sources that are covered by or have applied for NPDES
permits.
Despite these requirements, Region 4 and its delegated states
showed little interest in developing a complete CSO inventory.
Although most municipalities listed CSO discharge points in their
permit application, this information was never effectively
utilized to compile a complete CSO inventory. Delegated states
routinely issued permits for the treatment plant discharge, but
failed to recognize or address CSO .discharge points in the sewer
collection system.
Region 4 did not take specific steps to develop a CSO inventory
until EPA Headquarters issued the Draft National Combined Sewer
Overflow Strategy in September 1988. At that time, Region 4
wrote a letter to each of its eight states requesting specific
information on each CSO. However, the states had submitted only
partial information when audit fieldwork was completed in
September 1989. Georgia expressed concern that resources were
not available to compile the information Region 4 requested and
Kentucky had not responded to Region 4's request as of September
1989. Without a complete and accurate CSO inventory, Region 4
had no reliable means of determining the number, size, location,
overflow frequency, pollutant level or environmental impact of
CSOs. Although we did not attempt to compile a complete CSO
inventory, the limited data available indicates that the total
number of illegal CSOs in Region 4 will likely exceed 400.
C. PERMIT APPLICATIONS BY CSO OWNERS NOT PROCESSED
Region 4 and its delegated states were no,t using the NPDES system
to regulate the discharge of pollutants from CSOs even though the
CWA and national policy guidance for implementation of the NPDES
program clearly intended that all point sources of pollution be
regulated. The NPDES program authorized EPA and states to issue,
modify, revoke or terminate permits for the discharge of
11
-------
pollution from all point sources. These permits were enforceable
documents that specified the volume and type of pollution that
the permit holder was authorized to discharge. Permits also
established various requirements for monitoring, sampling, data
collection, and reporting that the administering agency deems
necessary to determine compliance with permit conditions. Thus,
the overall effectiveness of the NPDES program was dependent upon
the timely issuance and enforcement of permits for all point
source discharges.
Despite the clear mandate to regulate all point sources of
pollution, Region 4 and its delegated states selectively limited
the regulation of point sources to municipalities and industries
with treatment capability. All CSO discharge points were
arbitrarily excluded from regulation. This undermined the
integrity of the regulatory process and encouraged the illegal
discharge of pollution through unregulated CSOs in the sewer
collection system.
A review of permit files at three delegated states in Region 4
disclosed that most municipalities listed CSO discharge points in
their sewage collection system when they submitted applications
to renew the NPDES permit for their treatment plant. Certain
municipalities also submitted estimates of CSO overflow
frequency, volume and pollutant level with their permit
applications, while other CSO owners annotated their permit
applications to indicate that this information was unknown.
However, the delegated states showed little interest in the
information related to CSOs that municipalities provided with
their permit applications. This was evidenced by the fact that
none of the delegated states had issued permits for any of the
CSOs. For example, Louisville, Kentucky submitted a permit
application that listed 152 CSOs in its sewer collection system
in addition to the sewage treatment plant discharge point. The
State responded to the application by issuing a permit that
authorized the city to discharge waste from its sewage treatment
plant, subject to compliance with treatment standards outlined in
the permit. However, the 152 CSOs were not properly addressed in
the permit even though the State knew that overflows occurred
approximately 50 times per year at one overflow point. The lack
of emphasis on CSO regulations by Region 4 and its delegated
states enabled municipalities to concentrate on the treatment
plant discharge and disregard untreated waste discharged from
CSOs in the collection system because permit compliance was based
solely on the treatment plant discharge point.
Nashville, Tennessee has experienced chronic overflows from its
combined sewers for several years. In its most recent NPDES
permit application, the City listed 29 CSOs. From other
information the State knew that CSOs were a chronic problem and a
health hazard. The State responded to the application by issuing
a permit with stringent effluent limitations for all wastewater
12
-------
processed by the sewage treatment plant. Although the permit
discussed CSO problems, it did not establish effluent limitations
or require any type of treatment for waste discharged from the
CSOs. Thus, the State agreed to determine permit compliance
based solely on the quality of effluent discharged from the
sewage treatment plant. Waste discharged from CSOs was
arbitrarily exempted from regulation even though the volume of
waste from CSOs occasionally approached the level of waste
treated by the sewage treatment plant. For example, during the
first quarter of 1989 approximately five billion gallons of
untreated waste was discharged from the City's CSOs, while less
than eight billion gallons of waste was treated at the City's
sewage treatment plant.
Nashville had the capability to transport waste to the sewage
treatment plant or discharge it through CSOs in the sewer
collection system. In December 1988, the State expressed concern
that Nashville was diverting through CSOs in the sewage
collection system, sewage its treatment plant was capable of
processing. Based on this, the State asked Nashville to increase
the volume of wastewater processed by its treatment plant.
Nashville responded by asking the State to temporarily waive
permit limits for its treatment plant in order to avoid potential
violations resulting from an increase in the volume of wastewater
processed. However, the State was unwilling to waive permit
limits and Nashville refused to increase the volume of wastewater
processed by its treatment plant. Thus, the States's failure to
regulate CSOs enabled municipalities to arbitrarily divert excess
wastewater away from the treatment plant in order to ensure that
the treatment plant did not violate permit limits.
We discussed the use of NPDES permits to regulate CSOs with three
delegated states in Region 4. All three states felt that it was
not practical to issue permits for CSOs and offered the following
responses for not issuing and enforcing permits for CSOs:
The guidance from the EPA focused on permitting
discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants and
industries with no guidance on permitting CSOs.
Determining permit limits that CSOs could meet would be
arbitrary and monitoring the obtainment of those limits
would be difficult and expensive.
- Since most of the CSOs discharged into large receiving
streams the pollution effect was minimized by dilution.
- The states' felt it would be politically difficult to
force municipalities and cities to expend large amounts
of resources without a national mandate backing their
efforts. The states' felt that the need to balance
economic and environmental concerns justified their
13
-------
reluctance to regulate CSOs in the absence of a
nationwide policy.
The states expressed concern that CSO owners could be
penalized if their corrective actions were determined
to be inadequate or inconsistent with subsequent policy
issued by EPA.
The states were also concerned that any controls they
establish in the absence of a national policy or
regional guidance could later prove to be inadequate or
unnecessarily expensive.
As the above reasons indicate, a strong stance by Region 4 was
needed to overcome the delegated states' reluctance to use
permits to regulate CSOs. Although CSOs have been subject to
regulation since 1972, Region 4 did not place any emphasis on
issuing permits to CSO owners until the draft National CSO
Strategy was issued in August, 1988. The final strategy document
required states to develop statewide CSO permitting strategies by
January 15, 1990, but did not establish any deadlines for the
actual issuance of permits to CSO owners.
p. CSQ DISCHARGES WERE,. NOT MONITORED
Neither Region 4 or its delegated states had developed a
continual monitoring program to measure the volume or pollutant
level of waste discharged by CSOs. Although the NPDES permit
program was designed to monitor and control discharges from all
point sources, the delegated states in Region 4 did not utilize
this system to monitor and evaluate the discharge of pollution
from CSOs. According to 40 CFR 123.26 the objective of an
effective NPDES program was to:
(i) Determine compliance or noncompliance with issued permit
conditions and other program requirements;
(ii) Verify the accuracy of information submitted*by permittee
and other regulated persons in reporting forms and other forms
supplying monitoring data; and
(iii) Verify the adequacy of sampling, monitoring, and other
methods used by permittee and other regulated persons to develop
that information.
However, the delegated states rationalized that it was not
practical to issue permits to CSO owners without a national
mandate from EPA. From the sporadic information available, we
determined that CSOs degraded water quality and impaired the
designated uses of certain water bodies (See report section
entitled CSO Discharges Violated Water Quality Standards).
14
-------
However, the absence of a continual monitoring program precluded
an objective assessment of the overall CSO impact on water
quality in Region 4.
In order to determine the extent of any monitoring and sampling
conducted, we reviewed state records and performed on-site visits
to the cities of Atlanta, Nashville, and Chattanooga. The
following sections describe what we found.
Atlanta. Georgia. The City listed CSOs in its collection
system when it submitted an NPDES permit application for the R.M.
Clayton sewage treatment plant. However, the State did not issue
permits for any of the CSOs or require the City to monitor or
sample CSO discharges. The State further weakened regulatory
controls by waiving its water quality standards when the City's
combined sewers overflowed. Because the State granted an
unauthorized waiver of its water quality standards, the City had
no incentive to monitor or control discharges from CSOs. The
waiver remained in effect until 1989, when Region 4 refused to
approve the State's water quality standards until the
unauthorized waiver was removed.
Although there was no systematic monitoring, the limited studies
conducted revealed that Atlanta had a severe problem of overflows
from its combined sewers. The overflows occur due to problems
with stormwater runoff and infiltration/inflow into the combined
sewers, resulting in overflows with less than .1 inch of
rainfall. The parameter most often cited as being violated was
fecal coliform levels. CSOs discharged other pollutants that
potentially violate water quality standards, but it was difficult
to separate effects caused by CSOs from other nonpoint sources of
pollution. As far back as 1980, the R. M. Clayton facilities
plan emphasized the adverse impacts of CSOs. The facilities plan
concluded that:
The most definitive water quality violation resulting
from CSOs was found to be high levels of fecal
coliform. Because the CSOs discharge to small streams
in highly urbanized areas, this problem was assessed to
be quite serious and deserved high priority attention.
Another obvious water quality problem is the
aesthetically undesirable sewage and storm debris which
typically deposits along the periphery of the stream
beds and surrounding foliage.
There is a definite need to reduce the total number of
overflow events. The smaller overflows, have the
greater adverse impacts on the local streams, since
they are higher in pollutant concentrations and the
smaller streams flows have less dilutional and flushing
capability.
15
-------
Atlanta's CSOs were open channels constructed at ground level and
present problems other than potential impairment of the
Chattahoochee River and its tributaries. The Clear Creek CSO
flows through one of Atlanta's most popular parks (Piedmont) and
serves as the headwater for Clear Creek. Sewage has overflowed
the Clear Creek CSO channel and inundated the surrounding park.
There were no signs to warn citizens of the health risks
associated with these overflows until 1989, when the Fulton
County Health Department conducted studies on Atlanta's CSOs and
recommended posting open channel CSOs as a public health hazard.
The study found high fecal coliform counts and evidence that
children had been playing and swimming in the CSOs.
Nashville. Tennessee. Although the City listed known CSO
discharge points in its NPDES permit application for its Central
Wastewater Treatment Plant, the State did not issue permits for
any of the CSOs. Without NPDES permits, the State did not have a.
mechanism to monitor the pollutant level of CSO discharges or
evaluate their impact on water quality.
Although the State of Tennessee had not initiated a systematic
sampling program to document the CSO impact on a waters
designated use, State officials admitted that from limited
sampling conducted, CSO discharges caused or were a contributing
factor to water quality standards violations.
The State required Nashville to submit monthly reports on
overflows and bypasses. However, the data reported was limited
to the overflow point, estimated amount bypassed and date. The
reports did not provide any information on pollutant level or
water quality impact upon the receiving stream. However, these
reports revealed that Nashville had a severe problem of overflows
in its combined sewers and bypassing from its sanitary sewer
system. The overflows and bypassing occurred due to stormwater
runoff and infiltration/inflow into the sanitary and combined
sewers. State bypass records showed overflows occurring in the
Nashville collection system with less than .1 inch of rainfall.
The only detailed analysis of water quality effects of CSOs in
Nashville came from a 1983 report titled "Bacteriological Survey
Of The Surface Waters Of Davidson County, Tennessee" conducted by
the Division of Water Management, Tennessee Department of Health
and Environment. This study evaluated regulators (CSOs) and pump
stations in order to determine the extent of contamination by
fecal coliform bacteria.
The study found that of the 121 samples collected during this
survey, the 1,000 colonies/100 ml limit set for bodily contact
recreation was exceeded a total of 34 times. On 14 occasions the
concentration of the fecal coliform group exceeded the more
lenient fish and aquatic life classification of the Tennessee
16
-------
General Water Quality Criteria which stated that "The
concentration of the fecal coliform group in any individual
sample shall not exceed 5,000 per 100 ml."
As a result of the survey the report stated:
"It has proven beyond a doubt that a real problem does
exist. We have sampled less than one-fourth of the
possible by-pass sites, only four times over a 10 month
period, and have found these sites to be by-passing
twenty-five percent of the time. This frequency is
very excessive."
Following the survey, the State posted the Cumberland River,
Richland Creek, East Fork Hamilton Creek, and Brown's Creek
against water contact recreation because of the health risks
associated with high levels of fecal coliform. Despite these
observations, no enforcement action was taken by the State to
address the potential health risk other than issuing a
Commissioner's Order requiring the City to commit to a study of
its CSOs.
Chattanooga. Tennessee. The State had not issued NPDES
permits for any of the City's 17 CSOs. Without monitoring data
required by NPDES permits, the State had no reliable data to
determine overflow volume, pollutant level or the adverse impact
on receiving streams. Although a continual monitoring and
sampling program had not been established, State officials
acknowledged that limited sampling demonstrated that CSOs caused
or were a contributing factor to water quality standard
violations.
Storm water runoff entering combined sewers and
Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) caused routine overflows at all CSO
discharge points in the Chattanooga collection system.
Infiltration is water, other than wastewater, that enters a sewer
through broken or defective pipes, and other sewer appurtenances.
inflow is storm flow or other surface water runoff that enters a
sanitary sewer through a purposeful connection with storm sewers,
roof leaders, cellar drains, etc. The 1975 facilities plan
documented these problems and they still existed. The City's
permit application estimated that overflows occurred at each
discharge point approximately 55 times per year.
At the time of our visit to Chattanooga, the City's consulting
engineer had just completed a study of the City's CSOs in
response to a Commissioner's Order issued by the State. The
study concluded that water quality in the Chattanooga Creek was
adversely affected by CSO discharges. This was evidenced by
depressed levels of dissolved oxygen and elevated levels of
pollutants such as nitrogen, phosphorous and fecal colirorm. The
17
-------
study also concluded that CSOs caused water quality problems in
several tributaries to Chattanooga Creek during and immediately
following periods of rainfall. Pollutants discharged into the
tributaries included aluminum, iron, lead, oil and grease.
The study also documented that most of the City's regulators were
inoperable or not functioning as designed due to poor
maintenance. This caused sewage to be discharged from CSOs even
though the City's treatment plant was capable of treating all
wastewater transported to the plant.
Although a continual monitoring program has not been established
to evaluate the CSO impact, the City negotiated a consent order
with the State that required correction of the CSO problems.
However, the corrective action program will not be completed
until the year 2000 and the State had agreed to waive stipulated
financial penalties contained in the order provided that the City
meets all milestone dates in the consent order.
Conclusion
The impact of CSO discharges was not being monitored or evaluated
on a continual basis by Region 4 or its delegated states.
Although Agency guidance clearly intended that the NPDES permit
program cover all point source discharges, Region 4 and its
delegated states arbitrarily exempted CSOs from regulation
through the permit process. This action undermined the
regulatory process and eliminated all administrative control over
CSOs. Region 4 and its delegated states were primarily concerned
with the treatment of waste that arrived at the sewage treatment
plant. The discharge of waste from CSOs was not subject to the
standard monitoring, sampling and reporting requirements
established for permit holders. The delegated states and CSO
owners rationalized that it was not practical to regulate CSOs
because pollution was minimized by dilution and corrective
actions were too expensive to undertake. Despite the absence of
a systematic monitoring program, ample evidence existed to
demonstrate that CSOs degraded water quality and presented
potential health risks to users of receiving streams.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Regional Administrator fully implement the
NPDES program and ensure expeditious compliance with the CWA. In
particular, implementation plans should:
1. Ensure a complete inventory of CSOs in Region 4. Because
of the situation described in this report, emphasis must
also be placed on related occasional dry weather overflows
IB
-------
and bypasses which are routinely occurring in CSO systems in
Region 4.
2. Conduct thorough evaluation of water quality impacts for
CSOs, sanitary overflows and bypasses and other untreated
point source discharges requested by permittees with CSO
systems.
3. Issue permits/consent orders which require timely
compliance with water quality standards at the point
sources.
Region 4's Response
Region 4 stated that the final state CSO strategies would be
consistent with our audit report's recommendations. Region 4
also recommended some editorial changes which are reflected in
the final report. Specific comments by Region 4 concerning this
finding are summarized as follows:
Only discharges as a result of wet weather are considered CSOs.
Anything else is a bypass. Bypasses should be included in a
report about the enforcement effort the states are making to
prevent or eliminate illegal discharges and not in a report about
CSOs.
The National CSO Strategy was issued in draft in August 1988, and
the final in August 1989. It requires the States to develop
permitting strategies no later than January 15, 1990, and Regions
should approve strategies no later than March 31, 1990.
Warning signs were put in place as a result of Bruce Barrett,
EPA-Region 4, Water Management Division Director's letter of
September 16, 1988, to the Georgia Department of Human Resources.
Bypasses are "intentional diversions" and should not be included
in a discussion of CSOs. An overflow from a combined sewer
should result from wet weather (a storm event) and wet weather
only. Any other discharge from a combined sewer is illegal and
should be eliminated, or appropriate enforcement actions should
be taken to force its elimination. Furthermore, there is no
mention here of any enforcement action taken by the State against
the City of Nashville. This is inconsistent with page 26, which
does mention the issuance of Commissioner's Orders beginning in
1983 by the State of Tennessee. It is suggested that page 18 be
revised to correct the inconsistency.
19
-------
Auditor Evaluation of Region 4's Response
Our evaluation discusses Region 4's comments in the same order
they were presented.
Region 4 and its delegated states need to regulate CSOs and take
enforcement actions for illegal discharges when warranted. In
this case, permit compliance was determined solely on the basis
of the sewage treatment plant discharge point. Discharges from
CSOs in the collection system were not regulated or monitored.
Although the State felt that the City was capable of treating
wastewater discharged from CSOs, the City refused to increase the
volume of wastewater processed by its treatment plant because an
increase in volume could cause permit violations.
We agree that the National CSO Strategy and individual state
permitting strategies will subject CSOs to consistent regulation
and control when fully implemented. However, these strategies do
not establish new requirements for CSOs. Municipalities that
operate CSOs were subject to these requirements since 1972 when
the CWA was enacted. Region 4 and its delegated states have not
yet addressed these requirements on a consistent basis.
We acknowledge that Mr. Barrett's letter dated September 16,
1988, may have caused the Fulton County Health Department to post
the warning signs. However, we believe Region 4 and the
delegated state responsible for regulating CSOs could have taken
more timely and effective actin to inform the public of potential
health risks and restrict access to CSOs that flow through parks
and residential areas.
The City of Nashville experiences overflows from combined sewers
and bypasses from sanitary sewers on a regular basis. The
bypasses are caused by excess I/I and/or mechanical failures.
The City's treatment plant is unable to process the total flow
from its combined sewers and sanitary sewers on a consistent
basis. Thus, an increase in flow from the sanitary sewers
decreases the amount of flow from combined sewers that can be
treated and increases overflows. In addition, the capacity of
pumping stations on sanitary sewers is not adequate to handle the
excess flow caused by excess I/I and results in bypasses. We
agree that enforcement action is warranted to address bypasses in
the sanitary sewers.
The enforcement action taken by the State was a Commissioner's
Order that required the City to conduct a study of its CSOs.
This Order is mentioned in both sections of the. final report.
However, the State has been unable to negotiate an order to
establish milestone dates for completion of CSO abatement tasks.
Region 4's 1989 mid-year evaluation of Tennessee also pointed out
that the State needed to issue an order requiring corrective
action of CSO problems.
20
-------
FINDING NO. 2 - FAILURE TO ENFORCE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Region 4 and its delegated states did not take proper enforcement
actions against municipalities that operated illegal CSOs.
Penalty assessments and other sanctions authorized by the Clean
Water Act were not imposed even though CSO owners routinely
discharged pollutants without a permit. The pollutants received
no treatment prior to discharge and often violated water quality
standards. Enforcement actions were not taken against CSO owners
because Region and state personnel: (1) had not developed
policies and procedures that addressed violations by CSO owners;
(2) considered it more effective to devote resources to other
pollution sources; (3) felt that corrective actions were too
expensive to impose on CSO owners; and (4) assumed that dilution
reduced pollutants to an acceptable level. This has led to the
degradation of water quality and impaired the designated uses of
water bodies near CSO discharge points during wet weather.
Approximately 175 river miles and 4,400 lake acres in Tennessee
and Kentucky have been designated as unsafe for recreation or
fishing duef in whole or in part, to unregulated CSO discharges.
Background
CSOs were point sources subject to NPDES permit requirements
including both technology-based and water quality based
requirements of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act of 1977
mandated compliance with best practicable control technology
(BPT) on or before July 1, 1977. The Water Quality Act of 1987
mandated compliance with best conventional pollutant technology
(BCT) or best available technology (BAT) on or before March 31,
1989. Section 301(b)(l)(C) of the CWA mandated compliance with
water quality standards.
Section 309 of the Clean Water Act gave the EPA its enforcement
authority, which included both administrative and judicial
actions. This authority specifically included enforcement of
permits issued by a state under an approved program. The
Administrator was obligated to enforce permit conditions or
limitations by issuing a compliance order or initiating civil
action. Other violations of the Act such as discharging
pollutants without a valid permit, were subject to the same
enforcement actions.
Violations of permit conditions, compliance orders issued by the
Administrator or other provisions of the Act were subject to
civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day of violation. Willful
or negligent violations were subject to penalties of up to
$50,000 per day of violation, imprisonment for up to three years,
or both. Subsequent violations and violations which result in
personal endangerment carried even more severe penalties.
21
-------
To emphasize the importance of taking enforcement action against
violators former Administrator Thomas established tough
enforcement goals when he stated that:
"... in order to achieve compliance with the laws
and regulations, EPA must have an enforcement program
that is creditable and effective . . . There should be
no doubt in anybody's mind, . . . that the laws and
regulations of the EPA mean what they say, and they
will be enforced."
The current Administrator Reilly set Agency goals to vigorously
enforce air, water, and waste-disposal laws. Polluters, he
stated, "... are not going to get away with it," and has
pledged to seek stiffer fines. He believed that the heart to the
integrity of EPA is vigorous and energetic enforcement.
Enforcement, he felt, will help EPA to do the job in the short
run that is expected of it by the statutes it administers.
Enforcement will also improve the climate for voluntary
compliance if people know that EPA means business as enforcers.
Region 4's Oversight Role Not Effective
Region 4 delegated its enforcement authority to state agencies,
but did not properly oversee their activities to ensure a
consistent and effective approach to enforcement of violations
committed by CSO owners. Although delegated states assumed lead
responsibility for compliance and enforcement activities, the
program's success depended on a strong and predictable system of
Region support and evaluation. However, Region 4 did not convey
its enforcement expectations to delegated states, evaluate their
performance, or initiate follow-up actions when states failed to
properly address violations by CSO owners. Thus, delegated
states were expected to regulate CSOs without guidance or
direction from Region 4. Specifically Region 4 did not:
- establish grant commitments that required delegated
states to inventory, inspect or monitor CSOs or
respond to permit applications submitted by CSO
owners;
- issue guidance or require delegated states to develop
guidance covering areas such as CSO inspections,
monitoring, sampling, permit issuance and
enforcement;
- evaluate delegated state performance with respect to
regulation of CSOs in its annual mid-year performance
evaluation; and
22
-------
- initiate follow-up action when delegated states
submitted reports that showed water quality was
being degraded by illegal CSO discharges.
Without effective oversight or monitoring by Region 4, delegated
states were free to use discretion in regulating CSOs. However,
as discussed in the following sections, delegated state actions
were inconsistent and ineffective in controlling the discharge of
pollutants from CSOs.
Delegated State Performance Discourages Compliance
Although delegated states assumed primary responsibility for
regulating CSOs and taking appropriate enforcement actions, they
had not developed and implemented the necessary procedures and
controls to carry out their responsibility. The limited
enforcement actions taken against CSO owners by delegated states
were untimely, ineffective in returning the violator to
compliance or, in most cases, non-existent. Visits to the
delegated states of Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee disclosed
weaknesses that undermined the integrity of the regulatory
process and discouraged compliance by CSO owners. The delegated
states had not:
- allocated resources or assigned responsibility for
regulating CSOs to specific individuals;
- identified the number, size and locations of CSOs
within their boundaries nor determined discharge
volume, frequency or pollutant level;
- responded to permit applications submitted by CSO
owners even though the discharge of pollutants from
point sources without a permit has been prohibited by
law since 1972;
- monitored or inspected CSOs on a consistent basis in
order to evaluate their impact on water quality;
- assessed any financial penalties for violations
committed by CSO owners or consistently used other
sanctions to compel CSO owners to control discharges
or take corrective actions.
Without a creditable enforcement program, delegated states did
not properly respond to known violations by CSO owners and had no
reliable means of determining the full extent of violations
actually committed. Weak enforcement by the delegated states
enabled CSO owners to systematically discharge pollutants, that
degraded water quality, without fear of being penalized. The
impact of such discharges is discussed in the following sections.
23
-------
CSQ Discharges Violated Water Quality Standards
The Clean Water Act set a national goal that, wherever
attainable, water quality should provide for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and provide for
recreation in and on the nation's waters. These were often
referred to as the fishable/swimmable goals of the Act.
The delegated states reviewed had properly developed water
quality standards pursuant to Section 303 (c) of the Clean Water
Act. The purpose of the standards was to establish designated
uses (i. e. drinking water, recreation, fishing, etc.) of the
water bodies and set criteria necessary to protect the uses.
However, the standards were not adequately enforced by the
delegated states. Specific water bodies in all three delegated
states that we reviewed had been degraded, in whole or in part,
by CSO discharges to the point that they no longer supported
designated uses during wet weather.
The following table, taken from 305 (b) reports published by
delegated states, shows river and stream miles and lake acres
that were unsafe for the specific uses designated by the state:
State River/Stream Miles Lake Acres
Kentucky 75.3
Tennessee 100.5 4,400
Georgia* N/A N/A
*In its bi-annual report on water quality, Georgia
acknowledged that State waters were adversely impacted
by CSO discharges, but did not quantify river/stream
miles or lake acres.
Fecal coliform was the primary pollutant that violated water
quality standards and made the water bodies unsafe for designated
uses. Although CSO discharges that did not comply with water
quality standards clearly violated Section 301 of the Clean Water
Act, the delegated states were generally unresponsive to the
violations. For example, the State of Tennessee and Fulton
County, Georgia Health Department, posted selected water bodies
to warn the general public that water related activities such as
fishing and swimming were unsafe. However, enforcement actions
taken against CSO owners were selective, untimely and ineffective
in achieving compliance with water quality standards.
Delegated state enforcement philosophies and the limited actions
initiated against CSO owners are summarized below:
24
-------
Kentucky. Kentucky did not assess any financial penalties
or impose other sanctions against CSO owners that violated water
quality standards or illegally discharged pollutants without a
permit. State personnel did not perform separate inspections of
CSOs, but often commented on CSO problems during routine
inspections of sewage treatment facilities. The State also
responded to public complaints about CSOs. Although inspection
and incident reports detailing CSO problems were generally
transmitted to the CSO owners, the State did not require the CSO
owner to address the problems.
The State felt that enforcement actions should not be taken
against CSO owners because: (1) limited resources could be used
more effectively to address other pollution sources; (2)
corrective actions were too expensive to impose on CSO owners;
and (3) EPA had not issued a national enforcement policy to
ensure equal treatment of CSO owners. The State also
rationalized that the majority of its CSO owners discharged into
the Ohio river which was large enough to dilute pollutants to an
acceptable level.
Georgia. Georgia did not assess any financial penalties
against CSO owners that violated water quality standards or
illegally discharged pollutants without a permit. Other
enforcement actions related to CSOs such as administrative and
consent orders were limited to the following:
Cedartown. Georgia. On December 14, 1987, Cedartown,
Georgia signed Consent Order NO. EPD-WQ 1271 which committed it
to improve the operation and management of its sewage treatment
plant and collection system. The order covered multiple issues
and required the City to submit a schedule for separating its
combined sewers. However, the order did not establish a time
frame for separating the sewers or a target date for submitting
the schedule.
_
Atlanta. Georgia. The State issued Administrative Order NO.
EPD-WQ 1450 to the City of Atlanta on June 21, 1989. The Order
required the City to design and construct screening and
disinfection facilities for its CSOs within three years.
Although the City had initiated a voluntary corrective action
program before the administrative order was issued, it appealed
the administrative order on July 14, 1989 because the three year
time frame was considered unreasonable.
Other actions taken by the State actually encouraged CSO owners
to violate the Clean Water Act. For several years, the State
illegally waived its water quality standards for segments of the
Chattahoochee River during periods when water quality was
25
-------
adversely impacted by CSO discharges. The State also advised the
City of Albany, Georgia that it would not be a wise or necessary
expenditure of local or federal funds to provide treatment for
CSOs.
The State felt that its enforcement actions were appropriate
because: (1) other pollution sources were more significant and
should be addressed first; (2) CSO corrective actions were not
considered cost effective; and (3) EPA had not adopted national
standards to define its CSO abatement and enforcement
expectations.
Tennessee. ,Tennessee did not assess any financial penalties
against CSO owners that violated water quality standards or
illegally discharged pollutants without a permit. However, the
State had taken steps to partially address its responsibility to
regulate CSOs. Bristol, Tennessee was placed under a
Commissioner's Order in August 1983 and has eliminated its CSOs.
Chattanooga, Tennessee agreed to a Commissioner's Order for the
gradual elimination of its CSOs by the year 2000. The
Commissioner's Order also contained stipulated penalties for
failure to meet milestone dates established in the order.
Nashville, Tennessee agreed to a Commissioner's Order that
required a comprehensive evaluation of its sewer system. In
addition, the State has been trying, for more than two years, to
negotiate an order with Nashville that would establish milestone
dates for CSO abatement tasks. However, the City has been
reluctant to agree to a compliance schedule and the State has
been unwilling to issue a unilateral order.
The State felt that more aggressive enforcement actions were not
practical because: (1) sufficient resources were not available;
and (2) the absence of a national enforcement policy undermined
the State's efforts to regulate CSOs and require corrective
actions by CSO owners.
Conclusion
CSO owners are not complying with the Clean Water Act because
Region 4 and its delegated states are not carrying out their
responsibility to regulate CSOs. Enforcement goals and
objectives have not been established for CSOs even though the
1972 version of the Clean Water Act made it illegal to operate
CSOs without a permit or discharge pollutants that violate water
quality standards. Region 4 delegated its enforcement authority
to individual states, but did not properly monitor or evaluate
their progress in regulating CSOs.
Without effective oversight or guidance from EPA, the delegated
states neglected their responsibility to regulate CSOs. The
26
-------
limited enforcement actions were inadequate to protect water
quality or compel CSO owners to initiate corrective actions. The
states rationalized that it was not practical or cost effective
to regulate CSOs at the state level until EPA established
national enforcement goals and objectives for CSOs.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Regional Administrator:
1. Establish an oversight and monitoring program to review and
evaluate delegated state efforts to regulate CSOs.
2. Require delegated states to develop and issue permits for CSO
discharge points to ensure compliance with water quality
standards. Also, since required dates for compliance have
expired, consent or administrative orders should be issued
specifying implementation plans and^milestone dates to attain
permit limits. Stipulated penalties should be provided for
failure to meet compliance dates.
Region 4's Response
Region 4 concurred with recommendation one and agreed with the
intent of recommendation two, but suggested the use of permits
instead or administrative or consent orders to compel compliance
by CSO owners. Region 4 pointed out that both the current and
former EPA Administrators had reduced enforcement resources even
though they established tough enforcement goals. Finally,
Region 4 also pointed out that Tennessee had taken enforcement
actions against Bristol and Chattanooga.
Auditor Evaluation of Region 4's Response
We do not agree with Region 4's suggestion to regulate CSO
discharges by issuing permits containing needed improvements.
The CWA mandated compliance with BPT on or before July 1, 1977
and BAT on or before March 31, 1989. Because both dates have
passed, a compliance schedule cannot be included in a discharge
permit. CSO discharge limits should be contained in the permit,
but the compliance schedule should be mandated by an
administrative or consent order.
We did not evaluate the adequacy of enforcement resources during
our audit. Finally, the two municipalities mentioned by Region 4
represent isolated enforcement actions. No action was taken
against numerous other municipalities in Region 4 that operated
illegal CSOs. In addition, CSOs were not the primary issue
involved in the Bristol, Tennessee enforcement action.
27
-------
In order to complete action on this report, we request additional
comments on recommendation number two.
28
-------
FINDING NO. 3 - CSO SYSTEMS NOT OPERATED TO MINIMIZE DISCHARGE OF
POLLUTANTS
The failure to regulate combined sewer overflows in Region 4
allowed cities with combined sewers to mismanage the operation of
the sewer systems causing excessive overflows of sanitary and
combined wastes. A 1979 EPA report estimated that nationally 40
million people were served by combined sewers. Based on 1962
census figures/ Tennessee and Georgia had between 11% and 25% of
their respective populations served by combined sewers. Kentucky
was listed in the 26% to 50% category among the states in EPA
Region 4. The combined sewers also transported significant
amounts of industrial waste. The operation of the treatment works
was regulated through careful monitoring of the quantity and
quality of permitted discharges while unauthorized and untreated
discharges routinely occurred upstream at combined sewer overflow
points. The quantity and quality of the overflows could only be
estimated because most municipalities lacked the ability to
adequately monitor them. The permissive attitude of EPA and the
States towards CSOs has also caused municipalities with combined
sewers to depend on overflows to relieve excess flows in the
separate sanitary sections of their sewer systems. This allowed
the municipalities to minimize operational requirements for the
sewer systems at the expense of more frequent water quality
violations and possible exposure to public health hazards.
Background
Combined sewers are, by definition, multi-purpose collection
systems that were designed to convey both sanitary sewage and
stprmwater. Their genealogy can be traced to areas in older
cities adjacent to large free flowing streams or rivers where the
decision to install them preceded any consideration that
treatment of sanitary or stormwater flows would ever be required.
Although combined sewers are no longer constructed they are
strategically located in the core areas of many large
metropolitan sewerage systems and are an important factor in
wastewater conveyance.
In the 1950's, when treatment requirements were placed on all
sanitary sewer systems, combined sewers presented a special
challenge. Because the sanitary flows in combined sewers
required treatment they had to be separated from the storm sewers
or the equivalent of the sanitary flow had to be intercepted and
conveyed to adequate treatment facilities. In most cases it was
not considered practical to construct a new separate sanitary
sewer system parallel to the storm sewers. Usually diversion
chambers or regulators were installed in the combined sewers at
29
-------
strategic locations to intercept the sanitary (or dry weather)
flow and convey those flows to special sanitary intercepting
sewers. The flows in excess of the sanitary flows in the
diversion facilities (or regulator chambers) were considered
storm water and discharged untreated through combined sewer
overflows.
At the time the regulators and diversions were installed
decisions were made on the flow rates to be intercepted for
treatment. During extended dry weather periods, the combined
sewers operate at very low velocities allowing solids in the
sanitary waste to be deposited in the sewers. During the initial
stages of a storm event, the velocity of flow increased and
flushed sewer deposits from the combined system. This was
commonly called the "first flush" and contains significant
sanitary waste and suspended matter which contribute to water
quality problems. The municipality using a combined sewer system
is responsible for demonstrating that the system was operating in
a manner to contain and treat all dry weather flows and the
"first flush".
The current practice was to construct separate sanitary sewers as
service was extended to outlying areas. However, these separate
sewers are usually connected to the upstream terminus of existing
combined sewers causing an increase in the portion of sanitary or
dry weather flow in the multi-purpose combined sewers. A
municipality with a combined sewer system needed to monitor its
status to ensure that added sanitary flows would not increase the
incidence of overflows.
Overflows in a combined sewer system were unavoidable; however,
these sewer systems must be operated in a manner to minimize
water quality violations and provide treatment for the equivalent
of the maximum sanitary flows tributary to the system. Under the
circumstances, the "first flush" would be considered a priority
to be included in the flow to receive treatment. The
municipality with a combined system was responsible for
demonstrating that the sewer system as well as the treatment
facilities were efficiently managed, monitored and operated in a
manner to meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
Region 4 And Delegated States Do Not Adequately Consider Special
Operational Requirements Of Combined Sewer Systems
EPA and the states provided special attention to the design and
construction of treatment facilities in combined systems. The
facilities included in our review were constructed with Federal
financial assistance from the Construction Grants Program. In
30
-------
4.
order to qualify for this assistance the municipalities were
required to plan, design and construct facilities to minimize the
effect of combined sewer overflows on water quality and eliminate
or provide treatment for excess infiltration/inflow (I/I) flows
in separate sanitary sewers. Certain facilities we reviewed
included excess flow capacity at the treatment facility to
provide some measure of treatment to the combined flows. Recent
EPA and State inspection reports of the facilities we reviewed in
Tennessee indicated the municipalities were reluctant to provide
treatment for excess flows and indicated liberal use of overflows
in the combined and separate sanitary portions of the sewer
systems. Unfortunately, the municipalities were not required to
demonstrate efficient operation and proper flow management in the
combined sewer system. The attitude toward CSOs extended to the
separate sanitary areas of the combined sewer systems and served
to institutionalize the overflow as an accepted practice
throughout the sewer system. Specifically, Region 4 and the
delegated states did not require municipalities with combined
systems to maintain accurate and up to date flow management and
operations plans. Based on a review of the situation in selected
municipalities we found the following:
Atlanta. Georgia. There were ten CSOs located in the sewer
system. A memorandum dated June 6, 1988 prepared by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources best exemplified the neglect in
controlling CSOs with the following excerpted remarks:
1. Clear Creek CSO
"In 1972, the City constructed a degritting
chamber in the general vicinity of the CSO to
reduce the amount of grit reaching the
interceptors from the CSO. The degritting
chamber is presently not functional. The
problems associated with the operation of
this facility are mechanical in nature and
have been attributed to debris and rags
clogging the grit removal pump system.
An overflow is likely to occur if the twin
culverts are conveying more flow than the
capacity of the Peachtree Creek Interceptor
can handle"
2. llth Street CSO
"The 18 inch line transporting these dry
weather flows back to the interceptor also
clogs at times resulting in a discharge of
31
-------
untreated wastewater into the Clear Creek
open channel."
The Clear Creek overflow traveled in a open channel through a
park area. During a field visit we saw toilet paper hanging in
the shrubs along side of and at a higher elevation than the top
of the paved channel. A Memorandum dated August 19, 1988 by
Region 4 reported "Raw sewage debris was readily evident on the
grassy floodplain of the easternmost section of Piedmont Park
including toilet paper, condoms, sanitary napkins and tampon
applicators.
We also met with City personnel responsible for the operation of
the treatment facility and the maintenance of the sewer system.
During our visit we were most concerned with the efforts of the
City to minimize overflows. We were informed the following:
- The City was in the process of mapping the location
of sewers. There was some difficulty in getting
accurate locations;
- The sewer operations department had limited
resources, but was considered able to respond to
reported problems;
- The City did not meter the flows in the combined
sewers in the vicinity of the CSOs. We were unable
to obtain information on the performance of the
CSOs and the possibility that first flush, and at
times sanitary flows, were being bypassed because
of capacity or maintenance problems; and
- The City was expediting plans to install a new grit
chamber at the Clear Creek CSO.
The State of Georgia has recently completed a Combined Sewer
Overflow Strategy and a draft permit and administrative order had
been prepared for the Atlanta sewer system to control the CSOs.
The order would require the City to comply with CSO requirements
within 3 years. Basically, the City would be required to
eliminate all dry weather overflows from the combined sewer
system, meet minimal CSO permit requirements for coliform
concentration and monitor flow, maximize flow to the treatment
facilities and conduct instream sampling twice per year during a
winter and a summer CSO event. The City has appealed the
compliance schedule as being too restrictive claiming more time
will be needed.
The reports we examined and discussions with City personnel
indicated historical mismanagement of the sewer system operation
and maintenance. While the NPDES permit did not allow sewer
32
-------
overflows they were nonetheless prevalent in the City sewer
system with the knowledge of EPA and the State. The City had
abandoned a screening device on the Clear Creek overflow and
proposed to install another with limited information on
frequency, flow rates and characteristics of the overflow events.
Due to the past performance of the City, the State should
consider additional requirements to ensure proper operation and
maintenance of the sewer system. EPA and the State should
stipulate interim actions which would form the basis of a long
range plan to minimize combined sewer overflows, ensure
containment of the "first flush" of combined sewers for
conveyance to the treatment facility and eliminate overflows due
to excess (I/I) flows in the separate sanitary sewer system.
CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE. The City of Chattanooga operated
the regional Moccasin Bend Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) with
a rated capacity of 65 million gallons per day (MGD). The WWTP
served six neighboring communities including three in the State
of Georgia. The system consisted of 750 miles of sewer lines and
27 pumping stations. Of this, approximately 100 miles were
"combined" sewers located in the older, developed portions of the
City. The sewer system had 49 overflow points of which 18 were
classified as CSOs. The remaining 31 were located at sewage
pumping stations and along sanitary sewer lines and were
classified as sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Any new
extensions to the sewer system were separate sanitary sewers but
once those flows entered the City sewer system they were
connected to the combined sewer system.
In May 1988, the State and the City entered into a consent
agreement (CA) pertaining to the overflows. It established goals
which would:
By July 1990 eliminate all overflows from the
separate sanitary sewers into tributaries of the
Tennessee River except those allowed in the
discharge permit;
By July 1995 eliminate all overflows from separate
sanitary sewers tributary to the Tennessee River
except those allowed in the permit; and
By July 2000 eliminate all overflows from separate
and combined sewers except those allowed in the
permit.
33
-------
The CA also included schedules for completion of engineering
studies, submittal of staffing and implementation plans, posting
health warnings and a contact telephone number at overflow
points, operations evaluations of CSO regulators and monitoring
and alarms at overflow points. The City has made impressive
progress in meeting the commitments of the CA and appeared to
have embarked on a successful program. Interim reports indicated
that a 1988 inspection revealed that 7 of the 18 CSO regulators "
. . . were not working at all. Four others were functioning but
not working properly". The report also indicated that river
water was backing into the sewer system at overflow points where
tide gates were not functioning properly. This was reported to
have contributed to upstream sanitary sewer overflows.
The City had made significant progress in evaluating the carrying
capacity of the sewer system, monitoring existing flow rates and
improving the maintenance and operations of the CSO regulators.
This had resulted in immediate improvements in sewer system
operations and reduction of overflows. The sewer system
evaluations and flow monitoring will enable the City to
efficiently plan capital improvements and plan future operational
requirements to comply with the CA.
EPA and the State should continue to monitor the progress of the
City and ensure that plans are implemented and that historical
lapses in efficient operation of the sewer system are not
repeated.
NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE. The City of Nashville owned and
operated a regional sewerage system providing wastewater
conveyance and treatment service for approximately one-half of
Davidson County. The communities outside of the corporate limits
of the City of Nashville were provided sewage treatment service
through intermunicipal agreements. Those communities owned and
operated their own separate sanitary sewage collection systems up
to the point of connection to the Nashville system. The
Nashville Sewer system consisted of 2500 miles of sewers (12% of
which is combined sewers), pumping stations and three major
wastewater treatment facilities. The three facilities were named
the Central, Whites Creek and Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plants. A brief description of each and its operating
characteristics is as follows:
CENTRAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT fWWTPl - This
facility served 88,000 acres or one-half of the total
service area of the Nashville system. Of this total
approximately 9,270 acres, or 12%, was served by
combined sewers. All the combined sewers were
constructed before wastewater treatment was required.
34
-------
When treatment was required/ intercepting sewers were
installed to convey dry weather sanitary flows to the
Central WWTP. Regulators were constructed on the
combined sewers to divert sanitary flows to the
intercepting sewers and bypass excess storm flows
directly to nearby receiving streams. The Central
sewer system had 29 CSO regulators.
The Central WWTP was authorized to discharge 98.7
million gallons per day (MGD) of tertiary treated
wastewater with all other flows up to 120 MGD receiving
primary treatment. Also, excess flows at the Whites
Creek WWTP could be conveyed to the Central WWTP for
treatment by means of an interconnecting sewer.
WHITES CREEK WWTP - This facility provided advanced
type treatment and had a rated capacity of 25 MGD with
a expansion under design to increase to 37.5 MGD. This
segment of the sewer system had no combined sewers
although sanitary overflows were installed at sewage
pumping stations.
DRY CREEK WWTP - This facility had a rated capacity of
12.3 MGD and provided secondary type treatment. This
segment of the sewer system had no combined sewers;
however, sanitary sewer overflows were installed at
pumping stations.
At Nashville the records indicated a continuing pattern of
overflows and bypasses as a result of combined and sanitary
flows. Increased sanitary flows actually increased the incidence
of overflows in the combined sewer system. The City stated that
outside jurisdictions connected to their sewer system were
exceeding their flow allocations and thus causing sanitary
overflows within the City system. They claim that those
jurisdictions were subject to excessive I/I. The issue of I/I
was probably not limited to the areas outside the corporate
limits of Nashville.
The City reported overflow quantities to the State on a monthly
basis. The reports for the period April - June, 1989 indicated
results shown on Figure 1 below. While a significant amount of
excess flow was treated at the Central WWTP questions remain.
Based on the overflow reports, the State indicated that
additional flow should be accepted at the WWTP. For instance,
the May total for excess flow was less than the amount of storm
water treated in April. Should the entire excess flow in May
have been afforded storm water treatment at the WWTP? The
35
-------
overflow reports were not based on actual flow measurements but
on estimated quantities.
Nashville.
Combined and Sanitary
Ov»rfl
Million
lift*
Figure 1 Excess Flow Quantity
In September 1984, the State issued a complaint and order to the
City for discharge permit violations at the Central WWTP and
bypassing raw sewage from its collection system. The order
required the submission of a Municipal Compliance Plan and, by
July 1987, elimination of all bypasses other than those allowed
in the permit. The Central WWTP included combined sewers and the
order reference to bypasses would seem to include CSOs.
In October 1985 the State and the City entered into a consent
order for the same type of violations included in the 1984 order.
The continued permit violations at the Central WWTP were
mentioned as well as a reference to "... discharging untreated
or partially treated wastewater....as a result of bypasses at
some regulators, at least during dry weather conditions." The
consent order stipulated the following actions in regard to the
combined sewer system:
36
-------
- Continue current level of commitment, including
funding and manpower for the maintenance and repair
of CSO regulators;
- Operate the inlet gate at the Central WWTP so as to
accept the maximum possible flow in order to reduce
the number of bypasses upstream; and
- Conduct a study to determine the sources of, impact
and most cost effective way to eliminate the
effects of pollution from combined sewers on the
Cumberland River, Richland Creek and Browns Creek.
The study should be submitted by October 1988 and
include an implementation plan.
The study was completed on time and the State recently provided
comments to the City. The study used a combination of limited
flow monitoring at 10 locations and rainfall coefficients to
estimate peak flow rates and overflow volumes. It was estimated
that a rain storm exceeding 0.15 inches in 3 hours will cause
measurable overflows at most locations. Based on historical
rainfall records, this would lead to about 70 CSO events per
year. The study attempted but failed to quantify the pollution
from the "first flush" phenomenon. The study reported this was
not possible under the scope of the study.
The study recommended flow equalization and treatment for a storm
of 3 hour duration (1.77 inch) at an estimated cost of $130
million dollars for system modifications. This alternative would
result in 3.5 untreated overflow events with an total estimated
volume of 0.57 billion gallons.
The State review comments questioned the treatment capability due
to excessive I/I. The State also requested additional effort to
prioritize the CSO areas for separation based on the character of
the discharges in the basin. For instance, areas known to have
hospital or toxic waste would have a higher priority for
separation.
The approach taken by the City was theoretical and focused on the
combined sections of the sewer system rather than a system-wide
basis. Extensive I/I in the separate sanitary portions of the
sewer system and the interconnections between drainage basins and
treatment facilities may provide operational opportunities or
worsen the extent of the CSO problem. Lacking a comprehensive
system-wide flow management plan and operation and maintenance
program the City was more likely to continue to rely on overflows
in both the combined and sanitary portions of the sewer system.
The State allowed the City to take a cautious and deliberate
approach in making commitments relative to CSO controls. This
may delay meeting the objective of controlling CSOs and
37
-------
r
eliminating overflows induced by excess flows in the separate
sanitary portions of the sewer system.
CONCLUSION
The municipalities with combined sewer systems have not used
proper operations to minimize the occurrence and the pollution
impact of CSOs. Sanitary flows were added to combined sewers
with no accurate flow information to predict the characteristic
or the quantity of the resultant overflow. Combined sewers have
had a history of neglect and served to institutionalize overflows
from sanitary portions of combined sewer systems. Region 4 and
the States have not required proper operation of the sewer
systems to maximize the carrying capacity of the sewer system,
promote efficient use of treatment facilities and control the
location and incidence of overflows.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Regional Administrator require:
1. States to develop criteria for the efficient management of
combined sewer systems. As a minimum, municipalities with
combined systems should have a Combined Sewer Flow Management
Plan which provides the following information:
a. Location and design capacity of all sewers with
overflows or bypasses;
b. Flow monitoring capability at sufficient locations to
determine operating characteristics of the combined
sewer during minimum, average and maximum dry weather
and wet weather flows;
c. Evaluation of the actual operating characteristics
of the sewer under the above conditions . The
information should be sufficient to convince the
permitting authority that the combined sewer being
operated in a way to minimize overflows, control
overflow locations to limit water quality impacts and
promote efficient use of the treatment works capacity;
d. Combined sewer maintenance plan. The plan should
include operating budget, staff assigned and schedule
for routine maintenance for all CSO points. The plan
should consider provisions for alarms at CSO overflow
points; and
e. Ensure that all justified overflows are permitted
and properly operated.
38
-------
2. Require municipalities to improve flow management in sanitary
sewers which contribute flow to combined sewer systems. More
incentive must be provided to remove excessive I/I or provide
treatment. Sanitary sewer overflows or excessive sanitary flows
which increase the incidence of combined sewer overflow must be
eliminated.
Region 4's Response
Region 4 agreed with the intent of our recommendations, but
suggested revisions to allow delegated states flexibility in
determining the appropriate mechanism to compel corrective
actions by CSO owners. Region 4 also felt that the level of
detail in our recommendations could be reduced. Specific
comments by Region 4 concerning this finding are summarized as
follows:
Municipalities not effectively utilizing facilities for treatment
of excess flows during wet weather should be identified.
Municipalities which have relied on overflows to relieve excess
flows are subject to enforcement action, and should be
identified.
Any discharge, except as a result of storm event, from a CSO is
illegal and should be eliminated.
The Intrenchment Creek WWTP is used by the City of Atlanta for
the treatment of combined sewer overflow.
The National CSO and state permitting strategies will stipulate
actions to minimize CSOs, ensure containment of the "first flush"
for conveyance to the treatment facility and eliminate overflows
due to excess I/I in separate sanitary sewers.
Auditor Evaluation of Region 4's Response
The alternative recommendations suggested by Region 4 may not
ensure a consistent and effective approach to CSO regulation.
Sewer systems were not properly operated and maintained by
certain municipalities. This caused overflows and bypasses on a
regular basis. We believe uniform criteria is needed to promote
maximum operating efficiency and control the incidence and
location of CSO discharges. In addition, the criteria we
suggested would ensure uniform pre-qualification requirements for
CSO permit applications and provide the permit writer with
adequate data to write quality permits. This could minimize the
need for enforcement actions. Our evaluation discusses Region
4's other comments in the same order they were presented.
39
-------
Our audit was based on a small sample of municipalities which
operated a large number of CSOs, in Georgia and Tennessee.
Nashville and Chattanooga had limitations in treatment and
conveyance systems which raised questions about effective use of
excess flow treatment capability.
We agree that enforcement is appropriate in the case of excessive
use of overflows. Our audit was based on a small sample of
municipalities in Region 4, but it did indicate a disturbing
pattern of historical reliance on overflows. Atlanta had no flow
records but inspection reports and physical appearance at several
small streams indicated sewage overflow problems. The City is
reported to be in the process of mapping its sewer system.
Nashville has an interconnected system of combined and sanitary
sewers. They routinely report overflows and bypasses to the
State.
We agree that discharges from sanitary sewers and dry weather
discharges from combined sewers are illegal and that enforcement
actions may be warranted. However, bypasses routinely occur in
sanitary sewers due to excess I/I. Dry weather overflows occur
less frequently in combined sewers due to mechanical failures and
poor operation and maintenance of regulators in combined sewers.
These overflows and bypasses are well documented in State
enforcement files.
We acknowledge that the City of Atlanta uses Intrenchment Creek
facilities to treat overflows from a combined sewer.
The National CSO Strategy and state permitting strategies need
vigorous implementation to be a success. The audit report is
intended to provide a historical perspective on CSO performance
and suggest areas which need to be quickly addressed to meet the
water quality objectives of the CWA in the most cost effective
way.
In order to complete action or this report, we request additional
comments on the feasibility of implementing our recommendations.
40
-------
Appendix A
GLOSSARY
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES fBMPsl
Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent
or reduce the pollution of "waters of the United States." BMPs
also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and
practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge
or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)
The most widely used indicator of pollution applied to water
resources. The measure of oxygen consumed in biological
processes to breakdown organic matter in water. The greater the
BOD, the greater the degree of pollution.
CLEAN WATER ACT
The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters .
COLIFORM BACTERIA
A class of bacteria normally found in sewage and polluted
waters. The subgroup Esch.coli, frequently referred to as fecal
coliform, is characteristically an inhabitant of human and animal
intestines. The presence of fecal coliform is an indication of
recent contamination with sewage.
COMBINED SEWER
A sewer that transports both dry weather sanitary flows and
wet weather storm flows.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
A regulator or diversion devise that normally directs dry
weather sanitary flows to an intercepting sewer for conveyance to
a treatment facility. The regulator is preset to a desired
quantity of dry weather flow to be conveyed to the treatment
plant. All flow in excess of the preset amount is discharged to
surface waters without treatment through what is commonly a CSO.
DESIGNATED USES
Indicates the predominant use of a water resource. For
instance, typical use designations are water supply, propagation
of fish (cold or warm water), and public contact recreation.
From the designated use water quality criteria are developed
which together form the basis of a Water Quality Standard.
41
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITATION
A specific quantity and quality of wastes, stipulated in an
NPDES permit, which is allowed to be discharged to surface waters
and will not cause water quality degradation.
FACILITIES PLAN
Plans and studies which directly relate to the construction
of treatment works necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act.
A facilities plan investigates needs and provides information on
the cost effectiveness of alternatives. A recommended plan and
an environmental assessment of the recommendations are also
presented in a facilities plan.
INF ILTRATION/ INFLOW
Infiltration is water, other than wastewater, that enters a
sewer through broken or defective pipes, and other sewer
appurtenances. Inflow is storm flow or other surface water
runoff that enters a sanitary sewer through a purposeful
connection with storm sewers, roof leaders, cellar drains, etc.
I/I is the total quantity of water from both infiltration and
inflow.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ( NPDES 1
A permit program under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
that imposes effluent limitations on point sources. In addition
it specifies procedures for issuing, modifying, monitoring and
enforcing permit conditions.
NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS
Pollutants which do not enter the water from any discernible
confined or discrete conveyance but rather wash off, run off or
seep from broad areas of land.
PERMIT '
An authorization, license, or equivalent control document
issued by EPA or an approved state.
PHOSPHORUS m
An element that is an essential nutrient to living
organisms. Too much phosphorus in a water body can cause
excessive plant growth.
POINT SOURCE
Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including
but not limited to, any pipe, ditch channel, tunnel, conduit,
well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated
animal feeding operation, vessel, or other floating craft from
which pollutants are or may be discharged.
42
-------
PRIMARY TREATMENT
The first stage in wastewater treatment in which
substantially all floating or settleable solids are mechanically
removed by screening and sedimentation. The process generally
removes 30-35 percent of total organic pollutants.
RECEIVING STREAM
The water body into which wastewater or treated effluent is
discharged.
SANITARY SEWER
A sewer intended to carry only sanitary or sanitary and
industrial waste waters from residences, commercial buildings,
industrial plants and institutions.
SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Wastewater treatment beyond the primary stage, using
bacteria to consume the organic pollutants. Can achieve 85-90
percent removal of total organic pollutants and suspended solids.
Generally the minimum level required under the Clean Water Act.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Small particles of solid pollutants in water or sewage that
contribute to turbidity and that resist separation by
conventional means. A water body low in suspended solids would
be clear.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
A regulation establishing conditions which must be met in a
waterbody to support the designated uses of that water. It
includes the use (e.g. protection of aquatic life) and numerical
criteria (e.g. copper of 5.6 micrograms per liter) that, if not
exceeded, will protect the use.
43
-------
-------
Appendix B
Page 1 of 7
* NA,,, „ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY '•'
v
\ A
-------
Appendix B
Page 2 of 7
Page 37• Finding Number3.Recommendations
We believe that implementation of the National CSO Strategy
will result in compilation of the information recommended.
However, we believe it is reasonable to allow each state the
flexibility to determine whether to require efficient flow
management in the context of a permit or other mechanisms such
as enforcement orders. We also believe that additional
capital investment for sewer separation, treatment, etc.,
should be required where found to be cost-effective and needed
to protect water quality. The level of detail in the
recommendation (e.g., installation of alarms) should be
reduced. We suggest the following rewrite of the
recommendations:
(1) States should require the owners of CSOs to
thoroughly evaluate their systems in order to maximize
the treatment of wet weather and dry weather flows. Dry
weather discharges from CSOs must be eliminated.
(2) Following an evaluation of the impact of CSO
discharges on water quality standards should be required.
(3) Recommendations 1 and 2 should be implemented
through permits/enforcement actions or other means as
appropriate.
Region IV anticipates that approved State CSO Strategies will
contain the elements listed above. We believe that recommendation
number 2 is included in the above wording.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact
Larry Weeks, Audit Pollow-up Coordinator, on extension 7292.
Attachment
cc: John Marlar
-------
Appendix B
Page 3 of 7
This attachment is EPA-Region IVs detailed response to the draft
audit report dated February 5, 1990:
1. Page 3. Paragraph 3. Lines 3-6, "Several municipalities we
visited had facilities for treatment of excess flows during wet
weather but were reluctant to use them to the fullest extent
because it might upset their normal plant operations and cause
permit violations."
Response; Region IV would find it helpful if the report included
the names of these municipal facilities.
2. Page 4. Paragraph 2. Lines 15-20, "This has led to the
degradation of water quality and impaired the designated uses of
water bodies near CSO discharge points during wet weather.
Approximately 175 river miles and 4,400 lake acres in Tennessee
and Kentucky have been designated as unsafe for recreation or
fishing due, in whole or in part, to unregulated CSO discharges."
Response; Documentation of the source of this information is
needed in the report, in order to assist in Regional followup.
3. Pace 5. Paragraph 1. Lines 5-12, "The permissive attitude of EPA
and the States towards CSO's has'also caused municipalities with
combined sewers to depend on overflows to relieve excess flows in
the separate sanitary sections of their sewer systems. This
allowed the municipalities to minimize operational requirements
for the sewer systems at the expense of more frequent water
quality violations and possible exposure to public health
hazards."
Response: Municipalities which have relied on overflows to
relieve excess flows are subject to enforcement action, and thus
should be identified in the final report.
4. Pace 7. Paragraph 3. Lines 1-4. "The CWA allowed EPA to delegate
the responsibility for the NPDES program to the States. In_
Region 4 EPA has delegated the program to the states except it
has retained the program in Florida and shares that authority
with Kentucky."
Response: The reference to shared authority in Kentucky is not
accurate. Kentucky has been delegated full program
responsibilty. EPA retained only those facilities which were
under active EPA enforcement at the time of delegation for
enforcement purposes only.
46
-------
Appendix' B
Page 4 of 7
-2-
5. Page 14, Paragraph 2, Lines 15-17, "For example, during the first
quarter of 1989 approximately five billion gallons of untreated
waste was discharged from the City's CSOs."
Response; The City referred to should be identified in the final
report.
6. Page 14. Paragraph 3, Lines 13-16. "Thus, the states's failure to
regulate CSOs enabled municipalities to arbitrarily divert excess
wastewater away from the treatment plant in order to ensure that
the treatment plant did not violate permit limits."
Response; Only discharges as a result of wet weather are
considered CSOs. Anything else is a bypass. Bypasses should be
included in a report about the enforcement effort the states are
making to prevent or eliminate illegal discharges and not in a
report about CSOs.
7. Page 15. Paragraph 1. Lines 3-9, "Although CSOs have been subject
to regulation since 1972, Region 4 did not place any emphasis on
issuing permits to CSO owners until the draft National CSO
Strategy was issued in September 1988. The draft strategy
document required states to develop statewide CSO permitting
strategies by March 15, 1990, but did not establish any deadlines
for the actual issuance of permits to CSO owners."
Response; The National CSO Strategy, which was issued in draft in
August 1988, and the final in August 1989. It requires the
States to develop permitting strategies no later than January 15,
1990, and Regions should approve strategies no later than
March 31, 1990.
8. Pages 17. Paragraph 2, Lines 7-10, "There were no signs to warn
citizens of the health risks associated with these overflows
until 1989, when the Fulton County Health Department conducted
studies on Atlanta's CSOs and recommended posting open channel
CSOs as a public health hazard."
Response: Warning signs were put in place as a result of Bruce
Barrett, EPA-Region IV, Water Management Division Director's
letter of September 16, 1988, to the Georgia Department of Human
Resources.
47
-------
Appendix B
Page 5 of 7
-3-
9. Page 18. Paragraph 3. Lines 5-8, "However, these reports reveal
that Nashville has a severe problem of overflows in its combined
sewers and bypassing from its sanitary sewer system.
Response: Bypasses are "intentional diversions" and should not be
included in a discussion of CSOs. An overflow from a combined
sewer should result from wet weather (a storm event) and wet
weather only. Any other discharge from a combined sewer is
illegal and should be eliminated, or appropriate enforcement
actions should be taken to force its elimination. Furthermore,
there is no mention here of any enforcement action taken by the
State against the City of Nashville. This is inconsistent with
page 26, which does mention the issuance of Commissioner's Orders
beginning in 1983 by the State of Tennessee. It is suggested
that page 18 be revised to correct the inconsistency.
10. Page 19. Paragraph 2. Lines 2-5. "Without monitoring data that
can be required by NPDES permits, the State had no reliable means
of determining overflow volume, pollutant level or the adverse
impact on receiving streams."
Response: It is suggested in this paragraph you replace "means of
determining" with "data to determine".
11- Pace 19, Paragraph 4, Lines 1-2. "At the time of our visit to
Chattanooga, the City's consulting engineer had just completed a
study of the City's CSOs.
• Response; Suggest you include in the final report that the
Chattanooga study was required by the State of Tennessee's
Commissioner's Order issued on May 31, 1988.
12. Page 19, Paragraph 6. Lines 4-7. "However, the corrective action
program will not be completed until the year 2000 and the State
has agreed to waive any enforcement actions provided that the
City meets all milestone dates in the consent order."
Response; The consent order is not a waiver of enforcement action
and explicitly advises that the order in no way is to be
construed as a waiver.
48
-------
Appendix-fi
Page 6 of 7
-4-
13. Page 22, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-11. "To emphasize the importance of
taking enforcement action against violators former Administrator
Thomas established tough enforcement goals when he stated that:
'in order to achieve compliance with the laws and
regulations, EPA must have an enforcement program that is
creditable and effective . . . There should be no doubt in
anybody's mind, . . . that the laws and regulations of the
EPA mean what they say, and they will be enforced.'
The current Administrator Reilly set Agency goals to 'vigorously*
enforce air, water, and waste-disposal laws."
Response; We must note, however, that under both Administrators
referenced, Regional NPDES enforcement resources have been
reduced.
14. Page 23. Paragraph 3. Lines 23-26, "The delegated States had not
assessed any financial penalties for violations committed by CSO
owners or effectively used other sanctions to compel CSO owners
to control discharges or take corrective actions."
Response: Bristol, Tennessee was required to eliminate CSOs in a
Commissioner's Order and Chattanooga, Tennessee was issued a
Commissioner's Order that contained a moratorium on new sewer
connections.
15. Page 30. Paragraph 1. Lines 14-17. "The attitude toward CSOs
extended to the separate sanitary areas of the combined sewer
systems and served to institutionalize the overflow as an
accepted practice throughout the sewer system."
Responsei Any discharge, except as a result of storm event, from
a CSO is illegal and should be eliminated.
16. Pace 30, under heading Atlanta. Georgia
Responses There is no mention here of the Intrenchment Creek WWTP
which is used by the City of Atlanta for the treatment of
combined sewer overflow.
-------
Appendix B
Page 7 of 7
-5-
17. Page 32, Paragraph 1, Lines 8-13. "EPA and the state should
stipulate interim actions which would form the basis of a long
range plan to minimize combined sewer overflows, ensure
containment of the 'first flush' of combined sewers for
conveyance to the treatment facility and eliminate overflows due
to excess (I/I) flows in the separate sanitary sewer system."
Response; Among other things, this is the purpose of the National
CSO Permitting Strategy and the subsequent States' CSO permitting
strategies.
50
-------
,V
-------
APPENDIX C
DISTRIBUTION
Officeof Inspector General
Inspector General (A-109)
Regional Office
Regional Administrator, Region 4
Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 4
Director, Water Management Division, Region 4
Chief, Facilities Performance Branch, Region 4
Headquarters Office
Comptroller (PM-225)
Agency Followup Official (PM-208)
Agency Followup Coordinator (PM-208)
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations (A-101)
51
-------
------- |