\. Office of Inspector General
I Evaluation Report
-------
Inspector General Resource Center Eastern Audit and Evaluation Resource Center
Conducting the Audit: Boston, Massachusetts Office
New York, New York Office
Regions Covered: Regions 1, 3, and 5
Program Office Involved: Office of Wastewater Management
Report Contributors: Ira Brass, Project Manager
Robert Hairston
Linda Fuller
Harry Silver
Edward Baldinger
John Coll, General Engineer
Abbreviations
CSO: Combined Sewer Overflow
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OIG: Office of Inspector General
Cover Photo: An outfall in the Boston, Massachusetts area (photo by EPA OIG)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
4<- PRO'S*-0
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
August 26, 2002
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Report Number: 2002-P-00012
Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows
Dan Engelberg /s/
Director for Program Evaluation, Water Programs
G. Tracy Mehan
Assistant Administrator for Water
Attached is our report, Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows. This report
contains issues and recommendations that affect EPA, state, and local water programs.
This report contains findings that describe problems the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has
identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. The audit report represents the opinion
of the OIG and the findings contained in this report do not necessarily represent the final EPA
position. Final determinations on matters of this report will be made by EPA managers in
accordance with established EPA audit resolution procedures.
In accordance with EPA Order 2750, you as the Action Official are required to provide this
office a written response to the report within 90 days. Your response should address all
recommendations, and include milestone dates for corrective actions planned but not completed.
We have no objection to the release of this report to the public.
Should you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 566-0830 or Ira Brass at (212) 637-3057.
-------
-------
Executive Summary
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are the total discharges into water bodies of
untreated domestic, commercial, and industrial waste and wastewater, as well as
storm water runoff, from a Combined Sewer System. Such a system collects and
transports both sanitary sewage and storm water runoff in a single-pipe system to
a wastewater treatment facility. Overflows can impair water quality and
adversely affect the health of humans, animals, and aquatic organisms, as well as
cause beach closings and fishing and recreational restrictions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a CSO Policy in 1994, and
states and communities have implemented CSO programs with varying success.
Since 1978, the number of CSO permittees has been reduced from approximately
1,300 to 859. Some states have given the CSO program a higher priority than
others. To evaluate this issue on a national level, we sought to determine:
• What barriers, if any, need to be overcome in implementing the CSO Policy?
• What are examples of better CSO practices?
• What levels of water quality or other outcomes are used to measure CSO
Policy accomplishments? What improvements in the level of water quality
have been achieved?
Significant Barriers Remain
An estimated $44.7 billion is needed nationwide for CSO abatement efforts, and
raising sufficient funding for often expensive projects is obviously a significant
barrier for many communities. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is a major
funding mechanism, but even its vast resources cannot meet the demand. Another
key barrier that we noted is finding suitable sites for needed facilities.
Many Promising Practices Noted
A key part of our review was to identify promising practices already implemented
by some of the CSO communities. Despite the barriers noted, states and
communities demonstrated numerous promising practices that could be employed
in the CSO programs of others to improve operations, reduce costs, and eliminate
some of the aforementioned barriers. These promising practices included a
variety of technical approaches and innovations, state grant programs,
government cooperative efforts, public education initiatives, and neighborhood
improvements. Numerous examples of these best practices are in Chapter 4 of
this report. However, there is a need for a central mechanism within EPA to
i Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
disseminate this information.
Limited Data Available on Water Quality Improvements
We found that many communities do not as yet have the data to determine the
effect of CSO controls on water quality. Most communities were only monitoring
the number, volume, and duration of CSO discharges, and did not have data on
the effect CSO controls were having on the quality of receiving waters. This was
because EPA does not require monitoring until completion of CSO projects.
Consequently, it could not be determined until it was too late whether each CSO
project being undertaken was a wise investment of taxpayers' dollars.
Watershed Approach Should Be Considered
Because of the broad variety of pollution sources affecting water bodies, a
watershed management approach is needed to adequately address water quality.
While CSO discharges are a significant pollution source, eliminating them will
not always ensure that water quality standards will be met. Sanitary sewer
overflows, storm water, pollution from upstream sources, and concentrated
animal feeding operations can also impair water bodies. Attainment of clean
water can only be accomplished through a concerted effort to limit all sources of
pollutants.
Recommendations
Our recommendations to the Assistant Administrator for Water to improve the
CSO program include developing a system to disseminate lessons learned and
better practices about CSOs. Also, EPA should work with CSO permitting
authorities and communities to assure the performance of interim reviews
regarding water quality, and take a leadership role in encouraging the use of
watershed approaches and having states and communities work together to
accomplish clean water.
Agency Response
In his July 15, 2002 response to our draft report (Appendix 1), the Assistant
Administrator for Water agreed with all but one of the findings and
recommendations. He disagreed with our recommendation from Chapter 5 that
EPA amend the CSO Policy to require communities to perform interim reviews of
the water quality impacts of CSO upgrade projects. Although he agreed with our
contention that these reviews are often beneficial, he argued that it would be more
expedient if EPA achieved this by working with individual communities and
permitting authorities rather than through a policy change. We have changed this
recommendation, but will monitor EPA's success in achieving this objective.
ii Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 4
2 CSO Implementation Efforts Have Varied 7
3 Significant Barriers Remain 11
4 Many Promising Practices Used by States and
Communities Have Improved CSO Program 19
5 Limited Data Available on Improvements to Water Quality 27
6 CSO Efforts Need to Focus More on Entire Watershed 31
Exhibits
1 Nine Minimum Controls and Long-Term Control Plans 39
2 Review Participants 41
Appendices
1 Agency Response 43
2 Distribution 51
iii Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
The cost to make improvements to abate Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) is
estimated by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Needs Survey at
$44.7 billion. CSOs are the largest category of our Nation's wastewater
infrastructure that still need to be addressed. They impact 40 million Americans
in 32 states (including the District of Columbia) through impaired water quality
that adversely affects the health of humans, animals, and aquatic organisms, and
cause beach closings and fishing and recreational restrictions.
EPA issued a CSO Policy in 1994 that became law in December 2000. While
EPA has instituted the program, there is uncertainty about what actions have been
taken and their effectiveness. An earlier Office of Inspector General report
focusing on EPA Region 2 noted various levels of success regarding CSO actions.
To evaluate this issue on a national level, our objectives were to determine:
• What barriers, if any, need to be overcome in implementing the CSO Policy?
• What are examples of better practices?
• What levels of water quality or other outcomes are used to measure CSO
Policy accomplishments? What improvements in the level of water quality
have been achieved?
Background
CSOs are the total discharges of untreated domestic, commercial, and industrial
waste and wastewater, as well as storm water runoff, from a Combined Sewer
System. Such a system collects and transports both sanitary sewage and storm
water runoff in a single-pipe system to a wastewater treatment facility. As shown
in Figure 1.1, a CSO event occurs when the total wastewater and storm water
flow exceeds the capacity of the Combined Sewer System and, by design,
discharges directly to the receiving water body. This usually occurs after
excessive precipitation.
Suspended solids, toxins, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, floatable matter,
oils, and oxygen-demanding compounds are among the pollutants discharged with
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
How CSOs Occur
F'9ure 1-1: How CSOs Occur
a CSO. Historically, CSOs have received very little, if any, treatment. Because
of the flow volumes and
the nature of the pollutants
discharged, CSOs may
pose a significant public
health and pollution threat.
Pollutants in CSO
discharges have been
shown to be a major
contributor to non-
attainment of water quality
standards. Non-attainment
events may degrade the
physical characteristics of
surface waters, threaten
potential drinking water
supplies, and impair the established uses of receiving waters (such as through
beach closures and shellfish harvesting restrictions).
EPA estimates the total number of Combined Sewer Systems represents 859
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permittees, regulating
9,471 CSO discharge points, located primarily in the Northeast, Middle Atlantic,
Midwest, and Northwest. The map in Figure 1.2 shows the location of CSO
communities. Combined
Sewer Systems were
constructed prior to the
1950s and exist primarily
in older, urban
communities. They vary
dramatically in size,
number of outfalls, and
frequency and volume of
discharge. About
90 percent of the Systems
are found in communities
of fewer than 100,000
people, and about
Figure 1.2: CSO Communities in the United States
communities with fewer than 10,000 people.
60 percent serve
National projections of annual CSO discharges are estimated at 1,260 billion
gallons per year. CSOs discharge into the following receiving waters: rivers
(43 percent); streams (38 percent); oceans, estuaries, and bays (5 percent); lakes
and ponds (2 percent); and other waters (ditches, canals, etc.) (12 percent).
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
In EPA's 1996 Needs Survey for all wastewater needs (the latest available), the
$44.7 billion listed for CSO capital improvements (out of a total $120.6 billion)
was the largest category of wastewater infrastructure facilities. As required by
the Clean Water Act, states and EPA jointly prepare a survey of total documented
and modeled needs by state for publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities.
The Needs Survey represents the capital investment necessary to build publicly
owned wastewater treatment facilities and other types of facilities eligible for
State Revolving Funds. These other facilities include storm water, combined
sewers, and nonpoint source replacement and rehabilitation. The $44.7 billion
amount has remained constant, according to a 1999 House of Representatives
Subcommittee Hearing on Clean Water Infrastructure and Wet Weather Flows
Legislation.
CSO Policy
On September 8, 1989, EPA published a National CSO Strategy recommending
that all CSOs be identified and categorized according to status of compliance with
NPDES requirements. In order to accelerate efforts to bring CSOs into
compliance with the Clean Water Act, EPA met with state and local officials as
well as environmental groups in early 1992. The result was the development of
EPA's CSO Policy published on April 11, 1994, which is currently in use. The
Policy provides guidance to permittees with CSOs, NPDES authorities, and state
water quality standards authorities for coordinating the planning, selection, and
implementation of CSO controls that meet Clean Water Act requirements.
In December 2000, Congress passed the Wet Weather Combined Sewer/Sanitary
S ewer/Water shed Pilot Project Program as part of EPA's fiscal 2001 funding bill.
With the signing of this bill, the CSO Policy became a statutory part of the Clean
Water Act. The law required EPA to (1) prepare and issue documents that
provide guidance; (2) report to Congress on progress made; and (3) provide
Congress with a report summarizing environmental impacts, resources spent, and
technologies used. EPA accomplished the first task by issuing its July 31, 2001,
Guidance: Coordinating CSO Long-Term Planning with Water Quality Standards
Reviews. The second task was accomplished in December 2001 when EPA issued
Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Policy. The third task is to be accomplished by issuing a report to Congress in
2003.
On May 31, 1995, EPA issued its Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls. These
controls can reduce CSOs and their effects on water quality. They do not require
major engineering studies and usually can be implemented in less than 2 years.
According to the 1994 CSO Policy, CSO permittees are responsible for
developing and implementing long-term control plans that will ultimately result in
compliance with Clean Water Act requirements. Details are in Exhibit 1.
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
CSO Control Measures
Communities use three types of CSO controls to implement the CSO Policy:
• Collection system controls are measures that remove flow from, or divert
flow within, the Combined Sewer System to maximize the conveyance of
flow through the system to the treatment facility. This category includes
infiltration/inflow control, pump station capacity upgrades, expanded
interceptor capacity, regulating devices and backwater gates, inflatable dams,
flow diversion, real-time control, and sewer separation.
• Storage controls are measures that temporarily store combined sewage for
subsequent treatment at the treatment facility once capacity becomes
available. This category includes in-line storage, retention basins, and
tunnels.
Treatment controls are measures that reduce the pollutant load in CSO
discharges. This category includes coarse screening, primary sedimentation,
increased treatment plant capacity, swirl/vortex technologies, and disinfection.
EPA's CSO Progress Report
In its December 2001 progress report, EPA found that cities that had made
substantial progress and investments in CSO control were realizing public health
and water quality benefits. EPA identified various challenges, including
financial, water quality standard reviews, and information management and
performance measurement. These same issues were noted by our review and are
addressed in subsequent chapters of this report.
Scope and Methodology
Our ability to draw valid conclusions concerning barriers and promising practices
is based on applying an evaluation design involving collecting information from a
broad range of sources. To determine the ways that CSO policy is arrived at and
implemented in communities, and the relationships among levels of government
in different parts of the country, we reviewed documents and conducted
interviews and site visits at four different administrative levels. A complete
listing of all participants visited and interviewed is in Exhibit 2; a summary
follows.
• We conducted interviews at EPA's Office of Wastewater Management, which
sets and administers national policy and guidance on CSOs. This office is
within the EPA Office of Water.
• We interviewed staff in EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office and 3 of
EPA's 10 regional offices: Regions 1, 3, and 5. EPA's regional offices work
in partnership with the states and monitor their implementation of the CSO
Policy. These three regions contain 678 of the 859 CSO permittees identified
by EPA nationally, or 79 percent.
4 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
• We conducted structured interviews of officials in the state environmental
protection offices of eight states within the three regions reviewed -
Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Vermont. We conducted these interviews to determine their management
of CSOs in the communities. We also reviewed and analyzed water quality
reports and CSO policies, procedures, guidance, permits, correspondence,
manuals, status reports, needs surveys, and state revolving fund information.
These states contain a large majority of the communities with CSOs in the
three EPA regions (549 of the 859 CSO permittees identified by EPA
nationally, or 64 percent).
• Most of our data collected was from extensive site visits in 22 communities
with CSOs. In several instances our site visits involved regional groupings of
communities. We administered structured interviews designed to solicit the
thoughts of various officials in each of these communities. As part of each
visit, we toured facilities and in some cases reviewed water quality and status
reports. For each site, our team included a degreed engineer with extensive
experience in wastewater collection systems. We selected the communities
based on our review of information provided by EPA and state officials.
Although we do not claim that these communities are "statistically
representative" of CSO communities overall, we believe that because they
encompass a variety of conditions (size, type of receiving water, and CSO
approach), findings based on them will be useful in identifying barriers and
promising approaches that can be used elsewhere.
To include a broader range of opinions, we interviewed representatives from two
industry organizations that represent municipal sewage treatment officials: the
CSO Partnership and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. We
also held large scale "roundtable discussions" in three states (Michigan, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania) that included representatives of other communities, outside
consultants, and a court monitor responsible for oversight of CSO contols in the
Rouge River Watershed.
We conducted field work from April through November 2001. We conducted this
evaluation in accordance with Government Auditing Standards issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States.
Prior Audit Coverage
We previously issued a report on the CSO program, Combined Sewer Overflows
in Region 2 (2001-P-00001), dated January 3, 2001. The report noted that despite
steady water quality improvement over the past two decades, CSOs continued to
impair New York and New Jersey water bodies. In that report, we also found that
certain communities had made significant efforts to address CSOs, resulting in
varying degrees of success.
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Chapter 2
CSO Implementation Efforts Have Varied
States have been implementing CSO programs for decades with varying success.
Some states have given the CSO program a high priority, which resulted in the
reduction of CSO permittees/outfalls. Other states have not given implementing
CSO projects as much priority. In addition, states were at different stages in
reviewing and approving long-term control plans for implementing CSO projects.
Two states in our review offered financial assistance to communities through state
grant funding accompanied with low interest loans.
Differing Progress in Eliminating CSOs
We found that the overall progress made on CSO abatement appeared to be
consistent with the level of priority a state gave to the CSO program. The
situation in three states illustrates this point.
• The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation was a leader in
ensuring that most of its communities had undergone sewer separation during
the 1990s. CSO permittees were reduced from 27 in 1990 to 7 in 2001. CSO
projects received priority ranking for State Revolving Fund loans and were
eligible for 25-percent state grant funding. (Further details on grant programs
are in Chapter 4.)
• A Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection memorandum, issued
February 22, 2001, stated that CSOs were a priority water quality issue for
years, as evidenced by pollution abatement orders that had been issued as
early as 1975. CSO projects received priority ranking for State Revolving
Fund loans and were eligible for 50-percent state grant funding. While there
were 13 CSO communities with 246 outfalls during the 1970s and 1980s,
there were only 8 CSO communities with 121 outfalls in 2000.
• Pennsylvania, which has the greatest number of CSO communities (155) and
discharge points (1,662) in the nation, has actually had its CSO numbers
increase slightly (due generally to newly discovered discharges). CSO
abatement was not a high priority, according to the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection officials, who said they had not been proactive
during the first round of CSO permits. Competing priorities for staff included
in-stream assessments, combined animal feeding operations, and total
maximum daily loads. The state included conditions for the implementation
of the CSO policy in its NPDES permits. However, compliance was low and
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
the state did not follow up because of limited resources and competing
priorities. Since December 2000, Region 3 pressured Pennsylvania to give
CSOs a higher priority. Pennsylvania issued a CSO policy on January 30,
2002, committing significant state time and resources. Additionally, the
General Assembly of Pennsylvania introduced a bill to establish a grant
program to assist municipalities in addressing CSO impacts.
EPA regional staff also indicated that prior to the passage of the 2000 Wet
Weather Water Quality Act, some states saw the CSO Policy as a policy and not
as a law or regulation. This prior viewpoint had an impact on the level of CSO
policy implementation.
Varying Levels of Long-Term Control Plan Implementation
We also found states with varying levels of success in developing and
implementing long-term control plans for CSO. For example, we noted the
following for four different states we visited in Region 5.
• Indiana: Only 6 communities (less than 10 percent of the 88 CSO
communities) had submitted their plans for approval. The Indiana
Department of Environmental Management had scheduled dates for additional
submissions through 2003.
• Michigan: All plans had been submitted and received some degree of state
approval.
• Ohio: Only 29 of 91 CSO communities submitted plans, 12 of which have
been approved.
• Illinois: Most communities were meeting state treatment standards for CSOs.
Where CSOs continue to cause or contribute to water quality standards
violations, additional long-term controls will be needed.
EPA's 2001 Report to Congress noted that municipal progress was slow in
developing long-term control plans. Specifically, the report indicated that only
34 percent of CSO communities reviewed had submitted draft plans for approval.
Once long-term control plans are approved, communities are taking different
approaches in controlling CSOs (such as separating sewers, constructing retention
basins, and building storage tunnels). Also, some states implement one project to
control several CSO outfalls in neighboring communities. This maximizes cost
savings while eliminating multiple CSOs within one geographical area. For
example, since 1994, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater
Chicago received $151 million for a tunnel and reservoir project covering 40 CSO
communities.
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Strategies and Guidance
All states visited have either developed CSO strategies and programs to abate
CSOs or adopted the policy to their existing program. Additionally, some states
adopted criteria to further assist with implementing their programs. For example,
in July 2000, Indiana passed Senate Enrolled Act 431 to provide relief and
facilitate long-term control plans for communities with substantial and
widespread economic and social hardship. In addition, several states had CSO
requirements that predated the 1994 policy. For example:
• Illinois had a CSO policy since the 1960s. Several communities addressed
and planned for CSO needs in the mid-1980s through Municipal Compliance
Plans. Most sewer separation projects were completed even before the CSO
Policy was written.
• In Ohio, Toledo completed construction of an underground storage tunnel in
1993 that had been initiated in 1987. This project eliminated 12 of Toledo's
35 CSO points.
• Michigan adopted a CSO strategy in January 1990 to establish enforceable
deadlines for CSO controls and to eliminate or adequately treat all CSOs.
Most states have adopted EPA's approaches for targeting CSO controls and
discharge requirements. States may adopt requirements that are even more
stringent than EPA's CSO Policy. For example, EPA's CSO Policy's
presumption approach allows an average of four untreated CSO events per year,
while Michigan adopted a more stringent requirement that does not allow for any
untreated discharges.
Conclusion
States and communities have been working for decades addressing CSOs. States
in all three regions we visited made efforts to abate CSOs, but not all states set
CSO abatement as a high priority, which ultimately delayed progress towards
eliminating CSO outfalls. Other competing priorities included stormwater, in
stream assessments, combined animal feeding operations, and total maximum
daily loads. While all states adopted CSO strategies and guidelines, long-term
control plan implementations were at different stages.
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
10 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Chapter 3
Significant Barriers Remain
The nation has made steady progress reducing the number of CSOs. The number
of systems with CSOs has been reduced from approximately 1,300 to 859 since
1978, based on data provided by EPA. We visited and interviewed officials from
21 communities and 1 water authority (comprising 43 communities). At each
one, we asked officials about the barriers they encountered in addressing CSOs.
They provided us with numerous items, including: the expensiveness of projects,
the lack of available funding, competing priorities, increasing user rates,
decreasing industrial bases, the absence of grant programs, state legal
requirements, land availability, community opposition, water quality issues, and
other pollution sources.
We analyzed these many concerns and combined them into two significant
barriers that hampered efforts to achieve EPA's goal of ensuring that there is a
comprehensive and coordinated effort to achieve cost effective CSO controls that
ultimately meet appropriate health and environmental objectives:
• Raising and obtaining sufficient funding for often expensive projects.
• Finding suitable sites for the needed facilities.
While progress is being made in addressing the barriers, the task can at times be
daunting. Table 3.1 shows how the majority of these communities encountered
these barriers. The table includes six communities that encountered both.
Barriers
Funding Limitations
Finding Suitable Sites
Number |
5
_u
Table 3.1: Major Barriers
In Chapter 4, we will describe some of the promising practices states and
communities have developed or implemented to address these barriers. The water
quality barriers are further discussed in Chapter 6.
Funding Most Significant Barrier
As can be seen from Table 3.1, funding was cited most often as a major barrier to
implementation of EPA's CSO Control Policy (15 of the 22 visited). This is not
surprising considering the huge sums that are often necessary to implement long-
11 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
term control plans. EPA's 1996 Needs Survey (the latest available) lists CSO
capital improvements at $44.7 billion. Communities large and small, suburbs and
inner cities, often cited funding as critical. Although EPA and individual states
have devised approaches to facilitate many projects, the bulk of resources are
raised locally. Significant variations exist among different types of communities
in their ability to raise the funds needed.
Communities Face Affordability Issues
The expense of controlling and abating CSOs can strain the financial resources of
any community. Even obtaining a State Revolving Fund loan (to be discussed
further in the next subsection) by itself can create significant debt repayment
pressure on a locality's budget. Examples of the funding impact on small, mid-
sized, and large communities follow:
Small Community: Paulding, Ohio, a village with a population of
approximately 3,000, had a CSO need of $11.7 million, according to the 1996
Needs Survey. Paulding had to struggle to finance its CSO projects with
bonds and notes because it could not get State Revolving Funds. It increased
sewer utility rates and initiated a city income tax. While it has eliminated 16
of its 18 CSO points over the past 10 years, its proposed long-term control
plan foresees a separation project that will take another 20 years to complete.
• Mid-Sized Community: New Haven, Connecticut, a city with a population
of about 100,000, had an estimated CSO need of $291 million, according to
its 1988 Facilities Plan. New Haven has been working toward the removal of
CSOs since 1981, and has reduced its number of CSOs from 22 to 19. The
City has borrowed $28 million from the State Revolving Fund and also
received $13 million in grants from the State of Connecticut. Nonetheless,
New Haven Water Pollution Control Authority officials estimated its current
user rates will rise from $165 to $630 per annum to pay for all the CSO work.
• Large Community: Detroit, Michigan, has a mixed sewer system serving
about 3 million people (about 1 million in the city and 2 million in 77
neighboring communities). The City's Preferred Plan estimated a need for
about $1 billion in CSO work. The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
has 78 CSO outfalls that discharge approximately 20 billion gallons each year.
Several projects have already been initiated. Detroit has received about
$188 million in State Revolving Fund loans and $98 million in grant funds for
CSO projects. In funding the work, a major issue has been how much is to be
funded by the City of Detroit versus the suburban communities that it
services.
One issue facing all communities is the competing priorities that exist for the
limited financial resources. Many local officials told us they have other important
projects requiring substantial financing, such as highway and road repair,
wastewater treatment plants, park maintenance, libraries, and hospitals. In
addition, they have more visible services to fund, such as police, fire, and
12 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
emergency services; education; and sanitation. For example, the mayor of
Haverhill, Massachusetts, wrote to EPA that its ability to borrow for CSO work
was being impeded by financial difficulties stemming in part from a $l-million-a-
month operating loss at the city's hospital.
The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, in a February 2002 report,
The National Response to Combined Sewer Overflows, noted that annual
investments in CSO long-term control plan implementation represented an
unusually large portion of a community's total capital improvement plan budget.
According to its survey respondents, communities had dedicated, on average,
36.8 percent of their capital improvement plan budgets for CSO controls. Further,
EPA, in its December 2001 report to Congress, noted that addressing competing
priorities was a concern.
State requirements can also limit a community's options. For example, the
Headlee Amendment to Michigan's State Constitution (passed in 1978) and
"Proposal A" (passed in 1994) limit the ability of local governments to fund
projects such as sewage infrastructure through property taxes. Communities
cannot increase rates to pay for CSO and Sanitary Sewer Overflow improvements
through water rates; they need to submit increases to residents through tax
increases.
Communities that are already economically distressed will have difficulty funding
CSO projects. The loss of business or weakening of the industrial base of a
community can also be a contributing factor to affordability. For example, the
Environmental Law Institute reported in its 1999 report, Plumbing the Future,
Sewage Infrastructure and Sustainability in Western Pennsylvania, that the area
was facing an estimated $3 billion to address CSOs while the area's population
was significantly declining and the tax base shrinking. We also noted that many
municipalities in Region 5 have lost tax revenues because of a declining industrial
base.
Sfafe Revolving Funding Limited
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program is one of the major funding
mechanisms for CSO communities, but even with its significant resources it
cannot provide all the money needed to address the CSO problem. Further, there
are other competing water project needs for State Revolving Funds besides CSOs,
such as secondary and advanced treatment, new interceptor and collector sewers,
infiltration/inflow correction, sewer replacement/rehabilitation, storm water, and
nonpoint sources.
The State Revolving Fund was authorized in 1987 to finance a range of
environmental projects, and replaced the Construction Grants program. Under the
program, EPA provides grants or "seed money" to all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and
the District of Columbia to capitalize state loan funds. The states, in turn, make
loans to communities and others for high priority water quality activities. As
money is paid back into the revolving fund, new loans are made to other
13 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
recipients. Through June 30, 2000, the program had more than $34 billion in
assets and had lent $28.9 billion to communities nationwide. However, only $2.1
billion of that funding had been provided for CSO projects. CSO loans in 2000
were the highest ever, accounting for $411 million, or about 12 percent, of total
State Revolving Fund assistance.
Even if a State Revolving Fund loan is obtained, most of the money for water
pollution controls must be generated locally. Typically, operational costs are
generated from user fees, usually water and sewage treatment charges. There are
various options for capital improvements: (1) property taxes; (2) special
assessments; (3) tax increment financing; (4) water and sewer hook-up fees;
(5) water and sewer use charges; and (6) advanced sale charges for sewer
capacity. As noted in Table 3.2, which addresses the four states visited in
Region 5, only a small portion (4.2 percent) of CSO needs since 1996 were met
by State Revolving Fund loans issued since 1994:
State
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Total
Loan Funds
Since 1994
(millions)
$157
376
300
71
$904
1996 Needs
Amount
(millions)
$ 9,383
4,463
3,723
4,199
$21,768
Percentage of
1996 CSO Needs
Met
1 .7%
8.4%
8.1%
1 .7%
4.2%
Table 3.2: Loan Funding and Needs Met
To maximize the number of projects receiving loans, states have put caps on the
amount that can be provided to any one community or project in a given year.
However, larger municipalities say this does not allow them to receive enough
money for their large projects, while smaller communities expressed concern that
they still do not receive enough money. Also, caps varied from state to state. For
example, in Michigan, the cap was 30 percent, while in Massachusetts it was
20 percent.
Another aspect of the State Revolving Fund that concerned communities was that
many CSO-associated costs are not eligible in some states. For example, the
Fund does not pay for telemetry monitoring of the sewer system, project
performance certification, lawn restoration, water main replacement, street
paving, sewer repair, and studying and planning the project. Port Huron,
Michigan officials estimated that costs for studying and planning account for
approximately 5 to 10 percent of the total project cost. Springfield, Vermont
officials stated that purchase of capital equipment such as vactors (machines that
vacuum debris and grit from sewers and catch basins) and sweepers should be
eligible items under the
14
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
State Revolving Fund program. State Agencies, rather than EPA, determine
eligibility of program costs.
Regional and state staff advised us that some communities may not seek State
Revolving Fund loans in the hope that a CSO grant program will be established or
Congressional earmarks provided. Obviously, most communities would prefer
receiving grant funds to having to repay a loan. In particular, economically
distressed communities that cannot afford the debt service that would be required
to finance a costly CSO project may be especially in need of grant funds.
In Michigan, some economically distressed communities in rural areas have
sought funding administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for their CSO
needs instead of State Revolving Fund loans. These communities found the
advantages to be a mix of grant and loan funding and longer repayment periods
(40 years for Agriculture as opposed to 20 years for the State Revolving Fund).
However, sometimes such funding is not advantageous, since the repayment
period can be longer than the useful life of the project.
Finding Suitable Sites Can Also Be an Obstacle
The second major barrier to meeting EPA's CSO remediation goals involves
finding acceptable locations for CSO facilities. In many of the communities we
visited, such issues as land availability, community opposition, competing land
usage (including economic development), and land ownership had complicated
matters. Communities' abilities to design or construct CSO projects can be
affected by whether there is somewhere to place these projects. CSO projects
often involve dedicating large parcels of land for retention basins and other
structures. At times, these need to be situated at or close to the waterfront, which
is property that is often valuable.
Communities can be stymied in implementing their CSO control projects because
of a lack of available land. For example, Garden City, Michigan cannot meet the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality maximum allowable flow of
24.1 cubic feet per second for its system. The city's current projected peak flow
is 70 cubic feet per second. To reduce the flow, the city may have to build a large
retention basin (for $57 million) or a tunnel (for $47 million). However, the city
does not have available land to build either, let alone money to finance the
project.
Community opposition is also a barrier to CSO projects. We will discuss some
successful approaches to this issue in Chapter 4. Citizens may voice concerns
about CSO projects because they have not been educated about the importance
and benefit of the project, they are concerned with the loss of park land or other
recreational facilities, and they may have a "not-in-my-backyard" opinion. We
encountered several of these scenarios during our visits. For example, the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority proposed to construct a pumping
facility on vacant land next to an existing power plant and pier. Due to
neighborhood opposition, the design work was halted in January 2000. An
15 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
alternative site suggested by the neighborhood was not available. The status of
the project was described in the Authority's annual plan as "design on hold
pending project reassessment."
In some cases, communities had to make compromises in their original plans to
site their projects. In Detroit there was not enough available land for needed CSO
facilities. Occasionally, the city was faced with taking court action to obtain a
needed site. In other cases, facilities would have to be put at less advantageous
locations and at greater expense because of existing buildings, industries, etc.
For example, the Hubbell-Southfield retention facility (see Figure 3.1) was
intended to handle a 1-year, 1-hour storm for a duration of 30 minutes. However,
because of location constraints and land availability (the site is surrounded by the
Tournament of Players Championship Golf Course and the Rouge River), the
facility can only handle this type of storm for a duration of 18 minutes. As a
result, this biggest of the Rouge River demonstration projects was designed not
based on a particular storm event but to fit the largest possible basin on the land
available. In another example, New
Haven, Connecticut officials said
siting could be an issue because
they propose to build underground
storage tanks on park land, which
could disrupt or close the parks for
2 years.
Also, since CSO projects may take
years to develop, an area initially
planned as part of the project may
become more desirable later as a
result of economic development,
and is no longer affordable.
Waterfront property in South Figure 3-1 . Hubbeii-southfieid Retention
Boston was identified as an overflow Gates
example. Also, in our prior January
2001 report, we noted that the Hudson River waterfront areas in Hoboken and
Weehawken, New Jersey had recently undergone explosive growth, and the
developers had been reluctant to grant easements to the local authority to access
CSO outfalls. There were concerns over siting, CSO control facilities, and the
use of end-of-pipe netting in areas where high-priced residences were being
constructed.
Conclusion
There are two main barriers that communities face and need to overcome in
reducing CSOs and the water pollution they cause. The most significant is
financial - there is presently not enough funding to meet the needs of all CSO
communities and many communities are being financially strained. A second
16 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
major barrier involves finding acceptable locations for CSO facilities, due to such
complicating factors as land availability, community opposition, competing land
usage, and land ownership.
17 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
18 Report No. 2002-P-OOO'12
-------
Chapter 4
Many Promising Practices Used by States and
Communities Have Improved CSO Program
States and communities have demonstrated a wide variety of cost effective and
promising practices that could be used by others with CSO programs to address
funding and siting barriers. In Chapter 3, we noted that raising and obtaining
sufficient funding for expensive capital projects was the largest barrier to the
success of the national CSO program. We found that some states have or are
considering assisting their communities with direct financial aid through grant
programs. Local governments are educating their citizens on the benefits of CSO
programs and the need to raise sewer rates to fund these projects. Locally, it was
also found that improving community facilities and working cooperatively with
other agencies to minimize disruptions can be beneficial. Additionally,
communities brought to our attention various technical practices that can improve
system efficiency and aid in making CSO projects more affordable.
Table 4.1 describes the relationship between the types of promising practices and
the barriers CSO communities face.
Barriers
Funding
Funding, Siting
Siting
Practices
State Grants
Coordination/Cooperation
Technical
Education
Dissemination
Improved Facility
Table 4.1: Barriers Addressed by Promising Practices
State Grant Programs Aid Affordability
Two of the eight states we visited have established CSO grant programs to help
communities pay for the construction of CSO projects in a more timely manner.
A third state was considering implementing a grant program.
•• Connecticut established its CSO grant program in 1986. The program
provided grants for 50 percent of the Federal eligible project costs along with
a State Revolving Fund loan at 2 percent interest for the remainder of the
costs. Since 1988 Connecticut awarded $173 million to eight municipalities.
19
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
The Director of Engineering and Planning at the Hartford Metropolitan
District Commission stated the program had a positive impact on debt service
and made CSO abatement a viable program, since independently Hartford
could not issue $80 million in debt. The Assistant General Manager of the
New Haven Water Pollution Control Authority also said that the grant/loan
program made the CSO projects more affordable and had a positive impact on
user rates. Without the funds, New Haven's water rates would go beyond
EPA's affordability cap. The Assistant General Manager further said that the
Authority was able to do more projects more quickly and, without the
funding, would not be able to meet the 12-15 year time frame provided in its
long-term control plan.
•• Vermont awarded 25-percent grants for construction costs and loans of
50 percent of eligible project costs from the State Revolving Fund. The
remaining 25 percent was expected to be locally raised. Grants through fiscal
2000 totaled $6.6 million. The Springfield Town Manager stated that without
the grant funds it would be hard to sell a CSO project to the voters for
approval. The town had recently finished a $4 million project for which it
received $1 million in state grant funds and a 50-percent loan at close to zero-
percent interest. The Rutland Commissioner of Public Works also stated that
grant funds were beneficial and helped keep user rates down.
•• Pennsylvania was also considering a CSO grant program. Pennsylvania's
General Assembly introduced Senate Bill 150 on January 29, 2001, to
establish a grant program to assist municipalities in addressing CSO impacts.
The bill proposes approving $1 billion for the program.
Educating the Public Reaps Benefits
The public does not always understand the benefits to be derived from CSO
projects that may significantly raise their user rates and require temporary or
permanent disruption of land use. Public officials in turn may not be willing to
counter public sentiment. Therefore, communities found that it was important to
engage and inform their stakeholders early and maintain communication
throughout the CSO project process. Education is a vital tool that can eliminate
potential barriers or opposition related to funding and siting, provide support for
the project, and reduce overall costs and disruptions. Many state and local
officials stated that public education is important because the public is usually
more willing to pay for improvements it can see and understand. For example:
•• A Rouge River Public Involvement Action Plan was devised in the fall of
1994. The goal was to engage numerous stakeholders, inform them, gain their
support, and encourage them to change their behavior to help achieve and
maintain a healthy watershed. A series of fact sheets and brochures were
prepared for the general public as well as for a more technical audience
regarding different elements of the Project. Printed materials were distributed
20 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
with a portable display; provided to local governments to distribute; and
incorporated into public information packets for local officials, the general
public, libraries, and schools. A June 1998 Project report on lessons learned
noted that broad-based public education and involvement programs were
critical for overall success. Some of the programs that they found had worked
were: getting education programs going in area schools; getting people out to
the stream to look at and experience it; and showing people some obvious
things that have been done to get successes in improved water quality and
then widely publicizing the results.
•• Hartford, Connecticut developed a public education campaign that helped the
successful passage of a referendum for funding part of its CSO project.
•• New Haven, Connecticut issued a series of newsletters explaining CSO plans,
costs, and benefits to city aldermen and local environmental groups. The city
found that educating local public officials about CSO needs eased local
constituency concerns.
•• Springfield, Vermont officials visited schools and local groups, such as
garden/sewing clubs, to explain why CSO abatement was important and
deserving of town funding. Town officials worked with local media to take
pictures and report on the issue.
•• Ohio roundtable participants stated that by focusing on basement flooding
issues that directly affected residences and businesses, they were able to sell
CSO projects to the public. Citizens could better understand and appreciate
how the projects could immediately benefit them.
•• Toledo, Ohio worked with the children living in the Maumee River basin by
having school children take water samples and do stream cleanups, thus
learning the importance of protecting their receiving stream.
Improved Community Facilities Can Result
The final constructed project can be aesthetically pleasing and bring improved
facilities to the local community in which it's built. Neighborhood opposition to
the siting of a CSO project can be overcome when citizens are convinced there
can be benefits to the community in addition to the obvious environmental ones.
We visited a number of facilities in the Rouge River Project that demonstrated
this fact.
21 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Wayne County had three retention
facilities constructed as part of the
Rouge River National Demonstration
Project. The Redford Township CSO
Retention Basin was constructed under
the seventh hole of the Glenhurst Golf
Course. The Dearborn Heights CSO
Retention Basin was constructed on a
landfill that was subsequently
landscaped with a soccer field, gazebo,
bicycle rack, and parking. The Inkster
CSO Retention Basin added multiple-
use recreational facilities (basketball
Figure 4.1: Recreational Facility Sitting on Top of
the Inkster CSO Retention Basin
court and playground equipment)
on top of the storage tank (see
Figure 4.1). All three constructed
attractive buildings to house any
above ground machinery.
Oakland County also blended its
three Rouge River retention basins
into the local environs. One was
built under a golf course, another
was built in a nature preserve, and
the third was built in a park. The
latter one (Birmingham Hills) had
a control building that was
designed to resemble a gristmill (see Figure 4.2). Also, extensive woodlands landscaping was
completed to blend with the aesthetics of the site. County officials even described how a real
estate agent had stopped by and wanted to list the house.
Figure 4.2: Control Building (Birmingham Hills)
Retention Basin
Government Agency Cooperation Achieves Better Results
To address the funding barrier, communities found that working cooperatively
with state offices or coordinating between appropriate municipal departments can
improve the planning process, reduce costs, lessen disruptions, and increase
timeliness of project completion.
•• In Michigan, officials for Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
noted the value of involving everyone who might have an interest or stake in
the project. They found that integrating state offices (i.e., Michigan
Department of Transportation) and city offices (i.e., a local Office of
Development) at the beginning of a CSO project significantly reduced costs
and disruptions. Port Huron officials reported saving money by coordinating
their work with road repairs conducted by the state Department of
Transportation. Lansing officials reported that constant and frequent
22
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
communication with the regulatory community, homeowners, businesses, and
other city and state departments resulted in less confusion, better planning,
and better project understanding.
Ohio roundtable participants stated that the coordination of CSO projects with
other major construction projects, as well as with state or Federal agencies,
had minimized disruptions.
Better Technical Practices
The municipalities visited implemented some technical practices and approaches
that can be beneficial to other CSO communities. They ranged from broad-based
initiatives to more specific operational actions. While these practices cannot
necessarily be universally used, they offer opportunities to lessen financial needs
or improve Combined Sewer System efficiency and effectiveness, and can assist
communities in addressing affordability issues. Following are some success
stories:
• The Rouge River Project, which involved 48 communities in the Detroit,
Michigan metropolitan area, provided several examples of better practices of
a technical nature. Under Phase I, 8 communities constructed 10 retention
treatment basins. Each basin was sized for different storm events, and several
used innovative technology. The facilities also incorporated a variety of
additional features or variations in compartment sizing and sequencing (such
as a first-flush chamber) to improve effectiveness. From this approach, the
Rouge River Project team determined that desired water quality results could
be achieved without constructing massive facilities. In addition, the lessons
learned by comparing the various methodologies will assist Rouge River
Project communities in the design of future CSO facilities and reduce project
costs.
Another lesson learned from the Rouge River Project was that it was
beneficial for plant operators to be involved in the entire facility design
process. By obtaining their input, they were able to point out a variety of
issues to the design engineers that avoided the need for future modifications.
Additionally, operators seemed to perform better and with higher morale
because they were members of the design team and their ideas were valued
and implemented by the designers.
• Hartford, Connecticut applied the concept of flow slipping in the Wethersfield
Cove drainage basin area. The concept involves reducing street ponding
during wet weather events. Flow slipping allows storm water runoff to bypass
the CSO catch basins and flow directly to newly constructed storm water
catch basins (separated storm drains). Hartford saved money by not having
to: (1) construct catch basins on every street and (2) treat all the storm water
23 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
collected. It should be noted that flow slipping is topographically limited and
cannot be used everywhere.
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (the water and sewer agency
for greater Boston) used underflow baffles for floatable control. These baffles
(barriers) are used to prevent floatable material (such as plastic bags, straws,
bottles, bottle caps, and cigarette butts) from entering the system and ending
up in the receiving water body.
Springfield, Vermont addressed affordability when it reduced the amount of
salt/sand it uses in winter. The town used a spreader that reduced the amount
of salt/sand by 30 to 40 percent without reducing road clearing effectiveness.
This approach reduces the material that can build up in the sewer system and
reduce flow capacity.
Rutland, Vermont and New Bedford, Massachusetts both described aggressive
preventive maintenance programs, including such techniques as TV
inspections of sewer lines, cleaning of sewer lines and catch basins, and street
cleaning. Such actions improved system effectiveness and reduced overall
operating costs.
Paulding, Ohio cleaned its existing wastewater treatment lagoons to increase
their capacity to handle CSOs. City officials said that, as a result, the city
avoided having to construct costly CSO retention basins to contain the storm
water.
Crafton, Pennsylvania bought and maintained undeveloped land to act as a
buffer to receiving waters by absorbing runoff. In addition, Crafton
maintained about 25 percent of its streets as brick, which has water absorption
qualities as well as historical and aesthetic value. Further, Crafton bought
additional trash barrels, which helped reduce street trash and subsequent
floatables.
Dissemination of Better Practices Needed
There currently is no central mechanism for EPA or the states to disseminate
information to CSO permittees about the various better practices that are being
used. EPA's CSO Coordinator stated that there is a need to develop a plan to
establish a technology clearinghouse.
During our evaluation, we found many instances where communities were
unaware of established practices that could be of benefit to them. We provided
them with examples from other municipalities we had visited and contacts to seek
further information. For example, we provided the Defiance, Ohio Water
24 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Pollution Control Superintendent with contacts in Port Huron, Lansing, and New
Bedford to discuss their CSO control activities.
Individual websites do exist where some information can be obtained. Several
examples are noted in Table 4.2:
Source
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
3 Rivers Project
Rouge River Project
Website
www.mwra.com
www.3riverswetweather.org
www.wcdoe.org/rougeriver
Table 4.2: Websites with Best Practices Information
Rouge River Project officials also met with officials from many CSO
communities to discuss the project and the actions taken. Information is also
exchanged at seminars and meetings that professional organizations hold
throughout the year. However, there is no one place where interested parties can
find all the available information.
Conclusion
States and communities have demonstrated a number of promising practices to
address the funding and siting barriers that are faced in implementing the CSO
Policy. Two New England states have aggressively addressed the affordability
issue by providing grants and low interest loans. There is also widespread
agreement that public education is a vital tool in engaging all stakeholders.
Additionallly, communities have shown that the cooperative effort of all levels of
government can be beneficial. Further, communities have used innovative
approaches to improve CSO controls and make them more efficient and/or cost
effective. However, with all these positive actions, there needs to be a central
mechanism so that other CSO communities take advantage of this wisdom.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water ensure that:
4.1 EPA develop a system to catalog and disseminate lessons learned and
better practices about CSOs. EPA should establish a website where such
information can be posted and information easily accessed for use.
25 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
26 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Chapter 5
Limited Data Available on Improvements
to Water Quality
The CSO communities visited had varying amounts and types of data available to
determine the success of their CSO projects. Most communities were only
monitoring the number, volume, and duration of CSO discharges. Few of the
communities visited had formally collected data on the effect CSO controls were
having on the quality of receiving waters. Without such data, it could not be
determined whether each project was a wise investment of taxpayers' dollars.
Water quality generally was not monitored because EPA policy does not require
monitoring until completion of the CSO project, even though these projects have
multiple steps and can take years to complete.
CSO Policy Requires Monitoring Program
During long-term control plan development, the CSO Policy expects CSO
communities to collect data to assess baseline conditions in the receiving water
and evaluate the potential effectiveness of any proposed controls in improving
water quality and supporting uses of the water body. Permittees are expected to
develop a comprehensive, representative monitoring program that measures the
frequency, duration, flow rate, volume, and pollutant concentration of CSO
discharges and assesses CSO impact on receiving waters. The Policy also calls
for a post-construction compliance monitoring program that verifies compliance
with water quality standards and protection of designated uses and ascertains the
effectiveness of CSO controls.
Many Communities Did Not Have Monitoring Data
We found that most communities had limited monitoring data on the effect of
CSO controls they instituted on water quality. These communities generally only
measured the changes in the number, volume, and duration of effluent being
discharged by CSOs. This was because they had not completed their CSO
projects. As noted in Chapter 2, EPA recently reported that only 34 percent of
CSO communities in its review had even submitted draft long-term control plans
to states for approval. Once approvals are issued, complete implementation of
these plans can take 10 to 15 years. Since many communities do not plan to
perform monitoring until the post-construction phase, there is limited knowledge
of the effects of CSO controls on water quality.
For example, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection officials
stated that they were not aware of any studies to indicate whether CSO abatement
27 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
efforts had improved water quality in CSO receiving waters. Officials from the
three Connecticut cities we visited confirmed that they had not conducted any
CSO water quality monitoring. Connecticut's State Revolving Fund had loaned
out about $75 million for CSO projects since 1987.
Vermont was another New England state where CSO communities indicated they
had not conducted any CSO water quality monitoring. Officials in both Rutland
and Springfield stated that they had not done any measurements of water quality
related to CSOs. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation officials
stated that communities were required to submit an assessment of the success of
long-term control plan implementation. Vermont's State Revolving Fund had
loaned out about $37 million for CSO projects since 1987.
In Pennsylvania, the Executive Director of the 3 Rivers Demonstration Project
stated that there were not enough controls in place yet to measure water quality
because their work was not far enough along. Allegheny County Sanitary
Authority officials also stated that water monitoring will not take place until the
long-term control plan is implemented.
Some Communities Do Monitor Water Quality
Several of the CSO communities we visited had performed extensive monitoring
and had data to show that water quality had improved since the implementation of
CSO controls.
The Rouge River Project had an extensive monitoring program. It was performed
in conjunction with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's August
1998 Final Criteria for Success in CSO Treatment. The criteria noted, "We
expect to develop criteria for success in treating CSO discharges statewide, based
on experience gained from the Rouge River demonstration project." The criteria
set three goals and a detailed listing of procedures to evaluate the goals and
information that was to be reported. For example, the final goal was to achieve
state water quality standards in the receiving stream at times of discharge.
An extensive database on water quality was also compiled by Toledo, Ohio since
1968 as part of the city's Water Quality Monitoring program. This program
produced a detailed study of CSO impacts. The information was used to plan
major upgrades of the city's treatment and interceptor system. In addition, the
program developed abatement criteria and documented the benefits of Toledo's
abatement program. Recent results highlighted improved water quality when the
post-abatement period was compared to the pre-abatement period.
Since 1989, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority has been implementing
a water quality sampling plan required as part of a Federal court order for the
Boston Harbor cleanup. Data were collected and analyzed for bacteria.
28 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
CSO Projects Did Improve Water Quality
While elimination of CSOs may not necessarily assure water quality standards are
attained, there still is evidence investments in CSO remediation has resulted in
declines in discharges and, at least in some cases, water quality has improved.
Declines in Discharges
Communities we visited generally measured changes in the number, volume, and
duration of effluent being discharged by CSOs:
• Number: The number of discharge events for the Rouge River in Michigan
was reduced by 80 percent.
• Volume: Port Huron, Michigan, at the completion of construction in 2002,
will have reduced CSO volume from 226 to 114 million gallons per year
(52 percent).
• Duration: A West Lafayette, Indiana sewer project eliminated one CSO
point that resulted in 484 yearly hours of CSOs being reduced to 20 hours
(96-percent reduction).
Water Quality Improvements
When data existed, improvements to water quality were noted after the
implementation of CSO abatement programs. The following are several examples
of the successes that have resulted in measurable water quality improvements.
• Michigan Department of Environmental Quality data demonstrated that three
Oakland County and three Wayne County CSO retention basins eliminate raw
sewage and protect public health. Also, the three Oakland County basins met
the dissolved oxygen and physical characteristics water quality standards.
• In areas with remaining uncontrolled CSOs upstream on the Rouge River,
data showed dramatic improvements in the river's dissolved oxygen levels
because of upstream CSO control projects and other watershed management
changes. For example, on the Main Rouge River, the dissolved oxygen data
for the water quality standards show that the dissolved oxygen levels
improved from 40 percent below water quality standards in 1998 to 5 percent
in 2000. Also, on the Lower Rouge River, the dissolved oxygen levels
dropped from 70 percent below standards in 1994 to 4 percent in 2000.
• Water quality in the Swan Creek and Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio, had
been upgraded. Minimum dissolved oxygen levels, maximum fecal coliform
levels, and aesthetics had improved. Also, Toledo reported an increase of
game fish in Swan Creek, and a 75-percent capture rate of CSOs in the city's
central business district.
29 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, in its October 6, 2000 report,
Statistical Analysis of Combined Sewer Overflow Receiving Water Data,
1989-1999, concluded that a significant and detectable decline in bacterial
concentrations in Boston area receiving waters since 1991 had occurred.
Specifically, all of the regions with data for the before and after improvement
periods - including Dorchester Bay, the Neponset River, the Inner Harbor, the
Mystic River, and the Charles River - showed significant reduction in the
number of indicator organisms since 1991. The Inner Harbor, Mystic River,
and Charles River showed a steady and significant decline in both fecal
coliform and enteroccocci concentrations on a year-to-year basis. The report
also noted that there tended to be a correlation between rainfall events and
bacterial concentrations in the Boston Harbor area CSO receiving waters over
the years of sampling.
• New Bedford, Massachusetts opened 5,000 acres of shellfish beds that had
been closed for 30 to 40 years.
Conclusion
We found that few CSO communities were collecting data on the effect that CSO
controls were having on the water quality of their receiving waters. Most
communities were monitoring the loadings as opposed to the water quality itself.
Therefore, they generally used information on the number, volume, and duration
of CSO events to determine the effectiveness of their actions. Data was not
expected to be collected, in these cases, until the post-construction phase, which
could be 10 to 15 years in the future. We believe it is important to do interim
monitoring throughout the process to ensure CSO efforts were being effective and
improving water quality.
Recommendation
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
5.1 Work with CSO permitting authorities and communities to assure they
negotiate and establish the proper level of interim monitoring of CSO
efforts to determine the impact of the project on water quality.
30 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Chapter 6
CSO Efforts Need to Focus
More on Entire Watershed
While CSO discharges are a significant pollution source for many water bodies,
eliminating them will not always ensure that water quality standards will be met.
Other major sources contributing to water body degradation can include sanitary
sewer overflows, storm water, pollution from upstream sources (including
nonpoint), and concentrated animal feeding operations. Therefore, while many
communities spend large sums to alleviate their CSO problems, communities
should focus on all problems for a watershed - not just CSOs - in order to
effectively improve water quality. In most watersheds, the sources of water
quality problems are too varied to be amenable to a single solution. Further,
communities should also ensure that water quality standards in place are
appropriate and attainable.
Many Factors Impact Water Quality
For many communities, upstream or downstream pollution may overwhelm any
pollution reductions they can achieve through CSO elimination efforts.
Eliminating CSOs may achieve only a marginal improvement in water quality.
While some communities may be able to eliminate all of their water quality
problems by eliminating their CSOs, that is generally the exception rather than
the rule. For most water bodies that currently fail to meet water quality standards,
there are multiple causes.
The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, in its February 2002 report,
supported this viewpoint. In a survey of its members, 78 percent of respondents
indicated that water quality standards would not always be met during wet
weather conditions after full implementation of the CSO long-term control plan.
The report also suggested that, "parallel efforts to address other controlled and
uncontrolled upstream sources must be greatly expanded."
The difficulty in achieving water quality standards by eliminating CSOs was also
voiced by many of the communities we visited. Examples follow:
• A Massachusetts Water Resources Authority report, Beyond the Boston
Harbor Project 1997-1998, The State of Boston Harbor, noted the results of
computer modeling of fecal coliform bacteria levels in Boston Harbor and its
tributary rivers after rainstorms. It stated: "Despite the highly controlled CSO
discharges called for in MWRA's (Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority's) CSO Plan, river water quality is still predicted to be poor after
rainstorms because of storm water input."
31 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
• West Lafayette, Indiana officials indicated that they could do nothing to
change the brownish color of their receiving waters, which is caused by
pollution from nonpoint sources and concentrated animal feeding operations
located upstream.
• Perrysburg, Ohio officials had not seen any visible change in the Maumee
River since they implemented CSO controls. They said that the river was
significantly impacted by agricultural runoff, and water quality objectives
might be better achieved by regulating the agricultural industry. The EPA
1998 Water Quality Inventory report listed agriculture as one of several
leading sources of pollutants in four of our visited states (Ohio, Illinois,
Indiana, and Michigan).
Officials in Hartford and New Haven, Connecticut, as well as Haverhill,
Massachusetts, pointed to pollution from communities upstream of their cities
as hindering their ability to meet water quality standards.
This interrelationship of pollution sources was not always something that
community leaders were aware of. It was at times assumed that the expensive
CSO control projects would alleviate water quality issues.
Watershed Approach Should Be Considered
Because of the wide variety of pollution sources affecting urban waters and their
impact on communities, we believe CSO control should be viewed in the context
of watershed management. In particular, many of the receiving water measures
and ecological, human health, and resource use measures quantify impacts or
effects that are often governed by sources beyond CSOs. We believe, as do many
in the CSO community, that attaining water quality standards and meeting
designated uses can only be accomplished through a concerted effort to limit all
sources of pollutants. However, this approach should not delay necessary CSO
initiatives within the watershed context.
The watershed approach is built on three main principles. First, the target
watersheds should be those where pollution poses the greatest risk to human
health, ecological resources, desirable use of the water, or a combination of these.
Second, all parties with a stake in the watershed should participate in the analysis
of problems and the creation of solutions. Third, the actions undertaken should
draw upon the full range of methods and tools available, integrating them into a
coordinated, multi-organization attack on the problems.
Rouge River Project a Blueprint for Success
The Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration in Michigan is an
excellent example of how utilizing a watershed approach can help to achieve
32 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
water quality goals more efficiently. We have previously described in this report
some of the successful results that have been achieved by this project.
Recognizing the major costs involved in controlling CSOs and that other sources
of pollution impacted water quality, Congress appropriated money in 1992 to
establish the Rouge River Project. The total funds earmarked by Congress for the
Project has reached $346.8 million. The Rouge River watershed is largely
urbanized, spans approximately 438 square miles, and is home to over 1.5 million
people in 48 communities and three counties, including Detroit.
Rouge River Project officials stated that water quality has to be dealt with on a
macro level. Solutions can be better derived from a holistic watershed
perspective. Communities should not work separately, and are more productive if
they work together. In this way, consideration is given to the inter-relationship
between the impacts from all sources of pollution and use impairments in a
receiving water. Project officials also stated that the watershed approach was cost
beneficial for participating communities and ultimately resulted in greater and
faster achievement of designated uses in a water body. Further, Project officials
stated that progress on the project had shown that use of a watershed approach did
not mean delay, and action could be taken on CSO controls and other abatement
initiatives within the context of a watershed approach.
While we applaud the many successes that have been achieved through the Rouge
River Project, we recognize that there were some advantageous factors that
increased the possibility of success. First, Congress provided massive direct
funding to assist communities in the construction of the expensive CSO projects.
Second, the entire project was located within one state's jurisdiction. Many other
watershed opportunities may involve multi-state issues, which can make
coordination and management more difficult.
Others Recognize Need for Watershed Approach
Other CSO communities and interested parties have recognized the need for a
watershed approach to address water quality issues. For example, communities in
the three EPA Regions we reviewed (Regions 1,3, and 5) have begun to work
collectively to address common problems.
• Massachusetts and New Hampshire communities along the Merrimack River
have joined together to form the Merrimack CSO Coalition. The participating
communities believed it was in their best interest to form a coalition to
address the impact of CSOs and other pollutants on the river. They further
believed that a coalition would strengthen their collective ability to influence
regulatory agencies toward a more creative, comprehensive and effective
approach to improving the affected waters.
• In Pennsylvania, the 3 Rivers Wet Weather Demonstration Program divided
the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority's 83 communities into 8 planning
33 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
basins that share sewersheds. In early 2001, three basin groups had been
formed. The basin groups consisted of elected and appointed officials from
each community in the basin. Each group's purpose was to plan and
implement collaborative projects that will benefit municipalities by combining
financial and technical resources while proactively working to comply with
the Clean Water Act. The Chartiers Basin Group Chair, who was from a town
of about 7,000 people, stated that this combined approach was important
because a community of his size could not address these issues alone.
• Several municipalities on the Maumee River in Indiana and Ohio recently
formed the Maumee River Basin Partnership of Local Governments to address
watershed issues (see map). The Partnership, announced in March 2001, has
begun to provide a collective resource and forum where city, town, and
county officials can share vital water quality information and enhance their
regional communication efforts. For example, in June 2001, the Partnership
formed a Regulatory Issues Working Group whose focus includes Federal
CSO funding issues, total maximum daily loads, NPDES permitting, and
concentrated animal feeding operations.
The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, in a February 2002 report,
CSO Municipalities Visited in Indiana and Ohio
Lake
Michigan
Rivers
State Boundaries
CSO Municipalities
Maumee River Watershed
34
Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
The National Response to Combined Sewer Overflows, stated that it had long
sought the ability to address wet weather pollution problems in accordance with
watershed management principles. The organization believed that a
comprehensive approach would result in a systematic, incremental, and more
cost-effective achievement of water quality objectives.
EPA Favors Watershed Approach
All of this supports EPA's long-held position on the subject. EPA has been in
favor of watershed approaches for over a decade. In 1991, the Office of Water
issued the Water shed Protection Approach Framework. In June 1996, EPA
explained its vision of watershed approaches and built on the 1991 document with
the Watershed Approach Framework. In the cover letter to that document, the
EPA Administrator stated, "We believe the watershed approach can significantly
improve water resource restoration, protection and maintenance and achieve
lasting environmental results."
Further, in its December 2001 report to Congress, EPA indicated that the
attainment of water quality standards could not often be achieved solely through
CSO controls because of other point and nonpoint sources. The report stated that
the integration of long-term control plan development in a watershed context
would alleviate some concerns about meeting water quality standards and equity.
Even though EPA advocates a watershed approach, it still administers its water
programs categorically. A recent draft EPA review of state programs pointed out
that, "States identified a number of barriers posed by EPA and federal authorities
to implementing... watershed management" including "fragmented and output-
oriented" oversight of state programs.
Recently, EPA began focusing on the goal of integrating the NPDES program
further into the concept of watershed planning. EPA is exploring models for a
watershed permitting program that would allow for local leadership in conducting
watershed planning and selecting appropriate management options to meet
watershed goals and Clean Water Act requirements.
Appropriate and Attainable Water Quality Standards Needed
According to EPA staff, one of the "major" issues causing CSO implementation
to lag was the lack of water quality standards reviews during the CSO planning
process. One key principle, which ensures that CSO controls are cost-effective
and meet the objective of the Clean Water Act, is the "review and revision as
appropriate, of water quality standards and their implementation procedures when
developing CSO control plans to reflect the site-specific wet weather impacts of
CSOs." On July 31, 2001, EPA issued Guidance: Coordinating CSO Long-Term
Planning with Water Quality Standards Reviews, because "in the 7 years since
EPA issued the CSO Control Policy, implementation of this principle has not
35 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
progressed as quickly as expected." This lack of progress was due in part to a
reluctance by regulatory agencies, environmental groups, public officials, and the
public to accept what is perceived as the downgrading of water quality standards.
The review process can be so intensive as to become burdensome.
Nationwide, only the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority obtained a
variance from water quality standards for CSOs. A variance is a discharge-
specific, short-term modification to the applicable water quality standard,
typically of 3- to 5-year duration. When a state adopts the variance, it must have
sufficient data to determine that the designated use is not attainable within the
duration of the variance.
It is up to the states to propose a revision to water quality standards. They make
this proposal by submitting a use attainability analysis to the public and EPA.
A use attainability analysis is a structured scientific assessment of the physical,
chemical, biological, and economic factors affecting the attainment of the use for
a water body. The detailed water quality, financial, and technical information
needed for the use attainability analysis can be required as part of the scope of a
community's long-term control plan. The study costs are part of the CSO
planning process, which can range from a few hundred thousand dollars to
millions. Public participation should be a part of the process. If appropriate, the
state submits to EPA a proposal to change water quality standards.
While the use attainability analysis process is the means for revising a water
body's designated use, it is usually a contentious process. For example, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's CSO Coordinator
described the use attainability analysis process as "onerous," noting, "lowering a
water quality standard is rarely warmly received either by the regulatory agencies
or with watershed advocacy groups or politicians. The process can be contentious
at times, with lengthy debate over costs, CSO controls, receiving water goals and
conditions."
Generally, the CSO Partnership officials stated that more realistic water quality
standards need to be developed. The CSO Partnership believed that some states'
definition of fishable and swimmable waters was a barrier because not all streams
are fishable or swimmable 365 days a year due to wet weather conditions (people
should not expect to swim in waters after a rain storm). EPA's December 2001
report to Congress also noted this concern that most states use
fishable/swimmable as their default-designated use.
In commenting on EPA's draft guidance on reviewing water quality standards
with long-term control plan development, the CSO Partnership wrote, "The States
need a strong and clear commitment from EPA that EPA will support their efforts
and will provide the political support (based upon scientific realities) necessary to
allow refinements in designated uses and water quality standards for urban CSO
receiving waters." In the opinion of the CSO Partnership's counsel, EPA's final
36 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
guidance was too intimidating for many communities and EPA needed to show,
through demonstration projects, how to implement the guidance.
EPA's Office of Science and Technology held a national symposium in June 2002
to hear stakeholder views on designated use. At its conclusion, EPA decided it
will develop guidance for recreational use, with subsequent guides on other uses.
Conclusion
It needs to be recognized that eliminating CSOs by themselves may not
necessarily assure the attainment of water quality standards. Receiving waters
can still be degraded by other sources, including pollution from various point and
nonpoint sources such as sanitary sewer overflows, storm water, and concentrated
animal feeding operations. To address the broad variety of pollution sources that
affect water bodies, EPA has been encouraging a watershed approach. We found
examples where the watershed approach has been successful when dealing with
CSO issues, and believe its use should be expanded.
Also, CSO communities were not taking advantage of the flexibility that the CSO
Policy afforded them in undertaking water quality standards reviews during the
CSO planning process. This lack of progress was due in part to a reluctance by
regulatory agencies, environmental groups, public officials, and the public to
accept what is perceived as the downgrading of water quality standards. In
addition, the review process can be so intensive as to become burdensome.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water:
6.1 Provide a leadership role by working with states and communities to
develop watershed approaches that will target priority activities and will
ensure that water quality standards are met.
6.2 Provide a leadership role by encouraging states and communities to work
with other stakeholders to develop appropriate water quality standards
and, when appropriate, revise those standards.
6.3 Encourage states to adopt water quality standards recognizing seasonal
recreational uses.
37 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
38 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Exhibit 1
Nine Minimum Controls and
Long-Term Control Plans
Nine Minimum Controls
As noted in the EPA's May 31, 1995, "Guidance For Nine Minimum Controls,"
there are controls that can reduce CSOs and their effects on water quality. They
do not require major engineering studies and usually can be implemented in less
than 2 years. The nine minimum controls are as follows:
• Proper operations and regular maintenance programs for the sewer system and
CSO outfalls.
• Maximum use of the collection system for storage.
• Review and modification of pretreatment requirements to ensure that CSO
impact are minimized.
• Maximization of flow to the publically-owned treatment works for treatment.
• Elimination of CSOs during dry weather.
• Control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs.
• Pollution prevention programs to reduce contaminants in CSOs.
• Public notification to ensure that the public receives adequate notification of
CSO occurrences and CSO impacts.
• Monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO
controls.
These controls are not temporary measures: they should be a part of the CSO's
long-term controls. Selection and implementation of actual control measures
should be based on site-specific considerations, including the specific
characteristics identified in the characterization and monitoring of the combined
sewer system.
Long-Term Control Plans
According to the CSO Policy, CSO permittees are responsible for developing and
implementing long-term control plans that will ulitimately result in compliance
with Clean Water Act requirements. The plans should consider the site-specific
nature of CSOs and evaluate the cost effectiveness of a range of control options.
The selected controls should be designed to allow for retrofitting or expansion if
additional controls become necessary to meet water quality standards, including
39 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
existing and designated uses. A permittee can use one of two approaches to
demonstrate that its selected CSO controls will achieve water quality standards.
These are the "presumption" and "demonstration" approaches.
Using the "presumption" approach, the permittee provides a specific level of
control that is presumed to meet water quality standards. The selection of this
approach does not release a permittee from the overall requirement of meeting
water quality standards. If the permitting authority determined that the plan will
not result in meeting Clean Water Act requirements, then the presumption will not
apply. Under the "presumption" approach, controls adopted in the plan should be
required to meet one of the following criteria:
• No more than an average of four overflow events per year, provided that the
permitting authority may allow up to two additional overflow events per year;
The elimination or the capture for treatment of no less than 85 percent by
volume of the combined sewerage collected in the combined sewer system
during precipitation events on a system-wide annual average basis; or
• The elimination of the pollutants or removal of no less that the mass of the
pollutants identified as causing water quality impairment through the sewer
system characterization, monitoring, and modeling effort for the volumes that
would be captured for treatment above.
In the "demonstration" approach, the permittee provides information and data
that show the selected controls meet the water quality standards and designated
uses. In selecting the "demonstration" approach, a community would have
several options for developing a long-term control plan. The CSO Policy
identifies four criteria for successful use of the "demonstration" approach:
• The CSO control program will protect water quality standards unless the
standard cannot be met as a result of natural conditions or other pollution
sources;
• The overflows remaining after implementation of the control program will not
prevent attainment of water quality standards;
• The planned control program will achieve the maximum pollution reduction
benefits reasonably attainable; and
• The planned control program designed to allow cost effective expansion or
cost effective retrofitting if additional controls are subsequently determined to
be necessary to meet water quality standards, including protection of
designated uses.
40 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Exhibit 2
Review Participants
EPA
Office of Wastewater Management (Office of Water)
Great Lakes National Program Office
Region 1
Region 3
Region 5
By State
Connecticut
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
City of Bridgeport
City of Hartford
City of New Haven
Illinois
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Indiana
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Town of Brownsburg
Columbia City
City of Fort Wayne
City of Frankfort
City of West Lafayette
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
City of Haverhill
City of New Bedford
Michigan
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
City of Dearborn
City of Dearborn Heights
41 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
City of Detroit
Garden City
City of Lansing
City of Livonia
Oakland County
City of Port Huron
Wayne County
United States District Court Monitor
Ohio
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
City of Akron
Metropolitan Sewer District of Cincinnati
City of Columbus
City of Defiance
City of Lancaster
City of Lima
City of Newark
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District
Village of Paul ding
City of Perry sburg
City of Port Clinton
City of Toledo
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Allegheny County Sanitary Authority
Town of Crafton
City of Pittsburgh
Ross Township
3 Rivers Demonstration Program
Vermont
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
City of Rutland
City of Springfield
Organizations
Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies
CSO Partnership
42 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Appendix 1
Agency Response
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2O46O
JUL 1 5 2002
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Report Wastewater Management: Controlling and Abating Combined
Sewer Overflows
FROM: G. Tracy Mehan, III
Assistant Administrator
TO: Dan Engelberg, Ph.D.
Director for Program Evaluation, Water
Office of Program Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft report Wastewater
Management: Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer Overflows.
In general, we agree with many of the findings and recommendations in your draft report.
The findings in your draft report, to a large degree, support what we identified in EPA's 2001
Report to Congress — Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy: funding of CSO control programs, promoting and facilitating the review and
revision, as appropriate, of water quality standards, and developing a national data system for
comprehensively evaluating the implementation and the effectiveness of the CSO control
program. You also have identified a number of actions we should take to address the barriers
that hinder the control of CSOs. These actions are discussed in the attachment.
Staff in the Office of Wastewater Management (O WM) coordinated the review of the
draft report with appropriate staff in Regions 1, 3, and 5. The Regions provided specific
comments on the draft report. OWM staff are providing, under separate cover, these comments
to Ira Brass of your office. Mr. Brass was the lead investigator in preparing the report. OWM
will discuss and address these comments with him. Regional Office staff will participate in these
discussions as iiecessarv.
. Prtnud with Vegetable OI Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (20% PoMoonaunwr)
43 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
If you have any questions about the attached response to the conclusions and
recommendations contained in the draft report, please contact me at 202-564-5700 or Linda
Boornazian, Director, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management, at
202-564-9545.
cc: Judy Hecht
Attachment
44 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
45 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
ATTACHMENT
EPA Responses to Specific Conclusions
Chapter 2 Conclusion: States and communities have been working for decades addressing
CSOs. States in all three regions we visited made efforts to abate CSOs, but not all States set
CSO abatement as a high priority, which ultimately delayed progress towards eliminating CSO
outfalls. While all States adopted CSO strategies and guidelines, long-term control plan
implementations were at different stages.
EPA Response: The Office of Water generally agrees with this conclusion. When EPA issued
the CSO Control Policy in April, 1994, many States had CSO permitting strategies established in
response to EPA's 1989 CSO Control Strategy. With the issuance of the Policy, the states
adapted their on-going strategies, in varying degrees, to meet the principles of the Policy. A
number of States continued to implement short-term controls for specific CSO impacts, such
solids and floatables, or continued long-term programs such as sewer separation without
requiring a formal long-term control plan (LTCP) as envisioned in the Policy. Also, certain
States did not assign a very high priority to implementing the CSO Control Policy because of its
status as policy rather than regulation.
In December 2000, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to require that any permit, order or
decree issued after December 2000, shall conform to the 1994 CSO Control Policy. NPDES
permits must require the development and implementation of LTCPs in a timely manner. EPA,
through oversight of permits issued to CSO communities, will ensure that permits require
development of plans that meet the expectations of the Policy and achieve compliance with the
water quality-based and technology-based requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Chapter 3 Conclusion: There are two main barriers that communities face and need to
overcome in reducing CSOs and the water pollution they cause. The most significant is financial
— there is presently not enough funding to meet the needs of all CSO communities and many
communities are being financially strained: A second major barrier involves finding acceptable
locations for CSO facilities, due to such complicating factors as land availability, community
opposition, competing land usage, and land ownership.
EPA Response: EPA recognizes the financial burden that many CSO communities face in
developing and implementing CSO control programs. EPA will promote innovative
mechanisms, such as the watershed approach, that provide opportunities for communities to
phase in the implementation of CSO controls and that allow communities to maximize the use of
their limited resources in achieving the greatest environmental benefits.
EPA recognizes that the siting of water pollution control facilities, including CSO facilities, can
be problematic. However, many communities have successfully installed control facilities after
overcoming local concerns.
46 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
2
EPA Responses to Specific Recommendations
Recommendation 4-1: EPA develop a system to catalog and disseminate lessons learned and
better practices about CSOs. EPA should establish a website where such information can be
posted and information easily accessed for use,
EPA Response: EPA agrees that there is a need to make available to all CSO stakeholders,
information and data on CSO control technologies and programs. As a result of the Wet Weather
Water Quality Act, EPA is preparing a Report to Congress that is due in December 2003. This
report will summarize the extent of the public health and environmental impacts of CSO and
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), the resources spent by municipalities to address these impacts,
and an evaluation of the technologies used by the municipalities to address these impacts. After
transmitting this Report to Congress, EPA must maintain a clearinghouse of cost-effective and
efficient technologies for addressing the human health and environmental impacts of CSOs and
SSOs. This clearinghouse will probably be web-based and will allow CSO stakeholders to
benefit from the experiences of other communities that have already initiated programs to control
CSOs and SSOs.
Recommendation 5-1: Amend the CSO Policy to require communities to perform interim
reviews of CSO efforts to determine the impact of the project on water quality.
EPA Response: EPA does not believe that it is necessary to revise the 1994 CSO Control Policy
to require communities to perform interim reviews of the impact of CSO control projects on
water quality. The appropriate level of monitoring to determine the effectiveness of a specific
CSO control project or of an entire long-term CSO control program is highly site-specific. The
CSO community and the NPDES permitting authority can negotiate and establish, in an
enforceable mechanism, the proper level of monitoring necessary to meet the information and
data needs of all stakeholders.
EPA believes the CSO Control Policy and implementing guidance provide appropriate guidelines
for the use of monitoring, including interim monitoring where appropriate, in assessing the
effectiveness of CSO controls. Under the CSO Policy, communities are expected to develop
monitoring plans and perform post-construction compliance monitoring to ensure that water
quality standards are being attained. EPA's Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for
Monitoring and Modeling states that in most cases, some monitoring should be conducted during
the construction and implementation period to evaluate the effectiveness of CSO controls.
47 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Recommendation 6-1: Provide a leadership role by working with States and communities to
develop watershed approaches that will target priority activities and will ensure that water
quality standards are met.
EPA Response: Currently, EPA is developing a Watershed Permit Framework to further the
objectives of its 1994 Watershed Strategy. EPA is developing a plan to promote watershed-
based NPDES permits. EPA has held discussions with the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
on this initiative, and will continue to work with these and other interested groups.
The Framework will address the need to provide greater incentives and mechanisms necessary to
foster a comprehensive assessment of watershed goals and their current status, the
implementation of an agreed-upon watershed monitoring strategy, and the participation and buy-
in by all major watershed stakeholders.
Recommendation 6-2: Provide a leadership role by encouraging States and communities to
work with other stakeholders to develop appropriate water quality standards and, when
appropriate, revise those standards.
EPA Response: EPA is committed to facilitating state review of water quality standards and, if
appropriate, revising standards to protect the highest attainable designated uses. EPA is working
with States and key stakeholders to identify and develop policies and guidance that support
appropriate state water quality standards revisions, including the development of sufficient
information to justify changes in designated uses, water quality criteria, and implementation
methods. These efforts include:
• Guidance: Coordinating CSO Long-Term Planning With Water Quality
Standards Reviews (EPA-833-R-01-002; July 31, 2001). This guidance describes
processes for integrating LTCP development and implementation with water
quality standards reviews. EPA's water quality standards regulations provide
States with the flexibility to review and revise, as appropriate, the designated uses
and water quality standards for surface water bodies. Within the current
regulatory framework, States have a number of alternatives for revising water
quality standards including the establishment of seasonal uses and the issuance of
temporary variances. Revisions lowering the level of protection for the designated
use require a Use Attainability Analysis, public participation in the review
process, and EPA approval. The Guidance uses the current regulatory framework
to outline processes for coordination among CSO communities, EPA and State
water quality standards program staff and NPDES permitting program staff, the
public, and other interested parties. The process can be resource- intensive but, as
the Guidance concludes, the coordination and cooperation among all parties
should ensure that the LTCP, when completed, will prevent CSOs from causing or
48 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
contributing to the non-attainment of applicable water quality standards. The
completed LTCP can also assist the state in determining if the present use is not
attainable and in identifying another attainable use.
Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria
(Public Review Draft, May 2002, EPA-823-B-003). When final, this document
will provide guidance to States and authorized entities on the adoption and
implementation of bacteriological water quality criteria for the protection of
waters designated for recreation. In response to comments on the February 2000
draft and subsequent interactions with interested stakeholders, EPA greatly
expanded the scope and detail of the guidance. Consequently, additional
opportunity for public review is being provided.
Draft Strategy for Water Quality Standards and Criteria: Strengthening the
Foundation of Programs to Protect and Restore the Nation's Waters
(EPA-823-R-02-001, May 2002). This draft document lays out strategic
directions for the water quality standards program over the next seven years in
collaboration with other EPA offices and with States and authorized tribes to
strengthen and improve the water quality standards and criteria program. The
draft strategy is the product of a wide-ranging review of the water quality
standards and criteria program within the context of all Clean Water Act programs
and the result of more than 50 listening sessions for over 350 people,
recommendations from the National Research Council, the General Accounting
Office, EPA's Inspector General and EPA's National Environmental Justice
Advisory Committee.
National Symposium: Designating Attainable Uses for the Nation's Waters, June
3-4, 2002. EPA hosted this Symposium to hear from interested citizens,
governmental officials and regulated parties on the need for additional guidance
on establishing the designated uses and the process to follow when making
designated uses more or less protective. The proceedings of the Symposium will
be available in the Summer of 2002 and will include the invited experts'
comments, the 17 presentations, and a summary of the roundtable discussions
involving approximately 200 attendees. The Symposium help EPA identify and
schedule additional guidance to address key questions on designating and revising
designated uses.
Tracking Water Quality Standards Reviews on CSO Impacted Waters. EPA
committed to establishing tracking information in the Guidance: Coordinating
CSO Long-Term Planning With Water Quality Standards Reviews and in the
Agency's 2001 Report to Congress. EPA currently is able to identify new or
revised standards that, the Agency must review and approve or disapprove, and is
49 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
working with its State partners to obtain additional information to track water
quality standards reviews for these waters.
Recommendation 6-3: Encourage states to adopt water quality standards recognizing seasonal
recreational uses.
EPA Response: States have already adopted seasonal recreational uses where appropriate.
EPA's water quality standards regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(f) specifically allow the adoption of
seasonal uses as an alternative to reclassifying a water body to uses requiring less stringent
criteria. If seasonal uses are adopted, EPA expects states to adjust the water quality criteria to
reflect the seasonal uses as long as the criteria do not preclude attainment of the more protective
use in another season.
50 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
51 Report No. 2002-P-00012
-------
Appendix 2
Distribution
Office of Inspector General
Inspector General (2410)
Headquarters
Assistant Administrator for Water (4101)
Comptroller (2731 A)
Agency Audit Followup Coordinator (2724A)
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (1301 A)
Director, Office of Regional Operations (1108 A)
Associate Administrator for Communications, Education and Media Relations (1101 A)
Director, Office of Wastewater Management (4201)
Director, Permits Division (4203)
Regions
Regional Administrators
52 Report No. 2002-P-00012
------- |