United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (4203)
Washington, D.C. 20460
www.epa.gov/npdes
EPA833-R-01-003
December 2001
Report to Congress
Implementation and Enforcement
of the Combined Sewer Overflow
Control Policy
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary— ES-1
Chapter 1—Introduction 1-1
1.1 Brief History of Combined Sewers and CSOs 1-1
1.2 Organization of the Report 1-4
Chapter 2—Regulatory and Environmental Background for the CSO Control Policy 2-1
2.1 Description of Combined Sewer Systems and CSOs 2-1
2.2 Environmental and Public Health Impacts of CSOs 2-3
2.3 Initial Efforts to Control CSOs 2-6
2.3.1 1965 to 1989 2-6
2.3.2 National Municipal Policy 2-6
2.3.3 1989 National CSO Control Strategy 2-9
2.3.4 Office of Water Management Advisory Group (MAG) 2-9
2.4 The CSO Control Policy 2-11
2.4.1 Purpose, Objectives and Key Principles of the CSO Control Policy 2-11
2.4.2 Objectives for CSO Communities 2-12
2.4.3 Expectations for Permitting Authorities 2-14
2.4.4 Coordination with Water Quality Standards: Development, Review, and Approval 2-14
2.4.5 Enforcement and Compliance 2-14
2.5 Summary 2-15
Chapter 3—Methodology for Development of the CSO Report to Congress 3-1
3.1 Overview of Study Objectives and Approaches 3-1
3.2 Data Sources 3-3
3.2.1 National Data Sources 3-3
3.2.2 NPDES Authorities and Other State Program Files 3-3
3.2.3 Community-level Data Sources 3-4
3.2.4 External Sources 3-4
3.3 Data Collection 3-4
3.3.1 Assessment of EPA Efforts 3-5
3.3.2 Assessment of Efforts by NPDES Authorities and Other State Programs 3-5
3.3.3 Assessment of Community Efforts 3-6
3.3.4 CSO Surveys from AMSA and the CSO Partnership 3-7
3.4 Stakeholder Involvement 3-7
3.5 Data Considerations 3-8
3.6 Quality Control and Quality Assurance 3-9
3.7 Summary 3-9
-------
Chapter 4—CSO Control Policy Status: EPA 4-1
4.1 General Activities to Support CSO Control Policy Implementation 4-1
4.2 NPDES Permitting 4-3
4.2.1 EPA Headquarters Responsibilities and Activities 4-3
4.2.2 EPA Regional Office Responsibilities and Activities 4-4
4.3 Water Quality Standards 4-4
4.3.1 Section 303 (d) and the Total Maximum Daily Load Program 4-5
4.3.2 Section 305 (b) and the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress 4-6
4.4 Compliance and Enforcement 4-6
4.4.1 General NPDES Compliance and Enforcement Process 4-7
4.4.2 National Compliance and Enforcement Priorities 4-7
4.4.3 NPDES Compliance and Enforcement Activities 4-7
4.5 Guidance, Training, and Compliance and Technical Assistance 4-12
4.5.1 Guidance 4-13
4.5.2 Training 4-15
4.5.3 Compliance and Technical Assistance 4-16
4.5.4 Wet Weather Flow Research Plan 4-17
4.6 Communication and Coordination 4-17
4.6.1 Outreach to State and Regional CSO Coordinators 4-17
4.6.2 CSO Awards Program 4-18
4.6.3 Listening Sessions on Implementing the Water Quality-Based Provisions of the CSO Control Policy 4-18
4.7 Information Management 4-19
4.7.1 Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) 4-19
4.7.2 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 4-20
4.7.3 Permit Compliance System (PCS) 4-21
4.7.4 Statistically Valid Non-Compliance Rate Project 4-21
4.7.5 Other Information Management Activities 4-22
4.8 Financial Assistance 4-22
4.8.1 The Clean Water SRF Program 4-22
4.8.2 Section 104(b) (3) Water Quality Cooperative Agreements 4-24
4.8.3 Section 106 Water Pollution Control Program Support Grants 4-24
4.8.4 Specific Line Items in EPA's Budget 4-25
4.9 Performance Measures 4-26
4.9.1 Specific Efforts to Track Benefits Resulting from CSO Control Policy Implementation 4-26
4.9.2 Other Agency Initiatives to Document Environmental Results Related to CSO Control 4-28
4.9.3 Promoting the Use of Watershed Approach 4-30
4.10 Findings 4-30
Chapter 5—CSO Control Policy Status: NPDES Authorities and Other State Programs 5-1
5.1 Policy Development and Support 5-4
5.1.1 Efforts to Adhere to the 1989 National CSO Control Strategy 5-4
5.1.2 Efforts to Adhere to the 1994 CSO Control Policy 5-7
5.2 NPDES Permitting 5-12
5.2.1 Permit Requirements for NMC 5-13
5.2.2 Permit Requirements for LTCP 5-16
-------
5.3 Water Quality Standards 5-20
5.3.1 Integrating Water Quality Standards Review with LTCP Development and Implementation 5-21
5.3.2 State Approaches for Reviewing Water Quality Standards for CSO Receiving Waters 5-21
5.3.3 State Water Quality Assessment Reports 5-24
5.4 Compliance and Enforcement 5-24
5.4.1 Policy 5-24
5.4.2 State Inspections 5-26
5.5 Guidance, Training and Compliance and Technical Assistance 5-29
5.5.1 Guidance 5-29
5.5.2 Training 5-30
5.5.3 Compliance and Technical Assistance 5-30
5.6 Communication and Coordination 5-32
5.6.1 Communication 5-32
5.6.2 Coordination 5-32
5.7 Financial Assistance 5-33
5.8 Performance Measures 5-36
5.9 Findings 5-37
Chapter 6—CSO Control Policy Status: Communities 6-1
6.1 National CSO Demographics 6-2
6.1.1 CSO Permits and Types of Systems 6-2
6.1.2 CSO Size 6-3
6.1.3 Small System Considerations 6-4
6.1.4 CSO Receiving Waters 6-5
6.2 Implementation of CSO Controls 6-6
6.2.1 Assessment of Control Implementation 6-6
6.2.2 Documented Implementation of CSO Controls 6-7
6.3 Implementation of the NMC 6-7
6.3.1 NMC Implementation Status 6-8
6.3.2 Specific CSO Control Measures Implemented for the NMC 6-8
6.4 Implementation of the LTCP 6-17
6.4.1 Status of Documented Implementation of the LTCP 6-18
6.4.2 Selected LTCP Approach 6-18
6.4.3 Specific CSO Control Measures for LTCPs 6-18
6.4.4 Minimum Elements of an LTCP 6-20
6.5 Financial Considerations 6-28
6.5.1 Funding Options 6-28
6.6 Obstacles and Challenges 6-29
6.6.1 Resources 6-30
6.6.2 Water Quality Standards 6-31
6.6.3 Uncertainty 6-32
6.6.4 The Watershed Approach 6-34
6.7 Performance Measures and Environmental Benefits 6-35
6.7.1 CSO Performance Measures for CSO Communities 6-35
6.7.2 Loading Reduction and Environmental Benefits 6-35
6.7.3 Data, Findings and Examples 6-36
6.8 Findings 6-42
-------
Chapter 7—Evaluation of the CSO Control Policy 7-1
7.1 Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy 7-1
7.1.1 Implementation of the CSO Control Policy 7-2
7.1.2 Compliance and Enforcement 7-3
7.2 Observations Related to the Four Key Guiding Principles of the CSO Control Policy 7-4
7.2.1 Provide Clear Levels of Control to Meet Appropriate Health and Environmental Objectives 7-5
7.2.2 Provide Sufficient Flexibility to Municipalities to Consider the Site-Specific Nature of CSOs 7-7
7.2.3 Allowing a Phased Approach to Implementation of CSO Controls 7-10
7.2.4 Review and Revise, as Appropriate, Water Quality Standards When Developing CSO Control Plans 7-12
7.3 Accomplishments Attributable to Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy 7-14
7.3.1 National Estimates of CSO Volume and Pollutant Loading Reductions 7-14
7.3.2 Accomplishments Attributable to Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy 7-16
7.4 Next Steps 7-17
List of Figures
Figure 1.1—Typical Combined Sewer Overflow Structure 1-2
Figure 2.1—National Distribution of CSO Communities 2-3
Figure 5.1—Distribution of CSO Permits by Region and State 5-5
Figure 5.2—Distribution of CSO Outfalls by Region and State 5-6
Figure 5.3—Status of NMC Requirements in CSO Permits 5-13
Figure 5.4—CSO Permits With Requirements to Implement the NMC 5-14
Figure 5.5—Mechanism Used to Require NMC Implementation 5-15
Figure 5.6—Status of Facility Plan Requirements in CSO Permits 5-17
Figure 5.7—Mechanism Used to Require LTCPs 5-17
Figure 5.8—CSO Permits With Requirements to Develop and Implement an LTCP 5-18
Figure 5.9—SRF Loans for CSO Projects, 1988—2000 5-34
Figure 5.10—Distribution of SRF Loans for CSO Projects by State, 1988—2000 5-35
Figure 6.1—Geographic Distribution of CSO Permits 6-3
Figure 6.2—Types of CSO Facilities 6-4
Figure 6.3—POTW Facility Size Classification 6-5
Figure 6.4—Distribution of POTW Facility Sizes 6-5
Figure 6.5—Types of Waters Receiving CSO Discharges 6-6
Figure 6.6—Distribution of CSO Control Measures Implemented as Part of an LTCP 6-19
Figure 6.7—Cost-Benefit Analysis Using Knee-of-the-Curve 6-26
Figure 6.8—New York Inner Harbor Water Quality Improvements Due to Pollution Controls 6-39
Figure 6.9-Genesee River Water Quality Improvements Due to CSO Controls 6-41
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table 2.1—CSO Pollutants of Concern and Principle Consequences 2-5
Table 2.2—Typical Pollutant Concentrations Found in CSOs 2-5
Table 2.3—CSOs as a Source of Water Quality Impairment 2-5
Table 4.1—Summary of 303(d) List Impaired Waters in States With CSOs 4-5
Table 4.2—Extent of CSOs as a Source of Impairment 4-6
Table 4.3—EPA CSO Guidance Documents 4-13
Table 4.4—Comparison of CSO and Total Needs 4-20
Table 4.5—SRF Loans for CSO Projects 4-23
Table 4.6—EPA 104(b) (3) Grant Cooperative Agreements for CSO Projects 4-24
Table 4.7—Annual Section 106 Grant Totals 4-25
Table 4.8—Annual EPA Budget Line Items for CSO Control Projects 4-25
Table 4.9—Environmental Measurements from 1997 Pilot GPRA Performance Plan 4-27
Table 5.1—Roles and Responsibilities 5-2
Table 5.2—States With CSO Permits 5-3
Table 5.3—States With No CSO Permits 5-4
Table 5.4—Online Information Resources 5-31
Table 6.1—Status of NMC Implementation Documentation 6-9
Table 6.2—10 Most Frequently Implemented NMC Activities 6-9
Table 6.3—10 Most Frequently Implemented LTCP Controls 6-20
Table 6.4—Sensitive Areas Affected by CSO Discharges 6-24
Table 6.5—MWRA Critical-Use Prioritization Program Results 6-25
Table 6.6—Bacteriological Indicators Used By States 6-32
Table 6.7—CSO Control Performance Measures 6-36
Table 6.8—Pollutant Removal Capability of Retention Treatment Basins on the Saginaw River 6-37
Table 6.9—Pollutant Removal Capability of Two CSO Treatment Facilities in Columbus, GA 6-40
Table 6.10—Benefits of CSO Controls in San Francisco Harbor 6-42
Table 7.1—Implementation Schedule Based on Financial Capability 7-12
Table 7.2—Pollutant Reduction Estimates Based on Implementation of CSO Control Policy 7-15
-------
List of Appendices
Appendix A Statutes, Policies, and Interpretative Memoranda
Appendix B Profiles of State CSO Programs
Appendix C CSO Community Case Studies
Appendix D List of Current CSO Permits
Appendix E Summary of CSO-Related Civil Judicial Actions Taken By EPA Prior to Issuance of the CSO Control Policy
Appendix F Data Base Documentation
Appendix G AMSA and CSO Partnership CSO Survey Summary
Appendix H Forms Used to Guide Data Collection Effort
Appendix I Stakeholder Meeting Summary, July 12-13, 2001, Chicago, Illinois
Appendix J Summary of CSO-Related Enforcement Actions Initiated by EPA After Issuance of the CSO Control Policy
Appendix K Summary of Planned Research by EPAs Office of Research and Development
Appendix L List of Recipients of National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy Excellence Awards
Appendix M Summary of Outcomes of 104 (b) (3) Grants
Appendix N Summary, by State, of CSO Impacted Water Body Segments from 303 (d) Lists
Appendix 0 Summary of State Inspection Programs
Appendix P Summary of CSO-Related Enforcement Actions Initiated By States After Issuance of the CSO Control Policy
Appendix Q Sample State Information Management Systems Used to Track Requirements for CSO Control
Appendix R Summary of Controls Implemented by CSO Communities
Appendix S GPRACSO Model Documentation
VI
-------
List of Acronyms
6MM—Six Minimum Measures
AMSA—Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Authorities
AO—Administrative Order
APWA—American Public Works
Association
BAT—Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable
BCT—Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology
BEACH Program—Beaches
Environmental Assessment,
Closure and Health Program
BMP—Best Management Practice
BPJ—Best Professional Judgement
CAPD—Compliance Assistance
Planning Database
CIP—Capital Improvement Plan
CMC—Center for Marine
Conservation
CSO—Combined Sewer Overflow
CSS—Combined Sewer Systems
CWA—Clean Water Act
CWNS—Clean Water Needs Survey
DEM—Department of
Environmental Management
DEP—Department of Environmental
Protection
EBPS—Environmental Benefit Permit
Strategy
EPA—Environmental Protection
Agency
ERPs—Regional Enforcement
Response Plans
FOIA—Freedom of Information Act
GPRA—Government Performance
and Results Act
IEPA—Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
LGEAN—Local Government
Environmental Assistance
Network
LTCP—Long-Term Control Plan
MAG—Office of Water Management
Advisory Group
mgd—Million Gallons per Day
MHI—Median Household Income
MOA—Memorandum of Agreement
MS4s—Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems
MSD—Metropolitan Sewer District
MWRA—Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority
MWRD—Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District
NEORSD—Northeast Ohio Regional
Sewer District
NEPPS—National Environmental
Performance Partnership System
NMC—Nine Minimum Controls
NMP—National Municipal Policy
NOAA—National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
NOV—Notices of Violation
NPDES—National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
NRDC—Natural Resources Defense
Council
NYCDEP—New York City's
Department of Environmental
Protection
O & M—Operation and Maintenance
OECA—Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
OGWDW—Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water
ACR-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
ORD—Office of Research and
Development
OW—Office of Water
OWM—Office of Wastewater
Management
OWOW—Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds
PCS—Permit Compliance System
POTW—Publicly Owned Treatment
Works
PPA—Performance Partnership
Agreement
RCATS—Reporting Compliance
Assistance System
SCSs—Satellite Collection Systems
SEA—Senate Enrolled Act
SRF—State Revolving Fund
SSES—Sewer System Evaluation
Study
SSO—Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SWAP—Source Water Assessment
Program
TARP—Tunnel and Reservoir Plan
TMDL—Total Maximum Daily Loads
TOGS—Technical and Operational
Guidance Series
UAA—Use Attainability Analysis
USDA—United States Department of
Agriculture
WEE—Water Environment
Federation
WPD—Water Permits Division
WWTP—Wastewater Treatment
Plants
ACR-2
-------
Glossary
This glossary includes a collection of the terms used in this manual and an
explanation of each term. To the extent that definitions and explanations
provided in this glossary differ from those in EPA regulations or other official
documents, they are intended for use in understanding this manual only.
A
Anti-backsliding—A provision in the
Federal Regulations [CWA
§303 (d) (4); CWA §402 (c); CFR
§122.44(1)] that requires a
reissued permit to be as stringent
as the previous permit with some
exceptions.
Antidegradation—Policies which
ensure protection of water quality
for a particular water body where
the water quality exceeds levels
necessary to protect fish and
wildlife propagation and
recreation on and in the water.
This also includes special
protection of waters designated as
outstanding natural resource
waters. Antidegradation plans are
adopted by each state to minimize
adverse effects on water.
Authorized Program or Authorized
State—A state, territorial, tribal,
or interstate NPDES program
which has been approved or
authorized by EPA under 40 CFR
Part 123.
Average Number of Overflow Events
Per Year—The total number of
combined sewer overflow events
that occurred during the term of
the permit divided by the permit
term in years.
B
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable
(BAT) —Technology-based
standard established by the Clean
Water Act (CWA) as the most
appropriate means available on a
national basis for controlling the
direct discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants to
navigable waters. BAT effluent
limitations guidelines, in general,
represent the best existing
performance of treatment
technologies that are
economically achievable within
an industrial point source
category or subcategory.
Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)—Technology-
based standard for the discharge
from existing industrial point
sources of conventional pollutants
including BOD, TSS, fecal
coliform, pH, oil and grease. The
BCT is established in light of a
two-part "cost reasonableness"
test which compares the cost for
an industry to reduce its pollutant
discharge with the cost to a
POTW for similar levels of
reduction of a pollutant loading.
The second test examines the
cost-effectiveness of additional
industrial treatment beyond BPT
EPA must find limits which are
reasonable under both tests before
establishing them as BCT.
Best Management Practice (BMP) —
Permit condition used in place of
or in conjunction with effluent
limitations to prevent or control
the discharge of pollutants. May
include schedule of activities,
prohibition of practices,
maintenance procedure, or other
management practice. BMPs may
include, but are not limited to,
treatment requirements, operating
procedures, or practices to control
plant site runoff, spillage, leaks,
sludge or waste disposal, or
drainage from raw material
storage.
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) —
The method used by permit
writers to develop
GL-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
technology-based NPDES permit
conditions on a case-by-case basis
using all reasonably available and
relevant data.
BODS—Five-day biochemical oxygen
demand; a standard measure of
the organic content of wastewater,
expressed in mg/1.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)—A measurement of the
amount of oxygen utilized by the
decomposition of organic
material, over a specified time
period (usually 5 days) in a
wastewater sample; it is used as a
measurement of the readily
decomposable organic content of
a wastewater.
Bypass—The intentional diversion of
wastestreams from any portion of
a treatment (or pretreatment)
facility.
c
Catch Basin—A chamber usually built
at the curbline of a street, which
admits surface water for discharge
into a storm drain.
Clean Water Act (CWA)—The Clean
Water Act is an act passed by the
U.S. Congress to control water
pollution. It was formerly referred
to as the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 or Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (Public Law
92-500), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., as
amended by: Public Law 96-483;
Public Law 97-117; Public Laws
95-217, 97-117, 97-440, and
100-04.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) —
A codification of the final rules
published daily in the Federal
Register. Title 40 of the CFR
contains the environmental
regulations.
Collector Sewer—The first element of
a wastewater collection system
used to collect and carry
wastewater from one or more
building sewers to a main sewer.
Also called a lateral sewer.
Combined Sewage—Wastewater and
storm drainage carried in the
same pipe.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)—A
discharge of untreated wastewater
from a combined sewer system at
a point prior to the headworks of
a publicly owned treatment
works. CSOs generally occur
during wet weather (rainfall or
snowmelt). During periods of wet
weather, these systems become
overloaded, bypass treatment
works, and discharge directly to
receiving waters.
Combined Sewer System (CSS)—A
wastewater collection system
which conveys sanitary
wastewaters (domestic,
commercial and industrial
wastewaters) and storm water
through a single pipe to a publicly
owned treatment works for
treatment prior to discharge to
surface waters.
Compliance Schedule—A schedule of
remedial measures included in a
permit or an enforcement order,
including a sequence of interim
requirements (for example,
actions, operations, or milestone
events) that lead to compliance
with the CWA and regulations.
Criteria—The numeric values and the
narrative standards that represent
contaminant concentrations that
are not to be exceeded in the
receiving environmental media
(surface water, ground water,
sediment) to protect beneficial
uses.
D
Designated use—Use specified in
WQS for each water body or
segment whether or not it is being
attained.
Director—The Regional
Administrator or State Director,
as the context requires, or an
authorized representative. When
there is no approved state
program, and there is an EPA
administered program, Director
means the Regional
Administrator. When there is an
approved state program,
"Director" normally means the
State Director.
Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR)—The form used
(including any subsequent
additions, revisions, or
modifications) to report
self-monitoring results by NPDES
permittees. DMRs must be used
by approved states as well as by
EPA.
GL-2
-------
Glossary
Draft Permit—A document prepared
under 40CFR§124.6 indicating
the Director's tentative decision to
issue, deny, modify, revoke and
reissue, terminate, or reissue a
permit. A notice of intent to
terminate a permit, and a notice
of intent to deny a permit
application, as discussed in 40
CFR §124.5, are considered draft
permits. A denial of a request for
modification, revocation and
reissuance, or termination, as
discussed in 40 CFR §124.5, is not
a draft permit.
Dry Weather Flow Conditions—
Hydraulic flow conditions within
the combined sewer system
resulting from one or more of the
following: flows of domestic
sewage, ground water infiltration,
commercial and industrial
wastewaters, and any other non-
precipitation event related flows
(e.g., tidal infiltration under
certain circumstances). Other
non-precipitation event related
flows that are included in dry
weather flow conditions will be
decided by the permit writer
based on site-specific conditions.
Dry Weather Flow Overflow—A
combined sewer overflow that
occurs during dry weather flow
conditions.
sources into waters of the United
states, the waters of the
contiguous zone, or the ocean.
E
Effluent Limitation—Any restriction
imposed by the Director on
quantities, discharge rates, and
concentrations of pollutants
which are discharged from point
G
General Permit—An NPDES permit
issued under 40 CFR §122.28 that
authorizes a category of
discharges under the CWA within
a geographical area. A general
permit is not specifically tailored
for an individual discharger.
Indirect Discharge—The
introduction of pollutants into a
municipal sewage treatment
system from any nondomestic
source (i.e., any industrial or
commercial facility) regulated
under Section 307 (b), (c), or (d)
of the CWA.
Infiltration—Water other that
wastewater that enters a
wastewater system and building
sewers from the ground through
such means as defective pipes,
pipe joints, connections, or
manholes. (Infiltration does not
include inflow).
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) —The total
quantity of water from both
infiltration and inflow.
Inflow—Water other than wastewater
that enters a wastewater system
and building sewer from sources
such as roof leaders, cellar drains,
yard drains, area drains,
GL-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
foundation drains, drains from
springs and swampy areas,
manhole covers, cross
connections between storm drains
and sanitary sewers, catch basins,
cooling towers, stormwaters,
surface runoff, street wash waters,
or drainage. (Inflow does not
include infiltration).
Interceptor Sewer—A sewer without
building sewer connections which
is used to collect and carry flows
from main and trunk sewers to a
central point for treatment and
discharge.
L
Load Allocation (LA) —The portion
of a receiving water's loading
capacity that is attributed to one
of its existing or future nonpoint
sources of pollution, or to natural
background sources.
M
Major Facility—Any NPDES facility
or activity classified as such by the
Regional Administrator, or in the
case of approved state programs,
the Regional Administrator in
conjunction with the State
Director. Major municipal
dischargers include all facilities
with design flows of greater than
one million gallons per day and
facilities with EPA/state approved
industrial pretreatment programs.
Major industrial facilities are
determined based on specific
ratings criteria developed by
EPA/state.
Million Gallons per Day (mgd)—A
unit of flow commonly used for
wastewater discharges. One mgd
is equivalent to 1.547 cubic feet
per second.
Mixing Zone—An area where an
effluent discharge undergoes
initial dilution and is extended to
cover the secondary mixing in the
ambient water body. A mixing
zone is an allocated impact zone
where water quality criteria can
be exceeded as long as acutely
toxic conditions are prevented.
N
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)—
The national program for issuing,
modifying, revoking and
reissuing, terminating,
monitoring and enforcing
permits, and imposing and
enforcing pretreatment
requirements, under Sections 307,
318, 402, and 405 of CWA.
National Pretreatment Standard or
Pretreatment Standard—Any
regulation promulgated by the
EPA in accordance with Sections
307 (b) and (c) of the CWA that
applies to a specific category of
industrial users and provides
limitations on the introduction of
pollutants into publicly owned
treatment works. This term
includes the prohibited discharge
standards under 40 CFR §403.5,
GL-4
-------
Glossary
including local limits [40 CFR
§403.30)].
0
Overflow Rate—Detention basin
release rate divided by the surface
area of the basin. It can be
thought of as an average flow rate
through the basin. Generally
expressed as gallons per day per
sq. ft. (gpd/sq.ft.).
P
Peak Flow—The maximum flow that
occurs over a specific length of
time (e.g., daily, hourly,
instantaneous).
Point Source—Any discernible,
confined, and discrete
conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well,
discrete fixture, container, rolling
stock, concentrated animal
feeding operation, landfill
leachate collection system, vessel,
or other floating craft from which
pollutants are or may be
discharged.
Pollutant—Dredged spoil, solid waste,
incinerator residue, filter
backwash, sewage, garbage,
sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials
(except those regulated under the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 201 let
seq.)), heat, wrecked or discarded
equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt
and industrial, municipal, and
agricultural waste discharged into
water.
Precipitation Event—An occurrence
of rain, snow, sleet, hail, or other
form of precipitation.
Precipitation events are generally
characterized by parameters of
duration and intensity (inches or
millimeters per unit of time).
This definition will be highly site-
specific. For example, a
precipitation event could be
defined as 0.25 inches or more of
precipitation in the form of rain
or 3 inches or more of
precipitation in the form of sleet
or snow, reported during the
preceding 24-hour period at a
specific gaging station. A
precipitation event could also be
defined by a minimum time
interval between measurable
amounts of precipitation (e.g., 6
hours between the end of rainfall
and the beginning of the next
rainfall).
Pretreatment—The reduction of the
amount of pollutants, the
elimination of pollutants, or the
alteration of the nature of
pollutant properties in
wastewater prior to or in lieu of
discharging or otherwise
introducing such pollutants into
a publicly owned treatment
works [40 CFR §403.3(q)].
Primary Clarification or Equivalent—
The level of treatment that would
typically be provided by one or
more treatment technologies
under peak wet weather flow
GL-5
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
conditions. Options for defining
primary clarification include a
design standard (e.g., side wall
depth and maximum overflow
rate), a performance standard
(e.g., percent removal), or an
effluent standard (e.g.,
concentration of pollutants).
"Equivalent to primary
clarification" is site-specific and
includes any single technology or
combination of technologies
shown by the permittee to achieve
primary clarification under the
presumption approach. The
permittee is responsible for
showing equivalency to primary
treatment as part of the
evaluation of CSO control
alternatives during LTCP
development. Primary
clarification is discussed in more
detail in the Combined Sewer
Overflows-Guidance for Long-
Term Control Plan (EPA, 1995a).
Primary Treatment—The practice of
removing some portion of the
suspended solids and organic
matter in a wastewater through
sedimentation. Common usage of
this term also includes
preliminary treatment to remove
wastewater constituents that may
cause maintenance or operational
problems in the system (i.e., grit
removal, screening for rags and
debris, oil and grease removal,
etc.).
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW)—A treatment works, as
defined by Section 212 of the
CWA, that is owned by the state
or municipality. This definition
includes any devices and systems
used in the storage, treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of
municipal sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature. It also
includes sewers, pipes, and other
conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW treatment
plant [40 CFR §403.3].
R
Rainfall Duration—The length of
time of a rainfall event.
Rainfall Intensity—The amount of
rainfall occurring in a unit of
time, usually expressed in inches
per hour.
Regulator—A device in combined
sewer systems for diverting wet
weather flows which exceed
downstream capacity to an
overflow.
s
Sanitary Sewer—A pipe or conduit
(sewer) intended to carry
wastewater or water-borne wastes
from homes, businesses, and
industries to the POTW.
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO) —
Untreated or partially treated
sewage overflows from a sanitary
sewer collection system.
Secondary Treatment—
Technology-based requirements
for direct discharging municipal
sewage treatment facilities.
Standard is based on a
combination of physical and
GL-6
-------
Glossary
biological processes typical for the
treatment of pollutants in
municipal sewage. Standards are
expressed as a minimum level of
effluent quality in terms of:BOD5,
suspended solids (SS), and pH
(except as provided for special
considerations and treatment
equivalent to secondary
treatment).
Sensitive Areas—Areas of particular
environmental significance or
sensitivity that could be adversely
affected by a combined sewer
overflow, including Outstanding
National Resource Waters,
National Marine Sanctuaries,
water with threatened or
endangered species, waters with
primary contact recreation, public
drinking water intakes, shellfish
beds, and other areas identified by
the permittee or National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permitting authority, in
coordination with the appropriate
state or federal agencies.
Solid and Floatable Materials—Solid
or semi-solid materials should be
defined on a case-by-case basis
determined by the control
technologies proposed by the
permittee to control these
materials. The term generally
includes materials that might
impair the aesthetics of the
receiving water body.
State Revolving Fund Program—A
federal program created by the
Clean Water Act Amendments in
1987 that offers low interest loans
for wastewater treatment projects.
STORET—EPAs computerized
STOrage and RETrieval water
quality database that includes
physical, chemical, and biological
data measured in waterbodies
throughout the United States.
Storm Water—Storm water runoff,
snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage [40 CFR
§122.26(b)(13)].
T
Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL)—The amount of
pollutant, or property of a
pollutant, from point, nonpoint,
and natural background sources,
that may be discharged to a water
quality-limited receiving water.
Any pollutant loading above the
TMDL results in violation of
applicable water quality
standards.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—A
measure of the filterable solids
present in a sample, as
determined by the method
specified in 40 CFR Part 136.
V
Variance—Any mechanism or
provision under Sections 301 or
316 of the CWA or under 40
CWR Part 125, or in the
applicable "effluent limitations
guidelines" which allows
modification to or waiver of the
generally applicable effluent
limitations requirements or time
GL-7
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
deadlines of the CWA. This
includes provisions, which allow
the establishment of alternative
limitations based on
fundamentally different factors.
w
Wasteload Allocation (WLA)—The
proportion of a receiving water's
total maximum daily load that is
allocated to one of its existing or
future point sources of pollution.
Water Quality Criteria—Comprised
of numeric and narrative criteria.
Numeric criteria are scientifically
derived ambient concentrations
developed by EPA or states for
various pollutants of concern to
protect human health and aquatic
life. Narrative criteria are
statements that describe the
desired water quality goal.
Water Quality Standard (WQS)—A
law or regulation that consists of
the beneficial use or uses of a
waterbody, the numeric and
narrative water quality criteria
that are necessary to protect the
use or uses of that particular
waterbody, and an
antidegradation statement.
Waters of the United States-All waters
that are currently used, were used
in the past, or may be susceptible
to use in interstate or foreign
commerce, including all waters
subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide. Waters of the United States
include but are not limited to all
interstate waters and intrastate
lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats,
sand flats, wetlands, sloughs,
prairie potholes, wet meadows,
play lakes, or natural ponds. [See
40 CFR §122.2 for the complete
definition.]
Wet Weather Flow—Dry weather flow
combined with stormwater
introduced into a combined
sewer, and dry weather flow
combined with inflow in a
separate sewer.
Wet Weather Flow Conditions—
Hydraulic flow conditions within
the combined sewer system
resulting from a precipitation
event. Since the definition of
precipitation event is site-specific,
the permit writer should evaluate
and define certain site-specific
weather conditions that typically
contribute to wet weather flow.
EPA encourages permit writers to
include snowmelt as a condition
that typically contributes to wet
weather flow.
GL-8
-------
Executive Summary
Report to Congress on
Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined
Sewer Overflow Control Policy
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or "the
Agency") is transmitting this
Report to Congress on the progress
made by EPA, states, and
municipalities in implementing and
enforcing the Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Control Policy signed
by the Administrator on April 11,
1994. This report is required by
Section 402 (q) (3) of the Clean Water
Act(CWA).
Overview and Background
Why is EPA preparing this report?
In the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2001, PL. 106-
554 (or "2000 amendments to the
CWA") Congress made several changes
to the CWA regarding CSOs,
including:
Section 402(q) Combined Sewer
Overflows
(3) Report-Not later than
September I, 2001, the
Administrator shall transmit to
Congress a report on the progress
made by EPA, states and
municipalities in implementing
and enforcing the CSO Control
Policy.
This Executive Summary provides an
overview of this report and highlights
report findings, key program
challenges, and EPA actions and next
steps to ensure effective
implementation and enforcement of
the CSO Control Policy.
What are CSOs, and why are they a
problem?
As defined in the CSO Control Policy,
a combined sewer system (CSS) is:
A wastewater collection system
owned by a state or municipality
(as defined by Section 502(4) of
the CWA) which conveys sanitary
wastewaters (domestic, commercial
and industrial wastewaters) and
storm water through a single-pipe
system to a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW)...
Further, a CSO is defined as:
In this chapter:
Overview and Background
Report Findings
Key Program Challenges
EPA Actions and Next Steps
ES-1
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
The discharge from a CSS at a
point prior to the POTW...
CSSs were among the earliest sewers
built in the United States and
continued to be built until the middle
of the twentieth century. During
precipitation events (e.g.,rainfall or
snowmelt), the volume of sanitary
wastewater and storm water runoff
entering CSSs often exceeds
conveyance capacity. Combined sewer
systems are designed to overflow
directly to surface waters when their
design capacity is exceeded. Some
CSOs occur infrequently; others, with
every precipitation event. Because
CSOs contain raw sewage and
contribute pathogens, solids, debris,
and toxic pollutants to receiving
waters, CSOs can create serious public
health and water quality concerns.
CSOs have caused or contributed to
beach closures, shellfish bed closures,
contamination of drinking water
supplies, and other environmental and
public health problems.
What statutory and regulatory
framework applies to CSOs?
The CWA establishes national goals
and requirements for maintaining and
restoring the nation's waters. As point
sources, CSOs are subject to the
technology- and water quality-based
requirements of the CWA. They are
not, however, subject to the secondary
treatment standards that apply to
POTWs.
In 1989, EPA initiated action to clarify
requirements for CSOs through the
publication of the National CSO
Control Strategy (54 FR 37370,
September 8, 1989). As a result, states
developed—and EPA approved—state
CSO strategies. In 1992, a
management advisory group to EPA
recommended that the Agency begin a
dialogue with key stakeholders to
better define the CWA expectations
for controlling CSOs. A workgroup of
CSO stakeholders was assembled
during the summer of 1992. The
workgroup achieved a negotiated
dialogue that led to agreement on
many technical issues, but no
consensus on a policy framework.
Individuals from the workgroup
representing stakeholder groups met
in October 1992 and developed a
framework document for CSO control
that served as the basis for portions of
the draft CSO Control Policy issued
for public comment in January 1993.
With extensive and documented
stakeholder support, EPA issued the
final CSO Control Policy on April 19,
1994 (59 FR 18688). When the CSO
Control Policy was released, many
stakeholders, key members of
Congress, and EPA advocated that it
be endorsed in the CWA to ensure its
full implementation.
In the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2001, PL. 106-554,
Congress also stated that:
...each permit, order or decree
issued pursuant to this Act after
the date of enactment of this
subsection for a discharge from a
municipal combined storm and
sanitary sewer shall conform to the
CSO Control Policy signed by the
Administrator on April 11, 1994.
In addition, Congress required
preparation of a second report to
Congress by December 2003. The
second report will summarize the
ES-2
-------
Executive Summary
extent of human health and
environmental impacts from CSOs
and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs),
quantify and characterize resources
spent by municipalities to address
these impacts, and evaluate the
technologies used by municipalities to
control overflows. EPA collected data
during the preparation of this first
report in anticipation of preparing the
second report.
What is the CSO Control Policy?
The CSO Control Policy "represents a
comprehensive national strategy to
ensure that municipalities, permitting
authorities, water quality standards
authorities and the public engage in a
comprehensive and coordinated effort
to achieve cost effective CSO controls
that ultimately meet appropriate
health and environmental objectives."
In 1994, EPA estimated that the cost of
CSO control, consistent with the CSO
Control Policy, would be $40 billion.
In the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Report to Congress (EPA, 1997b), EPA
estimated the cost to be $44.7 billion
(1996 dollars).
The CSO Control Policy established
four key principles to guide CSO
planning decisions by municipalities,
NPDES authorities, and water quality
standards authorities:
1. Providing clear levels of control
that would be presumed to meet
appropriate health and
environmental objectives.
2. Providing sufficient flexibility to
municipalities, especially
financially disadvantaged
communities, to consider the site-
specific nature of CSOs and to
determine the most cost-effective
means of reducing pollutants and
meeting CWA objectives and
requirements.
3. Allowing a phased approach to
implementation of CSO controls
considering a community's
financial capability.
4. Reviewing and revising, as
appropriate, water quality
standards and their
implementation procedures when
developing CSO control plans to
reflect the site-specific wet weather
impacts of CSOs.
The CSO Control Policy expected that
NPDES permits or other enforceable
mechanisms would require CSO
communities to implement nine
minimum technology-based controls
(the "nine minimum controls" or
NMC) by January 1, 1997, and to
develop CSO long-term control plans
(LTCPs). The LTCP must assess a
range of control options, including
costs and benefits, and lead to
selection of an alternative that would
achieve appropriate water quality
objectives and compliance with the
CWA. Once the NPDES authority and
CSO community reached agreement
on an LTCP, the CSO community
would design and construct the CSO
controls as soon as practicable.
What methodology did EPA use for
this Report to Congress?
The basic study approach for this
report was to collect data and report
on implementation and enforcement
activities across EPA headquarters and
the nine EPA regions and 32 states
ES-3
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
known to have CSO communities
within their jurisdictions. This
entailed:
Reviewing existing information in
state and EPA permit and
enforcement files, and federal data
bases.
• Performing a literature search on
policy, technology, and
environmental data.
Using modeling projections in
certain cases.
• Conducting site visits to five EPA
Regions and 16 states in which
more than 90 percent of the
nation's CSSs are located.
• Developing 15 CSO community
case studies.
• Reviewing data from surveys
conducted by the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA) and the CSO Partnership.
• Organizing a stakeholder
discussion of the preliminary
issues and findings from the
report at a meeting in Chicago,
Illinois on July 12 and 13, 2001.
These efforts have allowed the Agency
to compile a data base of all CSO
permits, prepare profiles of all state
CSO programs, and identify and
document data gaps. The
methodology for this Report to
Congress recognizes that the Report to
Congress required in 2003 will focus
on the extent of environmental and
human health impacts, resources
spent, and an evaluation of
technologies for CSO control.
Report Findings
What are the overall findings of this
Report to Congress?
Progress has been made in
implementing and enforcing
CSO controls prior to, and as a
result of, the 1994 CSO Control Policy.
Cities that have made substantial
progress and investments in CSO
control are realizing public health and
water quality benefits. The CSO
Control Policy provides a sound
approach to assess and implement cost
effective CSO controls that meet
appropriate environmental goals and
objectives and achieve CWA
compliance. It fosters and expects
significant involvement of the public
and the NPDES and water quality
standards authorities.
Although federal, state, and municipal
officials are involved in a broad range
of activities to regulate and control
CSOs, CSOs continue to pose a
serious environmental and public
health threat. Much remains to be
done to fully realize the objectives of
the CSO Control Policy and the CWA.
The CSO Control Policy provides an
appropriate framework for
communities to control CSOs. EPA
believes the codification of the CSO
Control Policy through the 2000
amendments to the CWA will focus
greater attention on implementation
of the CSO Control Policy.
EPA believes a number of factors have
affected the degree of implementation
of the CSO Control Policy, including
the lack of any statutory or regulatory
endorsement of the CSO Control
ES-4
-------
Executive Summary
Policy from 1994 until December
2000, and competing priorities at the
federal, state and local level.
Below, EPA presents a summary of the
key findings of this report, organized
along four central themes. These
themes are:
• A description of the status of
CSOs in the United States.
An overview of progress in
implementing and enforcing the
CSO Control Policy, examining
key programmatic
accomplishments at the federal
and state levels, as well as
municipal actions to implement
the technology- and water quality-
based controls.
• Early feedback on the nature and
extent of environmental results
stemming from CSO control.
A review of remaining challenges
in implementing and enforcing
the CSO Control Policy.
What is the status of CSOs in the
United States?
Today, there are 772 CSO
communities with a total of 9,471
CSOs that are identified and regulated
by 859 NPDES permits. Key attributes
of the CSO universe include:
CSSs are found in 32 states
(including the District of
Columbia) and nine EPA Regions.
They are regionally concentrated
in older communities in the
Northeast and Great Lakes regions
as shown in Figure ES.l.
• CSSs are diverse, varying in
configuration, size, age, number
and location of outfalls. For
example:
Prior to CSO control, San
Francisco estimated that CSO
discharges from 43 combined
sewer outfalls occurred
approximately 58 times per
year, with a total annual
overflow volume of 7.5 billion
gallons, discharging into Islais
Creek, San Francisco Bay, and
the Pacific Ocean. As a result
of its CSO control program,
San Francisco has eliminated
seven outfalls and reduced
total annual overflow volume
by more than 80 percent.
I In Bremerton, WA, prior to
initiation of CSO control, the
average annual CSO volume
was more than 120 million
gallons from 16 CSOs
discharging into Puget Sound.
As part of its CSO control
program, Bremerton has
eliminated three outfalls and
reduced total annual overflow
volume by nearly 70 percent.
Of the 772 CSO communities,
approximately 30 percent have
populations greater than 75,000,
and approximately 30 percent are
very small with total service
populations of less than 10,000.
• EPA estimated in 1978 that there
were as many as 1,300 CSO
communities. Differences with
today's 772 CSO communities are
primarily attributable to the
improved inventory of CSO
Since implementing CSO controls, San
Francisco has reduced the number of CSO
events and pollutant loads by an average of
Photo: Photodisc
ES-5
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
Figure ES.1
Distribution of CSO
Permits by Region and
State
CSOs are found throughout the
U.S., but are most heavily
concentrated in the Northeast and
Great Lakes regions.
| Region 5
Total Permits: 859 107107
Region 1 0
1 1 Region 8
1 3 1
93 Region 2
52
:
74
31
: I
Region 1
44
23
15 -
1 • .
AK OR WA
CA
Region 9
SD
MN OH Wl
NJ NY
CT MA ME NH Rl VT
155
58
IA KS MO NE
Region 7
GA KY TN
Region 4
DC DE MD PA VA WV
Region 3
ES-6
-------
Executive Summary
permits developed for this report,
completed sewer separation
projects, and better differentiation
between CSSs and separate sewer
systems.
National projections of annual
CSO discharges are estimated at
1,260 billion gallons per year.
Available data indicate the
following distribution in receiving
waters for CSOs: 43 percent to
rivers, 38 percent to streams, five
percent to oceans, estuaries and
bays, two percent to ponds/lakes,
and 12 percent to other waters
(ditches, canals, unclassified
waters).
Uncontrolled CSOs continue to
impair water quality in areas
served by CSSs:
According to EPA's 1998
National Water Quality
Inventory, CSOs are a source
of impairment for 12 percent
of assessed estuaries (in square
miles) and two percent of
assessed lakes (in shore miles)
(EPA, 2000a).
According to a state-by-state
report of impaired waters
listed under CWA Section
303 (d), less than one percent
of the nearly 15,600 impaired
water bodies in states with
CSOs are impaired by CSOs.
Further, approximately eight
percent of the assessed water
bodies are impaired by urban
runoff (which may include
CSOs). Appendix N provides a
summary of the 303 (d) listed
waters.
I The Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC)
reported in its 2000 Testing the
Waters report that sewage
spills and overflows accounted
for 2,230 beach closings and
advisories in 2000. Sewage
spills in the NRDC report
include combined sewer
overflows, sanitary sewer
overflows, and breaks in sewer
lines or septic systems
(NRDC, 2001).
Localized impacts of uncontrolled
CSO discharges have been well
documented by some
communities. For example:
New York City reported that
prior to CSO control, CSOs
caused or contributed to
shellfishing restrictions for
more than 30,000 acres of
shellfish beds. In 1998, New
York City reported that
improvements to sewage
treatment infrastructure and
operations, including CSO
control, led to the lifting of
shell-fishing restrictions.
I The State of New Jersey
reported that prior to CSO
floatables control, CSOs
caused or contributed to
hundreds of days of ocean
beach closings each year. The
control of floatables in CSOs
and storm water discharges
has reduced the average
annual days of ocean beach
closings by more than 95
percent.
Fecal coliform concentrations in New York
Harbor have declined dramatically from the
early 1970s to the present. This
improvement is largely attributable to
abatement of raw sewage discharges
through the construction and expansion of
POTWs, elimination of illegal discharges, and
reduction of CSOs.
Photo: Photodtsc
ES-7
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
What is the status of implementation
and enforcement of the 1994 CSO
Control Policy?
There has been definitive progress
implementing and enforcing CSO
controls prior to, and as a result of, the
CSO Control Policy, resulting in
demonstrable environmental progress
in some communities where CSO
controls have been instituted. EPA,
states, and municipalities all have
played important roles in advancing
the CSO Control Policy.
EPA Progress
EPA issued guidance, supported
communication and outreach, and
provided compliance assistance
and some financial support for
CSO control.
• EPA issued guidance on
coordinating CSO LTCPs with
water quality standards in 2001.
EPA issued extensive technical
and policy guidance documents to
foster implementation of CSO
controls dealing with the NMC,
monitoring and modeling,
financial capability, LTCPs, and
permit writing and water quality
standards reviews. EPA has
sponsored and conducted more
than 15 workshops and seminars
on various aspects of
implementation of the CSO
Control Policy as well as other
compliance assistance activities.
• Administrative and civil judicial
actions have been used
successfully together with
permitting and compliance
assistance activities to foster
development and implementation
of CSO controls. Many of the CSO
communities that have made the
most progress to date, including
several of the largest
municipalities in the United
States, have done so as the result
of enforcement actions.
• EPA issued the Compliance and
Enforcement Strategy for Combined
Sewer Overflows and Sanitary
Sewer Overflows in 2000.
State Progress
• Most states have made efforts to
regulate and control CSOs.
NPDES authorities have done
extensive work placing conditions
for CSO control in permits. In
total, 94 percent of CSO
communities are required to
control CSOs, either through a
permit or an enforceable order.
All 32 states with CSSs developed
CSO strategies in response to the
National CSO Control Strategy.
Most states have adopted the key
provisions of the CSO Control
Policy:
27 require implementation of
the NMC or a suite of best
management practices (BMPs)
that include or are analogous
to the NMC.
25 require development and
implementation of LTCPs.
Most CSO communities are
required to implement BMP
measures to mitigate CSO-related
impacts:
ES-8
-------
Executive Summary
I 94 percent of CSO permits
require implementation of
one or more BMPs.
86 percent of CSO permits
have requirements to
implement the NMC or a set
of BMPs that includes or is
analogous to the NMC.
6 percent of CSO permits do
not require any BMPs.
Imposition of permit or other
enforceable requirements for more
capital intensive CSO facility
planning (e.g., sewer separation or
underground storage) is less
extensive:
82 percent of CSO permits
include enforceable
requirements to develop and
implement CSO facilities plan.
65 percent of CSO permits
contain requirements to
develop and implement an
LTCP.
18 percent of CSO permits do
not require CSO facilities
planning.
Several states have addressed the
full range of programmatic
components (e.g.,guidance,
compliance assistance,
communications and information
management, among others).
Other states, principally those
with fewer CSO communities,
have dealt with CSOs on a site-
specific basis.
Many states have provided
compliance assistance and most
include compliance monitoring of
CSOs in their NPDES inspections
programs. Many state strategies
have been updated since issuance
of the CSO Control Policy in
1994. Yet, state programs vary
widely in the approaches used to
implement the CSO Control
Policy.
Most states have not developed
separate, specific procedures for
coordinating the review of water
quality standards with LTCP
development. Some states have
approaches for considering water
quality standards for CSO
receiving waters. For example:
Indiana passed legislation
providing a mechanism
whereby CSO communities
may apply for a temporary
suspension of state water
quality standards when certain
criteria are met.
Maine passed legislation
codifying standard procedures
for providing variances for
CSO receiving waters during
the implementation of an
approved LTCP.
Massachusetts added a series
of refined uses to its state
water quality standards use
classification system to
address CSO-impacted waters.
Illinois' water quality
standards program framework
presumes compliance with
water quality standards upon
the completed
implementation of a CSO
facility plan that meets the
ES-9
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
criteria for the state-derived
presumption approach.
Michigan rules allow the use
of alternate design flows (i.e.,
alternate to 7Q10 low flows or
95-percent exceedance flows)
when determining water
quality based requirements for
intermittent wet weather
discharges such as treated
CSOs.
New Hampshire has
developed a surface water
partial-use designation. A
partial-use designation is
made only if the community
planning process and
watershed planning efforts
demonstrate that the
allowance of minor CSO
discharges is the most
environmentally protective
and cost-effective option
available.
At least 16 states have brought
enforcement actions that have
included CSO violations. The
enforcement actions have
primarily been administrative
actions, such as administrative
compliance orders.
Municipal Progress
Most CSO communities have
documented CSO control through
some combination of the NMC
and other best management
practices.
I 77 percent of CSO
communities have submitted
documentation of
implementation of one or
more of the NMC to their
NPDES authority.
32 percent have submitted
documentation of
implementation of all NMC.
A smaller number of CSO
communities have developed
LTCPs.
I 34 percent of CSO
communities have submitted
draft LTCPs to their NPDES
authority.
19 percent have had their
LTCPs approved.
17 percent have initiated
implementation of LTCPs or
other CSO facility plans.
I 87 CSO communities have
substantially completed
implementation of their
LTCPs or other CSO control
programs.
CSO communities with LTCPs
developed or approved are
pursuing attainment of water
quality standards in roughly equal
measure under three approaches -
demonstration, presumption, and
a combination of the
demonstration and presumption
approaches.
LTCPs indicate that CSO
communities are relying on a wide
range of technologies to address
CSOs including storage
(e.g..tunnels), expanded treatment
capacity, sewer separation, and
improved conveyance. EPA will be
examining the environmental
ES-10
-------
Executive Summary
benefits of various CSO control
technologies, including sewer
separation, in the second Report
to Congress in 2003.
What is the nature and extent of
environmental accomplishments
from CSO control?
EPA has seen some examples of
demonstrable public health and
environmental improvements in
communities that have made
substantial progress in controlling
CSOs. The second Report to Congress,
due in 2003, will focus on the
environmental and human health
impacts of CSOs and SSOs, the
resources spent by CSO communities
in controlling them, and an evaluation
of CSO technologies. However, some
early insights into the environmental
gains from CSO controls are provided
so that Congress has some sense of the
return on federal, state and municipal
investments. The following
preliminary observations have been
made:
• According to EPAs initial
modeling estimates, CSO controls
have resulted in an estimated 12
percent reduction of untreated
CSO volume and pollutant
loadings since 1994. EPA
developed a preliminary model,
GPRACSO, which estimates that
since 1994, annual CSO volumes
have decreased by 170 billion
gallons per year. It also estimates
that loadings of biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) have
decreased by 125 million pounds
per year.
The number of CSO communities
documenting environmental
results from CSO control is
growing. EPA has identified a
number of notable CSO efforts in
which significant infrastructure
has been completed and
environmental improvements
noted. For example:
I Prior to CSO control South
Portland, Maine's 35 CSOs
discharged approximately 100
million gallons of combined
sewer overflows each year to
the Fore River and Casco Bay.
As of 2001, South Portland
has spent nearly $9 million on
capital improvements in the
CSS and invests another
$350,000 annually on CSO-
related operations and
maintenance activities. These
expenditures have resulted in
the elimination of 25 of their
35 CSOs, and an 80-percent
reduction in the amount of
untreated combined sewer
overflows discharged from the
CSS each year. The City of
South Portland has been
recognized by the Friends of
Casco Bay for its efforts to
control CSOs and the
resulting positive impact on
the Bay.
Prior to CSO control,
Saginaw, Michigan's 36 CSOs
discharged nearly 3 billion
gallons of combined sewage
each year to the Saginaw
River. As of 2001, Saginaw has
spent nearly $100 million on
capital improvements in the
CSS. These expenditures have
resulted in the elimination of
20 of 36 CSOs, and a
The City of South Portland has been
recognized by the Friends of Casco Bay
(shown here) for its positive impact on the
Bay.
Photo: Photodtsc
ES-11
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
75-percent reduction in the
amount of combined sewage
discharged from the CSS each
year. The Saginaw River is
now characterized by fishing
periodicals as one of the top
walleye fisheries in the
country.
Key Program Challenges
In developing this Report to
Congress, EPA identified several
noteworthy challenges to CSO
control in the United States. Each of
these challenges, based on an overall
synthesis of the report findings, is
briefly described below.
Financial Challenges
When the CSO Control Policy was
issued, EPA estimated the nationwide
financial need to control CSOs,
consistent with the CSO Control
Policy, at $40 billion (in 1992 dollars).
More recently, data from EPAs 1996
Needs Survey sets national CSO needs
at $44.7 billion (in 1996 dollars). CSO
control costs will continue to be
considerable, and EPA has received
numerous requests from CSO
communities for financial assistance,
given mounting water and wastewater
infrastructure costs and the resource-
intensive nature of CSO controls. CSO
LTCPs typically involve major
infrastructure investments that must
compete with other infrastructure
needs. Respondents to the AMSA and
CSO Partnership surveys reported that
funding is the primary challenge in
implementing LTCPs.
CSO communities are using a
combination of local funding sources,
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(SRF) loans, state grants and loans,
and, in special cases, line item
congressional appropriations to fund
CSO controls. EPA does not have data
on the total extent of CSO spending.
Figure ES.2
SRF Loans for CSO
Projects, 1988—2000
SRF loans for CSO projects
reached more than $245 million in
1994 and began to rise again in
1998, reaching more than $400
million in 2000.This suggests that
funding for the implementation of
CSO controls lagged several years
behind the issuances of the 1989
Strategy and the 1994 Policy.
$410.6m
$272.8m
$245.4m
$180.1m
$121.5m
,„_, $14.6m
$0 $4.7m
1988 1989 1990
$169.5m
$190.4m
$168.1m
$157.8m
$139.6m
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
ES-12
-------
Executive Summary
Use of SRF loans for CSO
infrastructure continues to climb.
• State use of the SRF to fund CSO
control projects has increased
steadily since 1990. As shown in
Figure ES.2, CSO loans in 2000
were the highest ever, accounting
for $411 million, or about 12
percent, of total SRF assistance.
SRF loans for CSO control totaled
$2.08 billion from 1989 to 2000
(about 5 percent of the total CSO
need). States with the highest SRF
spending levels for CSO control
(typically driven by a few large
projects) were Illinois, Michigan,
New York, and California.
Congress has appropriated specific
CSO infrastructure grants totaling
over $600 million for 32 CSO
communities since FY 1992.
Congress has shown some support for
additional funding for CSO control.
The 2000 amendments to the CWA
authorize EPA to provide grants to
CSO communities, either directly or
through states, for planning, design,
and construction of CSO and sanitary
sewer overflow (SSO) treatment. The
amendments also require EPA to
provide technical assistance and grants
to POTWs for watershed-based
management of CSOs, SSOs, and
storm water discharges. The EPA
Administration requested $450 million
for this program in its FY 2002
budget. To date, however, Congress
has not appropriated funds for these
grant programs.
Water Quality Standards Review
The CSO Control Policy anticipated
that development of LTCPs would be
coordinated with the review and
revision, as appropriate, of water
quality standards. Many reasons,
including institutional barriers, exist
for the lack of coordination in the
LTCP development and water quality
standards review processes. States cite
public pressure to maintain their
water quality standards, EPA
requirements for development of a
"use attainability analysis" (UAA)
prior to revising a state water quality
standard, and the lack of water quality
monitoring data that could be used to
justify water quality standards
revisions. During EPA-sponsored
listening sessions held in the spring of
1999, designed to support
development of guidance for
coordinating CSO LTCPs and water
quality standards reviews, many
participants expressed concern about
the complexity of the process for
revising water quality standards.
Among the changes in the 2000
amendments to the CWA, Congress
added Section 402 (q) to require
issuance of guidance to facilitate the
conduct of water quality and
designated use reviews for CSO
receiving waters by July 31, 2001. EPA
prepared a draft guidance for public
review and comment (66 FR 364,
January 3, 2001) and issued the final
guidance on August 2, 2001.
Information Management and
Performance Measurement
This Report to Congress relied
extensively on an assessment of CSO
information that resides in EPA and
ES-13
-------
Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy
state files. EPA believes that this
additional information on progress in
implementing CSO controls and
derived water quality benefits exists at
the community level. EPA was
hindered by the lack of a national data
system for comprehensively evaluating
the implementation and effectiveness
of the CSO program, and by the lack
of clear, national performance
measures in place to assess the
effectiveness of CSO control efforts on
a national basis.
EPA Actions and Next Steps
What actions will EPA take to
improve implementation and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy?
Despite significant efforts and
progress by EPA, states, and
CSO communities to
implement CSO controls, more work
remains to ensure that human health
and the environment are adequately
protected from CSOs. The 1994 CSO
Control Policy provides a sound and
appropriate framework for developing
and implementing cost-effective CSO
controls. With the codification of the
CSO Control Policy in the 2000
amendments to the CWA, EPA will
continue to work in partnership with
the states to address remaining CSO
issues. EPA will work aggressively with
NPDES authorities, water quality
standards authorities, and CSO
communities to implement and
enforce the CSO Control Policy. Based
on the findings of this Report to
Congress, EPA will pursue a number
of activities to ensure the continued
effective implementation and
enforcement of the CSO Control
Policy.
Ensure That all CSOs are
Appropriately Controlled.
• Implement the "shall conform"
statutory mandate.
Begin efforts to implement
new CWA Section 402 (q) (1),
which requires that future
permits or other enforceable
mechanisms for CSOs
conform to the CSO Control
Policy.
Ensure all CSOs are covered by an
NPDES permit or other
enforceable mechanism.
I Follow up with NPDES
authorities to ensure that
NPDES permits or other
enforceable mechanisms are
issued as soon as possible for
those CSO communities that
have not yet been required to
control CSOs. EPA will also
work with the states to ensure
that permits and enforcement
actions (e.g..orders, decrees)
conform with the CSO
Control Policy, as required by
the 2000 amendments to the
CWA.
Improve Implementation of the CSO
Control Policy.
• Advocate CSO control on a
watershed basis.
Continue efforts to focus
protection of water quality on
a watershed scale, and support
development of LTCPs on a
ES-14
-------
Executive Summary
watershed basis. EPA will
continue efforts to encourage
integration of wet weather
programs, including support
to facilitate wet weather pilot
projects as designated in the
2000 CWA amendments.
Work with states to speed the
water quality standards review and
revision process.
Continue to work with states,
communities, and
constituency groups on
coordinating the review and
revision of water quality
standards with development
of LTCPs. EPA will establish a
tracking system for water
quality standards reviews on
CSO receiving waters. EPA
will also assess the need for
additional guidance and tools
to facilitate the water quality
standards review process for
all sources, including CSOs.
Strengthen CSO information
management.
Ensure that the Office of
Water and the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance coordinate
information management and
performance measurement
activities to demonstrate the
environmental outcomes and
benefits of CSO control.
Improve compliance assistance
and enforcement.
CSOs will continue to be a
national compliance and
enforcement priority in fiscal
years 2002 and 2003. EPA will
work closely with NPDES
authorities to target
enforcement actions, where
appropriate, to ensure
compliance with the CSO
requirements in NPDES
permits or other enforceable
mechanisms. In addition, EPA
will develop and promote
compliance assistance tools.
Initiate Efforts for 2003 Report to
Congress.
Initiate efforts to define the scope
and methodology for the second
Report to Congress on efforts
related to CSO controls. By
December 2003, EPA is required
to summarize the extent of human
health and environmental impacts
caused by CSOs and SSOs, report
on the resources spent by
municipalities to address these
impacts, and evaluate the
technologies used, including
whether sewer separation is
environmentally preferred for all
situations. EPA will build on CSO
data collected for this report and
develop a methodology for
addressing the challenges of
collecting and analyzing SSO data.
ES-15
------- |