report to congress on implementation and enforcement of ...epa undertook report preparation between...

Typical CSO outfall discharge following astorm

Photo: NJ Department of Environmental Protection

P.L. 106–554 also requires EPA tosubmit a second Report to Congressby December 2003. The second reportwill summarize the extent of humanhealth and environmental impactsfrom CSOs and sanitary seweroverflows (SSOs), quantify andcharacterize resources spent bymunicipalities to address theseimpacts, and evaluate the technologiesused by municipalities to controloverflows. EPA collected data duringthe preparation of this first report inanticipation of preparing the secondreport.

1.1 Brief History of CombinedSewers and CSOs

Combined sewer systems (CSSs)are wastewater collectionsystems designed to carry

sanitary sewage, industrial andcommercial wastewater, and stormwater runoff from rainfall orsnowmelt in a single system of pipesto a publicly owned treatment works(POTW).

Chapter 1

This report presents the resultsof the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA)

assessment of the implementation andenforcement of its 1994 CombinedSewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy(59 FR 18688). This report directlyresponds to a Congressional mandateestablished in December 2000, whenCongress amended the Clean WaterAct (CWA). In part, the amendments(P.L. 106–554) added Section402(q)(3), which requires:

Not later than September 1, 2001,

the Administrator shall transmit to

Congress a report on the progress

made by the Environmental

Protection Agency, states, and

municipalities in implementing

and enforcing the CSO Control

Policy.

EPA undertook report preparationbetween January and August 2001.During this time EPA developed anextensive methodology, collected datafrom federal, state, and local sources,performed analyses, coordinated withstakeholders, and prepared this report.

1-1

1.1 Brief History ofCombined Sewers andCSOs

1.2 Organization of theReport

Introduction

In this chapter:

CSO outfall to Piney Branch, Washington, D.C.

Photo: Limno-Tech, Inc.

1-2

Report to Congress on Implementation and Enforcement of the CSO Control Policy

During dry weather, CSSs conveydomestic, commercial, and industrialwastewater and limited amounts ofinfiltrated ground water. When rainfallor snowmelt reaches combinedsystems, total wastewater flows canexceed the capacity of systems ortreatment facilities. Most CSSs aredesigned to discharge excesswastewater directly to surface waterbodies such as lakes, rivers, estuaries,and coastal waters, as shown in Figure 1.1. The untreateddischarges—CSOs—can be a majorsource of water pollution incommunities served by CSSs.

CSOs are point source discharges andare subject to National PollutantDischarge Elimination System(NPDES) permit requirements,including the technology-based andwater quality-based requirements ofthe CWA. EPA has always asserted thatCSOs are exempt from CWAsecondary treatment standards. EPA’sinterpretation was upheld inMontgomery Environmental Coalitionv. Costle, 646 F2d 568 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

Nationwide, 859 NPDES permitsauthorize discharges from 9,471CSOsin 32 states. Most of the CSO

communities are located in theNortheast and Great Lakes regions,but some are located in the Midwest,Southeast and Pacific Northwest.

Control of CSOs is complex due tosite-specific variability in the volume,frequency, and characteristics of CSOs.To address these challenges, EPAissued a National Combined SewerOverflow Control Strategy on August 10, 1989 (54 FR 37370). The1989 CSO Control Strategyrecommended that all CSOs beidentified and categorized according tostatus of compliance with NPDESrequirements. The CSO ControlStrategy set forth three objectives:

● Ensure that if CSOs occur, they doso only as a result of wet weather.

● Bring all wet weather CSOdischarge points into compliancewith the technology-based andwater quality-based requirementsof the CWA.

● Minimize the impacts of CSOs onwater quality, aquatic biota, andhuman health.

Domestic, commercial and industrial sewage

Dry Weather

Sewer to treatment plant

StormorSt mt rdrainaiain

M xed sewage and storm waterix

erMix

Dam

Typical CombinedSewer Overflow

Structure

Combined sewer systems aredesigned to overflow directly tosurface water bodies such as lakes,rivers, estuaries, and coastal watersduring wet weather, whenwastewater flows exceed thecapacity of the sewer system ortreatment plant.

Figure 1.1

Chicago’s Navy Pier is one of manyattractions on the Lake Michigan waterfront.

Photo: Photodisc

Chapter 1—Introduction

1-3

In addition, the CSO Control Strategycharged all states to developpermitting strategies designed toreduce, eliminate, or control CSOs.

In early 1992, EPA accelerated effortsto bring combined sewer systems withCSOs into compliance with the CWA.The efforts included negotiations withrepresentatives of the regulatedcommunity, state regulatory agencies,and environmental groups. Theinitiative resulted in the developmentof the CSO Control Policy, which waspublished in the Federal Register onApril 19, 1994 (59 FR 18688). Thecomplete text of the CSO ControlPolicy is provided in Appendix A.

The CSO Control Policy is acomprehensive national strategy toensure that municipalities, NPDESpermitting and water qualitystandards authorities, EPA, and thepublic engage in a comprehensive andcoordinated planning effort to achievecost-effective CSO controls thatultimately meet the requirements ofthe CWA. The key principles of theCSO Control Policy are:

● Provide clear levels of control thatwould be presumed to meetappropriate health andenvironmental objectives.

● Provide sufficient flexibility tomunicipalities, especiallyfinancially disadvantagedcommunities, to consider the site-specific nature of CSOs, and todetermine the most cost-effectivemeans of reducing pollutants andmeeting CWA objectives andrequirements.

● Allow a phased approach toimplementation of CSO controlsconsidering a community’sfinancial capability.

● Review and revise, as appropriate,water quality standards and theirimplementation procedures whendeveloping CSO control plans toreflect the site-specific wet weatherimpacts of CSOs.

The CSO Control Policy containsprovisions for developing appropriatesite-specific NPDES permitrequirements for all CSSs thatoverflow due to wet weather events.The CSO Control Policy also includesan enforcement initiative requiringimmediate elimination of overflowsthat occur during dry weather andpromoting timely compliance withremaining CWA requirements.

Since 1994, federal, state, and localauthorities have undertakensignificant efforts to control wetweather discharges such as CSOs.Watershed protection initiatives,including the development of totalmaximum daily loads (TMDLs) forimpaired water bodies nationwide,have further focused attention on theimpacts of wet weather discharges.

In December 2000, Congress amendedthe CWA in recognition of thecontinuing challenges posed by wetweather discharges, including CSOs.The amendments added Section402(q)(1) to require conformancewith the CSO Control Policy inpermitting and enforcement activities.The amendment text is provided inAppendix A.

1-4


Congress also acknowledged the needfor funding to address wet weatherdischarges by authorizing $1.5 billionover fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for useby EPA and states to provide grants forcontrolling CSOs and SSOs. To date,however, Congress has notappropriated funds for these grantprograms.

In addition, Congress recognized theimportance of the watershed approachby authorizing “wet weather watershedpilot projects.”

1.2 Organization of the Report

The purpose of this report is todetail progress made by EPA,states, and municipalities in

implementing and enforcing the CSOControl Policy. The report containsseven chapters, the contents andpurpose of which are summarizedbelow.

● Chapter 2 summarizes the historyof regulatory efforts to controlCSOs. It describes actions andactivities leading to thedevelopment and release of the1989 National CSO ControlStrategy and the 1994 CSOControl Policy, and includes asummary of both.

● Chapter 3 describes themethodology used to develop thisReport to Congress. Tounderstand the implementation,enforcement, and generalapplication of the CSO ControlPolicy, EPA designed andimplemented a comprehensiveapproach to gather the necessaryinformation and data. This effort

included an extensive literaturesearch, numerous site visits, andoutreach to stakeholdersresponsible for the developmentand implementation of the CSOControl Policy. The data EPAcollected from these efforts aresummarized in Chapters 4, 5,and 6.

● Chapter 4 presents EPA activitiesundertaken between 1994 and2001to implement and enforce theCSO Control Policy. This chaptersummarizes technical andfinancial assistance provided byEPA to the states andmunicipalities. The chapterdetails Agency efforts to documentenvironmental benefits of CSOcontrol.

● Chapter 5 summarizes states’activities to implement andenforce the CSO Control Policy.The chapter reports on theissuance of permits and otherenforceable orders requiring thedevelopment and implementationof the nine minimum controls(NMC) and of long-term controlplans (LTCPs) as outlined by theCSO Control Policy. The chapteralso describes important aspects ofstate-specific policies or strategies,technical and financial assistanceprovided by states to CSOpermittees, and documentedenvironmental benefits from CSOcontrol. The state profiles, whichsummarize each of the 32 states’approach to implementing theCSO Control Policy andcontrolling CSOs, are presented inAppendix B.

CSO separation project underway inLouisville, Kentucky.

Photo: Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District

Chapter 1—Introduction

1-5

● Chapter 6 describes actions takenby communities to implementCSO controls. This chapter drawsheavily from CSO community casestudies, provided in their entiretyin Appendix C. The chapterprovides information on factorsperceived by municipalities asimpediments to fullimplementation of the CSOControl Policy. This chapter alsodiscusses the efficacy of CSOcontrols in reducing pollutantloads and improving water quality.It identifies the specific controlsmost often used by CSOcommunities and discusses thebenefits of CSO control inmeeting other locally definedobjectives.

● Chapter 7 evaluates the success ofthe CSO Control Policy as ameans for complying with therequirements of the CWA andprovides:

◗ An overall assessment of theeffectiveness of the CSOControl Policy in controllingCSOs.

◗ Assessment ofimplementation in terms ofthe four key principlesestablished by the CSOControl Policy.

◗ Environmental results relatedto CSO control.

◗ Next steps EPA will pursue toensure the continued effectiveimplementation andenforcement of the CSOControl Policy.

This chapter explains the developmentof the 1994 CSO Control Policy. Ituses data and information on CSOimpacts, as known at the time theCSO Control Policy was beingdeveloped. This chapter provides abrief history of the initial constructionand use of combined sewers in theUnited States; describes characteristicsof CSOs and resulting impacts tosurface waters; outlines measurestaken to regulate and control CSOsfrom the 1960s to 1994; and providesan overview of the key components ofthe CSO Control Policy.

2.1 Description of CombinedSewer Systems and CSOs

In the mid-1800s, municipalitiesbegan installing public sewersystems to address health and

aesthetic concerns. The wastetreatment technology of the pre-sewerera, backyard privies and cesspools,were progressively less effective ascities grew. During this period,human waste was dumped into privyvaults and cesspools, and storm waterran into the streets or into surface

Chapter 2

Establishing a national regulatoryapproach for CSO control hasproven difficult due to the site-

specific nature of CSOs and theirimpacts. CSOs discharge to a widerange of aquatic environments,including rivers, estuaries, lakes,coastal waters, ditches, and ephemeralstreams of all sizes. Generally, CSOsare related to wet weather, but thefrequency and duration of overflowsvary widely from one CSO to another.Moreover, the pollutant characteristicsof CSOs vary depending on thelocation of the collection system, typesof residential and industrialdevelopment in the area, and types ofrunoff in the collection system.

CSOs differ from POTWs andindustrial point source discharges inmany ways. Traditional point sourcecontrol needs are assessed based onlow flow design conditions. CSOs,however, often discharge during highflow conditions. Additionally, manyother point sources have continuousdischarges, but CSOs are intermittent.For these reasons, it became necessaryto develop a national programspecifically for controlling CSOs.

2-1

2.1 Description ofCombined SewerSystems and CSOs

2.2 Environmental andPublic Health Impacts ofCSOs

2.3 Initial Efforts to ControlCSOs

2.4 The CSO Control Policy

2.5 Summary

Regulatory and EnvironmentalBackground for the CSO Control Policy

In this chapter:

2-2


drains. Increased population densityalong with the development of waterutilities delivering water by pipe toresidences and commercial buildingstaxed this system. Cesspools and privyvaults were over capacity, which inturn caused nuisance, public health,and flooding problems (Melosi, 2000).

CSSs were constructed to transporthuman waste and storm water awayfrom dwellings and inhabited areas.The conveyance of sanitary waste andstorm water runoff away fromneighborhoods through a sewer pipeinto local receiving waters becameaccepted practice. At this time, littleprecedent existed for undergroundsewerage systems, and engineers werereluctant to experiment with expensivecapital works. Moreover, wastedisposal in waterways was believedsafe (Tarr, 1996). The decision to usecombined sewers was made followinga period of intense debate. Large citiestended to pursue combined sewersgiven the flood control advantageswhile smaller communities pursuedseparate storm and sanitary sewers.Combined sewers provided publichealth improvements and floodcontrol benefits to local residents,though such projects created impactson downstream communities (Melosi,2000).

A better understanding of the disease-causing organisms in sewage and arecognition of health and nuisanceconditions prompted a shift towastewater treatment in the early1900s. Wastewater treatment plantswere sized and designed to treatsanitary waste, not a combination ofsanitary waste and storm water runoff.The use of separate, and in some

instances parallel, collection systemsfor storm water runoff and sanitarywaste quickly became acceptedpractice. With the advent ofwastewater treatment, theconstruction of new CSSs generallyceased.

CSSs were retained in many citiesbecause the existing systems provideda network for the centralizedcollection of human and industrialwaste. During dry weather periods,the performance of combined systemswas generally adequate. During wetweather, however, the volume ofsanitary wastewater and storm waterrunoff entering the combined systemsoften exceeded conveyance capacity.When this occurred, combinedsystems overflowed directly to surfacewater bodies. Sanitary officialsoriginally believed that overflows werediluted to such an extent that theyposed no serious water pollutionproblems. As designed, CSSs wereexpected to overflow.

Untreated overflows of raw sewageand storm water—CSOs—began to beviewed as major sources of pollutionto receiving waters in the second halfof the 20th century. In 1965, theFederal Water Pollution Control Actacknowledged the significance ofCSOs by authorizing funding forresearch, development, anddemonstration of techniques forcontrolling CSOs. Soon after, theAmerican Public Works Association(APWA) conducted one of the firstnationwide surveys to assess the extentof the CSO problem (APWA, 1967).APWA’s survey found that the numberof CSSs exceeded 1,300.

Privy vaults and water pump are located side-by-side inthis Pittsburgh neighborhood, circa 1909.

Photo: Paul Underwood Kellogg

Chapter 2—Regulatory and Environmental Background

2-3

Over the years, estimates of thenumber of CSSs and CSOs havefluctuated as communities changedtheir systems and as more consistentinformation became available. EPA’searly research estimated approximately15,000 overflow points in about 1,100communities serving a totalpopulation of 43 million. In 1993,EPA reported that individual CSOsdischarged an average of 50 to 80times per year, resulting in the deliveryof about 1.2 trillion gallons of rawsewage, untreated industrial wastes,and storm water runoff into receivingwaters nationwide each year (EPA,1994a).

EPA’s 2001 NPDES file review found859 CSO permits, which includeddescriptions of 9,471 permittedoutfalls nationwide. The 859 permitscover 772 communities. As shown inFigure 2.1, most CSO communities arelocated in the Northeast and Great

Lakes regions. A listing of CSOpermits, by state, is provided inAppendix D.

2.2 Environmental and PublicHealth Impacts of CSOs

CSOs are discharges of rawsewage and storm water, andexhibit the characteristics of

both. They contain a combination ofuntreated human waste and pollutantsdischarged by commercial andindustrial establishments. CSOs alsocontain solids, metals, bacteria,viruses, and other pollutants washedfrom city streets and parking lots. CSOimpacts include adverse human healtheffects (e.g., gastrointestinal illness),beach closures, shellfish bed closures,toxicity for aquatic life, and aestheticimpairment. Many CSOs discharge toreceiving waters in heavily populatedurban areas. The pollutants of

National Distribution ofCSO Communities

More than half of the nation’s 859CSO permits are held bycommunities in four states: Illinois,Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Figure 2.1

2-4


concern and the principalconsequences of CSOs are presentedin Table 2.1.

A tabulation of typical pollutantconcentrations in CSOs comparedwith concentrations from othertreated and untreated sources ispresented in Table 2.2. As shown, thetypes of pollutants found in untreatedsewage and urban runoff are similar.

Under CWA Section 305(b), EPAprepares biennial national waterquality assessment reports toCongress. The National Water QualityInventory 1994 Report to Congress(EPA, 1995a), listed CSOs as a sourceof water quality impairment, assummarized in Table 2.3. AlthoughCSOs ranked lower on a national levelthan other major sources, the localimpacts of CSOs may be intense andhighly visible.

Several assessments of use impairmentattributed to CSO discharges werepublished in the late 1980s and early1990s. The Natural Resources DefenseCouncil (NRDC) reported in its 1992Testing the Waters report that:

High levels of bacteria–primarily

from raw sewage–are responsible

for the overwhelming majority of

[beach] closures and advisories.

There have been over 5,000

closings and advisories since 1988.

. . .The major causes of high

bacteria levels in beach water are:

inadequate and overloaded sewage

treatment systems, combined sewer

overflows, raw sewage overflows,

poison runoff, faulty septic

systems, and boating wastes

(NRDC, 1992).

The National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA)reported that CSOs are a major causeof contaminated shellfish beds andfish kills (NOAA, 1991). NOAAestimated that between 10 and 20percent of harvest-limited shellfishacreage, amounting to nearly 600,000acres, was attributable to CSOs.

The Center for Marine Conservation(CMC) summarized public healthrisks presented by CSOs as follows:

The primary health issue

associated with CSOs is the risk of

exposure to disease-causing

bacteria and viruses. Combined

sewers contain human waste that

can carry pathogenic organisms.

Activities involving water-exposure

to these contaminants through

swimming or other contact can

lead to infectious disease. Some of

the common diseases include

hepatitis, gastric disorders,

dysentery, and swimmer’s ear.

Other forms of bacteria found in

untreated waters can cause

typhoid, cholera, and dysentery.

Human health is also impacted

when fish or shellfish that have

been contaminated by combined

sewer discharges are consumed

(CMC, 1992).

Referencing EPA’s harbor studyprogram and its own Beach CleanupResults (CMC, 1991), CMC alsodocumented floatables and aestheticimpairment due to CSOs:

Although only one percent of

debris found by the U.S. EPA’s

Harbor Studies Program and 4.9

percent of the items found in the


2-5

Pollutant(s) Principle Consequences

Bacteria (e.g., fecal coliform, E. coli, enterococci) Beach closuresViruses (e.g., hepatitis, diptheria, cholera) OdorsParasites (e.g., giardia, cryptosporidium) Shellfish bed closures

Drinking water contaminationAdverse public health effects

Trash and floatables Aesthetic impairmentOdorsBeach closures

Organic compounds, metals, oil, grease Aquatic life impairmentToxic pollutants Adverse public health effects

Fishing and shellfishing restrictions

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) Reduced oxygen levels and fish kills

Solids deposition Aquatic habitat impairmentShellfish bed closures

Nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous) Eutrophication, algal bloomsAesthetic impairment

Contaminant Source BOD5 TSS Total N Total P Fecal Coliform (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (cts/100mL)

Untreated Domestic Wastewater 100—400 100—350 20— 85 4—15 107—109

Treated Wastewater - Secondary <5—30 <5—30 15— 25 <1—5 <200

Urban Runoff 10—250 67—101 0.4—1.0 0.7—1.7 103—107

CSO 25 —100 150—400 3—24 1–10 105–107

Typical PollutantConcentrations Found

in CSOs

Comparison of typical ranges ofCSO pollutant concentrations withother sources. Some of the higherconcentrations are assocated withthe “first flush” following a storm.

Table 2.2

CSOs as a Source ofWater Quality

Impairment

EPA prepares biennial assessmentreports on national water quality.This table specifically looks atidentified impacts attributable toCSOs in 1994, when the CSOControl Policy was issued.

Table 2.3

Water Body Type CSO Rank Among Sources CSO Contribution to 1994 Impairment

Estuary 12 5% of impairment (527 square miles)

Ocean 8 11% of impairment (43 shoreline miles)

Great Lakes 10 3% of impairment (172 shoreline miles)

Rivers and Streams Not in Top 20 Not a leading source of impairment

Source: Prevention and Control of Sewer System Overflows (WEF, 1999a)

Source: National Water Quality Inventory 1995 Report to Congress (EPA, 1995a)

CSO Pollutants ofConcern and Principle

Consequences

CSO discharges contain a varietyof pollutants that cause orcontribute to many public healthand environmental problems.

Table 2.1

Source: Modified from Approaches to Combined Sewer Overflow Program Development:A CSO Assessment Report (AMSA, 1994)

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, floatables from CSOand storm water discharges caused beach closures,adverse impacts on coastal species, and propertydamage in New Jersey’s harbor complex.


2-6


National Beach Cleanup Results

constituted medical, drug and

sewage-related debris, these wastes

were more common in eastern

cities that have [combined sewer

systems]. New Jersey and

Massachusetts had five times the

national average of sewage-

associated wastes, making up 2.8

and 2.6 percent respectively of total

trash found. New York and Rhode

Island had a significantly higher

percent as well (1.6 and 1.1

percent respectively) ..... The

Harbor Study found CSO- related

wastes like condoms, tampon

applicators, fecal matter, grease

and food in New York City waters.

In Philadelphia, the plume from

two CSO discharges was seen to

contain condoms, tampons, and

fecal matter (CMC, 1991).

Substantial documentation of theconsequences of CSOs was available inthe early 1990s. These consequenceswere specifically recognized in theCSO Control Policy (EPA, 1994b),which stated:

CSOs consist of mixtures of

domestic sewage, industrial and

commercial wastewaters, and

storm runoff. CSOs often contain

high levels of suspended solids,

pathogenic microorganisms, toxic

pollutants, floatables, nutrients,

oxygen-demanding compounds, oil

and grease, and other pollutants.

CSOs can cause exceedances of

water quality standards. Such

exceedances may pose risk to

human health, threaten aquatic

life and its habitat, and impair the

use and enjoyment of the Nation’s

waterways (Section I.A).

2.3 Initial Efforts to ControlCSOs

2.3.1 1965 to 1989

The Federal Water PollutionControl Act of 1965 authorizedfunding for research,

development, and demonstration oftechniques for controlling CSOs andstorm water. More than 100 grantsand contracts totaling $82 million,with a federal share of $39 million(47.5 percent), were devoted to thiseffort between 1965 and 1972 (EPA,1973). The absence of an explicitfederal mandate for CSO control,however, meant that the problemreceived little attention.

Passage of the Federal Water PollutionControl Act Amendments of 1972focused greater attention on CSOs.The legislation established theregulatory framework for controllingpoint source discharges, includingCSOs, through the NPDES program.The legislation also established theConstruction Grants Program forwastewater infrastructure (CWASection 201). Some communities usedthe Construction Grants Program tocontrol CSOs. Most investment inmunicipal facilities during the 1970sfocused on POTW upgrades tosecondary and advanced treatmentand expansion, not on wet weatherissues.

EPA’s 1978 Report to Congress onControl of Combined SewerOverflows in the United States (EPA,1978) focused on funding for CSOpollution abatement projects. Thereport documented the status of grantrequests and funding, identified the


2-7

time required to achieve CSO control,compared POTWs and CSOs, andpresented legislative alternatives tocontrol pollution from CSOs. Basedupon the 1978 Needs Survey, thereport estimated total national needsfor CSO control at $21.16 billion in1978 dollars ($57.28 billion in 2000dollars).

Case Law

In 1972 and 1981, CSOs were thesubject of two Supreme Court casesinvolving the City of Milwaukee. InIllinois vs. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S.91 (1972), the Court recognized thefederal common law of nuisance toabate pollution from CSOs. In 1981,the court ruled that the federal CWAsupplants federal common law ofnuisance to abate pollution fromCSOs, City of Milwaukee v. Illinois,451 U.S. 304 (1981).

The 1980 ruling in MontgomeryEnvironmental Coalition vs. Costle, 46F2d 568 (D.C. Cir. 1980), is recognizedby many as a landmark case in CSOcontrol. The court accepted EPA’sinterpretation of the CWA that CSOsare not discharges from POTWs andthus are not subject to the secondarytreatment standards applicable toPOTWs. The CWA requires non-municipal discharges to comply withNPDES permits that includetechnology-based best conventionalpollutant control technology (BCT)for conventional pollutants and bestavailable technology economicallyachievable (BAT) for toxics and non-conventional pollutants. Followingthis decision, EPA and states began toregulate and permit CSOs under theNPDES program. This meant CSOsneeded to comply with the

technology-based requirements of theCWA and with water qualitystandards.

Some CSO communities advancedCSO controls during this period,establishing the groundwork for futurecontrol. For example:

● The Metropolitan WaterReclamation District of GreaterChicago initiated its CSO controlprogram and construction of theTunnel and Reservoir Plan(TARP) facilities to storecombined sewage in the 1970s.

● The District of Columbia initiateda CSO abatement program in1979 that led to construction of aswirl concentrator facility,installation of inflatable dams,regulator modifications, andexpanded wet weather pumpingcapacity during the 1980s.

● The City of San Francisco initiatedCSO control planning in 1970 andimplemented CSO controls duringthe 1980s, including a deep tunnelthat resulted in substantialreductions of CSO frequency andvolume.

● The cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul,and South St. Paul committed tolarge-scale sewer separation.

San Francisco’s Islais Creek Transport/Storage Facilitystores and conveys flow to the Southeast Plant. With a600-foot overflow weir and 45 mgd storage capacity,this facility reduced combined sewer overflows from 40to the allowable 10 per year.

Photo: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

2-8


2.3.2 National Municipal Policy

The National Municipal Policy onPublicly-Owned Treatment Works(NMP), published by EPA on January30, 1984, was another early impetusfor CSO control. The NMPencouraged a collaborative effortbetween EPA and states in addressingcompliance with the CWA at POTWs.The NMP was designed to focus EPA’scompliance efforts on three types ofPOTWs: those that had receivedfederal funding and were out ofcompliance, all major POTWs, andminor POTWs that discharged toimpaired waters. The NMP wasintended to facilitate compliance at allPOTWs by July 1, 1988.

The NMP recommended that eachEPA region draft a strategy to bringPOTWs into compliance with theCWA. Each strategy was to inventoryall POTWs in the region that had notachieved compliance, an identificationof which noncompliant municipalitiesmet the criteria for the NMP, and aplan for each facility to achievecompliance. The 1984 NMP providedsome flexibility in the planningprocess, depending on whether thePOTW was proposed, underconstruction, or operational. All plansrequired a schedule for compliance.This schedule was meant to enableregions to initiate appropriateenforcement actions, shouldmunicipalities fail to meet thenegotiated deadlines.

As a result of the NMP, state andfederal agencies brought hundreds ofenforcement actions againstmunicipalities for noncompliance with

the CWA. Several major casesspecifically addressed CSO problemsat POTWs.

Civil Judicial Actions

A total of 16 CSO Civil Judicialactions resulted from the NMP. Sixcases occurred in Region 1, one inRegion 2, one in Region 3, and eightin Region 5. The types of CSOviolations which led to enforcementactions included:

● NPDES permit violations

● Violations of consent decrees

● Violations of water-qualityeffluent limits

● Failure to meet constructionschedules for CSO abatement

Outcomes of these cases includedsewer separation; financial penalties;and development of abatement,construction, and management plans.A summary of the cases is provided inAppendix E. Examples of NMP casesare as follows: an NMP case inHammond, Indiana, resulted in theissuance of a court ordered consentdecree for the development of animplementation plan to eliminate dryweather overflows and a penaltypayment of $1,272,604. An NMP caseaffecting Metropolis, Illinois, whichhas a population of 7,200, was settledthrough a consent decree that requiredcorrection of its CSO overflowstructure and a penalty payment of$17,500. The municipality hadviolated a construction schedulepreviously defined in anadministrative order.


2-9

Additional CSO Enforcement Actions(Before 1989)

EPA initiated 13 judicial enforcementactions during the 1980s. Theseactions were brought under the CWA,but not under the NMP (Wade MillerAssociates, 1989). Six cases occurred inRegion 1, three in Region 2, three inRegion 5, and one in Region 10. Mostof these actions involved CSOsdischarging above effluent limitsaccording to provisions in an NPDESpermit. The principal effluent limitviolations were for BOD, TSS, andfecal coliform. Seven municipalitieswere identified as having dry weatheroverflows. The majority ofcommunities were assessed civilpenalties for noncompliance withpermit limits and were required todevelop plans to control CSOs. Thesecases are also summarized inAppendix E.

2.3.3 1989 National CSO ControlStrategy

EPA issued a National CSO ControlStrategy in 1989 (54 FR 37370). TheNational CSO Control Strategyrequested that states develop statewideCSO permitting strategies by January15, 1990. The National CSO ControlStrategy also recommended thatNPDES permits for municipal systemswith CSO discharges, at a minimum,include BAT/BCT technology-basedcontrols established according to thebest professional judgement (BPJ) ofthe permitting authority. Sixminimum control measures wererecommended:

1. Proper operation and regularmaintenance.

2. Maximum use of the collectionsystem for storage.

3. Review and modification ofpretreatment programs.

4. Maximum flow delivery to thePOTW for treatment.

5. Prohibition of dry weatheroverflows.

6. Control of solid and floatablematerial in CSO discharges.

During the next several years, nearlyall states with CSSs submittedpermitting strategies. EPA approvedall submitted plans.

2.3.4 Office of Water ManagementAdvisory Group (MAG)

As EPA, states, and municipalitiesworked to implement the NationalCSO Control Strategy in the early1990s, the consequences of CSOs(described in Section 2.2) continuedto receive national attention, andenvironmental organizations pushedfor further action. Municipalorganizations were also dissatisfiedwith the National CSO ControlStrategy, as they sought a consistentnational approach or policy on CSOsand clarification on how to proceedwith CSO control. In addition, somestudies suggested that states wereimplementing strategies and technicalapproaches to CSO control that variedgreatly from the National CSOControl Strategy and from those ofother states.

A review of sample state CSOstrategies by HydroQual (1992)suggested the following:

2-10


● States were employing a variety ofwet weather design standards,including overflow frequency,factor of flow method (e.g., 10times dry weather flow),frequency/duration design storms,and depth/duration design storms.

● States’ wet weather designstandards were either incorporatedinto individual permits on a site-specific basis, or adopted asstatewide policy or regulation.

● Treatment requirements for wetweather flows varied from state tostate as either primary orsecondary treatment.

In response to these concerns, EPAformed a Management AdvisoryGroup (MAG) in 1992. The MAG wasto assist the Agency in theconceptualization and development ofa national CSO policy. The MAGincluded representatives from states,municipalities, sewerage-relatedassociations, and environmentalgroups. The MAG was charged withaddressing the following issues:

● What CSO controls areappropriate?

● When should CSO controls beimplemented?

● How should CSO controls befunded?

In addition to continuing with the sixminimum controls identified in theNational CSO Control Strategy, MAGrecommended three additionalcontrols (MAG, 1992):

● Inspection, monitoring, andreporting of CSOs.

● Pollution prevention, includingwater conservation, to reduce CSOimpacts.

● Public notification for any areasaffected by CSOs, especially beachand recreational areas.

The MAG also recommended that awork group be convened, in amodified regulation/negotiationprocess, to develop a consistentnational permitting policy for CSOcontrol.

A work group of CSO stakeholdersmet during the summer of 1992 toaddress these issues. The work groupincluded environmental groups,municipalities, municipal associations,and state and federal water authorities.The work group agreed to thefollowing objective:

To develop consensus on a

consistent set of criteria with an

adequate degree of specificity to be

used in determining long-term

CSO control programs

implemented through NPDES

permits (MAG, 1993).

The work group’s discussions led tothe resolution of many technical,economic, and policy issues raised bystakeholders. Although the workgroup failed to reach consensus on apolicy framework document for CSOcontrol, their work set the stage forwhat proved to be the foundation ofthe 1994 CSO Control Policy.


2-11

A subset of the MAG workgroup,including EPA, the Association ofMetropolitan Sewerage Authorities(AMSA), and NRDC, met in October1992. Participants of this meetingdeveloped a CSO FrameworkDocument based upon the MAGdiscussions and recommendations.The CSO Framework Document didnot include all enforcementcomponents.

EPA used the CSO FrameworkDocument to develop a policystatement that would provide aconsistent national approach forcontrolling CSOs. Stakeholdersupport for this initiative continuedthroughout its development. Anexample of this support is a letter sentJanuary 13, 1994, signed by fivedivergent stakeholder groups – AMSA,NRDC, the Environmental DefenseFund, the National League of Cities,and the Association of State andInterstate Water Pollution ControlAdministrators – to the Office ofManagement and Budget during thefinal phases of review. The letterrecognized that the CSO ControlPolicy was “the product of many hoursof thoughtful, deliberate negotiations”and “truly represents a faircompromise among many divergentpositions and an effective approach tonational CSO permit guidance.”Moreover, the signatories cautionedthat:

There is a strong national coalition

of support for the Policy as

negotiated. Any changes in the

structure and requirements set

forth in the Policy will, without a

doubt, disaffect members of this

coalition and undermine the

significant progress that would be

made by implementing the Policy

as it is currently written.

EPA held a press conference April 11,1994, to announce the release of thefinal CSO Control Policy. At the pressconference, key stakeholders spoke insupport of the CSO Control Policy,and letters were read expressingsupport from various members ofCongress. The CSO Control Policywas published on April 19, 1994 (59FR 18688). In October 1996, keyparticipants in the development of theCSO Control Policy were presentedwith the Vice President’s HammerAward for Reinvention in recognitionof the success of the CSO ControlPolicy negotiation.

2.4 The CSO Control Policy

2.4.1 Purpose, Objectives and KeyPrinciples of the CSO ControlPolicy

The purpose of the CSO ControlPolicy was twofold: 1)elaboration on EPA’s 1989

National CSO Control Strategy; and 2)expeditious compliance with CWArequirements. The CSO ControlPolicy provided guidance to CSOcommunities, NPDES authorities, andwater standards authorities forplanning, selecting, and implementingCSO controls. It also established asubstantial role for public involvementduring the decision-making process.

The CSO Control Policy reiterated theobjectives of the National CSOControl Strategy. In addition, the CSOControl Policy recognized the site-specific nature of CSOs and CSO

2-12


impacts and provided municipalitieswith flexibility to tailor controls tolocal situations.

Four key principles of the CSOControl Policy ensure that CSOcontrols are cost-effective and meetthe objectives of the CWA. The keyprinciples are:

● Provide clear levels of control thatwould be presumed to meetappropriate health andenvironmental objectives.

● Provide sufficient flexibility tomunicipalities, especiallyfinancially disadvantagedcommunities, to consider the site-specific nature of CSOs and todetermine the most cost-effectivemeans of reducing pollutants andmeeting CWA objectives andrequirements.

● Allow a phased approach toimplementation of CSO controlsconsidering a community’sfinancial capability.

● Review and revise, as appropriate,water quality standards and theirimplementation procedures whendeveloping CSO control plans toreflect the site-specific wet weatherimpacts of CSOs.

The CSO Control Policy establishedobjectives for CSO communities andexpectations for NPDES and waterquality standards authorities.Moreover, the CSO Control Policypresented elements of an enforcementand compliance program to addressCSOs that overflow during dry

weather and for enforcement ofNPDES permits issued in accordancewith the CSO Control Policy.

2.4.2 Objectives for CSOCommunities

The objectives for CSO communitieswith NPDES permits are: 1) toimplement the NMC and submitdocumentation on NMCimplementation; and 2) to developand implement an LTCP. The NMCare:

1. Proper operation and regularmaintenance programs for thesewer system and the CSOs.

2. Maximum use of the collectionsystem for storage.

3. Review and modification ofpretreatment requirements toassure CSO impacts areminimized.

4. Maximizing flow to the POTW fortreatment.

5. Prohibition of CSOs during dryweather.

6. Control of solids and floatablematerials in CSOs.

7. Pollution prevention.

8. Public notification to ensure thatthe public receives adequatenotification of CSO occurrencesand CSO impacts.

9. Monitoring to effectivelycharacterize CSO impacts and theefficacy of CSO controls.

This CSO notification sign is posted along BrandywineCreek in Wilmington, Delaware. It warns swimmers ofthe presence of a CSO and advises that raw sewageand bacteria may be present after storms.

City of Wilmington Department of Public Works


2-13

Municipalities were expected toimplement the NMC and to submitappropriate documentation to NPDESauthorities as soon as reasonablypossible, but no later than January 1,1997. Because the CWA requiredimmediate compliance with thetechnology-based controls, acompliance schedule forimplementing the NMC, if necessary,was to be included in an enforceablemechanism. EPA committed toexercise its enforcement discretion andnot seek civil penalties for past CSOviolations if a CSO community wasotherwise in compliance and met theJanuary 1, 1997, deadline.

In addition to the NMC, CSOcommunities were expected to developand implement LTCPs that wouldultimately result in compliance withthe CWA. This process was to becoordinated closely with the NPDESauthority and the state authorityresponsible for water qualitystandards. EPA expected that LTCPswould include the following minimumelements:

● Characterization, monitoring, andmodeling of the CSS

● Public participation

● Consideration of sensitive areas

● Evaluation of alternatives

● Cost/performance considerations

● Operational plan

● Maximization of treatment at thePOTW treatment plant

● Implementation schedule

● Post-construction compliancemonitoring

In addition, the implementationschedule was expected to includeproject milestones and a financingplan to design and construct necessarycontrols as soon as practicable.

The CSO Control Policy set forth twoapproaches that CSO communitiescould use in developing LTCPs toshow that the plan would achievecompliance with water qualitystandards:

● The “presumption approach” withperformance criteria (i.e., four tosix untreated overflow events or85 percent capture by volume)that would be presumed toprovide an adequate level ofcontrol to meet water qualitystandards.

● The “demonstration approach”with development andimplementation of a suite of CSOcontrols that would be sufficientto meet applicable water qualitystandards.

Under the presumption approach, thepermitting authority must determinethat the presumption is reasonable inlight of data and analyses preparedduring LTCP development. Under thedemonstration approach, the CSOcommunity may demonstrate that theselected control program described inthe LTCP, though not meeting thecriteria specified for the presumptionapproach, would be adequate to meetthe water quality-based requirementsof the CWA.

Many communities combine public education andpollution prevention by involving civic and youthgroups in storm drain stenciling and other watershedprotection projects.

Photo: EPA

2-14


2.4.3 Expectations for PermittingAuthorities

The CSO Control Policy expectedpermitting authorities to undertakethe following activities:

● Review and revise, as appropriate,state CSO permitting strategiesdeveloped in response to theNational CSO Control Strategy.

● Develop and issue permitsrequiring CSO communities to 1)immediately implement the NMCand document theirimplementation; and 2) developand implement an LTCP.

● Promote coordination among theCSO community, the water qualitystandards authority, and thegeneral public through LTCPdevelopment and implementation.

● Evaluate water pollution controlneeds on a watershed basis andcoordinate CSO control with thecontrol of other point andnonpoint sources of pollution.

● Recognize that it might be difficultfor some small communities tomeet all of the formal elements ofLTCP development, and thatcompliance with the NMC and areduced scope LTCP may besufficient.

● Consider sensitive areas, useimpairment, and a CSOcommunity’s financial capabilityin the review and approval ofimplementation schedules.

2.4.4 Coordination with Water QualityStandards: Development,Review, and Approval

Communities develop and implementLTCPs to meet water qualitystandards, including the designateduses and criteria to protect those usesfor water bodies that receive CSOdischarges. The CSO Control Policyrecognized that substantialcoordination and agreement amongthe permitting authority, water qualitystandards authority, the public, andthe CSO community would berequired to accomplish this objective.The CSO Control Policy alsorecognized that the development ofthe LTCP should be coordinated withthe review and appropriate revision ofwater quality standards and theirimplementation procedures. EPAregulations and guidance providestates with some flexibility to adaptwater quality standards andimplementation procedures to reflectsite-specific conditions, includingthose related to CSO discharges.

The CSO Control Policy highlights theflexibilities contained in EPA’s waterquality standards regulations. Theseinclude greater specificity in thedefinition of recreational and aquaticlife uses, use modification, partial usedesignation, and water qualitystandards variances. EPA mustapprove or disapprove any change towater quality standards.

2.4.5 Enforcement and Compliance

The CSO enforcement effort describedin the CSO Control Policy was tocommence with an initiative toaddress CSOs that occur during dry

The sewer utility serving Louisville, Kentucky hasrestructured its organization to coordinate CSO controlneeds with other water quality improvement programs.

Photo: Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District


2-15

weather. This was to be followed by anenforcement effort in conjunctionwith CSO permitting:

Under the CWA, EPA can use

several enforcement options to

address permittees with CSOs.

Those options directly applicable to

this Policy are Section 308

Information Requests, Section

309(a) Administrative Orders,

Section 309(g) Administrative

Penalty Orders, Section 309(b)

and (d) Civil Judicial Actions, and

Section 504 Emergency Powers.

NPDES states should use

comparable means.

EPA recognized that the success of theenforcement effort would depend onexpeditious action by NPDESauthorities in issuing enforceablepermits with NMC requirements andother CWA requirements.Enforcement priorities were to bebased upon human health impacts,environmental impacts, and impactson sensitive areas.

2.5 Summary

Uncontrolled CSOs are asignificant source ofpollution. They adversely

impact public health and theenvironment. Regulation of CSOs,however, has proven complex becauseof the intermittent character and site-specific nature of CSO discharges. Inaddition, unlike POTWs, CSOs are notsubject to the CWA secondarytreatment standards, but must complywith NPDES permits that include BCTand BAT requirements on a BPJ basis.

As a result of the 1984 NationalMunicipal Policy, state and federalagencies brought hundreds ofenforcement actions againstmunicipalities for violations of theCWA. Several cases specificallyaddressed CSO problems. EPA’s 1989National CSO Control Strategyresulted in state-wide CSO permittingstrategies and recommended sixminimum measures for CSO control.

The CSO Control Policy wasdeveloped between 1992 and 1994.During this time, all parties expresseddissatisfaction with the lack ofprogress toward CSO controlimplementation. Stakeholders werestrongly committed to developing aconsensus-based document that wouldmeet the challenge of guiding CSOfacility permitting and controlimplementation into the 21st century.

The CSO Control Policy wasdeveloped to provide clear levels ofcontrol that would be presumed tomeet appropriate health andenvironmental objectives. The CSOControl Policy, which dealt with manydifficult technical and permittingissues, was innovative in the followingways:

● Recognizing the site-specificnature of CSOs.

● Providing flexibility tomunicipalities, especiallyfinancially disadvantagedmunicipalities, to determine themost cost-effective means ofreducing pollutants and meetingCWA objectives and requirements.

● Recommending the use of theNMC in the form of best

2-16


management practices (BMPs) asthe minimum technology-basedrequirements for CSOs.

● Expecting municipalities todevelop and implement LTCPs tomeet water quality standards,using either a demonstration orpresumption approach as well asother CWA requirements.

● Expecting substantial publicparticipation in the decision-making process.

● Giving highest priority tocontrolling overflows to sensitiveareas.

● Expecting that the LTCPdevelopment process would becoordinated with the review andrevision of water qualitystandards, as appropriate.

● Encouraging permittingauthorities to evaluate waterpollution control needs on awatershed basis and to coordinateCSO control efforts with otherpoint and nonpoint source controlactivities.

● Prioritizing enforcement efforts toaddress CWA violations due to dryweather CSOs.

The CSO Control Policy was intendedto guide the planning, selection,design, implementation, andenforcement of CSO managementpractices and controls to meet therequirements of the CWA. This reportis designed to describe the progressmade by EPA, states, andmunicipalities in meeting theseobjectives.

3-1

Fishing contest in Oswego, New York, a CSOcommunity that has implemented the NMC andstructural controls, including a swirl concentratorand disinfection system.

Photo: P. MacNeill

headquarters and the nine EPAregions and 32 states known to haveCSO communities within theirjurisdictions. The breadth of EPA andstate activities (including policy andguidance development, permitting,implementation, complianceassistance, enforcement, training,research, development andinformation management activities,among others) made this an extensiveundertaking.

EPA emphasized the collection ofactual regulatory data from EPAregions and states rather than rely oninformation from centralized EPAdatabases and anecdotal data. EPAconducted file reviews and staffinterviews in five regions and 16states, reviewing permit and otherregulatory files for over 90 percent ofthe CSO communities in the UnitedStates. EPA's approach was challengingbecause of the diversity in state CSOprograms, but it greatly improvedEPA's confidence in its assessment ofimplementation and enforcementstatus.

Chapter 3

This chapter documents themethodology that EPA used toprepare this Report to

Congress. It summarizes the steps EPAhas taken to compile information onthe status of the implementation andenforcement of the CSO ControlPolicy. The chapter lays out EPA'sstudy objectives, analytical approaches,and data sources. It explains essentialinformation collection methods anddescribes steps EPA took to involvestakeholders in the development ofthis report. The chapter summarizesquality assurance measures used toenhance the accuracy and precision ofresults.

3.1 Overview of StudyObjectives and Approaches

The overall objective of thereport was to accuratelydescribe the nature and extent

of activities by EPA, states, andmunicipalities to implement andenforce the CSO Control Policy. Thebasic study approach was to collectdata and report on implementationand enforcement activities across EPA

3.1 Overview of StudyObjectives andApproaches

3.2 Data Sources

3.3 Data Collection

3.4 StakeholderInvolvement

3.5 Data Considerations

3.6 Quality Control andQuality Assurance

3.7 Summary

Methodology for Development of theCSO Report to Congress

In this chapter:

3-2


A new line is installed as part of a sewer systemseparation project in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


EPA had developed and maintained alist of potential CSO communitiessince the late 1980s, but had notvalidated the list in the field withregions and states. This reportafforded EPA the opportunity toevaluate this list, identify additionalCSO communities, eliminate others,and compile a relational data base.EPA now has a solid baseline to use totrack CSO activities of regions, statesand CSO communities. EPA will usethis data base for preparation of thesecond Report to Congress due in2003. Data base documentation isprovided in Appendix F.

EPA took an inclusive approach topreparing this report. The Agencybelieves that, since the CSO ControlPolicy had its genesis in intensivestakeholder consultations, it would beappropriate to solicit stakeholderinput in evaluating progress to date.The Agency met with stakeholdersearly to communicate the goals andmethods of the study, to offerstakeholders the opportunity tocontribute data, and to invite theircomments on preliminary findings.

With these objectives as a foundation,EPA undertook the following majorstudy approaches to describe the statusof implementation and enforcementof the CSO Control Policy:

● Compile information across EPAheadquarters and regions todocument major implementationand enforcement actions by EPAoffices.

● Gather information from availableNPDES authority files to confirmthe CSO regulatory universe and

to assess progress on afacility/permit-specific basis bycommunities in initiating CSOcontrols.

● Interview federal and state officialsinvolved in water qualitystandards review, permitting,compliance assistance, andenforcement activities to augmentthe NPDES file data.

● Develop fact sheets describingeach state's approach to CSOcontrol and implementation andenforcement of the CSO ControlPolicy.

● Develop case studies of CSOcommunities to describeapproaches used to address CSO-related problems, to identifysuccesses in CSO control, todevelop data on the effectivenessof CSO controls, and to documentremaining challenges.

● Meet with interested stakeholderson report preparation, soliciteddata input, and invited commentson preliminary findings fromstakeholders.

● Deliver the Report to Congresswithin nine months to meet theCongressional deadline.

In conducting this study, EPA found itimperative to focus on the specificCongressional objectives for thisreport, while at the same time layingthe groundwork for the second Reportto Congress on impacts, resources, andtechnologies due in 2003. Thus, thisreport retains its emphasis onassessing implementation andenforcement and provides only

Chapter 3—Methodology

3-3

preliminary insight into theenvironmental, technological, andresource implications of CSO control.

3.2 Data Sources

EPA developed a comprehensivelist of potential sources ofinformation that could be used

to assess the implementation andenforcement of the CSO ControlPolicy. This list included informationavailable from EPA; NPDESauthorities and other state programs;CSO communities; and stakeholderssuch as AMSA, the CSO Partnership,NRDC, and the Water EnvironmentFederation (WEF). The followingsections describe the sources ofinformation EPA used to develop thisreport.

3.2.1 National Data Sources

EPA researched its own files related todevelopment, implementation andenforcement of the CSO ControlPolicy. EPA maintains a library ofCSO-related documents and achronological record of relevantmemoranda and communications.EPA also maintains files withinformation submitted to the Agencyby CSO communities, documentinglocal efforts to implement the CSOControl Policy. In addition, EPA has acompendium of water enforcementpolicy and guidance documents thatcontains several CSO-relateddocuments.

EPA also looked to a number ofexisting data systems for CSOinformation. This included thePermits Compliance System (PCS),EPA's enforcement docket, and data

bases supporting the GovernmentPerformance and Results Act (GPRA),the Clean Water Needs Survey(CWNS), the National Water QualityInventory, and the State RevolvingFund (SRF). Lastly, EPA collected CSOdata and research results from a widerange of EPA programmatic officeswith activities affecting CSOs such asthe Office of Research andDevelopment, the Office ofGroundwater and Drinking Water, theOffice of Science and Technology, andthe Office of Wetlands, Oceans, andWatersheds.

3.2.2 NPDES Authorities and OtherState Program Files

Individual NPDES authorities andassociated state programs were theprimary sources of regulatoryinformation used in this report. Thisdata collection effort included anassessment of information containedin permit files and otherdocumentation related toimplementation and enforcementactivities. EPA and its contractorsconducted site visits to 16 states andfive EPA regional offices. To select themost appropriate targets for thesevisits EPA established the followingpriorities:

● Maximizing the number of CSOpermits reviewed.

● Ensuring geographic distributionacross states and EPA regionaloffices.

● Capturing a range of permitting,compliance assistance,enforcement and water qualitystandards review experiences.

EPA collected permit number, information on thenumber and location of outfalls, andrequirements for CSO controls for all CSOcommunities. This information was supplementedwith municipal case studies to capture thevarying degrees of progress in CSO controlimplementation.

Photo: Wilmington Department of Public Works

3-4


● Maximizing the number of majormetropolitan centers for whichdata were collected.

To complete the national assessmentof CSO Control Policyimplementation and enforcement,EPA needed a baseline of specific dataon the status of CSO permits in allstates. This core information included:

● NPDES permit number

● Number of outfalls

● Status of requirements to developand implement NMC and LTCPs

For states EPA was unable to visit, EPAsummarized the information availablein its own files and verified thisinformation with the appropriate CSOcoordinators in each region or state.

3.2.3 Community-level Data Sources

EPA supplemented information fromNPDES authorities with municipalcase studies to illustrate community-level implementation of the CSOControl Policy. CSO communitieswere selected for case study analysis to:

● Capture a range of programmaticexperiences.

● Capture the varying degrees ofimplementation and progress inconstruction of controls achievedby communities.

● Document results of CSO controlactivities within the community.

● Ensure geographic distributionacross states and EPA regionaloffices.

In addition, AMSA and a CSOcommunity offered to develop casestudies. EPA accepted these offers andprovided AMSA and the communitywith the draft outline the Agency haddeveloped for the case studies.

3.2.4 External Sources

In February and March of 2001, EPAmet with representatives from keystakeholder groups including AMSA,the CSO Partnership, NRDC, andWEF. During these meetings, EPApresented an overview of thecongressional directive to report onimplementation and enforcement ofthe CSO Control Policy and theAgency's planned response. EPA thensolicited feedback on the proposedapproach. The comments andsuggestions of the stakeholder groupswere incorporated into the finalmethodology presented in this report,as appropriate.

AMSA and the CSO Partnership alsoconducted independent surveys oftheir members during the spring of2001. The surveys focused onquantifying activities undertaken byCSO communities implementing theCSO Control Policy. Both AMSA andthe CSO Partnership furnished EPAwith the results of their surveys. Asummary of the results of thesesurveys is provided in Appendix G.

3.3 Data Collection

The primary sources of data forthis report were existing data inNPDES authority files and

federal data bases, and data obtaineddirectly from municipalities insupport of community case studies. In


3-5

addition, EPA performed acomprehensive literature search, andapplied national assessment models,where appropriate.

The following sections describe EPA'sdata collection efforts.

3.3.1 Assessment of EPA Efforts

EPA's first step in implementing theinformation collection strategy was toassess the information in its own fileson development, implementation, andenforcement of the CSO ControlPolicy, including an extensive set offiles on local communities' CSOissues.

EPA used the federal docket as itsprincipal source of information onadministrative and civil judicialactions taken to address CSOviolations. EPA initially created reportslisting all violations of CWA sections301 and 402 and then isolated casesspecifically addressing CSOs,overflows, bypasses, and dry-weatherdischarges. (The cases examinedincluded those resulting from theNMP, the CWA, and the CSO ControlPolicy.) EPA also evaluated CSO-specific information in the Lexis-Nexisdatabase and the Federal Register inorder to compile the CSOenforcement action statistics discussedin Chapter 4.

EPA also relied on existing Agencydata systems wherever possible. Theseinclude PCS, GPRA, the CWNS, theNational Water Quality Inventory, andSRF. Information obtained from thesedata systems is described in Chapter 4.

3.3.2 Assessment of Efforts by NPDESAuthorities and Other StatePrograms

EPA's next step in implementing theinformation collection strategy was aseries of visits to NPDES authorities in16 states and five EPA regional offices.These visits allowed EPA to accesspermit files for nearly 90 percent ofthe CSO communities nationwide.EPA visited the following states andregions:

● California

● Georgia

● Illinois

● Indiana

● Iowa

● Kentucky

● Maine

● Massachusetts

● Michigan

● New Jersey

● New York

● Ohio

● Pennsylvania (three of six stateregional offices)

● Vermont

● Washington

● West Virginia

● Region 1 (NPDES authority forMassachusetts, New Hampshire)

3-6


● Region 3 (NPDES authority forWashington, DC)

● Region 4

● Region 9 (NPDES co-permittingauthority for City of SanFrancisco's CSOs)

● Region 10 (NPDES authority forAlaska)

During visits to regional offices, EPAalso reviewed available CSO permitfiles for states not visited. Each visit toa state or EPA regional office beganwith a discussion with the CSOcoordinator and other staff (typicallywater quality standards andenforcement officials) involved in thepermitting of CSOs. In the interview,EPA collected general information onthe NPDES authority's approach toCSO control, such as:

● Efforts to incorporate the CSOControl Policy into the permittingauthority's existing programmaticframework.

● Established CSO-related policiesor strategies.

● Activities to integrate waterquality standards reviews withCSO control planning.

● Data management techniques.

After completing the discussion, EPAand its contractors reviewed CSOpermit files and documentation ofNMC and LTCP activities submittedto the NPDES authority. EPA usedfield data sheets to guide thediscussions and file review process,and to ensure consistency in the

information collected in each locale.The field data sheets are included inthis report as Appendix H.

EPA also spoke with state and EPAregional staff to obtain CSO andNPDES inspection information. Thesedata were supplemented with andchecked against state and regionalinspection information posted on theInternet, and reviews of inspectioninformation in PCS and the federaldocket.

3.3.3 Assessment of CommunityEfforts

Based on information collected duringsite visits and internal file review, EPAidentified eight CSO communities forcase study development. The casestudies were selected to highlight arange of programmatic experiencesand to reflect geographic diversity.EPA worked with the relevant NPDESauthority to identify an appropriatecontact in each CSO communityselected as a case study.

EPA and its contractors then contactedan appropriate official in eachcommunity to seek support for casestudy development. Seven officialsagreed to assist in development of casestudies, and EPA identified anadditional community to replace theone that declined.

EPA developed case studies of thefollowing CSO programs:

● Bremerton, Washington

● Burlington, Iowa

● Muncie, Indiana

● North Bergen, New Jersey


3-7

EPA completed case studies of 17 community CSOcontrol programs, including Atlanta, Georgia. Aspart of its LTCP, Atlanta is replacing a significantportion of its combined systems with newseparate tunnels.

Photo: Atlanta Department of Public Works

● Randolph, Vermont

● Saginaw, Michigan

● South Portland, Maine

● Wheeling, West Virginia

The appropriate NPDES authority andEPA regional office reviewed each casestudy to ensure accuracy.

In addition, AMSA and one otherCSO community contacted EPA andoffered to assist in development ofcase studies. EPA accepted these offers,bringing the total number ofmunicipal case studies to 17. Theadditional case studies were:

● Atlanta, Georgia

● Chicago, Illinois

● Columbus, Georgia

● Louisville and Jefferson CountyMunicipal Sewer District,Kentucky

● Massachusetts Water ResourcesAuthority, Boston, Massachusetts

● Richmond, Virginia

● Rouge River, Michigan

● San Francisco, California

● Washington, DC

The case studies appear in Appendix Cof this report.

3.3.4 CSO Surveys from AMSA andthe CSO Partnership

AMSA and the CSO Partnershipsurveyed their members during thespring of 2001 and furnished theanonymous results of these surveys toEPA. AMSA estimates that 58 of theirmembers have combined sewersystems. AMSA received 27 responsesto the survey, which was distributed toonly those communities withcombined sewers —a response rate of47 percent. AMSA indicated that onerespondent also completed the surveyconducted by the CSO Partnership,and flagged those responsesaccordingly. The CSO Partnership,which has approximately 85 members,distributed its survey to its entiremembership. The CSO Partnershipreceived 23 responses, a response rateof 27 percent.

The surveys focused on quantifyingcommunities' activities to implementthe CSO Control Policy, and benefitsattributed to CSO control. Althoughthe surveys were conductedindependently, a number of questionswere duplicative. EPA combined theresponses for duplicate questions,effectively doubling the response ratefor those questions. Additionalinformation on these surveys isprovided in Appendix G.

3.4 Stakeholder Involvement

In July 2001, a facilitatedstakeholder meeting was held inChicago, Illinois. Participants

included original members of theMAG and other CSO experts fromEPA regions, states, CSO communities

Floatables control facility in North Bergen, NewJersey.


3-8


and consultants, and local andnational environmental groups. Thepurpose of the meeting was to:

● Provide a preliminary descriptionof the report's methodology andfindings.

● Discuss the implications offindings.

● Collect and share lessons learnedfrom implementers of CSOcontrols.

EPA presented preliminary data andfindings and held facilitateddiscussions regarding data sources,data interpretation, tone, and receivedinput on the context around whichthese findings should be viewed. Asummary of the meeting is included inAppendix I of this report.

3.5 Data Considerations

Implementation of the informationcollection strategy identifiedseveral important data

considerations. First, each NPDESpermitting authority clearly had takena somewhat different approach tointegrating the CSO Control Policyinto its existing programmatic andregulatory framework. For example,certain NPDES permitting authoritieshad CSO-related permit requirementsthat predated the CSO Control Policy.Although these permit requirementswere often similar to NMC and LTCPrequirements outlined in the CSOControl Policy, they were notnecessarily identical. Further, fewNPDES authorities immediatelymodified existing requirements whenthe CSO Control Policy was issued in

1994. EPA also found that someNPDES authorities required CSOcontrols outside the frameworkprescribed by the CSO Control Policy.These actions led to considerablevariability in both terminology andactual permit requirements used torequire CSO control. Therefore, amethodological challenge that EPAconfronted throughout thedevelopment of this report was theselective merging of data fromdifferent programs to arrive atmeaningful national estimates thataccurately reflect efforts to controlCSOs and implementation of thecomponents of the CSO ControlPolicy.

A second consideration was that CSOreporting requirements were specificto the NPDES authority. For example,some NPDES authorities require CSOcommunities to submit annual reportson NMC and LTCP implementationactivities. In contrast, others requireonly a single report to documentNMC implementation, with littledocumentation of LTCPimplementation activities prior topost-construction compliancemonitoring.

Another data consideration wasdetermining if progress in controllingCSOs was associated withimplementation of the CSO ControlPolicy or should be moreappropriately linked to pre-existingfederal or state initiatives such as theNMP, state strategies emanating fromthe National CSO Control Strategy, orspecific enforcement actions. In thefinal analysis, EPA concluded thatattribution was far less important thanoptimizing the capture of all


3-9

meaningful results. Since the clearintent behind the CSO Control Policywas not to disrupt ongoing controlefforts, EPA concluded that it shouldinclude any documented results ofprogress in controlling CSOsindependent of the date of initiationof the control effort.

The final consideration was that mostNPDES authorities have no dataavailable on the annual volume,frequency, and duration of CSOdischarges. Moreover, data on waterquality improvements specificallyattributable to CSO control effortswere absent in the NPDES authorities'files. This complicated EPA'sassessment of the effectiveness of, andenvironmental benefits derived from,CSO control. EPA anticipates that thistype of detailed information will bethe focus of the December 2003Report to Congress required bySection 112(d)(1) of P.L. 106-554.

Although the above considerationsshaped the approach used to developthis report, the basic objective—todetermine the status ofimplementation and enforcement ofthe CSO Control Policy—nevervaried.

3.6 Quality Control and QualityAssurance

Adetailed data verification andinterpretation process followedthe data collection effort. Data

sets were evaluated for missing andinconsistent information inaccordance with a data collection andreporting quality assurance andcontrol protocol. Summary reportsfrom file reviews were prepared and

distributed to appropriate EPA regionand state CSO coordinators. Inaddition, each coordinator received acopy of the profile EPA developed forhis or her state or regional program.Follow-up phone calls to eachcoordinator verified the accuracy andcompleteness of EPA's records used todevelop the state profiles. Likewise,each municipal case study wasreviewed by community officials andthe appropriate state and EPA regionalauthorities.

Data from the AMSA and CSOPartnership surveys was not obtaineddirectly by EPA, and hence was notsubject to the same quality control asthe EPA data.

3.7 Summary

Chapters 4 through 6 provide adetailed assessment of the dataand materials collected in

support of this report. The assessmentincludes:

● A broad national evaluation offederal, state, and municipalactivities related to theimplementation and enforcementof the CSO Control Policy.

● State fact sheets to describeactivities of the 32 states with CSOcommunities.

● Detailed municipal case studies toillustrate community-levelactivities.

A bibliography of principle datasources appears at the end of thisreport.

● Developing new regulations ormodifying existing regulations.

● Interpreting regulatoryrequirements and initiativesthrough policy as needed.

● Developing guidance documentsand other forms of technicalassistance.

● Communicating and coordinatingwith stakeholders.

● Providing program complianceand enforcement assistance.

● Providing financial assistance.

● Monitoring compliance status andtargeting facilities for follow-up.

● Tracking environmental benefitsfrom program implementationand enforcement.

● Managing information pertainingto the status of implementationand enforcement activities.

Chapter 4

4.1 General Activities toSupport CSO Control PolicyImplementation

As described in Chapter 2 of thisreport, EPA's 1994 CSOControl Policy is designed to

ensure that CSO controls meet therequirements of the CWA and arecost-effective. Under the CWA, anyfacility that discharges pollutants froma point source into waters of theUnited States must obtain an NPDESpermit. NPDES permits must containrequirements based on treatmenttechnology performance, but morestringent requirements may beimposed when technology-basedrequirements are insufficient toprovide for attainment of waterquality standards in receiving waters.The CWA authorizes EPA toimplement the NPDES permitprogram or to authorize states,territories, or tribes to do so.

To ensure that the goals of the CWAare met, EPA is responsible for anumber of activities, including:

4-1

4.1 General Activities toSupport CSO ControlPolicy Implementation

4.2 NPDES Permitting

4.3 Water Quality Standards

4.4 Compliance andEnforcement

4.5 Guidance, Training, andCompliance andTechnical Assistance

4.6 Communication andCoordination

4.7 InformationManagement

4.8 Financial Assistance

4.9 Performance Measures

4.10 Findings

CSO Control Policy Status: EPA

In this chapter:

Addressing deteriorating infrastructure, suchas this crumbling CSO outfall, is one aspectof most CSO control programs.


4-2


● Providing general oversight forimplementation and enforcementof the NPDES program.

● Reviewing state-issued NPDESpermits and issuing NPDESpermits in states not authorized todo so.

● Approving water qualitystandards.

● Commencing enforcementactivities as appropriate.

● Promoting research anddevelopment.

● Promulgating water qualitystandards when states fail to do so.

EPA's Office of Water (OW) andOffice of Enforcement andCompliance Assurance (OECA) shareoversight responsibility forimplementation and enforcement ofthe CSO Control Policy. Since issuingthe CSO Control Policy in 1994, EPAhas worked to interpret the Policy andensure implementation by EPAregions and states. To this end, EPAhas issued three memoranda topromote more effectiveimplementation of the CSO ControlPolicy. The memoranda, summarizedbelow, are provided in Appendix A.

● CSO Deadline Memorandum. OnNovember 18, 1996, EPA issued amemorandum titled “January 1,1997 Deadline for Nine MinimumControls in Combined SewerOverflow Control Policy.” Thisdocument alerted EPA WaterManagement Division Directors,Regional Counsels, and RegionalState Directors to the January 1,

1997, deadline for implementationof the NMC. The memorandumalso specified that the first phase ofimplementation includeddevelopment of an LTCP for CSOsto provide for attainment of waterquality standards. EPA also statedthat its approach of not seekingcivil penalties for past CSOviolations (as described in the CSOControl Policy) would not applyunless permittees implemented theNMC by January 1, 1997. TheAgency further noted that OWintended to track implementation(during FY 1997) through aprogram performance plandeveloped under the GPRA (seerelated discussion in Section 4.7.2of this report).

● CSO ImplementationMemorandum. On May 19, 1998,EPA issued “Implementation ofthe CSO Control Policy.” Thismemorandum discussedimplementation of the CSOControl Policy and identified areaswhere increased efforts weredeemed necessary. Thememorandum observed that,although stakeholders continuedto affirm the CSO Control Policy'skey themes and EPA continued towork with stakeholders to fosterimplementation, numerousimplementation challengesremained. The memorandumdiscussed implementation of theNMC, development of LTCPs,achievement of water qualitystandards, and measurement ofprogram performance.

Chapter 4—CSO Control Policy Status: EPA

4-3

● Water Quality- and Technology-Based CSO RequirementsMemorandum. On July 7, 1999,EPA issued “Water Quality-Basedand Technology-Based CSORequirements.” Thismemorandum discussed waterquality-based requirements;technology-based requirements;and coordination of enforcement,permitting, and water qualityprograms in enforcement cases.

The remainder of this chapterdescribes activities EPA hasundertaken to ensure that CSOcommunities and NPDES authoritiesfully implement the CSO ControlPolicy. Information related to theactivities of EPA regions as thepermitting authority in non-authorized states is provided inChapter 5.

4.2 NPDES Permitting

Under the NPDES permitprogram, any discharge ofpollutants to waters of the

United States must be authorized byan NPDES permit. Permits are issuedto dischargers by EPA regional offices,or by states or territories or tribesauthorized by EPA to administer astate permitting program that meetsminimum federal requirements. Todate, EPA has authorized 44 states andone territory to administer the NPDESprogram. EPA remains the permittingauthority in the remaining six states(Alaska, Arizona, Idaho,Massachusetts, New Hampshire, andNew Mexico), the District of

Columbia, all U.S. territories (exceptthe U.S. Virgin Islands), and allFederal Indian Reservations.

4.2.1 EPA HeadquartersResponsibilities and Activities

EPA headquarters provides legal andtechnical support at the national leveland is responsible for ensuring thatthe NPDES permit program issuccessfully implemented. EPAprovides technical tools, training, andcontract support to promote theissuance of timely and high-qualityNPDES permits; tracks, manages, andreports permit issuance data; andevaluates and reports on the quality ofpermits across all EPA regions andauthorized NPDES states. Theactivities described in Chapter 4 arerelated to EPA's efforts to addressproper implementation of the CSOControl Policy.

Permit Quality Management

The Water Permits Division (WPD) ofEPA's Office of WastewaterManagement (OWM) recentlydeveloped several draft managementtools for use by EPA regions andauthorized states to ensure NPDESpermit quality. These draft toolsinclude central tenets of the NPDESpermit program and a municipalpermit review checklist, both of whichinclude provisions that evaluateagreement with the CSO ControlPolicy. These draft tools are availableat WPD's web site atwww.epa.gov/npdes/issuance. Inaddition, WPD periodically conductsevaluations of permit quality in EPAregions and states. The evaluationsassess implementation of the CSOControl Policy where applicable.

4-4


Revised NPDES Permit ApplicationForm for Municipal Discharges

In 1999, EPA developed and issued anew “Form 2A” permit application forthe discharge of municipal wastewaterfrom a POTW at 40 CFR 122.21(j)(and associated regulations). A sectionin the new Form 2A is devoted totreatment works with CSSs and isdesigned to provide NPDES permitwriters with information related toCSOs. In particular, the applicant isrequired to provide a description ofthe system; locate each CSO dischargepoint or outfall; document the outfallevents (frequency, duration, andvolume); describe the receiving watersthat might be impacted; and describeany known water quality impactscaused by CSOs.

4.2.2 EPA Regional OfficeResponsibilities and Activities

For those states authorized toadminister the NPDES program, EPAretains a program oversight role. Theextent and type of interaction betweenan authorized state and an EPA region,including the types of NPDES permitsto be reviewed, is typicallysummarized in a memorandum ofunderstanding. In this oversight role,EPA ensures that NPDES permitsissued by authorized states meetprogram requirements, including CSOrequirements, and that stateadministration of the NPDESprogram is consistent with federalrequirements. Two EPA regionaloffices have issued NPDES permitpolicies or strategies specific to CSOControl, as described below.

Region 1: NPDES Permit Policy

In July 1996, Region 1 issued modifiedfact sheet language, permit language,and guidance to implement the CSOControl Policy. The modifieddocuments closely follow the NMCand LTCP elements of the CSOControl Policy. Region 1 issues NPDESpermits in Massachusetts and NewHampshire. Until early 2001, Region 1was also the permitting authority forMaine.

Region 5: NPDES Permit Strategy forCombined Sewer Systems

Issued in 1985, Region 5's strategyoutlined a phased approach toimplementation of CSO controls.Region 5 encouraged states toprioritize dischargers with combinedsewer systems and to incorporate bestmanagement practices into permits.Under this strategy, dischargerscausing significant water qualityproblems are targeted for additionalcontrols. Many of the provisionsoutlined in Region 5's strategy servedas bases for the 1989 National CSOControl Strategy.

4.3 Water Quality Standards

The CWA establishes thestatutory framework governingthe development of water

quality standards and their use. TheCWA requirements for water qualitystandards are further elaborated byEPA regulations for the program,found at 40 CFR 131. CWA Section402(a) specifically requires NPDESpermits to provide for the attainmentof water quality standards.

San Francisco Bay and the Golden GateBridge are considered local and nationaltreasures. San Francisco initiated CSOcontrols in the 1970s and has madesignificant improvements to local waterquality.

Photo: Photodisc


4-5

State water quality standards mustprotect public health and theenvironment by enhancing andmaintaining the quality of the water.To protect the uses designated in theirwater quality standards, states adopt:(1) a suite of criteria to protect themost sensitive of the designated uses;and (2) an anti-degradation policyincluding implementation proceduresto protect water quality. However,states have considerable discretion totailor water quality standards toparticular climatic, hydrologic, andseasonal conditions. EPA regulationsand guidance provide states with theflexibility to adapt their water qualitystandards and implementationprocedures to reflect site-specificconditions, including those related toCSOs. EPA’s Office of Water issuedGuidance for Coordinating CSO Long-Term Control Planning with WaterQuality Standards Reviews. Thisguidance describes the specific ways inwhich states may exercise theirflexibility for water quality standardsreview in conjunction withdevelopment and implementation ofLTCPs by CSO communities.

4.3.1 Section 303(d) and the TotalMaximum Daily Load Program

Under CWA Section 303(d), statesidentify waters not attaining waterquality standards, submit a list to EPAof those impaired waters, and develop

TMDLs for them. EPA is responsiblefor approving or disapproving stateimpaired waters lists and TMDLs, andfor establishing lists and TMDLs in thecase of disapproval. Table 4.1summarizes waters identified asimpaired by CSOs or urban runoff in1996 and 1998 assessments by stateswith active CSO permits. Informationon segments impaired by urban runoffis included because not all statesseparate CSO impairments from thosecaused by urban runoff.

Based on information supplied bystates as part of their list of impairedwaters, CSOs have been found tocontribute to non-attainment of waterquality standards, particularly inurbanized areas. The contribution ofpathogens in quantities that exceedwater quality standards is of particularconcern for CSOs.

In January 2001, the EPA Office ofWetlands, Oceans and Watersheds(OWOW) published a Protocol forDeveloping Pathogen TMDLs (EPA,2001a) to reduce confusion arisingfrom the complexity of developingTMDLs for pathogens. This protocolidentifies CSOs as one of severalcategories of major point sourcesdischarging pathogens to surfacewaters. The protocol notes that CSOscontribute significant pathogen loadsduring storm events. In addition, theprotocol indicates that modeling CSO

Summary of 303(d) ListImpaired Waters in

States With CSOs

Information on segmentsimpaired by urban runoff isincluded because not all statesseparate CSO and urban runoffimpairments.

Table 4.1

Year Segments Assessed Impaired by CSOs Impaired by Urban Runoff

1996 10,552 140 652

1998 15,598 150 1,233

One of the goals of EPA’s water complianceand enforcement program is to ensurecompliance with the CWA for point sourcedischarges.


4-6


impacts can be difficult due to theintermittent nature of pathogenloadings from CSOs and associateddata limitations. The protocolacknowledges that the CSO ControlPolicy takes this into account throughuse of the presumption anddemonstration approaches.

4.3.2 Section 305(b) and the NationalWater Quality Inventory Reportto Congress

EPA established the CWA Section305(b) program to inventory thehealth of waters of the United States.This program relies on states to assessrepresentative subsets of their watersand to report on the causes ofimpairment, if any. The data generatedby the 305(b) program are tabulatedand made available to the publicthrough STORET. The data were usedto prepare the biennial National WaterQuality Inventory Report to Congressfrom 1976 to 1998.

The National Water Quality InventoryReport to Congress is EPA’s primaryvehicle for informing Congress andthe public about the quality of thenation's rivers, lakes, wetlands,estuaries, coastal waters, and ground

waters, along with information onpublic health and aquatic lifeconcerns. CSOs have beendocumented as a source of waterquality impairment in each report.The most recent (1998) assessment ofwater quality impairment attributableto CSOs is summarized in Table 4.2.

Notwithstanding the limitations ofstate resources to fully assess all water,the subset captured in the 305(b)inventory and its associated waterquality report will remain animportant tool in assessing theprogress in reducing impairmentassociated with CSOs.

4.4 Compliance andEnforcement

The goal of EPA's watercompliance and enforcementprogram is to ensure

compliance with the CWA. EPA uses asystematic approach to meet fivemajor objectives: provide complianceassistance tools and information to theregulated community, identifyinstances of noncompliance, returnthe violator to compliance, recover any

Water Body Category Impairment Attributed to CSOs

Rivers and Streams ● 842,426 of 3,662,255 total miles of rivers and streams assessed● CSOs were not a leading source of river and stream impairment

Estuary ● 28,687 of 90,465 total square miles of estuaries assessed● 12,622 square miles are impaired for one or more uses● 1,451 square miles of impaired estuaries are impaired by CSOs

Ocean Shoreline ● 3,130 of 66,645 of shoreline assessed● CSOs were not a leading source of ocean impairment

Great Lakes Shoreline ● 4,950 of 5,521 total miles of shoreline assessed● 4,752 miles of shoreline are impaired for one or more uses● 102 miles of impaired shoreline are impaired by CSOs

Extent of CSOs as aSource of Impairment

Impairment attributed to CSOs inNational Water Quality Inventory -1998 Report to Congress (EPA,2000a)

Table 4.2


4-7

economic advantage obtained by theviolator's noncompliance, and deterother regulated facilities fromnoncompliance.

4.4.1 General NPDES Compliance andEnforcement Process

EPA maintains an inventory ofNPDES point source dischargers in itsPermit Compliance System (PCS).NPDES authorities enter facilityinformation, permit requirements,self-monitoring data, inspectionresults, and enforcement actioninformation into PCS. Region or statepersonnel identify violations byreviewing facility self-monitoring data,inspecting facilities, and investigatingcitizen complaints. The samepersonnel determine appropriatefollow-up action to noncompliance.EPA's national enforcement guidance,Enforcement Management System,recommends using a scaled responseto noncompliance considering suchfactors as the nature, frequency, andseverity of the violation, potentialharm to public health and theenvironment, and the compliancehistory of the facility. EPA'senforcement response guidelines rangefrom an informal action such as atelephone call or warning letter to aformal administrative or civil judicialaction.

4.4.2 National Compliance andEnforcement Priorities

With input from stakeholders such asregions and states, EPA has identifiedCSOs as a national enforcementpriority since FY 1998. For FY 2002and 2003, based on feedback fromstakeholders, EPA issued a FederalRegister notice soliciting comments on

a draft list of 15 suggested priorities.The resulting list of priorities includedretaining "wet weather" (i.e., CSOs,sanitary sewer overflows, storm water,and concentrated animal operations)as a national enforcement priority forFY 2002 and 2003. EPA is developingbetter measures to determine theresults of compliance and enforcementactivities in the national priority areas.

EPA's Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) Guidance (EPA, 2001b) servesas the basis for developing individualagreements between EPA headquartersand regions to enforce nationalpriorities. Through the MOA process,EPA headquarters and regions outlinerelevant enforcement priorities,region-specific goals, and availableenforcement tools for the twoupcoming fiscal years. The FY 2000and 2001 MOA recommended thatregions assess CSO communities'implementation of the NMC andLTCPs, provide compliance assistance,and ensure that compliance schedulesare met. The FY 2002 and 2003 MOArecommends that EPA regionscontinue to implement theircompliance and enforcement responseplans, which were to have beensubmitted pursuant to the Complianceand Enforcement Strategy AddressingCombined Sewer Overflows andSanitary Overflows, described below.

4.4.3 NPDES Compliance andEnforcement Activities

Policies and Strategies

On April 27, 2000, EPA issued theCompliance and Enforcement StrategyAddressing Combined Sewer Overflowsand Sanitary Sewer Overflows,requiring regions to submit

4-8


compliance and enforcement responseplans (ERPs) within 60 days. The 2000Strategy is intended to facilitateregional implementation andenforcement of the CSO ControlPolicy. The 2000 Strategy recommendsthat individual plans include asystematic approach to assess thecurrent compliance status of eachCSO permittee, including determiningwhether:

● The existing NPDES permits andadministrative orders are properlywritten to require implementationof the NMC and development ofan LTCP.

● The permittee is implementing theNMC.

● The permittee is developing anLTCP to comply with all CWArequirements.

● The permittee is implementing anLTCP.

ERPs should include a process andtimetable for the region or state toinspect all CSO permittees by the endof FY 2001 and to take appropriatefollow-up action. The 2000 Strategysuggests priorities that regions shouldconsider in targeting enforcementefforts, such as: elimination of dryweather CSOs; beach and shellfish bedclosures resulting from CSOs; sourcewater protection; impaired watershedsand other sensitive areas; failure toimplement the NMC and develop anLTCP; and failure to correctnoncompliance with CSO provisionsin a permit or an enforcement action.

The 2000 Strategy describes prioritiesfor compliance assistance in smallcommunities and available complianceassistance tools, such as the LocalGovernment EnvironmentalAssistance Network (LGEAN), whichis described in more detail in Section4.5.3 of this report. The 2000 Strategyalso describes enforcement activitiesthat regions may undertake in order toencourage implementation of CSOcontrols. These actions, which can beimplemented in accordance with CWASections 308, 309, and 504, includenotices of violation, administrativeactions, and civil judicial actions.

To date, EPA headquarters has receivedERPs from a majority of the regionswith CSOs. The available regionalERPs vary in level of detail. Someoutline an inspection program forcompliance determination, whileothers depend on reporting from theregulated community. In otherinstances, the regional role for CSOenforcement consists of oversight andassistance in cases of significantnoncompliance. Priorities forenforcement actions range fromtargeting facilities with persistentviolations to protecting sensitivewatersheds. Not all plans explicitlydescribe regional priorities fordetermining cases in whichcompliance assistance might beappropriate. In addition, not all theERPs describe NPDES stateenforcement activities. EPAheadquarters is evaluating thesubstantive content of the ERPs.

Region 2 tracks and oversees state CSOprograms. The State of New Jersey conductsthe inspections of CSO facilities, includingthis new separated sewer tunnel in NewBrunswick.



4-9

Audit Policy

EPA's audit policy, formally known asIncentives for Self-Policing: Discovery,Disclosure, Correction and Preventionof Violations (65 FR 19618, April 11,2000), was developed as an incentivefor facilities to conduct self-audits todetermine compliance withenvironmental laws. When applicable,the policy eliminates "gravity-based"penalties (penalties assessed based onthe characteristics and consequencesof the effluent violation) for facilitiesthat voluntarily discover, promptlydisclose, and expeditiously correctviolations of federal environmentallaw. As of June 2001, no municipalitieshave used this policy, but it remains anoption.

Inspections and ComplianceMonitoring

CWA Section 308(a)(4)(B) authorizesEPA to conduct inspections at pointsources. Most inspections areperformed by authorized NPDESstates. EPA headquarters conductsinspections when a case is particularlycomplex and additional resources areneeded, when a case is of nationalsignificance, or when a case involvesseveral jurisdictions. CSOs can beaddressed as part of a broader NPDESinspection or as a targeted, CSO-specific inspection. The steps involvedin conducting each type of inspectionare nearly identical, although theCSO-specific inspection may include areview of all CSO data, verification ofimplementation of the NMC anddevelopment or implementation of anLTCP, a visit to the CSO outfalls, anduse of a detailed CSO checklist ofquestions. Regional approaches toCSO inspections vary.

● Region 1 participates in jointinspections with states, as well asconducting its own, independentCSO inspections. Regionalinvolvement is prompted if theregion is checking an aspect of anLTCP or if it is a complex case. Theregion has no CSO-specificinspector training program, butdoes have a CSO checklist. Region 1tracks all data in PCS and uses anindependent tracking system tomonitor CSO communities. Theregion also conducts quarterlymeetings and teleconferences withthe states to discuss instances ofsignificant noncompliance andCSO issues.

● Region 2 tracks and oversees stateCSO programs. Most inspectionsare conducted by the states. Theregion also conducts quarterlymeetings and teleconferences withstates to discuss instances ofsignificant noncompliance.

● Region 3 conducts inspectionsunder its CSO strategy forFY 2001, which addresses bothenforcement and complianceassistance efforts. Using severalcriteria, including streamimpairment, number of CSOoutfalls, history of flow-limitviolations, and citizen complaints,Region 3 targeted 35 CSOcommunities for inspection inFY 2001. As of October 2000, theregion had conducted 14 CSOinspections, in addition to basiccompliance-evaluation orpretreatment inspections at CSOfacilities. The region expects tocomplete the remaining 21inspections by the end of FY 2001.

4-10


The region also holds quarterlyconference calls with states todiscuss issues of significant non-compliance that states encounterin their inspections.

Region 3 developed guidance forconducting inspections ofcombined sewer systems. Thisguidance outlines the elements ofa CSO inspection and suggestsquestions inspectors mightaddress during an inspection, withspecific regard to NMCcompliance.

● Region 4 has conducted severalinspections in its states but, for themost part, defers to its states forinspections and relies on them toverify that all CSO facilities are incompliance. The region conductsannual reviews of state inspectionprocesses to ensure that theinspectors are addressing allrelevant aspects of CSO control.

● Region 5 assists states inconducting CSO inspections andbasic NPDES wet weathercompliance inspections. Theregion has an annual agreementwith the states to conduct acertain number of inspections,and the states conduct annualCSO inspections within budgetlimitations, so that Region 5 canmeet the desired goal of 100-percent coverage by the end ofFY 2002. The region selectsfacilities for CSO inspections for anumber of reasons, includingcompliance assistance (technicaltransfer), noncompliance, andenforcement support, consistent

with the region's Wet WeatherCSO/SSO Compliance EnforcementStrategy.

The region holds quarterlynoncompliance phone calls, fromwhich the region's QuarterlyNoncompliance Report is created.Region 5's CSO checklist, which itdeveloped in 1994, is shared withthe states. The region conducts aseries of state wet weatherinspector training programsleading to CSO inspectorcertification and conducts thistraining in the states. The regiontracks all inspection activities byentering final inspection reports inPCS.

● Region 7 oversees most CSOinspections and has alsoconducted seven regional CSOinspections in the past two yearsand has scheduled several forFY 2002. The region issues CWASection 308 information requestsasking communities to clarifytheir NMC and LTCPimplementation status as anothermethod of compliance assurance.The region holds quarterlymeetings with states to discussCSO implementation andenforcement as states continue tofinalize strategies and plans forCSO control.

● Region 8 oversees inspectionsconducted for CSO communitiesin the region.

● Region 9 oversees inspectionsconducted by California for thetwo CSO communities in theregion.

EPA and the State of Georgia consolidatedenforcement efforts to resolve CSO andother water quality violations in Atlanta. Thisnew sewer tunnel is part of the city’sremedial action plan.

Photo: City of Atlanta Department of Public Works


4-11

● Region 10 is the NPDES authorityin Alaska and recently completed aCSO inspection there. The regionplays an oversight role in Oregonand Washington. The regionusually defers to the states, but stillconducts inspections and recentlycompleted a CSO inspection inOregon. Region 10's CSOinspections are targeted based oncitizen complaints, the volume ofpotential CSO discharges, andinformation on potentialviolations. The region is workingon a more concise version of itsCSO inspection checklist.

Enforcement Actions

The CSO Control Policy recommendsenforcement options to address CSOpermit violations. The Federal Docket,Federal Register, and the Lexis-Nexislegal data base were used to compiledata concerning EPA-initiatedenforcement actions with CSOviolations commenced after the CSOControl Policy. This research revealedseveral cases initiated as the result ofthe CWA or the CSO Control Policy.

Five judicial enforcement actionsbrought against municipalities inRegions 1, 3, 4, and 5 as a result ofCSO violations are summarized inAppendix J. The enforcement actionswere outgrowths of violations of theCWA, NPDES permits, or inadequateCSO control plans. Each case resultedin the issuance of consent decrees;financial penalties up to $3.2 millionwere assessed.

Thirty-two administrative CSOactions filed against municipalities inresponse to CSO violations are alsolisted in Appendix J. Twenty-eight

cases occurred in Region 1, and fouroccurred in Region 5. The outcomesof these enforcement actions includedissuance of administrative complianceorders, administrative penalty orders,and a judicial referral.

This number of cases is an estimate,based on the best informationcurrently available, and may notinclude all actions taken to enforce theCSO Control Policy.

Examples of CSO EnforcementActivities

Atlanta, GeorgiaEPA and the State of Georgiaconsolidated enforcement effortswith citizen plaintiffs in the caseof Upper ChattahoocheeRiverkeeper Fund, Inc., et. al. v.the City of Atlanta. The City hadviolated NPDES permitrequirements due to CSOs. Atlantaalso had SSO, operation andmaintenance, effluent limit, andpretreatment violations.

To resolve the CSO portion of thecase, Atlanta agreed to implementa phased remedial action plan to:evaluate the character of CSOdischarges; develop remedialmeasures to bring CSO dischargesinto compliance; and implementremedial measures by July 1, 2007.

Atlanta's preferred approach ofstorage and treatment will becompared with other alternativessuch as sewer separation. EPA andGeorgia will authorize the City toimplement the final remedy. Otherterms of the overall settlementinclude a $3.2 million total cashpenalty, and implementation of a

4-12


$27.5 million supplementalenvironmental project to create agreenway corridor and conduct aone-time clean-up along selectedstreams by March 31, 2007. Thisaction followed 1992 and 1999state fines totaling $20.7 millionfor previous delays in CSOabatement.

Hammond, IndianaThe federal government originallyfiled suit in 1993 against theHammond Sanitary District. Theresultant consent decree resolvedclaims that the Sanitary District,including the City of Hammondand the Town of Munster, wereresponsible for more than 19,000violations of the CWA and theRivers and Harbors Act throughthe discharge of untreated andimproperly treated sewage into thewest branch of the Grand CalumetRiver.

The settlement was reached afterthree consent decrees—one for theTown of Munster, one for theHammond Sanitary District, andone for the City of Hammond—were lodged in April 1999. Thesettlement included a $2.1 millioncontribution to the GrandCalumet River Restoration Fundfor sediment cleanup and $34million in improvements to thesewer system, including storageand treatment systems for wetweather flows, pump stationupgrades, sewer interceptors,sewer separation, sludge lagoonclosures, and the implementationof a program to remove residentialdownspout connections to thesewer system.

In addition, the HammondSanitary District was required topay $225,000 in cash penalties,split equally between the UnitedStates and the State of Indiana.

Port Clinton, OhioThe City of Port Clintonexperienced CSOs thatcontributed to beach closuresassociated with high levels of fecalcoliform. A consent decree lodgedin 1999 required Port Clinton toimplement a program to inspectand sample its outfallsimmediately following CSOevents, establish a beach samplingprogram, develop a publicinformation system (e.g., postingof warning signs) to protecthuman health, and develop andimplement a plan to permanentlyimprove or close CSO structuresno later than June 1, 2000. Inaddition, Port Clinton wasrequired to pay a $60,000 civilpenalty. The settlement willprotect water quality andbeneficial uses, increase availabledata from CSOs, and raise localawareness regarding CSOs andwater quality.

4.5 Guidance, Training, andCompliance and TechnicalAssistance

Since issuing the CSO ControlPolicy in 1994, EPA hasdeveloped and distributed

information and technical resourcesneeded by communities, permitwriters, and other stakeholders toimplement effective CSO controls.These resources include guidance


4-13

documents and compliance assistancetools like information sharingresources, training, research, and othertechnical materials.

4.5.1 Guidance

CSO Implementation Guidance

EPA developed and published eightguidance documents to assistmunicipalities, permitting authorities,and engineers in designing andimplementing CSO controls in amanner consistent with the CSOControl Policy. Collectively, theseguidance documents address the rangeof issues presented by CSOs, includingimplementation of the NMC,development of LTCPs, NPDES

permitting, monitoring and modeling,funding options, and scheduledevelopment.

Table 4.3 describes the CSO guidancedocuments published by EPA. Thesedocuments are available through EPA'swebsite, www.epa.gov/npdes/cso, aswell as through NTIS.

In addition to the guidance developedby EPA headquarters, at least one EPAregion also issued CSO guidance.Specifically, Region 3 issued Guidancefor Minimum Technology-Based CSOControl Measures in April 1993 toprovide interim guidance on applyingthe NMC while EPA headquartersfinalized the CSO Control Policy. TheRegion 3 guidance presents low-cost

Title of CSO Guidance Document Information Overview

Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls EPA 832-B-95-003 (EPA, 1995b) Describes and explains specific minimum controls that communities are expected to use to address CSO issues before LTCPs are implemented.

Guidance for Screening and Ranking EPA 832-B-95-004 (EPA, 1995c) Presents an informal tool designed to assist permittingauthorities in establishing CSO permitting priorities.

Guidance for Funding Options EPA 832-B-95-007 (EPA, 1995d) Describes the options available for funding the capital, debt service, and operational costs of new or improved CSO controls.

Guidance for Permit Writers EPA 832-B-95-008 (EPA, 1995e) Intended for permitting authorities and permit writers. Provides guidance on how to develop and issue NPDES permits with CSO conditions that reflect the expectations of the CSO Control Policy.

Guidance for an LTCP EPA 832-B-95-002 (EPA, 1995f ) Outlines how municipalities can develop comprehensive long-term plans that acknowledge the site-specific nature of its CSOs and its impact onlocal water quality.

Guidance on Financial Capability EPA 832-B-97-004 (EPA, 1997a) Describes how a community's financial capability,Assessment and Schedule Development along with other factors discussed in the CSO Control

Policy, may be used to negotiate reasonable compliance schedules for implementation of CSOcontrols.

Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling EPA 832-B-99-002 (EPA, 1999a) Explains the role of monitoring and modeling in the development and implementation of an LTCP.

Guidance for Coordinating CSO Long-Term EPA 833-D-00-002 (EPA, 2001) Describes a process for facilitating integration ofControl Planning With Water Quality LTCP development and implementation withStandards Reviews water quality standards reviews.

EPA CSO GuidanceDocuments

These documents are availablethrough EPA’s website,www.epa.gov/npdes/cso andthrough NTIS.

Table 4.3

Guidance: Coordinating Long-term Planningwith Water Quality Standards Reviewssuggests that physical alterations, as shownin this photo, may justify the need for areview of applicable water quality standards.

Photo: City of Atlanta Department of Public Works

4-14


methods of identifying controlmeasures that have remained usefuleven with the publication of nationalGuidance for Nine Minimum Controls.

Water Quality Standards Guidance

As discussed in Chapter 2 of thisreport, coordinating the developmentof LTCPs with the review of waterquality standards is one of the keyprinciples on which the CSO ControlPolicy is based. To lay a strongfoundation for this principle, EPApublished Guidance: Coordinating CSOLong-term Planning with WaterQuality Standards Reviews (EPA,2001c). The essence of the guidance isa process for facilitating theintegration of LTCP development andimplementation with water qualitystandards reviews. Integrating CSOcontrol planning and implementationwith water quality standards reviewsrequires greater coordination amongCSO communities, states, EPA and thepublic, but provides greater assurancethat an affordable, well-designed andoperated CSO control program willsupport the attainment of appropriatewater quality standards.

Additionally, in this guidance, EPAcommits to establishing a data basetracking system for CSO permitrequirements and water qualitystandards reviews. This data base willensure the availability of accurate andtimely data concerning permittingactions and other CSO programactions described in the CSO ControlPolicy.

Compliance Assistance andEnforcement Guidance

EPA developed compliance assistanceand enforcement informationresources to support effectiveimplementation of the CSO ControlPolicy. For example, EPA developed aProtocol for Conducting EnvironmentalCompliance Audits for MunicipalFacilities Under U.S. EPA's WastewaterRegulations (EPA, 1997a).

This document identifies keycompliance requirements at thefederal, state, and local levels,including CSO requirements, anddescribes how compliance with suchrequirements can be reviewed. Theprotocol describes the records andfeatures of a facility that should bereviewed and includes model auditchecklists that address CSOs as part ofthe NPDES program elements. Thisprotocol is intended to facilitateimproved compliance with allregulatory requirements applicable tomunicipal facilities.

EPA also developed a Profile of LocalGovernment Operations (January1999). This document, which is one ina series published by EPA, providesinformation of general interest aboutenvironmental issues associated withlocal governments. It includes sectionson local government structure andfinancing, operation, includingwastewater management and waterresources management, applicablefederal laws and regulations,compliance history, major legalactions, and compliance assuranceinitiatives; it also includes an overviewof the environmental requirements forCSO control.


4-15

Additionally, EPA has issued tools toguide inspectors in conductingNPDES and CSO-specific inspections.Such tools help promote moreconsistent and more effectivecompliance monitoring andassessment activities.

● NPDES Compliance InspectionManual (EPA, 1994c) The manualexplains all aspects of conductingan inspection. The manual is usedby inspectors addressing NPDESpermitted facilities. It is intendedto provide information to regionaland state inspectors. Within themanual is a chapter devoted toCSO inspections and a CSOEvaluation Checklist. The checklistis intended to help inspectorsfocus on the identification andevaluation of CSOs, dry weatheroverflows, records, operation andmaintenance, and complianceschedules.

● NPDES Compliance InspectionTraining Program Student's Guide(EPA, 1995g) The guide is afollow-up to the manual. Itprovides practice exercises andexams that are designed to helpthe inspector review inspectionprotocol. Chapter 12 is devoted toCSO policies and inspectionprocedures.

4.5.2 Training

EPA has developed training programsfor NPDES permit writers, operatorsof wastewater treatment plants, andinspectors of CSO facilities. Thetraining courses are intended toprovide personnel working in andwith CSO communities with anunderstanding of the intent and

expectations of the CSO ControlPolicy and requirements of the CWA.In addition, the courses recommendways to identify non-compliance.

Training for Permit Writers

EPA's “NPDES Permit Writers'Training Course” provides permitwriters with an overview of theregulatory framework of the NPDESprogram. The course gives participantsknowledge of permit components,effluent limits, permitting conditions,and tools and techniques for ensuringcompliance with permit conditions.The course is designed to facilitatedevelopment of NPDES permits ingeneral. CSOs are addressed in twomodules of the course.

EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Manual(EPA, 1996a) provides permit writersthe technical and legal guidance todevelop NPDES permits. The manualdescribes CSO policy provisions anddiscusses the phased permit processfor CSOs and the suggested permittingconditions that correspond to eachphase.

Training for Inspectors

With contract and technical assistancefrom EPA headquarters, Region 3 hastaken the lead in developing aguidance and training program onCSOs for regional and state inspectors.Training on the compliance assistancetools for municipalities will be part ofthis training.

Training for Permittees

EPA, in cooperation with the WEF,sponsors a two-day training coursetitled “Participating in the NPDESPermit Process: A Workshop.” This

4-16


course is designed to provide anoverview of the scope and regulatoryframework of the NPDES permitprogram, as well as to discuss thecomponents of a permit and providean overview of the permitting process.As part of this workshop, permitconditions related to CSOs aredescribed along with a briefdescription of the CSO Control Policy.

4.5.3 Compliance and TechnicalAssistance

EPA has developed a number ofmechanisms by which complianceassistance and other information canbe tracked and shared, internallyamong EPA staff or externally withstates, local governments, and others.Several of these tools have specificreferences and guidance forimplementing the NMC anddeveloping LTCPs.

CSO Technology Fact Sheets

As part of its efforts to providetechnical assistance for CSO ControlPolicy implementation, EPA released11 CSO Technology Fact Sheets inSeptember 1999. The fact sheetsprovide technical information to CSOcommunities, permit writers, andother stakeholders on several topics:

● Alternative Disinfection Methods(EPA 832-F-99-033)

● Chlorine Disinfection (EPA 832-F-99-034)

● Floatables Control (EPA 832-F-99-008)

● Inflow Reduction (EPA 832-F-99-035)

● Maximization of In-Line Storage(EPA 832-F-99-036)

● Netting Systems for Floatables(EPA 832-F-99-037)

● Pollution Prevention(EPA 832-F-99-038)

● Proper Operation andMaintenance (EPA 832-F-99-039)

● Retention Basins (EPA 832-F-99-042)

● Screens (EPA 832-F-99-040)

● Sewer Separation (EPA 832-F-99-041)

LGEAN

LGEAN is the EPA-sponsoredcompliance assistance center for localmunicipal governments. LGEANprovides environmental management,planning, and regulatory informationfor elected and appointed officials,managers, and staff. LGEAN providesfree research or inquiry servicesexclusively to local governmentofficials. EPA provides technical andfinancial assistance to LGEAN.LGEAN, in turn, provides informationon various technical and financialresources available to localgovernments, including: wet weatherregulatory and legislative initiatives;workshops; websites; and publicationsto assist local governments in reducingwet weather pollution. LGEAN islocated on the web at www.lgean.org.


4-17

National Compliance AssistanceClearinghouse

The National Compliance AssistanceClearinghouse is a website thatprovides links to compliance assistancetools, contacts, and other resourcesavailable from EPA and other publicand private compliance assistanceproviders. Although currently, theClearinghouse has links to only abouteight CSO-specific resources, there area number of wet weather resourcesand related information. It is locatedat www.epa.gov/clearinghouse.

4.5.4 Wet Weather Flow ResearchPlan

EPA's Office of Research andDevelopment (ORD) conductsresearch to identify, understand, andsolve current and futureenvironmental problems. In an effortto direct wet weather flow research atEPA, ORD prepared the RiskManagement Research Plan for WetWeather Flows (EPA, 1996b) in 1996,which describes potential researchprojects EPA may pursue.

Wet weather research efforts by ORDcover CSOs, storm water, and SSOs.Wet weather research is organized intofive areas:

● Characterization and ProblemAssessment

● Watershed Management

● Toxic Substances Impacts andControl

● Control Technologies

● Infrastructure Improvement

Although several wet weather researchprojects evaluate wet weatherdischarges collectively, a number ofresearch projects address CSOs. Asummary of potential researchprojects is provided in Appendix K.

4.6 Communication andCoordination

Since 1994, EPA has maintainedopen lines of communicationand coordinated with those

involved in implementation andenforcement of the CSO ControlPolicy. This section describes specificactivities by EPA to inform and obtainfeedback from those most directlyresponsible for implementing andenforcing the CSO Control Policy.

4.6.1 Outreach to State and RegionalCSO Coordinators

Following the issuance of the 1989CSO Control Strategy, EPA asked eachNPDES authority with CSO permitsto appoint a CSO coordinator. TheCSO coordinators serve as points ofcontact for EPA headquarters indisseminating information related toCSO control.

EPA's National CSO ProgramManager hosts monthly conferencecalls with the CSO coordinators. Thecalls allow EPA headquarters to shareinformation on programs andinitiatives related to theimplementation and enforcement ofthe CSO Control Policy. The calls arealso a forum for information sharingacross state and regional programs.The calls have spurred national CSOcoordinator meetings in 1997 and1999. The national meetings of CSO

The City of Richmond, VA won a NationalCSO Control Program Excellence Award in1999 for its efforts to control CSO discharges,which include the construction of deeptunnels for storage, as shown.

Photo: City of Richmond Department of Public Works

4-18


coordinators allowed representativesfrom state and EPA regional programsto interact with EPA headquarters,share information on successfultechniques for implementing andenforcing the CSO Control Policy, andobtain feedback on challenges toimplementation of the CSO ControlPolicy.

4.6.2 CSO Awards Program

EPA has sponsored National CSOControl Program Excellence Awardssince 1991. The awards recognizemunicipalities that are implementinginnovative and cost-effective CSOcontrol programs and projects. Theawards are intended to heightenoverall public awareness of CSOcontrol measures and to encouragepublic support of CSO programs.

EPA regions and states nominatemunicipalities believed to beimplementing cost-effective andinnovative CSO control programs orprojects. Nominations are screened byappropriate regional enforcementoffices to ensure that nominatedmunicipalities are in compliance.Qualified nominees are notified byEPA headquarters of their nominationand asked to submit materials to beused in assessing the details of theircontrol programs. Winners receivepublic recognition through local pressreleases and coverage in variousnational publications. Appendix Lprovides a list of previous winners anddescribes their CSO control programs.

4.6.3 Listening Sessions to SupportDevelopment of Guidance onImplementing the WaterQuality-Based Provisions of theCSO Control Policy

House Report 105-769 on EPA'sFY 1999 appropriations urged theAgency to:

● Develop guidance, after publiccomment, to facilitate the conductof water quality and designateduse reviews for CSO-receivingwaters.

● Provide technical and financialassistance to states and EPAregions to conduct these reviews.

● Report progress to relevantauthorizing and appropriationscommittees by December 1, 1999.(This report was submitted toCongress on December 17, 1999.)

To address the objectives of HouseReport 105-769, EPA conducted aseries of stakeholder meetings andconference calls during Spring 1999.This outreach effort allowed EPA toobtain a broad range of perspectiveson perceived impediments toimplementing the water quality-basedprovisions of the CSO Control Policyand actions EPA should take.

A total of 156 individuals participatedin the stakeholder meetings andconference calls, including:

● 73 CSO community officialsand/or their consultants

● 53 state agency staff from 15different states


4-19

● 21 EPA regional and headquarterspersonnel

● Nine environmental interestgroups and watershed associations

Based on this extensive stakeholderinput, six general categories ofimpediments were identified aspreventing full implementation of thewater quality-based provisions of theCSO Control Policy:

● The CSO Control Policy. Thewater quality-based provisions ofthe CSO Control Policy areguidance, whereas the “fishable-swimmable” language of the CWAis law.

● Water quality standards. ManyCSO communities and otherstakeholders do not understandthe water quality standards reviewprocess, the analyses required torevise the standards, and the rolethe public plays in influencing anyrevision to a standard.

● The watershed approach. Statesand CSO communities arepresented with conflictingpriorities and resource constraintsas efforts are made to comply withseveral competing regulatoryprograms (e.g., CSOs, TMDLs,SSOs, storm water) applicable inany given watershed.

● Resources. States and CSOcommunities have insufficientresources and inadequate ormissing tools (regulations,policies, guidance) and data tosupport water quality standardsreviews.

● Uncertainty. The roles of EPA,state regulatory agencies, and CSOcommunities as they relate tocoordination of LTCP and waterquality standards review processesoccur are poorly defined.

● Small communities. The financialand technical requirements of theCSO Control Policy are beyondthe capabilities of many smallcommunities.

EPA used this information to supportthe development of Guidance:Coordinating CSO Long-Term Planningwith Water Quality Standards Reviews.

4.7 Information Management

EPA has established severalinformation management andtracking systems that contain

information related to CSOs. Thissection describes several of the keyinformation sources.

4.7.1 Clean Water Needs Survey(CWNS)

EPA's CWNS is required by CWASections 205(a) and 516(b)(1). TheCWNS summarizes estimated capitalcosts for water quality projects andserves as a basis for capitalizationgrants for the SRF program. Needsestimates are prepared for thefollowing categories of wastewatertreatment and water pollution controlprojects:

● Secondary wastewater treatment

● Advanced wastewater treatment

● Infiltration/inflow correction

Year CSO Needs Total Needs(1996 $Billions) (1996 $Billions)

1988 20.2 103.3

1990 19.5 94.9

1992 46.6 143.6

1996 44.7 120.6

4-20


● Replacement/rehabilitation ofsewers

● New interceptor and collectorsewers

● CSO control

● Storm water control

● Nonpoint source control

The 1996 CWNS was the twelfthsurvey completed since passage of theCWA in 1972 (EPA, 1997b). As part ofthe 1996 CWNS effort, EPA reviewedall facilities in the CWNS data basewith documented CSO needs oridentified as CSO facilities. EPAcompared this list of facilities with alist of CSO facilities with NPDESpermits. This enabled EPA to correctthe CWNS data base by eliminatingincorrectly identified CSOs andincorporating resolved CSO problems.

The CWNS cost-curve methodologywas based on the presumptionapproach criterion for “adequatecontrol,” which is:

... the elimination or capture for

treatment of no less than 85% of

the wet weather flow by volume of

the combined sewage collected in

the CSS during precipitation

events on a system-wide annual

average basis.

The cost curve uses rainfall patternsfor each CSO community and a runoffcoefficient to calculate flows resultingfrom storm events and to estimaterequired CSO control measures. Thecost of the facilities required toprovide additional treatmentconsisting of primary sedimentation,chlorine disinfection, anddechlorination was estimated with thecost curves. Estimated CSO needsfrom the the most recent surveys aresummarized in Table 4.4.

4.7.2 Government Performance andResults Act (GPRA)

The 1993 GPRA requires federalagencies to develop performance plansto track progress by focusing onmeasurable goals and programobjectives. GPRA requires federalagencies to develop annualperformance plans and reports tomeasure progress in meeting theirgoals and objectives.

EPA selected the CSO program as aGPRA pilot program starting ingovernment FY 1997. EPA OWMdeveloped a “CSO Performance Planfor FY 1997” that contained threeperformance goals: 1) increase thenumber of communitiesimplementing the CSO Control Policy;2) reduce point source loadings fromCSOs; and 3) reduce CSOcontributions to receiving waterimpairment. The plan also containedthree types of performance measuresto track progress toward the goals:

● Administrative Measures.Percentage of CSO communitiesdocumenting the NMC and thepercent of CSO cities required todevelop LTCPs to provide for

Comparison of CSO andTotal Needs

Source: 1996 Clean Water NeedsSurvey Report to Congress (EPA,1997b).

Table 4.4


4-21

water quality standardsattainment.

● End-of-Pipe Measures. Pollutantloadings measured through CSOfrequency and CSO volume.

● Receiving Water Measures.Impairments measured throughthe number of beach closures andshellfish bed closures per yearattributable to CSOs.

On April 9, 1997, EPA issued itsAssessment of the GPRA Pilot Program(EPA, 1997c). EPA found that:

● 96 of 918 (11 percent) CSOcommunities were "implementingthe CSO Control Policy" asdefined (i.e., documentedimplementation of the NMC andsubject to a requirement todevelop an LTCP). EPA foundfewer CSO communitiesimplementing the CSO ControlPolicy than expected andattributed this to several factors.First, some communities hadcompleted sewer separationprojects and were removed fromthe list of CSO communities.Second, several states emphasizedimplementation of the NMC ordevelopment of LTCPs, but notcompliance with both of thesecriteria. Finally, somecommunities implemented the sixminimum measures listed in the1989 National CSO ControlStrategy, but not the threeremaining controls included in theCSO Control Policy.

● Considerable variation inimplementation of the NMChindered EPA's ability to track

progress and report on programeffectiveness.

4.7.3 Permit Compliance System(PCS)

EPA's PCS provides information onpoint sources holding NPDES permitsto discharge wastewater. The data basecontains NPDES permit issuance andexpiration dates, discharge limits, anddischarge monitoring data. PCS wasdeveloped to track compliance withNPDES permit conditions, specificallyeffluent limits. This design limits theability of PCS to track non-numericpermit conditions such as those mostcommonly used for CSOs. Therefore,the CSO information available fromPCS varies from state to state, anddepends on specific reportingrequirements established by each state.More information on state dataavailable from PCS is provided inChapter 5.

EPA is now modernizing PCS. Themodernized system will allow entry ofall data element fields needed to trackevery discharger, including CSOs. Themodernized system will be capable oftracking additional relevantinformation, including permitrequirements, inspections, andcompliance and enforcement actiondata. EPA regions and states areinvolved in the PCS modernizationprocess. Implementation is scheduledfor completion by the end of 2003.

4.7.4 Statistically Valid Non-Compliance Rate Project

EPA has traditionally focused itsenforcement activities at facilities insignificant regulatory non-compliance.To determine a more accurate rate of

4-22


overall compliance, EPA initiated theStatistically Valid Noncompliance RateProject in 1999. One regulatory area isaddressed each year. CSOnoncompliance is the focus forFY 2002. As part of the project, EPAheadquarters is providing funding forRegion 3's CSO-inspection trainingprogram and offering the training inRegions 3, 4, and 5. Inspectors will betrained on determining CSO non-compliance and baselines and will alsobe made aware of complianceassistance materials available to assistcommunities. The main focus ofcompliance determination will be thelevel of NMC implementation.

4.7.5 Other InformationManagement Activities

Compliance Assistance PlanningDatabase (CAPD) and theCompliance Assistance Activity Plan

CAPD was created in 2000. It wasdesigned to help EPA documentcompliance assistance activities thatare being planned at the headquartersand regional levels. Once a year, thedata base contents are captured andpublished in the form of theCompliance Assistance Activity Plan.The most current plan includesactivities being undertaken duringFY 2001. CSO-related activities listedin the current activity plan include theGreat Lakes Wet Weather ControlProject (multi-regional) and TechnicalAssistance to Regulated Entities onCSO and SSO Requirements(Region 5).

Reporting Compliance AssistanceTracking System (RCATS)

RCATS, developed in 1999, is aninternal data base for trackingcompleted compliance assistanceactivities undertaken by EPA. It is afollow-up tool to CAPD, in that ittracks those planned activities that arenow being implemented. RCATSreports on activities such asworkshops and training, phone calls,on-site visits, mailed material, andcompliance assistance tools developedby EPA. As of July 2001, Regions 1, 3, 5and 10 had information entered inRCATS relating to CSO complianceassistance activities.

4.8 Financial Assistance

The CSO Control Policyrecognizes the need to considerthe relative importance of

environmental and financial issueswhen developing implementationschedules for CSO controls. Thissection describes funding mechanismsEPA and other federal agencies havemade available to CSO permittees tofund CSO abatement efforts.

4.8.1 The Clean Water SRF Program

With the passage of the 1987 CWAAmendments, each state wasinstructed to create a revolving loanfund to provide independent andpermanent sources of low-costfinancing for a range of water qualityinfrastructure projects. Funds toestablish or capitalize the SRFprograms were provided by federal (83percent) and state (17 percent)governments. SRF programs areoperating in all 50 states and PuertoRico. The District of Columbia


4-23

participates in the SRF program bycontributing annual funds to its SRFaccount and receiving federalmatching funds, but the program istreated as a grant fund rather than arevolving loan program.

Capitalization began in 1988. Today,total assets of the SRF program standat more than $34 billion. As paymentsare made on loans, funds are recycledto fund additional water protectionprojects.

Under the SRF, states have significantflexibility in selecting assistanceavailable for clean water projects.

Options include:

● Loans

● Refinancing, purchasing orguaranteeing local debt

● Purchasing bond insurance

States set loan terms, includinginterest rates (from zero percent tomarket rate), repayment periods (upto 20 years), and many other features.SRF loans are also available to fund awide variety of water quality projectsincluding CSO control and abatementprojects, as well as more traditionalmunicipal wastewater treatmentprojects. In addition, states maycustomize loan terms to meet theneeds of small and disadvantagedcommunities within certainparameters.

Year SRF Loans1 SRF Loans for CSOs1 % of SRF Spent on CSOs

1988 $6.2 $0 0%

1989 $255.9 $4.7 2%

1990 $788.9 $14.6 2%

1991 $1,976.1 $121.5 6%

1992 $1,688.7 $180.0 11%

1993 $1,311.2 $169.5 13%

1994 $2,455.3 $245.4 10%

1995 $2,157.2 $190.7 9%

1996 $1,959.8 $168.1 9%

1997 $1,772.5 $139.6 8%

1998 $2,283.0 $157.8 7%

1999 $2,159.2 $272.8 13%

2000 $3,367.4 $410.6 12%

Total $22,181.4 $2,075.3 9%

1In Millions

SRF Loans for CSOProjects

SRF funding for CSO controlprojects peaked in 1994 anddeclined until 1998. Funding ratesrebounded in 1999 and continuedto increase in 2000.

Table 4.5

4-24


Table 4.5 summarizes the total amountof SRF assistance provided by stateseach year since 1989 and SRF loans forCSO control projects.

4.8.2 Section 104(b)(3) Water QualityCooperative Agreements

Under authority of CWA Section104(b)(3), EPA makes grants to statewater pollution control agencies,interstate agencies, and othernonprofit institutions, organizations,and individuals to prevent, reduce,and eliminate water pollution. Amongthe efforts eligible for funding underthe Section 104(b)(3) program areresearch, investigations, experiments,training, environmental technologydemonstrations, surveys, and studiesrelated to the causes, effects, extent,and prevention of pollution. Fundedprojects include activities associatedwith CSO abatement and control.

Unlike the CWA Section 106 grantprogram described in Section 4.8.3 ofthis report, Section 104(b)(3) grantscannot fund ongoing programs oradministrative activity. Table 4.6highlights cooperative agreements for

CSO projects funded by EPA sinceissuance of the CSO Control Policy.Additional information on theoutcome of each grant is provided inAppendix M.

4.8.3 Section 106 Water PollutionControl Program SupportGrants

CWA Section 106 authorizes EPA toprovide assistance to states (includingterritories, the District of Columbia,and tribes) and interstate agencies toestablish and implement waterpollution control programs. TheSection 106 program provides grantsto these agencies to assist in theadministration of programs forpreventing, reducing, and eliminatingwater pollution.

Eligible activities include permitting,enforcement, water quality planning,monitoring, and assistance to localagencies developing pollution controlprograms.

Section 106 funds are used for a broadrange of water quality programs.Neither CSOs nor any other specific

EPA 104(b)(3) GrantCooperative

Agreements for CSOProjects

This funding is awarded forresearch, investigations,experiments, training,environmental technologydemonstrations, surveys, andstudies related to the causes,effects, extent, and prevention ofpollution.

Table 4.6Grantee Title Federal $ Years

AMSA Performance Measures for CSO Control $294,000 9/94—1/97

City of Indianapolis Wet Weather Public Education Program $112,000 7/97—7/99

Low Impact Feasibility of Applying LID Stormwater $110,000 4/99—4/00Development Micro-Scale Techniques to Highly Center Urbanized Areas to Control the Effects

of Urban Stormwater Runoff in CSOs

ORSANCO Wet Weather Study of Ohio River $1,383,000 7/97—12/01

CSO Partnership Information Outreach $176,500 10/94—2/99

California State Training Video $245,000 7/96—7/98University

CSO Partnership Development of CSO Handbook $181,000 4/97—4/99For Small Communities


4-25

water quality programs are targeted bySection 106. EPA does not requirestates to report on how funds are used,and states use a variety of methods forfunding programs (i.e., permit fees tofund NPDES program, or Section 106funds allocated to support NPDES).Therefore, reliable identification ofprograms receiving Section 106 fundsis impossible.

The national appropriation figures forSection 106 funds to state andinterstate agencies, tribes, andterritories from 1994 to 2001 arepresented in Table 4.7.

4.8.4 Specific Line Items in EPA'sBudget

From FY 1992 through FY 2000,Congress appropriated more than$600 million to 32 communities withCSSs (Table 4.8).

These funds were earmarked for awide variety of structural CSO controlprojects including:

● Sewer separation

● Deep tunnel storage

● Satellite treatment facilities

● Concrete retention basins

Six communities received more thantwo-thirds of the total fundsearmarked by Congress for CSOcontrol. These communities are:

● Rouge River, MI—$253,000,000

● Newark, NJ—$44,300,000

● Onondaga County,NY—$41,089,000

● King County, WA—$35,000,000

● New York City, NY—$34,910,000

● Lackawanna County,PA—$30,000,000

Fiscal Year Grant Amount (Millions)

1994 $81.7

1995 $80.2

1996 $80.2

1997 $80.7

1998 $95.5

1999 $115.5

2000 $115.5

2001 $169.8

Total $819.1

Fiscal Year Appropriation (Millions)

1992 $32.0

1993 $61.0

1994 $154.9

1995 $211.8

1996 $13.0

1997 $23.4

1998 $34.0

1999 $43.3

2000 $33.3

Total $606.7

Annual Section 106Grant Totals

Section 106 funds are used for abroad range of water qualityprograms. It is not possible toassess the amount of funds usedfor CSO control, since CSOs are notseparately tracked, and EPA doesnot require states to report onhow funds are used.

Table 4.7

Annual EPA BudgetLine Items for CSO

Control Projects

Each year, Congress earmarksfunds for a wide variety of CSOcontrol projects. In general,communities using these fundshave made substantial progress incontrolling CSOs.

Table 4.8

4-26


4.9 Performance Measures

Akey EPA objective included inthe National CSO ControlStrategy and reiterated in the

CSO Control Policy was to "minimizewater quality, aquatic biota, andhuman health impacts from CSOs." Asa result, the CSO Control Policycontains several provisions that, ifproperly implemented, would protectwater quality and other human healthand environmental benefits:

● Implementing the NMC.

● Developing LTCPs that consider arange of options to meet waterquality standards. The CSOControl Policy provides for use ofa presumption or demonstrationapproach for showing that selectedCSO controls will achieve waterquality standards.

● Encouraging communities to givethe highest priority in controllingCSOs to sensitive areas. Sensitiveareas include designatedOutstanding National ResourceWaters, National MarineSanctuaries, waters withthreatened or endangered speciesand associated habitat, waters withprimary contact recreation, publicdrinking water intakes, ordesignated protection areas, andshellfish beds.

Moreover, NPDES authorities wereencouraged to evaluate waterpollution control needs on awatershed management basis and tocoordinate CSO control efforts withother point and nonpoint sourcecontrol activities.

This section describes EPA efforts toidentify and report the benefitsassociated with implementation of theCSO Control Policy. It is important tonote that these benefits are not trackedthrough an all-inclusive CSOprogram. CSO-specific measures,however, are tracked through anumber of other programs.

4.9.1 Specific Efforts to Track BenefitsResulting from CSO ControlPolicy Implementation

EPA has initiated several efforts totrack the benefits resulting fromimplementation of the CSO ControlPolicy.

Government Performance Results Act:CSO Performance Goals

As described in Section 4.7.2, EPAdeveloped the GPRA Pilot Program toquantify benefits related toimplementation of the CSO ControlPolicy. As shown in Table 4.9, specificperformance goals related to benefitswere established in response to GPRA.On April 9, 1997, EPA completed itsassessment of the GPRA PilotProgram (EPA, 1997c). The results arealso summarized in Table 4.9.

Since the 1997 report, EPA hasinitiated efforts to better track andreport on GPRA performancemeasures. EPA has developed a modelto predict pollutant and flowreductions attributable toimplementation of CSO controls byCSO communities. This model,GPRACSO, estimates CSO flowvolume and pollutant loadings basedon hourly simulation of a typicalrainfall year. It also estimates flowvolume and pollutant reductions


4-27

under various CSO managementscenarios. A discussion of somepreliminary results from theGPRACSO model is provided inSection 7.3.1 of this report.

Assessment of CSO Characterizationand Monitoring Efforts

The CSO Control Policy expectspermittees to characterize, monitor,and model the CSS to predict theeffectiveness of controls to reduceCSO frequency, volume, pollutantloadings, and impacts to receivingwaters and designated uses. Inaddition, the CSO Control Policyanticipates post-constructionmonitoring to verify attainment ofwater quality standards and to verifythe effectiveness of CSO controls.

PCS is used to track compliance withNPDES permit limitations and otherpermit conditions (described inSection 4.7.3 of this report). PCScontains CSO monitoring data foronly a few permits. This is due in partto the fact that the system wasdesigned to track compliance witheffluent limitations, but notspecifically CSO controls. Becauseindividual states established CSOreporting requirements, theavailability of CSO-relatedinformation varies from state to state.

As a result, EPA has been unable to usePCS to track reductions in CSOfrequency, CSO volume, and pollutantloadings at a national or state scale.

EnvironmentalMeasurements from

1997 Pilot GPRAPerformance Plan

Findings from this pilot study ledEPA to initiate efforts to bettertrack and report on CSO controlprogram performance measures.

Table 4.9Performance Measure Summary of Results

Reduce point source loadings EPA found that insufficient data were available to estimate by 3 percent CSO loadings on a national basis or to provide a baseline.

In addition, the Agency found that reporting methods were inconsistent among communities, and from state to state. Reasons that made it difficult to obtain end-of-pipe measurements include the fact that many communities are not required to monitor or report CSO data and a general lack of resources needed to support state reporting to EPA.

Reduce by 10 percent the extent EPA found it difficult to report on the performanceto which CSOs restrict uses of measure related to beach closures and shellfishreceiving waters bed closures, given that there was no consistent national

approach to assessing and tracking beach closures. The Agency recommended retaining this measure for upcoming assessments and suggested that EPA develop guidance on beach assessment (see discussion related to the EPA BEACH Program in Section 4.9.2). With respect to counting shellfish bed closures attributable to CSOs, EPA found that the current five-year rotating cycle approach to assessing shellfish bed closures used by NOAA’s National Shellfish Sanitation Program is not conducive to annual tracking of CSO impacts.EPA has recommended discontinuing this measure in future performance evaluations.

4-28


Although EPA has been unable totrack environmental benefitinformation at a national or statescale, EPA has continually solicitedmonitoring data to gauge theeffectiveness of the CSO ControlPolicy. EPA has participated in anumber of internal and externaloutreach efforts to collect informationon the effectiveness of the CSOControl Policy in reducing CSOfrequency, volume, and pollutantloadings (described in Section 4.7 ofthis report). In addition, during thedata collection phase for this report,EPA identified a number ofdocumented instances in whichimplementation of the CSO ControlPolicy has resulted in environmentalbenefits. These results are describedfurther in Section 6.7 of this report.

4.9.2 Other Agency Initiatives toDocument EnvironmentalResults Related to CSO Control

Several other EPA programs directlyor indirectly track environmentalresults related to CSO control. Theseefforts, although not the direct resultof the CSO Control Policy, show howoffices, programs, and initiatives canbe coordinated to help identify, define,and remediate CSO-related discharges.This section describes several effortsaddressing CSOs.

Beaches Environmental And CoastalHealth (BEACH) Program

The goal of EPA's BEACH program,announced in 1997, is to reduce therisk of disease to users of recreationwaters by focusing on several keyobjectives: strengthening water qualitystandards for bathing beaches,improving state and local government

beach programs, better informing thepublic, and promoting scientificresearch to better protect the health ofpublic beach users.

Initial efforts focused on current waterquality standards, improvingunderstanding of current state andlocal programs through national andlocal conferences, and identifyingscientific needs. EPA also started itsannual survey of state and localagencies that monitor water quality atbeaches. The voluntary NationalHealth Protection Survey of Beachescollected information about localbeach monitoring, agenciesresponsible for beach programs, anddetailed information about advisoriesand closures at specific beaches. InMarch 1999, EPA published the ActionPlan for Beaches and RecreationalWaters (EPA, 1999b), a multi-yearstrategy describing the Agency'sprogrammatic and scientific researchefforts to improve beach programsand research.

The scope of these activities changedon October 10, 2000. The BEACH Actamended the CWA, in part, to includeSections 303(i) and 406. Theamendment addresses fecalcontamination in coastal recreationwaters. Three significant provisions ofthe BEACH Act amended the CWA to:

● Include Section 303(i), whichrequires states and authorizedtribes having coastal recreationwaters to adopt new or revisedwater quality standards by April2004 for pathogens and pathogenindicators for which EPA haspublished criteria under CWASection 304(a). The BEACH Act


4-29

further directs EPA to promulgatesuch standards for states that failto do so.

● Sections 104(v)and 303(i) alsorequire EPA to study issuesassociated with pathogens andhuman health and to publish newor revised CWA Section 304(a)criteria for pathogens andpathogen indicators for coastalrecreational waters based on thatstudy. Within three years afterEPA's publication of the new orrevised Section 304(a) criteria,states with coastal recreationwaters must adopt new or revisedwater quality standards for allpathogens and pathogenindicators, to which EPA's new orrevised Section 304(a) criteriaapply, that are as protective ofhuman health as those publishedby EPA. If they are not asprotective, EPA shall proposeregulations for the state for itscoastal recreation waters.

● Include a new Section 406, whichauthorizes EPA to award grants tostates and authorized tribes for thepurpose of developing andimplementing a program tomonitor for pathogens andpathogen indicators in coastalrecreation water adjacent tobeaches used by the public, and tonotify the public if water qualitystandards for pathogens andpathogen indicators are exceeded.To be eligible for theimplementation grants, states andauthorized tribes must developmonitoring and notificationprograms consistent withperformance criteria published by

EPA under the Act. The BEACHAct also requires EPA to performmonitoring and notificationactivities for waters in states thatlack a program consistent withEPA's performance criteria, usinggrants funds that would otherwisehave been available to those states.

Source Water Protection Program

EPA's Office of Ground Water andDrinking Water (OGWDW) seeks toprotect public health by ensuring safedrinking water and protecting groundwater. The Source Water ProtectionProgram aims to preventcontamination of drinking watersupplies. OGWDW's source waterprotection guidance identifies CSOs asa source of pollution in source water.

In addition, under OGWDW's SourceWater Assessment Program (SWAP),states should analyze existing andpotential threats to the quality of thepublic drinking water and submit aSWAP to EPA for review and approval.A state SWAP includes: a delineationof the source water protection area; acontaminant source inventory; adetermination of susceptibility of thepublic water supply to contaminationfrom the inventoried sources; andrelease of results of the assessments tothe public. EPA has approved 52SWAP programs. EPA expects states tocomplete all assessments no later thanthree years after EPA approval of theprogram. Sewer lines, including CSOs,are identified in EPA's State SourceWater Assessment and ProtectionGuidance (EPA, 1997d) as potentialsources of drinking watercontaminants.

Louisville, KY has received EPA and stategrants to develop a watershed approach tosewer system management. CSO controlplanning, information management, waterquality monitoring, and customer service areorganized by watershed within the servicearea. GIS data, such as the service area mapshown, are available online.

Graphic: Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District

4-30


4.9.3 Promoting the Use ofWatershed Approach

Since the late 1980s, EPA has initiatedseveral programs and activitiesdesigned to foster protection of waterquality on a watershed basis. In 1994EPA signed the NPDES WatershedStrategy to encourage watershed-basedpermitting and program integration(EPA, 1994c). The NPDES WatershedStrategy specifically established aframework and plan to integrateNPDES programs with other waterprograms for a more effective andefficient application of resources.

More recently, EPA and the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA)issued the Clean Water Action Plan:Restoring and Protecting America'sWaters (EPA, 1998). The Plan providesa blueprint for restoring the nation'swaterways. A key tool for achievingclean water goals is the watershedapproach, which helps identify cost-effective pollution control strategies.

In developing the CSO Control Policy,EPA and CSO stakeholdersacknowledged the importance ofencouraging the evaluation ofproposed CSO control needs on awatershed basis and in coordinationwith other point and nonpoint sourcecontrols required to protect waterquality. The CSO Control Policy alsoacknowledged the site- and watershed-specific considerations that exist forCSOs, and provided flexibility in howpollutants contained in CSOs wouldbe reduced to meet the objectives andrequirements of the CWA. Asdescribed further in Chapter 5, severalstates have used this flexibility toaddress CSOs on a watershed basis.

Although EPA has provided a varietyof technical assistance related toimplementing programs on awatershed basis, guidance on using thewatershed approach while developinglong-term CSO control plans has beenlimited. OECA's 2000 Compliance andEnforcement Strategy for CombinedSewer Overflows and Sanitary SewerOverflows, which is described in moredetail in Section 4.4.3 of this report,also encourages regions to developCSO/SSO response plans thatrecognize wet weather planning on awatershed basis.

4.10Findings

CSO Program Support

● EPA has issued guidance,supported communication andoutreach, and providedcompliance assistance andfinancial support for CSO control.Guidance on the NMC,monitoring and modeling,financial capability, LTCPs, andpermit writing was issued in atimely manner. Other guidancelagged and may have hindered fullimplementation of the CSOControl Policy.

● EPA issued Guidance forCoordinating CSO Long-TermPlanning with Water QualityStandards Reviews on August 2,2001.

● EPA has fostered technicalresearch activities in CSO controlthrough support of and fundingfor ORD initiated research andcommunity demonstrationprograms.


4-31

Compliance and Enforcement

● EPA issued the Compliance andEnforcement Strategy for AddressingCombined Sewer Overflows andSanitary Sewer Overflows in 2000.

● EPA has taken 32 administrativeactions and 35 civil judicialactions (five since issuance of theCSO Control Policy, 16 under theNational Municipal Policy, and 13other) related to CSO controls.Cases brought under the NationalMunicipal Policy were animportant force in bringing aboutearly CSO control initiatives atmajor municipalities.