Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-08 91-159 RESOLVE�/ Council Anion 91-159 � Dale 6/8/9 Item No. — Ilem/Subject: Supporting the "Combined Sever Nerflow (CSO) Control Act" for Inclusioninthe Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act responsible Department: Engineering Commentary; The City of Bangor i ember of the CSO Partnership, a n -profit organization made up of municipal, state and county governments, engineering fixconstruction companiesr and vendors who a rested in the creationoflegislation pertaining t the CSO problem. That organ n has requested that its member- groupssupportthe efforts through the enactment of the proposed Resolve, and contact with cu Legislative Delegation. Oepurme.I Heed t� Manager's Comments O WJL iu.11tEtUeLCCMdaf�r "'-'�^'i —I' VV nsy na;.Trr Associated Information: , Budget Approval: Fr'ao eD' Lord Approval: Ciry Sean, surcuced For n Passage L� Fint Reading Page _ of ❑ Be fe, ral Assigned to Councilor Seal Aril 8 1991 91-159 CITY OF BANGeOF2 (TITLE.) �0501bg,..,,SUppartiug tlRe.."Combined Sever Overflow (CSO)con [ 1 A t;,'_, for Inclusion in the Reauthorization of the Clean Water Act By the City Coamil of Due, o(Bangor: RESOLVED, WHEREAS, any cities in the United States have sewer systems which include sewers that convey combined sanitary sewerage and awater and which experiencecombined s overflowsof untreated sanitary sewerage and storm water during and immediately following rainfall; and WHEREAS, combined sewer overflows are a long-standing condition of many older cities: and WHEREAS, design of combined sewer overflow controls cat be generalized n but is complex and vast be based o site-specific studies of the sewer system, the receiving caters, and other factors: and WHEREAS, cities with combined sewer erflow control systems, the states, and the nation will benefit from improved sewer overflow controls; and WHEREAS, the coat of implementing combined seweroverflow controls is beyond the financial capabilities of most cities that have combined sewer overflow systems: and WHEREAS, some cities have virtually exhausted their local financial resources to address their combined sewer overflow and other wastewater -related problems; WHEREAS, national attention has been focused on the adaption of a nation -vide combined sewer overflow policy, NOW, THEREFORE, Be It RESOLVED, that the City of Bangor, Maine supports the "Combined Sever Overflow (CSO) Control Act" proposed by the CSO Partnership for inclusion in the reauthorization jof the Clean Water Act: and be it further RESOLVED, that the City Manager be directed to send a copy of this certified solution to our U.S. Congressional Delegation along with a copy of the 'Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Act" proposed by the CSO Partnership. 91-159 In City Cmmcil April 8,1991 '- Pasa - RESOLVE } (2 SUP 'ting the Combined 5ewer Overflow - Control Act for inclusion in the .j City Clerk Reauthorization� o/nfj the Clean water Act TV 91-159 The CSO Partnership P.O. Box 28505 Richmond, Virginia 2328641169 "COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO) CONTROL ACT" Congressional Legislative Proposal offered by the CSO Partnership Approved by the Boats of Directors April 1, 1991 Telephone: (804)"IN4812 Facsimile: (806) 8449881 Fatilitit Pmpv OpnmlionaM Mawkna=orsrwm Siuspeefic TccbnologydaxJ Ua-0yG¢ H RWulrtmenA APpliudon TRECSOPARTNERSHIP COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL ACT — DISCHARGERNOTIFIESEPq OR STATE OF EXISTENCE OFCSOs (3 MOS. AFTER ACT'S EFF DATE) C EPA OR STATE ISSUES PHASE I PERMIT (6 MOS. AFTER ACT'S EFF. DATE)) DISCHARGER APPLIES FOR PHASE II PERMIT (li . AFTER AFTER PERMIT REG. PROMULGATION OR 2 YRS TER ACF'S EFF. DATE, WHICHEVER IS [.AST) ....................... ..................... EPA OR STATE ISSUES PHASE II PERMR (12 MOS. AFTER RECEIPT OF PERMRAPPUCATION) Minimum"tatrments I I FIWMr"uimmwn wet ot CmliQallve EPA C mPIOcs CSO hwcnmry (2 Y%. AAer Acts ER, Dale) EPA FShblisM1cs Tahmlogitsl Cknri nyMla'e (6 Mo[. ARer An's ED Da ) EPA Pmmulgmes Perms Regulalions OYm.Afmr Acts EQ. Dale) Financial Capability Water Qualily-bated Wel Wesmcr SmnEBNz Rquiremcn4 CompNanc[SchWuk 16 Fiwlual Capability Compliarcesewule Minimum"tatrments I I FIWMr"uimmwn wet ot CmliQallve EPA C mPIOcs CSO hwcnmry (2 Y%. AAer Acts ER, Dale) EPA FShblisM1cs Tahmlogitsl Cknri nyMla'e (6 Mo[. ARer An's ED Da ) EPA Pmmulgmes Perms Regulalions OYm.Afmr Acts EQ. Dale) Financial Capability Water Qualily-bated Wel Wesmcr SmnEBNz Rquiremcn4 CompNanc[SchWuk 16 Fiwlual Capability Compliarcesewule CmliQallve EPA C mPIOcs CSO hwcnmry (2 Y%. AAer Acts ER, Dale) EPA FShblisM1cs Tahmlogitsl Cknri nyMla'e (6 Mo[. ARer An's ED Da ) EPA Pmmulgmes Perms Regulalions OYm.Afmr Acts EQ. Dale) Financial Capability Water Qualily-bated Wel Wesmcr SmnEBNz Rquiremcn4 CompNanc[SchWuk 16 Fiwlual Capability Compliarcesewule April, 1991 EASIS AEG RATIONALE FOR THE ATTACHED Combined Sewer Overflows ("CSOs") exist in some 1200 localities nationwide, principally in the central areas of older cities. Cans are either dry weather CSns or wet weather CSOs. Ory weather CSOs are the discharge of untreated sanitary wastes from combined stormwater sewers and sanitary sewers where the discharge is not caused by etormwater runoff or stormwater induced infiltration into the combined sewer system. Wet weather ISOs are the discharge of untreated sanitary wastes and stormwater from combined etormwater and sanitary sewers. Many cities with CSOS either are developing and implementing or want to develop and implement CSO control programa) however, as explained below, the present law governing CSOs actually discourages localities from fully addressing their CSO problems. CSOs are currently regulated under the general category of "point source discharges." The regulatory programs under federal and state law for point source discharges are designed principally to address water quality impacts associated with continuous wastewater discharges from sewage treatment works and from industries and manufacturing facilities. wet weather csos are fundamentally different from continuous point source discharges in a number of respects. First, they discharge only during periods of wet weather, and, therefore, usually do not discharge under critical low river flow conditions when water quality and public health concerns are greatest. Second, the cost and technical complexity of wet weather CSO controls is generally far greater than the cost and technical complexity of controls applied to continuous point source discharges. The high cost and technical complexity of cS0 controls is flue principally to such factors as the large volumes of the flows and the intermittent nature of the discharges, the dilute concentrations of pollutants generally present in CSo discharges, the number and variety of CSO discharge points, and the remoteness of CSO outfalls. Can discharges are also different from traditional point source discharges because the nature and extent of the CSO problem, as well as the effectiveness of Can Controls, is site- specific, and varies among localities based upon such factors as population size and density, topography, geology, land use, geography, climate, system design, sanitary flow characteristics, and receiving waters. The design of effective CSO controls must take into account these site-specific factors. April, 1991 The U.S. APA has established guidelines for the regulation of CSOs through its August 10, 1989 National Combined Sewer Overflow control Strategy. This strategy recognizes the differences between continuous point source discharges and wet weather CSOs and attempts to apply flexibility to the regulation of CSOs within the constraints of the Federal Water pollution Control Act. While EPA's strategy is helpful, the statutory framework governing point source discharges simply does not authorize the degree of flexibility and site-specific regulation critical to a workable permit program governing CSOs. Further, the cost of CSO control through sewer separation or the construction of conveyance and treatment technologies is in the any billions of dollars nationwide and beyond the financial capability of virtually every locality with a significant CSO problem. Despite this critical shortage of financial resources at the local level, there is Currently no federal, and very little state grant funding available. Reasonable CSO legislation such as that in the attached Combined Sewer Overflow Control Act is needed both to provide relief to financially strapped local governments and to facilitate implementation of CSO controls. The current statutory framework and absence of grant funding actually work against implementation of CSO controls. Statutory requirements and deadlines that cannot be achieved not only places those localities that are attempting to control their CSOs in an impossible position that will ultimately lead to conflict with the regulatory agencies, they also cause localities that would otherwise be willing to proceed with implementation of CSO controls to neglect the problem or resist installing controls because the Cost is either beyond their financial capability or they are unsure of the ultimate control requirements. The attached Combined Sewer overflow Control Act is designed to create a statutory framework tailored to CSOs that Will facilitate and promote the design and implementation of CSO controls nationwide. It does this by (1) establishing reasonable and workable requirements for the design and implementation of CSO controls on a site-specific basis, and (1) creating a federal, state and local partnership to underwrite the enormous cost of CSO controls based an the financial capability of the local government. The attached legislation provides for federal grants rather than loans because of the great cost of CSO controls and the fact that local governments are not eligible for grant funding until they have committed local resources to the limit of their April, 1991 BWNWAAY AND CAPLA3®TION OF ATTACHED HCOMBINED SEWER OYERPIAW CONTROL ACT" The Combined Sewer Overflow Control Act ("Act") would amend section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (relating to the issuance of permits authorizing the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters) to establish a comprehensive program for the regulation of combined sewer overflows ("CS09"). The intent of the Act is to supersede all existing provisions of the PwPCA governing CSOs as point source discharges of pollutants to navigable waters. The Act is generally consistent with the CSO resolution adopted by the National League of Cities ("NICs) Board on December 7, 1988 and, with several exceptions, the U.S. EPA's August 10, 1989 National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy. In fact, many of the Act's requirements are taken directly from the EPA strategy. The Act stresses the site- specific nature of Cana and the need for flexibility and cost- effectiveness in the implementation of CSO controls. The Act also provides for grant funding, but departs from past construction grant programs by providing funding on the basis of financial need and water quality benefit. Me Act requires each locality with CSOs (1) to notify EPA or the state of the existence Of CSOO and generally describe the CSOs within three months of the effective date of the Act, (2) complete a study and prepare a recommended CSO control plan, (3) file a complete permit application, and (4) comply with permits issued pursuant to the Act. EPA has responsibility for issuing permit regulations within two years of the effective data of the Act. The Act requires that the regulations take into account the site-specific nature of CSOs, the need for flexibility on a case-by-case basis, and cost-effectiveness. EPA and the states have responsibility for issuing and enforcing the permits. Permits for CSOs would be issued in two phases under the Act. Phase I permits would be issued within six months of the effective date of the Act and would require elimination of dry weather overflows, proper operation and Maintenance of the system to minimize wet weather overflows, maximize use of existing facilities, and implementation of the CSO study and plan requirement. Phase II permits must be issued following promulgation of the permit regulations and submission of the CSO plan and within 12 months of receipt of a permit application. April, 1991 Phase 11 permits must incorporate the technology-based and water - quality based controls specified in the Act. The Act identifies two levels of technology-based controls. The first level (which is required of all permittees) consists of virtually the same minimum controls specified at Section 5 of EPA's CSO strategy. The second level includes most of the additional C50 control measures specified at section s of EPA's Cs0 strategy. Consistent with EPA's strategy, these additional controls must he shown to be cost-effective. Unlike EPA's strategy, however, compliance with these additional measures, where imposed, must be achieved as expeditiously as practicable taking into account financial capability and the availability of grant funding. Me FWPCA and the EPA strategy require compliance with beet practical control technology (BPT) by July 1, 1977. The Act establishes no deadlines and no technology-based requirements such as BST, BCT, BAT, etc. The Act requires compliance with water quality standards as expeditiously as practicable, but unlike the FWPCA and EPA's CBO strategy, sets no deadline for compliance with water quality standards. Me Act also provides for the establishment of wet weather water quality standards and a variance from the water quality standards requirement where it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable relationship between the economic and social costs and the benefits to be obtained from compliance with the standards. While the Act itself sets no deadlines, it does contemplate the establishment of deadlines on a case-by-case basis through the permit process. The Act authorizes federal and state grant funding for a two-year period following enactment, and provides that the amount of additional grant funding beyond this two-year period will be based on the CSO inventory requird by the Act. Local governments in states that fail to contribute at least 20 percent of the federal share are not eligible for federal grant funding. Grant funding is available only for that portion of CSO control that is beyond the financial capability of each local government. The Act provides for the promulgation of regulations that would establish guidelines for determining financial capability on a case-by-case basis. The Act lists certain criteria to be considered by the EPA in establishing these regulations. we,t2.e S1 April, 1991 financial capability. This legislation was drafted with the expectation that funding for the grants program would come from a dedicated source of revenue, rather than from general revenues, and that this dedicated source of revenue would be etablished i legislation separate from the attached Act. Possible alternative sources of revenues include utility taxes and taxes and fees on wastewater discharges. Such s of revenues might also provide grant funding for a variety of water quality programs nationwide in addition to CSO control. e:WIAIIAww.6 April, 1991 1 Be it courted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 2 of America in Congress assembled, 3 SBC 1. SHORT TITLE 4 This Act may be referred to as the "Combined Sewer Overflow Control Aar." 5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS 6 The Congress finds that - 7 (1) Combined sewer overflows are discharges from combined 8 - stormwater sewers and sanitary sewers, and that combined sewer overflows exist 9 in hundreds of localities throughout the United States -- principally in older 10 urban localities that constructed their sewer systems long before the advent of 11 wastewater treatment tedmology; 12 (2) Uncontrolled, combined sewer overflows can result in the 13 degradation of the quality of the receiving waters; 14 (3) It is essential that combined sewer overflows be controlled where 15 they pose a threat to public health and the environment; 16 (4) The total cast of controlling combined sewer overflows to comply 17 with the current technology-based and water quality -based requirements of the 18 Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. $ 1251E Keq.) 19 through sewer separation or the construction of conveyance and treatment 20 technologies is in the many billions of dollars nationwide and beyond the L �, April, 1991 1 financial capability of virtually every local government with a significant 2 combined sewer overflow problem; 3 (5) The nature and extent of the combined sewer overflow problem, as 4 well as the effectiveness of combined sewer overflow control methods and 5 technologies, is site-specific, and varies among localities based upon such factors 6 as population size and density, topography, geology, land use, geography, 7 climate, system design, sanitary flow characteristics, and receiving waters; 8 (6) The design of effective combined sewer overflow controls cannot be 9 generalized, but is complex and must be based on sire -specific studies of the 10 sewer system, the receiving waters and other factors; 11 (7) Given the magnitude of the cost of combined sewer overflow control, l2 and the complex and site-specific nature of the combined sewer overflow 13 problem and combined sewer overflow controls, it is amends] that combined - 14 sewer overflow controls be cost-effective, that there be flexibility with respect to 15 data collection and monitoring requirements, the types of controls required of 16 each local government and the time frames for implementation of those 17 controls, and that there be a partnership between the federal, state and local 18 governments to fund the cost of combined sewer overflow controls. 19 SEG 3. REGULATION OF COMBINED SEWER OV FWWS 20 Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad (33 U.S.C. § 1342; 21 relating to the issuance of permits for the discharge of pollutants into waters), is 22 amended by adding at the end the following subsection: 23 -(q) Combined Sewer Overflos. - 2 urn April. 1891 (1) Definitions — For purposes of this subsection (A) the term "combined sewer overflow" means the discharge of untreated sanitary wastes (including industrial wastes and other wastes conveyed through a sanitary sewer system) and stormwater from combined stormwater and sardtary sewers. (B) the term "discharge" shall have the same definition as in section 502(16) of this Ad. (C) the term "dry weather overflow" means the discharge of untreated sanitary wastes (including industrial wastes and other wastes conveyed through a sanitary sewer system) from combined stormwater sewers and sanitary sewers where the discharge is not caused by so mmeater runoff or summoner induced infiltration into the combined z - sewer system. (2) General Prohibition -- Combined sewer overflow shall be unlawful _. . except in accordance with the requirements of this subsection (q). - (3) Notification and Pemtit Requirements -- (A) Notification -- Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, my person owning or operating a combined stormwater and sanitary sewer from which there is combined sewer oveAow, shall notify the Administrator or the State (in the case of a permit program approved under section 402 of this Act) of the combined sewer overflow. Said notification shall describe the number, location and general characteristics of the overflow, point or points, and 3 April, 1991 shall state whether dry weather overflow occurs at one or more points in the combined sewer system. (B) Phase I Permits -- Not later than b months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator or the State (in the case of a permit program approved under section 402 of this Act) shall issue to any person owrdng cooperating a combined stormwater and sanitary sewer from which there is combined sewer overflow a permit authorizing such combined sewer overflow. Such permit shall: (i) prohibit dry weather overflow; (ii) require the permittee to implement technically sound operation and maintenance practices for its sewer system designed to minimize combined sewer overflow; (iii) require the permittee to maximize the use of its existing facilities to minimize combined sewer overflow; and (iv) implement the study and plan required by paragraph (4) of this subsection in accordance with the requirements of that paragraph to the extent such ready and plan has not been previously implemented. Permits authorizing combined sewer overflow issued prior to the enamment of this subsection shall remain in effect until reissued or modified in accordance with this subparagraph. (C) Phase B Permits — Any person owning or operating a combined searmwaw and sanitary sewer from which there is combined sewer overflow shall file with the Administrator or the Smte (in the use of a permit program approved "der section 402 of this Act) a complete permit application not later than 12 months after the effective date of 4 IU�z April, 1991 1 the regulations required by paragraph (5) of this subsection or not later 2 than 2 years after the effective date of this subsection, whichever shall 3 last occur. Not later than 12 months after the receipt of an application 4 required by this subparagraph, the Administrator or the State (in the 5 case of a permit program approved under section 402 of this Act) shall 6 issue a permit to the applicant authorizing the combined sewer overflow. (4) Plan Requirement -- Not later than 12 months after the effective date of the regulations required by paragraph (5) of this subsection or not later than 2 years after the effective date of this subsection, whichever shall last ., occur, each person owning or operating a combined stormwater or sanitary sewer from which there is combined sewer overflow shall complete a study and evaluation of its combined sewer system and combined sewer overflow and prepare a combined sewer overflow control plan. Such plan shall be submitted with, and be a part of the permit application required by subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of this subsection. Such study and plan shall, at a minimum, identify, describe and characterize the combined sewer overflow; describe and evaluate the range of technically feasible combined sewer overflow controls that could reasonably be applied to the combined sewer overflow considering site- specific conditions; identify, describe and evaluate the relative casts and benefits of such alternative controls, and the predicted relative receiving water quality impacts of such alternative controls; describe the recommended combined sewer overflow controls, and contain a proposed schedule for 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 April, 1991 implementing snob controls consistent with the local government's financial capability to !mance implementation of the play with local funds as well as with federal and/or shite grant funding. The range of controls described and evaluated in the plan shall, at a aluminum, include the technology-based controls identified in paragraph (7) of this subsection. The study and plan shall also contain an analysis of the cost of the recommended controls, the funding alternatives, and the Owner or operator's financial capability to implement the recommended combined sewer overflow controls over the period of the proposed implementation schedule. Plans prepared prior to the effective date of this subsection, and meeting the minimum plan requirements herein, shall satisfy the requirements of this paragraph. (5) Permit Regulations -- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator, in consultation with state and local officials, shall establish regulations setting forth the phase R permit requirements for combined sewer overflow. (6) Regulation Contents -- In establishing the regulations required by paragraph (5) of this subsection, the Administrator shall provide for the following (A) Application forms and application requirements that take into account the need for flexibility based on the following: (i) the site-specific nature of combined sewer overflow, and the differences among localities based upon such factors as population size and density, topography, geology, land use, geography, climate, system design, saNmry flow characteristics, receiving water characteristics, designated uses of the receiving 6 April, 1991 waters, and the impacts of the combined sewer overflow on receiving water uses; (fi) the difficulty and expense of data collection because of the number of combined sewer overflow outfalls, the intermittent nature of combined sewer overflow, the locations of individual combined sewer overflaw outfalls and the difficulty in gaining access to such cattails. (B) Pemdt conditions and requirements that provide for the casoby-case, siteapecific application of the technology-based and water quality -based controls identified in paragraphs (7) and (8) of this subsection. Said permit conditions and requirements shall provide for implementation of the recommended controls in the plan required by paragraph (4) of this subsection in accordance with the plan's recommended schedule unless such recommended controls or schedule are found to be inconsistent with the requirements of this subsection. (C) Data and monitoring requirements that we cost-effective and use proven statistical sampling methods, that minim++e sampling through the use of representative dam collection, and avoid, wherever possible, sampling each combined sewer overflow outfall (D) Avoidance of data collection and monitoring requirements where not needed in the selection and implementation of a combined sewer overflow control plan. (E) The use of system -wide permit applications and permits, wherever possible, in lieu of applications, forms, and permits for individual combined sewer overflow outfalls. Fj April, 1991 (7) Technology -Based Controls -- (A) Permits issued pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of this subsection may require implementation of the following minimum controls, applied on a case -by -else basis, taling into account site-specific faemrs: (i) proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the sewer system and the combined sewer overflow outfalls; (if) maximum use of existing facilities; (iii) review and modification of pretreatment programs to assure that combined sewer overflow impacts are minimized; provided, however, that neither the Administrator nor the Stare shall require pretreaters to meet limitations that would require capital expendhures that would not otherwise be required by pretreatment requirements imposed pursuant to 4 307(6) of this Act. The foregoing shall not limit or in any way affect the authority of the low] government to impose such pretreatment requirements as it deems appropriate; (iv) prohibition of dry weather overflow. (B) In addition to the minimum technology-based controls speed in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (7) of this subsection, permits issued pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (3) of this subsection may also require one or more of the following technology- based controls applied on a wae-by-case basis, provided these controls are shown to be cost-effective. Such requirements shall be implemented as expeditiously as practicable mUng into account (1) the ability of the owner or operator of the combined sewer overflow to finance me improvements without sacrificing essential governmental services and 9 April, 1991 maintenance of its existing infrastructure, and (2) the availability of federal or state grant Ponding for the controls. Such controls may include, but not be Inched to one or more of the following: (i) improved operation and maintenance; (fi) best management practices, including water conservation; (fill system -wide stommvater management programs; (iv) pretreatment program modifications; provided, however, that neither the Administrator nor the State shall require pretreaters to meet limitations that would require capital expenditures that would not otherwise be required by pretreatment requirements imposed pursuant to ii 307(b) of this Act. 'ne foregoing shall rut limit or in any way affect the authority of the local government to impose such pretreatment requirements as it deems appropriate; (v) flow minimization and hydraulic improvements; (vi) direct treatment of combined sewer overflow; (vii) sewer rehabilitation; (viii) in-line and off-line storage; (ix) reduction of tidewater intrusion; (x) construction of combined sewer overflow controls within the sewer system or at the combined sewer overflow outfalls; (xi) sewer separation; (A) new or modified wastewater treatment facilities; (siii) control of debris and floating materials. 27 (9) water Quality -Based controls -- 0 April, 1991 1 (A) Subject w the provisions of subparagraph (B) of this 2 paragraph, in addition w the technology-based controls specified in 3 paragraph (7) of this subsection, all permits issued pursuant to 4 subparegreph (C) of paragraph (3) of this subsection shall require 5 compliance with any applicable water quality standard established 6 pursuant to this Ad. Compliance with any such standard shall be 7 achieved as expeditiously as practicable talcing into. account (i) the ability 8 of the owner or operator of the combined sewer overflow to finance the 9 improvements without sacrificing essential governmental services and 10 maintenance of its existing infrastructure, and (ii) the availability of 11 federal or state grant funding for the controbs 12 (B) A variance may be granted to the application of any water 13 quality standard to one or more combined sewer overflow outfalls where 14 it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable relationship between the 15 economic and social assts and the benefits to be obtained from 16 compliance with such standard. 17 (9) Technological Clearinghouse — Not later than 6 months 18 after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shag 19 esrablisb a technological clearinghouse which. shall make available to 20 states and local governments information on controlling combined sewer 21 overflow. 22 (10) Combined Sewer Overflow Inventory -- For purposes of 23 establishing grant funding levels beyond the two-year period provided for in 10 u" 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 April, 1991 Section 5 of this Act, the Administrator, based on information provided by the States and local governments, shall transmit to Congress a report containing a list of combined sewer overflow outfalls, including the location of such outfalls, the nature of the discharges from such outfalls, the estimated costs of controlling the discharges from such outfalls pursuant to this subsection, and the estimated federal share of such costs pursuant to the formula in Section 5 of this ACL The report required by this paragraph shall be transmitted to Congress not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this subsection. SEC. 4. WET WEATHER STANDARDS Section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1313; relating to water quality standards and implementation plans) is amended by adding after subparagraph (C)(2)(B) the following new subparagraph relating to wet weather standards: (C) Whenever a State reviews water quality standards pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, or revises or adopts new standards pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection, such State shall revise and adopt as appropriate, standards for Nose waters receiving storm sewer discharges and combined sewer overflow during wet weather conditions. Such wet weather standards shall provide for the protection of beneficial uses of the receiving waters taking into account the additional flows projected to occur in the receiving waters during periods of wet weather, 11 April, 1991 1 and the intermittent nature of combined sewer overflow and storm sewer 2 discharges. 3 SEG 5. GRANTS FOR CONTROL OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS 4 paragraph (2) of subsection (n) of section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution 5 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 4 1281(a)(2); relating to the issuance of grants to address 6 combined sewer overflow) is amended by striking the entire paragraph and unerring 7 in its place the following: 8 "(2) The following sums are authorized to be appropriated in addition 9 to those funds authorized in section 207 of the Act, and shall be authorized 10 until expended. Il Focal year 1992 .......... $5110,000,000 12 Fiscal year 1993 .......... 500,000,000 13 - Such sums are to be utilized to implement cost-effective controls to 14 address adverse water quality impacts from combined sewer overflow from 15 combined stomrwater and sanitary sewers owned or operated by local 16 governments where the local government requesting the grant has demonstrated 17 in accordance wab the mitena in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection that 18 it has committed local resources W control combined sewer overflow to the 19 Bruit of its financial capability. Such suras shall be used by the Administrator 20 m fond that portion of the east of combined sewer overflow controls beyond 21 the financial capability of the local govenument (less any State grant funds) 22 upon the request of and demonstration of water quality benefits and financial 23 limitations by the Governor of the State in which the local government is 12 7J April. 1991 Ili located. Financial commitments to control combined sewer overflow made by a l local government prior to the enactment of this paragraph shall be given full credit in such demonstration. - (3) That portion of combined sewer overflow control costs that would not result in local expenditures exceeding 1 percent of the median household income of residentsserved by the local government for all costs associated with wastewater and stomnvater shall be deemed not to be beyond the local govemment's financial capability. That portion of combined sewer overflow control costs that would result in local expenditures exceeding 2 percent of the median household income of residents served by the local government for all costs associated with wastewater and stormwater shall be deemed to be beyond the local govemment's financial capability. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall establish regulations implementing this paragraph. Said regulations shall establish appropriate inflation factors to be used in determining the costs of combined sewer overflow controls and median household income. .. .. (4) Not later than I year after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator, in consultation with State and local officials, shall establish regulations setting forth guidelines to be used by individual local governments whose combined sewer overflow control costs are in excess of I percent of the median household income of their residents pursuant m paragraph (3) of this subsection for the purpose of determining that portion of their combined sewer overflow control cons between 1 percent and 2 percent of median household 13 April, 1991 income that is beyond their financial capability. In establishing the regulations required by this pamgmph, the Administrator shall take into consideration the fallowing factors as they relate to individual local governments: (A) bond rating, all outstanding debt, demographics, population, employment, income and distribution of income, surplus, property tax revenue as a percent of full market value of real property, overall net debt as a percent of hill market value, overall net debt as a percent of personnel income, direct net debt per capita, overall net debt per capita, operating ratio, coverage ratio, total debt payment as a percent of revenue; (B) The trends of the factors in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph considered as a whole and the secondary financial impacts of all water -related environmental costs, including, but not limited to, impact on the local government's ability m fund other environmental programs, impact on the local government's ability to fund other local programs, impact on the local government's ability to maintain local infrastructure, impact on the local government's competitive employment position, and impact on the local government's economic development and stability; (C) Consideration of the local government's total financial commitment to water -related environmental programs, present and future environmental and infrastructure costs, the cost-effediveness and priority 14 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 April, 1991 of individual environmental projects and the total environmental and infrastructure cost burden. (5) Grants pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be made only for that portion of combined sewer overflow control costs determined to be beyond a local government's financial capability pursuant to the criteria in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection. The amount of State grant funding provided to Ne local government pursuant to paragraph (6) of this subsection shall be subtracted from the amount eligible for federal grant funding pursuant to this subsection. (6) Grants pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be made only to those local governments whose States have committed grant funds to underwrite the cost of combined sewer overflow controls in an amount no less than 20 percent of the amount of their individual combined sewer overflow control costs eligible for federal grant funding pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection. State grant fund commitments to control combined sewer overflow made prior to the enactment of paragraph (2) of Nis subsection shall be given full credit in determining the amount of the State grant fund commitment. (7) Sums authorized to be appropriated purnmat to paragraph (2) of this subsection for the fiscal years during the period beginning October 1, 1991, and ending September 30, 1993, shall be allotted to the States for each such year by the Administrator not later than the January 1st immediately preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which autborirrd, except that the allotment 15 April, 1991 for fiscal year 1992 shall be made not, latp�Jhan 120days following the date of enactment of paragraph (2) of this subsection. In making allotments, the Administrator shall establish priorities for the individual combined sewer overflow control projects to be funded. Allotments and priorities for each fiscal year shall be made in the discretion of the Administrator using the information provided by the States pursuant to paragraph (8) of this subsection based,on the population served by individual combined smrmwater and sanitary sewer systems and the extent of the water quality benefit from the combined sewer overflow controls to be funded. (a) To assist the Administrator in allotting sums and prioritizing conaol projects pursuant to paragraph (7) of this subsection, each State shall submit to the Administrator not later than the November let immediately preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for. which authorized a list of its local governments eligible for grant funding pursuant In paragraph (2) of this subsection, a detailed description of the local goomanenfs combined sewer overflow control plan and the water quality benefits projected from complete implementation of the plan, and the amount of federal grant funding sought by the local government The State list for fiscal year 1992 shall be submitted not later than 60 days following the date of enactment of paragraph (2) of this subsection. (9) Not later than 1 year after the data of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations implementing pmagrapbs (7) and (8) of this subsection. 16