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