CSOs

CSO Community Homepages:

Partnership Addressing Cutting-Edge CSO Control Issues

The Wet Weather Partnership continues to lead the efforts to address numerous cutting-edge issues, including the following:

Clarifying the Use of the Presumptive Approach for CSO long-term control plans
Promoting Wet Weather Uses and Standards.
Clarifying that CSO Discharges are not required to meet WQS until after LTCP implementation
Opposing EPA’s Imposition of Water Quality Permit Limits Which are Inconsistent with the Level of Control in Approved CSO LTCPs
Using Permits (instead of enforcement mechanisms) to Implement CSO Long-Term Control Plans
Ensuring TMDLs affecting CSO discharges can be expressed in non-daily terms
Ensuring that TMDLs do not prejudge CSO Levels of Control
Determining Compliance Schedules and Community Financial Capability

Clarifying the Use of the Presumptive Approach for CSO long-term control plans. There is continuing misunderstanding, uncertainty and even outright opposition by some State and EPA officials to the use of the presumptive approach for LTCP development. The bottom line issue is that to use the presumptive approach, the level of control that will be achieved must be reasonably likely to attain water quality requirements (either with or without the benefit of a use attainability analysis).

We have worked with the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and key agency Water Program staff to get their agreement that a CSO program that combined achieving the presumptive level of control with a UAA proposal should be an acceptable and approvable approach. This continues to be a major issue with almost every CSO community in the country needing to take this approach.

Some EPA Regional offices and State agencies have sought to specify higher levels of control than the presumptive levels before they will approve LTCPs. We believe this is inconsistent with the CSO Policy in that such decisions by the agencies pre-judge the subsequent UAA process. The UAA process is the appropriate (and necessary) vehicle to determine the attainable level of CSO control. We are seeking an EPA Headquarters memo to the EPA Regions and States on this issue.

Promoting Wet Weather Uses and Standards. We still have not duplicated the wet weather use and standards review conducted for Boston, Massachusetts almost 10 years ago. The Partnership continues to relentlessly press EPA to complete several CSO demonstration UAAs. We also continue to support State-based UAA efforts such as the 2005 legislation in Indiana. We intend to spend the current membership year trying to bring several of the national demonstration UAA projects to completion. This should provide momentum and make wet weather use reviews a reality for most CSO communities.

Clarifying that CSO Discharges are not required to meet WQS until after LTCP implementation. As a matter of federal law, the Partnership has always read the CSO Policy as only requiring CSO discharges to com ply with water quality standards after LTCP implementation. Consider that the CSO Policy specifies a date of January 1, 1997 for CSO communities to meet the technology-based controls (Nine Minimum Controls) for CSO discharges. However, there is no deadline for compliance with water quality-based requirements. We note that the only place in the Policy that calls for water quality standards compliance is in post-construction monitoring.

From a practical perspective, it makes perfect sense to read the CSO Policy as only requiring CSO compliance with water quality standards after LTCP implementation because there is no chance that CSO discharges can comply before the LTCP is implemented.

To advance our necessary view of the status of CSO discharges, the Partnership successfully lobbied an amendment to EPA’s FY 2005 budget that states:

The Committee clarifies that “shall conform” in Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402(q) means that National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authorities should evaluate the facts and circumstances of each CSO community’s program against the CSO Control Policy’s themes of flexibility, site-specificity, cost-effectiveness, and water quality standards achievement after long-term control plan implementation (LTCP). NPDES permits should be used to impose LTCP obligations whenever possible. In authorized states, state administrative orders or state judicial orders should be the primary alternative mechanism to NPDES permits for imposing LTCP obligations. This clarification does not preclude state and/or federal enforcement actions where appropriate.

While some at EPA claim they can ignore this language, we are pressing EPA Administrator Johnson and Assistant Administrator for Water Ben Grumbles to acknowledge and affirm their intention to comply with this congressional clarification.

Opposing EPA’s Imposition of Water Quality Permit Limits Which are Inconsistent with the Level of Control in Approved CSO LTCPs. We are supporting Partnership member DC WASA in its challenge to EPA’s proposed permit renewal because EPA is seeking to impose general water quality compliance obligations on WASA’s CSO discharges that are inconsistent with and potentially go beyond the level of control agreed to by WASA in their final LTCP. The WASA LTCP has been included in a federal consent decree. WASA understood that its judicially approved LTCP imposed all of the requirements necessary to comply with the CWA and objects to EPA potentially imposing additional or different requirements in this subsequent permit proceeding. The Partnership and NACWA (formerly AMSA) have jointly petitioned the court to intervene in support of WASA’s position.

The resolution of this appeal may well affect how every Phase II CSO permit is written in the country. Settlement discussions are ongoing. If a settlement is not reached, EPA must file a brief responding to WASA’s appeal by January 16, 2006.

Using Permits (instead of enforcement mechanisms) to Implement CSO Long-Term Control Plans. We are also aggressively seeking to have EPA acknowledge the budget language we had attached to their FY 2005 budget because it provides in part:

NPDES permits should be used to impose LTCP obligations whenever possible. In authorized states, state administrative orders or state judicial orders should be the primary alternative mechanism to NPDES permits for imposing LTCP obligations. This clarification does not preclude state and/or federal enforcement actions where appropriate.

This is a critical congressional directive that state permits should be used “whenever possible” to implement CSO LTCPs. Moreover, if permits are not possible for some reason, then State orders or decrees should be the primary alternative implementation mechanisms.

EPA has raised one additional obstacle to the use of permits to implement CSO LTCPs. They argue that permits cannot be used to authorize a program that will last beyond the five year term of the permit. We are working with EPA to clarify that states that have adopted general compliance schedule language in their NPDES permit regulations can impose longer-term compliance schedules in their NPDES permits.

The Partnership raised this issue with Assistant Administrator Ben Grumbles in early September and is seeking to follow up with EPA Administrator Johnson later in September.

Ensuring TMDLs affecting CSO discharges can be expressed in non-daily terms. The Partnership continues to advocate and litigate in support of the agencies developing TMDLs for CSO receiving waters that are imposed on a basis other than daily loadings. For example, monthly, seasonal or annual loadings are more appropriate for CSO and storm water discharges. Beyond how the TMDLs are expressed, we are also seeking to force NPDES permitting agencies to conduct UAAs before TMDL development so that attainable levels of control will be identified and implemented.

We played a key role in getting the DC Federal District Court to issue a decision that held that CSO communities would be prevented from complying with the CSO Policy (which focuses on annual average loadings) if TMDLs must impose daily loadings on CSO discharges. We are currently defending this very favorable result before the DC Federal Court of Appeals.

Ensuring that TMDLs do not prejudge CSO Levels of Control. We are also working with EPA and the States to ensure that when TMDLs are developed to address wet weather conditions and discharges, they address attainability up front or at least acknowledge that attainability may be considered as part of a subsequent CSO LTCP proceeding.

Determining Compliance Schedules and Community Financial Capability. The Partnership continues to aggressively press EPA to consider a wide range of factors (such as constructibility, availability of materials and skilled labor, need to integrate CSO controls with other community improvement/development programs, etc) beyond just financial capability in setting CSO LTCP implementation schedules. Moreover, the Partnership continues to raise with EPA management the fact that EPA’s financial capability guidance is not based upon defensible public policy and that local and state-based fiscal stress indices and other consideration should be taken into account when making decisions on both level of affordable control and LTCP implementation schedules.

Real Time Savings: Using High Density Real Time Monitoring and Control to Optimize South Bend, IN's CSO System

Timothy Ruggaber, Director of Operations, EmNet, LLC, 12441 Beckley St. Suite 6, Granger, IN 46530, Phone: 574-303-3031, Fax: 574-855-1012, truggabe@emnet-cso.com

When a storm event hits a city, its associated rainfalls are inherently variable – both with respect to time and space. When combined with the fact that conditions in collection systems are continually changes (through accumulation of grit, blockages, unexpected sanitary flows, etc.), as well, it is not surprising that fixed collection systems are often operating sub-optimally for the given circumstances. Conversely, the goal of a real time control (RTC) system is to prevent combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges by optimizing the existing collection system at all times and conditions. RTC systems use data from real time monitoring (RTM) sites in the combined sewer system (CSS) to provide a snapshot of the current conditions throughout the CSS. The RTC system analyzes this data to determine how storage and conveyance throughout the CSS can be optimized through the adjustment of valves, pumps, etc., which are then adjusted accordingly. Since rainfall varies spatially and temporally during storm events, the RTC approach enables the CSS to continually adapt itself in response to current storm conditions, making the existing system behave more effectively and reducing CSO discharges. RTC systems are made more accurate and efficient when used in conjunction with an extensive RTM system. The RTM system enables engineers to use real data from real storm events (rather than simulated data from simplified events) to fully characterize the CSS, identify its inefficiencies, and design an effective RTC strategy. This system can then also be used to enhance preventative maintenance practices, prevent unpermitted overflows, and diagnose problems.

The City of South Bend, IN has implemented the CSOnet RTM and RTC system throughout its CSS. The CSOnet system utilizes a network of computerized manhole cover monitoring points and embedded computer control points to implement RTC in a distributed fashion. In this approach, all of the monitoring and control points communicate with each other via radio and cellular connections, and all control decisions are made by the equipment in the field, rather than by a central computer. Moreover, because all of the points communicate with each other, the CSOnet control strategy is also globally optimal. Furthermore, since this system does not require a central computer and makes all of its decisions in the field, the CSOnet system is perfectly scalable and less expensive than other options.

South Bend has installed 110 CSOnet monitoring locations throughout its CSS, making it the most densely monitored sewer system in the world. This monitoring system has drastically improved the City's preventative maintenance and dry weather overflow (DWO) prevention systems, preventing fines and improving worker productivity. For example, the number of DWOs has dropped by 65% since the installation of monitoring system, and the additional data has freed up the CSO crew to quadruple the number of annual sewer inspections and to begin vactoring potentially problematic areas one day a week. Using data from its extensive RTM system, the City is able to graphically replay real storms, allowing the City's engineers to easily and effectively identify and characterize the existing CSS's inadequacies. The City has already implemented four RTC sites to address these inefficiencies, and is currently installing nine more. It is estimated that these control sites will reduce the amount of CSO discharge by 23% (or over 200 MG) annually , negating the need for a deep tunnel. Furthermore, the City estimates the CSOnet RTM and RTC system will reduce the cost of its $400 million Long Term Control Plan by $110-$150 million.

For more details click here to see the report on this project.

Excerpts from CBO Study: Future Investments in Drinking Water and Wastewater



	Home Who We Are Accomplishments For Members Membership Workshops Storm Water Storm Water Utility Green Infrastructure Library Combined Sewer Overflows CSO Guidance Documents Litigation Consent Decrees Outreach Materials Technical Advisory Council Use Attainability Analyses Other Documents of General Interest Contact Us	CSO Community Homepages: Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, OH Portland, OR Kansas City, MO Seattle, WA ALCOSAN Chicago, IL Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 Indianapolis, IN Wilmington, DE Richmond, VA Lynchburg, VA DC WASA Partnership Addressing Cutting-Edge CSO Control Issues The Wet Weather Partnership continues to lead the efforts to address numerous cutting-edge issues, including the following: Clarifying the Use of the Presumptive Approach for CSO long-term control plans Promoting Wet Weather Uses and Standards. Clarifying that CSO Discharges are not required to meet WQS until after LTCP implementation Opposing EPA’s Imposition of Water Quality Permit Limits Which are Inconsistent with the Level of Control in Approved CSO LTCPs Using Permits (instead of enforcement mechanisms) to Implement CSO Long-Term Control Plans Ensuring TMDLs affecting CSO discharges can be expressed in non-daily terms Ensuring that TMDLs do not prejudge CSO Levels of Control Determining Compliance Schedules and Community Financial Capability Clarifying the Use of the Presumptive Approach for CSO long-term control plans. There is continuing misunderstanding, uncertainty and even outright opposition by some State and EPA officials to the use of the presumptive approach for LTCP development. The bottom line issue is that to use the presumptive approach, the level of control that will be achieved must be reasonably likely to attain water quality requirements (either with or without the benefit of a use attainability analysis). We have worked with the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and key agency Water Program staff to get their agreement that a CSO program that combined achieving the presumptive level of control with a UAA proposal should be an acceptable and approvable approach. This continues to be a major issue with almost every CSO community in the country needing to take this approach. Some EPA Regional offices and State agencies have sought to specify higher levels of control than the presumptive levels before they will approve LTCPs. We believe this is inconsistent with the CSO Policy in that such decisions by the agencies pre-judge the subsequent UAA process. The UAA process is the appropriate (and necessary) vehicle to determine the attainable level of CSO control. We are seeking an EPA Headquarters memo to the EPA Regions and States on this issue. Promoting Wet Weather Uses and Standards. We still have not duplicated the wet weather use and standards review conducted for Boston, Massachusetts almost 10 years ago. The Partnership continues to relentlessly press EPA to complete several CSO demonstration UAAs. We also continue to support State-based UAA efforts such as the 2005 legislation in Indiana. We intend to spend the current membership year trying to bring several of the national demonstration UAA projects to completion. This should provide momentum and make wet weather use reviews a reality for most CSO communities. Clarifying that CSO Discharges are not required to meet WQS until after LTCP implementation. As a matter of federal law, the Partnership has always read the CSO Policy as only requiring CSO discharges to com ply with water quality standards after LTCP implementation. Consider that the CSO Policy specifies a date of January 1, 1997 for CSO communities to meet the technology-based controls (Nine Minimum Controls) for CSO discharges. However, there is no deadline for compliance with water quality-based requirements. We note that the only place in the Policy that calls for water quality standards compliance is in post-construction monitoring. From a practical perspective, it makes perfect sense to read the CSO Policy as only requiring CSO compliance with water quality standards after LTCP implementation because there is no chance that CSO discharges can comply before the LTCP is implemented. To advance our necessary view of the status of CSO discharges, the Partnership successfully lobbied an amendment to EPA’s FY 2005 budget that states: The Committee clarifies that “shall conform” in Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402(q) means that National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authorities should evaluate the facts and circumstances of each CSO community’s program against the CSO Control Policy’s themes of flexibility, site-specificity, cost-effectiveness, and water quality standards achievement after long-term control plan implementation (LTCP). NPDES permits should be used to impose LTCP obligations whenever possible. In authorized states, state administrative orders or state judicial orders should be the primary alternative mechanism to NPDES permits for imposing LTCP obligations. This clarification does not preclude state and/or federal enforcement actions where appropriate. While some at EPA claim they can ignore this language, we are pressing EPA Administrator Johnson and Assistant Administrator for Water Ben Grumbles to acknowledge and affirm their intention to comply with this congressional clarification. Opposing EPA’s Imposition of Water Quality Permit Limits Which are Inconsistent with the Level of Control in Approved CSO LTCPs. We are supporting Partnership member DC WASA in its challenge to EPA’s proposed permit renewal because EPA is seeking to impose general water quality compliance obligations on WASA’s CSO discharges that are inconsistent with and potentially go beyond the level of control agreed to by WASA in their final LTCP. The WASA LTCP has been included in a federal consent decree. WASA understood that its judicially approved LTCP imposed all of the requirements necessary to comply with the CWA and objects to EPA potentially imposing additional or different requirements in this subsequent permit proceeding. The Partnership and NACWA (formerly AMSA) have jointly petitioned the court to intervene in support of WASA’s position. The resolution of this appeal may well affect how every Phase II CSO permit is written in the country. Settlement discussions are ongoing. If a settlement is not reached, EPA must file a brief responding to WASA’s appeal by January 16, 2006. Using Permits (instead of enforcement mechanisms) to Implement CSO Long-Term Control Plans. We are also aggressively seeking to have EPA acknowledge the budget language we had attached to their FY 2005 budget because it provides in part: NPDES permits should be used to impose LTCP obligations whenever possible. In authorized states, state administrative orders or state judicial orders should be the primary alternative mechanism to NPDES permits for imposing LTCP obligations. This clarification does not preclude state and/or federal enforcement actions where appropriate. This is a critical congressional directive that state permits should be used “whenever possible” to implement CSO LTCPs. Moreover, if permits are not possible for some reason, then State orders or decrees should be the primary alternative implementation mechanisms. EPA has raised one additional obstacle to the use of permits to implement CSO LTCPs. They argue that permits cannot be used to authorize a program that will last beyond the five year term of the permit. We are working with EPA to clarify that states that have adopted general compliance schedule language in their NPDES permit regulations can impose longer-term compliance schedules in their NPDES permits. The Partnership raised this issue with Assistant Administrator Ben Grumbles in early September and is seeking to follow up with EPA Administrator Johnson later in September. Ensuring TMDLs affecting CSO discharges can be expressed in non-daily terms. The Partnership continues to advocate and litigate in support of the agencies developing TMDLs for CSO receiving waters that are imposed on a basis other than daily loadings. For example, monthly, seasonal or annual loadings are more appropriate for CSO and storm water discharges. Beyond how the TMDLs are expressed, we are also seeking to force NPDES permitting agencies to conduct UAAs before TMDL development so that attainable levels of control will be identified and implemented. We played a key role in getting the DC Federal District Court to issue a decision that held that CSO communities would be prevented from complying with the CSO Policy (which focuses on annual average loadings) if TMDLs must impose daily loadings on CSO discharges. We are currently defending this very favorable result before the DC Federal Court of Appeals. Ensuring that TMDLs do not prejudge CSO Levels of Control. We are also working with EPA and the States to ensure that when TMDLs are developed to address wet weather conditions and discharges, they address attainability up front or at least acknowledge that attainability may be considered as part of a subsequent CSO LTCP proceeding. Determining Compliance Schedules and Community Financial Capability. The Partnership continues to aggressively press EPA to consider a wide range of factors (such as constructibility, availability of materials and skilled labor, need to integrate CSO controls with other community improvement/development programs, etc) beyond just financial capability in setting CSO LTCP implementation schedules. Moreover, the Partnership continues to raise with EPA management the fact that EPA’s financial capability guidance is not based upon defensible public policy and that local and state-based fiscal stress indices and other consideration should be taken into account when making decisions on both level of affordable control and LTCP implementation schedules. Real Time Savings: Using High Density Real Time Monitoring and Control to Optimize South Bend, IN's CSO System Timothy Ruggaber, Director of Operations, EmNet, LLC, 12441 Beckley St. Suite 6, Granger, IN 46530, Phone: 574-303-3031, Fax: 574-855-1012, truggabe@emnet-cso.com When a storm event hits a city, its associated rainfalls are inherently variable – both with respect to time and space. When combined with the fact that conditions in collection systems are continually changes (through accumulation of grit, blockages, unexpected sanitary flows, etc.), as well, it is not surprising that fixed collection systems are often operating sub-optimally for the given circumstances. Conversely, the goal of a real time control (RTC) system is to prevent combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges by optimizing the existing collection system at all times and conditions. RTC systems use data from real time monitoring (RTM) sites in the combined sewer system (CSS) to provide a snapshot of the current conditions throughout the CSS. The RTC system analyzes this data to determine how storage and conveyance throughout the CSS can be optimized through the adjustment of valves, pumps, etc., which are then adjusted accordingly. Since rainfall varies spatially and temporally during storm events, the RTC approach enables the CSS to continually adapt itself in response to current storm conditions, making the existing system behave more effectively and reducing CSO discharges. RTC systems are made more accurate and efficient when used in conjunction with an extensive RTM system. The RTM system enables engineers to use real data from real storm events (rather than simulated data from simplified events) to fully characterize the CSS, identify its inefficiencies, and design an effective RTC strategy. This system can then also be used to enhance preventative maintenance practices, prevent unpermitted overflows, and diagnose problems. The City of South Bend, IN has implemented the CSOnet RTM and RTC system throughout its CSS. The CSOnet system utilizes a network of computerized manhole cover monitoring points and embedded computer control points to implement RTC in a distributed fashion. In this approach, all of the monitoring and control points communicate with each other via radio and cellular connections, and all control decisions are made by the equipment in the field, rather than by a central computer. Moreover, because all of the points communicate with each other, the CSOnet control strategy is also globally optimal. Furthermore, since this system does not require a central computer and makes all of its decisions in the field, the CSOnet system is perfectly scalable and less expensive than other options. South Bend has installed 110 CSOnet monitoring locations throughout its CSS, making it the most densely monitored sewer system in the world. This monitoring system has drastically improved the City's preventative maintenance and dry weather overflow (DWO) prevention systems, preventing fines and improving worker productivity. For example, the number of DWOs has dropped by 65% since the installation of monitoring system, and the additional data has freed up the CSO crew to quadruple the number of annual sewer inspections and to begin vactoring potentially problematic areas one day a week. Using data from its extensive RTM system, the City is able to graphically replay real storms, allowing the City's engineers to easily and effectively identify and characterize the existing CSS's inadequacies. The City has already implemented four RTC sites to address these inefficiencies, and is currently installing nine more. It is estimated that these control sites will reduce the amount of CSO discharge by 23% (or over 200 MG) annually , negating the need for a deep tunnel. Furthermore, the City estimates the CSOnet RTM and RTC system will reduce the cost of its $400 million Long Term Control Plan by $110-$150 million. For more details click here to see the report on this project. Excerpts from CBO Study: Future Investments in Drinking Water and Wastewater

		The Wet Weather Partnership P.O. Box 51, Richmond, VA 23218 \| voice: 804.909.3598 \| fax: 804.716.9022 Copyright © 2010 The Wet Weather Partnership. All Rights Reserved.