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 CSO Monitoring and Control System Demonstrated in South Bend, Indiana

The Combined Sewer Overflow Network (CSONet) is a new monitoring and control system for maximizing retention capacity in CSO collection systems during storm events. This monitoring and control capability allows a CSO system to minimize CSO volumes and, possibly, eliminate certain CSO discharges. CSONet relies on independently communicating microprocessors, which feed each other real-time data, to support real-time decision-making to maximize collection system storage. CSONet has been tested in South Bend, Indiana, with positive results.

CSONet Structure. The CSONet consists of three types of nodes, gateway nodes (Gnodes), instrument nodes (Inodes) and routing nodes (Rnodes), each of which contains a microprocessor, a radio and a power supply. The Gnodes are installed near, and control, Smart Valves, which can manipulate retention basins and other infrastructure in collection systems. Inodes gather water-level data from various off-the-shelf sensors, which is sent back to the Gnodes. Rnodes assist with the communications. The Gnodes receive the sensory data, and based on that data they can open or close the Smart Valves of retention basins, and can also upload the gathered data to the internet to be accessed by the wastewater treatment plant. The real-time sensory data provided by the Inodes allows the Gnode to maximize the use of retention basin capacity, and to release the accumulated storm water only when the danger of a CSO discharge is past, and at a rate of flow that ensures against flooding.

Pilot Deployment. CSONet was implemented at CSO 22 in South Bend, Indiana in 2005. The implementation consisted of 1 Gnode, 7 Rnodes, and 3 Inodes. Two of the Inodes were connected to pressure sensors in the CSO basin, one of which was free-floating on the surface of the basin water, and the third was located at the CSO outfall. During a storm in September 2005, the water level in the basin rose, and Inodes sent this data to the Gnode, which in turn closed the Smart Valve to contain the basin runoff. Once the storm was over, the Inode at the outfall reported the lower outfall depth, and the Gnode opened the Smart Valve to release a steady stream of water at a rate that would not cause flooding – there was essentially no outflow during the storm. The depth of the water in the basin during the storm reached 4.53 feet, which surpassed the 2.52 feet previously achieved with a passive control system. In this way, CSONet increased the storage ability of the basin by about 110%, or 836,000 gallons, and controlled the release of the accumulated water to avoid exceeding the wastewater treatment plant’s capacity.

Affordability. Gnodes cost less than $2,000, Inodes and Rnodes cost less than $1000. Implementation requires only minor infrastructure modifications, specifically the installation of Smart Valves and the Gnodes – otherwise the nodes communicate wirelessly. In South Bend, the installation of CSONet reportedly cost about $26,000, which was 55% less than a comparable Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) system.
For more details click here to see the report on this pilot 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 CSO Monitoring and Control System Demonstrated in South Bend, Indiana The Combined Sewer Overflow Network (CSONet) is a new monitoring and control system for maximizing retention capacity in CSO collection systems during storm events. This monitoring and control capability allows a CSO system to minimize CSO volumes and, possibly, eliminate certain CSO discharges. CSONet relies on independently communicating microprocessors, which feed each other real-time data, to support real-time decision-making to maximize collection system storage. CSONet has been tested in South Bend, Indiana, with positive results. CSONet Structure. The CSONet consists of three types of nodes, gateway nodes (Gnodes), instrument nodes (Inodes) and routing nodes (Rnodes), each of which contains a microprocessor, a radio and a power supply. The Gnodes are installed near, and control, Smart Valves, which can manipulate retention basins and other infrastructure in collection systems. Inodes gather water-level data from various off-the-shelf sensors, which is sent back to the Gnodes. Rnodes assist with the communications. The Gnodes receive the sensory data, and based on that data they can open or close the Smart Valves of retention basins, and can also upload the gathered data to the internet to be accessed by the wastewater treatment plant. The real-time sensory data provided by the Inodes allows the Gnode to maximize the use of retention basin capacity, and to release the accumulated storm water only when the danger of a CSO discharge is past, and at a rate of flow that ensures against flooding. Pilot Deployment. CSONet was implemented at CSO 22 in South Bend, Indiana in 2005. The implementation consisted of 1 Gnode, 7 Rnodes, and 3 Inodes. Two of the Inodes were connected to pressure sensors in the CSO basin, one of which was free-floating on the surface of the basin water, and the third was located at the CSO outfall. During a storm in September 2005, the water level in the basin rose, and Inodes sent this data to the Gnode, which in turn closed the Smart Valve to contain the basin runoff. Once the storm was over, the Inode at the outfall reported the lower outfall depth, and the Gnode opened the Smart Valve to release a steady stream of water at a rate that would not cause flooding – there was essentially no outflow during the storm. The depth of the water in the basin during the storm reached 4.53 feet, which surpassed the 2.52 feet previously achieved with a passive control system. In this way, CSONet increased the storage ability of the basin by about 110%, or 836,000 gallons, and controlled the release of the accumulated water to avoid exceeding the wastewater treatment plant’s capacity. Affordability. Gnodes cost less than $2,000, Inodes and Rnodes cost less than $1000. Implementation requires only minor infrastructure modifications, specifically the installation of Smart Valves and the Gnodes – otherwise the nodes communicate wirelessly. In South Bend, the installation of CSONet reportedly cost about $26,000, which was 55% less than a comparable Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) system. For more details click here to see the report on this pilot 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 © 2007 The Wet Weather Partnership. All Rights Reserved.