69–010 

Calendar No. 1075 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–497 

SEWAGE OVERFLOW COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT 

SEPTEMBER 24 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 2080] 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[Including an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 2080) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act to ensure that sewage treatment plants monitor for 

and report discharges of raw sewage, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

The purpose of S. 2080, the Sewage Overflow Community Rightto-Know Act, is to provide a uniform, national standard for monitoring, reporting, and public notification of municipal combined 

sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. The bill would require publicly owned treatment works to with an issued, renewed, 

or modified Clean Water Act permit to institute a methodology, 

technology, or management program for monitoring sewer overflows to alert the operator of the treatment works of a sewer overflow in a timely manner. 

S. 2080 would also require, with in the case of a sewer overflow 

that has the potential to affect human health, that the owner or 

operator of a treatment facility notify the public of the overflow as 

soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the time of 

discovery of the overflow. If a sewer overflow may imminently and 

substantially endanger human health, the owner or operator must 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

notify public health authorities and other affected entities immediately after the owner or operator knows of the overflow. The bill 

would require a report of each sewer overflow in the treatment facility’s discharge monitoring report to the Administrator or State, 

and a yearly report to the Administrator or State. 

The bill would require the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a rulemaking that establishes 

a set of criteria to guide owners or operators of publicly owned 

treatment works in assessing the potential threats to human 

health from a sewer overflow. The same rulemaking would have 

criteria to guide the owner or operator’s development of communication measure that are sufficient to give notice to the public, 

public health officials, and other affected entities. S. 2080 also provides for the Administrator’s approval of State notification programs and for the Administrator’s withdrawal of approval if certain 

conditions are met. 

S. 2080 also clarifies when the notification requirements apply to 

the owner or operator of a treatment works and become subject to 

the section 309 of the Clean Water Act. The bill also clarifies key 

terms and authorizes financial assistance for implementing requirements under this Act. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

BACKGROUND

The Sewage Overflow Right-To-Know Act bill will require communities to provide the public and public health officials with information regarding sewer overflows in places of public interest. In 

2004, EPA estimated that up to 75,000 sanitary sewer overflow 

events occur each year in the United States, releasing up to 10 billion gallons of untreated wastewater, which can pollute our rivers, 

lakes, and beaches. People can be exposed to pollutants from these 

overflow events in a number of ways, including by coming into direct contact with waters with pollutants from CSOs or SSOs, drinking water contaminated by sewer discharges, and consuming or 

handling fish or shellfish. People are also at risk of exposure to 

sewer overflows by sewer backups into residential buildings, city 

streets, and sidewalks. This bill would require monitoring, reporting, and notifications of sewage overflow events—and authorize 

funding for such activities. 

Eliminating or reducing the potential for humans to be exposed 

to discharges from pollutants from Combined Sewer Overflows 

(CSOs) and Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) could prevent human 

illness from waterborne diseases and pathogens. Once a release has 

occurred, steps should be taken to minimize the potential human 

for contact to the pollutants. There is no uniform, national standard for notification of combined and sanitary sewer overflows. Various federal, state, and local laws and initiatives are now used to 

provide notification of such sewer overflow events. 

Our national wastewater infrastructure is aging and in need of 

important but expensive repairs. These repairs will require significant investment in traditional infrastructure and innovative, nonstructural infrastructure to prevent the occurrence of sewer overflows. In EPA’s most recent Clean Water Needs Survey, the Agency 

estimated the future capital needs to address existing CSOs at 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

$50.6 billion. The Agency also estimated that it would require an 

additional $88.5 billion in capital improvements to reduce the frequency of SSOs caused by wet weather and other conditions (e.g., 

blockages, line breaks, and mechanical/power failures). 

Some Federal laws have notification requirements for potential 

health risks from waterborne contaminants. Under section 1414 of 

the Safe Drinking Water Act, public water systems are required to 

notify the persons served by the system of any failure to comply 

with applicable Federal or state drinking water standards, the existence of any drinking water variance to safe drinking water 

standards, and the presence of any ‘‘unregulated contaminants’’ 

that pose a public health threat. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires public water systems to implement notification procedures 

to ensure that any violation of a drinking water standard with potential serious adverse effects on human health be made public as 

soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the violation. 

The Act also requires public water systems to provide written notice and annual reports to Federal and State agencies, as well as 

to the public. 

Section 406 of the Clean Water Act authorizes funding for state 

and local governments to implement monitoring and notification 

programs for some coastal waters. Under this monitoring and notification program, the federal government provides grants to states 

to run such programs. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is involved in tracking disease outbreaks. The CDC’s National Center 

for Infectious Diseases uses water quality sampling and reports of 

waterborne disease outbreaks to supply information on such 

threats. 

All of these efforts would benefit from more consistent monitoring and notification requirements. If local officials and the public 

were alerted to overflow events, it would also reduce the potential 

for exposure to dangerous pollutants. By providing the public and 

public health officials with this information, appropriate action can 

occur to protect pubic health. 

The EPA has undertaken a number of initiatives to encourage 

local governments to report sewer overflows to Federal and State 

agencies and the public. In April 1994, EPA issued the Combined 

Sewer Overflow Control Policy (59 Fed. Reg. 18688), which established a national framework for control of CSOs through the Clean 

Water Act’s permitting program. This policy requires owners and 

operators of combined sewer systems to implement minimum technology-based controls that can reduce the prevalence and impacts 

of CSOs without significant engineering studies or major construction. These controls include a requirement for the public disclosure 

of CSOs. 

In 2001, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to require that 

permits for combined sewer systems conform to the Combined 

Sewer Overflow Control Policy. Section 402(q) of the Clean Water 

Act requires that each permit issued for a discharge from a municipal combined sewer system conform to the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. This amendment to the Clean Water Act was 

enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. 

L. 106–554). 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

However, there is no uniform federal requirement for public notification of SSOs. Under existing EPA rules (40 CFR 122.41(l)(6)), 

NPDES permits should establish a process for requiring a permittee to report any noncompliance with the permit that may endanger human health or the environment. However, these regulations do not specifically require public notification of SSOs. 

In 2001, the EPA began to address this lack of a consistent Federal mandate for public notification. The Agency issued a draft SSO 

rule that would have implemented a formal program for reporting, 

public notification, and recordkeeping for sanitary sewer systems 

and SSOs. However, EPA’s draft SSO rule was never finalized, and 

was later withdrawn. No additional regulatory proposals for public 

notification of SSOs have been issued. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

There is utility in establishing a national standard for monitoring, reporting, and public notification of municipal combined 

sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. However, the monitoring, notification, and reporting requirements of the Sewage 

Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act are not intended to preclude or deny any right of a State, municipality, or individual publicly owned treatment works from implementing monitoring, notification, or reporting requirements that are more stringent or comprehensive than those contained in S. 2080 or the regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency to implement 

this Act. Accordingly, States, municipalities, and individual publicly owned treatment works may adopt or enforce any regulation, 

requirement, or permit condition with respect to the monitoring, 

notification, and reporting that is more stringent than a regulation, 

requirement, or permit condition issued under the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. 

In addition, the additional monitoring, notification, and reporting 

requirements made by S. 2080 do not explicitly or implicitly authorize sanitary sewer overflows or municipal combined sewer overflows outside of the existing statutory requirements of the Clean 

Water Act. 

Finally, the Committee intends that the amendments to the 

Clean Water Act made by the Sewage Overflow Community Rightto-Know Act will continue to allow for the utilization of the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy (under Sec. 402(q) of the 

Clean Water Act) to the extent that the monitoring, notification, 

and reporting requirements contained in the nine minimum controls and long term control plan of an individual publicly owned 

treatment works are not inconsistent with the monitoring, notification, and reporting requirements of S. 2080. To the extent that an 

individual publicly owned treatment works’ nine minimum controls 

or long-term control plan either does not include monitoring, notification, or reporting requirements, or such monitoring, notification, 

or reporting requirements are inconsistent with the requirements 

of S. 2080, the monitoring, notification, or reporting requirements 

contained in S. 2080, and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency shall apply. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

S. 2080, the Sewage Overflow Community Right to Know Act 

provides for a uniform, national standard for monitoring, reporting, 

and public notification of municipal combined sewer overflows and 

sanitary sewer overflows. The bill would require publicly owned 

treatment works to with a Clean Water Act permit to monitor 

sewer overflows. The bill would require the notification of the public and public health officials under certain circumstances occur as 

a result of an overflow event. S. 2080 also contains reporting requirements related to overflow events. 

The bill would require the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a rulemaking that establishes 

a set of criteria to guide owners or operators of publicly owned 

treatment works in assessing the potential threats to human 

health from a sewer overflow. The rulemaking would also develop 

criteria for communication measures to notify the public, public 

health officials, and other affected entities of overflow events. S. 

2080 also provides for the Administrator’s approval of State notification programs and for the Administrator’s withdrawal of approval if certain conditions are met. 

S. 2080 also clarifies when the notification requirements apply to 

the owner or operator of a treatment works and become subject to 

the section 309 of the Clean Water Act. The bill also clarifies key 

terms and authorizes financial assistance for implementing requirements under this Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section designates the title of the bill as the ‘‘Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act’’. 

Section 2. Definitions 

This section amends the definitions section of the Clean Water 

Act (section 502) to include definitions for the terms ‘‘treatment 

works’’. 

Section 3. Monitoring, reporting, and public notification of sewer 

overflows 

This section amends section 402 of the Clean Water Act by adding a new subsection (s) to provide a uniform, national standard for 

monitoring, reporting, and public notification of combined sewer 

overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. Subsection (s)(1) requires 

that, not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 

subsection, the Administrator shall take such action as may be necessary to ensure that each permit issued under this subsection for 

a publicly owned treatment works shall require, at a minimum, 

that the owner or operator of the treatment works implement the 

monitoring, notification, and reporting requirements described in 

this subsection. 

The Committee intends the term ‘‘publicly owned treatment 

works’’ to include those devices and systems included within the 

term ‘‘treatment works’’, as defined by section 212 of the Act, that 

are under the ownership or operational control of the Federal Government, or a state or a municipality as such terms are defined in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

section 502 of the Act. New subsection (s)(1) does not include treatment works that are not owned or under the operational control of 

the Federal Government, a state, or a municipality. New subsection 

(s)(1) also does not require a publicly owned treatment works to assume monitoring, notification, and reporting responsibility for satellite collection systems (portions of a sanitary sewer system) that 

may be connected to, but are not owned or operated by the publicly 

owned treatment works. The Committee notes that EPA’s draft 

SSO rule (January 2001) would have included satellite collection 

systems within the scope of its authority. Satellite collection systems account for a majority of sanitary sewer overflows that occur 

throughout the nation. Although the bill does not require a publicly 

owned treatment works to assume monitoring, notification, and reporting responsibility for a satellite collection system which is not 

owned or operated by the treatment works, the Committee believes 

that implementation of a monitoring, notification, and reporting 

program for satellite collection systems would further the goals of 

the Clean Water Act and the Sewage Overflow Community Rightto-Know Act. 

New subsection (s)(1)(A) requires the owner or operator of a publicly owned treatment works to institute and utilize a feasible 

methodology, technology, or management program to alert the 

owner or operator of the publicly owned treatment works to the occurrence of a sewer overflow in a timely manner. 

The Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act does not 

define the terms ‘‘feasible’’ and ‘‘timely’’, but directs the Administrator to conduct a formal rulemaking to define such terms under 

new subsection (s)(4). The Committee expects that the implementation monitoring methodologies, technologies, or management programs that meet the ‘‘feasible’’ and ‘‘timely’’ requirements will be 

reasonably sufficient to provide the owner or operator with actual 

or constructive knowledge of the presence of a sewer overflow. 

The Committee does not intend new subsection (s)(1)(A) to require the implementation of a technology-based system at every 

treatment works to monitor for potential sewer overflows, but allows individual publicly owned treatment works to utilize appropriate methodologies, technologies, or management programs that 

will alert the owner or operator of sewer overflows, consistent with 

the Agency’s regulations under new subsection (s)(4). The Committee does intend that whatever approved methodology, technology, or management program is utilized for monitoring, that 

such methodology, technology, or management program is fully-implemented and adequately maintained, funded, or staffed, to ensure 

that the owner or operator is alerted to the occurrence of a sewer 

overflow. 

New subsection (s)(1)(B) and (C) require the owner or operator 

of a publicly owned treatment works to provide notice in the event 

of a sewer overflow. New subsection (s)(1)(B) requires owners and 

operators to notify the public of a sewer overflow that has the ‘‘potential to affect human health’’ as soon as practicable, but not later 

than 24 hours after the time the owner or operator knows of the 

overflow. New subsection (s)(1)(C) requires owners or operators to 

immediately notify public health authorities and other affected entities, such as public water systems, of a sewer overflow that may 

imminently and substantially endanger human health. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

The Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act does not 

define the terms ‘‘potential to affect human health’’ or ‘‘imminently 

and substantially endanger human health’’, but directs the Administrator to conduct a formal rulemaking to define such terms under 

new subsection (r)(4). The Committee intends that the regulations 

promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency with respect 

to notification not preclude States, municipalities, or individual 

publicly owned treatment works from adopting more stringent notification requirements than called for in S. 2080. The Committee intends to provide States, municipalities, and individual publicly 

owned treatment works with the maximum amount of flexibility for 

the adoption of individually tailored notification programs, provided that such programs meet the minimum standards called for 

in S. 2080, including any regulations promulgated pursuant to the 

Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. 

New subsection (s)(2)(A) provides a limited exception from the 

notice requirement for a sewer overflow under (s)(1)(B) and 

(s)(1)(C) that is limited to a wastewater backup into a single-family 

residence. The Committee has provided this limited exemption because, in practice, it is likely that residents of the single-family residence will already know of the backup into the residence, and in 

many cases, will likely have provided notice to the owner or operator of the publicly owned treatment works. The Committee felt 

that a limited exemption from the notice was warranted to avoid 

the likelihood that the residents of the single-family residence 

would notify the publicly owned treatment works, only to be later 

notified by the same treatment works as to the presence of the 

sewer overflow. This exemption, however, does not apply to a sanitary sewer overflow or municipal combined sewer overflow that is 

released outside of a single-family residence, or to such overflows 

in a residence that does not meet the definition of a single-family 

residence found in new subsection (s)(7)(C). For example, if a sewer 

overflow occurs in a multi-family structure, such as an apartment 

building, condominium, or dormitory, and the overflow reaches the 

common areas of such structure (e.g., a common hallway, laundry 

facility, foyer, or entryway), the owner or operator of the treatment 

works is required to provide notice to appropriate persons under 

subsections (s)(1)(B) and (s)(1)(C). 

New subsections (s)(1)(D) and (s)(1)(E) require the owner or operator of a publicly owned treatment works to report sewer overflows 

to the Administrator or the State. New subsection (s)(1)(D) requires 

an owner or operator to report each sewer overflow on its discharge 

monitoring report, including information on the magnitude, duration, and suspected cause of the overflow, the steps taken or 

planned to reduce, eliminate, or prevent the recurrence of the overflow, and the steps taken or planned to mitigate the impact of the 

overflow. New subsection (s)(1)(E) requires the owner or operator 

to report the total number of sewer overflows that occur in a calendar year, including specific details on the volume of wastewater 

released per incident, the duration of each sewer overflow, the location of the overflow and any potentially affected receiving waters, 

the responses taken to clean up the overflow, and any actions 

taken to mitigate the impacts of the overflow and to avoid further 

future overflows at the site. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

New subsection (s)(2)(B) provides a limited exemption from the 

reporting requirements for the release of wastewater that: (1) occurs in the course of maintenance of the treatment works; (2) is 

managed consistently with the treatment works’ best management 

practices; and (3) is intended to prevent overflows. The Committee 

has provided this limited exemption to address routine maintenance of sewer systems, such as activities to clear our sewer lines. 

The Committee intends this exemption to be read narrowly, that it 

be limited to releases that are both de minimus in terms of both 

duration and volume, and meet all of the requirements listed in the 

exemption. The reporting requirement exemption for (s)(1)(D) and 

(r)(1)(E) does not include releases in connection with a ‘‘bypass’’ or 

‘‘upset’’, as those terms are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Sec. 122.41(m) and (n) (2006)). 

New subsection (s)(3) requires individual States to provide an annual summary report to the Administrator on sewer overflows that 

occurred within the State. 

New subsection (s)(4) directs the Administrator, within one year 

of the date of enactment of the Sewage Overflow Community Rightto-Know Act, to finalize and issue regulations to implement new 

subsection(s), including regulations to provide additional clarity on 

the terms ‘‘feasible’’, ‘‘timely’’, ‘‘potential to affect human health’’, 

and ‘‘imminently and substantially endanger human health’’. 

In defining the term ‘‘feasible’’, the Committee expects the Administrator to consider: (1) the availability of a monitoring technology, methodology, or management program; (2) the ability of a 

technology, methodology, or management program to reasonably 

detect the occurrence of a sewer overflow; (3) the cost of implementing the technology, methodology, or management program; (4) 

the designated use of potential receiving waters; (5) the proximity 

of an overflow to a source of drinking water or a recreation water; 

(6) the potential public health implications of an overflow to the 

public, with particular emphasis on susceptible populations; (7) the 

size of the publicly owned treatment works; (8) the nature or quality of pollutants contained in the raw waste load of the treatment 

works wastewater; (9) the frequency, volume, and duration of past 

sewer overflows by a particular publicly owned treatment works; 

and (10) other factors that the Administrator considers appropriate. 

In defining the term ‘‘timely’’, the Committee expects the Administrator to ensure that the owner or operator of the publicly owned 

treatment work has knowledge of the sewer overflow as quickly as 

practicable, depending upon the monitoring technology, methodology, or management program implemented by the owner or operator, and consistent with the public health goals of the Sewage 

Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act and goals of the Clean 

Water Act ‘‘to restore and maintain the chemical, and physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ 

New subsection (s)(4) directs the Administrator to include site 

specific conditions within its regulatory definition for the terms 

‘‘feasible’’ and ‘‘timely’’. 

New subsections (s)(5)(A) authorizes a State to submit to the Administrator evidence that the State has in place a legally enforceable notification program that is substantially equivalent to the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) and (1)(C). If the Administrator deVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:54 Sep 29, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR497.XXX SR497

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
9 

termines that the State’s program notification program is substantially equivalent, the Administrator shall authorize the State to 

carry out its program instead of the requirements of paragraphs 

(1)(B) and (1)(C). In reviewing a State notification program, the Administrator shall take into account: (1) the scope of sewer overflows 

for which notification is required; (2) the length of time during 

which notification must be made; (3) the scope of persons who must 

be notified of sewer overflows; (4) the scope of enforcement activities ensuring that notifications of sewer overflows are made; and 

(5) such other factors as the Administrator considers appropriate. 

The Committee believes that the Administrator should heavily consider factors that weigh in favor of protecting persons from potentially unsafe exposures to pollutants. 

New subsection (s)(5)(B) provides that if a State submits evidence of a notification program 30 days or earlier than the date on 

which the Administrator issues regulations under (1)(B) and (1)(C), 

the requirements under paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall not 

apply to a publicly’s owned treatment works located in the State 

until the date on which the Administrator completes a review of 

the notification program under subparagraph (A)(ii). 

New subsection (s)(5)(C) authorizes the Administrator to withdraw a State’s authorization of its program and to enforce the requirements of (1)(B) and (1)(C) with respect to the State. Before 

taking such action, the Administrator must conduct a public health 

survey and determine that a State is not administering and enforcing a State notification program that is substantially equivalent to 

the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C). The Administrator must also notify the State and allow a reasonable time, not 

to exceed 90 days from the date on which the State received such 

notification, prior to withdrawing the State’s authorization. 

New subsection (s)(6) provides that on the 31st day after the Administrator has issued regulations under paragraph (s)(4), the requirements of (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall apply to the owner or operator 

of a publicly owned treatment works and be subject to enforcement 

under section 309. On this same day, the requirements of (1)(B) 

and (1)(C) shall supersede any notification requirements contained 

in a permit issued under this section for the treatment works to 

the extent that the notification requirements are less stringent 

than the notification requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C). 

These requirements will continue to apply until such date as a permit is issued, renewed, or modified under this section in accordance 

with paragraph (1). 

New subsection (s)(7) defines the terms ‘‘Sanitary Sewer Overflow’’, ‘‘Sewer Overflow’’ and ‘‘Single-Family Residence’’. The term 

‘‘Sanitary Sewer Overflow’’ means an overflow, spill, release, or diversion of wastewater from a sanitary sewer system.’’ The term 

‘‘Sewer Overflow’’ means a sanitary sewer overflow or a municipal 

combined sewer overflow. The term ‘‘single-family residence’’ is defined as an individual dwelling unit, including an apartment, condominium, house, or dormitory, but specifically excludes common 

areas from multi-dwelling structures. The definition for ‘‘singlefamily residence’’ is utilized to define the scope of the limited exemption for notice of sewer overflows found in subsections (r)(1)(B) 

and (r)(1)(C). The definition of an SSO was moved from Section 2 

of this Act to Section 3 of this Act. This change results in this defiVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:54 Sep 29, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR497.XXX SR497

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 

nition of an SSO applying only to the requirements of this Act, and 

not to the entire Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Further, 

nothing in this legislation changes the scope of which Sanitary or 

Combined Sewer Overflows are prohibited under the Clean Water 

Act. Sanitary Sewer Overflows that reach waters of the U.S. or 

that violate individual permit conditions continue to be prohibited. 

The monitoring and public notification required in this legislation 

does not authorize discharges to waters of the U.S. or other permit 

violations. Nor does anything in this legislation preempt States and 

individual POTWs with monitoring and notification requirements 

that are more stringent than this legislation. 

Section 4. Eligibility for assistance 

This section amends sections 601(a) and 606(c) of the Clean 

Water Act to authorize funding from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to be utilized for carrying out the monitoring requirements of the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND VOTES

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Lautenberg introduced S. 2080 on September 20, 2007. 

On July 31, 2008, the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works held a business meeting to consider the bill, and considered 

and adopted by voice vote Senator Lautenberg’s amendment in the 

nature of a substitute to S. 2080. The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality held a 

hearing entitled ‘‘Meeting America’s Wastewater Infrastructure 

Needs in the 21st Century’’ on September 19, 2007, and a hearing 

entitled ‘‘Protecting Water Quality at America’s Beaches’’ on June 

27, 2007 at which sewage overflow issues were discussed. 

VOTES

On July 31, 2008, the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works held a business meeting to consider S. 2080, among other 

pieces of legislation. The Committee on Environment and Public 

Works considered Senator Lautenberg’s amendment in the nature 

of a substitute to S. 2080. The Committee favorably adopted the 

bill by a voice vote. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the committee notes that the Congressional 

Budget Office has found, ‘‘[w]ithout knowing the precise nature of 

the regulations that EPA would issue as a result of this bill, CBO 

cannot make a precise estimate of the costs of the mandates.’’ However, CBO noted, ‘‘S. 2080 contains no new private-sector mandates 

as defined in UMRA.’’ 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the Committee notes that the Congressional 

Budget Office found that ‘‘S. 2080 contains several intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
11 

(UMRA).’’ They continued that ‘‘CBO cannot make a precise estimate of the costs of the mandates. Based on information from affected entities, however, we estimate that the costs of the mandates 

could exceed the threshold established in UMRA.’’ However, CBO 

found that ‘‘S. 2080 contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.’’ 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2080, the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Susanne S. Mehlman 

(for federal costs), and Burke Doherty (for the state and local impact). 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

S. 2080—Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act 

S. 2080 would require owners and operators of publicly owned 

sewage treatment plants to notify federal and state agencies and 

the public in a timely manner of any sewer overflows. Under this 

legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be 

required to develop regulations establishing guidelines for the notifications. The legislation also would expand the types of activities 

that are eligible to receive funds from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 

Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost about $1 million in 2009 and 

less than $500,000 in subsequent years, subject to the availability 

of appropriations. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending 

or receipts. 

S. 2080 contains several intergovernmental mandates as defined 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Specifically, the 

bill would require treatment plants to: 

• Institute and utilize a monitoring program for sewer overflows, including combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary 

sewer overflows (SSOs); 

• Notify the public of a sewer overflow within 24 hours; 

• Notify public health authorities and other affected entities, 

such as public water systems, if there is an imminent and substantial risk to human health due to a sewer overflow; 

• Provide an oral or electronic report of an overflow within 

24 hours to the state or to the Administrator of EPA and a 

more-detailed written report within five days; 

• Report each sewer overflow on its monthly discharge monitoring report to EPA or the treatment plant’s state. This report 

must include the magnitude, cause, and mitigation efforts for 

the specific overflows; and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
12 

• Submit an annual report to EPA or the state on the number of overflows in a calendar year, including the details of 

magnitude, duration, location, potentially affected receiving 

waters, and mitigation efforts. If a state receives a report 

under this requirement, that state must submit to EPA a summary of the report. 

Without knowing the precise nature of the regulations that EPA 

would issue as a result of this bill, CBO cannot make a precise estimate of the costs of the mandates. Based on information from affected entities, however, we estimate that the costs of the mandates 

could exceed the threshold established in UMRA. The bill’s new requirements would involve additional personnel costs and could necessitate new infrastructure and engineering expertise. According 

to EPA and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

(NACWA), over 16,000 treatment plants operate in the United 

States, and each of those entities could be affected by the permitting requirements in S. 2080. Infrastructure changes, if required by 

the regulations, could be particularly expensive. Given the large 

number of affected entities, even a small increase in additional 

costs (less than $4,500 per entity annually) would result in costs 

that exceed the threshold for intergovernmental mandates ($68 

million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill also would 

expand the types of activities eligible to receive funds from the 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund to include the monitoring requirements discussed above. 

S. 2080 contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

On June 11, 2008, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

2452, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 

ensure that sewage treatment plants monitor for and report discharges of sewage, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure on May 15, 2008. H.R. 2453 and 

this legislation are nearly identical and the estimated costs for both 

bills are the same. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S. 

Mehlman (for federal costs), and Burke Doherty (for the state and 

local impact). This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(13) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

Sanitary Sewer Overflows, or SSO’s, are a real concern throughout the United States. I agree that S. 2080, the ‘‘Sewage Right-toKnow Act,’’ is well-intentioned in its aim to inform the public when 

there’s a potential health risk from raw sewage contaminating public spaces. However, communities continue to struggle with many 

other federal mandates but lack the financial resources to necessary improvements to their facilities. That is why I oppose this 

bill. 

Congress must recognize that by only increasing federal mandates without appropriate funding, communities and their residents will become increasingly vulnerable to lawsuits and extensive 

rate hikes that will not result in substantially improved water 

quality. I firmly believe that communities want their facilities to 

function properly if they had the financial and technical wherewithal. The populations most vulnerable to new federal regulations 

tend to be lower income residents in rural communities. Unfortunately, this bill does not properly address this disparity and has 

the potential to negatively impact rural communities disproportionately. 

This legislation requires the Administrator to define the terms 

‘‘feasible’’ and ‘‘timely’’ without Congressional direction. The term 

‘‘feasible’’ should explicitly reflect individual needs and constraints 

of a local community, including the financial ability of a local tax 

base, the access to adequate technical assistance, other federal financial requirements on the particular community (i.e. drinking 

water regulations), and access to federal and state funding for compliance. Without these particular issues contemplated by the Administrator, the term ‘‘feasible’’ will not adequately address the inequitable hardship on rural and disadvantaged communities as a 

result of unfunded mandates. 

Rather than apply a new federal mandate, Congress should reauthorize and increase appropriations for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund. I’m extremely disappointed that this Congress 

has failed to pass a clean water infrastructure bill in time for passage out of both chambers to be sent to the President of the United 

States’ desk. However, it is important to note that State Revolving 

Loan Funds should be used strictly for capital improvements and 

not for operations and maintenance, including operations and 

maintenance of a monitoring and reporting program. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(14) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as reported 

are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 401. (a)(1)* * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 402. (a)(1) Except as provided in sections 318 and 404 of 

this Act, the Administrator may, after opportunity for public hearing, issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section 301(a), upon condition 

that such discharge will meet either (A) all applicable requirements 

under sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403 of this Act, or (B) 

prior to the taking of necessary implementing actions relating to all 

such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. 

(2) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(s) SEWER OVERFLOW MONITORING, REPORTING, AND NOTIFICATIONS— 

(1) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.—After the last day of the 180– 

day period beginning on the date on which regulations are 

issued under paragraph (4), a permit issued, renewed, or modified under this section by the Administrator or the State, as the 

case may be, for a publicly owned treatment works shall require, at a minimum, beginning on the date of the issuance, 

modification, or renewal, that the owner or operator of the 

treatment works— 

(A) institute and utilize a feasible methodology, technology, or management program for monitoring sewer overflows to alert the owner or operator to the occurrence of a 

sewer overflow in a timely manner; 

(B) in the case of a sewer overflow that has the potential 

to affect human health, notify the public of the overflow as 

soon as practicable but not later than 24 hours after the 

time the owner or operator knows of the overflow; 

(C) in the case of a sewer overflow that may imminently 

and substantially endanger human health, notify public 

health authorities and other affected entities, such as public water systems, of the overflow immediately after the 

owner or operator knows of the overflow; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
15 

(D) report each sewer overflow on its discharge monitoring report to the Administrator or the State, as the case 

may be, by describing— 

(i) the magnitude, duration, and suspected cause of 

the overflow; 

(ii) the steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, 

or prevent recurrence of the overflow; and 

(iii) the steps taken or planned to mitigate the impact 

of the overflow; and 

(E) annually report to the Administrator or the State, as 

the case may be, the total number of sewer overflows in a 

calendar year, including— 

(i) the details of how much wastewater was released 

per incident; 

(ii) the duration of each sewer overflow; 

(iii) the location of the overflow and any potentially 

affected receiving waters; 

(iv) the responses taken to clean up the overflow; and 

(v) the actions taken to mitigate impacts and avoid 

further sewer overflows at the site. 

(2) EXCEPTIONS.— 

(A) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.—The notification requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall not apply 

a sewer overflow that is a wastewater backup into a singlefamily residence. 

(B) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—The reporting requirements of paragraphs (1)(D) and (1)(E) shall not apply to a 

sewer overflow that is a release of wastewater that occurs 

in the course of maintenance of the treatment works, is 

managed consistently with the treatment works’ best management practices, and is intended to prevent sewer overflows. 

(3) REPORT TO EPA.—Each State shall provide to the Administrator annually a summary of sewer overflows that occurred 

in the State. 

(4) RULEMAKING BY EPA.—Not later than one year after the 

date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator, after 

providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, shall 

issue regulations to implement this subsection, including regulations to— 

(A) establish a set of criteria to guide the owner or operator of a publicly owned treatment works in— 

(i) assessing whether a sewer overflow has the potential to affect human health or may imminently and 

substantially endanger human health; and 

(ii) developing communication measures that are sufficient to give notice under paragraphs (1)(B) and 

(1)(C); and 

(B) define the terms ‘‘feasible’’ and ‘‘timely’’ as such terms 

apply to paragraph (1)(A), including site specific conditions. 

(5) APPROVAL OF STATE NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS.— 

(A) REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL.— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
16 

(i) IN GENERAL.—After the date of issuance of regulations under paragraph (4), a State may submit to the 

Administrator evidence that the State has in place a legally enforceable notification program that is substantially equivalent to the requirements of paragraphs 

(1)(B) and (1)(C). 

(ii) PROGRAM REVIEW AND AUTHORIZATION.—If the 

evidence submitted by a State under clause (i) shows 

the notification program of the State to be substantially 

equivalent to the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) 

and (1)(C), the Administrator shall authorize the State 

to carry out such program instead of the requirements 

of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C). 

(iii) FACTORS FOR DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL

EQUIVALENCY.—In carrying out a review of a State notification program under clause (ii), the Administrator 

shall take into account the scope of sewer overflows for 

which notification is required, the length of time during which notification must be made, the scope of persons who must be notified of sewer overflows, the scope 

of enforcement activities ensuring that notifications of 

sewer overflows are made, and such other factors as 

the Administrator considers appropriate. 

(B) REVIEW PERIOD.—If a State submits evidence with respect to a notification program under subparagraph (A)(i) 

on or before the last day of the 30-day period beginning on 

the date of issuance of regulations under paragraph (4), the 

requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) shall not 

begin to apply to a publicly owned treatment works located 

in the State until the date on which the Administrator completes a review of the notification program under subparagraph (A)(ii). 

(C) WITHDRAWAL OF AUTHORIZATION.—If the Administrator, after conducting a public hearing, determines that a 

State is not administering and enforcing a State notification program authorized under subparagraph (A)(ii) in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph, the Administrator shall so notify the State and, if appropriate corrective action is not taken within a reasonable time, not to 

exceed 90 days, the Administrator shall withdraw authorization of such program and enforce the requirements of 

paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) with respect to the State. 

(6) SPECIAL RULES CONCERNING APPLICATION OF NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.— After the last day of the 30-day period 

beginning on the date of issuance of regulations under paragraph (4), the requirements of paragraphs (1)(B) and (1)(C) 

shall— 

(A) apply to the owner or operator of a publicly owned 

treatment works and be subject to enforcement under section 309, and 

(B) supersede any notification requirements contained in 

a permit issued under this section for the treatment works 

to the extent that the notification requirements are less 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
17 

stringent than the notification requirements of paragraphs 

(1)(B) and (1)(C), 

until such date as a permit is issued, renewed, or modified 

under this section for the treatment works in accordance with 

paragraph (1). 

(7) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection, the following definitions 

apply: 

(A) SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW.—The term ‘‘sanitary 

sewer overflow’’ means an overflow, spill, release, or diversion of wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. Such 

term does not include municipal combined sewer overflows 

or other discharges from a municipal combined storm and 

sanitary sewer system and does not include wastewater 

backups into buildings caused by a blockage or other malfunction of a building lateral that is privately owned. Such 

term includes overflows or releases of wastewater that 

reach waters of the United States, overflows or releases of 

wastewater in the United States that do not reach waters 

of the United States, and wastewater backups into buildings that are caused by blockages or flow conditions in a 

sanitary sewer other than a building lateral. 

(B) SEWER OVERFLOW.—The term ‘‘sewer overflow’’ means 

a sanitary sewer overflow or a municipal combined sewer 

overflow. 

(C) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.—The term ‘‘single-family 

residence’’ means an individual dwelling unit, including an 

apartment, condominium, house, or dormitory. Such term 

does not include the common areas of a multi-dwelling 

structure. 

* * * * * * 

* 

SEC. 601. GRANTS TO STATES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF REVOLVING 

FUNDS. 

(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—Subject to the provisions of this title, 

the Administrator shall make capitalization grants to each State 

for the purpose of establishing a water pollution control revolving 

fund for providing assistance (1) for construction of treatment 

works (as defined in section 212 of this Act) which are publicly 

owned, (2) for implementing a management program under section 

319, øand¿ (3) for developing and implementing a conservation and 

management plan under section 320, and (4) for the implementation of requirements to monitor for sewer overflows under section 

402. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS. 1

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.—The amounts of funds 

available to each State water pollution control revolving fund shall 

be used only for providing financial assistance (1) to any municipality, intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency for construction 

of publicly owned treatment works (as defined in section 212 of this 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
18 

Act), (2) for the implementation of a management program established under section 319 of this Act, øand¿ (3) for development and 

implementation of a conservation and management plan under section 320 of this Act, and (4) for the implementation of requirements 

to monitor for sewer overflows under section 402. The fund shall be 

established, maintained, and credited with repayments, and the 

fund balance shall be available in perpetuity for providing such financial assistance. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS