[Senate Report 111-172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 355
111th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 111-172
======================================================================
SEWAGE OVERFLOW COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
_______
April 20, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mrs. Boxer, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 937]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was
referred a bill (S. 937) 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,
reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that
the bill do pass.
Objectives of the Legislation
The purpose of S. 937, the Sewage Overflow Community Right-
to-Know Act, is to provide a uniform, national standard for
monitoring, reporting, and public notification of municipal
combined sewer overflows (CSO) and sanitary sewer overflows
(SSO). The bill would require each publicly owned treatment
works, that hold an issued, renewed, or modified Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (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. 937 would also require,
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 and to compile yearly reports on sewer overflows.
General Satement and Background
The bill would require communities to provide the public
and public health officials with information regarding sewer
overflows. In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) estimated that up to 75,000 SSO events occur each year in
the United States, releasing up to 10 billion gallons of
untreated wastewater. This bill would require monitoring,
reporting, and notification standards regarding sewage overflow
events, and would authorize funding for such activities.
Currently, there is no uniform, national standard for
notification of combined and sanitary sewer overflows. Current
Federal notification efforts include:
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 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
provision, 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 these events.
Alerting local offcials and the public to discharges of
pollutants from CSOs and SSOs could help prevent human illness
from waterborne diseases and pathogens. By providing the public
and public health officials with this information, appropriate
action can be taken to protect public health.
Wastewater infrastructure in the United States is aging and
in need of important but expensive repairs. These repairs will
require significant investment to prevent the occurrence of
sewer overflows. In EPA's most recent Clean Watershed Needs
Survey, the agency estimated the future capital needs to
address existing CSOs at $54.8 billion. In a 2004 Report to
Congress on the Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, EPA also
estimated that it would require an additional $88.5 billion in
capital improvements through 2020 to reduce the frequency of
SSOs.
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, as part of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554),
Congress amended the Clean Water Act to require that permits
for combined sewer systems conform to the Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Policy.
Under existing EPA rules (40 CFR 122.41(1)(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 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 proposals for public
notification of SSOs have been issued.
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. 937 or the regulations promulgated by the
EPA 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 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 under S. 937 do not explicitly or
implicitly authorize SSOs or municipal CSOs 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 Right-to-
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
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. 937.
To the extent that an individual publicly owned treatment
works' 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. 937,
the monitoring, notification, or reporting requirements
contained in S. 937, and the implementing regulations
promulgated by the EPA shall apply.
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 section 502 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) to include a definition
for the term ``treatment works''.
Section 3. Monitoring, reporting, and public notification of sewer
overflows
This section amends section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control 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) defines the terms ``Sanitary Sewer
Overflow'', ``Sewer Overflow'' and ``Single-Family Residence''.
The definition of SSO applies only to the requirements of
this legislation and does not apply to the entire Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. Further, nothing in this legislation
affects the extent to 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.
Subsection (s)(2) provides general notice and reporting
requirements for owners or operators of publicly owned
treatment works regarding sewer overflow events. After 180 days
following promulgation of regulations under this Act, any
issued, renewed or modified permits would require that owners
or operators of publicly owned treatment works: institute
monitoring technology to quickly identify sewer overflow;
notify the public of a sewer overflow with the potential to
affect human health within 24 hours; immediately notify public
health authorities and other affected entities of a sewer
overflow that may imminently and substantially endanger human
health; report sewer overflows to the Administrator or the
State on its discharge monitoring report, including overflow
details, steps to prevent recurrence and steps to mitigate the
impact of the overflow; and annually report the total number of
sewer overflows, including details on the volume of wastewater
released, duration, location, response, and actions taken to
mitigate the impacts and avoid further future overflows.
Subsection (s)(3) provides exceptions from notification
requirements for single-family residences and from the
reporting requirements for the release of wastewater related to
preventative maintenance.
Subsection (s)(4) requires States to provide annual reports
to EPA summarizing overflows.
Subsection (s)(5) directs the Administrator, within one
year, to finalize and issue regulations to implement this
subsection, including regulations to establish criteria to
guide assessment of whether an overflow imminently and
substantially endangers human health and to define the terms
``feasible'' and ``timely''.
Subsection (s)(6) authorizes the Administrator to approve
alternative overflow monitoring and reporting programs if the
State has in place a legally enforceable notification program
that is substantially equivalent to the requirements of this
subsection. If a State submits evidence of a notification
program 30 days or earlier than the date on which the
Administrator issues regulations, the requirements under such
paragraphs do not apply until the Administrator completes
review of the notification program. The Administrator is
authorized to withdraw authorization of a State's program if
after conducting a public hearing, the Administrator determines
that a State is not administering and enforcing a notification
program that is substantially equivalent to the requirements
described in paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C) of this subsection.
Subsection (s)(7) provides that after 30 days following the
issuance of regulations, the requirements of subparagraphs
(2)(B) and (2)(C) of this subsection shall apply to the owner
or operator of a publicly owned treatment works and be subject
to enforcement under section 309. The requirements of (2)(B)
and (2)(C) shall supersede any less stringent notification
requirements and will continue to apply until such date as a
permit is issued, renewed, or modified under this section.
Section 4. Eligibility for assistance
This section amends sections 601(a) and 603(c) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize funding from
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to be utilized for
carrying out monitoring requirements of this Act.
Section 5. Effect of the Act
This section provides that nothing in this Act shall limit
the ability of any State to implement or enforce a more
stringent monitoring or notification standard, nor does it
authorize any sewer overflow or diminish any other compliance
obligation.
Legislative History
On April 30, 2009, Senator Lautenberg introduced S. 937,
which is cosponsored by Senators Whitehouse, Menendez, Boxer,
Klobuchar, and Merkley. On June 18, 2009, the Committee on
Environment and Public Works held a business meeting to
consider the bill, and ordered S. 690 to be reported favorably
without amendment.
Representative Bishop [D-NY] introduced companion
legislation on January 28, 2009, H.R. 753, which has 24
cosponsors. This legislation was incorporated into H.R. 1262,
the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009, which passed the
House of Representatives on March 12, 2009 by a vote of 317-
101. In the 110th Congress, similar legislation was passed by
voice vote in the House of Representatives on June 23, 2009,
and reported favorably by the Committee on September 24, 2008.
Hearings
In the 110th Congress, 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.
Rollcall Votes
The Committee on Environment and Public Works ordered S.
937 to be favorably reported by voice vote on June 18, 2009. No
rollcall votes were taken.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the committee, bases on CBO's
estimate discussed in detail below, that S. 937 would require
certain Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) to comply with
additional requirements.
Mandates Assessment
In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), the Committee finds that this legislation
does not impose private sector mandates as those terms are
defined in UMRA. The Congressional Budget Office concurs,
finding ``This bill contains no new private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.''
In addition, the Committee notes that according to CBO, S.
2191 would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined in
UMRA. The mandates would require certain POTWs to comply with
additional requirements. CBO estimates that these mandates
would exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($69 million in
2009, adjusted annually for inflation).
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
June 25, 2009.
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. 937, 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 Ryan Miller (for the state and
local impact).
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
S. 937--Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act
S. 937 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
2010 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. 937 would require treatment plants to comply with a
number of new requirements. Those requirements are not
conditions of federal assistance, and consequently, they would
be intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Specifically, the bill would
require water treatment plants to:
Institute and utilize a monitoring program
for sewer overflows, including combined sewer overflows
and sanitary sewer overflows;
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 a report of an overflow to the state
or to the Administrator of EPA;
Report each sewer overflow on the 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
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.
Without knowing the nature of the regulations that EPA
would issue as a result of this bill, CBO cannot make a precise
estimate of the costs of complying with the mandates. Based on
information from affected entities, however, we estimate that
such costs would likely exceed the threshold established in
UMRA ($69 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation).
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, over 16,000 treatment plants operate in
the United States, and each of those entities could be affected
by the requirements in S. 937. Infrastructure improvements, 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 in at least one of the next five
years. 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.
This bill contains no new private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S.
Mehlman (for federal costs) and Ryan Miller (for the state and
local impact). This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo,
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR INHOFE
Sanitary Sewer Overflows, or SSOs, are a real concern
throughout the United States. I agree that S. 937, the ``Sewage
Overflow Community Right-to-Know 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 make necessary
improvements to their facilities. That is why I oppose this
bill.
Congress must recognize that by 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 but they must have the
financial and technical wherewithal to ensure they do so. 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.
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 local tax base's ability to provide finance, 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. Unless these issues are contemplated by
the Administrator, the term ``feasible'' will not adequately
address the hardship on rural and disadvantaged communities as
a result of unfunded mandates.
Rather than apply a new federal mandate, Congress should
instead reauthorize and increase appropriations for the Clean
Water State Revolving Loan Fund. Moreover, the 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.
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:
* * * * * * *
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 101. (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters. In order to achieve this objective it is
hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this
Act--
(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) * * *
* * * * * * *
(r) Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of
Recreational Vessels.--No permit shall be required under this
Act by the Administrator (or a State, in the case of a permit
program approved under subsection (b)) for the discharge of any
graywater, bilge water, cooling water, weather deck runoff, oil
water separator effluent, or effluent from properly functioning
marine engines, or any other discharge that is incidental to
the normal operation of a vessel, if the discharge is from a
recreational vessel.
(s) Sewer Overflow Monitoring, Reporting, and
Notifications.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Sanitary sewer overflow.--
(i) In general.--The term ``sanitary
sewer overflow'' means an overflow,
spill, release, or diversion of
wastewater from a sanitary sewer
system.
(ii) Inclusions.--The term ``sanitary
sewer overflow'' includes--
(I) overflows or releases of
wastewater that reach waters of
the United States;
(II) overflows or releases of
wastewater in the United States
that do not reach waters of the
United States; and
(III) wastewater backups into
buildings that are caused by
blockages or flow conditions in
a sanitary sewer other than a
building lateral.
(iii) Exclusions.--The term
``sanitary sewer overflow'' does not
include--
(I) municipal combined sewer
overflows or other discharges
from the combined portion of a
municipal combined storm and
sanitary sewer system; or
(II) wastewater backups into
buildings caused by a blockage
or other malfunction of a
building lateral that is
privately owned.
(B) Sewer overflow.--The term ``sewer
overflow'' means a sanitary sewer overflow or a
municipal combined sewer overflow.
(C) Single-family residence.--
(i) In general.--The term ``single-
family residence'' means an individual
dwelling unit.
(ii) Inclusions.--The term ``single-
family residence'' includes--
(I) an apartment;
(II) a condominium;
(III) a house; and
(IV) a dormitory.
(iii) Exclusions.--The term ``single-family
residence'' does not include the common areas
of a multidwelling structure.
(2) General requirements.--After the last day of the
180-day period beginning on the date on which
regulations are promulgated under paragraph (5), 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;
(D) report each sewer overflow on the
discharge monitoring report of the owner or
operator 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.
(3) Exceptions.--
(A) Notification requirements.--The
notification requirements of subparagraphs (B)
and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply to a
sewer overflow that is a wastewater backup into
a single-family residence.
(B) Reporting requirements.--The reporting
requirements of subparagraphs (D) and (E) of
paragraph (2) 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.
(4) Report to epa.--Each State shall provide to the
Administrator annually a summary of sewer overflows
that occurred in the State.
(5) Rulemaking by epa.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the
Administrator, after providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment, shall promulgate
regulations to implement this subsection, including
regulations--
(A) to establish a set of criteria to guide
the owner or operator of a publicly owned
treatment works in--
(i) assessing whether a sewer
overflow may imminently and
substantially endanger human health;
and
(ii) developing communication
measures that are sufficient to give
notice under subparagraphs (B) and
(C) of paragraph (2); and
(B) to define the terms ``feasible'' and
``timely'' as those terms apply to paragraph
(2)(A), including site specific conditions.
(6) Approval of state notification programs.--
(A) Requests for approval.--
(i) In general.--After the date of
promulgation of regulations under
paragraph (5), 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 subparagraphs (B) and
(C) of paragraph (2).
(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 subparagraphs (B)
and (C) of paragraph (2), the
Administrator shall authorize the State
to carry out that program instead of
those requirements.
(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--
(I) the scope of sewer
overflows for which
notification is required;
(II) the length of time
during which notification must
be made;
(III) the scope of persons
that must be notified of sewer
overflows;
(IV) the scope of enforcement
activities ensuring that
notifications of sewer
overflows are made; and
(V) such other factors as the
Administrator considers to be
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 promulgation of regulations under paragraph
(5), the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and
(C) of paragraph (2) 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 subparagraphs (B) and (C) of
paragraph (2) with respect to the State.
(7) Special rules concerning application of
notification requirements.--After the last day of the
30-day period beginning on the date of promulgation of
regulations under paragraph (5), the requirements of
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) 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 stringent
than the notification requirements of
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2),
until such date as a permit is issued, renewed,
or modified under this section for the
treatment works in accordance with paragraph
(2).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 502. Except as otherwise specifically provided, when
used in this Act:
(1) The term ``State water pollution control agency''
means the State agency designated by the Governor
having responsibility for enforcing State laws relating
to the abatement of pollution.
(2) * * *
* * * * * * *
(26) Treatment works.--The term ``treatment works''
has the meaning given the term in section 212.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS
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,[and ] (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.
(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 Act), (2) for the implementation of a
management program established under section 319 of this Act,
and (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.
* * * * * * *