National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Requirements for Peak Wet Weather Discharges From Publicly Owned Treatment Works Treatment Plants Serving Separate Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems, 76013-76018 [E5-7696]
Download as PDF
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the
Secretaries to administer a subsistence
priority on public lands. The scope of
this program is limited by definition to
certain public lands. Likewise, these
regulations have no potential takings of
private property implications as defined
by Executive Order 12630.
The Secretaries have determined and
certify pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et
seq., that this rulemaking will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more
in any given year on local or State
governments or private entities. The
implementation of this rule is by
Federal agencies and there is no cost
imposed on any State or local entities or
tribal governments.
The Secretaries have determined that
these regulations meet the applicable
standards provided in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988,
regarding civil justice reform.
In accordance with Executive Order
13132, the rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State
from exercising subsistence
management authority over fish and
wildlife resources on Federal lands
unless it meets certain requirements.
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have
evaluated possible effects on Federally
recognized Indian tribes and have
determined that there are no effects. The
Bureau of Indian Affairs is a
participating agency in this rulemaking.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
Executive Order 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, or use. This Executive
Order requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. As this rule
is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 13211, affecting
energy supply, distribution, or use, this
action is not a significant action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Drafting Information—William
Knauer drafted these regulations under
the guidance of Thomas H. Boyd, of the
Office of Subsistence Management,
Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
Taylor Brelsford, Alaska State Office,
Bureau of Land Management; Nancy
Swanton, Alaska Regional Office,
National Park Service; Dr. Glenn Chen,
Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of
Indian Affairs; Jerry Berg, Alaska
Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:34 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
Service; and Steve Kessler, USDA—
Forest Service provided additional
guidance.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 242
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alaska, Fish, National
forests, Public lands, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 100
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alaska, Fish, National
forests, Public lands, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Federal Subsistence
Board proposes to amend 36 CFR part
242 and 50 CFR part 100 for the 2007–
08 regulatory year. The text of the
amendments would be the same as the
final rule for the 2005–06 regulatory
year (70 FR 13377) as modified by
Federal Subsistence Board actions
January 10–12, 2006.
Dated: December 5, 2005.
Thomas H. Boyd,
Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.
Steve Kessler,
Subsistence Program Leader, USDA—Forest
Service.
[FR Doc. 05–24353 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P; 3410–11–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 123
[EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0523, FRL—8013–9]
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
Requirements for Peak Wet Weather
Discharges From Publicly Owned
Treatment Works Treatment Plants
Serving Separate Sanitary Sewer
Collection Systems
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability and
request for comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Today, EPA is inviting
comment on a draft policy regarding
NPDES permit requirements for peak
wet weather discharges from publicly
owned treatment works (POTW)
treatment plants serving separate
sanitary sewer collection systems.
Regulatory agencies, municipal
operators of wastewater facilities, and
representatives of environmental
advocacy groups have expressed
uncertainty about the appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76013
regulatory interpretation for such
situations. Today’s draft policy
describes both an interpretation of
regulations, as well as guidance to
implement such an interpretation.
EPA’s intention is to ensure that NPDES
requirements be developed and applied
in a nationally-consistent manner that
improves the capacity, management,
operation and maintenance of POTW
treatment plants and separate sanitary
sewer collection systems and protects
human health and the environment.
DATES: Comments must be received or
postmarked on or before January 23,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OW–2005–0523, by one of the following
methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Comments may be sent by
electronic mail (e-mail) to OWDocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0523. In
contrast to EPA’s electronic public
docket, EPA’s e-mail system is not an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to the
Docket without going through EPA’s
electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail
system automatically captures your email address. E-mail addresses that are
automatically captured by EPA’s e-mail
system are included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official
public docket, and made available in
EPA’s electronic public docket.
• Mail: Send an original and three
copies of your comments to: Water
Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode 4101T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0523.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver your
comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2005–
0523. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2005–
0523. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
E:\FR\FM\22DEP1.SGM
22DEP1
76014
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or through e-mail.
The https://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identify or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through https://www.regulations.gov
your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as
part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426.
For
questions about the substance of this
draft policy, contact Kevin Weiss (email at weiss.kevin@epa.gov or phone at
(202) 564–0742) at Water Permits
Division, Office of Wastewater
Management, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (Mailcode 4203M),
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:34 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov or
e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD
ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI
and then identify electronically within
the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments,
remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code or Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs
You may copy 266 pages per day free
of charge. Beginning with page 267, you
will be charged $0.15 per page plus an
administrative fee of $25.00.
Acronyms Used
CSO Combined sewer overflow.
EPA Environmental Protection
Agency.
I/I infiltration and inflow.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System.
POTW Publicly owned treatment
works.
SSO Sanitary sewer overflow (this
does not include CSOs).
II. Background
EPA has received requests from many
stakeholders to clarify the NPDES
requirements for discharges from POTW
treatment plants serving separate
sanitary sewers where peak wet weather
flow is routed around biological
treatment units and then blended with
the effluent from the biological units
prior to discharge and where the final
discharge meets permit effluent
limitations based on the secondary
treatment regulation (40 CFR Part 133)
or any more stringent limitations
necessary to attain water quality
standards. On November 7, 2003, EPA
requested public comment on a
proposed policy addressing this issue.
Under the proposed interpretation in
the November 7, 2003 proposed policy,
a wet weather diversion around
biological treatment units that was
blended with the wastewaters from the
biological units prior to discharge
would not have been considered to
constitute a prohibited bypass if the six
criteria specified in the November 7,
2003 proposed policy were met.
EPA received significant public
comment on the proposed policy,
including over 98,000 comments
opposing the policy due to concerns
about human health risks. On May 19,
2005, EPA indicated that after
consideration of the comments, the
Agency had no intention of finalizing
the 2003 proposal. On July 26, 2005,
Congress enacted the FY 2006
Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109–54).
Section 203 of the Appropriations Act
provides that none of the funds made
available in the Act could be used to
finalize, issue, implement or enforce the
November 7, 2003 proposed blending
policy.
In October of 2005, the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
the National Association of Clean Water
Agencies (NACWA) provided EPA with
their joint proposal recommending
further action that the Agency should
take regarding the blending issue. The
NRDC/NACWA recommended approach
includes an interpretation of the bypass
regulation that is significantly different
from the November 7, 2003 proposal, in
that it would clarify that the bypass
provision would apply, in all instances,
to wet weather diversions at POTW
treatment plants serving separate
E:\FR\FM\22DEP1.SGM
22DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules
sanitary sewers. Today’s draft policy
invites comment on this interpretation,
as well as the recommended guidance to
implement the interpretation, and
reflects the approach of the NRDC/
NACWA recommendation.
III. General Information
A. Draft Policy
If the draft policy is made final, the
following statement will be announced
by EPA.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Draft Memorandum
From: Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Water.
To: Regional Administrators, Region I-X,
Granta Y. Nakayama, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance.
Subject: National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit
Requirements for Peak Wet Weather
Discharges from Publicly Owned
Treatment Works Treatment Plants
Serving Separate Sanitary Sewer
Collection Systems
Introduction
Many municipalities currently have
situations in which high peak influent
flows during significant wet weather
events exceed the treatment capacity of
existing secondary treatment units. In
these situations, wet weather flows are
sometimes diverted around secondary
treatment units and then either
recombined with flows from the
secondary treatment units or discharged
directly into waterways from the
treatment plant. This policy only
applies to peak wet weather diversions
around secondary treatment units that
occur at publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) treatment plants serving
separate sanitary sewer systems that are
recombined with flow from the
secondary treatment unit. The process
by which wet weather diversions can be
approved in National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for POTW treatment plants
serving combined sewer systems was
previously outlined in the 1994 CSO
Policy, 59 FR 18,693–18,694 (April 19,
1994). Nothing in this policy addresses
the requirements for POTW treatment
plants serving combined sewer systems.
While EPA recognizes that peak wet
weather flow diversions around
secondary treatment units at POTW
treatment plants serving separate
sanitary sewer conveyance systems may
be necessary in some circumstances to
prevent temporary loss of function of
secondary treatment units, the Agency
and stakeholders have been concerned
for some time that peak wet weather
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:34 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
flow diversions could have adverse
environmental or public health impacts
because of the higher expected pollutant
load of diverted flows.
Accordingly, EPA strongly
discourages reliance on peak wet
weather flow diversions around
secondary treatment units as a long-term
wet weather management approach at a
POTW treatment plant serving separate
sanitary sewer conveyance systems and
that such diversions should be
minimized to the maximum extent
feasible taking into account the factors
discussed in this policy. EPA
anticipates that, over time, the need to
undertake peak wet weather flow
diversions at POTW treatment plants
serving separate sanitary sewer
conveyance systems can be eliminated
from most systems in a variety of ways,
such as by enhancing storage and
treatment capacity and reducing sources
of peak wet weather flow volume. EPA
expects that aggressive efforts by POTW
treatment plant operators in
consultation with NPDES authorities
can lead to dramatic reductions in the
volume and duration of peak wet
weather flows and can improve the
treatment and quality of peak wet
weather flow discharges. EPA also
believes that the involvement of the
general public will improve the
assessment of various options to
minimize peak wet weather flow
diversions.
In recent years there has been
substantial confusion regarding the
regulatory status of peak wet weather
flow diversions around secondary
treatment units at POTW treatment
plants serving separate sanitary sewer
conveyance systems. In some cases,
such diversions have been considered a
bypass and held to the criteria of the
NPDES bypass regulation (40 CFR
122.41(m)). In other cases, diversion
scenarios around secondary treatment
units at POTW treatment plants have
been constructed and permitted at
facilities without consideration of the
bypass regulation criteria.
In 2003, EPA proposed a policy to
clarify the regulatory status of peak wet
weather flows that are combined with
secondary effluent, a practice known as
blending. 68 FR 63,042 (Nov. 7, 2003).
In that proposed policy, EPA stated that
if certain procedures were followed,
peak wet weather flow blending would
not be considered a bypass under 40
CFR 122.41(m). The Agency received
over 98,000 comments on the proposed
policy and on May 19, 2005 indicated
that it no longer intended to pursue
further action on the proposal.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76015
Applicability of the Bypass Regulation
to Blending
This policy provides the Agency’s
interpretation that the 40 CFR
122.41(m), the bypass regulation,
applies to peak wet weather diversions
at POTW treatment plants serving
separate sanitary sewer conveyance
systems that are recombined with flow
from the secondary treatment units. If
the criteria of 40 CFR
122.41(m)(4)(i)(A)–(C) are met, NPDES
authorities can approve peak wet
weather flow diversions around
secondary treatment units in a NPDES
permit for discharges from a POTW
treatment plants as an anticipated
bypass under 40 CFR 122.41(m)(4)(ii).
This policy:
Æ Interprets the provisions of 40 CFR
122.41(m)(4) as they apply to peak wet
weather flow diversions around
secondary treatment units at POTW
treatment plants serving separate
sanitary sewer systems where the
diverted flow is recombined with flow
from the secondary treatment units prior
to discharge;
Æ Interprets the term ‘‘no feasible
alternatives’’ in 40 CFR
122.41(m)(4)(i)(B) as it applies to such
peak wet weather flow diversions;
Æ Does not apply to discharges or
overflows prior to the headworks of a
POTW treatment plant; dry weather
diversions; diversions around primary
or tertiary treatment units; or diverted
flow that is not recombined with flow
from the secondary treatment units prior
to discharge;
Æ Promotes use of measures to
provide the highest possible treatment
to the greatest possible peak wet
weather flow; and
Æ Promotes reporting and public
notification of peak wet weather
diversion events.
A combination of approaches can be
used to achieve the goals of this policy.
These approaches include:
Æ Ensuring full utilization of
available secondary treatment capacity;
Æ Reducing infiltration and inflow (I/
I);
Æ Maximizing the use of the
collection system for storage;
Æ Providing off-line storage; and
Æ Providing sufficient secondary
treatment capacity.
EPA recognizes that these approaches,
alone or in combination, may not be
sufficient in some cases to enable a
POTW treatment plant to process its
peak wet weather flows through its
secondary treatment units. In such
cases, a POTW treatment plant operator
may have no feasible alternative to peak
wet weather flow diversions around
E:\FR\FM\22DEP1.SGM
22DEP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
76016
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules
secondary treatment units. This policy
sets forth a process for determining
whether or not such feasible alternatives
to peak wet weather flow diversions
exist. If the NPDES authority determines
that there are no feasible alternatives to
peak wet weather flow diversions
around secondary treatment units at the
treatment plant using the analysis set
forth in this policy, then the NPDES
authority may approve peak wet
weather flow diversions around
secondary treatment units at a POTW
treatment plant serving separate sanitary
sewer conveyance systems as an
anticipated bypass in accordance with
40 CFR 122.41(m) in a new or renewed
NPDES permit. The only flow that can
be approved as an anticipated bypass
around secondary treatment units is
flow that is anticipated to exceed the
peak flow capacity of the secondary
treatment unit(s) even after
implementation of the feasible
technologies and approaches identified
via the process outlined in this policy.
NPDES authorities should include an
implementation schedule in the permit
for the feasible technologies and
approaches that would need to be
implemented and the associated flow
volumes. In NPDES permits with such
implementation schedules, the approval
of any anticipated bypass would be
contingent upon the permittee’s
performance of the implementation
schedule. This implementation
schedule would be considered a permit
condition as opposed to a schedule of
compliance under 40 CFR 122.47.
A thoughtful public planning process
at the local level is important to
minimize or eliminate overflows in the
collection system, minimize I/I into the
collection system, maximize treatment
of all flows, and improve wet weather
flow management. EPA recommends
that POTW treatment plant operators
work with their NPDES authorities and
local communities to proactively
minimize peak wet weather influent
flow volume and improve effluent
quality, reduce the frequency and
volume of diversion events, and
improve the structural integrity and
capacity of collection systems and the
reliability of POTW treatment plants.
The use of diversions around
secondary treatment units at POTW
treatment plants serving separate
sanitary sewer conveyance systems to
manage peak wet weather flows is not
necessary in many cases and cannot be
approved if feasible alternatives are
identified through the analysis
described herein. Accordingly, on
permit renewal, the presumption by the
NPDES authority would be against the
utility’s continued use of diversions to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:34 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
manage peak wet weather flows. This
presumption could be overcome by the
POTW treatment plant operator again
demonstrating that there are no feasible
alternatives to such diversions through
updating and resubmission of the utility
analysis described in this policy,
ensuring that the submission identifies
any changes at the facility, progress
made in relevant areas, any new
circumstances, the timing of ongoing
projects or construction, or I/I reduction
schedules. Timely permit renewals for
facilities that employ peak wet weather
diversions around secondary treatment
units at the POTW treatment plant
should be a priority. Because of the
importance of regular analysis of the
ongoing need to utilize diversions at a
particular facility, NPDES permits for
facilities that employ or seek to employ
peak wet weather diversions around
secondary treatment units at their
treatment plant should be timely
renewed rather than administratively
continued.
The determination of what constitutes
a ‘peak wet weather event,’ during
which the use of a peak wet weather
diversion may be approved by a NPDES
authority as an anticipated bypass, will
be a site-specific determination.
Certainly, EPA does not expect
diversions at POTW treatment plants
serving separate sanitary sewer
conveyance systems to be used for
routine rain events. EPA also cannot
reasonably estimate or endorse an
‘acceptable’ number of anticipated
bypasses (e.g., five per year). Such a
one-size-fits all approach would not
recognize the site-specific nature of
peak wet weather diversions and could
lead to excessive use of diversions in
some communities. Rather, it is EPA’s
intention through this policy to ensure
that POTW treatment plant operators,
NPDES authorities, and the general
public evaluate what constitutes a peak
wet weather event for a POTW
treatment plant for which there is no
feasible alternative to a peak wet
weather diversion, based upon past
diversions, opportunities for eliminating
or reducing diversions, and future
considerations. Where such peak wet
weather diversions at a POTW treatment
plant cannot be feasibly avoided,
additional technologies (e.g., providing
supplemental biological or physical/
chemical treatment) and approaches
should be used to maximize treatment
of diverted flows where feasible. EPA
does not support the use of peak wet
weather diversions around secondary
treatment units at POTW treatment
plants when the peak flows are largely
due to poor (or lack of) collection
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
system maintenance or the lack of
investment in or upgrades to treatment
capacity.
Under this policy, NPDES authorities
and POTW treatment plant operators
need to ensure that all flows that will be
diverted from the secondary treatment
units in peak wet weather events receive
a minimum of primary treatment and
any supplemental treatment or
technology shown feasible using the
factors outlined in this policy. All
discharges from POTW treatment plants
serving separate sanitary sewer
conveyance systems must meet effluent
limitations, including the 85 percent
removal requirement (unless the
discharge from the POTW treatment
plant meets the requirements of 40 CFR
133.103(d) (less concentrated influent
wastewater for separate sanitary
sewers)) and other secondary treatment
requirements and any more stringent
limitations necessary to meet water
quality standards. Failure to meet
effluent limitations is a permit violation.
NPDES authorities should ensure that
the facility, including when diverting,
does not have the reasonable potential
to cause or contribute to non-attainment
of any water quality standards.
EPA recognizes that some POTW
treatment plants may be implementing
technologies more advanced than or
supplementary to secondary treatment.
The Agency encourages the use and
permitting of such technologies (e.g.,
membrane, tertiary) where they produce
a higher quality effluent. In the case
where a POTW treatment plant is using,
or plans to use, technology that is more
effective in baseline pollutant removal
than is required to meet secondary
treatment-based permit limits, the
NPDES authority should take that
improved baseline performance into
consideration when determining
whether peak flow diversions at a
POTW treatment plant are approved and
under what conditions.
No Feasible Alternatives Analysis
Process
An authority’s determination as to
whether or not there is a feasible
alternative to peak wet weather
diversions at a POTW treatment plant
serving a separate sanitary sewer
collection system should be made using
the following inputs and criteria, which
are based on 40 CFR 122.41(m)(4)(i)(A)–
(C) and 40 CFR 122.21(j). At the time of
NPDES permit application or NPDES
permit renewal:
1. POTW treatment plant operators
seeking approval of peak wet weather
diversions at a treatment plant as an
anticipated bypass should submit a
E:\FR\FM\22DEP1.SGM
22DEP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules
comprehensive analysis (utility
analysis) to the NPDES authority that:
a. Documents current treatment plant
design capacity for all treatment units,
the maximum flow that can be
processed through those units, and the
feasibility of increasing such treatment
capacity and related costs;
b. Estimates the frequency, duration,
and volume of current wet weather
diversions, and evaluates alternatives to
reduce the frequency, duration, and
volume of such occurrences and related
costs;
c. Estimates the potential for future
peak wet weather diversions based upon
information such as predicted weather
patterns, population growth, and
projected treatment plant and collection
system changes (e.g., upgrades,
extensions, deterioration) and evaluates
options for reducing diversions based
on these variables;
d. Assesses existing storage within the
collection system or on-site and options
for enhanced utilization or expansion
(taking into account physical and
technological considerations) of storage
to reduce the frequency, duration, and
volume of peak wet weather diversions,
and the related costs;
e. Assesses other ways to reduce peak
wet weather flow volumes, such as
limiting collection system extensions or
slug loadings from indirect dischargers;
f. Evaluates technologies (such as
supplemental biological treatment,
physical chemical treatment, ballasted
flocculation, deep bed filtration, or
membrane technology) that are or could
be used to provide additional treatment
to peak wet weather flows or peak wet
weather diversions at the POTW
treatment plant and the costs of
implementing those technologies;
g. Evaluates the extent to which the
permittee is maximizing its ability to
reduce I/I throughout the entire
collection system (i.e., not only the
portions operated by the utility, but also
portions operated by any municipal
satellite community), including the use
of existing legal authorities, potential
improvements in the timing or quality
of such efforts, and options for obtaining
or expanding legal authorities to reduce
I/I from satellite collection systems;
h. Evaluates peak flow reductions
obtainable through implementation of
existing Capacity, Management,
Operations, and Maintenance (C–MOM)
programs and potential improvements
in the timing or enhancement of those
programs and the related costs; or, if no
such program exists, reductions
obtainable through the development and
implementation of a C–MOM program
and the related costs;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:34 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
i. Assesses the community’s ability to
fund the peak wet weather flow
improvements discussed in the utility
analysis, taking into consideration:
current sewer rates, planned rate
increases, and the costs, schedules,
anticipated financial impacts to the
community of other planned water and
wastewater expenditures, and other
relevant factors impacting the utility’s
rate base, using as a guide EPA’s CSO
Guidance for Financial Capability
Assessment and Schedule Development,
EPA 832–B–97–004;
j. Proposes a protocol for monitoring
the recombined flow at least once daily
during diversions for all parameters for
which the POTW treatment plant has
daily effluent limitations or other
requirements (e.g., monitoring only
requirements) and ensures appropriate
representative monitoring for other
monitoring requirements of the permit,
the total volume diverted, and the
duration of the peak wet weather
diversion event; and
k. Projects the POTW treatment plant
effluent improvements and other
improvements in collection system and
treatment plant performance that could
be expected should the technologies,
practices, and/or other measures
discussed in the utility analysis be
implemented.
2. For any POTW treatment plant
operator seeking approval in an NPDES
permit for an anticipated bypass under
this policy, the NPDES authority
should:
a. Make the utility analysis publicly
available with other draft permit
information for public review and
comment;
b. Review and evaluate the utility
analysis and require measures to be
undertaken to provide the highest
possible treatment to the greatest
possible peak wet weather flow, taking
into account the full range of economic,
environmental, public health, and
engineering considerations;
c. Review and approve or deny the
peak wet weather diversions based on
the determination of whether there are
feasible alternatives to those diversions
using the analysis set forth in this
policy;
d. Include a permit provision
recognizing any approved peak wet
weather diversions as anticipated
bypasses, and specify the conditions for
allowing such diversions;
e. Include a permit provision
requiring any POTW treatment plant
operator that has an approved
anticipated bypass to provide notice of
the peak wet weather diversion event
consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(m)(3);
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76017
f. Include a permit provision requiring
the operator of any POTW treatment
plant that has an approved anticipated
bypass to monitor the recombined flow
at least once daily during diversions for
all parameters for which the POTW
treatment plant has daily effluent
limitations or other requirements (e.g.,
monitoring only requirements), the total
volume diverted, and the duration of the
peak wet weather diversion event. For
parameters for which the permit
establishes non-daily effluent
limitations, include in the permit
monitoring requirements sufficient to
yield data representative of the final
blended discharge, in order to ensure
compliance with applicable effluent
limitations. See 40 CFR 122.48(b);
g. Describe in the permit Fact Sheet
prepared under 40 CFR 124.8(b) how
the peak wet weather event was
calculated, the reason for allowing peak
wet weather diversions, and any
requirements for such peak wet weather
diversions;
h. Ensure that permit load limitations
account for the anticipated flow into
secondary treatment units during both
wet and dry weather conditions;
i. Include permit provisions for public
notification (e.g., via utility website) of
the peak wet weather diversion event
within 24 hours of the inception of each
event; follow up public notification of
the duration and volume of the event
within 48 hours of its cessation; and for
public review of the POTW treatment
plant operator’s peak wet weather flow
diversion practices upon request;
j. Include permit provisions requiring
the control authority with an approved
pretreatment program to review, and
revise if necessary, local pretreatment
limits for indirect dischargers to take
into account peak wet weather diversion
events (e.g., significant industrial users
with batch discharging);
k. If the discharge will be to sensitive
receiving waters (i.e., waters used for
recreation; drinking water; shellfish
beds; waters formally designated by
state or federal authorities as requiring
special consideration or protection;
waters with threatened or endangered
species), ensure that the impact of any
peak wet weather diversion events on
these waters is minimized and
additional caution exercised as permit
limitations are set; and
l. Rigorously review each and every
POTW permit renewal request that
seeks continued approval of peak wet
weather diversions to ensure that a
comprehensive utility analysis
consistent with section 1 above is
submitted and evaluated and that peak
wet weather diversions are approved
only when no feasible alternatives to
E:\FR\FM\22DEP1.SGM
22DEP1
76018
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Proposed Rules
them are identified through the process
set forth in this policy.
3. EPA will:
a. Use this policy in making NDPES
permitting decisions for all POTW
treatment plants serving separate
sanitary sewer conveyance systems in
non-authorized states;
b. Review permits in NPDES
authorized states within the timelines
specified in 40 CFR 123.44 for all POTW
treatment plant operators seeking
approval for diversions pursuant to this
policy to ensure that they are consistent
with this interpretation of the
regulations;
c. Ensure that enforcement actions are
taken, where appropriate, against POTW
treatment plant operators that fail to
move forward expeditiously to meet
their legal obligations as determined
consistent with this policy; and
d. Ensure that monitoring data
received concerning peak wet weather
diversions at POTW treatment plants is
available to the public on EPA’s website
in a searchable and correctable database.
Dated: December 19, 2005.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. E5–7696 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:34 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AT90
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Critical Habitat for the
Perdido Key Beach Mouse,
Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse, and St.
Andrew Beach Mouse; Correction
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION:
Proposed rule; correction.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
correction to the proposed rule to revise
critical habitat for the endangered
Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus
polionotus trissyllepsis) and
Choctawhatchee beach mouse
(Peromyscus polionotus allophrys), and
designate critical habitat for the
endangered St. Andrew beach mouse
(Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis)
published in the Federal Register on
December 15, 2005. The proposed rule
was published with an incorrect
electronic mail address for submission
of comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
We will accept comments from
all interested parties until February 13,
2006. We must receive requests for
public hearings in writing by January
30, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama
City, Florida 32405, (telephone 850–
769–0552; facsimile 850–763–2177).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 15, 2005, a document entitled
‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Critical Habitat for the
Perdido Key Beach Mouse,
Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse, and St.
Andrew Beach Mouse’’ was published
in the Federal Register (70 FR 74426)
with an incorrect electronic mail
address for submission of comments.
DATES:
Correction
In the Federal Register of December
15, 2005, on page 74426, in the first
column, correct item 3 in the ADDRESSES
section to read: 3. You may send
comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
floridabeachmouse@fws.gov.
Dated: December 16, 2005.
Sara Prigan,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E5–7701 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\22DEP1.SGM
22DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76013-76018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7696]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 123
[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0523, FRL--8013-9]
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
Requirements for Peak Wet Weather Discharges From Publicly Owned
Treatment Works Treatment Plants Serving Separate Sanitary Sewer
Collection Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today, EPA is inviting comment on a draft policy regarding
NPDES permit requirements for peak wet weather discharges from publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) treatment plants serving separate sanitary
sewer collection systems. Regulatory agencies, municipal operators of
wastewater facilities, and representatives of environmental advocacy
groups have expressed uncertainty about the appropriate regulatory
interpretation for such situations. Today's draft policy describes both
an interpretation of regulations, as well as guidance to implement such
an interpretation. EPA's intention is to ensure that NPDES requirements
be developed and applied in a nationally-consistent manner that
improves the capacity, management, operation and maintenance of POTW
treatment plants and separate sanitary sewer collection systems and
protects human health and the environment.
DATES: Comments must be received or postmarked on or before January 23,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2005-0523, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to OW-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0523. In
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket,
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
Mail: Send an original and three copies of your comments
to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 4101T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0523.
Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0523. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-
0523. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
[[Page 76014]]
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or through e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identify or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the substance of
this draft policy, contact Kevin Weiss (e-mail at weiss.kevin@epa.gov
or phone at (202) 564-0742) at Water Permits Division, Office of
Wastewater Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mailcode
4203M), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
When submitting comments, remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code or
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs
You may copy 266 pages per day free of charge. Beginning with page
267, you will be charged $0.15 per page plus an administrative fee of
$25.00.
Acronyms Used
CSO Combined sewer overflow.
EPA Environmental Protection Agency.
I/I infiltration and inflow.
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
POTW Publicly owned treatment works.
SSO Sanitary sewer overflow (this does not include CSOs).
II. Background
EPA has received requests from many stakeholders to clarify the
NPDES requirements for discharges from POTW treatment plants serving
separate sanitary sewers where peak wet weather flow is routed around
biological treatment units and then blended with the effluent from the
biological units prior to discharge and where the final discharge meets
permit effluent limitations based on the secondary treatment regulation
(40 CFR Part 133) or any more stringent limitations necessary to attain
water quality standards. On November 7, 2003, EPA requested public
comment on a proposed policy addressing this issue. Under the proposed
interpretation in the November 7, 2003 proposed policy, a wet weather
diversion around biological treatment units that was blended with the
wastewaters from the biological units prior to discharge would not have
been considered to constitute a prohibited bypass if the six criteria
specified in the November 7, 2003 proposed policy were met.
EPA received significant public comment on the proposed policy,
including over 98,000 comments opposing the policy due to concerns
about human health risks. On May 19, 2005, EPA indicated that after
consideration of the comments, the Agency had no intention of
finalizing the 2003 proposal. On July 26, 2005, Congress enacted the FY
2006 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-54). Section 203 of the Appropriations Act
provides that none of the funds made available in the Act could be used
to finalize, issue, implement or enforce the November 7, 2003 proposed
blending policy.
In October of 2005, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) provided
EPA with their joint proposal recommending further action that the
Agency should take regarding the blending issue. The NRDC/NACWA
recommended approach includes an interpretation of the bypass
regulation that is significantly different from the November 7, 2003
proposal, in that it would clarify that the bypass provision would
apply, in all instances, to wet weather diversions at POTW treatment
plants serving separate
[[Page 76015]]
sanitary sewers. Today's draft policy invites comment on this
interpretation, as well as the recommended guidance to implement the
interpretation, and reflects the approach of the NRDC/NACWA
recommendation.
III. General Information
A. Draft Policy
If the draft policy is made final, the following statement will be
announced by EPA.
Draft Memorandum
From: Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
To: Regional Administrators, Region I-X, Granta Y. Nakayama, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
Subject: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Requirements for Peak Wet Weather Discharges from Publicly Owned
Treatment Works Treatment Plants Serving Separate Sanitary Sewer
Collection Systems
Introduction
Many municipalities currently have situations in which high peak
influent flows during significant wet weather events exceed the
treatment capacity of existing secondary treatment units. In these
situations, wet weather flows are sometimes diverted around secondary
treatment units and then either recombined with flows from the
secondary treatment units or discharged directly into waterways from
the treatment plant. This policy only applies to peak wet weather
diversions around secondary treatment units that occur at publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) treatment plants serving separate sanitary
sewer systems that are recombined with flow from the secondary
treatment unit. The process by which wet weather diversions can be
approved in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for POTW treatment plants serving combined sewer systems was
previously outlined in the 1994 CSO Policy, 59 FR 18,693-18,694 (April
19, 1994). Nothing in this policy addresses the requirements for POTW
treatment plants serving combined sewer systems.
While EPA recognizes that peak wet weather flow diversions around
secondary treatment units at POTW treatment plants serving separate
sanitary sewer conveyance systems may be necessary in some
circumstances to prevent temporary loss of function of secondary
treatment units, the Agency and stakeholders have been concerned for
some time that peak wet weather flow diversions could have adverse
environmental or public health impacts because of the higher expected
pollutant load of diverted flows.
Accordingly, EPA strongly discourages reliance on peak wet weather
flow diversions around secondary treatment units as a long-term wet
weather management approach at a POTW treatment plant serving separate
sanitary sewer conveyance systems and that such diversions should be
minimized to the maximum extent feasible taking into account the
factors discussed in this policy. EPA anticipates that, over time, the
need to undertake peak wet weather flow diversions at POTW treatment
plants serving separate sanitary sewer conveyance systems can be
eliminated from most systems in a variety of ways, such as by enhancing
storage and treatment capacity and reducing sources of peak wet weather
flow volume. EPA expects that aggressive efforts by POTW treatment
plant operators in consultation with NPDES authorities can lead to
dramatic reductions in the volume and duration of peak wet weather
flows and can improve the treatment and quality of peak wet weather
flow discharges. EPA also believes that the involvement of the general
public will improve the assessment of various options to minimize peak
wet weather flow diversions.
In recent years there has been substantial confusion regarding the
regulatory status of peak wet weather flow diversions around secondary
treatment units at POTW treatment plants serving separate sanitary
sewer conveyance systems. In some cases, such diversions have been
considered a bypass and held to the criteria of the NPDES bypass
regulation (40 CFR 122.41(m)). In other cases, diversion scenarios
around secondary treatment units at POTW treatment plants have been
constructed and permitted at facilities without consideration of the
bypass regulation criteria.
In 2003, EPA proposed a policy to clarify the regulatory status of
peak wet weather flows that are combined with secondary effluent, a
practice known as blending. 68 FR 63,042 (Nov. 7, 2003). In that
proposed policy, EPA stated that if certain procedures were followed,
peak wet weather flow blending would not be considered a bypass under
40 CFR 122.41(m). The Agency received over 98,000 comments on the
proposed policy and on May 19, 2005 indicated that it no longer
intended to pursue further action on the proposal.
Applicability of the Bypass Regulation to Blending
This policy provides the Agency's interpretation that the 40 CFR
122.41(m), the bypass regulation, applies to peak wet weather
diversions at POTW treatment plants serving separate sanitary sewer
conveyance systems that are recombined with flow from the secondary
treatment units. If the criteria of 40 CFR 122.41(m)(4)(i)(A)-(C) are
met, NPDES authorities can approve peak wet weather flow diversions
around secondary treatment units in a NPDES permit for discharges from
a POTW treatment plants as an anticipated bypass under 40 CFR
122.41(m)(4)(ii).
This policy:
[cir] Interprets the provisions of 40 CFR 122.41(m)(4) as they
apply to peak wet weather flow diversions around secondary treatment
units at POTW treatment plants serving separate sanitary sewer systems
where the diverted flow is recombined with flow from the secondary
treatment units prior to discharge;
[cir] Interprets the term ``no feasible alternatives'' in 40 CFR
122.41(m)(4)(i)(B) as it applies to such peak wet weather flow
diversions;
[cir] Does not apply to discharges or overflows prior to the
headworks of a POTW treatment plant; dry weather diversions; diversions
around primary or tertiary treatment units; or diverted flow that is
not recombined with flow from the secondary treatment units prior to
discharge;
[cir] Promotes use of measures to provide the highest possible
treatment to the greatest possible peak wet weather flow; and
[cir] Promotes reporting and public notification of peak wet
weather diversion events.
A combination of approaches can be used to achieve the goals of
this policy. These approaches include:
[cir] Ensuring full utilization of available secondary treatment
capacity;
[cir] Reducing infiltration and inflow (I/I);
[cir] Maximizing the use of the collection system for storage;
[cir] Providing off-line storage; and
[cir] Providing sufficient secondary treatment capacity.
EPA recognizes that these approaches, alone or in combination, may
not be sufficient in some cases to enable a POTW treatment plant to
process its peak wet weather flows through its secondary treatment
units. In such cases, a POTW treatment plant operator may have no
feasible alternative to peak wet weather flow diversions around
[[Page 76016]]
secondary treatment units. This policy sets forth a process for
determining whether or not such feasible alternatives to peak wet
weather flow diversions exist. If the NPDES authority determines that
there are no feasible alternatives to peak wet weather flow diversions
around secondary treatment units at the treatment plant using the
analysis set forth in this policy, then the NPDES authority may approve
peak wet weather flow diversions around secondary treatment units at a
POTW treatment plant serving separate sanitary sewer conveyance systems
as an anticipated bypass in accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(m) in a new
or renewed NPDES permit. The only flow that can be approved as an
anticipated bypass around secondary treatment units is flow that is
anticipated to exceed the peak flow capacity of the secondary treatment
unit(s) even after implementation of the feasible technologies and
approaches identified via the process outlined in this policy. NPDES
authorities should include an implementation schedule in the permit for
the feasible technologies and approaches that would need to be
implemented and the associated flow volumes. In NPDES permits with such
implementation schedules, the approval of any anticipated bypass would
be contingent upon the permittee's performance of the implementation
schedule. This implementation schedule would be considered a permit
condition as opposed to a schedule of compliance under 40 CFR 122.47.
A thoughtful public planning process at the local level is
important to minimize or eliminate overflows in the collection system,
minimize I/I into the collection system, maximize treatment of all
flows, and improve wet weather flow management. EPA recommends that
POTW treatment plant operators work with their NPDES authorities and
local communities to proactively minimize peak wet weather influent
flow volume and improve effluent quality, reduce the frequency and
volume of diversion events, and improve the structural integrity and
capacity of collection systems and the reliability of POTW treatment
plants.
The use of diversions around secondary treatment units at POTW
treatment plants serving separate sanitary sewer conveyance systems to
manage peak wet weather flows is not necessary in many cases and cannot
be approved if feasible alternatives are identified through the
analysis described herein. Accordingly, on permit renewal, the
presumption by the NPDES authority would be against the utility's
continued use of diversions to manage peak wet weather flows. This
presumption could be overcome by the POTW treatment plant operator
again demonstrating that there are no feasible alternatives to such
diversions through updating and resubmission of the utility analysis
described in this policy, ensuring that the submission identifies any
changes at the facility, progress made in relevant areas, any new
circumstances, the timing of ongoing projects or construction, or I/I
reduction schedules. Timely permit renewals for facilities that employ
peak wet weather diversions around secondary treatment units at the
POTW treatment plant should be a priority. Because of the importance of
regular analysis of the ongoing need to utilize diversions at a
particular facility, NPDES permits for facilities that employ or seek
to employ peak wet weather diversions around secondary treatment units
at their treatment plant should be timely renewed rather than
administratively continued.
The determination of what constitutes a `peak wet weather event,'
during which the use of a peak wet weather diversion may be approved by
a NPDES authority as an anticipated bypass, will be a site-specific
determination. Certainly, EPA does not expect diversions at POTW
treatment plants serving separate sanitary sewer conveyance systems to
be used for routine rain events. EPA also cannot reasonably estimate or
endorse an `acceptable' number of anticipated bypasses (e.g., five per
year). Such a one-size-fits all approach would not recognize the site-
specific nature of peak wet weather diversions and could lead to
excessive use of diversions in some communities. Rather, it is EPA's
intention through this policy to ensure that POTW treatment plant
operators, NPDES authorities, and the general public evaluate what
constitutes a peak wet weather event for a POTW treatment plant for
which there is no feasible alternative to a peak wet weather diversion,
based upon past diversions, opportunities for eliminating or reducing
diversions, and future considerations. Where such peak wet weather
diversions at a POTW treatment plant cannot be feasibly avoided,
additional technologies (e.g., providing supplemental biological or
physical/chemical treatment) and approaches should be used to maximize
treatment of diverted flows where feasible. EPA does not support the
use of peak wet weather diversions around secondary treatment units at
POTW treatment plants when the peak flows are largely due to poor (or
lack of) collection system maintenance or the lack of investment in or
upgrades to treatment capacity.
Under this policy, NPDES authorities and POTW treatment plant
operators need to ensure that all flows that will be diverted from the
secondary treatment units in peak wet weather events receive a minimum
of primary treatment and any supplemental treatment or technology shown
feasible using the factors outlined in this policy. All discharges from
POTW treatment plants serving separate sanitary sewer conveyance
systems must meet effluent limitations, including the 85 percent
removal requirement (unless the discharge from the POTW treatment plant
meets the requirements of 40 CFR 133.103(d) (less concentrated influent
wastewater for separate sanitary sewers)) and other secondary treatment
requirements and any more stringent limitations necessary to meet water
quality standards. Failure to meet effluent limitations is a permit
violation. NPDES authorities should ensure that the facility, including
when diverting, does not have the reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to non-attainment of any water quality standards.
EPA recognizes that some POTW treatment plants may be implementing
technologies more advanced than or supplementary to secondary
treatment. The Agency encourages the use and permitting of such
technologies (e.g., membrane, tertiary) where they produce a higher
quality effluent. In the case where a POTW treatment plant is using, or
plans to use, technology that is more effective in baseline pollutant
removal than is required to meet secondary treatment-based permit
limits, the NPDES authority should take that improved baseline
performance into consideration when determining whether peak flow
diversions at a POTW treatment plant are approved and under what
conditions.
No Feasible Alternatives Analysis Process
An authority's determination as to whether or not there is a
feasible alternative to peak wet weather diversions at a POTW treatment
plant serving a separate sanitary sewer collection system should be
made using the following inputs and criteria, which are based on 40 CFR
122.41(m)(4)(i)(A)-(C) and 40 CFR 122.21(j). At the time of NPDES
permit application or NPDES permit renewal:
1. POTW treatment plant operators seeking approval of peak wet
weather diversions at a treatment plant as an anticipated bypass should
submit a
[[Page 76017]]
comprehensive analysis (utility analysis) to the NPDES authority that:
a. Documents current treatment plant design capacity for all
treatment units, the maximum flow that can be processed through those
units, and the feasibility of increasing such treatment capacity and
related costs;
b. Estimates the frequency, duration, and volume of current wet
weather diversions, and evaluates alternatives to reduce the frequency,
duration, and volume of such occurrences and related costs;
c. Estimates the potential for future peak wet weather diversions
based upon information such as predicted weather patterns, population
growth, and projected treatment plant and collection system changes
(e.g., upgrades, extensions, deterioration) and evaluates options for
reducing diversions based on these variables;
d. Assesses existing storage within the collection system or on-
site and options for enhanced utilization or expansion (taking into
account physical and technological considerations) of storage to reduce
the frequency, duration, and volume of peak wet weather diversions, and
the related costs;
e. Assesses other ways to reduce peak wet weather flow volumes,
such as limiting collection system extensions or slug loadings from
indirect dischargers;
f. Evaluates technologies (such as supplemental biological
treatment, physical chemical treatment, ballasted flocculation, deep
bed filtration, or membrane technology) that are or could be used to
provide additional treatment to peak wet weather flows or peak wet
weather diversions at the POTW treatment plant and the costs of
implementing those technologies;
g. Evaluates the extent to which the permittee is maximizing its
ability to reduce I/I throughout the entire collection system (i.e.,
not only the portions operated by the utility, but also portions
operated by any municipal satellite community), including the use of
existing legal authorities, potential improvements in the timing or
quality of such efforts, and options for obtaining or expanding legal
authorities to reduce I/I from satellite collection systems;
h. Evaluates peak flow reductions obtainable through implementation
of existing Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (C-MOM)
programs and potential improvements in the timing or enhancement of
those programs and the related costs; or, if no such program exists,
reductions obtainable through the development and implementation of a
C-MOM program and the related costs;
i. Assesses the community's ability to fund the peak wet weather
flow improvements discussed in the utility analysis, taking into
consideration: current sewer rates, planned rate increases, and the
costs, schedules, anticipated financial impacts to the community of
other planned water and wastewater expenditures, and other relevant
factors impacting the utility's rate base, using as a guide EPA's CSO
Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development,
EPA 832-B-97-004;
j. Proposes a protocol for monitoring the recombined flow at least
once daily during diversions for all parameters for which the POTW
treatment plant has daily effluent limitations or other requirements
(e.g., monitoring only requirements) and ensures appropriate
representative monitoring for other monitoring requirements of the
permit, the total volume diverted, and the duration of the peak wet
weather diversion event; and
k. Projects the POTW treatment plant effluent improvements and
other improvements in collection system and treatment plant performance
that could be expected should the technologies, practices, and/or other
measures discussed in the utility analysis be implemented.
2. For any POTW treatment plant operator seeking approval in an
NPDES permit for an anticipated bypass under this policy, the NPDES
authority should:
a. Make the utility analysis publicly available with other draft
permit information for public review and comment;
b. Review and evaluate the utility analysis and require measures to
be undertaken to provide the highest possible treatment to the greatest
possible peak wet weather flow, taking into account the full range of
economic, environmental, public health, and engineering considerations;
c. Review and approve or deny the peak wet weather diversions based
on the determination of whether there are feasible alternatives to
those diversions using the analysis set forth in this policy;
d. Include a permit provision recognizing any approved peak wet
weather diversions as anticipated bypasses, and specify the conditions
for allowing such diversions;
e. Include a permit provision requiring any POTW treatment plant
operator that has an approved anticipated bypass to provide notice of
the peak wet weather diversion event consistent with 40 CFR
122.41(m)(3);
f. Include a permit provision requiring the operator of any POTW
treatment plant that has an approved anticipated bypass to monitor the
recombined flow at least once daily during diversions for all
parameters for which the POTW treatment plant has daily effluent
limitations or other requirements (e.g., monitoring only requirements),
the total volume diverted, and the duration of the peak wet weather
diversion event. For parameters for which the permit establishes non-
daily effluent limitations, include in the permit monitoring
requirements sufficient to yield data representative of the final
blended discharge, in order to ensure compliance with applicable
effluent limitations. See 40 CFR 122.48(b);
g. Describe in the permit Fact Sheet prepared under 40 CFR 124.8(b)
how the peak wet weather event was calculated, the reason for allowing
peak wet weather diversions, and any requirements for such peak wet
weather diversions;
h. Ensure that permit load limitations account for the anticipated
flow into secondary treatment units during both wet and dry weather
conditions;
i. Include permit provisions for public notification (e.g., via
utility website) of the peak wet weather diversion event within 24
hours of the inception of each event; follow up public notification of
the duration and volume of the event within 48 hours of its cessation;
and for public review of the POTW treatment plant operator's peak wet
weather flow diversion practices upon request;
j. Include permit provisions requiring the control authority with
an approved pretreatment program to review, and revise if necessary,
local pretreatment limits for indirect dischargers to take into account
peak wet weather diversion events (e.g., significant industrial users
with batch discharging);
k. If the discharge will be to sensitive receiving waters (i.e.,
waters used for recreation; drinking water; shellfish beds; waters
formally designated by state or federal authorities as requiring
special consideration or protection; waters with threatened or
endangered species), ensure that the impact of any peak wet weather
diversion events on these waters is minimized and additional caution
exercised as permit limitations are set; and
l. Rigorously review each and every POTW permit renewal request
that seeks continued approval of peak wet weather diversions to ensure
that a comprehensive utility analysis consistent with section 1 above
is submitted and evaluated and that peak wet weather diversions are
approved only when no feasible alternatives to
[[Page 76018]]
them are identified through the process set forth in this policy.
3. EPA will:
a. Use this policy in making NDPES permitting decisions for all
POTW treatment plants serving separate sanitary sewer conveyance
systems in non-authorized states;
b. Review permits in NPDES authorized states within the timelines
specified in 40 CFR 123.44 for all POTW treatment plant operators
seeking approval for diversions pursuant to this policy to ensure that
they are consistent with this interpretation of the regulations;
c. Ensure that enforcement actions are taken, where appropriate,
against POTW treatment plant operators that fail to move forward
expeditiously to meet their legal obligations as determined consistent
with this policy; and
d. Ensure that monitoring data received concerning peak wet weather
diversions at POTW treatment plants is available to the public on EPA's
website in a searchable and correctable database.
Dated: December 19, 2005.
Benjamin H. Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. E5-7696 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P