[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76013-76018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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:
http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to [email protected], 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
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or through e-mail. The http://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 http://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 http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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 http://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 [email protected]
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 http://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