Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30395 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

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: 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 materials, such as 

copyrighted material, are 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 OEI Docket in the EPA Headquarters 

Docket Center. 

Dated: May 25, 2010. 

Rebecca Clark, 

Acting Director, National Center for 

Environmental Assessment. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13072 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0464; FRL–9156–7] 

Stakeholder Input; National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Permit Requirements for 

Municipal Sanitary Sewer Collection 

Systems, Municipal Satellite Collection 

Systems, Sanitary Sewer Overflows, 

and Peak Wet Weather Discharges 

From Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

Treatment Plants Serving Separate 

Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is announcing plans to hold 

several ‘‘listening sessions’’ beginning in 

June 2010 to obtain information from 

the public on certain issues EPA is 

considering. EPA is considering 

whether to propose to modify the 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) 

regulations as they apply to municipal 

sanitary sewer collection systems and 

sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) in 

order to better protect the environment 

and public health from the harmful 

effects of sanitary sewer overflows and 

basement back ups. The Agency is 

considering whether to propose possible 

modifications to the NPDES regulations, 

including establishing standard permit 

conditions for publicly owned treatment 

works (POTW) permits that specifically 

address sanitary sewer collection 

systems and SSOs, and clarifying the 

regulatory framework for applying 

NPDES permit conditions to municipal 

satellite collection systems. The Agency 

is also considering whether and how it 

should resolve several longstanding 

issues that are the subject of the 

December 22, 2005 draft Peak Flows 

Policy. This draft Policy attempted to 

clarify EPA’s interpretation that the 

existing ‘‘bypass’’ provision of the 

NPDES regulations applies to peak wet 

weather diversions at POTW treatment 

plants that are recombined with the 

flows from the secondary treatment 

units prior to discharge. The Agency is 

considering whether to adopt this or a 

revised Policy and/or address questions 

about peak flow as part of an SSO 

rulemaking to allow for a holistic and 

integrated approach to reducing SSOs 

while at the same time addressing peak 

flows at the POTW treatment plant. 

In addition to submitting information 

at the listening sessions, the public may 

also provide input to the Agency 

directly through e-mail, fax or mail in 

order to help the Agency shape any 

possible future regulatory proposals. 

The Agency is undertaking this outreach 

to help advance the Clean Water Act 

objective to restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical and biological 

integrity of the nation’s waters (CWA, 

Section 101(a)). 

DATES: EPA is asking for statements and 

input from the interested public on or 

before August 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your statements or 

input, identified by Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OW–2010–0464, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

input. 

• E-mail: OW–Docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2010–0464. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744. 

• Mail: Water Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

code: 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0464. 

• Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West Building 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0464. 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 input to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0464. EPA’s policy is that all input 

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 input includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information 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 e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your input. If 

you send an e-mail with input directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the input that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic input, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

input and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

input due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 

may not be able to consider your input. 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about this notice, 

contact Charles Glass, EPA 

Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of 

Wastewater Management at tel.: 202– 

564–0418 or e-mail: 

glass.charles@epa.gov. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30396 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

Public Listening Sessions: EPA will 

hold several informal public listening 

sessions to gather input on actions that 

EPA is considering. The public listening 

sessions will include a brief background 

on SSOs and peak flows that will be 

followed by an opportunity for the 

public to provide input on possible 

paths forward. Written and oral 

statements will be accepted at the 

public listening sessions. Input 

generated from what was learned at a 

public listening session will be 

compiled and archived. The information 

gathered at these sessions, will be 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.epa.gov/npdes/ 

sanitaryseweroverflows. Brief oral 

statements (three minutes or less) will 

be accepted at the sessions, and written 

statements will be accepted. 

The dates and locations of the 

listening sessions are as follows: 

fi June 24, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at 

EPA Region 10 Office, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. 

fi June 28, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at 

EPA Region 4 Office, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, GA 30303. 

fi June 30, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at 

EPA Region 7 Office, 901 N. 5th Street, 

Kansas City, KS 66101. 

fi July 13, 2010, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at 

EPA HQ Office, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20004. 

In addition to the listening sessions held 

throughout the country, EPA will hold 

a ‘‘virtual’’ listening session via a 

webcast on July 14, 2010, from Noon– 

4 p.m. EST. The same format will be 

followed as the in-person listening 

sessions. After a presentation from EPA, 

members of the public may call in and 

give brief (three-minute) statements. 

Audience members will be able to listen 

to the webcast and all public statements 

through their computer speakers. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. How can I get copies of this 

document and other related 

information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established an 

official public docket for this matter 

under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2010–0464. The official public docket is 

the collection of materials that is 

available for public viewing at the Water 

Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/ 

DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., Washington, DC. 

Although all documents in the docket 

are listed in an index, some information 

is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Publicly available 

docket materials are available in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center Public 

Reading Room, 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. 

2. Electronic Access. You may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. 

Electronic versions of this notice and 

other SSO documents are available at 

EPA’s SSO Web site http:// 

www.epa.gov/npdes/ 

sanitaryseweroverflows. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and input 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ 

to submit or view public input, access 

the index listing of the contents of the 

official public docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket 

that are available electronically. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘search’’, then key in 

the appropriate docket identification 

number. 

Certain types of information will not 

be placed in the EPA Dockets. 

Information claimed as CBI and other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute, which is not 

included in the official public docket, 

will not be available for public viewing 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. EPA 

policy is that copyrighted material will 

not be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the docket facility 

identified in Section I.A.1. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA though 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

all of the information that you claim to 

be CBI. For CBI information on 

computer discs mailed to EPA, mark the 

surface of the disc as CBI. Also identify 

electronically the specific information 

contained in the disc or that you claim 

is CBI. In addition to one complete 

version of the specific information 

claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 

public document. Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR Part 2. 

It is important to note that EPA’s 

policy is that public input, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing in EPA’s electronic public 

docket as EPA receives them and 

without change, unless the input 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. When EPA 

identifies any input containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the document that is placed 

in EPA’s electronic public docket. The 

entire printed submittal, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

in the public docket. 

Documents submitted on computer 

disks that are mailed or delivered to the 

docket will be transferred to EPA’s 

electronic public docket. Input that is 

mailed or delivered to the Docket will 

be scanned and placed in EPA’s 

electronic public docket. Where 

practical, physical objects will be 

photographed, and the photograph will 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket along with a brief description 

written by the docket staff. 

B. How and to whom do I submit input? 

You may submit input electronically, 

by mail, through hand delivery/courier, 

or in person by attending one of the 5 

listening sessions. To ensure proper 

receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 

docket identification number in the 

subject line on the first page of your 

input. Please ensure that your input is 

submitted within the specified input 

period. 

1. Electronically. If you submit 

electronic input as prescribed below, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name, mailing address, and an e-mail 

address or other contact information in 

the body of your input. Also include 

this contact information on the outside 

of any disk or CD–ROM you submit, and 

in any cover letter accompanying the 

disk or CD–ROM. This ensures that you 

can be identified as the submitter of the 

input and allows EPA to contact you in 

case EPA cannot read your submittal 

due to technical difficulties or needs 

further information on the substance of 

your input. EPA’s policy is that EPA 

will not edit your input, and any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of the text will be 

included as part of the input that is 

placed in the official public docket, and 

made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

submittal due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

input. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30397 

i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA’s 

electronic public docket to provide 

input to EPA electronically is EPA’s 

preferred method for receiving input. Go 

directly to EPA Dockets at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the 

online instructions for submitting input. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search’’, and 

then key in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2010–0464. The system is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity, 

e-mail address, or other contact 

information unless you provide it. 

ii. E-mail. Input may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to owdocket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010–0464. 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 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 

submittal that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

iii. Disk or CD–ROM. You may submit 

input on a disk or CD–ROM that you 

mail to the mailing address identified in 

this section. These electronic 

submissions will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or ASCII file format. 

Avoid the use of special characters and 

any form of encryption. 

2. By Mail. Send the original and three 

copies of your input to: Water Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW– 

2010–0464. 

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. 

Deliver your input to: Public Reading 

Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2010– 

0464. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays). 

II. Background 

In order to help the public prepare for 

the listening sessions, the following 

background information is provided. 

Wastewater collection systems collect 

domestic sewage and other wastewater 

from homes and other buildings and 

convey it to wastewater sewage 

treatment plants for proper treatment 

and disposal. The collection and 

treatment of municipal sewage and 

wastewater is vital to the public health 

in our cities and towns. 

The efficiency of treatment at a 

wastewater treatment plant depends 

strongly on the performance of the 

collection system. When the structural 

integrity of a sanitary sewer collection 

system deteriorates, high volumes of 

infiltration (including rainfall-induced 

infiltration) and inflow can enter the 

sewer system. High levels of inflow and 

infiltration (I/I) increase the hydraulic 

load on treatment plants, which can 

reduce treatment efficiency, lead to 

bypassing a portion of the treatment 

process, or in extreme situations make 

biological treatment facilities inoperable 

(e.g., wash out the biological organisms 

that treat the waste). 

In the United States, municipalities 

historically have used two major types 

of sewer systems. One type, combined 

sewers, is designed to collect both 

sanitary sewage and storm water runoff 

in a single-pipe system. Sewer builders 

designed this type of sewer system to 

provide the primary means of surface 

drainage and drain precipitation flows 

away from streets, roofs, and other 

impervious surfaces. State and local 

authorities generally have not allowed 

the construction of new combined 

sewers since the first half of the 20th 

century. The other major type of 

domestic sewer design is sanitary 

sewers (also known as separate sanitary 

sewers). Sanitary sewers are not 

installed to collect large amounts of 

runoff from precipitation events or 

provide widespread drainage, although 

they typically are built with some 

allowance for higher flows that occur 

during storm events for handling minor 

and non-excessive amounts of I/I that 

enter the system. 

SSOs, which are releases of raw 

sewage, can result when there is a 

failure in a sanitary sewer collection 

system. EPA generally uses the term 

SSO to describe releases of sewage that 

result in a discharge to waters of the 

United States, as well as releases that do 

not result in a discharge to U.S. waters, 

including sewage backups into 

buildings. A number of factors can 

cause or contribute to an SSO, including 

high levels of I/I; blockages caused by 

roots, grease, sediment or other 

materials; structural, mechanical or 

electrical failure; and third party actions 

or activities. 

Municipal sanitary sewer collection 

systems are an extensive, valuable, and 

complex part of the nation’s 

infrastructure. The collection system of 

a single large municipality can include 

thousands of miles of pipe and 

represent an investment worth billions 

of dollars. The underlying challenges 

affecting the performance of collection 

systems are influenced by a number of 

factors including the following: 

• Much of the nation’s sanitary sewer 

infrastructure is old; some parts of this 

infrastructure date back over 100 years. 

Over the time period associated with 

building these systems, a wide variety of 

materials, design and installation 

practices, and maintenance/repair 

procedures have been used, many of 

which are inferior to those available 

today; 

• Infrastructure has deteriorated with 

time and continues to age; 

• Investment in infrastructure 

maintenance and repair has often been 

inadequate; 

• The location of problems (e.g., 

roots, debris) and other variables may 

continually change throughout a system; 

• Systems may fail to provide 

capacity to accommodate increased 

sewage delivery and treatment demand 

from increasing populations; and 

• Institutional arrangements relating 

to the operation of sewers may present 

a barrier to effective operation and 

maintenance of sewer systems. Almost 

all building laterals in a municipal 

system are privately owned. In many 

municipal systems, a high percentage of 

collector sewers are owned by private 

entities or municipal entities other than 

the entity operating the major 

interceptor sewers. 

The proper operation and 

maintenance of collection system assets 

is critical to minimizing the frequency 

and volume of SSOs. Municipalities 

need to manage their assets effectively 

and ensure adequate and sustainable 

funding to support appropriate 

investments. 

The main concern regarding raw 

sewage releases associated with SSOs is 

typically pathogens, including bacteria, 

viruses, and protozoa. SSOs can contain 

other pollutants, including nutrients, 

toxics from industrial, commercial and 

residential sources, and wastewater 

solids and debris. SSOs are of special 

concern to public health because they 

may expose citizens to bacteria, viruses, 

intestinal parasites, and other 

microorganisms that can cause serious 

illness such as gastroenteritis, hepatitis, 

cryptosporidiosis, and giardiasis. 

Sensitive populations, children, the 

elderly and those with weakened 

immune systems, can be at a higher risk 

of illness from exposure to sewage from 

SSOs. 

The discharge of untreated sewage in 

SSOs can contaminate waters, in some 

cases causing water quality problems 

and threats to public health. SSOs may 

also cause raw sewage to flow into 

basements, parks, recreational streams, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30398 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

beaches, on city streets and backyards, 

and other areas where people are in 

close contact with the overflow. The 

public can be exposed to raw sewage 

from SSOs through street flooding, 

recreational contact such as swimming 

and fishing, drinking contaminated 

water and collection system back-ups 

into homes. The threat to public health 

and the environment posed by SSOs is 

not necessarily limited to large volume 

or extended-duration overflows. Some 

of the greatest threats from SSOs stem 

from viruses and pathogens which can 

present a public health threat even in 

small volume, intermittent overflows. 

Statutory and Regulatory Overview 

SSOs that reach waters of the United 

States are point source discharges and, 

like other point source discharges, are 

generally prohibited unless authorized 

by an NPDES permit. Sanitary sewers 

are part of the treatment works under 

the Clean Water Act and discharges 

from sanitary sewers have historically 

been viewed as required to achieve 

secondary treatment in order to be 

eligible to receive an NPDES permit. 

Moreover, SSOs, including those that do 

not reach waters of the United States, 

may be indicative of improper operation 

and maintenance of the sewer system, 

and thus may violate other NPDES 

permit conditions. The NPDES 

regulations establish standard permit 

conditions which must be included in 

all NPDES permits, as well as additional 

standard permit conditions to be 

included in all NPDES permits for 

publicly owned treatment works 

(POTWs) (see 40 CFR 122.41 and 

122.42). Standard permit conditions in 

a permit for a POTW apply to all 

portions of the collection system for 

which the permittee has ownership or 

has operational control. Standard permit 

conditions that have particular 

application to SSOs and municipal 

sanitary sewer collection systems 

include provisions that address a duty 

to mitigate (§ 122.41(d)); proper 

operation and maintenance 

(§ 122.41(e)); noncompliance reporting 

(§ 122.41(l)(6) and (7)); recordkeeping 

(§ 122.41(j)(2)) 

Previous Activities To Address SSO 

Requirements 

In 1994, a number of municipalities 

asked EPA to establish a Federal 

Advisory Committee (FAC) of key 

stakeholders to make recommendations 

on how the NPDES program should 

address SSOs. This request came soon 

after EPA had published the Combined 

Sewer Overflow Control Policy in 1994, 

which was designed to provide greater 

national clarity and consistency in the 

way NPDES requirements apply to 

combined sewer overflows (CSOs). In 

part, the municipalities indicated a 

desire for greater national clarity and 

consistency in the way NPDES 

requirements apply to SSOs. The 

municipalities indicated that they 

believed that eliminating all SSO 

discharges was technically infeasible 

and, as a result, municipalities tasked 

with the responsibility of operating 

these systems could not comply with an 

absolute prohibition on SSOs. The 

municipalities suggested a need for a 

workable regulatory framework which 

allowed EPA and NPDES authorities to 

define compliance endpoints in a 

manner that was consistent with 

engineering realities and the health and 

environmental risks of SSOs. 

EPA then convened a national ‘‘SSO 

policy dialogue’’ among a balanced 

group of representatives from key 

stakeholder organizations. EPA asked 

the individual stakeholders to provide 

input on how best to meet the SSO 

policy challenge. In 1995, EPA 

chartered an Urban Wet Weather Flows 

Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) with 

the goal of developing specific 

recommendations addressing crosscutting wet weather issues and to 

improve the effectiveness of the 

Agency’s efforts to address wet weather 

pollutant sources under the NPDES 

program. The Urban Wet Weather Flows 

Federal Advisory Committee 

reconvened the SSO policy dialogue 

group as its SSO Subcommittee. 

The SSO Subcommittee met twelve 

times to develop a draft paper and on 

October 20, 1999, with unanimous 

support from the members, completed a 

framework to address SSOs. In the draft 

paper the Subcommittee supported 

basic principles with the following 

suggested NPDES permit requirements: 

(1) Capacity, management, operation 

and maintenance (CMOM) programs for 

municipal sanitary sewer collection 

systems; 

(2) A prohibition on SSOs, which 

includes a framework for raising a 

defense for unavoidable discharges; 

(3) Reporting, public notification, and 

recordkeeping requirements for 

municipal sanitary sewer collection 

systems and SSOs; and 

(4) The interim use of remote 

treatment facilities (or peak excess flow 

treatment facilities). 

In addition, the Subcommittee 

unanimously supported a set of 

principles for municipal satellite 

collection systems and watershed 

management, although members did not 

develop detailed language addressing 

these topics. 

EPA prepared a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to reflect the work 

achieved by the FAC. The NPRM was 

never formally released to the public or 

sent to the Federal Register for 

publication, but instead was withdrawn 

in January 2001 for further review. The 

draft NPRM would have proposed 

NPDES standard permit conditions for 

municipal sanitary sewer collection 

systems that were aimed at providing a 

more efficient approach to controlling 

SSOs through better management, 

increased public notice, and a focus on 

system planning. 

In August 2004 the Agency presented 

to Congress the ‘‘Report to Congress: 

Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs’’. 

The report found that CSOs and SSOs 

can have impacts on human health and 

the environment at the local watershed 

level. The report identified a broad 

range of technologies available to 

municipalities to control the impacts of 

CSOs and SSOs, documented the extent 

of the problem, and provided a baseline 

for future policy actions. In the Report 

to Congress, EPA estimated that 

between 23,000 and 75,000 SSOs occur 

each year in the United States, resulting 

in releases of between 3 billion and 10 

billion gallons of untreated wastewater. 

Previous Activities To Address Peak 

Flow Requirements 

One standard permit condition in the 

NPDES regulations is the bypass 

provision at 40 CFR 122.41(m). The 

provision defines bypass to mean the 

‘‘intentional diversion of waste streams 

from any portion of a treatment facility.’’ 

The regulation prohibits bypasses 

except where necessary for essential 

maintenance to assure efficient 

operation and where effluent limitations 

are not exceeded. For all other bypasses, 

the Director of the NPDES program may 

take enforcement action against a 

permittee for a bypass, unless: 

(A) The bypass was unavoidable to 

prevent loss of life, personal injury, or 

severe property damage; 

(B) There were no feasible alternatives 

to the bypass, such as the use of 

auxiliary treatment facilities, retention 

of untreated wastes, or maintenance 

during normal periods of equipment 

downtime; and 

(C) The permittee submitted the 

notices required by the regulation. 

The bypass regulation provides that 

the Director of the NPDES authority may 

approve an anticipated bypass, after 

considering its adverse effects, if the 

Director determines that the bypass will 

meet the criteria identified in the 

regulation and listed above. Approval of 

an anticipated bypass does not 

‘‘authorize’’ the bypass, rather an 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30399 

approval of an anticipated bypass 

describes the circumstances in which 

the NPDES authority will not take an 

enforcement action against the 

permittee for a prohibited bypass. The 

bypass provision was promulgated in 

1979, and has remained in effect since 

that time. 

On November 7, 2003, in response to 

requests from many stakeholders, EPA 

requested public comment on a draft 

policy to address the issue of NPDES 

requirements for discharges from 

POTWs 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. 

Under the November 7, 2003, approach, 

a wet weather diversion around 

biological treatment units that was 

blended with the wastewater from the 

biological units prior to discharge 

would not have been considered to 

constitute a prohibited bypass if certain 

criteria were met. 

EPA received significant public 

comment on the 2003 document, 

including over 98,000 comments 

opposing adoption of such a policy due 

to concerns about potential human 

health risks of diverting a portion of the 

flow around secondary treatment units 

during wet weather events. EPA also 

received a letter signed by 73 members 

of Congress asking that EPA not move 

forward with finalizing the policy. On 

May 19, 2005, EPA indicated that, after 

consideration of the comments, the 

Agency did not intend to finalize the 

2003 proposal. On July 26, 2005, 

Congress enacted the FY 2006 

Department of the Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 109–54). 

Section 203 of this Act provides that 

none of the funds made available in the 

Act could be used to finalize, 

implement or enforce the November 7, 

2003, proposed blending policy. 

In October 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 peak flows. The NRDC/ 

NACWA recommended approach 

includes an interpretation of the bypass 

regulation that is significantly different 

from the November 7, 2003, document 

in that it would clarify that the bypass 

provision applies to wet weather 

diversions at POTW treatment plants 

serving separate sanitary sewers 

including those in which the diverted 

stream is blended with the secondary 

effluent before discharge. 

On December 22, 2005, EPA requested 

public comment on a draft Peak Flows 

Policy that reflects the approach of the 

NRDC/NACWA recommendation. The 

2005 draft Policy explains how the 

NPDES authority should determine 

whether requests for approval of 

anticipated peak wet weather flow 

diversions at POTW treatment plants 

serving separate sanitary sewer 

collection systems, which are 

recombined with flow from the 

secondary treatment units prior to 

discharge, should be approved or 

denied under 40 CFR 122.41(m)(4)(ii). 

The approach in the draft Policy is 

based on language in the bypass 

regulation that provides that if the 

NPDES authority determines that the 

criteria of § 122.41(m)(4)(i) will be met, 

the NPDES authority may approve an 

anticipated bypass of peak wet weather 

flow diversions around secondary 

treatment units. EPA has not, to date, 

finalized the draft Policy. 

III. Input on Issues That EPA Is 

Considering 

EPA is considering whether to 

develop a more specific broad-based 

regulatory framework for sanitary sewer 

collection systems under the NPDES 

program. The Agency is considering 

proposing standard permit conditions 

for inclusion in permits for publicly 

owned treatment works (POTWs) and 

municipal sanitary sewer collection 

systems. The permit conditions EPA is 

considering would address the 

following areas: reporting, overflow 

right-to-know, notice of public health 

officials and recordkeeping 

requirements for SSOs, capacity 

assurance, management, operation and 

maintenance requirements for 

municipal sanitary sewer collection 

systems; and possible regulatory 

requirements or provisions for SSOs 

that are caused by exceptional 

circumstances. 

EPA is also seeking the views of the 

interested public on the implications for 

peak excess flow treatment facilities in 

the municipal sanitary collection system 

and the treatment of peak flows that 

reach POTWs. The Agency is 

considering clarifying and modifying 

the regulatory framework for applying 

NPDES permit conditions, including 

applicable standard permit conditions, 

to municipal satellite collection 

systems. Municipal satellite collection 

systems are sewer systems owned or 

operated by a municipality that conveys 

wastewater to a POTW operated by a 

different municipality. 

In addition, the Agency is considering 

clarifying when municipal satellite 

collection systems must obtain a permit. 

With today’s notice of the scheduled 

public meetings, EPA is asking for 

public input on the following 

preliminary considerations that will 

inform EPA’s thinking on the issues that 

will be the subject of these meetings. 

1. Should EPA propose to clarify its 

standard permit conditions for SSO 

reporting, recordkeeping and public 

notification? 

Current requirements require all 

NPDES permits to contain the standard 

permit conditions at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) 

and (7) for noncompliance reporting. 

When incorporated into a permit, these 

standard conditions require permittees 

to report any instance of noncompliance 

to the NPDES authority. SSOs that result 

in discharges to waters of the United 

States or result from improper operation 

and maintenance of the collection 

system constitute noncompliance, 

which the permittee must report under 

these provisions. The existing 

requirements in 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) and 

(7) require the permittee to report orally 

to the NPDES authority within 24 hours 

of becoming aware of the event if the 

noncompliance may endanger health or 

the environment. A written submission 

must follow within 5 days of the time 

the permittee becomes aware of the 

noncompliance, unless the Director 

waives the written report. The standard 

permit condition at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(7) 

requires the permittee to report all other 

instances of noncompliance in writing 

at the time discharge monitoring reports 

are submitted. 

At a minimum, all NPDES permits 

must contain the standard permit 

condition at 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) for 

recordkeeping. When incorporated into 

a permit, this provision, among other 

things, requires permittees to retain 

copies of all reports required by the 

permit for a period of at least 3 years 

from the date of the report. This 

requirement includes retaining records 

of the required noncompliance reports 

of SSO events that result in discharges 

to waters of the U.S. Additional 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements may have been included 

in a permit on a case-by-case basis. 

The existing NPDES standard permit 

conditions do not establish monitoring 

or public notification requirements for 

SSOs. 

The Agency is considering proposing 

to clarify and expand standard permit 

requirements to establish a 

comprehensive framework for 

monitoring, reporting, public 

notification, and recordkeeping for 

SSOs from municipal sanitary sewer 

collection systems. EPA requests input 

on the following types of questions: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30400 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

• Is there a need for establishing this 

framework and, if so, which SSO events 

should be subject to reporting, 

recordkeeping and public notice 

requirements? 

• Should EPA clarify that such 

requirements apply to SSOs that do not 

result in a discharge to waters of the 

United States, including sewage 

backups into buildings? 

• Which SSO events should be 

reported immediately? 

• What criteria should be used to 

determine if notice of public health 

officials is appropriate for an SSO 

event? 

• Should EPA establish minimum 

requirements for monitoring SSOs to 

alert the municipal operator in a timely 

manner? If so, what are appropriate 

methods, technologies or management 

programs for monitoring SSOs? 

• Should EPA require immediate 

notification to the public of SSOs? If so, 

for which SSOs and how and when 

should the public be notified? 

The potential changes are authorized 

by, and would implement, CWA 

sections 304(i), 308 and 402(a). 

2. Should EPA propose to develop a 

standard permit condition with 

requirements for capacity, management, 

operations and maintenance programs 

based on asset management principles? 

Under existing regulations at 40 CFR 

122.41, all NPDES permits must contain 

two standard conditions addressing 

operation and maintenance: proper 

operation and maintenance 

requirements at 40 CFR 122.41(e) and 

duty to mitigate at 40 CFR 122.41(d). 

These provisions require the permittee 

to properly operate and maintain its 

collection system as well as take all 

reasonable steps to minimize or prevent 

SSO discharges to waters of the United 

States that have a reasonable likelihood 

of adversely affecting human health or 

the environment. In addition, these 

provisions, along with a prohibition on 

SSOs to waters of the U.S., are the basis 

for requiring permittees to provide 

adequate sanitary sewer collection 

system capacity. 

EPA is considering proposing to add 

a new standard condition that would 

clarify EPA’s expectations for 

appropriate capacity, management, 

operation and maintenance (CMOM) 

program requirements. The major 

components of such a CMOM standard 

permit condition could include general 

conditions; a general requirement to 

develop and implement a CMOM 

program; and documentation 

requirements, including a written 

summary of the program, an overflow 

emergency response plan, a system 

evaluation and capacity assurance plan, 

and the results of a program audit. The 

concept of CMOM also has a significant 

nexus with Asset Management 

approaches, which are becoming an 

industry standard for infrastructure 

management. The CMOM may present 

an appropriate framework or context for 

a possible permit condition. 

EPA requests information on 

successful programs that have been 

implemented to manage, operate, and 

maintain their systems. In addition, EPA 

requests input on: 

• What is the need for a CMOM 

standard permit condition? 

• What are the appropriate 

components and core attributes of a 

CMOM standard permit condition and 

what is their nexus with Asset 

Management practices? 

• If adopted, how should a CMOM 

provision be tailored for small 

municipalities? 

• Would integrating system 

evaluation and capacity assurance 

planning efforts for the collection 

system with planning efforts to address 

peak flow issues at the treatment plant 

encourage more holistic approaches? 

3. Should EPA propose to require permit 

coverage for municipal satellite 

collection systems? 

Many municipal sanitary sewer 

collection systems are not entirely 

owned or operated by a single 

municipal entity. A municipal entity 

that operates a treatment plant may be 

responsible for conveying and/or 

treating wastewater from sewers of other 

municipalities. The term ‘‘municipal 

satellite collection system’’ refers to a 

collection system that is owned or 

operated by a municipality other than 

the municipality that provides treatment 

for wastewater added throughout the 

system. The term ‘‘regional collection 

system operator’’ refers to a collection 

system operator who is responsible for 

the treatment plant(s) that receives 

wastewater from municipal satellite 

collection systems. Regional municipal 

collection system operators who provide 

wastewater treatment may only operate 

a relatively small portion of the 

collection system, such as major 

interceptors or collector sewers in 

certain areas. In extreme cases, the 

regional authority or district (and 

traditional NPDES permit holder) does 

not own or operate any part of the 

collection system, only the treatment 

plant. 

Poorly performing municipal satellite 

collection systems can be major 

contributors to peak flow problems in 

regional collection systems. In addition, 

investment in maintenance, repair and 

enhanced capacity of municipal satellite 

collection systems has often lagged 

behind that for regional municipal 

collection systems. This lag in 

investment is generally due to 

institutional issues such as lack of 

responsibility by municipal satellite 

collection system operators for problems 

downstream in the collection system or 

at a treatment plant, even where the 

municipal satellite collection system 

may have been a significant source of 

capacity problems downstream. In 

addition, direct oversight by EPA and 

NPDES States has been limited. 

Municipal satellite collection systems 

can also experience overflows. The 

Agency believes it may be important to 

clarify who is required to report these 

events to the NPDES authority and how 

they should be reported, in order to 

protect human health and the 

environment. 

EPA is considering clarification of the 

framework for regulating municipal 

satellite collection systems under the 

NPDES permit program. EPA welcomes 

input on the questions whether (and 

which) municipal satellite collection 

system should be required to obtain an 

NPDES permit, and whether EPA 

should require these systems to meet 

standard permit conditions related to 

reporting, public notification, and 

recordkeeping; CMOM requirements; 

and prohibition along with other 

standard permit conditions throughout 

municipal collection systems including 

satellite portions. 

4. What is the appropriate role of 

NPDES permits in addressing 

unauthorized SSOS that are caused by 

exceptional circumstances? 

Even municipal collection systems 

that are operated in an exemplary 

fashion may experience unauthorized 

discharges under exceptional 

circumstances. EPA requests input on 

the appropriate role of NPDES permits 

in addressing such exceptional events. 

The current NPDES standard permit 

conditions provide two provisions, the 

bypass provision at 40 CFR 122.41(m) 

and the upset provision at 40 CFR 

122.41(n), that were designed to address 

violations that occur under exceptional 

circumstances. The bypass provision 

generally prohibits bypasses, but also 

provides criteria for when the NPDES 

authority may excuse a bypass by 

exercising enforcement discretion and 

not bring an enforcement action for a 

violation. The upset provision allows a 

permittee to raise an affirmative defense 

to a violation of a technology-based 

effluent limitation. The Agency is 

considering developing a standard 

permit condition that would provide a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30401 

framework for evaluating the specific 

circumstances of overflows from a 

municipal sanitary sewer collection 

system that result in a discharge to 

waters of the U.S. and consideration of 

those circumstances to excuse those 

discharges, either through the exercise 

of enforcement discretion or through 

establishment of an affirmative defense. 

The Agency requests input on the 

appropriate criteria that should be used 

in such a provision. 

5. How should EPA address peak flows 

at POTW treatment plants? 

The Agency is considering the 

direction to take to resolve several long 

standing issues that are the subject of 

the December 22, 2005 draft Peak Flows 

Policy. This draft Policy attempted to 

clarify EPA’s interpretation that the 

existing ‘‘bypass’’ provision of the 

NPDES regulations applies to peak wet 

weather diversions at POTW treatment 

plants that are recombined with the 

flows from the secondary treatment 

units prior to discharge. The Agency is 

considering whether to embrace the 

approach explained in the draft Policy 

and/or to propose to address these 

issues in any SSO rulemaking. 

Addressing the issues in the context of 

possible SSO rulemaking would allow 

for a holistic and integrated approach to 

reducing SSOs while at the same time 

addressing peak flows at the POTW 

treatment plant. In addition, EPA would 

like to receive public input on the 

limited number of cases where 

infrequent discharges from wet weather 

treatment facilities located in sanitary 

sewer collection systems have been 

authorized or approved and issued a 

permit by an NPDES authority. The 

Agency would like to receive feedback 

from the public on the need for 

requirements for these facilities and any 

technologies that are utilized in the 

sanitary sewer system to treat 

discharges. 

6. What are the costs and benefits of 

CMOM programs and asset management 

of sanitary sewers? 

EPA is soliciting input from the 

general public concerning the impact of 

the proposed rule in terms of costs on 

covered entities and benefits of 

proposed rule requirements. 

Specifically, EPA is seeking information 

on asset management approaches, 

integrated utility planning, or other 

mechanisms that are used to ensure the 

sustainability and cost effectiveness of 

investments and enhance public health 

and environmental benefits. The Agency 

is seeking input on the potential 

incorporation of these techniques or 

others that are similar in any proposed 

modifications to the NPDES regulations. 

In addition, examples of other 

information that is needed from the 

public include: the number of 

municipalities currently implementing 

CMOM and the components of their 

CMOM programs; information on costs 

incurred by basement backups as well 

as the frequency that they occur; and the 

number and location of municipal 

satellite systems and the cost 

effectiveness of extending permitting 

requirements to them. 

7. Are there other considerations? 

EPA requests input on other 

considerations, such as environmental 

justice issues associated with this 

Notice. In particular, EPA requests input 

on environmental justice considerations 

associated with establishing 

requirements for municipal satellite 

collection systems. 

Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 

et seq. 

Dated: May 26, 2010. 

Peter S. Silva, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13098 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0747; FRL–9156–6] 

RIN 2040–AE90 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations; Announcement of the 

Results of EPA’s Review of Existing 

Drinking Water Standards and Request 

for Public Comment and/or Information 

on Related Issues; Extension of the 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Extension of public comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is extending by 30 days 

the public comment period for the 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations; Announcement of the 

Results of EPA’s Review of Existing 

Drinking Water Standards and Request 

for Public Comment and/or Information 

on Related Issues, which was published 

in the Federal Register on March 29, 

2010. The purpose of that notice was to 

invite commenters to submit any new, 

relevant peer-reviewed data or 

information pertaining to the four 

NPDWRs identified in that action as 

candidates for revision (i.e. acrylamide, 

epichlorohydrin, tetrechloroethylene 

and trichloroethylene). This information 

will inform EPA’s evaluation as the 

Agency moves forward with the 

regulatory revisions for these four 

NPDWRs. This extended comment 

period will afford greater opportunity to 

all interested parties to review and 

submit comments on the notice. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OW–2008–0747, by one of the following 

methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC) EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. 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–2008– 

0747. 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 

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 e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES