State and Federal Perspectives on Sanitary Sewer Overflows

<strong>State</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Federal</strong> 

<strong>Perspectives</strong> on Sanitary 

Sewer Overflows 

Bruce Yurdin 

Manager, Field Operations Section 

Illinois EPA

Overview 

• Water Quality Improvements in Illinois 

• USEPA’s SSO Policy Development <strong>and</strong> 

Rulemaking Efforts 

• Illinois EPA SSO Strategy 

• The Future of SSOs

Aquatic Life Use – Illinois Rivers <strong>and</strong> Streams 

1972 2010 

Good 

Fair 

Poor 

Unassessed 

in 2004.

What have we learned by 

monitoring Illinois waters? 

(1972 to 2010) 

• Stream miles rated “good” have increased from 

35 to 63 percent (Aquatic Life Use) 

• Lake acres rated “good” or “fair” have increased 

from 72 to 92-100 percent (Aquatic Life or 

Aesthetic Uses) 

• The Upper Illinois River now supports walleye 

<strong>and</strong> other fishing tournaments 

• Uncontrolled industrial pollution has been 

virtually eliminated

What have we learned….. 

(continued) 

• Over $8 billion has been invested in sewage 

systems <strong>and</strong> treatment works 

• Effluent toxicity at permitted facilities has been 

virtually eliminated 

• Water resource assessments have exp<strong>and</strong>ed 

• Assessment capabilities <strong>and</strong> tools have improved 

• Recognition that all waters won’t improve with 

point source controls alone; NPS <strong>and</strong> watershed 

management efforts are also critical

USEPA—SSO History 

• 1994 municipalities asked EPA to establish 

an SSO <strong>Federal</strong> Advisory Committee 

(FAC) of key stakeholders to make 

recommendations on how the NPDES 

program should address SSOs 

• Municipalities indicated a desire for greater 

national clarity, consistency in NPDES 

requirements applicable to SSOs, <strong>and</strong> a 

workable regulatory framework


• 1995: EPA chartered an Urban Wet 

Weather Flows FAC with stakeholder 

representation to address crosscutting issues 

associated with wet weather discharges (i.e., 

CSOs, SSOs, <strong>and</strong> storm water) 

• The Urban Wet Weather Flows FAC 

formed its SSO Subcommittee by 

reconvening the SSO FAC established in 

1994


• SSO Subcommittee was tasked with 

developing a framework for addressing 

SSOs <strong>and</strong> their impacts through regulatory 

<strong>and</strong> non-regulatory actions 

• In January 2001, EPA prepared a notice of 

proposed rulemaking related to SSOs, 

which was withdrawn for review before it 

was published in the <strong>Federal</strong> Register.

USEPA 

SSO Approach 2010 

• USEPA Listening Sessions in 2010 

• Sought input on modifications to the 

NPDES program concerning SSOs <strong>and</strong> 

peak flows 

• Five Sessions 

– June 24, Seattle 

– June 28, Atlanta 

– June 30, Kansas City 

– July 13, Washington, D.C. 

– July14,Webcast

USEPA 

SSO Approach 2010 

• Wastewater Sewer Types 

– Separate Sanitary Sewers (wastewater only) 

• 15,800 POTWs with at least 5,000 municipal 

satellite collection systems 

– Combined Sewers (stormwater <strong>and</strong> wastewater) 

• 616 POTWs (853 communities)

USEPA—Causes of SSOs 

from the 2010 analysis 

• 50% caused by blockages 

• 25% caused by wet weather infiltration <strong>and</strong> 

inflow 

• 25% caused by mechanical/electrical 

failures 

• 23,000 –– 75,000 SSO events/year 

• May be similar number of basement 

backups/year

Annual Discharge Volume 

(billion gallons) 

• Treated wastewater a 11,425 

• CSO b 850 

• SSO c 3 – 10 

– a : EPA, 2000 

– b : GPRACSO model, Section 4.5.1 of the EPA Report 

to Congress, 2004 

– c : Section 4.7.4 of the EPA Report to Congress, 2004

Issues with NPDES Permits 

• No requirements to notify public of SSOs 

• Satellite Municipalities generally not covered 

• Regulations are unclear about reporting <strong>and</strong> 

recordkeeping requirements for certain types of 

SSOs 

• Permits contain general requirement to ‘properly 

operate <strong>and</strong> maintain all facilities’, but does not 

identify specific permittee actions 

• NPDES regulations do not provide framework for 

enforcement discretion or defense for 

‘unavoidable’ SSOs by the regulated entity

USEPA 2001 

SSO Rulemaking 

• Require capacity, management, <strong>and</strong> O&M 

(CMOM) program for sanitary sewers 

• Clarify reporting <strong>and</strong> recordkeeping 

requirements; require public notification 

• Clarify SSO permit requirements to 

municipal satellite collection systems 

• Allowed the permittee to establish defenses 

under limited circumstances 

• Withdrawn prior to publication

USEPA Bypass Regulations 

40 CFR 122.41(m) 

• Defines bypass as “intentional diversion of waste 

streams from any portion of a treatment facility” 

• Prohibits bypass <strong>and</strong> allows enforcement unless: 

– Bypass unavoidable to prevent severe property 

damage, personal injury 

– There were no feasible alternatives 

– The NPDES authority was notified 

• Allows bypasses that meet permit limits if for 

“essential maintenance to assure efficient 

operation”

USEPA’s 

7 Critical SSO Issues 

from the 2010 analysis

1. Should EPA clarify its st<strong>and</strong>ard permit 

conditions for SSO reporting, recordkeeping 

<strong>and</strong> conditions <strong>and</strong> public notification? 

• Provide notification to parties with a 

reasonable potential for exposure 

• Maintain an overflow response plan 

• Provide immediate notification of high-risk 

overflows to the permitting authority, the 

health authority, <strong>and</strong> the public 

• Make an annual report of all overflows 

available to the public

2. Should EPA develop a st<strong>and</strong>ard permit 

condition with requirements for CMOM 

programs based on asset management 

principles? 

• Properly manage, operate <strong>and</strong> maintain 

collection system at all times 

• Provide adequate capacity 

• Take all feasible steps to prevent SSOs 

• Develop Capital Improvement Programs for 

assets reaching the end of use 

• Define the level of service provided to 

customers

3. What are the costs <strong>and</strong> benefits of CMOM 

programs <strong>and</strong> asset management of sanitary 

sewers? 

• 10 years of CMOM experience 

– Economic Analysis 

– Defined Health Benefits 

– Reductions in SSOs 

• Principles of Asset Management 

– Relationship between CMOM <strong>and</strong> Asset 

Management

4. How should EPA clarify permit 

coverage for municipal satellite 

collection systems? 

• Municipal satellite must have permit; or 

• Permit for Regional operator must require 

operator to implement CMOM, reporting 

<strong>and</strong> other provisions in satellite systems 

• Include satellite systems as co-permittees 

<strong>and</strong> require all co-permittees to implement 

CMOM provisions 

• Use a general permit for each <strong>State</strong>

5. What is the appropriate role of NPDES 

permits in addressing unauthorized SSOs that 

are caused by exceptional circumstances? 

• SSO discharges remain prohibited 

• Enforcement defenses analogous to 

bypass/upset provisions 

– For wet weather SSOs, enforcement discretion 

if: 

• Severe natural conditions, <strong>and</strong> 

• No feasible alternatives 

• Does not contain advanced approval language but 

specific criteria (e.g. design storm) could possibly 

be in permit

5. (Cont.) What is the appropriate role of 

NPDES permits in addressing 

unauthorized SSOs that are caused by 

exceptional circumstances? 

• For other SSOs, affirmative defense if 

notice <strong>and</strong>: 

– SSO was an exception, beyond reasonable 

control, <strong>and</strong> 

– Took all reasonable steps to stop <strong>and</strong> mitigate

6. How should EPA address peak 

flow diversions at treatment plants? 

• Finalize the draft Peak Flows Policy 

• Incorporate the Peak Flows Policy into SSO 

rulemaking 

• Finalize draft Implementation Guidance 

(including Utility Analysis Guidance)

7. How should municipalities balance all 

of the needs to meet water quality 

requirements? 

• How should priorities be established for all 

water quality needs? 

• What is the appropriate role of green 

infrastructure or nontraditional approaches? 

• What is the appropriate role of 

enforcement? 

• What is the appropriate role of permitting?

IEPA Sanitary Sewer Overflow 

Response Guidance 

• Drafted July 2010 

• Not intended to serve as a new rulemaking 

or new guidance on SSOs , we intend it 

only to address our current approach <strong>and</strong> 

future plans for reducing <strong>and</strong>, where 

possible, eliminating SSOs. 

• Recognizes it is impractical to design <strong>and</strong> 

build sewer systems that will eliminate 

overflows under any <strong>and</strong> all weather 

conditions.



• Illinois requirement : 

35 Ill. Adm. Code 306.304 

– “Overflows from sanitary 

sewers are expressly 

prohibited.” 

• NPDES permittees must notify 

the Illinois EPA of overflows 

as a condition of their permit.



• A federal “Compliance 

<strong>and</strong> Enforcement 

Strategy for CSOs <strong>and</strong> 

SSOs” dated April 27, 

2000 remains in place 

– basis for EPA 

negotiations with states 

<strong>and</strong> other federal actions



• EPA published a notice June 1, 2010 

– announced listening sessions in preparation for 

the possible development of ??? 

– “modifications to the NPDES regulations, 

including establishing st<strong>and</strong>ard permit 

conditions for publicly owned treatment works 

(POTW) permits that specifically address 

sanitary sewer collection systems <strong>and</strong> SSOs, 

<strong>and</strong> clarify the regulatory framework for 

applying NPDES permit conditions to 

municipal satellite collection systems.”

IEPA Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response 

Guidance 

—Range of Options— 

• Overflows to the ground surface 

– The response of the sewer system owner was 

• timely <strong>and</strong> effective in correcting the overflow; 

• discharges were minimized when feasible by pumping or 

hauling sewage around the problem area; 

• the affected ground surface was promptly <strong>and</strong> effectively 

cleaned to minimize possible exposure to sewage; 

• the overflow was not a result of negligence or inadequate 

operation <strong>and</strong> maintenance; <strong>and</strong>, 

• the sewer system owner was in compliance with NPDES 

permit conditions regarding CMOM or similar requirements.




• Failure to properly report an SSO—NCA 

• Repeated occurrences of similar problems in 

multiple locations, or the same problem in a 

single location—VN 

• Lack of an adequate response to an NCA—VN 

• Non-reporting of an SSO—VN




• Individual basement backups or SSOs that resulted from 

intense rainfall or flooding 

– usually were determined to warrant an NCA 

– usually do not result in a measurable WQ impact 

– SSOs resulting from extraordinary weather were felt to 

be somewhat beyond the control of the sewer owner 

– “Extreme” or “Extraordinary” : 

• one-day rainfall of over 5 inches, or 

• flooding that results in substantial infiltration <strong>and</strong> 

inflow into sewers in the flooded area.




• Other SSOs that result in VNs 

– dry weather overflows when negligence is a 

factor 

– repeated backups or overflow problems in the 

same area 

– discharges resulting from moderate or nonextreme 

rainfall events 

– inadequate operation or maintenance




• Critical Review or Restricted Status 

pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 306 

– SSOs may indicate hydraulic capacity has been 

reached 

– additional connections cannot be permitted 

without resulting in additional overflows in 

violation of the Act



—Notification— 

• NPDES Permit holders are required by 

St<strong>and</strong>ard Condition 12 of the permit to: 

– report “noncompliance which may endanger 

health or the environment” 

– Verbally within 24 hours after becoming aware 

of the circumstances, <strong>and</strong> 

– File a written report within 5 days of the 

noncompliance.




• permittee 

• contact person 

• location 

• start time 

• end time 

• volume 

• cause 

• immediate receiving area (i.e. 

basement, street, ditch, l<strong>and</strong> 

area, etc.) 

• downstream receiving waters 

• mitigation/cleanup measures 

• planned steps to prevent 

recurrence <strong>and</strong> a schedule for 

implementation 

• identified environmental 

impacts such as fish kills, 

incidents of illness etc, 

description of the component 

from which the release 

occurred) 

• Antecedent (72 hour) soil 

moisture, rainfall <strong>and</strong> 

temperature conditions that may 

have contributed to the SSO 

event




• SSO Report Forms available at: 

• http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/compliance 

/waste-water/forms/ss-overflow2.pdf

SSO Response Guidance 

SSO Circumstance 

• 1. Overflows to the ground 

surface 

a. Discharge to waters of the 

<strong>State</strong> (causes or has potential to 

cause violation of WQ st<strong>and</strong>ards) 

b. Dry weather overflows 

c. No evidence of sewage 

entering waters of the <strong>State</strong>, 

owner’s response timely <strong>and</strong> 

effective, discharges minimized, 

ground surface cleaned, no 

negligence, <strong>and</strong> adequate O & M 

IEPA Response 

• VN 

• VN 

• NCA




• 2. Failure to report an 

overflow 

a. Circumstances include 

1.a or 1.b 

• VN 

b. Circumstances include 

1.c 

• NCA




• 3. Repeated SSOs at one 

location, or similar 

circumstances at different 

locations 

• VN




4. Basement backups 

a. Problem with privately-owned 

sewer connection 

b. Problem with public sewer; 

owner’s response timely <strong>and</strong> 

effective, discharges minimized, 

ground surface cleaned, no 

negligence, <strong>and</strong> adequate O & M 

c. Recurring problem with public 

sewer 

• Technical advice to building 

owner or occupant; assistance in 

making contacts with municipal 

personnel 

• NCA 

• VN




• 5. SSOs resulting from an 

extreme weather event 

• Case-by-case determination 

of actions needed to protect 

human health <strong>and</strong> the 

environment

Future Challenges 

For Water Quality Improvements 

• Maintain WWTP <strong>and</strong> PWS infrastructure 

• Reduce nonpoint pollution from various sources 

• Develop <strong>and</strong> implement TMDLs 

• WW/PWS Loan <strong>and</strong> Section 319 Funding 

• Difficult <strong>and</strong> time consuming, but we need to 

document water resource improvements, so…. 

• ….we need exp<strong>and</strong>ed monitoring <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards 

development programs to support decisions…. 

• ….but resources are dwindling (2002-2011: IEPA 

down 28%, IDNR down 31%, …)


For SSOs 

• October 27, 2011, EPA Memor<strong>and</strong>um 

– Achieving Water Quality Through Integrated Municipal 

Stormwater <strong>and</strong> Wastewater Plans 

• EPA is developing a “Draft Framework Document” 

(posted on the web January 13, 2012) 

– “Integrated Plan” concept, for all CWA programs 

– to help EPA work with <strong>State</strong> <strong>and</strong> local governments to 

provide integrated solutions to multiple causes of water 

pollution 

• EPA will be holding five workshops in Jan.—Feb. 2012 

– February 17, 2012, 10:00 am to 3:00 pm at EPA Region 

5 Office, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL


For SSOs (cont.) 

• Integrated Plan should contain details of: 

– WQ, human health & regulatory issues 

– Existing Wastewater <strong>and</strong> Stormwater Systems 

– Community input process 

– Process to identify, evaluate <strong>and</strong> select 

alternatives, plus schedules 

– Measures of success <strong>and</strong> monitoring

QUESTIONS? 

Bruce Yurdin 

Manager, Field Operations Section 

Division of Water Pollution Control 

Illinois EPA 

1021 North Gr<strong>and</strong> Ave East 

Springfield, IL 62794 

217-782-3362bruce.yurdin@illinois.gov

State and Federal Perspectives on Sanitary Sewer Overflows

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?