ACEC Annual Conference September 20, 2007

1. ACEC Annual ConferenceSeptember 20, 2007 CSO Non-Rule Policies and Related Rulemaking Bruno Pigott Assistant Commissioner Office of Water Quality IDEM

2. CSO Non-Rule Policies and Rulemaking • CSO Workgroup • Existing Use Non-Rule Policy • CSO Treatment Facilities Non-Rule Policy • CSO-Related Bypass Non-Rule Policy • E-Coli Rulemaking • Other Issues

3. Existing Use: Defined • Existing Uses Defined in Clean Water Act • Those uses actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975.

4. Existing Use: Why it Matters • Existing Use is a ‘Gate Keeper’ Question • Removal of an existing use means Use Attainability Analysis is not available for a community.

5. Existing Use: What the Policy Does • Describes the application of the existing use concept for communities considering a Use Attainability Analysis. • Helps communities identify existing recreational uses of CSO-impacted water bodies. • Lists information that may be relevant in the evaluation. • Indicates that several different uses may be present depending upon the season or weather.

6. Existing Use: Approaches • Two Approaches: • Option A: Communities provide information indicating that no existing recreational use is present during specific wet weather events. Reasons could include high flow conditions. • Option B: Communities indicate that where recreational activities have occurred during wet weather, the existing use consists of recreational activities and the associated water quality during wet weather. For this option, communities evaluate whether the proposed change in designated recreational use would remove the identified existing use

7. Existing Use: Approaches • If communities follow option B, they would need to determine whether the change to a wet weather limited use designated use would remove an existing use. • Involves a comparison of the parameters of the existing use with the projected water quality under the wet weather limited use classification. • A proposed change to a wet weather limited use should be accompanied by reduction in: • Adverse impacts of CSO discharges • Time over which impacts occur • Number of wet weather events

8. CSO Treatment Facilities Policy • Communities expressed uncertainty regarding what was expected for an approvable LTCP. • Consultants urged IDEM to lay out an engineering based approach that would consititute an approvable LTCP. • This policy is intended to provide communities with one approach that IDEM is willing to accept, when the community considers its alternative methods to address Combined Sewer Overflows.

9. CSO Treatment Facility Policy: Design Criteria • Retention, for transport and full treatment at a WWTP flows generated during a One Year, One Hour storm within 48 hours.

10. CSO Treatment Facility Policy: Design Criteria • Treatment of combined flows no smaller than the Ten Year, One Hour storm, including: • Detention of flows for settling no less than 30 minutes • Skimming of detained flows to remove solids/floatables • Disposal of solids/floatables • Disinfection of detained flows • Dechlorination, if necessary to meet TRC criteria

11. CSO Treatment Facility Policy: Design Criteria • Combined sewage flows above Ten Year, One Hour design storm should receive whatever treatment is feasible.

12. CSO Treatment Facility Policy: Assumptions • Ten Year One Hour Storm as defined in HERPIC Manual. • Rainfall assumed to be of uniform intensity for one hour. • Conditions should be assumed to be average warm weather conditions. • Retention facilities should be sized based on case specific sewer system response to the Ten Year One Hour Storms. • Detention time for solids removal and disinfection should be calculated on the basis of maximum hourly flow. • Disinfection should be controlled to achieve 235/100 ml • Facilities should be designed and operated to meet an appropriate level of TSS to ensure effective disinfection.

13. CSO Treatment Facility Policy:Permitting • Discharges will require grab sampling • Limits will include: • E.coli • Monitoring for Flow • BOD • TSS • Ammonia Nitrogen • Total Phosphorus • pH • DO • TRC

14. CSO Related Bypass Policy: Why it Matters • Many communities plan to transport and treat CSO flows, but portions of their treatment facilities are not sized to handle peak wet weather flows. • By routing some portions of peak flows around portions of treatment processes before rejoining the treated wastewater, the facility can handle wet weather flows and still meet permit limits. • Intentional Diversion of a wastestream around a portion of a treatment facility is considered a bypass. Bypasses are prohibited except under specific conditions: • Unavoidable to prevent loss of life, injury, severe property damage. • No feasible alternatives to the bypass. • Permittee must submit notice.

15. CSO Related Bypass: When Granted • Any community seeking permission for CSO-related bypassing must conduct a ‘No Feasible Alternatives Analysis’ • Proper Operation and Maintenance • Designed to meet secondary treatment limits for flows greater than the peak dry weather flow • Explanation of why it is technically or financially infeasible to provide secondary treatment for greater amounts of wet weather flow • Documentation that all wastewater will receive primary clarification, solids removal, disinfection, and any other treatment that can be feasibly provided.

16. E.Coli Rule: The Problem • Waters of the State are designated for full body contact recreational use. • NPDES permitees are required to meet E.coli limits. • Due to the nature and limits of bacterial sampling and analysis, it is not always possible for even well operated and maintained facilities to comply with a single sample maximum at all times. • Currently available test methods are limited as they carry a significant liklihood of ‘false positive’ readings which would mean a facility is in non-compliance.

17. E.Coli Rule: The Consequences • NPDES permittees are wrongly considered non-complaint. • Permittees appeal permits with E.coli limits, hindering renewals. • Legal expenses incurred by both permittees and IDEM.

18. E.Coli Rule: The Solution • Workgroup • Considered different options: • Compliance based on geometric mean. • Compliance allowing 10% of all E.coli samples in a calendar month to exceed the 235 limit. • Rulemaking brings Indiana in line with surrounding states. • Does not change the criteria or limit, but does bring fairness to a less than perfect sampling methodology.

19. E.Coli Rule: Timeframe • Public hearing at Water Pollution Control Board August 8. • Rule preliminarily adopted at the August 8 Water Pollution Control Board meeting. • Next steps include final adoption of the rule and administrative approvals.

20. Other CSO Issues • Financial Capability Guidance • Revise to add specificity, clarity • Use Attainability Analysis Guidance • Several communities plan to submit UAAs • Revisions to add clarity

21. Questions? • Bruno Pigott Assistant Commissioner Office of Water Quality 317-233-2550