UnttodStttM
cffinronfMtt
Office of Hater
Office of Hater teqalatioo* and Standards
Office of Sator Snforeessat sad Persits
Wa*hingto« DC 204«0
March 1988
v>EPA
FINAL GUIDANCE
For
IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS
UNDER SECTION 304(1)
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
AS AMENDED
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Summary of Responses to Major Comments Received on
"Draft Final Guidance: Implementation of the Requirements
under §304(1) of the Clean Water Act as Amended," July 1987
The following discussion responds to the major comments
received on the Draft Final Guidance: Implementation of the
Requirements under §304(1) of the Clean Water Act as Amended"
and is arranged in the order of the sections of the guidance.
Changes made in the final §304(1) guidance in the response to
public comment are discussed. Our responses to significant
comments that did not lead to changes are also discussed.
Surface Water Toxics Control Program
Several coramenters were concerned that the §304(1) guidance
does not provide sufficient detail on how the §304(1) guidance
relates to the umbrella State Clean Water Strategy (SCWS)
guidance. In response to these comments, we have inrlvided a
discussion of how the §304(1) guidance and SCWS guidance are
related. The time frames required for the initial activities
under §304(1) generally will not allow for extensive coordination
with the SCWS process. However, the longer term aspects of the
national toxics control program (using both new and preexisting
statutory authorities) should be coordinated with the SCWS
process.
A number of comments were received concerning the relation-
ship of the §304(1) guidance to the requirements of §303(c)(2)(B)
for promulgation of water quality standards by States for
§307(a) pollutants in cases where waters are impaired by such
pollutants. One commenter suggested that implementation
of the requirements of §304(1) should not proceed until all
State water quality standards are revised in accordance with
§303(c)(2)(B). EPA agrees that the requirements of §303(c)(2)(B)
are directly related to the requirements of §304(1) and has,
therefore, expanded the portion of the guidance which deals
with the relationship between these two sections. However, the
statutory deadlines of §304(1) do not allow for final resolution
of all water quality standards issues before proceeding with
implementation of §304(1). The guidance suggests ways that
States may address such problems in the short term, until State
water quality standards are revised in accordance with §303(c)(2)(B)
One approach is to use State narrative standards ("no toxics
in toxics amounts") as the basis for controlling both whole
effluent toxicity and individual chemicals. EPA's interpreta-
tion of "applicable standard" (in the statutory description
of the paragraph (B) list of waters) includes State narrative
standards.
-------
- 2 -
In a related comment, one commenter felt that Congress
intended that numerical criteria be the criteria of choice
and that States are to adopt criteria based on biological
monitoring and assessment methods only where numeric criteria
are not available. EPA notes that under §303(c)(2) Congress set
forth an aggressive program for State promulgation of numeric
criteria for §307 toxic pollutants where waters are being impaired
as a result of these pollutants. However, the statutory
language also provides for "the use of effluent limitations
or other permit conditions based on or involving biological
monitoring or assessment methods or previously adopted numerical
criteria." Similarly, in its March 9, 1984 policy statement,
EPA indicated that an integrated program, consisting of both
biological and chemical methods is necessary to be fully pro-
tective in a water quality-based toxics control program.
One coramenter objected to the phased approach to the
national toxics control program discussed in the §304(1) guidance
in which known and suspected toxicity problems are addressed
immediately and data is collected to further characterize
currently unknown problems for control in subsequent phases.
This commenter felt that Congress* objective in enacting
§304(1) was to spur regulators to move immediately to identify
and control all toxics problems (including known, suspected,
and unknown problems). In the final guidance, EPA directs
States to comply with the §304(1) statutory time frames in
listing impaired waters and controlling all known point sources
of §307(a) toxic pollutants. The emphasis on a phased approach
has been dropped. However, EPA continues to recognize the
ongoing nature of the national toxics control program. The
guidance requires that assessments of waters and establishment
of controls for identified problem dischargers will not end
when §304(1) deadlines are met. The State Clean Water Strategies
process will help to identify activities needed to assure the
long term integrity of the program.
Several coramenters felt that the guidance goes beyond
Congressional intent by requiring that the toxics to be
addressed include §307(a) pollutants as well as all pollutants
which cause toxicity. The guidance clearly notes that many of
the specific requirements of §304(1) apply only to §307(a)
toxic pollutants (notably, paragraphs B, C, and D). However,
the guidance also directs regulatory authorities to control
all known sources of toxicity, giving non-§307(a) pollutants
that cause toxicity the same priority as §307(a) pollutants.
The statutory authority for controlling sources of non-§307(a)
pollutants is preexisting under §301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and requires that controls be developed in
order to ensure that water quality standards are achieved.
Although this distinction was made in the draft final guidance,
this point is clarified in the final guidance.
-------
- 3 -
Some commenters were concerned, in particular, that the
$304(1} guidance noted that chlorine and ammonia were specifically
included among the non-307(a) pollutants which should be addressed
and given the same priority as problems due to §307(a) pollutants.
EPA mentioned chlorine and ammonia specifically because these
pollutants tend to be widely present in wastewater discharges
and the environment and because they do sometimes cause
water quality impairment due to toxicity.
Comments were also received which questioned EPA's interpre-
tation of §307(a) toxic pollutants as the 126 priority pollutants.
EPA recognizes that the number of pollutants encompassed by the
65 classes of compounds listed under §307(a) of the Clean Water
Act is potentially much greater than 126. However, the list of
126 pollutants corresponds to the compounds for which EPA has
promulgated water quality criteria pursuant to §304(a) of the
CWA. EPA has also focused on this list in developing the
effluent limitation guidelines. The final §304(1) guidance
clarifies this interpretation of the list of §307(a) pollutants.
Several coramenters argued that the requirements of §304(1)
should be promulgated as formal rulemaking with associated
public notice and comment requirements. These coramenters
indicated that the draft final §304(1) guidance includes many
directives which are more expansive than the specific statutory-
language and goes beyond simple interpretive guidance. EPA
agrees that the guidance is more inclusive than the basic
statutory language, because it places the requirements of §304(1)
in the overall context of the nationwide program for control of
toxic pollutants and toxicity. However, the additional require-
ments discussed in the guidance do not rely upon the statutory
authority of §304(1), but rather, upon preexisting requirements
of other portions of the CWA and EPA's current regulations.
The final guidance clarifies the statutory authorities of the
various requirements included in the §304(1) guidance. In addi-
tion, EPA plans to codify the basic requirements of §304(1} in
regulation and is considering whether other regulatory require-
ments should be established.
Identification of Waters and Point Source Discharges
Several commenters felt that the States should be required
to collect new water quality data and not just encouraged to
use existing and readily available data to develop the required
lists of waters. These commenters pointed out that the States
have two years to make the required identifications which
provides them with adequate time to gather and evaluate new
data. However, another commenter pointed out that the
accelerated timetable will hinder a State's ability to identify
waters actually having water quality problems because they will
-------
- 4 -
not have sufficient time to review and analyze data on all
waters. In response to these comments, EPA recognizes that
the time frames established by the statute are very aggressive.
EPA feels that these short time frames necessitate the use of
existing and readily available data in order to meet the statu-
tory deadlines. The guidance urges completion of preliminary
lists by April 1, 1988 so that the States have adequate time
to review the data, refine the lists of waters, identify
sources and pollutants, and establish ICS's by February 4,
1989. EPA recognizes that many States will need to expand
their data bases to refine their lists of waters. To provide
for this, the guidance establishes that a Water Quality Assess-
ment Plan be prepared where States do not have sufficient
available' information to develop the final lists of waters.
This'plan would describe what assessments need to be done as
well as where, how, and when the State plans to assess the
quality of waters for which more information is needed.
Several commenters objected to the requirement that EPA
water quality criteria be used to assess the condition of waters
where there are no State water quality standards, arguing that
only promulgated State water quality standards should be used for
this purpose. States have established water quality standards
with numeric criteria for only a limited number of toxic
pollutants, so assessments of impacts of toxics discharges on
receiving waters based solely on State standards with numeric
criteria would be extremely limited. However, all States have
standards with narrative criteria for controlling toxic
discharges. The statute does not restrict lists and ICS
requirements to numeric standards violations. In interpreting
the narrative standards, EPA's water quality criteria docu-
ments would be an appropriate basis for determining whether
such standards are being exceeded, since the criteria documents
contain information on the toxic effects of pollutants. Congress
intended a broad assessment of toxics problems and use of EPA
criteria as a screening tool represents a reasonable approach.
States are free to use other information on toxic effects as well
Two commenters stated that where discharge limits based on
effluent limitations guidelines have already been incorporated
into NPDES permits, determination of water quality should not
be based on the assumption that such limits are being met.
They suggested that in these cases, actual discharge monitoring
data should be used to evaluate the effects on receiving waters.
EPA agrees with this approach and encourages the States to use
actual discharge data.
Several commenters indicated that without additional
resources, States may have a problem completing the require-
ments called for by the new statute and related activities
required under preexisting statutory authorities. EPA recognizes
that potential resource problems exist. However, a significant
-------
portion of the requirements for listing and control actions
have been in existence since the 1972 Clean Water Act.
In addition, a number of States have developed aggressive
toxics control programs to address these problems and have
collected sufficient data on water quality to meet the current
requirements. For those States that have done little in this
area, a more intensive effort to meet the new requirements may
be necessary.
Two commenters felt that EPA's recommendation to use dilution
calculations as a minimum approach to help identify waters is
inappropriate since simple dilution techniques are conservative
and may result in listing waters that are not water quality
limited. EPA acknowledges the limitations of simple dilution
analyses and agrees that they may cause stream segments to be
listed which do not immediately pose water quality problems.
Since States are required to identify waters which are posing
or will pose actual water quality problems, dilution calculations
provide the simplest means to help determine if the State's
water quality standards are being met. This technique is
recommended to enable a State to identify suspected problem
waters which should be further narrowed down by means of site-
specific data such as Discharge Monitoring Reports and available
ambient monitoring data. In cases where there is doubt, more
detailed monitoring and modeling techniques are available and
should be used.
Several coramenters felt that whole effluent toxicity
should not be used as a parameter in identifying and listing
water quality-limited stream segments. These commenters
argued that it is not the nature of the discharge itself but
the effect of such discharge on the receiving stream that
causes impairment. Also, since whole effluent toxicity relates
to the mixture of all pollutants in a discharge, these commenters
felt that effluent toxicity does not identify the toxic effects
of any one pollutant or type of pollutants specifically. EPA
is requiring that all available sources of information be used
and evaluated, including whole effluent toxicity, since whole
effluent toxicity is a good indicator of potential water quality
standards violations. In addition, EPA recommends in the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control that assessments of receiving water quality based upon
whole effluent toxicity include consideration of available
dilution and State mixing zone requirements.
One commenter felt that EPA has not provided sufficient
information regarding the procedures it will use for granting or
denying approval of States' lists of waters. In response, EPA
has included additional discussion of this issue in the guidance
and has also provided a list of categories of waters that may
be used for both the development and evaluation of States'
lists of waters and point source discharges. In addition, EPA
-------
- 6 -
has included a discussion in the guidance of public participation
in the §304(1) process and may provide further guidance on
this matter in the future.
A number of States and others expressed concern that EPA
would require States to use EPA's §305(b) Waterbody System for
reporting the April 1, 1988 preliminary lists to EPA b"y incorpo-
rating the lists in their §3Q5(b) report. These commenters urged
that the guidance clarify that use of the system be optional
for this report because this data system may not yet be completed.
The guidance has been revised to clarify this matter. EPA is
not requiring States to use the Waterbody System at this time
but is requesting that States include their $304(1) lists of
waters in the 198S §305(b) report in a format compatible with
the Waterbody System.
Several commenters objected to the requirement that States
submit the preliminary §304(1) lists as part of their 1988 §305{b)
reports. Some argued that the Agency does not have the authority
to impose such a deadline, which is ten months earlier than the
February 4, 1989 deadline for final lists of waters, sources,
and individual control strategies. Others said the accelerated
schedule would prevent States from performing any additional data
collection or analysis, making the problems created by the tight
deadlines even more difficult. EPA recognizes that the prelimi-
nary lists of waters are not a requirement specifically imposed
by the statute. However, in order to allow for better coordina-
tion with State activities, EPA's policy is that preliminary
lists should be prepared by the States as they are categorizing
waters for their 1988 §305(b) Reports that are due to EPA on
April 1, 1988. States will have the opportunity to receive
public comment on and revise the preliminary lists between
the submission of the §305(b) report in April, 1988 and
submission of final lists on February 4, 1989.
Two commenters were concerned that the guidance does not
adequately address the problem of toxics in sediments. EPA
recognizes that the problem of toxics in sediments is an
important one and has modified the guidance to clarify that
sediment contamination is to be considered in assessing water
quality, particularly for the paragraph (A)(ii) list of waters.
However, it should be recognized that EPA has not developed
final criteria for assessing the water quality impact of
contaminated sediments.
Several commenters expressed concern that the data in
EPA's data systems may not be accurate or current. Others
were concerned over the quality of data which will be collected
by the States. EPA believes that the data in STORET and other
data systems is generally adequate for use by the States in
assessing water quality. It should be pointed out that
States should use all sources of data (including State or
-------
private data systems) in developing their lists. EPA has
mandated that all new data collected for EPA projects must
include quality assurance/quality control as part of the survey
work plan. It should also be noted that the lists can be
amended based on better data at a later date.
Development of Individual Control Strategies
Several commenters objected to EPA's interpretation that
an ICS requirement can only be satisfied by NPDES permits
and supporting documentation. Some commenters argued that
other mechanisms such as administrative orders and consent
decrees may be appropriate in certain circumstances. These
comments notwithstanding, EPA maintains its position that an
ICS requirement can only be satisfied by an NPDES permit(s)
and therefore requires final NPDES permits, to the extent
possible. This interpretation is supported by the specific
references in §304(1) to "establishment of effluent limitations
under §402 of the CWA." However, the guidance does recognize
that enforcement actions based on adequate permits may be
part of a complete ICS.
Some commenters maintained that individual control strate-
gies (ICS's) were required for all three lists of waters to be
developed under §304(1) and that EPA's interpretation that
ICS's are only required for the paragraph (B) list of waters
is contrary to Congressional intent. The statutory language
indicates that controls must be developed which will produce
a reduction in point source discharges of §307(a) toxic pollu-
tants in order to achieve applicable water quality standards
within 3 years of establishment of the strategy. In order
for such point source controls, in combination with "existing
nonpoint source controls," to effectively achieve water quality
standards, there is an implicit assumption that such waters
are capable of achieving water quality standards primarily by
controlling point sources of §307(a) toxic pollutants. Such a
scenario corresponds to the (B) list of waters, and therefore
supports EPA's interpretation that the ICS requirement applies
only to the (B) list.
Some comments expressed concern that point sources are
being required, through the ICS requirement, to bear the primary
burden for toxics cleanup when many problems are more properly
attributed to nonpoint sources. These comments support EPA's
position that the ICS requirement applies only to the (B) list
of waters, which, by definition are those waters which are
impaired "entirely or substantially" due to point sources.
The primary burden for resolving such problems, therefore,
should properly fall to point sources. Problems which are
primarily attributable to nonpoint sources of pollution
should be addressed in developing controls for the portions of
the paragraph (A)(ii) lists of waters which are primarily
affected by nonpoint sources of pollution.
-------
- 8 -
One coraraenter noted that, an ICS should not be a final permit
because it requires a sequence of events which is not consistent
with the sequence required in the plain language of §304(1).
This comraenter argued that the program will only be successful
if States first develop a coordinated control program plan
which would be submitted for EPA review and approval. If
approved. States would then take appropriate permit actions to
ensure that controls will be implemented within the three year
time frame envisioned by Congress. EPA'a position is that final
permits offer the best prospect for implementing the controls
and achieving water quality standards by the statutory deadlines
and are specifically required by the reference to §402 in the
statute. Where a State demonstrates that a final permit cannot
be issued by February 4, 1992/ a draft permit and supporting
documentation may be accepted as an ICS. Such draft permits
must be be accompanied by a schedule indicating when the final
permit will be issued and providing adequate time for the per-
mittee to comply with the limitations such that water quality
standards will be achieved by June 1992. EPA acknowledges that
the time frames required by the statute are relatively short.
States which have already instituted aggressive toxics control
efforts should be able to meet the deadlines.
In a related comment, one reviewer noted that the regulatory
authority should not have to prove the existence of receiving
water impacts before developing permit limitations to control a
pollutant of concern. EPA agrees and its final guidance indicates
that development of permit limitations should be commensurate
with the situation under consideration, consistent with technically
sound current practises, and in accordance with applicable
requirements under the Water Quality Management and NPDES regu-
lations.
A number of commenters felt that it is inappropriate to
address whole effluent toxicity in an ICS. Several commenters
expressed concern over the use of toxicity testing in a regu-
latory context. The guidance requires that NPDES permits
developed as part of an ICS requirement address all problems
associated with a point source, not simply those associated
with §307(a) toxic pollutants. EPA is not setting up a permitting
standard for ICS's which is separate and distinct from established
NPDES procedures. Rather, EPA recommends that permitting
authorities employ an integrated approach which utilizes both
biological and chemical methods, as appropriate. With respect
to the efficacy of toxicity testing methods as a regulatory
tool, EPA has provided ample justification for these methods
in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control and through the various studies undertaken by
the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
One comraenter felt that nonconventional pollutants cannot
be addressed through an ICS. As discussed above, point source
discharges should be listed on the (B) list on the basis of
impairment due to §307(a) toxic pollutants. It is important to
-------
note, however, that all pollutants of concern will be addressed
in developing NPDES permits as part of an ICS. The statutory
authorities for controlling nonconventional pollutants is
preexisiting and does not rely upon §304(1) authority. EPA is
simply requiring that when NPDES permits are issued, they meet
all applicable requirements, including but not limited to §304(1).
We are mindful that permits are generally issued for a. five year
term.
One coramenter felt that there is no statutory basis for
distinguishing among "major", "significant minor", and "minor"
permits in developing ICS's. In conjunction with the allocation
of resources and tracking of commitments, EPA ranks certain point
source dischargers as "major." The ranking process involves
tabulating a "score" for each facility, based upon a number of
factors, including water quality impacts. Thus, by definition,
facilities which have a significant water quality impact would
normally be ranked as a "major" facility. Where the §304(1)
identification and listing process indicates that a "minor"
facility will need additional controls in order to achieve a
water quality standard, that facility should generally be
reclassified as a "major" facility and controlled. Other
minor facilities would be expected to have a negligible effect
on achievement of water quality standards and thus would be a
low priority for additional controls. However, if a facility
listed under §304(1) is a "minor" and is not reclassified, it
must still be controlled in accordance with §304(1). The
final §304(1) guidance was clarified to reflect these points.
One cotnmenter felt that toxicity reduction evaluations (TREs)
should be performed, where necessary, but that permit limitations
should not be developed until the TRE is completed. EPA disagrees
and feels that TREs are most effective in conjunction with a
permit limit as a target level which the TRE is designed
to achieve. However, EPA agrees that permitting authorities
should develop reasonable compliance schedules in this context
(provided that §304(1) deadlines are still achieved) and has
added this point to the §304(1) guidance document.
One commenter felt that EPA should require toxic dischargers
to undertake a number of toxics use reduction measures (e.g.,
product substitution and process changes) in addition to simply
requiring more stringent NPDES permit limitations. EPA
agrees with the commenter that such measures are often effective
and encourages permittees to utilize all appropriate control
measures in order to comply with NPDES permit limitations.
Additional language addressing such control measures has
been added to the discussion of toxicity reduction evaluations.
However, EPA notes in the guidance that it is the responsibility
of the permittee to conduct a TRE and take corrective action
as necessary to comply with applicable NPDES permit limits.
A number of commenters felt that the guidance should clearly
indicate that the §304(1) requirements apply only where all
-------
required technology-based requirements are inadequate to achieve
water quality objectives. EPA agrees and has clarified this
point in the final §304(1) guidance. However, a review of all
technology-based limitations should be part of an overall
toxics control strategy. Another eommenter objected to the
recommendation in the guidance that technology-based limitations
be reexamined to ensure that they are still being appropriately
applied to the facility under consideration. Although* the
guidelines themselves are fixed, the site=specific considerations
which affect the application of the guidelines to an individual
facility can change and therefore require periodic reexamination
as part, of a comprehenive toxics control strategy.
Implementation
One commenter urged EPA to encourage States to solicit
public participation in the §304(1) implementation process,
particularly in the review of waterbody lists, water quality
assessment, plans, and any technical agreements. EPA agrees
that public participation is an integral part of the effort
and will help ensure the successful completion of the require-
ments. Specific reference to public participation is included
in the final guidance.
Some coramenters thought unreasonable the dates for States'
submission of lists of waters and final compliance with
water quality standards after implementation of individual
control strategies. They point out that a literal interpretation
of the statute does not allow adequate time to complete the
requirements. These commenters observed that if EPA fails to
review and approve all control strategies within the 120 day
period or if States fail to comply with the established deadlines,
the net effect will be to penalize point source dischargers by
providing a compliance deadline date less than three years
from the date the strategies were completed. EPA recognizes
that the time frames for compliance with the statute are extremely
tight. EPA also agrees that point source dichargers should not
be unfairly penalized due to the failure of regulatory authorities
to provide adequate notification of the limitations which must
be met. In its guidance, EPA encourages States to establish
reasonable compliance schedules where appropriate in cases
where facilities cannot comply with final effluent limitations
upon permit issuance. It is important to recognize, however,
that the intent of Congress in setting these statutory deadlines
was to establish a sense of urgency in addressing and resolving
the nation's toxics pollution problems and therefore, ICS's
must ultimately result in attainment of applicable water
quality standards by June 1992.
-------
FINAL GUIDANCE
IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS UNDER §304(1)
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AS AMENDED
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS
AND STANDARDS
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT
AND PERMITS
MARCH 1988
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SURFACE WATER TOXICS CONTROL PROGRAM 3
A* The New Requirements 3
B. Relationship of New Requirements to
Ongoing Programs 5
C. Technical Approaches to Surface Water Toxics
Control 7
III. IDENTIFICATION OF WATERS AND POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES..10
A. Background 10
B. Statutory Requirement 10
C. Identification of Waters 14
D. Known and Suspected Problem Waters 16
E. Listing and Delisting Waters 17
F. Screening Techniques 18
G. Technical Considerations for Listing 20
H. Reporting Lists of Waters 21
I. Identification of Point Sources
and Amounts Discharged 22
J. Approval of Lists of Waters and Point
Source Dischargers 23
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CONTROL STRATEGIES 24
A. Statutory Requirement and Relationship to
Other Guidance 24
B. Procedural Considerations 25
C. Technical Considerations 30
V. IMPLEMENTATION 35
A. Schedule for Implementation of §304(1)
Requi r ement s 35
B. State Responsibilities 37
C. EPA Responsibilities 37
D. State Revolving Funds 38
E. Technical Assistance 39
F. Public Participation 39
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
LIST OP TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: Surface Water Toxics Control Program 4
Table It Lists of Waters Required by
§304(1) and §303(d) 11
Figure 2: Interrelationship of Listed Waters 13
Figure 31 Implementation Schedule 36
APPENDICES
A. Review/Approval Procedure for State TMDL/WLA
B. Available Data Sources
C. Routing and Graphical Display System
D. Section 301(h) Dilution Models
E. The Reach File
F. Wasteload Allocation Guidance
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this guidance is to provide specific infor-
mation for States and Regions on interpretation of the statutory
requirements of §304(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended,
and to place the new requirements in the context of tne ongoing
nationwide program for controlling toxic pollutants and toxicity.
Section 304(1) of the CWA requires States to develop lists
of impaired waters, identify point sources and amounts of
pollutants they discharge that cause toxic impacts, and
individual control strategies for each such point source.
These individual control strategies are designed to ensure
that 'applicable water quality standards are achieved by no
later than June 1992. The general effect of §304(1) is to
focus national surface water quality protection programs immedi-
ately on addressing known water quality problems due entirely
or substantially to point source discharges of §307(a) toxic
pollutants. As used in this guidance, "§307(a) toxic pollutants"
refers to the "priority pollutants" listed in accordance with
§307(a) of the CWA. Controls for these pollutants must be
established as soon as possible but no later than the statutory
time frames set forth in §304(1).
The new statutory requirements of §304(1) are only one
component of the ongoing national program for toxics control.
Under the national program, as a matter of policy, EPA is asking
that all known toxics problems (due to any pollutant, not only
the §307(a) toxic pollutants) be controlled as soon as possible,
giving the same priority to controls for non-§307(a) pollutants
as to controls where only §307(a) pollutants are involved.
Such problems include any violation of a State numeric criterion
for any pollutant known to cause toxic effects and any violation
of a State narrative water quality standard that prohibits
in-stream toxicity, due to any pollutant (including chlorine,
ammonia, and whole effluent toxicity), based upon ambient or
effluent analysis. Even prior to the 1987 amendments to the
Clean Water Act which added §304(1), federal law mandated such
controls. Section 304(1), however, adds a new dimension to
the basic framework within which States and EPA will identify
and address water quality problems related to toxicity and
toxic pollutants.
The immediate emphasis of §304(1) and the national program
for toxics control requires States and EPA to address problems
identified through review of existing and readily available
data. However, States and EPA Regions will continue to collect
new water quality data as an ongoing obligation under the national
program to assure that changes in water quality are identified
and any important data gaps in existing data are filled to
provide a reasonable basis for identifying and solving cases
of water quality impairment. State Clean Water Strategies,
-------
ii
developed to assist, implementing the amended CWA, may provide a
useful framework for setting priorities for new toxics monitoring,
problem assessments, and controls. Such an approach would be
especially relevant for areas with both point and nonpoint
source toxics problems.
Section 304(1) requires States to develop and submit the
following lists of waters to EPA. Each list is identified by
the subdivision designation of §304(1) which describes it:
(A)(i): A list of waters the State does not expect to
achieve numeric water quality standards for §307(a) toxic
pollutants after technology-based requirements have been
met, due to either point or nonpoint sources of pollution.
This list is a subset of the (A)(ii) list described below
and could be a very short list where a State has few or no
numeric criteria for §307(a) toxics, even if water quality
impairments due to toxicity are occurring in many of the
State's waterbodies.
(A)(ii): A comprehensive list of waters impaired by point
or nonpoint source discharges of toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants. This list should reflect all
waters needing additional control actions, whether the
problem is toxicity or some other impairment.
(B): A list of waters the State does not expect will achieve
"applicable standards" after technology-based requirements
have been met, due entirely or substantially to point source
discharges of §307(a) toxics. EPA "interprets "applicable
standards" to mean both numeric criteria for §307(a) toxic
pollutants and narrative "free from toxicity" standards.
For each stream segment or waterbody on the paragraph (B)
list, paragraph (C) of §304(1) requires that the State identify
the specific point sources discharging any §307(a) toxic pollutant
and the amount of each such pollutant discharged.
In developing lists of impaired waters, States should use
a variety of available screening techniques. At a minimum,
dilution analyses based upon existing or readily available data
and a review of all other relevant data should be conducted.
Where data can be readily developed to complete preliminary
listing activities or to refine preliminary lists, States
will be asked to develop needed data quickly. EPA is asking
that States report preliminary lists of waters required by
paragraphs (A)(i), (A)(ii), and (B), and the point sources
and amounts required by paragraph (C) by April 1, 1988, in the
State's §305(b) report. These lists should be refined and
expanded by the statutory deadline of February 4, 1989.
-------
iii
For each stream segment or waterbody on the paragraph (B)
list, §304(1) requires that individual control strategies (ICS) be
developed by February 4, 1989, to reduce the discharge of toxic
pollutants from each identified point source. Controls will
be established as effluent limits that assure, in combination
with existing nonpoint source controls, the attainment and
maintenance of applicable water quality standards for toxic
pollutants and toxicity. Applicable water quality standards
in existence on February 4, 1989, must be achieved no later than
June 4, 1992.
Section 304(1) requires that ICS's be established in
accordance with §402 of the CWA. This is the provision estab-
lishing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program. Therefore, to ensure compliance with
the 1992 deadline,- each ICS is to consist of final enforceable
NPDES permits, to the extent possible, and accompanying documen-
tation (i.e., fact sheets}= Where a State demonstrates that a
final permit cannot be issued by February 4, 1989, a draft permit
and supporting documentation may be accepted as an ICS. However,
such a draft permit must be accompanied by a schedule indicating
when the final permit will be issued and providing adequate
time for the permittee to comply with the limitations such that
water quality standards will be achieved by June 1992.
Because water quality impairment due to toxicity may be
present in waters other than those that must be listed under
paragraph (B), EPA also requires that water quality-based permit
limits be developed for any stream segment or waterbody that
is not achieving applicable water quality standards due to any
pollutant that causes toxic effects, not simply the §307(a)
toxic pollutants. Development of controls to address these
problems will be based upon statutory authorities other than
§304(1), particularly §301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA. This approach
should be focused to assure that the significance of the impair-
ment, rather than the cause of the impairment, will dictate the
priority assigned to establishing enforceable control requirements
NPDES permits incorporating all necessary and appropriate
elements should be developed for all point sources which are
identified under paragraph (C) of §304(1). This will entail
addressing all known and potential problems with respect to
a point source (e.g., conventional, nonconventional, and
toxic pollutants) irrespective of the specific reason for
listing the point source. This is necessary to assure that
each NPDES permit issued is to the best of the State's
knowledge, adequate in all respects for a five-year term.
The following table summarizes the time frames for these
major actions (for further details, see Figure 1 and Figure 3
and relevant sections of this document):
-------
List/Action
(A)(i) list
of waters
(A)(ii) list
of waters
(B) list of
waters
EPA Deadline
for Preliminary
Submission
4/1/88
4/1/88
4/1/88
EPA and Statutory
Deadline for
Final Submission
2/4/89
2/4/89'
2/4/89
(C) identification of 4/1/88 2/4/89
point sources and
amounts of pollutants
Individual Control 2/4/89
Strategies for sources
on (C) list
(resissued/modified
NPDES permits)
In addition, as a matter of policy, EPA asks that
permits for all major and significant minor point sources
causing toxicity effects in receiving waters due to pollutants
other than the §307(a) toxic pollutants be developed by
February 4, 1989.
Section 304(1)(2) requires that within 120 days after the
February 4, 1989, deadline for lists of waters and ICS submittal,
EPA must approve or disapprove the lists of waters and each
ICS. Controls must achieve the applicable water quality standard
within 3 years (no later than June 4, 1992). If disapproved,
or if the State fails to submit the required lists or ICS's,
EPA must develop these lists and ICS's within 1 year (June 4,
1990) and controls must assure that standards are met no later
than 3 years thereafter (June 4, 1993).
States are responsible for listing waters and point sources
and developing individual control strategies (in those States
which are authorized to issue NPDES permits). However, EPA
has a statutory responsibility to oversee these activities, to
approve or disapprove State actions under §304(1), and to act
where a State does not develop all necessary lists and ICS
requirements. In addition, EPA is responsible for issuing NPDES
permits which are required under §304(1) in those States which
are not authorized to issue NPDES permits. EPA will work
closely with the States to strengthen their toxics control
programs and help develop the technical approaches to be used
in fulfilling the requirements of §304(1) and the national
toxics control program.
-------
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
One of the most significant national environmental problems
is the presence of harmful levels of toxic pollutants in the
waters of the United States. EPA's goal is to work with States
to protect, human health and aquatic resources by controlling
the release of toxicants, as necessary, to protect water quality.*
The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides broad statutory authorities
in sections 301, 303, 304, 306, 307, 401, and 402, which have
long .mandated that programs be implemented to control the dis-
charge of pollutants to surface waters. Under these sections
of the Act, States and EPA are required to develop and implement
both technology-based and water quality-based controls of con-
ventional, non-conventional, and §307(a) toxic pollutants for
point source dischargers.** Through the use of technology-based
effluent guidelines, State water quality standards, and the
NPDES permitting process, significant reductions of pollutant
loadings to the Nation's receiving waters have been achieved.
In addition to the existing statutory authorities, the Water
Quality Act of 1987 has added a new section 304(1) to the CWA
with specific deadlines to accelerate State action in controlling
certain toxic discharges to surface waters where water quality
is now impaired. The purpose of this document is to provide
specific guidance for implementation of the statutory require-
ments of §304(1) of the Clean Water Act as amended in 1987, and
to put the new requirements of §304(1) in the context of the
national program for toxics control.
Section II provides an overview of the statutory require-
ments of §304(1) and an explanation of how these new initiatives
* The terms, "toxics" and "toxicants", as used in this docu-
ment, refer to any pollutant or combination of pollutants
which cause toxicity to aquatic life or terrestrial life,
or cause adverse human health impacts.
** The term "§307(a) toxic pollutants" is used in this document
to refer to the more narrowly defined list of 126 "priority
pollutants" listed in connection with §307(a)(l) of the
CWA. The water program has historically concentrated on
the 126 priority pollutants as a subset of the 65 classes
of compounds listed pursuant to §307(a)(l). This list of
126 has been the focus of both the national water quality
criteria and the national effluent guidelines development
processes. The 65 classes of compounds include thousands
of individual chemicals.
-------
- 2 -
relate to the overall nationwide program for control of toxic
toxic pollutants and toxicity. Sections III and IV provide
specific guidance for performing the tasks required by §304(1)
including the identification of waters impaired by §307(a)
toxic pollutants and other sources of toxicity- the identifica-
tion of point sources of impairment; and the development of
individual control strategies. Section V provides specific
information on logistical considerations in implementing the
new statutory requirements.
-------
- 3 -
SECTION II. SURFACE WATER TOXICS CONTROL PROGRAM
EPA has worked with the States to develop the overall
direction for the surface water toxics control program. A
fundamental principle of the national program is that the
control of pollutants beyond the technology-based provisions
of the CWA requires an integrated strategy consisting of both
biological and chemical methods to address toxic, conventional,
and nonconventional pollutants from municipal and industrial
sources. EPA's goal is to ensure a reasonable degree of national
consistency in addressing problems while preserving sufficient
flexibility to construct solutions to deal with specific problems.
A. The New Requirements
Section 304(1} of the Clean Water Act, as amended, does
not require any major change in direction. It does, however,
put States and EPA on an accelerated timetable for accomplishing
many activities (see Figure 1), especially those related to
controlling §307(a) toxic pollutants. By February 4, 1989,
§304(1)(1) of the CWA requires that States submit specific
lists of impaired waters, lists of point sources and amounts
of pollutants they discharge that cause toxic impacts, and
individual control strategies for each such point source.
These individual control strategies are designed to ensure
that applicable water quality standards are achieved by no
later than June 1992. Detailed discussions of the procedural
and technical aspects of these new statutory requirements are
provided in Sections III and IV.
Section 304(1)(2) of the CWA, as amended, requires that within
120 days after the deadline for States to submit the required lists
and individual control strategies (i.e., by June 4, 1989), EPA
must approve or disapprove the State's lists and individual
control strategies. If a State fails to submit all necessary
individual control strategies, or if EPA disapproves the State
strategies, §304(1)(3) requires EPA, in cooperation with the
State and after opportunity for public notice,^to implement the
requirements of §304(1)(1) by no later than June 4, 1990. In
the implementation of such requirements, EPA must, at a minimum,
consider listing waters for the development of control strategies
in accordance with petitions submitted by any person between
February 4, 1989, and June 4, 1989.
A related statuory provision is new section 303(c)(2)(B)
of the CWA. This section requires States to revise water
quality standards and adopt numeric criteria for all §307(a)
toxic pollutants for which §304(a) criteria have been published,
where the discharge or presence of the pollutant could reasonably
be anticipated to interfere with the designated uses adopted
by the State. If such numeric criteria are not available, a
State is to adopt criteria based on biological assessment methods
-------
FIGURE 1. SURFACE WATER TOXICS CONTROL PROGRAM
1) ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED UNDER ONGOING TOXICS CONTROL PROGRAM:
o Control of all sources (under sections 301, 316. 319, 402, 403, and 405 of the CWA)
o Control of all types of pollutants (under sections 301 (b), 303, and 307 of the CWA)
o Control of all water bodies (under section 303 (d) of the CWA)
o Program development activities (including assessments of State toxics control programs)
2) SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED UNDER §304(1) OF CWA AS AMENDED:
Develop
technical
agreements
EPA
Guidance
on §304(1)
Develop
Prelim-
inary
lists of
waters:
(A)(ii)
(B)
Review &
Update
Report in State
§305(b) Report |
Submit
final
lists of
waters,
sources,
and ICS's
EPA
approves
Develop controls under
existing CWA authorities
for (A)(i) & (A)(ii) waters
EPA
disapproves
Develop Water
Quality Assess-
ment Plan (as
necessary)
1
EPA develops
lists or ICS's
§304(1)(1)(D)
controls in place;
water quality
standards met
Opportunity for
State to correct
deficient sutmittal
- 4 -
-------
- 5 -
consistent with EPA guidance for aquatic life and human health
protection. Implementation of §303(c)(2)(B) is not covered in
this document. A discussion of numeric criteria is available in
the Water Quality Standards Regulation and should be referred to
for more information (40 CFR 131, November 1983). In addition,
EPA is developing separate guidance for meeting the requirements
of §303(c)(2)(B).
The concurrent requirements of §304(1) and §303(c)(2) may
present a near term timing problem in some States. State water
quality standards may be undergoing revision while listing and
control activities are also being carried out. States are never-
theless required to identify and control impaired waters within
the $304(1) statutory time frames. In many States, completion
of §304(1) requirements will be necessary even though revision
of State water quality standards in accordance with §303(c)(2)
is still underway. Chapters III and IV provide additional infor-
mation on technical approaches which may be used where State
water quality standards have not yet been revised in accordance
with §303(c)(2).
B. Relationship of "New Requirements to Ongoing Programs
The new requirements of §304(1) apply primarily to specific
impacts resulting from §307(a) pollutants. Other sections of
the CWA, including §§301(b)(1)(C), 303(c), 303(d), 303(e), 401,
and 402{a), require water quality-based control measures for all
pollutants (including chlorine, ammonia, and whole effluent toxi-
city) which impair the achievement of water quality standards
after technology-based control requirements are met.*
The national strategy for implementing §304(1) is to direct
immediate attention to establishing toxics controls where there
are impacts due entirely or substantially to point source
discharges of §307(a) toxic pollutants. These problems, as well
as point source discharges of other pollutants causing toxic
impacts (including chlorine, ammonia, and whole effluent toxicity),
should be controlled through ongoing programs on a high priority
basis. It is important to note, however, that the specific
As used in this document, the term "controls" includes all
actions designed to reduce or eliminate pollutant loadings
utilizing all applicable statutory authorities. Such actions
will usually involve enforceable NPDES permit effluent limi-
tations in conjunction with other specific permit requirements,
including best management practices, wastewater treatment
system optimization, and pretreatment program modifications
(s&e additional discussions under sections IV.B and IV.C.).
The term "individual control strategies" refers to the specific
statutory requirements of §304(1)(1)(D) and will require
NPDES permits which contain the appropriate limitations within
the statutory time frames.
-------
- 6 -
statutory requirements for individual control strategies under
the new §304(1) apply only to §307(a) toxic pollutants. Other
preexisting statutory authorities are used for controlling
other pollutants. At the same time, as an ongoing obligation
of existing programs, and in conjunction with State Clean Water
Strategies, the States and the Regions should continue to collect
new data where current data are inadequate, to identify any-
new or currently unidentified problems. The national program
will ensure an ongoing process of updating data and controls,
even after the deadlines for listing waters establishing individual
control strategies have been met.
In carrying out the requirements of the toxics control
provisions of the 1987 CWA amendments and the ongoing national
program of toxics control, EPA and the States should continue
to implement a progressive program of toxic pollutant load
reduction, focusing first on high priority areas where improve-
ments will result in the greatest environmental benefit. EPA
and States should address all toxicants causing human health
and environmental impacts, regardless of the type and source of
discharge. At the same time, they should continue to gather new
data wider existing programs where important information gaps
exist. The toxics control program should continue to address
emerging problems and ensure prevention of water quality
impairment due to toxicity even after §304(1) deadlines have
been met.
EPA has recently published several guidance documents which
expand on the national toxics control initiative. These documents
include: State Water Quality-based Toxics Control Program Review
Guidance (December 1987), Nonpoint Source Guidance (December 1987),
Clean Lakes Program Guidance (December 1987), and State Clean Water
Strategies: Meeting the Challenges of the Future (December 1987).
As a part of their ongoing toxics control program and in
conjunction with State Clean Water Strategies, States should
expand their water quality monitoring programs as necessary
to ensure that all discharges and receiving waters are covered by
appropriate biological and chemical data collection activities.
EPA encourages States to require permittees to gather both dis-
charge and ambient monitoring data where this is reasonable, and
where the State's resources can be better used for other priority
activities. In general, States should maintain monitoring programs
that are designed to identify the nature and extent of the effects
of toxic discharges on the designated uses of the waters.
In addition to planning for the future of the toxics program
after §304(1) has been implemented, States and EPA will need to
coordinate §304(1) activities with their ongoing activities that
affect toxics controls. For example, new data being generated
by permittees under existing NPDES permits, as well as data gen-
erated by States and EPA should be used to establish controls
-------
- 7 -
in new permits to assure that applicable standards will be met.
Regions and States should also fully implement and enforce the
results of toxicity reduction evaluations now underway, including
needed improvements to local pretreatment programs and new local
limits for §307(a) toxic pollutants and other toxicants. Where
stormwater discharges from point sources are contributing to
water quality standards violations in receiving waters.or are
significant contributors of pollutants to waterbodies, they
should be designated under §402(p) as needing to seek and obtain
NPDES permits.
In addition* the States will be addressing impacts due to
nonpoint sources through programs mandated under §319 of the new
amendments to the CWA. As regulatory authorities obtain increased
data from improved monitoring of receiving waters and the results
of toxicity studies, their ability to address nonpoint sources
should be enhanced. Throughout the implementation process/ it
is important for point and nonpoint source control programs to
be closely coordinated. Nonpoint sources are considered in
calculating §303(d) total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for a
segment, and are part of the process of developing water quality-
based controls for point sources. Waters which are impaired
"entirely or substantially" due to point source discharges of
§307(a) toxic pollutants {paragraph (B)) will generally not
require new controls on nonpoint sources. However, coordination
between point and nonpoint source controls will be particularly
important in developing controls for those impaired waters listed
under paragraph (A)(ii) which have substantial contributions of
pollutants from nonpoint sources.
As new technology-based effluent limitations guidelines
and pretreatment standards are developed, EPA Regions and States
should assure compliance by all affected dischargers (not just
those located on listed waters). In addition, as new State
numeric criteria and standards are developed, they should be
used in the permitting process to set more stringent water
quality-based limits, where necessary*
It will be necessary for States routinely to update and fur-
ther refine their procedures for implementing point and nonpoint
source controls. To support State programs, EPA will publish
criteria and advisories on additional pollutants of concern,
(in addition to the §307(a) toxic pollutants); provide supple-
mental guidance on improved biological monitoring, assessment,
and evaluation techniques for complex point and nonpoint source
discharges; and develop risk assessment/risk management procedures
to better define program priorities for the national program for
toxics control.
C. Technical Approaches to Surface Water Toxics Controls
Finding appropriate solutions to surface water toxics prob-
lems presents long term institutional and technical challenges.
-------
- 8 -
To assure the long term success of the overall toxics control
initiative, it is important to have strong State toxics control
programs that include monitoring, standards, wasteload allocation,
permitting, pretreatraent, and enforcement activities. in accord-
ance with the State Water Quality-based Toxics Control Program
Review Guidance (December 1987), Regions will work with the
States to ensure that States are equipped with the necessary tools
to make significant progress in controlling toxics and to meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act. In addition, Regions and
States are encouraged to develop technical agreements covering
the conduct of the specific activities mandated by the new
statutory requirements.
1. Strengthening State Toxics Control Programs
In FY 1988, Regions will use the guidance referred to above
to conduct broad, comprehensive reviews of State programs for
identifying and controlling toxic dischargers. In addition,
Regions will work with States to develop clear action plans to
strengthen toxics control programs as necessary in FY 1988 and
beyond. These reviews will include assessments of State progress
toward meeting the requirements of §304(1). Each action plan
will also include the steps, if any, that the a State should
undertake in order to ensure compliance with the requirements
of §304(1) of the CWA.
Where a State is not approved to implement the NPDES pro-
gram (or some portion of it), these program assessments will
focus in part on the EPA Region's preparedness to implement
controls for toxics (e.g., through permits and/or pretreatment
requirements) and the State's ability to fulfill its share of
the responsibilities for standards, monitoring, identifying
waters to be listed, and providing input to NPDES permits
and pretreatment requirements.
2. Technical Agreements for Performing Hew Requirements
To ensure that the activities conducted by States in
accordance with §304(1) of the CWA are thorough, appropriate,
and technically sound, Regions and States should discuss the
procedures that each State will follow to develop the lists of
waters, identify sources/pollutants, and prepare individual
control strategies. These procedures should then be documented
and mutually agreed upon in technical agreements.
These technical agreements need not be detailed documents
and should not impede progress in implementing the new statutory
requirements. It is essential, however, that States and Regions
agree upon the approach, methods, and timing to be followed in
implementing the requirements of §304(1). Regional assessments
of State toxics control programs, as discussed above, can help
identify elements which need to be incorporated into technical
agreements. These technical agreements should occur as soon
-------
- 9 -
as possible, however, and should not await the results of
the State program assessments, if the timing of these two
activities cannot be coordinated. In any event, EPA Regions
and States should ensure that §304(1) technical agreements and
Action Plans for State toxics control programs are consistent
with regard to priorities and timing.
The technical agreements could be new documents, with
references to existing memoranda of agreement and performance
agreements, or new amendments to existing State-EPA agreements.
At a minimum, the agreements should contain descriptions of
the following elements:
o Water quality standards or screening criteria values
(where no numeric criteria exist).
o The basic technical approach for assessing water quality
(i.e., dilution analyses, basinwide screening analyses,
etc.)/ developing lists, locating sources/amounts of
toxic discharges, and developing individual control
strategies.
o Data sources.
o Other input agreed to by the State and the Region.
By entering into technical agreements that describe the
procedures to be followed by each State for assessing waters
and developing individual control strategies, States and Regions
can minimize the administrative burden caused by submittal and
review of the required lists and strategies. Regional review
of State submittals can also be facilitated. While establishment
of specific technical agreements for performing §304(1) activities
is not mandatory, it is strongly recommended to facilitate the
review/approval process between EPA Regional offices and States.
-------
- 10 -
SECTION III. IDENTIFICATION OF WATERS AND POINT SOURCE
DISCHARGES
A. Background
The specific mandate for the identification and listing of
waters impaired by toxics and point sources of toxic pollution
is specified by new Clean Water Act sections 304(1)(1)(A), (B),
and (C). This portion of the guidance discusses the procedural
and technical implications of these statutory requirements in
the context of the national toxics control program.
The listing requirements under paragraph (A) form the basis
for a program where waters are regularly screened for any
conventional, nonconventional, or §307(a) toxic pollutants which
adversely impact water quality. Paragraph (B) requires the
States to develop a list of all waters for which they do not
expect applicable water quality standards to be achieved after
implementation of technology-based effluent limits and pretreatment
standards due entirely or substantially to the point source
discharge of §307(a) toxic pollutants. This list identifies
waterbodies for which point sources and amounts of pollutants
will be identified and individual control strategies prepared
under paragraphs (C) and (D). A schedule for submitting these
requirements to EPA is provided in Section V of this guidance.
All relevant authorities under the CWA are to be employed
when developing controls and issuing permits for sources on the
lists of waters required by paragraphs (A) and (B). CWA sections
301(b)(l)(C), 303(c), 303(d), 303(e), 401 and 402(a), as well as
implementing regulations, require control measures for all pollu-
tants, including chlorine, ammonia, and whole effluent t-oxicity.
which impair the achievement of specific water quality objectives.
B. Statutory Requirements
The new statute establishes three distinct lists of waters
that States are to prepare. The types of waters to be included
on these lists as well as on the list required in §303(d) are
further described on Table 1. Figure 2 illustrates the relationships
among the lists, and their related control actions.
1. Paragraph (A)(i) - A list of waters which, after applica-
tion of technology-based limitations, cannot reasonably be anticipated
to attain or maintain water quality standards revised pursuant
to new section 303(c)(2)(B) for section 307(a) toxic pollutants
due to either point source or nonpoint source discharges. All
waters listed under paragraph (A)(i) impacted by §307(a)
-------
-11-
Table 1
LISTS OF WATERS REQUIRED UNDER
§304(1)(1) and §303(d) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
This table summarizes the basis for listing the categories of impaired
waters under §304(1)(1). It should be noted that the various listing
criteria will cause some waters to appear on more than one list.
Paragraph in §304(1)(1)
of the CWA as amended §303(d)
BASIS FOR LISTING: (A)(i) (A)(ii) (B)
"Mini "Long "Short
Point Source Impacts List" List" List"
Impairment due to §307(a) toxic XXX
pollutants as indicated by
violations of State water quality
standards for §307(a) toxics
Impairments due to §307(a) X X
toxic pollutants as indicated
by violations of an
applicable standard (i.e.,
narrative or numeric)
Waters not meeting applicable X
water quality standards due to
any pollutant(s)
Waters not meeting the fishable/ X
swimmable goals of the CWA due
to the point source discharge
of any pollutants
Nonpoint Source Impacts
Impairment due to §307(a) toxic X X
pollutants as indicated by viola-
tions of State water quality
standards for §307(a) pollutants
Waters not meeting applicable X
water quality standards due to any
pollutant(s)
Waters not meeting the fishable/ X
swimmable goals of the CWA due to
the nonpoint source discharge of
any pollutants
-------
- 12 -
toxic pollutants due entirely or substantially to discharges from
point sources will require the identification of the source and
amount of toxic pollutant discharged, as well as the preparation
of an individual control strategy because this portion of the
(A)(i) list is included on the paragraph (B) list.
2. Paragraph (A)(ii) - A list of waters which, after applica-
tion of technology-based limits, cannot reasonably be anticipated
to attain or maintain water quality that shall assure attainment
of the fishable/swimmable goals of the CWA. This is a comprehensive
listing of waters impacted by all toxics and nontoxics due to both
point and nonpoint sources. The paragraph (A)(ii) list includes
all waters whose designated uses are less than the fishable/
swiramable goals of the CWA as well as those which are not meeting
water quality standards for established designated uses.
Waters not meeting water quality standards for established
designated uses will also appear on the list of waters required
by §303(d) of the CWA. These waters should be the focus of
control actions under other CWA authorities and existing regu-
lations (CWA sections 301, 303, 401, and 402; and the Water
Quality Planning and Management (WQM) Regulation, 40 CFR Part
130, January 1985).*
Note that the lists described in paragraphs (A)(i) and (B)
are actually subsets of the comprehensive list required under
paragraph (A)(ii). (See Figure 2.)
3. Paragraph (B) - A list of waters for which the State does
not expect that the applicable water quality standards will be
achieved, after BAT, pretreatment, and new source performance
standards are complied with, due entirely or substantially to point
source discharges of §307(a) toxic pollutants.
"Applicable standard" ia not specifically defined in the
statute: however, EPA interprets it to mean numeric criteria within
water quality standards for §307(a) toxic pollutants or the
narrative water quality standard for toxicity (e.g., "no toxics in
toxic amounts"). The narrative standard for controlling both whole
The new §304(1) requirements are consistent with 303(d) which
requires States to identify waters where water quality-based
controls are needed to meet water quality standards, rank
them in priority order, prepare total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) for each waterbody, and submit these lists of
waters and TMDLs to EPA for review and approval. The WQM
Regulation describes how States are to identify these areas,
prepare submissions to EPA, and send the lists of waters
and TMDLs to the EPA Regional office for review and approval.
-------
FIGURE 2. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF WATERS LISTED UNDER
SECTION 304(1) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
MINI UST
(AXD:
Control actions
include use of
all existing
CWA
authorities for
toxic pollutants.
LONG UST
Control actions
include use of
all existing
CWA
authorities for
all pollutants
and alt waters.
SHORT LIST
(B):
Control actions
require
Individual
Control
Strategies.
-------
- 14 -
effluent toxicity and toxicity due to individual chemicals may be
interpreted by using EPA criteria on a chemical-by-cheraical basis
to identify §307(a) toxic pollutants. Since impairment is defined
in §304(1) with reference to §307(a) toxic pollutants, violations
of the narrative standard for purposes of developing the paragraph
(B) list are those attributable to one or more §307(a) toxic
pollutants. The phrase "due entirely or substantially to discharges
from point sources" refers to waters where additional controls
primarily on point sources will achieve water quality standards for
§307(a) toxic pollutants.
For each waterbody segment included on the paragraph (B)
list, specific point sources discharging §307(a) toxic pollutants
are to be identified along with the amount of each pollutant
discharged by each source. Individual control strategies will be
prepared for each waterbody segment on the paragraph (B) list.
While the requirements of paragraphs (C) and (D) apply only
to the waters identified on the paragraph (B) list, other statutory
authorities (sections 301, 303, 304, 401, and 402 of the CWA)
mandate that water quality-based controls be developed for all
waters identified a~ff needing Buch controls. It is important to
note that §301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA requires that water quality-based
limitations necessary to meet water quality standards be achieved
by July 1, 1977. Further, the NPDES regulations require that
issued permits include all limitations necessary to achieve
applicable water quality standards. States must therefore continue
to establish water quality-based controls under these authorities,
C. Identification of Waters
To meet the deadlines for the listing of waters, sources,
and amounts, and the development of individual control strategies,
States are to use all existing and readily available sources of
information. States are encouraged to build on the work that
has already been done in the continuous process of water quality
monitoring, reviewing/revising water quality standards, evaluating
needs for technology-based or water quality -based controls,
developing TMDLs/WLAs, issuing permits, and continued monitoring
to determine the effectiveness of pollution controls.
Where States have made significant progress to date in
developing water pol-iution controls, the new statutory provisions
of §304(1)(1) will require only that remaining impacts be identified
and controlled within the statutory time frames. Where States
have not made substantial progress to date in these areas, the
new statutory provisions will involve a considerable effort
within a very short time. Although collection of extensive
new data will generally not be required for completion of these
initial pollution control activities, some States may need to
strengthen their monitoring efforts to obtain the data needed to
make these determinations. For detailed information on possible
-------
- 15 -
data sources, see Appendix B.
States should be able to demonstrate to EPA that they have
sufficient information to justify decisions to list waters as
well as decisions not to list waters. At a minimum, States
should assemble and evaluate available data on the following
categories of waters so as to identify those to be con-sidered for
inclusion on the lists.
o Waters where fishing or shellfish bans and/or advisories are
currently in effect or are anticipated.
o Waters where there have been repeated fishkills or where
abnormalities (cancers, lesions, tumors, etc.) have been
observed in fish and other aquatic life during the last ten
years.
o Waters where there are restrictions on water sports or
recreational contact.
o Waters identified by the States in the 1982, 1984, 1986 or
draft 1988 State §305(b) reports as either "partially
achieving" or "not achieving" designated uses.
o Waters identified by the States and reported to EPA in the
third quarter of FY87 as waters needing water quality-based
controls for "toxics" and "non-toxics." (See FY87 Office
of Water Accountability System measure WQ-32.)
o Waters identified by the States as priority waterbodies in
FY86 because of impaired or threatened uses. State Water
Quality Management plans include priority waterbody lists
which are those waters that most need water pollution control
decisions to achieve water quality goals.
o Waters where ambient data indicate the presence of
§307(a) toxic pollutants from primary industries.
o Waters for which effluent toxicity test results indicate
possible violations of State water quality standards,
including narrative "free from" criteria or EPA criteria
where State standards are not available.
o Waters with primary industrial major dischargers where
simple dilution analyses indicate exceedances of State
water quality standards (or EPA criteria where State
standards are not available) for §307(a) toxic pollutants,
ammonia, or chlorine. These dilution analyses could
be based upon estimates of BAT levels from effluent
guidelines development documents, NPDES permit application
data (e.g., Form 2C), Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs), or other available information.
-------
- 16 -
o Waters with municipal major dischargers requiring pretreatment
where simple dilution analyses indicate exceedances of State
water quality standards (or EPA criteria where State standards
are not available) for §307(a) toxic pollutants, ammonia, r
chlorine. These dilution analyses could be based upon date.
from NPDES permit applications (e.g., Form 2A), Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs), or other available information.
o Waters with known or suspected use impairments where dilution
analyses indicate exceedances of State water quality
standards (or EPA criteria where State standards are not
available) for §307(a) toxic pollutants, ammonia, or chlorine.
This category includes waters with facilities not included in
the previous two categories such as municipal majors not
required to have pretreatrnent, federal majors, and minors
having water quality impacts. These dilution analyses
could be based upon estimates of BAT levels from effluent
guideline development documents, NPDES permit application
data, Discharge Monitoring Reports, (DMRs) or other available
information.
o Waters classified for uses that will not support the "fishable,
swiramable" goal of the Clean Water Act.
o Waters where ambient toxicity or adverse water quality
conditions have been reported by local, State, EPA or other
Federal Agencies, the private sector, public interest groups,
or universities. These organizations and groups should be
actively solicited for research they may be conducting or
reporting. For example, State university researchers, USD/*
Extension Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
are good sources of current field research and activities.
o Waters identified as having impaired or threatened designated
uses in the Clean Lakes Assessments conducted under §314 of
the Clean Water Act.
o Waters identified as impaired by nonpoint sources in the 1985
America's Clean Water; State's Nonpoint Source Assessment
(Association of State and Interstate Water Quality Pollution
Control Administrators [ASIWPCA]) and waters identified as
impaired or threatened in the nonpoint source assessments
under §319 of the Clean Water Act.
o Surface waters impaired by pollutants from hazardous waste
sites on the NPL prepared under §105(8)(A) of CERCLA.
D. Known and Suspected Problem Waters
From the categories of waters listed above, and from the data
sources identified in Appendix B, the States should be able to
develop preliminary lists of waters with known or suspected
problems. States are expected to exercise sound technical
judgment when deciding whether a waterbody has a water quality
problem, and whether that, problem is suspect or known.
-------
- 17 -
Waters with known problems include waters which have sufficient
ambient or effluent data to indicate violations of any applicable
State numeric criteria, or violations of any applicable State
narrative water quality standard due to any pollutant (including
chlorine, ammonia, and whole effluent toxicity). A violation
indicated by dilution mass balance calculations based upon
discharger-specific and ambient data which reflect current operating
conditions would be a known problem. Discharger-specific data
that may be useful in assessing current conditions includes NPDES
permit application data and Discharger Monitoring Reports (DMRs).
Where sufficient existing data are not available to identify
a waterbody as a known problem, it should be designated as a
suspected problem. For waters with suspected problems, the State
should prepare a Water Quality Assessment Plan. This plan should
be submitted by April 1, 1988 along with the preliminary lists
of waters and should describe what assessments need to be done and
how the State plans to assess these waters. In particular, the
plan should describe when and where the State intends to collect
additional data needed to confirm suspected problem waters as known
problems, or to detemine that no problems exist. As a high priority,
the Water Quality Assessment Plan should focus on those activities
which will help refine the preliminary lists into final lists
by February 4, 1989. However, preparation of a Water Quality
Assessment Plan does not absolve the State's responsibility to
complete the lists of waters in accordance with §304(1). If
such lists are not completed and approved, EPA is required to
complete them.
Waters with suspected problems include waters where a simple
dilution analysis or an assessment of available data indicates a
strong likelihood for violations of State numeric criteria or
the State's narrative water quality standard. For example,
suspected problems would include stream segments which were
"flagged" by simple dilution analyses where they were performed
using other than site-specific data; or segments which receive
the discharge from municipal treatment facilities which have not
yet fully implemented required pretreatment programs, or which
have not fully characterized their discharges for §307(a) toxic
pollutants or whole effluent toxicity.
As a matter of policy, EPA is asking that controls be
developed for waters with known toxicity problems due to any
pollutant as soon as possible, giving the same priority to these
controls as for controls where only §307(a) pollutants are involved.
E. Listing and Delisting Waters
Waters with known and suspected problems should be included
on preliminary lists to be submitted on April 1, 1988. After sub-
mitting these initial lists to EPA for review and comment, States
are to follow their Water Quality Assessment Plans to further eval-
uate suspected water quality problems. The final lists of waters
-------
- 18 -
submitted to EPA for approval or dispproval on February 4, 1989, will
include only those waters where water quality problems are known.
Decisions on listing or delisting waters are dependent on the
data available. Once waters are placed on the final §304(1){1}(B)
list, an individual control strategy is required. However, the
process of developing an ICS may provide additional data that
could refute or confirm that a State water quality sta'ndard was
violated. Where such new information becomes available, the State
may reconsider their listing decisions and adjust their lists of
waterbodies or point sources accordingly. In addition, a State
may have other significant reasons for not including or deleting
waters from their lists as discussed in Section III.J. below.
While existing and readily available data are to be used to
develop both the preliminary and final lists, new data will continue
to be needed after the submission of final lists of waters in
February 1989. States should continue to assess the quality of
their waters to identify waterbodies that cannot reasonably be
expected to attain or maintain water quality standards and update
their lists of waters accordingly.
EPA sees the assessment of waters, development of lists
of impaired waters, and reporting of these waters as a continuing
process to achieve the objectives of the water quality program
and to identify needs for water quality-based controls. As
waters continue to be assessed in conjunction with ongoing moni-
toring and permitting, including the assessment of toxics contami-
nation in sediments, updated lists of waters should be reported
in the States' §305(b) reports in a form compatible with EPA's
§305(b) Waterbody System (see Section III.H. below). This ongoing
assessment and reporting process will help ensure that waters
are continually assessed for use impairment and that controls
are instituted on the basis of water quality protection. Clean
Water Act §§ 304(1), 303(d), and 305(b) support these objectives
and provide EPA with appropriate review and approval authority.
F. Screening Techniques
Screening techniques generally used to identify waters needing
water quality-based controls are described as follows:
1. Simple Dilution Calculations - A dilution calculation is
a relatively simple and conservative method for estimating where
water quality-based controls may be needed. This technique is
useful for predicting the concentration of a pollutant after
complete mixing with the receiving water and assumes no decay or
other fate processes are present to reduce the concentration.
For multiple sources, the concentration at each downstream
source should be recalculated.
Because simple dilution techniques are often conservative,
they could generate a list of waters that may not actually need
water quality-based controls. However, this method provides a
-------
simple approach to determine the likelihood of a water quality
criteria or standards violation. In order to rely solely on a
dilution calculation to designate a water as known, the dilution
calculation should be based upon site-specific data. More detailed
analyses may be needed for non-soluble or hydrophobic pollutants
which tend to accumulate in the sediments of lakes and tidal
waters and for other pollutants where more detailed analyses are
needed for developing effluent limitations.
2. Automated Data Calculations - There are several automated
data systems which States may employ in the process of evaluating
waters within a State. One such system is the Reach Pollutant
Assessment Program. This system was developed by EPA and utilizes
eight existing EPA data bases to identify receiving stream segments
with potential priority pollutant impacts from industrial and
municipal point source discharges.
An existing automated data system which States may use to help
identify potentially impaired waters is EPA's Routing and Graphical
Display System (RGBS). This system can systematically evaluate
large numbers of streams (see Appendix C) and has the capability
jto -perform analyses using national criteria and dilution calcula-
tions to estimate in-streara concentrations of pollutants. For
marine waters, dilution models have been developed for the §301(h)
program. These are discussed in Appendix D.
3. Effluent Toxicity and Biosurveys - The whole effluent, or
toxicity-based,approach to toxics control involves the use of
toxicity tests to measure the toxicity to aquatic life of point
source discharges. Whole effluent toxicity is an extremely
useful parameter for identifying undesirable effects caused by
the discharge of a complex mixture of waste materials.
The Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control (EPA-440/4-85-032) and the Permit Writers Guide to Water
Quality-based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants (EPA-440/4-87-005)
present information on how to use the whole effluent toxicity
approach and the pollutant-specific approach. More detail on the
pollutant specific approach is also provided in EPA's screening
manual (referenced below).
Biosurveys (defined here as field assessments of the ambient
effects of toxic pollutants as measured by representative biological
organisms) are also useful for screening of waters for toxicity.
These field surveys provide a cost-effective screening method
for determining designated use support and use attainability,
assessing point source and nonpoint source impacts, and evaluating
effectiveness of control actions. EPA is developing a draft
document: Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Streams and Rivers,
which describes the application of certain types of biosurveys
to water quality assessment. This guidance will be made available
by EPA upon its completion (estimated Fall, 1988).
-------
- 20 -
4. Screening Manual - An EPA manual entitled Water Quality
Assessments: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional
Pollutants (EPA 600/6-85-002a, 002b) presents simple techniques
to assess the loading and fate of specific pollutants in streams,
impoundments, estuaries, and groundwaters. It also presents
equations for lakes and estuaries. The techniques are readily
programmed on hand-held calculators or microcomputers* of the
available screening techniques, those described in this manual
will usually provide the most accurate data for listing waters,
and, in many cases, these techniques can be used to establish
permit limits. Application of techniques in this manual, however,
are more resource intensive than other screening techniques and
must be applied on a site-by-site basis.
G. Technical Considerations for Listing
The use of screening techniques for developing the lists of
waters requires a careful selection of model parameters. Some
of the factors to consider when selecting parameters for use in
modeling and data analysis include the following.
1. Applicable Standard - Water quality numeric criteria
for §307(a) toxic pollutants in State water quality standards
should be used as the basis for water quality modeling. Where
State numeric criteria for §307(a) toxic pollutants are not
established, narrative standards may be interpreted by using EPA
criteria on a cheraical-by-chemical basis to identify §307(a)
toxic pollutants.
When a point source discharge contains a relatively small
number of specific chemicals for which ambient water quality
standards exist, or where toxicants of human health concern need
to be controlled, specific chemical testing can determine whether
technology-based treatment levels are sufficiently protective of
water quality. Criteria for aquatic life will be more restrictive
in many cases; however, criteria for human health may be more
limiting in some cases, and therefore will need to be assessed.
2. Effluent Concentrations - Effluent concentrations should
be assessed assuming discharge at the enforceable technology-based
limit. Where possible, these calculated concentrations of pollutants
in an effluent should be used in dilution calculations to determine
whether technology-based or water quality-based controls are
adequate to achieve applicable water quality standards. Because
municipal treatment facilities generally have few or no NPDES
permit limits for §307(a) toxic pollutants, estimates should be
made based on any enforceable permit limits as well as the
assumption that contributing industries implement currently
applicable enforceable pretreatment standards.
In general, where current permit limits for industrial or
municipal discharges do not adequately limit the discharge with
-------
- 21 -
respect to toxic pollutants, assessments should utilize data
from additional sources, such as the permit application data
and effluent guidelines development data. EPA's screening manual
(referenced above) will also contain some data on discharges of
priority pollutants which could be used if other information is
not available.
3. Design Flow - The major receiving water characteristic
of concern for the identification of waters is the diluting
capacity of the water. When using dilution calculations, the
acute or chronic design flow mandated by the State should be
used. Otherwise, see the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxica Control (EPA-440/4-85-032) and Book VI,
Design Conditions of the Technical Guidance Manual for Performing
Waateload Allocations (EPA 440/4-87-004).The simple techniques
discussed are not suitable for streams unless the total streamflow
used in the calculations is reduced to the portion in which mixing
actually occurs. Similarly, the actual mixing volume of a lake,
estuary, or bay should be used instead of the entire volume if
the waterbody is not completely mixed (see EPA's screening manual,
referenced previously).
4. Rate Coefficients - Analyses that incorporate fate and
transport processes require selection of rate coefficients.
Measured values from intensive surveys should be used whenever
possible. Typical values of coefficients for waters throughout
the State, or literature values, can be used if intensive survey
data is not available. Useful sources of rate coefficient data
are: Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations in Surface Water
Quality Modeling (Second Edition)(EPA 600/3-85-40),and Processes,
Coefficients, and Models for Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy
Metals in Surface Waters (EPA/600/3-87-015).
5. Establishing Boundaries for Waterbodies - Upstream
and downstream limits of waterbody segments where water quality
standards cannot be met with technology-based controls should be
defined. Use of EPA's Reach File system (see Appendix E) will
simplify the identification of individual waters.
H. Reporting Lists of Waters
The listing requirements of §304(1)(1) do not specify how
waterbody segments are to be reported. EPA is therefore requesting
States to include waters in their §305(b) report in a format
compatible with EPA's §305(b) Waterbody System (WBS) as described
in: Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State Water Quality
Assessments §305(b) Report (April, 1987).The elements relevant
to §304(1) listing are outlined as follows:
o ID Number - State waterbody identification number as used
in the §305(b) report and the WBS.
-------
- 22 -
o Indexing - Information to index the waterbody to various
data systems using the Reach File number system. This is
a hydrologic retrieval specification that is described in
the WBS user's manual.
o Name of Waterbody.
o Description - A detailed description of the waterbody that
can be used to determine the start and end point of the
waterbody on a USGS map.
o Type and Size of Waterbody - River miles, lake acres,
estuary square miles. Great Lake or ocean shore miles,
or wetland acres.
o §304(1) status - An indication of the appropriate list on
which the waterbody is located. It is possible that a
waterbody can be on several lists at the same time as
shown on Table 1 and Figure 2, and discussed in Section
III.B. of this guidance.
I. Identification of Point Source's and Amounts Pxacharged
Once individual waters have been identified under paragraph
(B), States, with the assistance of the Regional offices, are to
determine (and keep current) lists of specific point sources
discharging §307(a) toxic pollutants believed to be preventing or
impairing water quality and the amounts discharged by each source.
For each waterbody on the paragraph (B) list, the following
information should be reported to EPA:
o Waterbody identification number as used in the §305(b)
report and the WBS.
o Name of waterbody.
o NPDES number(s).
o Facility name(s).
o Latitude-longitude coordinates of point of discharge
(in degrees, minutes, and seconds).
o STORET parameter code of each §307(a) toxic pollutant
that is discharged.
o Amount of each §307(a) toxic pollutant discharged.
This data may already be in the PCS data system or in
Discharge Monitoring Report data.
This information should be reported by the States to the
EPA Regional office by April 1, 1988, in hard copy or in the
State's §305(b) Report along with the preliminary lists of
-------
waters as requested. This will enable the identification of any
permits that need to be modified and completed by the February 4,
1989, deadline.
J. Approval of Lists of Waters and Point Source Dischargers
Under §304(1), EPA is required to review and approve or
disapprove the lists of waters not meeting water quality standards
and identify individual dischargers and amounts of §307(a) toxic
pollutants discharged. Approval or disapproval of these lists by
EPA must occur within 120 days after this information is submitted
as final by the States (June 4, 1989). During this period, EPA
will give the States the opportunity to correct deficient or
incomplete submittals. However, where States fail to submit their
lists, or where EPA disapproves them, EPA must develop these lists
within one year after the deadline date (June 4, 1990).
When the States submit their final lists of waters to EPA
for review, EPA will use a process similar to that for approving
total maximum daily loads/wasteload allocations to add or delete
waterbodies (see Appendix A).
The list of categories described in Section III.C. above may
serve as a principal basis for reviewing, and approving or
disapproving the lists of waters submitted by the States. However,
EPA notes that a State may have good cause for not including
waters from the categories described in Section III.C., some of
which are as follows:
o More recent or more accurate data
o More sophisticated water quality modeling
o Flaws in the original analysis that led to the listing
o Changes in conditions, e.g., new control equipment or
elimination of dischargers.
As described in Section III.E. above, States may modify
§304(1) lists after submittal to EPA, subject to EPA review and
approval. Data generated in the future as a result of Water
Quality Assessment Plans or through the process of developing
ICS's may show that a water should not have been listed under
§304(1), or that a water was omitted when it should have been
listed. For example, where additional data confirm that an
observed §307(a) toxic pollutant ambient water quality problem
is not due entirely or substantially to a point source discharge
of the §307(a) toxic pollutant, then this information would serve
as a basis for removing the water body from the §304(1}(1)(B)
list (the short list) and for removing the point source from
the §304(1)(1)(C) facility list.
-------
SECTION IV. DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUAL CONTROL STRATEGIES
A. Statutory Requirement and Relationship to Other Guidance
This section defines an individual control strategy (ICS)
and discusses the procedural and technical implications of the
ICS development and approval process. The new provisions of
§304(1)(1)(D) are generally analogous to the various components
which presently comprise the water quality-based toxics control
program. The amendments provide new impetus for many of
these activities by establishing new deadlines and a new EPA
review and approval/disapproval authority.
The basis for the individual control strategy requirement
is paragraph (D) of §304(1)(1) of the CWA amendments. This
paragraph requires that for each segment identified under
paragraph (B), the State must develop an individual control
strategy to produce a reduction in the discharge of §307(a)
toxic pollutants from the identified point sources through the
establishment of effluent limits and water quality standards.
Such controls must be sufficient, in combination with existing
point and nonpoint source controls, to achieve the applicable
water quality standards within three years of establishment
of the strategy (i.e., 3 years after EPA approval of a State
ICS or 3 years after development of an ICS by EPA, where a
State ICS is not submitted or is disapproved.)
A comprehensive and effective toxics control program must
control toxic pollutants as necessary to protect water quality.
As part of its ongoing national toxics program, EPA is asking
for controls for all waters listed'as having known toxicity
problems due to any pollutant (including chlorine, ammonia,
and whole effluent toxicity) as soon as possible, giving the
same priority to these controls as for controls where only
§307(a) pollutants are involved. As discussed earlier, the
control of non-§307(a) pollutants which cause toxicity is based
upon other statutory and regulatory authorities, including
Section 301(b)(1)(C). This comprehensive approach should be
focused to assure that the significance of the impairment, rather
than the cause of the impairment, will dictate the priority
assigned to establishing enforceable control requirements.
The development of individual control strategies will
complement the listing activities described in the previous
section of this guidance document. In actual practice, many
of the activities described in Sections III and IV can and
should be conducted simultaneously. In addition, as noted
above, the various tasks which are required in the development
of individual control strategies are already familiar to
States and Regions and are identical in most respects to the
process long used for developing NPDES permits. Detailed
technical guidance has already been developed relative to the
water quality-based control of toxic pollutants in the NPDES
-------
- 25 -
permit program. See the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA-440/4-85-032) and the Permit
Writer's Guide to Water Quality-based Permitting for Toxic
Pollutants (EPA-440/4-87-005)
B. Procedural Considerations in ICS Development
While States and Regions should continue to develop NPDES
permits to control toxics from all point sources causing impair-
ment of water quality due to toxicity, the specific ICS development
requirement applies only to the list of waters developed pursuant
to §304(1)(1)(B). These are waters which are impaired entirely
or substantially due to point source discharges of §307(a) toxic
pollutants. Waters listed in accordance with these new statutory
authorities should be controlled using all existing statutory
authorities, which address not only §307(a) toxic pollutants, but
all pollutants of concern. In addition, waters listed due to
known toxicity problems, as defined earlier, should also be con-
trolled using all necessary existing authorities, and given the
same priority as problems attributable to §307(a) toxic polltants.
As States and EPA gather data on currently inadequately
assessed problems, they should reopen and reissue permits to
incorporate all necessary controls. As noted earlier, §301(b)(1)(C)
of the CWA requires that all water quality-based limitations
necessary to achieve water quality standards be in place by
July 1, 1977. In addition, NPDES regulations require that all
issued permits include limitations necessary to achieve all
applicable water quality standards. These requirements will
continue to drive the NPDES toxics control program after the
§304(1) deadlines are met.
1. Elements of an ICS
The vehicle for establishing an enforceable ICS is the
NPDES permit. The term "strategy" suggests the need to protect
entire waterbody segments through imposition of effective and
coordinated controls as necessary on all point sources in the
segment. Controls for point sources should be developed in con-
junction with existing controls on nonpoint sources of pollution.
Planned nonpoint source controls may be considered "existing"
for the purposes of developing ICS's, if such planned controls
will be effective by June 1992 (the statutory deadline for
achieving the applicable water quality standard under §304(1)).
However, nonpoint source control assumptions must be based on
specific, reliable, and preferably, enforceable control plans.
A mere intention to establish a nonpoint source control plan
would not suffice.
An "individual control strategy" consists of an effective
NPDES permit, to the extent possible, for each point source listed,
and documentation that such permits have been adequately developed
with consideration of the effects of any other dischargers.
Documentation of the total maximum daily load and the wasteload
allocation for individual•discharges will normally suffice as
-------
- 26 -
documentation that the effects of other contributing sources
have been adequately considered.
An approvable ICS therefore consists of effective NPDES
permit limitations and schedules for achieving such limitations
if they cannot be achieved upon permit issuance, along with docu-
mentation which shows that the controls selected are appropriate
and adequate (i.e., fact sheets including information on how
water quality-based limits were developed, such as total maximum
daily loads and wasteload allocations):
ICS « NPDES PERMIT LIMITATIONS + DOCUMENTATION.
Where a State demonstrates that a final permit cannot be
issued by February 4, 1989, a draft permit and supporting documen-
tation may be accepted as an ICS. However, such a draft permit
must be accompanied by a schedule indicating when the final
permit will be issued and providing adequate time for the
permittee to comply with the limitations such that water quality
standards will be achieved by June 1992.
Regulatory authorities should include, where appropriate-,
additional requirements in NPDES permits such as toxicity
reduction evaluations, special monitoring conditions, local
limit development, and pretreatment program modification.
Such requirements are effective in conjunction with NPDES
permit limitations in controlling toxicity. Once controls are
established, their effectiveness should be tracked through
ongoing State monitoring and assessment programs. Subsequent
adjustments to strategies may be required as a result of such
assessments.
2. Submitting Limits and Documentation
Plans containing proposed actions are not adequate substitutes
for NPDES permits as part of an ICS since they are not fully
enforceable and cannot ensure that limitations will be achieved
within the statutory time frames. Enforcement orders and consent
decrees, by themselves, are also not adequate surrogates for
NPDES permits. However, an enforcement order or judicial decree
based on an adequate, effective NPDES permit may be part of an ICS.
a. NPDES Permit Limitations - Technical considerations
in developing control requirements are discussed generally in
Section C below. All necessary NPDES permit limitations must be
achieved by the discharger no later than three years after EPA
approval (i.e., by June 1992). Where construction or other
activities (e.g., wastewater treatment system optimization,
pretreatment program implementation or modification, etc.) are
necessary to comply with effluent limitations within the required
time frames, compliance schedules may be incorporated into
NPDES permits. The more advance notification a discharger has
of the limits which will ultimately need to be met, the greater
the likelihood that controls will be in place within three years
of strategy approval.
-------
- 27 -
Effluent, limitations based upon existing water quality
standards were to be met by July 1, 1977, and cannot be included
in new permit compliance schedules if the discharger's permit
previously required compliance with those standards. Enforce-
ment orders would need to be developed in such cases. It is
important to note, however, that a discharger must have had
a reasonable measure of how a State water quality standard is
interpreted so it could comply with the existing standard.
Effluent limitations based upon newly developed water quality
standards or new interpretations of existing standards may be
covered by compliance schedules in NPDES permits. In addition,
technology-based controls may need to be revised to reflect new
effluent guidelines or other new information on available con-
trols. If these requirements cannot be immediately met, they
may also be covered by permit compliance schedules.
The additional workload presented by these new statutory
requirements will relate directly to the extent to which permit-
ting authorities have already addressed toxics problems. States
which have previously considered these problems and have estab-
lished adequate controls in NPDES permits, may need only to
reexamine impaired segments to ensure that all contributions
from point sources have been adequately addressed and provide
this documentation to EPA. However, States which have not
been active in the area of toxics control may have a considerable
workload as a result of the new statutory provisions.
Permitting authorities typically issue five-year terra
NPDES permits on a staggered basis (i.e., some percentage of
the total number of permits expires each year) in order to
spread workloads as evenly as possible and to avoid backlogs
of expired permits. Incorporating revised permit limitations
into the permits which expire during the period when ICS's
must be developed (February 4, 1987, through February 4, 1989)
is therefore an activity which permitting authorities can
readily accommodate. However, where assessments of waters on
the paragraph (B) list indicate the need for additional controls
for point sources whose permits do not expire during this
period, permitting authorities will be required to reopen,
modify, and reissue these unexpired permits.
Existing performance agreements for permitting authorities
are generally tied to designations of the number of "major"
facilities' the permitting authority is required to control.
A number of factors comprise the "major" definition; all other
facilities are generally referred to as "minor."* As a general
Classification of facilities as "major" or "minor" is based
upon a cumulative "score" of a number of key factors (e.g.,
toxics component, industrial category, discharge flow volume,
etc.). These factors and the basis for the major/minor
classification scheme are currently being examined by a
State-EPA workgroup and may be revised to reflect the
increased emphasis on water quality and toxics control.
-------
- 28 -
principle, final permits, to the extent possible, (with appropriate
limitations and requirements) should be issued as part of the
ICS for all major and significant minor facilities which have
been identified as point sources contributing to toxic impairment
and which need to be controlled through an ICS.
In cases where minor facilities must be controlled in order
for a listed waterbody to meet standards by 1992, final permits,
to the extent possible, should be issued by February 4, 1989.
Permitting authorities may wish to designate such sources as
"major." It may be possible to redesignate minor facilities as
"discretionary majors" or to reclassify them through the permit
classification rating process to become "majors."
The ultimate objective is to ensure that all point sources
identified as requiring control through an ICS are adequately
addressed. The existing definition of "major" should generally
be compatible with that objective. However, where it is not,
the permitting authority must still develop all necessary individual
control strategies.
Wh«ra the permitting authority is a State which is authorized
to administer the NPDES program, the various activities within
the State Agency will need to be closely coordinated from the
standpoint of both data requirements and schedules to ensure
that appropriate permits are developed and the statutory deadlines
are met. For States which are authorized to issue NPDES permits,
EPA Regions will expeditiously review and comment on draft State
permits (as required by State-EPA agreements) as they are issued.
However, EPA will also need to review and approve or disapprove
all State lists and ICS permits upon formal submittal in February
1989. Coordination is also important in the case of States
which are not authorized to administer the NPDES program. The
role of the State agency in such cases will be to supply all
necessary information in support of the permit development
process in accordance with existing State-EPA agreements so
that EPA can issue all permits necessary to fulfill ICS require-
ments by February 4, 1989 (see Sections II.C and V.B).
b. Documentation of Controls - This portion of an ICS
is basically synonymous with the fact sheet portion of the
supporting documentation of the NPDES permit. The NPDES regu-
lations (§124.8(a)) require that a fact sheet be prepared
for every major facility, for permits which incorporate unusual
elements (variances, etc.), and for those of widespread interest.
While the fact sheet requires a brief summary of the basis for
the limitations, a more extensive rationale is typically devel-
oped for the historical record and is strongly encouraged.
Such a rationale can vary in degree of detail in accordance with
the complexity of the situation.
The documentation portion of the ICS will involve a
description of the relevant information from the process of
identifying impaired waters and point sources causing impair-
-------
- 29 -
raent. This information should be incorporated into the rationale
portion of the fact sheet for the NPDES permit. Therefore,
the documentation requirement of the ICS submittal can be satis-
fied by submittal of fact sheets which include or reference
written rationales with the relevant information. The rationale
should include information on the development of any water quality-
based limits, as well as documentation concerning review and
revision (if necessary) of technology-based limits. The following
information should be included in the rationale:
o Water quality standard(s) which served as the basis for
the water quality-based limitations.
o Water quality model which was used to calculate
the limitations and a listing of significant assumptions
and parameters included in the model (if not described
in the State-EPA technical agreement).
o TMDLs and the WLAs which were used.
o Method used to translate WLAs into permit limitations.
o Basis for any new technology-based requirement.
o Parameters limited and the levels of each.
o Rationale for required monitoring frequencies and com-
pliance schedules.
o Any other information necessary to support major or
controversial control requirements.
A cover sheet should also be submitted with the permit docu-
mentation which clearly indicates that the permit and supporting
information are being submitted in partial fulfillment of an
ICS requirement. The cover sheet should include an identifi-
cation of the waterbody (with geographical boundaries) covered
by the ICS. Since an ICS will consist of the controls for all
point sources which are causing impairment of the waterbody, a
complete ICS submittal should include permits and documentation
for all point sources included on the §304(1)(1)(C) list.
Overall assessments of State toxics control programs con-
ducted by EPA Regional offices during FY 88 should help ensure
that permits are developed in accordance with effective and
integrated State toxics control programs. States with full,
effective toxics control programs that are clearly described
in generally applicable regulations, policies, and procedures
should have little difficulty documenting how their permits were
developed. In such cases, detailed explanations of the develop-
ment process for each permit would ordinarily not be required
as part of the ICS submission. The State's process may also
be well documented in a written State-EPA technical agreement
(as described in Section II.C.2) and documented in an EPA review
of the State toxics control program (as described in Sec. II.C.l).
-------
- 30 -
C. Technical Considerations
1. General Approach for Developing ICS's
NPDES permits incorporating all necessary and appropriate
elements should be developed for all point sources which are
identified and listed in accordance with §304(1)(1)(C). Such
permits should be fully adequate under the NPDES program (e.g.,
must address all conventional, nonconventional and toxic pollu-
tants that need control, irrespective of the specific reason
for listing the point source). All NPDES permits must be
issued in accordance with currently applicable regulations
under 40 CFR Parts 122 through 125 and must meet technology-
based requirements as well as water quality-based requirements.
To control pollutants beyond BAT, secondary treatment and
other CWA technology-based requirements, States and EPA should
use an integrated strategy, consisting of both biological and
chemical methods to address toxic, conventional and noncon-
ventional pollutants from industrial and municipal sources.
Where State standards contain numerical criteria for toxic
pollutants, NPDES permits should contain limits as necessary
to assure compliance with these standards. In addition to
implementing specific numerical criteria, EPA and the States
should use biological techniques and available data on chemical
effects to assess toxic impacts based upon State narrative
water quality standards. EPA criteria documents should be
considered in setting limits, along with other relevant data.
Where there is a significant likelihood of toxic effects
to biota in the receiving water, EPA and States may impose permit
limits on effluent toxicity and may require an NPDES permittee
to conduct a toxicity reduction evaluation. Where toxic effects
are present but there is a significant likelihood that compliance
with technology-based requirements will sufficiently mitigate
the effects, EPA and the States may require chemical and toxicity
testing after installation of treatment. Based upon the results
of such testing, the permit may be reopened to incorporate
additional limitations if needed to meet water quality standards.
ICS's should be developed for all point sources on the
paragraph (C) list of point sources. However, new information
gathered during the permit development process may serve as
the basis for delisting decisions (see Sections III.E and
III.J). The discharger may generate additional data to either
refute or confirm the information which caused the point source
to be listed as a significant contributor of §307(a) toxic
pollutants. This information would then serve as the basis
for revising the §304(1) lists.
State water quality goals are based upon consideration of
environmental objectives as well as important social and economic
benefits. As with other permits, there are a number of factors
which can be considered in developing ICS's designed to achieve
-------
- 31 -
State water quality standards. States may exercise their
flexibility in setting requirements to attain standards in
order to maximize environmental benefits while minimizing
control costs wherever possible. In setting compliance schedules
and establishing the scope and frequency of monitoring, permitting
authorities should consider the reasonableness of their actions
by balancing the need for timely, complete information* with
the cost and economic impact on the permittee. It should be
kept in mind! as discussed elsewhere, that in many cases, new
technology-based requirements for previously unregulated toxic
pollutants will be sufficient to meet water quality standards
and obviate the need for additional expenditures. EPA encourages
permitting authorities to select cost effective approaches to
the extent possible.
2. Methods for Developing Controls
Water quality analysts and permitting authorities currently
employ varying types of water quality assessments and permit
limit derivation procedures depending on the specific circum-
stances of the discharger and the waterbody. These techniques
range from simplified wasteioad allocation methods and permit
derivation procedures to more complex techniques. The level
of detail required in ICS preparation should be commensurate
with the situation under consideration, consistent with techni-
cally sound current practices, and in accordance with applicable
requirements under the WQM and NPDES regulations.
a. Compilation of Available Data - As a starting point
for development of NPDES permits, permit writers should gather
all available information, including, but not limited to, the
following (much of this information will be gathered in connection
with the activities described in Section III of this guidance):
o NPDES application.
o discharge monitoring reports.
o facility inspection reports.
o applicable TMDLs/WLAs
o existing nonpoint source controls (including those to
be in place by June 1992).
Where data needed for NPDES permitting decisions are not
readily available, the permitting authority may use one or
more of the following approaches. Limitations can be established
in the absence of extensive effluent characterization information
by using conservative assumptions to calculate effluent levels
which will maintain applicable water quality standards. Alter-
natively, the permitting authority may require the discharger
£<7 generate additional data. Such data collection should
ideally be done prior to permit issuance; however, data gathering
requirements may also be imposed as part of a permit special
condition with a reopener clause to establish appropriate
limitations based upon the data. Additional data may also
serve as the basis for deleting the point source from the
paragraph (C) list. In any case, final limits developed as
-------
- 32 -
part of an ICS must result in achievement of applicable water
quality standards by June 1992.
b. Review of Technology-Based Limitations - The specific
requirements of §304(1) apply only where all required technology-
based controls are or will be inadequate to achieve water quality
objectives. However, a review of technology-based limitations
should be part of an overall toxics control strategy. In some
cases, it may be necessary to revise technology-based limitations
to achieve the BAT-level reductions in point source discharges
of toxic pollutants. Although technology-based limitations
derived from effluent limitation guidelines are relatively
straightforward applications of fixed loading factors, some of
the underlying assumptions in the calculation of such limitations
(e.g., production basis, categorization, etc.) may need to be
reexarained. The objective of such a reexamination is to ensure
that limits are still being appropriately applied to the facility
under consideration and are still reflective of the best available
technology economically achievable. In some cases, new effluent
guidelines have lately become available and may need to be incor-
porated in permits for the first time.
Particular care is needed in evaluating technology-based
limitations which were derived on the basis of a best profes-
sional judgment (BPJ) assessment of BCT/BAT. BPJ limitations
should focus on pollutants discharged from industrial processes
not covered by the guidelines or on pollutants not regulated
by the guidelines. BPJ limitations should be developed for
all pollutants of concern, not just the §307(a) toxic pollutants.
Generally, States and EPA Regions should consider whether
new technology-based toxics control requirements are appropriate
before applying water quality-based requirements. Technology-
based limits are often more readily calculated and documented
than water quality-based limits, and using this approach could
save time and avoid controversy. However, limits may be based
on either technology or water quality or both so long as they
assure standards will be met by June 1992.
c. Protection of Designated Uses - Permit limitations
must be protective of designated uses. Permit writers and
water quality analysts are probably most familiar with developing
limitations which are protective of aquatic life. Aquatic life
may be protected by using criteria for specific chemicals or
by considering the parameter "toxicity", particularly where
point source discharges consist of complex mixtures. EPA has
also published human health criteria on all but a few of the
65 classes of §307(a) toxic pollutants, which have been adopted
by some States to protect designated uses. Applicable standards
must be reflected in permit limits.
As discussed in Section II, the time frames associated
with the statutory requirement to develop new State water quality
standards for toxics under §303(c)(2) overlaps with the §304(1)
-------
- 33 -
deadlines. Where States do not have water quality standards
for specific §307(a) toxic pollutants by February 1989, regulatory
authorities will need to employ interim strategies. One approach
is to use the State's narrative "free from toxicity" standard
and rely on EPA criteria documents for individual chemicals.
In this way, permit limits for individual toxic pollutants may
be developed, where appropriate. The narrative standa'rd will
also serve as the basis for limiting whole effluent toxicity in
appropriate cases.
d. Wasteload Allocation Models - In general/ sophisti-
cated water quality models (e.g., dynamic models) using relatively
complete and accurate data inputs will result in less stringent
limitations than permit limits which are developed utilizing
the output from simple steady state models with minimal data
requirements. More of the variables inherent in the modeling
process are accounted for in the former case and outputs which
are produced tend to be more accurate. Where there are many
sources of uncertainty, conservative assumptions are used
which tend to produce more stringent limitations.
If practical and available, wasteload allocation derivation
using dynamic modeling is preferable. However, unless the
State has the capability to perform dynamic modeling, a steady-
state modeling approach, which may include simple mass balance
calculations in some cases, is recommended. The WLA should con-
sider both acute and chronic toxic effects. In any case, States
have flexibility in the process to allocate wasteloads among
various point and nonpoint sources on an affected waterbody, in
order to maximize environmental benefits while keeping control
costs to a minimum. The EPA Regional Wasteload Allocation
Coordinators should be contacted for more information on con-
ducting wasteload allocations. A list of wasteload allocation
guidance is included in Appendix F.
e. Translating WLAs into Permits - In translating water
quality modeling outputs into NPDES permit limitations, permit
writers need to consider a number of factors. The permit
limits should provide for adequate protection from both acute
and chronic toxicity and should include daily maximum and
monthly average or weekly average values. Of particular impor-
tance in this process are considerations of effluent variablility,
such that effluent limitations are protective against "worst
case" conditions. These factors are described in detail in
the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control and the Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-based
Permitting for Toxic Pollutants.
f. Monitoring Requirements - Establishment of compliance
monitoring requirements for the limitations which are developed
is an extremely important component of the NPDES permit. In
many instances, compliance monitoring requirements for the
various parameters will be derived directly from the permit
limitation development process since the frequency of monitoring
-------
is sometimes factored into the various statistical considerations.
An array of factors needs to be considered when establishing
compliance monitoring requirements, including:
o effluent variability.
o parameter(s) being monitored.
o type of wasteload allocation model used.
o type of wastewater treatment facility.
o compliance history of facility.
o associated costs of monitoring requirements
The permit writer will need to evaluate, on a case-by-case
basis, whether it is appropriate to establish limitations with
compliance monitoring requirements or monitoring requirements
alone with "triggers" for specific actions, depending on the
level of certainty that water quality is being impaired by
toxiclty due to the permittee's discharge. In many cases,
it may be appropriate to require the discharger to conduct
in-stream monitoring to assess receving water impacts, either
to evaluate the effectiveness of control requirements when
they are met or to determine whether controls should be required.
In such cases, inclusion of ambient monitoring requirements in
NPDES permits is strongly encouraged wherever it is reasonable
in the circumstances.
g. Toxicity Reduction Evaluations - One mechanism that
may be used to bring a discharger into compliance with a water
quality-based requirement (either chemical specific or whole
effluent) is a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE). A TRE is
a study conducted to determine what control options are effec-
tive for complying with either toxicity or chemical concentration
requirements. Control measures may include a range of options
and do not necessarily entail the construction of additional
wastewater treatment facilities. Actions taken in a plant to
to reduce or eliminate the generation of toxic wastes may
include product substitution, process changes, and in-process
recycling. Such actions can produce rapid environmental benefits
and can be cost effective for an industrial permittee due to the
use of less expensive materials and decreased potential liability
In most cases, the permittee should be responsible for
conducting a TRE. A TRE can be required at several points:
prior to permit issuance, during the permit term in response
to a monitoring trigger or exceedence of limits, or in response
to an administrative order (e.g., a Federal §308 or §309 order
or a State equivalent). A TRE is not a substitute for permit
limits. A TRE requirement alone, in the absence of permit
limitations or a monitoring trigger, does not provide any
assurance that toxicity reduction objectives will be met.
Permitting authorities should develop reasonable compliance
schedules in conjunction with TREs in cases where compliance
schedules are allowable in connection with a water quality-
based limit (see discussion under Section IV.B.2.a. above).
As noted earlier, controls developed as part of an ICS must
result in achievement of water quality standards by the
statutory deadline of June 1992.
-------
- 35 -
SECTION V. IMPLEMENTATION
A. Schedule for Implementation of §304(1) Requirements
In order to meet the requirements of the Act, States
must submit the necessary information to EPA as described
below. Under the statute, EPA must approve or disapprove the
lists of waters, the identification of sources and pollutants,
and the individual control strategies for each segment on the
list within 120 days after receipt of the information from the
States. EPA will provide States with an opportunity to correct
incomplete or technically inadequate submissions during the
120 day review period. EPA will develop regulations, as
appropriate, to implement the approval/disapproval provisions
of §304(1).
EPA's process for approval and disapproval of State lists
and ICS's will v>a aa aypedifcir>na aa possible under federal
law. Although EPA has not yet established its formal process
for review, adequate opportunity for public participation
in the development, review, and approval/disapproval of lists
and ICS's must be provided. It is possible that State procedures
for public participation can be relied upon by EPA where the
State procedure provides adequate notice and opportunity to
comment on listing and permitting procedures.
Where States fail to submit lists and/or control stra-
tegies, or where EPA disapproves them, EPA must develop these
lists and individual control strategies within one year after
the deadline has passed. In implementing this requirement,
EPA must also consider listing those waters for which any
person submits a petition for listing. Also, it should be
noted that the requirements of §303 (d) for a list of waters
still needing water quality-based controls for toxics and
non-toxics to meet water quality standards was to be submitted
by the States in June 1987 in accordance with the Agency's
Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS).
A schedule for j/mplementing the requirements of §304(1)
is outlined below (see Figure 3):
o States submit preliminary paragraph (A) and (B) lists
of waters, Water Quality Assessment Plans, if applicable,
and lists of discharge sources to EPA as part of their
1988 305(b) report: April 1, 1988.
o States submit final lists of waters, identifications of
discharge sources, identification of pollutants discharged,
and amounts discharged, and individual control strategies
to EPA for review and approval: February 4, 1989.
-------
SURFACE WATER TOXICS STRATEGY IMPUMEtfTATICN SCHEDULE
Action Item
6/87
4/88
2/89
6/89
6/90
6/91
6/92
6/93
States submit lists of waters to EPA
needing water quality-based controls for
toxica and nontoxics (§303(d)).
States submit preliminary lists of
waters and lists of point sources to
EPA as part of their 1988 §305(b) report.
*States submit final lists of waters
and identifications of discharge sources,
pollutants discharged, and individual
control strategies (ICS's) to EPA for
review and approval. EPA Regions conplete
ICS's for non-NPDES States.
*EPA reviews and approves or disapproves
lists of waters, identification of
point sources, and State ICS's.
*If disapproved, EPA develops lists of
waters and individual control strategies.
*Approved State ICS's result in effective
reductions in discharges of toxic pollutants
from point sources to achieve WQ standards
(discharger conpliance deadlines).
*If EPA disapproves a State strategy and
develops the strategy, the strategy
nust show an effective reduction in the
discharge of toxic pollution from point
sources to achieve WQ standards.
(Update vj
a 305(b
waterbody system)
A
A
A.
*NOTE: The starting and ending points shown for these activities are the
allowable statutory dates; these tasks should be conpleted at the earliest
le date.
Start Point
End Point
- 36 -
-------
= 3;
o EPA develops individual control strategies (NPDES permits)
for all States lacking approved NPDES programs:
February 4, 1989.
o EPA reviews and approves or disapproves the lists of
waters and information on specific point source dis-
charges and State individual control strategies:
June 4, 1989.
o EPA develops lists and individual control strategies
where a State fails to submit its lists of waters and
individual control strategies or where EPA disapproves
such submissions: June 4, 1990.
o Once approved, State individual control strategies
must produce a reduction in the discharge of toxic
pollutants from point sources to achieve the applicable
water quality standards (i.e., permittees must comply
with all requirements): no later than June 4, 1992.
o If EPA disapproves a State strategy and develops its
own strategy for the State, controls must result in
achievement of applicable water quality standards:
June 4, 1993.
B. State Responsibilities
The new statutory requirements of §304(1) apply primarily
to States and therefore States are ultimately responsible for
ensuring that the various requirements are met within the
statutory time frames. However, Regions and States will need
to work cooperatively to accomplish the'required objectives.
State-EPA cooperation is particularly important in those
States which are not authorized to administer the NPDES program.
Many States which are not authorized to issue NPDES permits
still perform much of the preliminary work which eventually
leads to NPDES permit issuance by the Regional office. In
addition, §401 of the CWA requires States to certify that
EPA-issued permits will meet State water quality standards.
Cooperative efforts between Regions and States, if effective
and mutually agreeable, should continue under the ICS develop-
ment process and should be referenced in the technical agreement.
C. EPA Responsibilities
As discussed in Section II, a general technical agreement
between EPA Regions and States covering the requirements (both
technical and procedural) for development, review, and approval
of the requisite information should facilitate the process for
both parties. In order to ensure consistency, Regions should
also specify a format for submittals and may wish to employ a
checklist including specific review criteria for lists of
impaired waters, identifications of point sources causing impair-
ment, and individual control strategies. EPA will provide
-------
- 38 -
assistance to the States in carefully reviewing the preliminary
lists of waters and the Water Quality Assessment Plans. Both are
to be submitted to EPA by April 1, 1988. This review will help
assure that the final lists, due by February 4, 1989 will be
as complete and accurate as possible.
Upon receipt of lists of waters and ICS's, EPA should
first screen the subraittal in accordance with the required
format and should contact the State within 30 days with
respect to completeness. If the submittal is incomplete, EPA
should provide the State with an opportunity to supply any
missing information within a reasonable period of time during
the 120 day review period.
After EPA is satisfied that the submittal is complete, it
should be reviewed for technical adequacy. This review may be
expedited where the submission has been prepared in accordance
with a technical agreement. At a minimum, the reviewer needs
to answer the basic questions:
o Are lists of waters and point sources complete?
o Will ICS's result in elimination or reduction of §307(a)
toxic pollutants from the point sources to allow the
applicable standard to be met within 3 years of strategy
approval (i.e., no later than June 4, 1992, where the
State has prepared the strategy)?
In addition, the reviewer needs to ensure that known
sources of toxicity not addressed in connection with §304(1}
requirements will be controlled as soon as possible and be
given the same priority as toxics problems attributable to
§307(a) toxic pollutants.
After reviewing the lists and ICS's for technical adequacy,
Regions should provide States, and may also need to provide the
public, with an opportunity to respond to any deficiencies
which would cause a list or ICS to be disapproved. Resolution
of such issues should occur within the 120 day review period.
EPA will assess a State's overall progress toward implementing
the requirements of §304(1), as well as other relevant statutory
requirements, during the reviews of State toxics control
programs which will be conducted during Fiscal Year 1988.
D. State Revolving Funds
Certain requirements will apply to the initial round of
funding assistance under the newly created State Revolving Funds
(SRFs). However, States will ultimately have substantial flexi-
bility to use their SRF funds to meet new water quality-based
limitations for toxic controls.
-------
- 39 -
E. Technical Assistance
In addition to review and approval/disapproval of lists
of waters, lists of point sources, and ICS's, EPA will provide
technical assistance to States on the various elements of
§304(1) implementation. The various technical assistance
tools that may prove useful in accomplishing the activities
required under §304(1) are listed in the appendices.
F. Public Participation
The States should seek full participation by the public
in listing waters, point source dischargers, specific pol-
lutants, and developing individual control strategies. Between
April 1, 1988, and submission of final lists and ICS's to EPA
by February 4, 1989, States may issue a public notice announ-
cing the availability of the lists and ICS's and requesting
public input into the decision-making process. NPDES regulations
also specify the public participation requirements related to
State permit issuance. Public input should also be encouraged
for commenting on the State's technical agreement with the
EPA Region and on the Water Quality Assessment Plan, where
developed.
As discussed earlier, EPA will consider whether further
public participation may be required when it approves/ disapproves
State lists and ICS's. One important consideration in making
this determination is whether the State has conducted an open
process for public review and comment.
-------
A-
APPENDIX A. REVIEW/APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR STATE TMDL/WLA
-------
REVIEW/APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR STATE TMDL/WLA
B. STATE/EPA AGREEMENT
ON TECHNICAL PROCEDURES
A.
STATE CPP
APPROVED
BY EPA
C. EPA APPRCMBD
LIST OF WATERS,
BY PRIORITY,
STILL NEEDING
TMDLs
D. STATE DEVELOPS TMDLs/
WLAs WHERE NEEDED
E. REGICN MAY ASSIST STATE IN
DEVELOPING TMDLe/WLAs
I
(NOTE: State submits all TMDLe/WLAs
to EPA for review/approval. Where
State CPP is approved by EPA and/or
if State/EPA technical agreement is
in place, EPA may make in-depth review
of a sanple of State TMDLs/WLAa to deter-
mine adequacy of State process. There-
after, a less detailed EPA review of all
other TMDLe/WLAs may be made. "Fact
sheets" for minor permits and AT project
reviews may also be used to review State
WLAs.)
F.STATE ISSUES PUBLIC NOTICE
CN TMDLe/WLAsT HOLDS HEARING
IF WARRANTED. SUBMITS
TO EPA FOR APPROVAL
(NOTE t
Notices and hearings may be held
in conjunction with WQS hearings, hearinc
for permits and construction grants, and
WQM Plan reviews as defined in the State1
CCP.)
NO
YES
H(l). EPA APPROVES TMDL
AS BEING DEVELOPED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SBCTKU
303(d)
H(2). EPA DEVELOPS TMDL/WLA
AND ISSUES PUBLIC NOTICE
SEEKING CCMMENTS. EPA
MAKES REVISIONS AS NEEDED
AND SENDS TO STATE
Source: Guidance on EPA's Review
-1 Approval Procedures for State
niitted TMDLs/ULAs (Monitoring
and Data Support Division, WH-553,
J
I. STATE INCLUDES APPROVED
'P'^AttA INi
A PLAN UPDATE
* NPDES PERMITS
-------
APPENDIX B. AVAILABLE DATA SOURCES
A. EPA Data Systems and Sources
EPA maintains the following water quality-related data base,
containing State and EPA data. Much of this information is
linked together for access using the reach file coding structure
under STORET. Permit Compliance Systems (PCS) data is available
directly through PCS coordinators (located in regions and States)
or through Reach Pile Systems in related pilot project regions
(Regions I, II, III, IV, and V).
These data bases, individually and through linkages that
have been and are being developed, can be very useful in assessing
water quality. For instance, ambient water quality data in the
EPA1s Section 305(b) Waterbody System can be compared with State
water quality standards or EPA water quality criteria quickly to
identify those waterbodies where State standards or national
criteria may have been exceeded.
The Reach File
o Nation's major waterbodies divided into approximately 70,000
individual segments (reaches).
o Reaches assigned numbers/names.
o Locational data includes latitude/longitude, State and county
codes.
o Associated Reach Characteristics File contains physical charac-
teristics for segments in Reach File—slope, elevations,
width, depth, velocity, etc.
o Associated Guage File contains annual mean and low flow and
monthly mean flow estimates.
o Linked to Drinking Water Supply File, giving location of water
supply sources/intakes.
Contact: Bob Horn, Criteria and Standards Division
EPA Headquarters
Phone: FTS 382-7103/ (202) 382-7103
Water Quality File
o Water quality data from about 200,000 stations.
o Locational data for each station— ID No., reach assignment,
latitude/longitude, States/county.
o Data on hundreds of parameters, most common of which
include pH, temperature, DO, solids, nitrogen, metals.
o Information on use impairment from ASIWPCA State's Evaluation
of Progress (STEP) and NPS reports.
o National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) study data.
-------
B-2
Contact: STORET Customer Support
Office of Information Resources Management
EPA Headquarters
PTS 382-7220 or (800) 424-9067
(Note: Until recently, STORET and the Water Quality File were
synonymous, but STORET is now becoming a much broader system
linking a number of EPA databases.
Industrial Facilities Discharge File (IFD)
o Data on 60,000 industrial and municipal discharges.
o Industrial SIC codes, reach assignments, effluent data.
o Information on direct discharges to POTWs.
o Industrial status sheets.
Contact: Phil Taylor
OWRS, Monitoring and Data Support Division
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-7046/ (202) 382-7046
NPDES Permit Application Data
Permit Compliance System
o Records on 65,000 NPDES permits
o Locational data on permitted facilities, including link to
Reach File.
o Pollutant-specific discharge limits.
o Data from Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs).
o Automatic detection of violations of effluent limits.
o Special feature of link to STORET provides estimates of
effluent dilution ratios (average or low stream flow)
Contacts Larry Reed
OWEP, Enforcement Division
EPA Headquarters
FTS 47S-8373/ (202) 475-8373
Phil Taylor (PCS/STORET/link)
BIOS
o Data on the distribution, abundance, and condition of aquatic
organisms, including fish tissue analysis.
o Descriptions of habitat at sampled sites—-substrate type,
streambank stability, canopy type.
o Can generate diversity indices and community structure analyses
o Will incorporate CETIS (see below)
-------
B--3
Contact: Barbara Lamborne
Office of Information Resources Management
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-7220/ (202) 382-7220
Complex Effluent Toxicity Information System (CETIS)
o Data from whole effluent toxicity tests.
Contact! David Eng
OWEP, Permits Division
EPA Headquarters
PTS 475-9S22/ (202) 475-9522
Fish Kill Reports
o Fishery trends data.
o Known commercial fishery impacts.
Contact: Nina Harllee
OWRS, Monitoring and Data Support Division
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-7056/ (202) 382-7056
Section 305(b) Waterbody System
o Computerized system of recording information needed to prepare
305(b) reports.
o Correlated with Reach File segments.
o Contains assessment data, including types(s) and magnitude
of impairment, categories of point and nonpoint sources.
Contact: Bruce Newton
OWRS, Monitoring and Data Support Division
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-7056/ (202) 382-7056
STQRET Nonpoint Source Stream Station File
o Data on 700 stations from 22 States estimated to be primarily
impacted by NPS.
o STORET number, river reach number, State, county.
o Relative contribution of NPS in wet and low flow conditions
of nine general pollutant types.
Contact: Steve Dressing
OWRS, Criteria and Standards Division
Nonpoint Sources Branch
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-7110/ (202) 382-7110
-------
B-4
B. Other EPA Data Sources
Regional Priority Wetlands Lists
o Lists of most valuable (productive, unique) and vulnerable
wetlands in each EPA Region.
o Prepared by EPA Regional Offices.
Contacts Office of Wetlands Protection
EPA Headquarters
PTS 3S2-7496/ (202) 382-7496
Discharge Monitoring Reports
o Chemical and biological data generated by NPDES permittees.
Dioxin Study and Bioaccumulation Study results
Contact: Steve Kroner (WH-553)
MDSD, EPA Headquarters
PTS 382-7071/ (202) 382-7051
Guidance on Identifying Sediment Enriched Lakes Using Landsat
(under development)
o Will explain how to use Landsat imagery to identify and
rank sediment enriched lakes.
Contacts Ken Adler
Office of Policy Analysis
EPA Headquarters
FTS 382-275S/ (202) 382-2755
C. Department of Interior Data Sources
Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE)
o Managed by USGS.
o Water quality data for 5,000 sampling stations.
o Data on peak and daily flows from some 8,000 stations.
o Incorporates NASQAN data base.
(Notes all water quality data from WATSTORE included in STORET)
-------
National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX)
o Managed by USGS.
o Listing of all organizations nationwide collecting water data,
o Master Water Index provides information on about 400,000
data collection sites.
Contact: Owen Williams
Water Resources Division
D.S.G.S.
Reston, VA
(703) 648-5684
National Wetlands Inventory (partially completed)
o Managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
o Computerized mapping scheme for entire country.
o Vegetation data--3500 wetlands species.
o Ecological community types.
o Classification according to wetlands types. _
Contact: Bill Wilen/Tom Dahl
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Nationwide Rivers Inventory
o Developed by National Park Service.
o List of over 1,500 river segments (around 62,000.miles)
thought to have sufficient natural or cultural attributes
to qualify for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System,
except for those already in System or officially-designated
candidate rivers.
Contact: Glen Eugster
Division of Park and Resource Planning
National Parks Service
Philadelphia, PA
(215) 597-7386
Endangered Species Information System (ESIS)
o Covers species listed under federal Endangered Species Act
o Official status (endangered, threatened)
o Factors contributing to present status
o Habitat types with which species associated
o Present/past location by county/state
o Watersheds/subunits where found
o Counties/states with designated critical habitat
-------
B-6
Contact: Michael J. Hein
Office of Endangered Species
Department of Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
(703) 235-2760
Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
o List of all National Wildlife Refuges and other lands under
the control of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Contact: Division of Realty
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 653-7650
National Natural Landmarks Program (National Park Service)
o A register of significant natural areas which illustrate
the diversity of the natural heritage of the U.S.
o Maps of area.
o Information on ecological and geological characteristics.
o Information on threats.
Contact: Hardy Pearce
National Register Division
National Park Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-9525
Land Use and Data Analysis (USGS)
o Reports land use by 40 different land use types for entire
USA
o Most data is from middle 1970'a
o Data based on LANDSAT satellite imagery
Contact: National Cartographic Information Center
USGS, Reston, Virginia
(703) 648-6045
-------
B-7
Inventory of Private Recreation Facilities
o Inventory of private recreation facilities
o Data reported by State, county and town
Contact: Paul Solomon
National Park Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated
Recreation
o Includes fishing and hunting information on expenditures, times
use, location and socio-economic characteristics
o Covers non-consumptive wildlife recreation
Contact: Michael Bay
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-4902
D. National Oceanic, and Atmospheric Administration
National Estuarine Inventory
o Covers 92 major estuaries
o Data on estuary dimensions, drainage area, stratification
classification, freshwater inflow rates, flow rations, and tides
o Land use information for 25 categories of land use
o Computerized database
Contact: Dan Basta
NOAA
Washington, D.C.
(202) 443-8843
National Coastal Wetlands Database
o Type and extent of coastal wetlands by estuary
o Based on statistical sample of 3000 National Wetland
Contact: Dan Basta
NOAA
(202) 443-8843
National Shellfish Register
o Classifies shellfish beds according to water qualiity and
productivity
o Historical data available for some areas
Contact: Dan Basta (See above)
-------
Shoreline Characterization
o Characterizes estuarine shoreline according to eight
shoreline types, and dredging activities
o Shoreline type is reported on color coded NOAA nautical charts
Contact* Dan Basta (See above)
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory
o Comprehensive database of pollutant discharges entering
estuarine waters
o Source categories include point sources, nonpoint sources,
upstream sources, oil and gas operations, dredging operations
and accidental spills
o Computerized database
Contacts Dan Basta (See above)
E. Other Federal Data Sources
National Resources Inventory (Soil Conservation Service Department
of Agriculture)
o National survey based on 160 acre units.
o Data on land use, conservation practices, soil type, erosion.
Contacts Jeff Gable
Soil Conservation Service
U.S.D.A
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 447-4530
Land Areas of the National Forest System (U.S. Forest Service)
o Organized by State and county.
o Includes information on designated wilderness areas,
primitive areas, recreation areas, wildlife preserves.
Contacts Forest Service
Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 235-8105
Recreation Information Management System
o Recreational facilities and areas in National Forest System.
o Data on types of recreation, visitor days, participation
by activity.
Contacts Gene Welsch
Recreation Management Division
U.S. Forest Service
Washington, D.C. 20250
-------
P. Other Data Sources
State Natural Heritage Programs
o Designed to identify elements essential to preservation of
biological diversity.
o Inventories on existance and location of rare and endangered
plants and animals.
o Inventories on unique plant communities, aquatic systems.
o Over half the States have such programs, developed in
cooperation with The Nature Conservancy.
Contact: State Natural Heritage Program Office in your State
Priority Aquatic Sites for Biological Diversity Conservation
(The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA)
o Listing, by State, of waters containing key elements of
biological diversity.
Contact: Bob Chipley
The Nature Conservancy
1800 North Rent St.
Arlington, VA 22209
(202) 841-5300
Breeding Bird Survey (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Greg Butcher
607-255-4999)
o Census of 200 species by county
o Historical data available
Socio-Economic Environmental Demographic Info. System (Deane Merril,
Lawrence Berkeley Lab,Department of Energy 415-486-5063)
o Collection of socio-economic, environmental, demographic and
health related data bases
o Covers geographic regions ranging from nation to minor civil
divisions
o Computerized data base updated annually
Contact: Deane Merril
Lawrence Berkeley Lab
State 305(b) Reports
Contact: Individual State Offices
-------
e-i
APPENDIX C. ROUTING AND GRAPHICAL DISPLAY SYSTEM
The Routing and Graphical Display System (RGDS) is a
computer based tool to aid in the analysis of water quality.
It currently includes a pollutant routing and analysis'system
capable of computing instream pollutant concentrations based
on the transport of pollutants from dischargers located on
streams, and summarizing the results in a variety of tabular
and graphical displays. RGDS uses EPA's Reach File which
serves as a common mechanism for accessing multiple data bases,
especially the Industrial Facilities Discharger (IFD) File, and
other files which have been related to the Reach File.
Originally written as a batch oriented, fixed format input
system, RGDS has been modified to operate in a STORET-like
environment. STORET, EPA's widely used system for storing and
retreiving water quality data, utilizes a free format input
system composed of keywords and associated values. RGDS has
been modified to use this type of input and to interface with
tne STORET SCAN program for job submittal and error identification,
This implementation of RGDS both simplifies the use of the system
and also utilizes a format with which the large STORET user base
is familiar.
A wide range of analysis and display options have been
constructed under the RGDS umbrella. Those applications which
potentially have the widest appeal have been implemented under
this STORET-like environment. Other applications, not supported
under the new format, will continue to be available for
non-routine or research application under the original format.
It is anticipated that additional applications will be brought
under the RGDS-STORET umbrella to broaden the capabilities in
the area of water quality management.
EPA Contact
For additional information, contact Phillip Taylor,
Monitoring and Data Support Division (WH-553), 401 M. St. SW. ,
Washington, DC. 20460.
-------
D-l
APPENDIX D. SECTION 301(h) DILUTION MODELS
The following computer models are available on EPA1s
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection data system and are
described in OMEP's ODES User's Guide; Supplement A,
Description and Use of Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES)
Tools (Draft, September, 1986). EPA contract number 68-01-
6938, TC-395302.
1) Initial Dilution Models
- PLUME
- DK PLUME
- LINE
Information on these models can be obtained from:
Mr. Donald Baumgartner
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Batford Marine Science Center
Newport, Oregon 97365
2) Disposition Model: (D-CAL). This is a field fate model
of particulates and other contaminants from point sources.
The model predicts areal distribution at given depths in the
water and on the bottom (two-dimentional feature). For more
information on this model, please contact EPA1s Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection.
-------
E-l
APPENDIX E. THE REACH FILE
The Reach Pile is a digital data base of streams, lakes,
reservoirs, and estuaries divided into segments called "reaches."
Each of the 70,000 reaches is uniquely identified by a'reach
number. The data available from the file includes stream names,
open water names, stream and shoreline traces, and mileage infor-
mation. In the File, reaches are referenced to each other in a
special manner making it possible to traverse upstream and down-
stream through the nation's rivers and open waters while scanning
other data bases for any reach-indexed data along the traversal
path. Of particular importance is the reach indexing that has
been established in other EPA data bases on NPDES discharges,
stream gages, and drinking water supplies.
Software for performing Reach File traversals developed by
EPA's Monitoring and Data Support Division, Water Quality Analysis
Branch (and other offices within EPA), provides extensive oppor-
tunities to store, retrieve, analyze, and interact with many
water resources data bases in common with the Reach File. The
Nonpoint Sources Branch, in cooperation with the Soil Conservation
Service, is preparing a screening tool which will combine reach
traversal capabilities with data on nonpoint sources, agricultural
land use, point sources, precipitation, and other information to
help relate nonpoint sources to water quality problems and NFS
controls.
The Reach File contains several record types. The reach
structure provides the power to traverse upstream and downstream
while providing stream names, etc., as discussed above. The
reach trace provides the pictorial data for making plots of the
surface waters represented in the file. The cataloging unit
characteristics contains basin-wide data (such as precipitation
and landform data) for the USGS Cataloging Units in the United
States. The reach characteristics contains information about
the natural properties or prevalant conditions of each reach,
such as stream flow and elevation. This record type is being
expanded to include water temperature and other data to aid in
the analysis of toxic pollutants. Finally, the open water body
characteristics contains data on whole water bodies, including
lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries. Surface area, depth, volume,
dam height, tide data, and other information will be made available
from this record type.
A map of all the reaches in the Reach File, as of July 1,
'986, is shown on the next page. Several hundred new reaches
will be added in each State under a major update of the file
which is currently underway and should be completed by FY 89.
For more detail on the Reach File, contact Robert Horn or
Phillip Taylor, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
-------
E-2
-------
LIST OF FINAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
1. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocation - Book II Streans and
Rivers - Chapter 1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Ocyqen
2. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocation - Book II Streams and
Rivers - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication impact
3. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocation - Book II Streans and
Rivers - Chapter 3 Toxic Substances
4. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations - Simplified Analytical
Method for Determining NPDES Effluent Limitations for POIWs Discharging into Low-Flow
Streans
5, Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocation - Book IV Lakes and
Impoundments - Chapter 2 Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts
6. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocation - Rook IV Lakes and
Impoundments - Chapter 3 Toxic Substances Impacts
7. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocation - Book VI Desrjn
Conditions - Chapter 1 Stream Design Flow for Steady-State Modeling
°. Technical Guidance Manual for Performirq Wasteload Allocation - Book VII Permit
Averag ing
9. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants
in Surface and Ground water (Parts I and II)
10. Technical Support Document for Water Oual ity-Qased Toxics Control
11. Handbook - Stream Sampling for Wasteload Allocation Applications
LIST OF DRAFT GUIDANCE DOCUMEtTTS
1. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocation - Book I General Guidance
2. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waisteload Allocation - Book I General
Guidance - Appendix Volume Annotated Bibliography of Wasteload Allocation -
Related Documents
3. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocation - Book III Estuaries
4. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocation - Selecting Estuarine
Models
Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations - Book VI Design
Conditions - Chapter 2 Design Temperature
6. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations - Book VI Design
Conditions - Chapter 3 Design pH
------- |