•*.
*
1.
/ y
, 7S« ;f&.
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Mail code 320)
1200 Pennsylvania Av^yf NW
"
o
ASSESSMENT OF STATE NEEDS
FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
IN NPDES PERMITTING
program Evaluation Division
April 25, 1984
U.S. Environmental..Protection
Library. *o°™ 2?"^^.
401 M Street,"S-^;/
Washington, DC '
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary-,.
Chapter I
Background to Study and State Summaries
Chapter II
Some Comments on EPA's Past and Present
Technical Assistance
Chapter1 III
Technical Problems and Needs Identified.
by States
Chapter IV
Summary and Conclusions
Program Team;
Rebecca Barclay, Project Manager
Donna Fletcher
LaVerne Little
Steve Vineski
Arthur Weissman
Davirt Ziegele
-------
Executive Summary
This pilot study surveyed the technical problems six
delegated States are facing in writing permits under the National
Pollutant Discharge. Elimination System (NPDES) and identified
examples of technical assistance that States suggested EPA could
provide to ameliorate some of these problems. The six States
which were included in this survey are Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
and Delaware in Region III; and Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan in
Region V*
Water Quality and BPJ-Based Limits Are Most Problematic
Although States most often write effluent limitations on the
basis of national technology-based regulations (Effluent Limitations
Guidelines}, most of their technical problems occur with limitations
based either on Water Quality standards or on Best Professional
Judgment. Effluent Limitations Guidelines provide -a more secure
technical and legal basis than the other types of permit limits,
which are very resource-intensive and susceptible to legal challenge,
States Have Unmet Needs for Technical Assistance
Despite an on-going technical assistance program in E:?A,
delegated States have unmet needs for technical assistance. The
likely explanation for these unmet technical needs are that there
are problems for which EPA has not provided technical assistance,
or else that States did not receive, use, or benefit from the
assistance that is available for such problems.
Technical Problems Arise in Three Major Areas
The important technical problem areas identified by states
include treatability and control technologies, water quality impact
analysis, and environmental and health effects. Control of toxic
and non-conventional pollutants, particularly organic chemicals,
is a problem that cuts across all three of these areas. Among the
specific problems in these areas are the following: lack of
information on treatment processes or controls for particular
pollutants, knowing how to do realistic water quality modeling of
toxics and non-conventionals, obtaining site-specific water quality
and hydrologic data, evaluating impacts on aquatic biota or human
health, and testing for acute and chronic aquatic toxicity.
-------
StatesSuggest SimilarForms of Technical Assistance
For many of these technical problems States share common
views about the forms of assistance that may be beneficial.
The most commonly cited forms of assistance are clearinghouses
for technical information, such as on treatability or toxicology;
EPA technical experts, such as industry experts or lexicologists;
tools for problem-solving, such as .water quality modeling
programs adaptable to small computers; and training for overall
capability, such as workshops on toxic impact evaluations.
The appropriate form depends on the nature of the technical
problem and the goals of the assistance.
Technical Assistance Must Be Approached Systematically
*
For any technical assistance program it is essential to
communicate with States about their needs/ to evaluate the
effectiveness of past technical assistance, and to build on
known successes. In these ways the most important technical
problems affecting environmental protection can be targeted
and the appropriate forms of technical assistance can be
determined.
Technical Assistance Can Improve State Permit Programs
The benefits to be expected from technical assistance are
faster permit issuance and better quality permits, but technical
assistance will not necessarily reduce the permit backlog by FY
1985. The expected result of ameliorating technical problems in
permit writing is ultimately to produce more environmentally
sound effluent limitations that will better protect the environment,
However, States need more resources to reduce the backlog of
permits they now face.
Technical Assistance Cannot Resolve All State Problems
Technical assistance is not the only action needed from EPA
to resolve technical problems in NPDES permitting. In particular,
establishing national policies in important technical problem
areas, such as guidelines for Best Available Technology that are
lacking for certain primary and secondary industries, is necessary
to create a framework for managing many technical problems. Also,
some States face serious management, personnel, or administrative
problems for which assistance may be desirable.
-------
CHAPTER I
BACKGROUND TO STUDY AND STATE SUMMARIES
A. Introduction
The Program Evaluation Division (PED) conducted a pilot
study of technical assistance needs of six States delegated
responsibility for issuing permits under the .National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. This project was
an outgrowth of the findings of the State/Federal Roles Task Force
(September 1983) concerning the importance of technical assistance
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to delegated States.
The pilot study* requested by the Deputy* Administrator, was designed
to collect information about technical problems delegated States
are facing in writing NPDES permits and their views about technical
assistance the EPA could provide to ameliorate those problems.
PED also asked a few exploratory questions about possible assistance
from EPA with the administrative and management functions of the
NPDES permitting program in delegated States.
Throughout this study, PED worked with the Technical Support
Branch of the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits and the
Permits Section of the Water Management Divisions in Regions III
and V. The study findings are relevant mainly to their work.
However, the examples of technical problems States identified and
the technical assistance they suggested relate to the work of
other units of EPA responsible for helping to implement the NPDES
permitting program, for example, the Office of Water Regulations
and Standards and the Office of Research and Development.
Concurrent with PED's study of States' needs for technical
assistance, the Office of the Comptroller conducted an inventory
of EPA resources and activities currently involved in technical
assistance. The results of this inventory are presented in a
separate report, "Technical Assistance Activities in Selected
Offices Under the NPDES Permit Program," and are not discussed
explicitly in this report.
This report shows technical problem areas identified by States
where technical assistance needs are apparently unmet. It describes
the types of assistance States believe would be useful in the future
and suggests actions to strengthen the provision of technical
assistance under the NPDES program.
The focus of this report on States' technical problems is
not meant to imply that these are the only problems or even the
most important problems affecting the writing of NPDES permits.
-------
1-2
Some States in this survey see resource and management problems
as more important in affecting implementation of the permitting
program. Other States view EPA's performance of oversight as far
more problematic and troublesome than technical.problems themselves,
and they would rather discuss the Agency's oversight practices
than technical assistance. Nevertheless, technical problems and ;
technical assistance are an important aspect of the NPDES program,
and because they are the focus of this report these other problems
will not be discussed in any detail.. *
Technical assistance is a dependent activity of EPA, not an
end in itself. EPA's technical assistance activities derive from
national program direction and policies: without clear national
policies and goals, effective provision of technical assistance is
difficult to achieve. Because all of the States in the study
raised important concerns about national program direction and the
lack of specific policies in key areas of the permitting program,
we have included the States' recommendations on policy decisions
needed to provide a framework for managing and resolving technical
problems in permitting.
B. Scope and Results ofPilot Study
FED designed this pilot study to test the feasibility of
assessing the technical assistance needs of a few States in one
major program. This approach required identifying the relevant
information; developing a method of collecting the data; testing
this method and analyzing the data; reporting on the results to
the Office of Water and the Deputy Administrator; and evaluating
the pilot study. This report contains the results of the study.
pED's evaluation of the study method will be presented to the
Deputy Administrator in a separate paper subsequent to issuing
this report in final form.
The scope of the project reflects three basic decisions.
The .first was to define the term "technical assistance" to refer
to information, tools, or capability of a scientific, engineering,
or .technological nature provided by EPA to a State for the manage-
ment of a problem for which the State is primarily responsible.
A key feature is that the State uses such assistance voluntarily.
Attachment A contains the complete definition of technical
assistance that we used in this study.
The second decision was to select a major program that many
States are directly administering (i.e., where States have been
delegated the program), where large workloads exist, where there
was a history or record of technical assistance from EPA, and
where EPA had been directly administering the program in the past.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System {NPDES)
permitting program met these criteria. Because of time constraints,
pretreatment was'not included.
-------
I .- 4
FED used written questionnaires mailed to respondents in
six States, and then interviewed the respondents. The purpose
of the follow-up interviews was to clarify the written responses
in the questionnaires. In some cases this resulted in a more
in-depth discussion of the technical problem area and suggested * :':
assistance than was provided on the questionnaire. However,
the findings of the study are taken primarily from the written V
questionnaires. Wherever interviews produced useful illustrations
or specific examples cf a technical problem, we have incorporated
them into the findings. ;
Although we included permitting of both municipal and industrial
sources, most of the technical problem areas concern permitting
of industrial sources. However, problems with effluent limitations
based on water quality standards affect both industrial and
municipal sources. For example, one State has many municipal
sources on water quality-limited stream segments. In that State,
technical problems associated with the use of water quality.
standards are affecting the municipal permitting and compliance
program and decisions on advanced waste treatment requirements.
In the recommendation that States made about future technical
assistance, they addressed the substance of the assistance but
not how or by whom it should be provided. It is EPA's management
responsibility to decide what action steps would be necessary to
meet some or all of the needs outlined in this report. Whatever
these actions may be, consultation with States before and during
the. planning stages will significantly contribute to the effectiveness
of future technica^ assistance. . .
C. Summaryof StateNPDES Permit Programs
This section provides some background on the NPDES permit
programs of the six States we surveyed in order to give a context
for the technical assistance needs they have identified.
The six states were selected from two EPA regions: West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware from Region III; Ohio, Indiana,
and Michigan from Region V. All of these States have delegated
NPDES permit programs — four were delegated between 1973 and
1975, one in 1979, and one as recently as 1982. Although all
the States lie in the eastern half of the country, they are
geographically and economically diverse: they include an Atlantic
coastal State, two Great Lakes States with a mix of light and
heavy industries, a mid-western agricultural State, and two
mountainous States with coal mining and associated industries.
The following sub-sections discuss the present and anticipated
workload of the six States, the resources they have devoted to
NPDES permit writing, and the organization and structure of
their programs.
-------
1-5
Overall WorkloadStable But Majors Will increase
The total number of permits confronting the six states is
fairly stable over the period py 1983 to 1985. Although there
are cyclical fluctuations due to permit expirations and occasional
surges in minor permits, the average number of permits per State
per, year is expected to remain near the FY ?.983 level of between
.two and three hundred. The actual number of permits written by
the States ranged from 39 to 426 in FY 1983. Except for coal
mines, new issuances represent a small proportion of the workload.
The recent and anticipated workload does, however, reveal
some substantial fluctuations over the period FY 1983 to 1985
when considered in terms of the types of sources being permitted.
These types include municipal majors and minors, industrial
majors and minors, and "others".! The percentage of both
municipal and industrial majors is expected to increase three
to four-fold over the period, with each kind of major
reaching a level of about 15% of the workload. Municipal
minors fluctuate broadly while industrial minors will decrease
".steadily from about half of the workload in 1983 to one-third
in 1985. Overall, weighting each year's percentage by the
number of permits in that year, the average workload for the
period is comprised about 40% of industrial minors, 25% of
municipal minors, 20% of "others", and 10% or less each of
municipal and industrial majors.
_: Although they constitute-a small percentag~e of the overall
number of permits, municipal and industrial majors present
problems and complexities that demand a disproportionate share
of a state's resources. Industrial majors.are especially
burdensome because of the potential for complex toxic discharges.
.On the average, states incorporate effluent limitations
for toxic pollutants in better than half of the permits they
write. However, the kind of toxics they consider varies; for
.example.,- ,one State considers only heavy metals, cyanides,
;phenolsy; and non-organics. Also, some States are only beginning
to gear up for the broader range of toxics (including the
priority pollutants and others), while others indicate that
their workload in toxics varies directly with the number of
industrial permits. . ;
The effluent limitations written in permits consist
primarily of one of three different types, each with varying
.demands on a State's resources. There are limitations based
on promulgated Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG); those
based on Water Quality Standards (WQS), where ELG or municipal
.secondary controls are not sufficient to meet such standards;
and those based on Best Professional Judgment (BPJ), where
there are no applicable ELG and no indication of a violation
of Water Quality Standards.
-------
1-6
The States surveyed in this study use effluent limitations
based primarily on ELG more frequently than the other limit types
for both toxic and conventional pollutants. Limitations based
primarily on WQS are next most frequent for both kinds of
pollutants, while BPJ-type limitations are uniformly the least
frequently used by these States. Little change is expected by .
these States in the relative frequency of the permit limit types.
Limitations based primarily on BPJ or WQS are considered
the most problematic by the States surveyed. BPJ-based limitations
require an excessive amount of time in order to become familiar
with treatment technologies and to gather the information necessary
to set limits that are defensible; consequently, many of the
States deliberately avoid doing BPJ-based limitations and wait
for ELG to be promulgated. WQS-based limitations are similarly
resource-intensive: States must collect and analyze data on the
receiving waters, develop Water Quality standards appropriate to
the site, and perform modeling or wasteload allocations. Having
usable Water Quality Standards in place facilitates the process
but does not eliminate the need to do other site-specific work,
including modeling.
In contrast to the ad hoc nature of most limitations based
on BPJ or WQS, those based on ELG are more generally accepted by
industry and therefore more defensible. In addition, ELG have
the sanction of EPA, giving States more confidence when using
them as the basis for a permit limit-
»,* ^in, yj.vj.ng states mo:
them as the basis for a permit limit.
Staff Resources To
The number of personnel and work-years these States have
available for handling their permit writing workload is projected
to remain stable over the near future. In FY 1984 the number
of permit writers2 ranges from two to sixty-five, while the
number of work-years (the time actually spent by these permit
writers) ranges from two to seventeen. Four States anticipate
no changes in these resources in the next few years, while two
States expect small increases. This relative constancy partly
reflects the workload, but many States are also under budgetary
constraints that limit their resources. One State indicated a
need for 7-8 additional permit writers (a 25% increase) in order
to handle its workload.
The experience of these permit writers varies with the kind
of pollutant and type of effluent limitation involved. For
writing limitations for toxic pollutants at the level of Best
Available Technology (BAT) or more stringent Water Quality
Standards, about a third of the permit writers who responded
indicated that they have much experience (roughly 3-7 years}
-------
I'- 7
while nearly half indicated they have little or none. In
terms of types of limitations for toxic pollutants, these
permit writers have the most experience in doing ELG-based
limitations (over a third have much experience), followed by
WQS-based (one quarter have much experience). They are least
experienced in doing limitations for toxics based on BPJ
(about a half have little or no experience), partly because
they have avoided doing BPJ limitations.
The experience of these permit writers in doing various
limitations for conventional pollutants is similar. Again,
they are most experienced in writing ELG-based limitations
(over half have much experience), and least experienced in
doing BPJ-based (over a third have little or no experience).
State Organizations Var
in Structure and Permit
The six States surveyed vary markedly in the degree of
centralization of their programs and in the specialization of
permit writing responsibilities.
The range of centralization and specialization in the
survey sample is illustrated by two of the States. One has a
decentralized program to better suit the geographic distribution
of the State's sources (heavy industry in one area, mining in
another). Each of its five district offices does permit writing,
compliance monitoring, and technical support, while permit
writers are responsible for numerous functions, including
drafting permits, developing limitations, and doing both
compliance and enforcement. The central office has a primarily
managerial and administrative role. In contrast, in another
State the program is highly centralized and specialized. All
permit writing takes place at the State capital. Permit writers
primarily coordinate the drafting of permits and do not develop
limitations or perform other functions. Technical support such
as doing wasteload allocations is provided by other offices.
Of the six States surveyed, four have centralized programs
and four require their permit writers to perform major functions
other than permit writing. In addition, in four States permit
writing is specialized according to the type of source; generally,
permit writers in such States are divided between municipal and
industrial, but there are often further specializations by
industrial category, and in one case there is an entire section
devoted just to coal mining.
-------
I '- 8
Footnotes
1. The operational definitions are as follows:
A municipal major discharges at least one million gallons
:•..- per day or serves a community of at least 10,000 people.
.Minors are the remaining dischargers. • -
An industrial major is defined by a formula that assigns
certain weights according to the magnitude of the following
factors: toxic pollutant potential, plant and stream discharge,
conventional pollutants, potential for public health impacts,
and water quality limitations. Ratings above a certain
level are majors, others are minors.
"Others" comprise primarily minor coal mines in two States.
Region V uses the classification of "significants" as a subset
of majors to distinguish them from those for non-contact
cooling water.
2. The number of permit writers indicated does not reflect all
the resources devoted to permit writing. The term "permit
writer" is used generally to refer to the person who develops
effluent limitations and incorporates them into a permit.
In at least one State, however, permit writers are so specialized
that they merely incorporate into a permit limitations that
are developed by another office. The numbers do not include
administrative or technical support for permit writers,
nor other activities (e.g., compliance, enforcement) to which
a permit writing staff may devote its time.
>
\
-------
CHAPTER II
SOME COMMENTS ON EPA'S PAST AND PRESENT
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Not all of the technical problems and needs identified in
this study are necessarily new or unknown to EPA. In fact, EPA
has provided technical assistance in a number of the problem areas
to be discussed in the next chapter. To fully appreciate the
technical problems States face, it is important to understand that
they occur in the context of an on-going technical assistance
program which is intended to address such problems.
In this chapter several of the major forms and examples of
EPA's recent technical assistance activities will be discussed as
a way of providing this context. This is not intended as a compre-
hensive inventory of the technical assistance EPA provides (which
is provided in the report of the Office of the Comptroller), nor
is it a formal evaluation of these activities and products either
by the surveyed states or by this project team. Rather, in the
course of the study of present and future needs States were asked
a few questions about past technical assistance in order to provide
some background for the study, and their comments and evaluations
are useful for understanding the present status of States' problems
and needs.
The technical assistance EPA has provided in the NPDES program
covers a wide range of subject areas and a number of different
forms. The areas include treatability and control technologies,
industrial processes, economic achievability, self-monitoring,
toxicity testing, toxicity reduction evaluation, water quality-based
toxics limitations, effluent guidelines, Best Management Practices,
and Best professional Judgment. The forms in which the assistance
has been delivered include technical manuals, technical support or
guidance documents, site surveys, consultation, expert assistance,
workshops, computer programs, contractor.assistance, and others.
Four particular forms or examples of EPA technical assistance
received the most comments by the States we surveyed and will be
discussed briefly below — the Treatability Manual, Effluent
Limitations Guidelines Workshops, consultation, and contractor
assistance.
Treatability Manual Must Be Made More Usable
The Treatability Manual, which is now in its second edition,
is a compendium of available information on the "priority" toxic
pollutants put together by the Effluent Guidelines Division and
the Office of Research and Development. It. contains several
large volumes covering physical, chemical, biological, and treat-
ability data on these toxic pollutants; descriptive information
-------
II - 2
on numerous industrial categories; and performance data on various
treatment technologies. A volume giving cost estimates for
these technologies was withdrawn from the second edition but
will be reissued upon completion. A User's Guide is provided to
give cross references and other aids in using the different
parts of the manual.
Although the States we surveyed agree on the need for this
information, most find the Treatability Manual to be difficult
to use and inadequate in its present form. The organization of
the manual is considered too complicated, even though a User's
Guide has been prepared to facilitate usage. Also, States are
concerned that while abundant information is given, it is not
always specific enough and its source and reliability are uncertain.
Other comments are that there is insufficient information on
technical design; that achievement ranges are too broad and
overlapping to allow determination of best technology; that some
removal efficiencies appear to be suspect; and that there is no
cost information.
Several suggestions were offered by States for improving
the Treatability Manual. The material could be organized by
chemical and by industry with cross-referencing and indexing so
that specific information can be easily found (this is the intended
purpose of the User's Guide). Also, the manual could focus more
fundamentally on the principles of treatment technology, describing
what kinds of pollutants a particular technology will address;
this would foster a better understanding of treatability and
allow writers to deal with problems not specifically covered in
the manual.
Effluent Limitations Guidelines Workshops Are Useful But Could
Be More Substantive
EPA has held a series of workshops around the country as
a means of educating State permit writers about newly promul-
gated Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG). Coordinated by an
EPA contractor, the workshops generally include presentations
by staff involved in the development of a guideline, discussion
by State personnel of specific permit cases, and a question and
answer session. The workshops attended by the states we surveyed
include those for coal mining, steam electric, metal finishing,
copper forming, and iron and steel ELG.
States generally feel that although they can be useful
the workshops devote too much time to procedural aspects of
the regulations and not enough to their substance or applicability.
Much of the information provided in the workshops is already
contained in the relevant development document. However, the
States find the workshops particularly valuable for learning how
other States address specific permit problems, for hearing an
industry's point of view, and for establishing contacts in EPA
who can £e consulted later.
-------
II - 3
One apparent limitation on the effectiveness of ELG work-
shops is the travel time and cost necessary for attending
them. This is a major barrier to State participation.
Travel grants or more widely held workshops would help solve
this problem. Another solution would be to send workshop teams
to individual States, where they could instruct all permit
writers and discuss problems specific to the sources in each
State. ,-.,.•..- . . ..-.•.
Consultation Wi thEPA Staff Occurs Often arid is Helpful
Consultation with EPA staff on technical as well as policy
matters is the most common form of assistance cited by these
States. This may take many forms: a telephone request for
information or interpretation, a more formal request for an
EPA position on a policy or technical issue, or direct involve-
ment by an EPA expert in the drafting of a permit. Consultation
may occur with Headquarters, .a Regional Office, or another
office such as the Office of Research and Development depending
on the nature of the problem, the availability of expertise,
and the facility of contact.
The technical assistance provided by EPA experts for
specific industrial categories is the most successful and
highly praised consultation these States received. Exemplary
in this regard is the assistance of an expert in the iron
and steel industry. This individual assisted these States
in drafting permits or limitations for several complex cases
and in some instances actually participated in negotiating
sessions with industry; the States valued his knowledge of
the industry and his understanding of the content and applic-
ability of the ELG. In general, States value industry experts
because the States themselves cannot individually develop
this expertise for all the industrial categories (and their
specific toxic pollutants) for which they must write permits.
One problem States identified with the consultation pro-
cess is that, depending on the nature of the question, they
do not always get prompt answers in final form. Sometimes
this is due to a genuine confusion within the Agency on a
technical or policy matter. But often the problem is that
official positions take much longer than "draft" answers,
and EPA staff try to respond according to the urgency of the
need. Draft or indecisive answers do, however, put States
in a tenuous position when negotiating with industry.
ContractorAssistance Is variable In Quality and Can Be Costly
Four of the States surveyed mentioned that they had received
EPA contractor assistance for specific projects. Most of the
examples they gave relate to developing specific permits or
doing water quality studies.
-------
II - 4
In these cases States used contractors to augment their
own limited staff and resources. Because the quality of
contractors is variable, such assistance can involve a consider-
able cost to the States in terms of time and resources invested,
For instance, one State said that it will have to repeat the
work done by a contractor in preparing an engineering report
and proposed permit limitations. Another State cited the case
of a contractor who in drafting several permits for chemical
and plastics manufacturers proposed limitations and monitoring
requirements for an unjustifiably large number of priority
pollutants. In these cases the end product was not useful
and States felt that they did not get the expected benefits.
In other cases, however, the investment States make in managing
a contract can be worthwhile.
Another problem States cited with contractor assistance
is the delay that sometimes occurs in procuring promised
assistance. One State, for example, asked for EPA contractor
help in setting up a program for issuing general permits.
EPA Headquarters responded with a project to determine whether
other States have similar needs. Not until one year later
did the State receive its desired contractor assistance, too
late to implement the project as planned.
The preceding examples give some indication of the
effectiveness of EPA's recent technical assistance activities.
Such products as the Treatability Manual are intended to
address known or anticipated problems States have in writing
NPDES permits. Only through a formal evaluation, however,
can the effectiveness of past and present technical assistance
in addressing these problems be accurately determined.
-------
-•- .- , CHAPTER III -.
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND NEEDS IDENTIFIED BY STATES
Introduction
: The six States we surveyed were given the chance to respond
to an open-ended question about what technical problems they
have in NPDES permit writing. Both permit managers and permit
writers were asked to describe any past technical assistance
received for a problem and to suggest technical assistance that
EPA could provide for the problem in the future. In addition,
permit writers were asked to identify the relevant subject
areas, permit limit type(s), effects, and benefits for each
problem they identified. Supplemental information was obtained
in personal interviews. Because the study was designed to
elicit a wide representation of technical problems, we have
included every well-defined problem cited by one or more States.
*
A few of the technical problems identified by States are of
a very general nature. For instance, several States expressed
the need for training in overall permit writing: what kinds of
limits and regulations apply to what situations; hpw to do a
permit based on BAT or BCT, Water Quality Standards, or Best
Professional judgment; what statutory deadlines and requirements
must be followed, etc.. Although several States have written
their own manuals or guidance documents for this purpose, they
lack the time and resources to provide basic training for their
permit writers and would like EPA to do so.
Some of the technical problems States identified involve
policy issues or problems with EPA actions. A major instance
of these are the technical problems that arise because of the
lack of promulgated Effluent Limitations Guidelines and the
need to apply Best Professional Judgment in their stead for
certain industry categories. Although these problems and others
(such as setting cancer risk levels) could be resolved by
developments or changes in EPA's own work, under the present
circumstances they pose a complex mixture of technical and
policy difficulties that cannot be ignored in the context
of technical assistance needs. Consequently, in the suggestions
for EPA action that follow each identified problem, both
technical assistance actions and policy actions are given,
the first delineated by three stars (***), the second by two
section symbols {§§).
The technical problems identified by States fall about
equally into three broad subject areas: treatability and control
technologies, water quality impact analysis, and environmental
and health effects. The first category involves problems
related to municipal or industrial processes and the technologies
used to control and treat their wastewater; economic achievability
of treatment or control is included here. The second category
involves problems related to assessing the impact of effluent
-------
Ill - 2
on the quality of the receiving water, most notably water
quality modeling; problems in doing wasteload allocation are a
subset of this group. The third major category, environmental
and health effects, focuses on problems in assessing toxicity
and in using water quality criteria and standards. Several
other important problem areas such as Best Management Practices
are discussed at the end of the section. An outline of these
major problem areas and sub-sections is given in Fig. III-l.
There was surprising consensus among States and between the
two Regions on the most important technical problems currently
confronting State NPDES permit programs. Not only did many of
the same problems crop up in different States, but the terms
States used to describe them and the remedies they suggested
were frequently repeated. Generically the problems involve the
unavailability of needed information or knowledge, the lack of
State resources or expertise, and complexities or weaknesses in
current policies and regulations. The effects of these problems
on State programs is consistently to delay permits, to make
them less defensible, or to diminish their effectiveness in
protecting the environment.
While States suggest a variety of technical assistance
actions to remedy these problems, the recurrent themes are
that EPA should provide a clearinghouse or reference center
for providing technical information, experts for consultation
on specific problems, and tools and training to enable States
to manage problems on their own. Clearinghouses would be
useful in providing up-to-date, specific information on toxic
effects and treatability. Experts could be provided in such
areas as toxicology and industrial control processes, and in
fact industry experts for major categories are frequently
mentioned as useful and desirable assistance. Tools and
training would be effective assistance mechanisms in dealing
with water quality modeling problems.
The problems described below are being faced by States now
and will likely assume more importance as States do more permit
limits for toxic pollutants. The technical problems frequently
affect the kind of permits States can do and the workload they
can reasonably handle. Although there are other, non-technical
problems impeding the permitting work of States, the technical
problems relate directly to the work States do to improve
and maintain water quality through effluent limitations.
Hence, there is a certain urgency in the needs States have
expressed for technical assistance.
-------
A. Problems and Needs in the Area of Treatability and Control
. Technologies -• . -• •-•••-. •-•'•-]•
A.I. General Problems
A.2. Specific Control Problems . .'•:'''
- A.3. Assessing Economic Achievability
B. Problems and Needs in the Area of Water Quality Impact
Analysis
B.I. Water Quality Modeling
B.2. Obtaining Background Data
B.3. Special Wasteload Allocation problems
C. Problems and Needs in the Area of Environmental and Health
Effects
C.I. Assessing Toxicity
C.2. Obtaining and Using Criteria and Standards
D. Problems and Needs in Other Areas
-------
Ill - 3
A. Problems and Needs in the Area ofTreatability and Control
Te chnp• 1 qg i e s
The technical problems and needs for technical assistance
in the area of treatability and control technologies are
discussed first in terms of general, broad-based problems; then
in regard to specific industrial- and municipal control problems;
and finally in terms of assessing economic achievability.
A summary of the problems in this area is given in Fig. III-2.
A.I. General Problems *
States identified the following general problems in
treatability:
«:— obtaining sufficient information on treatment processes and
pollutant control
keeping track of relevant information or regulations
evaluating applications and permits in terms of the adequacy
of data or of effluent limits
doing technology-based (BAT or BCT) limitations .by Best
. Professional Judgment
Although these problems overlap and interact to some degree,
each represents a particular impediment in the States' permit-
writing programs.
o States do not have sufficient information on particular
Treatment processes or controls for particular pollutants.
States need more information on the treat&bility of many
pollutants such as toxics and non-corventionals; on specific
removal efficiencies for a particular treatment system and
pollutant; and on the control of particular effluents such as
acid mine drainage or landfill leachate. Such information is
necessary in the writing of BPJ and water'guality-based
limitations, and without it the permits are less defensible and
the permitting process less efficient. As one State put it,
we are "flying blind now" because of the lack of useful
information on treatability and control.
EPA's Treatability Manual was developed with this need in
mind, but the states think that it does not provide enough
detail and information on pollutants and treatment processes.
In particular, the data base is considered too small and
unreliable, the removal efficiencies are thought to be too
broad and in some cases suspect, and the information on fate
and transport is considered sketchy.
Aside from the Treatability Manual, States generally found
it useful to consult with experts in the Effluent Guidelines
Division of EPA or with other EPA "industry experts" for
particular industry categories. Such individuals explain in
detail the industrial processes and available control technologies
of an industry such as iron and steel.
-------
to
I
t!
<0
£
2
w
§1
8&
m jj
C (0
£i^
SS
s
I
*
c
Lac
QJ u-i
5
•-i
tM
U-l
fi
re
& V)
O QJ
S
05
4J
•H
J
•J
op
&£ O
^j? •=»
0) JJ
fii
g
-------
Ill - 4
For this problem States recommend the following technical
assistance:
*** Revise the Treatability Manual to provide more detailed
information with a broader data base
*** Conduct research in areas of treatability and control where
information is scanty
*** Provide industry experts for various industry categories
to help apply treatability criteria to specific plants
o States have difficulty keeping track'of information or
regulations relevant to treatability and controTT
States do not have the resources or the means to find all
the available technical information on treatability or to keep
abreast of developments in treatability such as treatability of
toxics by the chemical industry. Even in situations for which
there are Effluent Limitations Guidelines, it can be difficult
in a specific case (for example, coal piles) to find the
applicable regulations on control and their rationale. The
effect of this problem is, first, to undermine the validity of
permit limits, since they may not be based on the best or most
current information; and, second, to delay the permitting
process because of time consumed in searching for the necessary
information.
The only assistance mentioned in regard to this problem are
newsletters put out by the Office of Water on Effluent Limitations
Guidelines. These were found to be useful as a reference fcr
applicable control regulations.
For this problem states recommend the following technical
assistance:
*** Set up a clearinghouse or central reference system that
would catalogue all technical reports and studies on
pollutants and wastewater treatment technologies and all
applicable regulations and development documents; make
this system easily accessible to States as by computer
*** Provide industry teams for consultation on the available
information and regulations
o States sometimes lack the knowledge of industrial processes
necessary to evaluate the adequacy of permit applications
and permit limitations.
Knowledge of the processes used in an industry is a
prerequisite to establishing pollutant controls, yet States
lack such knowledge in certain cases. They have difficulty in
determining what pollutants may actually be present in an
effluent, and therefore cannot assess the adequacy of the data
submitted by the applicant in this regard. Furthermore, even
for industries for which there are Effluent Limitations
-------
Ill'- 5
Guidelines, they may not be able to assess the adequacy of
specific limits in a particular case without better knowledge
of a plant's operations. The result is delay in permit issuance
and uncertainty in the limits proposed.
The main assistance EPA.has provided for this problem consists
of a few industry experts such as for the iron and steel industry.
Consultation with such individuals can be fruitful because they
collaborate in the analysis of applications and in the setting
of limits. ,
For this problem states recommend the following technical
assistance:
*** Designate industry experts for various industry categories
*** Develop computer-based information on particular industries
and relevant control technologies
States have particular difficulty in doing permit limits for
Best Available Technology based on Best Professional Judment
Virtually every State we surveyed has problems in dealing
with industries for which Effluent Limitations Guidelines are
not yet promulgated or for which guidelines are not going to be
promulgated. The latter case includes, the so-called secondary
industry categories and the many pollutants other than priority
pollutants and common non-conventional pollutants. For a
variety of technical and practical reasons States have difficulty
establishing controls and limits on the myriad of small industries
and commercial enterprises (such as truck washing terminals)
which, although not covered by guidelines, may discharge highly
toxic chemicals. Of particular concern among those industries
for which guidelines are expected but not yet promulgated are
organic and inorganic chemicals and pesticides. The lack of
technical information on treatability and the lack of knowledge
of industrial processes makes it nearly impossible for the
average permit writer to set competent limits on these highly
complex industries. As a result, most States are avoiding
permits that require BAT/BPJ and instead working on permits for
industries which are already covered by guidelines. Among the
consequences of this problem are a major delay in permit
issuance, major re-scheduling of the States' workloads, and
frequent controversy or litigation where a State attempts to
set limits.
The main assistance EPA has provided for this problem is
the Treatability Manual (discussed above) and a workshop on
BPJ. The latter arose out of a series of questions posed by
one State, and while the responses to these questions and the
workshop itself were found useful they were considered to be
tentative (not in final form) and not sufficiently specific.
-------
Ill - 6
For this problem States recommend the following technical
assistance: .
*** Provide industry experts for consultation
*** For non-primary industry categories, develop general "effluent
limitations guidelines" (not specific to an industry) and
'"' create a reference center that provides data bases on ,
classes of toxics and information on how other States have
handled such cases
and the following other EPA actions:
§§ Promulgate Effluent Limitations Guidelines for all primary
industry categories; if unable to do so, at least develop
policies on how to write permits for BAT/BPJ in the interim
A.2. Specific Control Problems
The preceding general problems are manifested .in a number of
specific control problems which States said they are now
confronting. A number of examples of such control problems,
each of which was provided by one State, are given below;
they involve municipal treatment works, industries, mining,
agriculture, and sanitary landfills. The limitations or controls
needed must usually be determined by Best Professional Judgment.
o. Determiningthe effect of industrial wastefrom secondary
Industries (not under pjre treatment) on small municipal
treatment works
In the State which cited this problem the most common
source of such wastewater is landfill leachate discharging
into sewers. Because the State — which has not yet been
delegated the pretreatment program — lacks adequate knowledge
of the effect of industrial pollutants on small treatment
plants, it cannot adequately assess what pollutants might
upset the plants and prevent them from meeting their effluent
limitations. With such knowledge permit limits could be more
readily established and satisfied, and secondary industries
could pretreat their wastes more effectively. The State would
like the following technical assistance:
*** Provide research on controls necessary for secondary
industries discharging into small activated sludge plants
o Determining best treatment technology and corresponding
effluent limitations for changing batch operations and
vari able prod u c t 1ines"
The presumption behind technology-based limitations is that
the industry's product and production process are constant, yet
there are companies (such as chemical manufacturers) which make
-------
Ill - 7
different products in batches, with as many as several hundred
products or intermediates overall. The permit writer faces a
very difficult and time-consuming task in determining what
limits to apply to such a discharger. The Treatability Manual
is so general and the achievement ranges so large that it cannot
be used effectively in this situation. No suggestions were
offered regarding EPA action to ameliorate this problem.
o Determining appropriate controls'for discharges fram abandoned
mines
All coal mine permits are now plagued by the uncertainty
surrounding post-mining treatment — specifically, whether to
require perpetual treatment or merely mine seals, and if the
latter, what kind of seal. Existing Effluent Limitations
Guidelines are ambiguous on this issue (even though EPA apparently
has responsibility for it), with the result that coal companies
contest control requirements and permit writers are uncertain
what to require. For instance, a pending case in the State
which cited this problem involves a dispute between the State
and a company about the relative effectiveness of two types of
seals of significantly different cost. The State would like
the following technical assistance:
*** Develop a design manual for mine seals
*** Offer workshops, consultations, and demonstration projects
and the following other EPA actions:
SS Develop a clear policy toward the regulation of post-mining
discharges
o Determining control methods for large-scale agribusiness,
such as piggeries and poultry feedlots
Such agricultural operations produce large amounts of manure
which is stored on the premises before being applied in land
treatment; this practice causes heavy organic loadings in the
runoff. The State which identified this problem believes that
existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines on livestock feedlots
do hot address operations of this scale and that applicable
control technologies have not yet been developed. This State
is beginning to develop such controls, but it would like EPA
to provide the following technical assistance:
*** Develop control technologies for large-scale agribusiness
operations
-------
Ill - 8
A.3. Assessjncji Economic Ach ievabi 1 ity
Permit writers must assess economic achievability when
doing BAT/BPJ and indirectly when doing limits based on water
quality standards. Yet several states indicated that they have
difficulties in determining the affordability or reasonableness
of treatment levels that they might have to require for municipal
treatment works, industries, or commercial enterprises. This
problem applies particularly to toxic and non-conventional
pollutants, which may have severe limitations which demand
sophisticated and elaborate treatment; but it may also arise
with conventional pollutants, such as total suspended solids,
which are treated by clarifiers that can be quite costly.
o States have difficulty assessing economic achievability
without more information on how particular costs are related
to a company's financial situation.
States need a basic cost test to justify the treatment .
levels they impose. The problem arises particularly with small,
non-primary industries and commercial enterprises, for whom the
large costs of wastewater treatment might be crippling. Without
sure knowledge of the actual economic effects, States face delays
in permitting and are less confident about the limits they
impose; in fact, one State even acknowledged that it avoids
permits where treatment is costly and affordability cannot be
conclusively demonstrated.
Tecnnical assistance has been received for this problem in
the form of a manual, a guidance document, consultation, and
contractor assistance. The Treatability Manual attempts to
analyze costs but it is criticized for not relating them to
finances. The Economic Achievability Guidance Document is not
considered very useful because it does not give steps for
determining economic achievability in specific cases. The
Office of Water of EPA has been consulted by one State; according
to the State NPDES program manager, OW said that "not much is
considered" in determining economic achievability, but apparently
his staff got more assistance through numerous consultations
with the Effluent Guidelines Division. Another State is in the
process of trying to secure EPA contractor support for an
affordability project related to municipal compliance.
For this problem States recommend the following technical
assistance:
*** Develop a step-by-step procedure for determining the relation
between cost and financial status, giving a comparison
between plant costs and corporate finances; perhaps develop
computerized economic models or formulas to determine the
appropriate treatment level
*** provide case studies and examples of economic achievability
situations
-------
Ill - 9
*** Provide and maintain an up-to-date listing of Effluent
Guidelines Division personnel for each industry
and the following other EPA actions:
SS Promulgate guidelines on economic achievability
A related problem ii economic achievability arises in
developing water quality-based effluent limitations for primary
industry toxics based on EPA's water quality criteria. Because
these criteria are extremely stringent, the resulting requirements
may not even be achievable, economically or otherwise. This
problem will be discussed further in the section on environmental
and health effects.
B. Problems and Needs in the Area of Water QualityImpact Analysis
The technical problems and needs for technical assistance
in the area of water quality impact analysis involve difficulties
in doing water quality modeling, difficulties in obtaining site-
specific background data necessary for impact analysis, and
special problems related to wasteload allocations. A summary
of the problems in this area is given in Fig. III-3. In all
cases these problems refer to effluent limitations based on
water quality standards; they pertain primarily to toxic and
non-conventional pollutants,
B.I. Water Quality Modeling
Most of the States we surveyed feel that they cannot adequately
assess the impact of a discharge on the quality of a water
body because they lack the necessary knowledge and tools, in
particular, realistic, verifiable, and easily usable water
quality models. While certain branches of a state's water
quality division may be familiar with basic wasteload allocation
models for dissolved oxygen, roost of the actual permit writers
do not share this knowledge, and the capability for modeling
other pollutants is severely limited at present.
o In general, States lack knowledge of how to do realistic
mode1ing of a po11ut an t' s conce n t ra t i on and £ate i n a
water body.
Instead of attempting to do more sophisticated modeling,
most States do a far simpler calculation of water quality impact
— a linear or straight dilution calculation combining in
proportion to the discharges the concentration of a pollutant
in the effluent and its concentration in the receiving water
body at a specified low flow. This approach does not take
into account either the hydrodynamics of a water body, including
-------
CO
JJ
K
••-I
R
0}
S
I
i-4
8
S
•§
o
•iH
IU
£
-------
Ill - 10
turbulence, sedimentation, and flow patterns, or the fate and
activity of a pollutant once released into a water body. As a
result, the effluent limitations derived from such calculations
are of questionable validity and are subject to dispute and
contest by the applicants. More importantly/ the permit writer
has no assurance that the limits imposed will actually protect
environmental quality, or that they will do so niost efficiently.
If the limits are too high water quality standards will be
violated? if too low, resources will be lost (including
construction grant money for municipal treatment works) in
achieving unnecessary treatment levels.
States have received some assistance for this problem in
the form of a model (QUAD for dissolved oxygen and guidance
documents on processes for allocating wasteloads. They recommend
the following technical assistance:
*** Provide workshops and manuals on the use of water quality
modeling
*** Develop short water quality modeling programs for use on
small computers that would give a quick check of impacts
based on only a few input parameters
o in particular, States need water quality models for toxic
orxjanics arid non-con vent ipnal pollutantsT
Not only do States not know how to model such chemical species;
they also do not know whether such models exist, or where to
obtain them if they do. This ptoblem will become more frequent
and more significant as States increasingly take on chemical
industry permits (whether by guidelines or BPJ) and do more
effluent toxicity testing.
The following actual cases illustrate this problem:
One State has a critical problem in modeling total residual
chlorine, which results from chlorination required for
municipal treatment plants. To satisfy the State's strict
water quality standards for chlorine, the permit writers
use simple dilution without considering the effect of
organic matter on chlorine or other possible reactions
in a stream. The State is concerned about requiring limits
that are overly strict and costly. But it does not know
whom to talk to; the regional EPA office cannot provide
assistance on this problem. The State recommends the
following technical assistance:
*** provide workshops or consultation on the vise and availability
of water quality models for total residual chlorine
Another State is having difficulty evaluating a 301(g)
variance request involving allocated discharges of ammonia
because it is using a desk-top model with unverified
-------
Ill - 11
literature values for the reaction rates. It spends a
lot of time running the model with different values.on a
trial-and-error basis/ and even more time in negotiating
with the applicant over the model and values used. The
State lacks the capability and resources to do the
detailed river study that would be necessary in order to
calibrate and verify the model. The State therefore
recommends the following technical assistance:
***. provide technical assistance or funding to do the site-specific
.river model for ammonia
*** Provide guidelines on how to do different types of wasteload
allocations ...
and the following other EPA actions:
SS Finalize procedures for responding to 301(g) variance requests
o States need water quality models for a variety ofgeographic
situations, especially for estuaries.
Most of the models that have been developed and distributed
apply to free-flowing streams. For coastal States, however,
the use of estuarine models is essential; without them it is
difficult to evaluate the water quality impacts of small amounts
of a pollutant on a tidal stream. Wasteload allocation guidance
documents do not address this problem, and so the following
technical assistance is recommended:
*** Develop models for use on estuarine systems as well as other
geographic situations
o States havedifficulty keeping abreast ofthe water quality
models that are avai1able.
The Office of Water's newsletters are a good source of
information about what models are available and who is using
them. It is recommended that EPA expand this technical
assistance service and
.*** Provide a newsletter on water quality modeling and a
computer reference system for water quality models
B.2. Obtaining Background Data
Although water quality impact analysis requires site-specific
data on background pollutant levels and other water quality or
hydrologic characteristics, States often lack the resources to
obtain this information for any given permit.
-------
Ill -. 12
° Statesoften lack data on the water quality of a given site
that they need for water quality impact analysis ormodeling.
The kinds of water quality data needed but often lacking
for a given site are concentrations of.various pollutants,
especially organics; levels of dissolved oxygen; and temperature.
Without such data it is difficult if not impossible to set
defensible effluent limitations. But obtaining the data is
highly time-consuming and resource-intensive, since field work
is usually required, especially for smaller sites. The result
is that permits are delayed or, if issued, are often contested-.
The States surveyed had not received assistance from EPA
for this problem, although in one instance the U.S. Geological
Survey had collected site-specific data for a particular
wasteload allocation problem. The States recommend the following
technical assistance:
*** Provide manpower and analytic laboratory services for
site-specific data collection and analysis, acting as
a neutral data collector and analyst on the model of
the U.S. Geological Survey
o States often lack the data necessary to determine the design
discharge of the receiving water, especially for small streams.
Water quality impact is generally assessed at low flow, in
particular the seven-day ten-year low flow (7010) of a stream.
This flow can be derived either statistically or directly from
an historical record, but in either case it is necessary to
know the basic hydrologic characteristics of a stream and its
watershed. Such information is not, however, usually available
for small streams, and regional data and charts may not be
appropriate. Because many municipal treatment works and industries
are located on small streams (many coal mines are even in the
headwaters), States must conduct a time-consuming site survey
for each case. Assistance has been received from the U.S.
Geological Survey by one State for such studies. No suggestions
were offered for EPA assistance for this problem.
An interesting corollary to this problem arises in determining
the receiving water flow appropriate to mine discharges. The
use of 7Q10 has been successfully refuted by coal companies
because mine discharges correlate with stream'flow (with a
phase lag} and the critical discharges do not occur at low
flow, states therefore fall back on the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines. If the appropriate flow were determined, more coal
permits would be defensibly water quality-limited.
-------
Ill - 13
B.3. Special WasteloadAllocation Problems
»
Although all of the previous problems in water quality
modeling and data collection arise in doing limits for multiple
dischargers, wasteload allocations present special problems of
.their own. '. . , ~,-.. ,.... rj,. •..-•-.. •-.- ....
o States may have difficulty developing water quality-based
effluent limitations in
Lty
th
e absence of a formal wasteload
allocation study. . .
A formal wasteload allocation study including water quality
modeling is the best way to set limitations on multiple
dischargers to a water body, but such a study can be beyond a
State's resources or capability. As a result, a State may have
to rely on technology-based limitations even for receiving
water bodies that are water quality-limited, an alternative
that may have a negative effect on the-water's quality.
For this problem States recommend the following technical
assistance:
*** Develop a standard procedure or formula for making water
quality-based limits in the absence of a formal wasteload
allocation
*** Make available model studies of wasteload allocations
*** provide manpower for more detailed wasteload allocation studies
o States have difficulty in determininghow to allocate toxic
pollutants
Most wasteload allocation studies and assistance have been
in regard to conventional pollutants, yet the re-issuance of
permits and greater attention to water quality limitations
require that an approach to allocating toxics loadings be
developed. Under present circumstances States have difficulty
defending the limits for toxics which they impose. They
recommend the following technical assistance:
*** Provide guidance on how to allocate loadings of toxic
pollutants
o States have difficulty in determining wasteload allocations
for pollutants which are already in violation of water quality
standards.
One State confronts this problem of allocating pollutants
which are already in violation of its standards in every major
industrial permit. A major river bordering the State is carrying
excessive loads of iron and copper, and the State has decided
on requiring zero discharge of these species even though it
-------
Ill - 14
questions whether uses are really being affected. The result
is a delay in permit issuance and contests of the zero-discharge
requirement. A further complication is that the river first
flows from another State whose standards for iron are higher .
and are not being violated. This presents a further problem in
defensibility and compliance. ..... .,„. .......
For this problem the following EPA actions are recommended:
§S Develop a policy or procedure for such allocations, including
suggestions on how to devise and implement an equitable
allocation; the policy should consider water uses which
are not impacted even though water quality standards are
violated
C. Problems and Needs in the Area of Environmental and Health
Effects
The technical problems and needs for technical assistance
in the area of environmental and health effects are concerned
primarily with assessing toxicity and with obtaining and using
criteria and standards. Much of the difficulty here derives
from uncertainties in scientific understanding of toxic effects,
but some of the problems are also due to gaps, inconsistencies,
and impracticalities in relevant policies and regulations.
A summary of the problems in this area is given in Fig, III-4.
C.I. Assessing Toxicity
The problems States identified in assessing toxicity include
evaluating the impacts of effluent on humans and aquatic biota,
conducting toxicity tests/ and establishing biomonitoring
programs and requirements.
o States have difficulty evaluating^ the potential impacts of
toxic chemicals (especially organics) on human health and
aquatic biota.
Every State we surveyed has a major if not critical problem
in trying to determine how components or mixtures of chemicals
in an effluent would affect health or environment. One reason
is the dearth of toxicological data on many of the substances
commonly found in effluents, especially organic chemicals;
also lacking is information on site-specific aquatic effects,
including the combined (synergistic or antagonistic) effects
of various discharges into a water body. Another reason for
the problem is a lack of expertise in toxicological evaluation.
However, much of the information needed is not available or
involves issues at the frontier of science. For instance, one
State expressed difficulties in determining potential human
-------
j
D
6
8
S3
«,*
O O
•rj
0) JJ
«5
I?
•U-ri
10 -i-i
•y o —<
C -S x
o >-i Q, e
*-i <.
-------
Ill - 15
health effects from bioassays (which are on animals); they
complained that EPA avoids this issue, but of course it is a
.central problem in toxicology to extrapolate human health .
effects from effects on other animals.
This problem delays the issuance of permits and makes States
less confident of the limits that they set. States' evaluations
of toxicity must be consistent and reliable in order to withstand
judicial review. 'In one case a State is vacillating about
imposiny effluent limitations on an industry for zinc, even
though it sees the potential need, because it is reluctant to
engage in a court battle based on uncertain information about
effects.
Little or no identifiable assistance has been received by
the States for this problem. They recommend the following
technical assistance:
*** Provide assistance for site-specific evaluations of toxic
effects
*** Do research'and review existing information on toxicological
effects on aquatic life and human health
*** Provide expert testimony by toxicologists for specific cases
*** Conduct workshops on the impacts of various chemicals in
different water bodies
o Statesareunfamiliar with tests and proceduresfor determining
aguatic toxicity, especially chronic toxicity.
In order to evaluate toxic aquatic impacts States must
often conduct or require toxicity tests. Yet States often do
not know what tests to use or they lack procedures for determining
certain kinds of toxicity, such as chronic toxicity. Acute
toxicity data may be helpful in the latter case but it is not
sufficient for understanding the chronic or combined effects,
and there is no consensus on how to test chronic toxicity. In
such cases States are unsure whether their allowances for a
discharge are really protecting the environment. This problem
is getting more acute as States look more at toxics impacts
and begin to work on permits for the organic chemical industry.
The assistance these States have received from EPA for
this problem includes a manual, consultation, and testing
procedures. The Toxicity Testing Manual ("Methods for Measuring
the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Aquatic Organisms") was
praised as beneficial and useful. It is informative,
understandable, and clear, and it enables States to impose
whole effluent toxicity testing requirements. However, it
does not cover testing for chronic toxicity, and because it
is general in scope it requires follow-up consultation with
someone who is familiar with the document or with the procedures
outlined. Such consultation has been provided effectively by
the West Virginia regional EPA laboratory. Another EPA
-------
Ill - 16
laboratory in Minnesota has developed some chronic toxicity
tests which are being used by one State to develop a .
biological testing program.
For this problem States recommend the following technical
assistance:, 7r..,,_r..,v,..^~- .-.,»— v...;^;,;.-;.. ..-,•_ • .,*• .- -•- , .• .
*' -f' . . • •
*** Provide additional consultation regarding tests to use and
the availability of test organisms
*** Provide a newsletter oh testing done in various States, with
contacts indicated
*** Conduct research on when to require tests for chronic toxicity
and the following other EPA actions:
§§ Develop a policy on uniform chronic toxicity testing procedures
o in general, States are unclear about how to implement the
reguirement for bi omonitoring.
States are being encouraged to set a biomonitoring requirement
(testing the aquatic toxicity of wastewater) but they are short
on guidance for implementing it. They want to know how to
establish a biomonitoring program, what regulatory basis to
use for it, and how to write a biomonitoring requirement in a
permit. Without this information they face delays in issuing
permits. States therefore recommend that EPA
* * * ;-
j'ssue guidance on implementing the biomonitoring requirement
C.2. Obtaining and UsingCriteria and Standards
The problems states identified in obtaining and using
criteria and standards concern the lack of standards and
criteria, the determination of risk factors, the discrepancy
between criteria and risk factors, and the effects of overly
stringent criteria and standards.
States have difficulty setting
limitations due to the lack oi
water quality-based effluent
water quality criteria and
standards for many pollutants, especially toxic or games.
Many pollutants, especially toxic organic chemicals, have
not been assigned water quality criteria or water quality
standards based on them. Permit writers confronting such
species in an effluent must establish some limit in order to
protect health and environment and to satisfy the generic
restriction on toxics in water bodies, but without such criteria
they have no basis for determining a justifiable limit. This
delays and undermines the permit process.
-------
Ill - 17
States would like EPA to provide the following technical
assistance:
*** Set up a reference center with information desks for classes
of toxic pollutants
*** Provide designated experts for consultation
and recommend the following other EPA actions: ,.-'••
SS Develop water quality criteria for additional toxic organic
pollutants
o S^ates have d if f i cu1ty in obtaining or deterihining a meani ng fu1
toxic risk factor for human health,
One of the major factors in setting water quality criteria
and standards for toxic pollutants is to determine an allowable
level of risk (of cancer, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, etc.).
yet such a risk factor is often lacking for toxics, and States
cannot therefore set meaningful standards on which to base
effluent limitations. The result is that permits are either
delayed, contested, or not issued at all. In one particular
case a permit writer faced the problem of limiting the discharge
of benzene, for which there was no water quality standard and
no consistent level of risk (it varied according to the means
of exposure); the application has been drawn out in a series
of negotiations between the company and State and Federal
authorities.
States recommend that EPA do the following:
5S Set meaningful risk factors for all major pollutants; in
particular, set a clear risk factor,for cancer
o States have particular difficulty doing water quality-based
limitations when there is a discrepancy between water quality
criteria for drinking water and the cancer risk level.
In some instances the available information on toxicity is
conflicting and presents serious problems for the permit writer.
For instance, according to one State the water quality criterion
for arsenic is one thousand times the cancer risk level.
Although no suggestions were offered, it is clear that a
consistent policy is needed for dealing with health risk.
o Effluent limitations based on EPA*s water quality criteria
gut
foi
are often excessively low and impractical for States to
implement.
States consider many of EPA's water quality criteria for
toxics to be extremely, stringent and low. When they are used
-------
Ill - 18
as a basis for determining effluent limitations the latter may
be below the level of detection for a pollutant (one State
cited methylene chloride as an example) or not even achievable
in any practical way. This could result in a compliance problem.
Accordingly, both States and applicants find it difficult to
accept such limits and there are delays in decision-making and
prolonged negotiations about how to proceed. One State has
decided to use the criteria only if the discharge involves a
public water supply stream;"
The problem of detectability is particularly troublesome to
States and is mentioned in another context in the next section.
in one State limits were set for dioxin based on water quality
standards but they were below the analytical detection limit.
In another State a limit for total residual chlorine for a poultry
processing facility was calculated out at a concentration of
less than the detectable limit; because the company could not
achieve this limit .and there was no way to monitor it, the
State had to rationalize a higher effluent limit*
Although no assistance has been received for this problem.
States recommend the following technical assistance:
*** Provide laboratory assistance to develop techniques to
analyze pollutants to the levels of the standards.
and the following other EPA actions:
§§ Provide guidance on how to impose reasonable limitations
in cases where a desi?nated -imit is not detectable
S§ Provide more meaningful (realistic) water quality criteria
D. Problems and Needs in Other Areas
There are several other areas in which important technical
problems and needs for technical assistance arise. Brief
mention is made here of problems and needs in source monitoring,
pollutant measurement, and Best Management Practices.
o States lack a sound,.usable technical basis for determining
the frequency of source monitoring requirements.
The frequency required for an applicant's self-monitoring
must be neither too low nor too high; if it is too low violations
may go undetected, while if it is too high the burden on the
applicant is excessive. Yet States lack a ready technical
means for setting the frequency and may have to bargain with
the applicant because of lack of defensibility.
-------
Ill - 19
EPA is currently developing through contractor work a
statistical methodology for determining monitoring frequency.
However, it is criticized for being too complicated for use by
permit writers, for requiring too extensive a background in
statistics and computers. The following technical assistance
is recommended: "~ : : • '" -
*** Develop a simple manual that most permit writers can use
for determining monitoring frequency
*** Develop (or re-package) a program suitable for small computers
for general usage; retain the more complicated computer
model for special cases and provide consultation on its use
o Detection limits for pollutants vary with the testing laboratory
and States have no way of determining if these limits are
appropriate.
This problem arises frequently in industrial applications
where many pollutants are listed as "not detectable". Without
being able to evaluate the data further, a State may issue a
permit that does not limit a potentially harmful pollutant.
EPA published minimum detection limits and testing methods
for priority limits in proposed form in 1979, but these have not
yet been promulgated in final form. It is recommended that EPA
SS Publish in final form and periodice.lly update minimum
detection limits for all priority pollutants and list
the preferred method and cost involved
and that EPA provide the following technical assistance:
*** Provide information on the achievability and reliability of
lower detection limits
o States have difficulty implementing the requirement for Best
Management Practices (BMP) in the absence of final guidance,
The current BMP guidance document is in draft form and some
of the States surveyed do not find it usable as a basis for
defending permit requirements. States have in fact been challenged
on BMP requirements that they issue. Often, however, they will
find alternative means (such as a RCRA requirement) for imposing
controls on the plant grounds, but they clearly would like more
definitive guidance on BMP if not actual regulations or guidelines.
An alternative viewpoint was provided by one State, which sees no
purpose in final guidance on BMP from EPA and avoids applying
BMP where possible.
-------
Ill - 20
i
One State also said that it is difficult for a permit
writer to evaluate a plant's operational practices to determine
if they are equivalent to BMP, Inadequacies in operating
procedures may be hard to distinguish from the many variables
(such as age of equipment or structural defects) which can
legitimately cause effluent problems.,. .'....
* * * " <
Besides the guidance document EPA has provided a workshop
on BMP, which one State cited as being relatively good.
States recommend the following technical assistance:
*** Provide final BMP guidance including how to evaluate
an applicant's BMP plans
-------
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This section of the report provides a summary of the
findings and conclusions about the nature of the technical
problems delegated States are facing in their permitting work.
It highlights some of the States' recommendations for technical
assistance from EPA and presents the implications of this
pilot study for future technical assistance in the NPDES
permitting program.
This project was designed to identify technical problems
that States are facing in writing NPDES permits and to elicit
recommendations from the States on the types of technical
assistance that could ameliorate these problems. The report
shows that technical problems do exist and that states see
ways in which technical assistance from EPA could help them
be more efficient and effective in protecting the environment.
The report also shows that other EPA actions to issue national
policy and regulations would ameliorate some technical problems
or make them more manageable.
A summary of the findings and conclusions is as follows:
o States most often write effluent limitations derived from
national technology-based regulations and these are consTdered
the most defensible.
The effluent limitations written in NPDES permits consist
of one of three different types, each with varying demands
on a State's resources. There are limitations based on
promulgated Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG); those
based on Water Quality Standards (WQS), where ELG or municipal
secondary controls are not sufficient to meet such standards;
and those based on Best Professional Judgment (BPJ), where
there is no applicable ELG and no indication of a violation
of Water Quality Standards. Of these three approaches, the
States surveyed in this study most often write effluent
limitations based on ELG, and they consider them to provide
a more secure technical and legal foundation. 'They use WQS
less frequently and BPJ least frequently to develop effluent
limitations.
o There are important technical problems in writing effluent
limitations based on either Water Quality Standards or
Best ProfessionalJudgment..
Effluent limitations based on WQS and BPJ are considered
the most problematic by the States surveyed. Most of the
technical problems and suggested assistance in the study
relate to these two types of limitations. As a consequence
of these technical problems, which cause development of
these types of limits to be very resource-intensive and
susceptible to legal challenge, most of the States have
-------
IV-2
waited for EPA to promulgate the ELG for Best Available
Technology (BAT). Although many of the States have deliberately
avoided doing BPJ-based limitations, the slowness with which
EPA has promulgated the ELG, the fact that the ELG do not
always set limits for important pollutants in the effluent,
and continuing litigation with industry have resulted in
requests for technical assistance in doing BPJ-type
limitations. .... ........
o Delegated States have unmet needs for technical'assistance
from EPA.
During this pilot study, States were asked whether they
had received any technical assistance from EPA to help with
the technical problems they identified. As shown in Chapter II,
the States cited some specific examples of assistance, such
as consultation with industry and other technical experts,
which they considered to be very effective. However, in the
majority of cases, either they did not recall having received
any assistance related to the technical problem or they
cited problems with the technical assistance they did receive.
There are a number of possible explanations for this
perception of unmet needs on the part of States. One possible
explanation is that States use the term "technical assistance"
in a different way and therefore did not cite those activities
classified as technical assistance by EPA; however, this is
unlikely because States acknowledged that the definition of
technical assistance used in this study generally conforms
with their usage. Another unlikely possibility is that
States did receive useful technical assistance from EPA but
could not recall it later; yet States repeatedly were able
to recall assistance that was helpful in the past and to
relate it to present technical problems.
More likely explanations for these unmet needs are either
that States did not receive technical assistance or that they
did not use or benefit from the assistance that is available.
In the first case, there are a number of problems for which
EPA has just not provided technical assistance. Where it
has, the products and activities may not have reached the
States; while the study provides no direct evidence of this,
comments.by the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
suggest that the procedure of notifying, transmitting, and
distributing technical assistance to States is not working as
planned. In the second case, the study provides some evidence
that States, did not use some of the technical assistance
products because of their perceived lack of relevance,
timeliness, or utility.
-------
IV-3
° important technical problem areas includetreatability and
control technologies, water quality impact analysis,and
environmental and health effects.
The technical problems where States see a need for EPA
technical assistance fall into three broad subject areas:
treatability and control technologies, water quality impact
analysis, and environmental and health effects of pollutants.
These subject areas bear some relation to the three types of
permit limitations: water quality impact analysis is relevant
mainly to WQS-based limits, aquatic and health effects to WQS
and BPJ-based limits/ and treatability and control to ELG,
WQS, and BPJ alike. However, we have not discussed the
subject areas in relation to each type of effluent limitation
because many of the problems cut across the different types
of limits.
Examples of technical problems that States cited in
the three broad subject areas are as follows:
1. Treatability and Control technologies
- Obtaining sufficient information on treatment
processes or controls for particular pollutants
- Keeping track of information or regulations relevant
to treatability and control
- Doing permit limits for Best Available Technology
(BAT) based on BPJ
2. Water Quality'Impact Analysis
- Knowing how to do realistic modeling of a pollutant's
concentration and fate in a water body
- Obtaining site-specific data for water quality
impact analysis or modeling
- Developing water quality-based effluent limitations
in the absence of a formal wasteload allocation study
3. Environmental'arid'Health'Effects
- Evaluating the potential impacts of organic
pollutants on human health and aquatic biota
- Setting water quality-based effluent limitations
in the absence of EPA water quality criteria for
organic pollutants
- Knowing tests and procedures for determining acute
and chronic toxicity for aquatic species
-------
IV-4
o Control of toxic and non-conventional'pollutants cuts
across the problem areas States identified.
States face important problems in controlling toxic and
non-conventional pollutants regardless of whether the effluent
limitation is based on ELG, WQS, or BPJ. Treatability and
control/ water quality impacts, and aquatic and health effects
of toxic and non-conventional pollutants are significant
problems for every State in this survey. Although some
States have developed means of identifying pollutants of
concern or can measure and model their water quality impacts,
other States are only beginning to acquire the knowledge,
methods, and personnel to develop the requisite effluent
limitations for toxic pollutants.
The most commonly named category of pollutants for which
States face technical problems listed above are organic
chemicals. Non-conventional pollutants such as chlorine are
also a problem.
o States share common views about the forms of assistance
that may ameliorate certain technical problems.
By form of technical assistance we refer to the means
or mechanism of providing assistance to States. These forms
include written reference materials, training workshops,
laboratory analyses, and so on. The form is different from
the content of the assistance, which involves the technical
or scientific subject matter of the assistance. Although
forms of assistance can be separated from the content, tech-
nical assistance is most meaningful when we consider the
form and content together.
States suggested certain forms of assistance more
commonly than others. These were clearinghouses for technical
information, experts for consultation for specific problems,
problem solving tools, and training for State employees.
in the following we briefly describe and give examples
of the forms of assistance that may be useful in different
problem areas:
1. Clearinghouses for Technical Information
A clearinghouse is a central location for cataloguing
and making available technical reports, studies, and other
information on specific subject areas. It would provide
States with up-to-date information from a variety of sources
that they could integrate and apply to specific permit
problems. The material in a clearinghouse could be designed
according to the particular needs of States and could include
the results of EPA, industry, or academic research as well as
evaluations by EPA of the validity and significance of these
materials.
-------
IV-5
Examples:
- Clearinghouse on controls for specific pollutants and
wastewater treatment technologies "
- Clearinghouse on toxicity data bases for different
classes of toxic pollutants, including specific cases
of how states have handled toxics
2. Technical Experts
A technical expert has knowledge and experience in relevant
policies, regulations, and technical subject matter, as well as
in the work of permitting; and the capacity to synthesize and
apply such knowledge and experience to particular problems.
An expert is in a position to keep current with information
from EPA, industry, and academic research. The individual
would work on a person-to-person basis with State personnel to
resolve permit problems; subject areas could include particular
industry categories, aquatic or human toxicology, and so on.
Examples:
- Experts on the use and availability of water quality
models for specific substances
- Experts in toxicity who could provide advice and
testimony on limitations for specific toxic pollutants
3. Tools
Technical problem-solving tools include methods of problem
analysis and techniques for calculating specific permit limitations.
These tools are desired by states in a number of different subject
areas and could be packaged in the form of computer software as
well as hara-copy manuals.
Examples:
- Short water quality modeling programs for use on small
computers
- Method for quick determination of economic achievability
4. Training
The goal of training is to enable State personnel to perform
certain work independently and without the need for further
assistance. Training can take many forms, including quick
workshops, intensive sessions over a period of days, or extended
courses over months. The nature of the subject matter and the
degree of expertise desired determine how training is conducted.
Also, depending on its focus and purpose, training can be
conducted on the job or apart from actual work situations.
-------
IV-6
Examples:
- Workshops on toxic impact evaluations for different
classes of toxics and different types of water bodies
•-•~ - Training on how to do different types of wasteload
allocations .
o The appropriate form of technical ass is tan'ce> depends on
the natureof the problem and the goals of the assistance.
Technical assistance in a particular subject area can
often be packaged and delivered in a variety of forms; the
nature of the problem and the purpose of assistance should
determine the form or forms that are most suitable. For
example, training is suitable for somewhat difficult subject
areas such as water quality modeling which States should be
capable of handling on their own, but experts are more
appropriate for complex problem areas such as toxicology
where no individual State could acquire or maintain expertise.
In other words, forms of technical assistance should not be
treated as though they have an independent function and value,
but instead should always be tailored to the problem and
purpose at hand.
o Communicating with States about their needs and the
appropriate form and content of technical assistance is
essential.
Although it was not the purpose of this study to evaluate
either past technical assistance or the process of delivering
technical assistance, our findings indicate that there may
not be sufficient communication between EPA and the States
regarding their needs and the technical assistance EPA provides.
Such communication is essential for targeting important problem
areas and for determining the most appropriate forms of assistance
in order that State NPDES programs can provide more effective
environmental protection.
o Systematic evaluation of States* views'oh past technical
assistance is essential to better meeting States' needs.
Comments made by States on past technical assistance
suggest that although EPA is producing assistance in important
technical subject areas such as treatability and control
technologies, there are specific problems with the form and
content of the assistance. Systematic evaluation of selected
technical assistance products is one approach to getting
needed feedback from states on the effectiveness of EPA's
technical assistance in resolving technical problems in
permitting. This information is essential to improved planning
and provision of technical assistance.
-------
IV-7
•-.
.$•
1
o Building on knownand agreed^upoh successesin providing
technical assistance iskey,
The availability of technical experts for consultation
with State offices is a known success, based on the reports
in this study about the value of industry experts in resolving
specific problems with individual permits. Examination of
the circumstances under which technical experts can operate
roost effectively with States and identification of the requisite
knowledge, skills, and experience of such experts is a logical
next step to identifying experts for other industries such
as the organic chemicals industry or for other subject areas.
° The expected benefits of technical assistance 'afe'faster
permit issuance and better quality permits, but not nece"ssarily
reduction of the permit backlog by FY 1985.
in almost every technical problem area States cited,
the expected benefits of resolving the problem through technical
assistance and/or policy decisions from EPA were either faster
permit issuance, an improved scientific and technical basis
for the limitations resulting in improved legal defensibility,
or more environmentally sound effluent limitations.
Some States in this study stated, however, that even if
EPA provided all of the technical assistance in the forms
proposed and took other actions to issue national policy and
regulations, these States could still not eliminate the
backlog of NPDES permits by KY 1985. Additional permit
writers and technical and clerical support in these States
are necessary to reduce the large permit backlogs, and EPA
technical assistance cannot make up the gap in resources.
o Technical assistance is'not the'only'action heeded'from
EPA to resolve technical problems Jri NPpES permitting; in
particular, establishing national policies in important
technical problem areas^is necessary to create a framework
for managing many technical problems.
For many of the technical problems that they identified,
States proposed actions by EPA in areas other than technical
assistance. Many of these other actions consist of policy
and regulatory decisions by EPA to establish a framework
within which States can manage their technical problems.
For example, many technical problems arise from delays
in issuance of regulations, such as the guidelines for Best
Available Technology (BAT) for certain primary industry
categories. The lack of such guidelines forces States to use
(or to avoid) BPJ in doing permits for such industries, and
BPJ-based effluent limitations are highly problematic. Another
example of technical problems that derive from a lack of national
policy or regulations is in regard to so-called secondary
industries, for which EPA has no plans at present to issue
-------
IV-8
national technology-based regulations for BAT. States need
information on the pollutants discharged by many of these
industries and the technologies available to treat and control
.them. In this and other cases, states need EPA to provide a
solid framework for their technical work and consistency in
the approaches they are using. ..
Some of the States surveyed in the study also suggested
that management, personnel, or administrative problems are
having a more significant impact on NPDES permitting tnan
technical problems. While the study did not assess these
other problems, States were given the opportunity to make a
few suggestions about assistance in non-technical areas that
EPA could provide. One State would like assistance in
organizing and managing information, while several States
expressed the need for a better system for tracking permits.
This whole area of management assistance and EPA's potential
role in it is clearly worthy of further investigation.
«
•*•
-------
.Attachment A
DEFINITION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
This definition of technical assistance is to be used in
conjunction with the questionnaires for State NPDES permit program
managers and State NPDES permit writers. .A brief working definition
is followed by specific points of clarification and illustrative
examples. ...'.. ....'... .
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IS THE PROVISION BY EPA TO A STATE
OF INFORMATION, TOOLS, OR OVERALL CAPABILITY OF A SCIENTIFIC,
ENGINEERING, OR TECHNOLOGICAL NATURE FOR THE MANAGEMENT
OF A PROBLEM FOR WHICH THE STATE IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE.
SUCH ASSISTANCE IS UTILIZED AT THE DISCRETION OF A STATE
AND CAN BE RENDERED IN A VARIETY OF FORMS DEPENDING ON
THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM AND THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSISTANCE.
o The subject matter included in technical assistance is scientific,
engineering, or technological and does not include legal or
management assistance.
For example, advice on ways to allocate wasteloads for water
discharge (NPDES) permits is an instance of technical assistance;
advice on procedures and priorities for States to reduce their
backlog of such permits is an instance of management assistance.
o The State has direct, day-to-day responsibility for the problem
requiring technical assistance.
For example, EPA provides technical assistance when it helps
a State that has been delegated the authority for NPDES permitting
to write a particular NPDES permit.
o Although it can be initiated either by EPA or by a State,
technical assistance is utilized entirely at the discretion
of a State.
For example, in writing a NPDES permit where there are no
promulgated effluent guidelines, a State may make use of EPA's
Treatability Manual or it may base its decision on information
derived from other sources.
o Technical assistance may involve either case-specific problems
or a class of problems.
Case-specific assistance is rendered in response to a partic-
ular problem, such as a specific water permit decision; generic
assistance is rendered in response to an entire class of
problems, such as the issuance of water quality-based permits.
o Technical assistance may result in short-term enhancement or
it may strengthen a State's long-term capability.
For example, technical assistance includes laboratory
services for which a State has no independent capability as
well as technical training ("capacity strengthening") which
would enable a State to perform such laboratory work on its own.
-------
o Technical assistance comprises a variety of delivery mechanisms,
services, and tools which may or may not involve person-to-
person interaction.
For example, technical assistance may be delivered through
dissemination of written information (as in a clearinghouse),
through expert advice and consultation, through loans of
technical personnel, or through technical training. Technical
assistance may also be rendered through services such as
.laboratory work or site surveys or through provision of
analytical tools and equipment.
The form in which technical assistance is given generally
depends on the nature of the problem and the purpose of the
assistance. Some forms of assistance, such as written infor-
mation, are appropriate for both case-specific and generic
problems and for either short-term enhancement or capacity-
strengthening. Other forms are more suited to a particular
purpose or kind of problem, as illustrated below:
Problem:
Purpose:
Technical
Assis-
tance:
Case-specific
Short-term enhancement
Expert advice and
consultation
Technical services
(e.g., laboratory
analysis)
Generic
Capacity-strengthening
Training (courses,
workshops, etc.)
Tools and methodologies
(e.g., model studies1
o Technical assistance is generally distinct from the following
activities: special EPA studies of problems of federal concern;
EPA research and development solely in support of national
standard setting and other federal program activities;
national information collection; EPA standard setting or .
program direction; direct program administration by EPA;
and oversight of State programs.
In each case the problem involved is a direct federal
responsibility. For instance, since EPA must set national
standards for pollution control or environmental protection
(e.g., Effluent Limitations Guidelines), the provision of
information related to what these standards are constitutes
dissemination of law. However, where there are no national
standards and a State is responsible for setting limitations,
provision of information by EPA on ways to use Best Professional
Judgment constitutes technical assistance.
U.S. rr>n^«nt«i P*vt<"*tlon Agency
Library. r--~ ?.V-2U-A.
401 M St-T't.. ~ -v.
Washington, DC 20460
------- |