EPA
Water Environment
k Federation9
Preserving & Enhancing
the Global Water Environment
The Pretreatment
Training Course
Sponsored by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
&
Water Environment Federation
Omni Kansas City Hotel
1301 Wyandotte
Kansas City, MO 04105
July 16 & 17,1997
-------
77>e Pretreatment Training Course
Agenda
Agenda: The Pretreatment Training Course
In October 1996, as part of the Metal Finishing Sector of the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), EPA published
Improving Industrial Pretreatment Success Factors, Challenges, and Project Ideas.' The report identified a need for more
training options related to the Pretreatment Program. To address this need, EPA and WEF have produced this course.
The objective of this training course is to provide the basic regulatory framework and technical considerations that
support the development and implementation of pretreatment programs under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permitting Program and the Clean Water Act (CWA).
This course is designed and recommended for environmental professionals responsible for implementing the
Pretreatment Program at the local level, industrial dischargers, consultants, and especially individuals that are new to the
program.
DAY1
8:30 Welcome
8:40 Pretreatment Quiz
8:50 Overview of the National Pretreatment
Program
10:00 Break
10:10 Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal
Authority
11:20 Industrial User Identification and
Classification
12:00 Lunch
1:15 Industrial User Permitting
2:15 Break
2:30 Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and
Categorical Standards
3:45 Pretreatment Standards: Local Limits
4:30 Adjourn
DAY 2
8:30 Permitting Exercise
8:50 Inspections and POTW Monitoring
10:30 Break
10:45 Reporting Requirements
11:30 Data Management and Compliance
Evaluation
12:15 Lunch
1:30 Enforcement
2:20 Resources and Funding
2:45 Break
3:00 Pretreatment Program Quiz
3:15 Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment
Program
3:45 Pretreatment Update
4:30 Adjourn
Student Manual
Pagel
-------
Table of Contents
The Pretreatment Training Course
Module 7 Permitting Exercise
> Exercise
Module 8 Inspections and POTW Monitoring
* Slide Presentation
* Narrative
» Appendix: Inspection Form (Muncie, IN)
» Appendix: Example Chain of Custody Record Form
+ Appendix: Example Field Measurement Record Form
Module 9 Reporting Requirements
* Slide Presentation
» Narrative
» Appendix: Example Lab Report Form for Periodic Compliance Reports
» Appendix: Example Certification Form for Periodic Compliance Reports
Module 10 Data Management and Compliance Evaluation
> Slide Presentation
> Narrative
Appendix: Exercise: Review of a Periodic Compliance Report
» Appendix: 40 CFR Part 433, Metal Finishing Point Source Category
» Appendix: 40 CFR Part 136 (without Appendices)
Module 11 Enforcement
> Slide Presentation
* Narrative
» Appendix: Enforcement Response Guide (Muncie, IN)
Module 12 Resources and Funding
» Slide Presentation
* Narrative
Module 13 Pretreatment Program Quiz
* Quiz
Module 14 Pollution Prevention
» Slide Presentation
» Narrative
Module 15 Pretreatment Update
* Slide Presentation
» Appendix: List of Regional EPA and State Pretreatment Program Contacts
Bibliography: Available Reference Materials
Page 2
Student Manual
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Agenda
Agenda: The Pretreatment Training Course
In October 1996, as part of the Metal Finishing Sector of the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), EPA published
Improving Industrial Pretreatment Success Factors, Challenges, and Project Ideas.' The report identified a need for more
training options related to the Pretreatment Program. To address this need, EPA and WEF have produced this course.
The objective of this training course is to provide the basic regulatory framework and technical considerations that
support the development and implementation of pretreatment programs under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permitting Program and the Clean Water Act (CWA).
This course is designed and recommended for environmental professionals responsible for implementing the
Pretreatment Program at the local level, industrial dischargers, consultants, and especially individuals that are new to the
program.
DAY1
8:30 Welcome
8:40 Pretreatment Quiz
8:50 Overview of the National Pretreatment
Program
10:00 Break
10:10 Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal
Authority
11:20 Industrial User Identification and
Classification
12:00 Lunch
1:15 Industrial User Permitting
2:15 Break
2:30 Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and
Categorical Standards
3:45 Pretreatment Standards: Local Limits
4:30 Adjourn
DAY 2
8:30 Permitting Exercise
8:50 Inspections and POTW Monitoring
10:30 Break
10:45 Reporting Requirements
11:30 Data Management and Compliance
Evaluation
12:15 Lunch
1:30 Enforcement
2:20 Resources and Funding
2:45 Break
3:00 Pretreatment Program Quiz
3:15 Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment
Program
3:45 Pretreatment Update
4:30 Adjourn
Student Manual
Pagel
-------
Glossary of Common Terminology TTie Pretreatment Training Course
PCS Permit Compliance System
PIRT Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PSES Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
PSNS Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RBC Rotating Biological Contactor
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SIU Significant Industrial User
SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures
SNC Significant Noncompliance
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SUO Sewer Use Ordinance
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TOMP Toxic Organic Management Program
TRE Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TSS Total Suspended Solids
TTO Total Toxic Organics
USC United States Code
UST Underground Storage Tank
WET Whole Effluent Toxicity
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Page 2 Student Manual
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Glossary of Common Terminobgy
Definitions
Act or "the Act"
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 ef.seq.
Approval Authority
The Director in an NPDES State with an approved State Pretreatment Program and the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator in a State that has not received approval for their Pretreatment Program.
Approved/Authorized Program or Approved State
A State or interstate program which has been approved or authorized by EPA under Part 123.
Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR)
A report submitted by categorical industrial users (ClUs) within 180 days after the effective date of an applicable
categorical standard which indicates the compliance status of the user with the applicable categorical standard [40 CFR
§403.12(b)].
Best Available Technology (BAT)
A level of technology based on the very best(state of the art) control and treatment measures that have been
developed or are capable of being developed and that are economically achievable within the appropriate industrial
category.
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent
or reduce the pollution of waters of the U.S. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures and
practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.
Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
A level of technology represented by the average of the best existing wastewater treatment performance levels within the
industrial category.
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ)
The highest quality technical opinion developed by a permit writer after consideration of all reasonable available and
pertinent data or information which forms the basis for the terms and conditions of a permit
Slowdown
The discharge of water with high concentrations of accumulated solids from boilers to prevent plugging of the boiler
tubes and/or steam lines. In cooling towers, blowdown is discharged to reduce the concentration of dissolved salts in the
recirculating cooling water.
Bypass
The intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of a treatment (or pretreatment) facility.
Student Manual Page 3
-------
Glossary of Common Terminology The Pretreatment Training Course
Categorical Industrial User (CIU)
An industrial user subject to National categorical pretreatment standards.
Categorical Pretreatment Standards
Limitations on pollutant discharges to POTWs promulgated by EPA in accordance with Section 307 of the Clean Water
Act, that apply to specific process wastewater discharges of particular industrial categories [40 CFR § 403.6 and 40 CFR
Parts 405-471].
Chain of Custody(COC)
A record of each person involved in the possession of a sample from the person who collects the sample to the person who
receives it in the laboratory.
Chronic
A stimulus that lingers or continues for a relatively bng period of time, often one-tenth of the life span or more. Chronic
should be considered a relative term depending on the life span of an organism. The measurement of chronic effect can
be reduced growth, reduced reproduction, etc., in addition to lethality.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Public law 92-500; 33 U.S.C. 1251 ej seq.: legislation which provides statutory authority for both NPDES and
Pretreatment programs. Also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations published in a U.S. Government publication, the Federal Register, which
contains environmental regulations.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
A discharge of untreated wastewater from a combined sewer system at a point prior to the headworks of a publicly
owned treatment works. CSOs generally occur during wet weather (rainfall or snowfall). During periods of wet weather,
these systems become overloaded, bypass treatment works, and discharge directly to receiving waters.
Combined Wastestream Formula (CWF)
Procedure for calculating alternative discharge limits at industrial facilities where a regulated wastestream from a
categorical industrial user is combined with other wastestreams prior to treatment [40 CFR §403.6(e)].
Compliance Schedule
A schedule of remedial measures included in a permit or an enforcement order, including a sequence of interim
requirements (for example, actions, operations, or milestone events) that lead to compliance with the CWA and regulations.
Composite Sample
Sample composed of two or more discrete samples. The aggregate sample will reflect the average water quality
covering the compositing or sample period.
Page 4 Student Manual
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Glossary of Common Terminology
Concentration-based Limit
A limit based upon the relative strength of a pollutant in a wastestream, usually expressed in mg/1.
Continuous Discharge
A discharge which occurs without interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility, except for infrequent
shutdowns for maintenance, process changes or other similar activities.
Control Authority
A POTW with an approved pretreatment program or the approval authority in the absence of a POTW pretreatment
program [40 CFR §403.12(a)].
Conventional Pollutants
BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, oil and grease, and pH
Daily Maximum Limitations
The maximum allowable discharge of pollutants during a 24 hour period. Where daily maximum limitations are
expressed in units of mass, the daily discharge is the total mass discharged over the course of the day. Where daily
maximum limitations are expressed in terms of a concentration, the daily discharge is the arithmetic average measurement
of the pollutant concentration derived from all measurements taken that day.
Detection Limit
The minimum concentration of an analyte(substance) that can be measured and reported with a 99% confidence that
the analyte concentration is greater than zero as determined by the procedure set forth in 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B.
Development Document
Detailed report of studies conducted by the U.S. EPA for the purpose of establishing effluent guidelines and categorical
pretreatment standards.
Dilute Wastestream
For purposes of the combined wastestream formula, the average daily flow (at least a 30-day average) from: (a) boiler
bbwdown streams, non-contact cooling streams, storm water streams, and demineralized backwash streams; provided,
however, that where such streams contain a significant amount of a pollutant, and the combination of such streams, prior
to treatment, with an industrial user's regulated process wastestream(s) will result in a substantial reduction of that pollutant,
the Control Authority, upon application of the industrial user, may exercise its discretion to determine whether such
stream(s) should be classified as diluted or unregulated. In its application to the control authority, the industrial user must
provide engineering, production, sampling and analysis, and such other information so the control authority can make its
determination; or(b) sanitary wastestreams where such streams are not regulated by a categorical pretreatment standard;
or(c) from any process wastestreams which were, or could have been, entirely exempted from categorical pretreatment
standards pursuant to paragraph 8 of the NRDC v. Costle Consent Decree (12 ERC1833) for one more of the following
reasons (see Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 403):
a. the pollutants of concern are not detectable in the effluent from the industrial user (paragraph (8)(a)(iii));
b. the pollutants of concern are present only in trace amounts and are neither causing nor likely to cause toxic effects
(paragraph (8)(a)(iii));
Student Manual Page 5
-------
Glossary of Common Terminology TTie Pretreatment Training Course
c. the pollutants of concern are present in amounts too small to be effectively deduced by technologies known to the
Administrator (paragraph (8)(a)(iii)); or
d. the wastestream contains only pollutants which are compatible with the POTW (paragraph (8)(b)(i)).
Discharge Monitoring Report
The EPA uniform National form, including any subsequent additions, revisions or modifications for reporting of serf-
monitoring results by permittees. The form must be used by approved States as well as by EPA.
Effluent Limitation Guideline
Regulations published to adopt or revise a national standard prescribing limits on specific pollutants (in Ibs/day or mg/l)
from point sources in a particular industrial category (e.g., metal finishing, metal molding and casting, etc.)
Enforcement Response Plan
Step-by-step enforcement procedures followed by Control Authority staff to identify, document, and respond to
violations.
Existing Source
Any source of discharge, the construction or operation of which commenced prior to the publication by the EPA of
proposed categorical pretreatment standards, which will be applicable to such source if the standard is thereafter
promulgated in accordance with Section 307 of the Act
Flow Weighted Average Formula (FWA)
A procedure used to calculate alternative limits where wastestreams regulated by a categorical pretreatment standard
and nonregulated wastestreams combine after treatment but prior to the monitoring point
Flow Proportional Composite Sample
Combination of individual samples proportional to the flow of the wastestream at the time of sampling.
Fundamentally Different Factors
Case-by-case variance fro/n categorical pretreatment standards based on the factors considered by EPA in developing
the applicable category/subcategory being fundamentally different than factors relating to a specific industrial user.
General Prohibitions
No user shall introduce into a POTW any pollutant(s) which cause pass through or interference.[40 CFR § 403.5(a)]
Grab Sample
A sample which is taken from a wastestream on a one-time basis with no regard to the flow of the wastestream and
without consideration of time.
Indirect Discharger
A nondomestic discharger introducing pollutants to a publicly owned treatment works.
Student Manual
-------
TTie Pietreatment Training Course Glossary of Common Terminology
Industrial User (IU) or User
A source of nondomestic waste. Any nondomestic source discharging pollutants to a POTW.
Industrial Waste Survey
The process of identifying and locating of industrial users and characterizing their industrial discharge.
Inhibition Concentration
Point estimate of the toxicant concentration that would cause a given percent reduction (e.g., IC25) in a nonlethal
biological measurement of the test organisms, such as reproduction or growth.
Interference
A discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, both: (1) inhibits or
disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; and (2) therefore is a
cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration
of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with... [applicable] statutory provisions
and regulations or permits issued thereunder (or more stringent State or local regulations)...
Local Limits
Conditional discharge limits imposed by municipalities upon industrial or commercial facilities that discharge to the
municipal sewage treatment system.
Monthly Average
The arithmetic average value of all samples taken in a calendar month for an individual pollutant parameter. The
monthly average may be the average of all grab samples taken in a given calendar month, or the average of all composite
samples taken in a given calendar month.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits,
and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under sections 307,402,318, and 405 of the CWA. This includes
an approved program.
National Pretreatment Standard or Pretreatment Standard
Limitations on pollutant discharges to POTWs promulgated by EPA in accordance with Section 307 of the Clean Water
Act, that apply to specific process wastewater discharges of particular industrial categories [40 CFR § 403.6 and 40 CFR
Parts 405-471]. This term also includes the prohibited discharge standards under 40 CFR § 403.5, including local limits.
New Source
Any building, structure, facility or installation from which there is (or may be) a discharge of pollutants, the construction
of which commenced after the publication of proposed pretreatment standards under Section 307(c) of the Act which will
be applicable to such source if such standards are thereafter promulgated in accordance with that section provided that
(a) The building, structure, facility or installation is constructed at a site at which no other discharge source is located;
or
Student Manual '. Page?
-------
Glossary of Common Terminology The Pretreatment Training Course
(b) The building, structure, facility or installation totally replaces the process or production equipment that causes the
discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or
(c) The production or wastewater generating processes of the building, structure, facility, or installation are
substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. In determining whether these are substantially
independent, factors such as the extent to which the new facility is integrated with the existing plant, and the
extent to which the new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source, should be
considered.
90-Day Final Compliance Report
A report submitted by categorical industrial users within 90 days following the date for final compliance with the
standards. This report must contain flow measurement (of regulated process streams and other streams), measurement
of pollutants, and a certification as to whether the categorical standards are being met
Nonconventional Pollutants
Any pollutant that is neither a toxic pollutant nor a conventional pollutant (e.g., manganese, ammonia, etc.)
Non-Contact Cooling Water
Water used for cooling which does not come into direct contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste
product, or finished product The only pollutant contributed from the discharge is heal
Non-Regulated Wastestream
Unregulated and dilute wastestreams.
Pass Through
A discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in
conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's
NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation)
Periodic Compliance Report
A report on compliance status submitted by the categorical user to the control authority at least semiannually [40 CFR
§403.12(e)].
Point Source
Any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,
conduit, well, discrete fixture, container, rolling stock concentrated animal feeding operation vessel, or other floating craft
from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
Pollutant
Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical
wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials (except those regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.)), heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal
and agricultural waste discharged into water.
Page 8 Student Manuel
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Glossary of Common Terminology
Pretreatanent
The reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant
properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW.
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
Categorical Standards and requirements applicable to industrial sources that began construction prior to the
publication of the proposed pretreatment standards for that industrial category.(see individual standards at 40 CFR Parts
405471.)
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
Categorical Standards and requirements applicable to industrial sources that began construction after the publication
of the proposed pretreatment standards for that industrial category, (see individual standards at 40 CFR Parts 405-471.)
Priority Pollutant
Pollutant listed by the Administrator of EPA under Clean Water Act 307(a). The list of the current 126 Priority
Pollutants can be found in 40 CFR Part 423 Appendix A.
Process Wastewater
Any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into contact with or results from the production or use
of any raw material, intermediate product finished product, byproduct, or waste product
Production-Based Standards
A discharge standard expressed in terms of pollutant mass allowed in a discharge per unit of product manufactured.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Any device or system used in the treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial
wastes of a liquid nature which is owned by a State or municipality. This includes sewers, pipes or other conveyances only
if they convey wastewater to a POTW providing treatment
Regulated Wastestream
A wastestream from an industrial process that is regulated by a categorical standard.
Removal Credits
Variance from a pollutant limit specified in a categorical pretreatment standard to reflect removal by the POTW of said
pollutant [40 CFR §403.7].
Representative Sample
A sample from a wastestream that is as nearly identical in composition to that in the larger volume of wastewater being
discharged and typical of the discharge from the facility on a normal operating day.
Student Manual Page 9
-------
Glossary of Common Terminology The Pretreatment Training Course
Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO)
Untreated or partially treated sewage overflows from a sanitary sewer collection system.
Self-Monitoring
Sampling and analyses performed by a facility to ensure compliance with a permit or other regulatory requirements.
Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO)
A legal instrument implemented by a local government entity which sets out all the requirements for the discharge of
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works.
Significant Industrial User (S1U)
EPA defines a significant industrial user to be a. Any user subject to a categorical pretreatment standard (national
effluent guidelines); b. Any user that discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater,
or that contributes a process wastestream making up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic
capacity of the POTW treatment plant; or c. Any other user designated by the control authority (POTW) to be a significant
industrial user [40 CFR § 403.3(t)].
Significant Noncompliance(SNC)
[40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(vii)] Industrial user violations meeting one or more of the following criteria:
1) Chronic violations of wastewater discharge limits, defined here as those in which sixty-six percent or more
of all of the measurements taken during a six month period exceed (by any magnitude) the daily maximum limit
or the average limit for the same pollutant parameter;
2) Technical Review Criteria (TRC) violations, defined here as those in which thirty-three percent or more of
all of the measurements for each pollutants parameter taken during a six-month period equal or exceed the
product of the dairy maximum limit or the average limit multiplied by the applicable TRC (TRC=1.4 for BOD, TSS,
fats, oil, and grease, and 1.2 for all other pollutants except pH);
3) Any other violation of a pretreatment effluent limit (daily maximum or longer-term average) that the Control
Authority determines has caused, alone or in combination with other dischargers, interference or pass through
(including endangering the health of POTW personnel or the general public);
4) Any discharge of a pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to human health, welfare or to the
environment or has resulted in the POTW's exercise of its emergency authority under paragraph (f)(1)(vi)(B) of
this section to halt or prevent such a discharge;
5) Failure to meet, within 90 days after the schedule date, a compliance schedule milestone contained in a local
control mechanism or enforcement order for starting construction, completing construction, or attaining final
compliance;
6) Failure to provide, within 30 days after the due date, required reports such as baseline monitoring reports,
90-day compliance reports, periodic self-monitoring reports, and reports on compliance with compliance
schedules;
7) Failure to accurately report noncompliance;
8) Any other violation or group of violations which the Control Authority determines will adversely affect the
operation or implementation of the local pretreatment program.
Slug Discharge
Any discharge of a non-routine, episodic nature, including but not limited to, an accidental spill or a noncustomary
batch discharge.
Page 10 Student Manual
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Glossary of Common Terminology
Specific Prohibitions
No user shall introduce into a POTW:
1) Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW, including but not limited to, wastestreams
with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees Centigrade using the test
methods specified in 40 CFR Part 261.21;
2) Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the POTW, but in no case discharges with pH
lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate such discharges;
3) Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW resulting in
interference;
4) Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants(BOD, etc.) Released in a discharge at a flow rate a-
nd/or concentration which will cause interference with the POTW;
5) Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in interference, but in no case heat
in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW treatment plant exceeds 40°C(104°F) unless the Approval
Authority, upon request of the POTW, approves alternative temperature limits;
6) Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause
interference or pass through;
7) Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that
may cause acute worker health and safety problems;
8) Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW.
Standard Industrial Classlfication(SIC)
A system used to identify various types of industries.
Storm Water
Rain water, snow melt, and surface drainage.
Time Proportional Composite Sample
A sample consisting of a series of aliquots collected from a representative point in the discharge stream at equal times
intervals over the entire discharge period on the sampling day.
Toxic Pollutant
Any pollutant listed as toxic under section 307(a)(1) of the CWA, or in the case of sludge use or disposal practices,
any pollutant identified in regulations implementing section 405(d) of the CWA.
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
A site-specific study conducted in a stepwise process designed to identify the causative agents of effluent toxicity,
isolate the sources of toxicity, evaluate the effectiveness of toxicity control options, and then confirm the reduction in effluent
toxicity.
Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Set of procedures to identify the specific chemicals responsible for effluent toxicity.
Unregulated Wastestream
A wastestream not regulated by a categorical standard nor considered a dilute wastestream.
Student Manual Page 11
-------
Glossary of Common Terminology The Preireatment Training Couree
Upset
An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with permit limits because of
factors beyond the reasonable control of the discharger. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused
by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
Water Quality Criteria
Comprised of numeric and narrative criteria. Numeric criteria are scientifically derived ambient concentrations
devebped by EPA or States for various pollutants of concern to protect human health and aquatic life. Narrative criteria
are statements that describe the desired water quality goal.
Water Quality Standard
A law or regulation that consists of the beneficial designated use or uses of a waterbody, the numeric and narrative
water quality criteria that are necessary to protect the use or uses of that particular waterbody, and an antidegradation
statement
Whole Effluent Toxicity
The total toxic effect of an effluent measured directly with a toxicity test
Page 12 Student Manual
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
The National Pretreatment Program
EPA's Pretreatment
Training Course
Sponsored by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
and
Water Environment Federation
"The National
Pretreatment Program
and You"
Quiz Time
Module 1
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
The National Pretreatment Program
History of Water Protection
1899 Rivers and Harbors Act
1956 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
1963 Rachel Carson's Silent Spring
1963 Robert Zimmerman changed his name to?
1965 Water Quality Act
History of Water Protection, cont.
1970 EPA established through an executive order
1972 FWPCA Amendments create NPDES Program
1977 Clean Water Act
1987 Water Quality Act
199? Clean Water Act Reauthorization
How Acts Are Implemented
Act passed/signed
Federal Register notice
Regulations into effect
Appropriate Entities act out provisions
Module 1
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
The National Pretreatment Program
Statutory Basis
Clean Water Act
[33U.S.C. 1251,etseq.]
101 308
212 309
301 402
307 502
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System("NPDES")
[40 CFR Part 122]
NPDES applies to all "point sources discharging
pollutants" into "waters of the United States"
point sources must obtain an NPDES permit
from EPA or their delegated State
NPDES permits require development of
Pretreatment Programs
The connection: 40 CFR Part 122
Module 1
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
The National Pretreatment Program
Evolution of Pretreatment Regulations
1973-40 CFR Part 128 promulgated
1978-40 CFR Part 403 promulgated
1983 - POTW program approval deadline
1985 - Pretreatment Implementation Review Task
ForcefPIRV) report released
1986 - Domestic Sewage Study(DSS) Report to Congress
1988 - PIRT Rules promulgated
1990 - DSS regulations promulgated
1993 - Removal credit/pollutant eligibility revised
40 CFR Part 403
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations(CFR)
Title 40 - Protection of the Environment
Chapter I - Environmental Protection Agency
-Subchapter N - Effluent Guidelines and
Standards
Part 403 - General Pretreatment
Regulations for Existing and New Sources
of Pollution
Module 1
Slide Presentation Page 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
The National Pretreatment Program
40 CFR Part 403 Objectives
To prevent the introduction of pollutants
into POTWs which will:
- interfere,
- pass through, and/or
- be incompatible.
To improve opportunities to recycle and
reclaim wastewaters and sludges.
To protect POTW workers.
Slide Show
Presentation
Who Must Develop a Program?
POTWs with:
- combined design flow > 5 MGD, and
- receiving flow from ClUs, and/or
- receiving pollutants which pass through
or interfere.
Approval Authority may require program
be developed, regardless.
NPDES State's may assume
responsibility.
Module 1
Slide Presentation - Page 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
The National Pretreatment Program
Approval Authority
vs.
Control Authority
Delegated States
Approval & Control Authority ||lj - Indutbtal Ut*r In approvtd program
- Approval Authority || - Control Authority EH - Industrial User
Non-Delegated States
Approval & Control Authority p| - IndintrUI Us«r In approvtd program
Control Authority f§- Industrial Ustr g - Non-Otleginid State*
Module 1
Slide Presentation - Page 6
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
The National Pretreatment Program
40 CFR§ 403.10(6), States
-Approval Authority
- Control Authority {§1 Industrial U**r HU - no pretreatment program
Module 1
Slide Presentation - Page 7
-------
The ftefreafrne/rf Training Course The National Pretreatment Program
The National Pretreatment Program
Overview of maior legislative, regulatory, and Judicial events affecting the Pretreatment Program.
Congress's first step in protecting the national waters was the passage of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 United States
Code (U.S.C.) Part 407 ej sea, (commonly known as the "Refuse Act"). The Refuse Act which was originally intended to protect
navigation, prohibited the discharge from a ship or shore installation into navigable waters of the United States of "any refuse matter
of any kind or description whatever other than that flowing from streets and sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state without a
permit" The frst direct consideration given by the legislature to the control of water pollution did not occur until 1948 with the passage
of the Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA). Although the WPCA established no Federal goals or guidelines, it did provide limited funding
for State and local governments to address their water pollution control problems. Controlling industrial water pollution was limited to
proviolng fundng to study it The WPCA gave the U.S. Surgeon General the responsibility of developing a program to control interstate
water pollution but provided minimal Federal enforcement authority.
In 1956, the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) provided additional funding to State and local
governments and clarified some requirements through enforcement actions. The 1961 amendments to the FWPCA allowed citizen
suits but only through written consent of the Governor. The Water Quality Act of 1965 required States to establish water quality
standards for all interstate waters. This Act also created the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration which was empowered to
develop water quality standards for States who failed to do so. Again, the Federal government's role was limited to assisting local
governments address ther water pollution control problems. Insufficient data, lack of water quality standards, and the burden of proof
of demonstrating a discharge had caused a violation of a standard impeded enforcement actions being taken.
As a result of the lack of success in developing water quality standards programs and ineffective enforcement of the FWPCA,
the Refuse Act of 1899 was revived and from 1969-1971, the Army Corp of Engineers was empowered to issue discharge permits.
As a result of an apparent conflict with a requirement of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act and that the Refuse Act had been
revived without congressional authorization, on October 18,1972, amendments to the FWPCA were enacted.
The FWPCA Amendments of 1972 set up a comprehensive regulatory scheme for controlling water pollution discharges and
resolved the differences between the water quality standards approach of the 1965 Water Quality Act and the effluent standards
approach of the Refuse Act The 1972 amendments to the FWPCA set a National goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into
the navigable waters by 1985. The amendments also abandoned water quality as the primary regulatory approach in favor of EPA-
promulgated, industry-by-industry, technology-based effluent limitations and extended Federal jurisdiction to all waters of the United
States.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was also established (Section 402) under the 1972
amendments to implement these "technology-forcing" standards. This was to supersede the Refuse Act permitting program. Under
this scheme, a permit is required for any discharge into the waters of the United States. The permit cannot be issued unless the
discharge meets Federal effluent guidelines or, where no guidelines exist the issuing Agency's best professional judgment on how to
meet statutory requirements. The Act further required more stringent permit limitations based on State water quality standards and
criteria. It also requied EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for pollutants not susceptible to treatment by POTWs and authorized
EPA to establish standards for toxic pollutants from existing and new sources. In addition, the amendments provided EPA with
extensive enforcement authority, including issuance of Administrative Orders, and established civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day
of violation and criminal penalties of up to $25,000 per day of violation and 1 year in prison.
Module 1 ~ Narrative - Page 1
-------
The National Pretreatment Program The Pretreatment Training Course
EPA promulgated the initial regulations for State NPDES programs on December 22.1972. (37 PR 28391) and promulgated
substantive NPDES permitting requirements on May 22.1973 (38 PR 13528). In the initial, or first-found,' permitting effort EPA and
States with NPDES program authority issued over 65,000 NPDES permits. EPA issued the vast majority of these permits prior to
promulgation of Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT) effluent guidelines by relying on its authority under Section 402(a)(1) of
the Act to issue permits with 'such conditions as the Administrator determines to be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act'
In response to the statutory amendments, EPA promulgated 40 CFR Part 128 Pretreatment Standards in late 1973. This
regulation contained general prohibitions against interference with treatment plant operation and pass through of pollutants b receiving
waters. It also established pretreatment standards for the discharge of incompatible pollutants from specific categories of industries.
EPA's development of BPT National effluent guidelines focused largely on conventional pollutants such as Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD), suspended solids, and acidity and alkalinity. In 1975. the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several
other environmental groups filed suit against EPA challenging: (1) EPA's criteria for identifying toxic pollutants under Section 307(a)
of the FWPCA, and EPA's failure to promulgate effluent standards under this section; and (2) EPA's failure to promulgate pretreatment
standards under Section 307(b) of the Act for numerous industrial categories and pollutants. In settling this litigation, EPA and NRDC
entered into a consent agreement whereby EPA was to regulate toxic pollutants through effluent guidelines and standards. [NRDC
vs. Train. 8 ERC 2120 (D. D.C. 1976)].
The consent agreement required EPA to regulate the discharge of 65 categories of priority pollutants (which included 129
chemical substances) from 21 industrial categories. The decree required adoption of Best Available Technology (BAT) effluent limitation
guidefines in each category by June 30,1983, and set similar requirements for new sources and indirect dischargers. NPDES permits
issued or renewed after January 1,1976, had to be modified to reflect these new effluent standards. (On March 9,1979, the consent
agreement was modified (12 ERC 1833) to adopt the 1977 amendments to the Act This included adopting a BAT compliance deadline
of June 30,1984 extending the deadline for developing technology-based effluent limitations for toxics, and regrouping the 21 primary
industrial categories into 34 categories.)
In February, 1977, EPA pubBshed proposed General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403). This package proposed four
major options for creating the framework to deal with the problems of pollution from indirect dischargers. The 1977 proposal generated
extensive public and congressional debate. EPA held numerous public meetings and hearings which produced testimony or written
comments from 400 individuals or groups.
In December, 1977, Congress developed amendments to the FWPCA. Under these amendments, known formally as the Clean
Water Act, Congress incorporated much of the NRDC consent agreement to:
Adopt the list of priority pollutants as the list of toxic pollutants to be regulated by EPA
Require establishment of BAT effluent limitation guidelines by July 1,1980
Require compliance with BAT effluent limitations by July 1,1984
Allow EPA to add to or delete from the Gst of toxic pollutants.
The amendments also added significant pretreatment provisions.
EPA was given the authority to take enforcement actions in a State with NPDES program approval to prevent the
introduction of pollutants into a POTW that is discharging pollutants in violation of its permits (EPA previously had this
authority only in unapproved States).
Page 2-Narrative Module 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course TTie National Pretreatment Program
EPA was authorized to take a CM! action against an indirect discharger for violating any pretreafanent standard and against
the receiving POTW if that POTW does not begin enforcement action within 30 days following notice from the Administrator.
EPA was authorized to require POTWs to submit pretreatment programs for agency approval.
States were required to include conditions in NPOES permits that ensure the identification of sources introducing pollutants
to POTWs and to implement a program to ensure compliance with pretreatment standards by each such source.
On June 26,1978, the Agency promulgated the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403) which established
mechanisms and procedures for applying National pretreatment standards and for establishing State and local programs. The regula-
tions complied with the new pretreatment mandates set forth in the Clean Water Act The General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR
Part 403) replaced the previous pretreatment requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 128. In the subsequent fiscal year, EPA for the
first time allocated significant Agency resources to implement the National Pretreatment Program.
In August of 1978, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), the U.S. Brewers Association, the Pacific Legal Foundation
and the Natural Resources Defense Council brought actions challenging various aspects of the regulations. On May 31,1979, EPA
entered into an agreement with the industrial petitioners which sought to settle most of the issues raised by these parties during
litigation. Accordingly, the Agency published proposed amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations on October 29,1979.
The parlies to the settlement agreed not to litigate the issues covered by the agreement if the language of the final amended regulations
did not differ significantly from the October proposal.
The proposed amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations centered on simplifying and easing the requirements for
a POTW to grant removal credits altering the categorical discharge limits applicable to its industrial users. In addition to changes
proposed pursuant to the settlement agreement, the proposed amendments included changes initiated by EPA to resolve inconsis-
tencies and to clarify ambiguous provisions of the June 1978 regulations.
On January 28,1981, EPA promulgated amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403) which were
to take effect on March 13,1981. However, the President's regulation freeze issued on January 29,1981, delayed the effective date
until March 30,1981. On April 2,1981, a notice in the Federal Register indefinitely postponed the effective date of the amendments
pending a decision by the Presidents Task Force on Regulatory Relief of the Office of Management and Budget
On July 8,1981, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion finding that the indefinite postponement
of the amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations contradicted the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative
Procedures Act To remedy this violation, the Court directed the Agency to retroactively reinstate all of the amendments, effective March
30,1981.
Various parties challenged the pretreatment regulations and the electroplating categorical pretreatment standards. All the cases
were oonsofidated in National Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF) et al. vs. EPA in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit The pretreatment provisions challenged in the litigation included:
Definitions of 'new source.' 'interference,' and 'pass through'
Combined wastestream formula (CWF)
Removal credits provision
Fundamentally different factors .(PDF) variance provision.
Module 1 ~ Narrative Page 3
-------
The National Prebaatment Program The Pretreatment Training Course
In its ruling issued on September 20,1983, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the electroplating standards, the CWF, and
(he removal credits provision. However, the court remanded to EPA the challenged definitions and the PDF provision of the General
Prefreatment Regulations. As a result of these decisions, on February 10,1984, EPA suspended the regulatory definitions of the terms
ii question and modified the FDF provision so that an FDF variance was not available for toxic pollutants. However, in February 1985,
the Supreme Courtreversed the judgment of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with regards to the challenged FDF provisions. There-
fere, EPA continues to have the authority to grant FDF variances from pretreatment standards for conventional, nonconventional, and
toxic pollutants.
On February^ 1984, the EPA Administrator established the Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force (PIRT) to evaluate
problems experienced by States, municipalities, and industries during the implementation of pretreatment program requirements. PIRT
reviewed program development, approval and implementation regulations and procedures. In a report titled Pretreatment
Implementation Review Task Force Final Report to the Administrator, dated January 30, 1985, PIRT submitted its findings and
recommendations. PIRT recommended that EPA:
Develop guidance to simplify and clarify the pretreatment program requirements
Expedite issuance of water quality standards
Expeditiously develop sludge management and disposal requirements
Publish guidance on regulation of research and development and Federal facilities
Provide guidance on industrial monitoring frequencies
Develop an Inspection Training Program for Control Authorities
Develop a uniform data reporting format for the annual Control Authority report
Step up enforcement actions against Control Authorities without program approval
Step up enforcement actions against industrial users not submitting baseline monitoring reports and those not in
compliance with categorical standards
Increase the resources available to implement the National Pretreatment Program by increasing manpower at EPA and
increasing grant funding to States and Control Authorities
Define roles and relationships between EPA, States and Control Authorities.
PIRT also suggested a number of regulatory revisions which included changes to the definitions of 'interference,' 'pass through,'
and 'new source' and to various other provisions of the 40 CFR Part 403 regulations.
On July 10,1984, in response to PIRTs recommendations, EPA promulgated a revised definition of "new source* to replace the
definition previously remanded as part of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in NAMF et al. vs. EPA. In addition, on January
14,1987, EPA promulgated revised definitions of 'interference* and 'pass through* to replace those also suspended pursuant to that
decision. (The definitions of pass through and interference are important for use during determinations of industrial user violations of
the general or specific prohibitions and during evaluations of a Control Authority's need to develop local limits.)
Page 4 - Narrative Module 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course 77?e National Pretreatment Program
In August, 1984, EPA promulgated revisions to the removal credit provision. However, on April 30,1986, in the case of NRDC
vs. EPA, 16 ELR 20693 (3rd Cir. 1986) the Court held that EPA could not grant removal credits authority to POTWs primarily due to
the absence of technical sludge regulations (i.e., regulations outlining the specific criteria for sludge disposal).
In an effort to clarify the General Pretreatment Regulations, to remove inconsistencies, and to correct errors, erroneous references
and inadvertent omissions, EPA promulgated amendments to 40 CFR Part 403 on June 4, 1986. In response to a PIRT
recommendation, EPA promulgated updated versions of Appendices B and C in the June 4,1986 ruling. A revised Appendix D was
promulgated on Octobers, 1986.
In February, 1987, Congress passed the Water Quality Act of 1987. These amendments:
Revised Section 301(h) to require POTWs serving populations greater than 50,000 and holding a waiver from secondary
treatment requirements for discharge to marine waters to enforce pretreatment standards and requirements
Revised Section 301 (n) to recognize that categorical industries may be eligible for PDF variances
Revised Section 304(1) to require States to identify water bodies which remain impaired due to toxicity after imposition of
BAT/BCT controls, and develop additional controls to eliminate the toxicity
Revised Section 307(e) to extend categorical standard compliance deadlines for innovative technology
Revised Section 309(c) to designate knowing and/or negligent violations of requirements as Federal criminal offenses
Revised Section 402(m) to prohibit EPA from requiring additional pretreatment of conventional pollutants as a substitute
for the POTWs inadequate treatment of such wastes
In addition, Congress reaffirmed NRDC vs. EPA, 16 ELR 20693 (3rd Cir. 1986) which held that EPA could not approve
POTW requests for removal credits due to, among other reasons, the lack of Federal technical sludge standards.
While these Amendments affected EPA resources, they did not require the Agency to make major revisions to existing regulations or
policies.
EPA promulgated further significant revisions to the General Pretreatment Regulations on October 17,1988 (53 FR 40562).
These revisions clarified existing regulations, addressed additional PIRT recommendations, and provided conformity with the NPDES
regulations. In general, these revisions involved new or modified requirements regarding: (1) pretreatment standards and requirements
- local Emits, (2) Control Authority program requirements - enforcement remedies, (3) Control Authority and State program approvals,
and (4) industrial user and Control Authority compliance monitoring and reporting requirements.
Another study impacting the Pretreatment Program was the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS). The study was submitted to
Congress by EPA in response to Section 3018(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). That provision directed
the Agency to report to Congress on wastes discharged to POTWs through sewer systems that are exempt from regulation under RCRA
as a result of the Domestic Sewage Exclusion. On June 22,1987, EPA issued a Federal Register notice (52 FR 23477) which
summarized the principal public comments on the Agency's preliminary approaches to fulfilling the recommendations of the DSS. This
notice also discussed the program and research activities which EPA had underway to aid in this effort Changes to the General
Pretreatment Regulations to implement some DSS recommendations were proposed in the Federal Register on November 23,1988
(53 FR 47632). These regulations were subsequently promulgated in the Federal Register on July 24,1990 (55 FR 30082). The DSS
regulations generally included revisions regarding the following new or modified requirements: (1) whole effluent toxicity testing, (2)
Module 1 Narrative - Page 5
-------
The National fte treatment Program The Pretreatment Traning Course
specific discharge prohibitions. (3) local discharge Emits. (4) notification of hazardous waste discharges, (5) controls for spills and batch
discharges. (6) industrial user control mechanisms, and (7) monitoring and enforcement
In 1987, Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act was amended b requ're EPA to establish standards that adequately protect public
health and the environment from any reasonably anticipated adverse effects of pollutants in sewage sludge that is used or disposed.
These amendments also requred that any NPDES permit include sewage sludge use or disposal standards unless these requirements
are included in another permit In addition, the amendments expanded the regulated universe to include all "treatment works treating
domestic sewage' (TWTDS), even those not needing an NPOES permit TWTDS include all sewage sludge or wastewater treatment
systems used to store, treat, recycle, and reclaim municipal or domestic sewage.
In response b these sewage sludge statutory mandates, EPA has undertaken several rulemakings. On May 2,1989 (54 PR
19716), EPA revised 40 CFR Parts 122 and 124 to establish procedures and requirements to integrate sewage sludge management
into NPOES permits. At the same time, the Agency revised 40 CFR Part 123 governing the approval of State NPDES programs and
promulgated a new part, 40 CFR Part 501 (State Management Program Regulations), that established program requirements and
procedures for States to seek approval of non-NPDES sewage sludge management programs. On February 19,1993, EPA published
regulations at 40 CFR Part 503 (58 FR 9248), Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, that address the standards
mentioned in Section 405(d). Part 503 contains requirements for the use/disposal of sewage sludge when it is:
Applied to land for a beneficial purpose (land application)
Placed on a surface disposal site (surface disposal)
Fired in a sewage sludge incinerator (incineration)
Placed in a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF).
For each of the first three use/disposal practices. Part 503 presents general requirements, specifies numeric limits on pollutant
concentrations in sewage sludge, describes management practices and, in some cases, details operational requirements. It also
includes monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements.
Specific requrements for sewage sludge disposed of in an MSWLF do not appear in Part 503. Rather, these requirements are
found h 40 CFR Part 258, which was jointly promulgated under the CWA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Part 503
requires compliance with criteria in 40 CFR Part 258. If a municipal wastewater treatment worts uses a MSWLF to dispose of its
sewage sludge, the treatment works must ensure that the sludge is nonhazardous and passes the Paint Filter Liquid Test
Part 503 also affected the National Pretreatment Program. Treatment works with sewage sludge not meeting the sludge quality
standards in 40 CFR Part 503 for a particular use/disposal practice must clean up the influent by establishing more stringent local limits
on industrial users. In addition, at the same time that it promulgated Part 503, EPA took the opportunity to publish revisions to 40 CFR
§ 403.7. the removal credits provision. This amendment to the General Pretreatment Regulations contains an appendix with two lists
of pollutants eligible for a removal credit with respect to the use or disposal of sewage sludge.
Pretreatment Program Objectives. Organizational Structure, and Responsibilities
The National Pretreatment Program is designed to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged by industry and other non-
domestic wastewater sources into municipal sewer systems, and thereby, reduce the amount of pollutants released into the
environment from wastewater treatment plants. The program is a cooperative effort of Federal, State, and local regulatory environmental
Page 6-Narrative Module1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course The National Pretreatment Program
agencies established to protect water quality. The term 'pretreatment" refers to pollutant control requirements for non-domestic sources
discharging wastewater b sewer systems that are connected to POTWs. Limits on the amount of pollutants allowed to be discharged
are established by EPA, the State, or the local authority. Pretreatment limits may be met by the industry through pollution
prevention/waste minimization (e.g., production substitution, recycling and reuse of materials) or treatment of the wastewater.
The requirement for development of a POTW pretreatment program is included as a condition of a POTW's NPDES permit
POTWs required to develop programs to include those:
with combined design flows of greater than five(5) million gallons per day ("MGD"), and
receiving pollutants from categorical industrial users, and/or
receiving pollutants which pass through the POTW treatment plant or interfere with POTW operations.
POTWs with design flows less than or equal b five (5) MGD may be required to develop a program if necessary to prevent interference
or pass through. States with approved pretreatment programs may choose to assume responsibility for a local program as provided
for in 40 CFR Part 403.10(e).
Industrial Users are regulated by the National Pretreatment Program through three types of regulatory entities: EPA, Approval
Authorities, and Control Authorities. Approval Authorities oversee Control Authorities while Control Authorities regulate industrial users.
An Approval Authority can denote the EPA or a delegated State while a Control Authority can denote EPA, a delegated State, or a
POTW. General responsibilities of each of these regulatory entities are as follows:
Headquarters
Oversee program implementation at all levels
Develop and modify regulations for the pretreatment program
Develop policies to clarify and further define the program
Develop technical guidance for program implementation
Initiate enforcement actions as appropriate
Regions
Fulfill Approval Authority responsibilities for States without program delegation
Oversee State program implementation
Initiate enforcement actions as appropriate.
Approval Authorities
Notify POTWs of their responsibilities
x
Review and approve POTW pretreatment programs
Review modifications to categorical pretreatment standards
Oversee POTW program implementation
Provide technical guidance to POTWs
Regulate industries in POTWs without pretreatment programs
Initiate enforcement actions, against noncompliant POTWs or industries.
Module 1 Narrative - Page 7
-------
The National Pretreatment Program 77>e Pretreatment Training Course
Control Authorities
Develop and maintain an approved pretreatment program
Evaluate compliance of regulated industrial users
Initiate enforcement action against industries as appropriate
Submit reports to approval authority
Develop local limits (or demonstrate why they are not needed)
Develop and implement an enforcement response plan.
Page 8 - Narrative Module 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course The National Pretreatment Program
Prefreafmenf Quiz
1. Where are the General Pretreatment Regulations found? 40 CFR Part
2. According to the General Pretreatment Regulations, what size POTWs (based on
gallons per day design flow) must be evaluated to determine the need to develop and
implement a pretreatment program?
3. Define Interference and Pass Through: ,
4. What year was EPA established?
5. List three criteria that are used to determine if an industrial user should be considered
a significant industrial user?
a.
b.
c.
6. Name all the EPA Administrators starting with the current Administrator.
7. List the pollutants that EPA policy dictates must be evaluated for the need for local
limits:
8. What is the Internet address for EPA's home page on the world wide web?
Module 1 Appendix: Pretreatment Quiz Page 1
-------
TTie National Pretreatmerrt Program The Pretreatment Training Course
9. According to the General Pretreatment Regulations, how often (at a minimum) must a
POTW inspect and sample each of their significant industrial users?
10. Cross media transfers refer to: (circle all that apply)
a. irritable news reporters on assignment
b. a biological experiment on cloning
c. EPA's reorganization^ approach
d. none of the above, actually it means ,
11. How many years must POTWs and industries retain their records and test results?
12. True OR False : Enforcement response plans are required for POTWs with approved
programs.
13. Name the EPA region we are currently in, and the name of the Pretreatment
Coordinator for this region.
Region Coordinator __ ;
14. An electroplating firm that discharges to the local POTW, owns 60% of the metal that
it plates and has been in business at the same location since 1980. What categorical
standard(s) apply? 40 CFR and Category name
15. What is the Pollution Prevention Hierarchy as defined in The Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990? :
16. Who is Bob Zimmerman more commonly known as?
Name
Remember... Valuable prizes will be offered for both accuracy and creativity!
Appendix Pretreatment Quiz Page 2 Module 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
Pretreatment
Program Regulations
[40 CFR Part 403]
Local Pretreatment Programs
§ 403.8 Requirements of a POTW developed
pretreatment program
§ 403.9 Contents/legal authority of a POTW
pretreatment program
§403.11 POTW pretreatment program
approval procedures
§ 403.18 Modifications of POTW Pretreatment
Programs
Program Requirements Affecting lUs
§ 403.5 General & specific prohibitions
§ 403.6 Categorical standards
§403.7 Removal credits
§ 403.13 Variances for fundamentally different
factors
§403.15 Net/Gross calculation
Module 2
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
T?7e Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
POTW and IU Requirements
§ 403.12 POTW & IU reporting
requirements
Specific IU Rights
§403.16* Upset provisions
§403.17* Bypass provisions
Miscellaneous Requirements
§ 403.2 Objectives of regulations
§ 403.3 Definitions
§ 403.4 State or local law
§ 403.14 Confidentiality
Module 2
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
What Minimum Procedures Make Up
a Pretreatment Program?
[40 CFR§ 403.8(f)(2)]
Industrial Users
-identify, locate, and notify
-receive, sample, and analyze
-survey, investigate, and enforce
Public
-allow participation
-notify of violators
Minimum Pretreatment Program
Procedures, continued
[40CFR§403.8(f)(2)J
Additional procedures:
-Funding
-Local limits
-Enforcement Response Plan
-SIU list
Legal Authority, a Must
State law
Local regulations
-Sewer Use Ordinance('SUO')
or
-Rules and Regulations
Module 2
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
7?7e Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
POTW Legal Authority
[40CFR§403.8(f)(1)]
Deny or condition discharges
Require compliance
Control through permit or similar means
Require compliance schedules to comply
Inspect, survey, and monitor
Enforce
Comply with confidentiality requirements
Local Regulations
Sewer Use Ordinance
Rules and Regulations
Prohibitions and Limitations
General/Specific
Categorical Standards
Local Limits
Module 2
Slide Presentation - Page 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
Control Discharges
Deny/condition new or increased
contributions
Issue control mechanisms/compliance
schedules
Require development of slug/spill
control plans
Require pretreatment facilities
Reports & Notices
BMRs/90 day compliance reports
Compliance schedule progress reports
Periodic compliance reports
Notice of potential problems
Notice of limit violations and resampling
Notice of changed conditions/discharge
Notice of hazardous waste discharged
Compliance Monitoring
Right of entry
Right to inspect
Right to sample
Right to require installation of
monitoring/flow measuring equipment
Right to inspect and copy record
Module 2
Slide Presentation Page 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
Remedies for Noncompliance
(Enforcement)
Non-emergency response
-injunctive relief
- civil/criminal penalties
Emergency response
Other Requirements
Test procedures
Signatory
Record keeping
Confidentiality
Annual publishing of ILJs in SNC
Public participation/access to
information
Local Regulations-
Approval Process
Submission to Approval Authority
Public notice
Approval Authority decision
Public access to information
Module 2
Slide Presentation - Page 6
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
Ancillary Issues
Chamber of Commerce
Big Business
Politics
Attorney familiarity with subject
Special interest groups
Interjurisdictional Issues
A POTWs program accepts discharges
from I Us located outside the Control
Authority's legal jurisdiction.
Municipality With POTW Receiving
Discharge From Another Municipality
City A
CltyB
Module 2
Slide Presentation - Page 7
-------
The Pretreatmerri Training Course
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
Sewer District Covering
Several Municipalities
Interjurisdictional Control
Direct authority
Multijurisdictional agreements
Industrial user contracts
Coordination/cooperation
Module 2
Slide Presentation - Page 8
-------
TTie Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
General Pretreatment Program Regulations [40 CFR Part 403)
The preamble to the General Pretreatment Regulations explains the purpose of the regulations and how they were developed.
Where regulations have been challenged, regulatory agencies and courts have looked to the preamble (among other sources) for the
intent and interpretation of the regulations. Consequently. State and POTW personnel implementing regulations should review
applicable sections of the preamble to better interpret the regulations. Preambles are published in the Federal Register for most
regulations or regulation amendments.
The General Pretreatment Program Regulations are found in 40 CFR(Code of Federal Regulations), Chapter I, Subchapter N,
Part 403; commonly referred to as 40 CFR Part 403. These regulations are divided into 18 sections (§), and 7 appendices (three of
which are 'reserved'). These are listed below, along with brief explanations of the contents.
§403.1 Purpose and Applicability
Establishes responsibilities for Federal, State and local government industry, and the public.
§403.2 Objectives of General Pretreatment Regulations
to prevent the introduction of pollutants into POTWs which will interfere with the POTWs operation or its
municipal sludge use and/or disposal; pass through the POTW treatment plant; or be incompatible with the
POTW
to improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges.
§ 403.3 Definitions
The following are key terms which are defined under this section of the General Pretreatment Regulations. [An
understanding of these terms is important to ensure adequate implementation and enforcement of a pretreatment
program.]
Industrial user (IU)
Interference
National pretreatment standard
New source
Pass through
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Significant industrial user (SIU)
§403.4 State or Local Law
The General Pretreatment Regulations are not meant to affect any State or local regulatory requirements as long
as these requirements are not less stringent than the Federal regulations. States with approved NPDES permit
programs are required to develop an approved State pretreatment program.
§403.5 National Pretreatment Standards: Prohibited Discharges
General and specific prohibited discharge standards that Control Authorities must incorporate into their pretreatment
programs are provided in this section. The general prohibitions specify that pollutants introduced into Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) by a nondomesSc source shall not pass through the POTW or interfere with the operation
a performance of the treatmentworks. Control Authorities that are required to develop local pretreatment programs
(and other POTWs where interference and pass through are likely to recur) must develop and enforce specific
limitations (local limits) to implement the general prohibitions against interference, pass through, and sludge
contamination. The specific prohibitions specify prevention of the discharge of pollutants that cause any of the
following conditions to occur at the POTW:
Module 2
Narrative Page 1
-------
flrefreafrnenf Program Regulations: Legal Authority The Pretreatment Training Course
Fire or explosion hazard (including discharges with a closed-cup flashpoint less than 140'F)
Corrosive structural damage (no pH < 5.0 S.U.)
Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause obstruction b the flow in the POTW resulting in
interference
Any pollutant released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration causing interference
Heat in amounts causing inhibition of biological activity in the POTW resulting in interference or raising
temperatures at the POTW treatment plant greater than 40'C (104'F)
Petroleum oil. nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in quantities that will cause pass
through or interference
Pollutants resulting in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that may
cause acute worker health and safety problems
Trucked or hauled wastes, except at discharge locations designated by the POTW.
Amendments to 40 CFR Part 403 on January 14,1987, provided industrial users with an affirmative defense (if
specified conditions are met) for actions brought against it for alleged violations of the general or specific prohibitions
contained in this section regarding interference, pass through, or worker health and safety problems.
§ 403.6 National Pretreatment Standards: Categorical Pretreatment Standards
Development and implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, including compliance deadlines, con-
centration and mass limits, equivalent limits, prohibition of dilution as a substitute for treatment, and use of the
combined wastestream formula to determine discharge limitations is discussed in this section.
§403.7 Revision of Categorical Pretreatment Standards to Reflect Control Authority Removal of Pollutants
This provision on removal credits provides the criteria and procedures to be used by a Control Authority to grant a
categorical industrial user (CIU) variance from a pollutant limit specified in a categorical pretreatment standard to
reflect removal by the POTW treatment plant of said pollutant
§ 403.8 Control Authority Pretreatment Programs: Development bv Control Authority
The requirements for pretreatment program development by a Control Authority are outlined in this section. Included
are criteria for determining which POTWs must develop pretreatment programs; program approval deadlines;
incorporation of approved programs and compliance schedules in NPDES permits; and program and funding
requirements.
The Control Authority is required to have sufficient legal authority to enforce the approved pretreatment program.
At a minimum, this legal authority shall enable the Control Authority to:
Deny or condition new or increased contributions
Issue significant industrial users individual control mechanisms
Require compliance schedules for the installation of technology
Require self-monitoring and reporting by industrial users
Carry out all inspection, surveillance and monitoring procedures
Obtain remedies for noncompliance.
Page 2 Narrative Module 2
-------
TTie Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
It is also stated in this section that all Control Authorities with approved programs, or programs under development,
must develop and implement procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements of a pretreatment program.
Such procedures shall enable the Control Authority to:
Identify and locate appropriate industrial users
Identify the character and volume of pollutants being discharged by those industrial users
Notify those industrial users of applicable pretreatment standards and requirements
Receive and analyze reports and notices
Sample and analyze the effluent from industrial users and conduct surveillance activities
Evaluate the need for each significant industrial user to develop a slug/spill plan
Investigate instances of noncompliance and enforce
Comply with public participation requirements (along with this procedure, the regulations define significant
noncompliance).
Under this provision, the Control Authority also must have sufficient resources to implement the regulatory
requirements, develop local limits (or demonstrate that they are not necessary), and develop an Enforcement
Response Plan.
§403.9 Control Authority Pretreatment Programs and/or Authorization to Revise Pretreatment Standards: Submission for
Approval
Requirements and procedures for submission and review of Control Authority pretreatment programs are discussed
h this section. Included are discussions of conditional program approval; Approval Authority action; and notification
where submissions are defective.
§ 403.10 Development and Submission of NPDES State Pretreatment Programs
Requirements and procedures for submission and review of NPDES State pretreatment programs are provided in
this section. Included are discussions of deadlines for approval of State programs; legal authority, procedural and
funding requirements; and contents of program submissions.
§403.11 Approval Procedures for POTW Pretreatment Programs and POTW Granting of Removal Credits
Included in this section are procedures for accepting or denying Control Authority requests for program approval or
for removal credits.
§ 403.12 Reporting Requirements for Control Authorities and Industrial Users
Reports required from industrial users include the following:
Baseline monitoring reports - Requred to be submitted to the Control Authority within 180 days of the effective
date of the categorical pretreatment standards. In addition, new source BMR reporting requirements are
discussed.
Compliance schedule (for meeting categorical pretreatment standards^ progress reports - Requred to be
submitted to the Control Authority within 14 days of completion of compliance schedule milestone or due dates.
Report on compliance with categorical pretreatment standard deadline (final compliance report! - Required to
be submitted to the Control Authority within 90 days of the compliance date of the categoricalpretreatment
standards.
Module 2 Narrative - Page 3
-------
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority The Pretreatment Training Course
Periodic reports on continued compliance - Required to be submitted by categorical and significant
noncategorical industrial users to the Control Authority at least semiannually, usually in June and December
after the compliance date.
Notice of potential problems including slug loadings - Required to be submitted by all industrial users
'mmediately upon identification of discharges including slug loadings that could cause problems to the POTW.
Notice of chanced discharge - Required to be submitted to the Control Authority by all industrial users in
advance of any significant change in volume or character of pollutants discharged.
Notice of Violation/Resampling requirement- Required to be submitted to the Control Authority by an industrial
users within 24 hours of becoming aware of a violation. Resampling must be conducted and the results
submitted to the Control Authority within 30 days.
Notice of Discharge of Hazardous Waste - Required to be submitted to the POTW. EPA, and the State by all
industrial users whose discharge would be considered a hazardous waste, if disposed of in a different manner.
Reports required from POTWs include the following:
Compliance schedule progress reports (for development of pretreatment programs)
Annual reports to Approval Authority
Signatory certification and record keeping and analytical testing requirements for POTW/Control Authorities and
industrial users are also specified in this section.
§ 403.13 Variances from Categorical Pretreatment Standards for Fundamentally Different Factors
This provision allows an industrial user or any interested person to request a variance from categorical pretreatment
standards based on the factors considered by EPA in developing the applicable category/subcategory being
fundamentally different than factors relating to a specific industrial user.
§403.14 Confidentiality
The confidentiality requirements and prohibitions for EPA, States, and POTWs are covered in this section. This
section expressly states that effluent data is available to the public without restriction.
§ 403.15 NeVGross Calculation
This provision allows for adjustment of categorical pretreatment standards to reflect the presence of pollutants in the
industrial user's intake water if said water draws from the same body of water as that which the POTW discharges.
§ 403.16 Unset Provision
This provision allows an upset (which meets the conditions of an upset as specified in this provision) to be an
affirmative defense against an action brought for noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standards. The
industrial user shall have the burden of proof for such a defense.
§ 403.17 Bypass
Requires industrial users to operate their treatment systems at all times. Defines criteria for allowing a bypass to
occur and notification procedures for both anticipated an unanticipated bypasses.
§ 403.18 Modification of POTW Pretreatment Programs
This provision specifies procedures and criteria for 'minor* and 'substantial' modifications to approved POTW
pretreatment programs and incorporation of substantial modifications into the POTWs NPDES permit
Page 4 Narrative Module 2
-------
The Pretreetment Training Course
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
Appendix A: Program Guidance Memorandum
Addresses EPA policy on grants for treatment and control of combined sewer overflows (CSO) and stormwater
discharges.
Appendix B: [Reserved]
Appendix C: [Reserved)
Appendix D: Selected Industrial Subcateoories Considered Dilute for Purposes of the Combined Wastestream Formula
The Appendix D published on January 21,1981, provided a list of industrial subcategories that had been exempted
(pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the NRDC, Inc. et al. vs. Costle Consent Decree) from regulation by categorical pre-
treatment standards. Appendix D was revised on October 9, 1986, to update the list of exempted industrial
categories and to correct previous errors by either adding or removing various subcategories or by changing the
names of some categories or subcategories. Each of the subcategories, as indicated by the Appendix D tide,
contains wastestreams that are classified as dilute for purposes of applying categorical pretreatment standards to
other wastestreams and for using the combined wastestream formula to adjust these standards.
Appendix E: Sampling Procedures
This appendix discusses the composite and grab sampling methods for the collection of influent and effluent samples
at a POTW treatment plant
Appendix F: fReservedl
Appendix G: Pollutants Eligible for a Removal Credit
This appendix identifies regulated pollutants in 40 CFR Part 503 as well as additional pollutants eligible for a removal
credit
POTW Legal Authority
[Note-untess specified otherwise, for the purposes of this section, Control Authority means an approved POTW pretreatment program.]
Overview
The Control Authority's ability to implement and enforce its pretreatment program is determined by its legal authority. Control
Authorities must have the legal authority to impose and enforce the National categorical pretreatment standards in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471 and the requirements found in the General Pretreatment Regulations (40
CFR Part 403). Federal regulations do not provide Control Authorities with the legal authority to carry out local pretreatment programs;
Federal regulations [40 CFR § 403.8(f)] merely set forth the legal authority requirements which POTWs seeking to obtain (and maintain)
pretreatment program approval must possess.
Regardless of whether the Control Authority is a single municipality or a regional sewerage authority composed of several
jurisdictions, its legal authority derives from State law. Most Control Authorities have broad regulatory powers. For example, many
State laws authorize Control Authorities to enforce pretreatment requirements* against users discharging wastes to their sewer
systems. This broad legal authority allows the local pretreatment program to be tailored to individual circumstances while, at the same
time, satisfying minimum Federal program requirements. When the Control Authority is a municipality, the basic implementation and
enforcement requirements of its pretreatment program are detailed in a sewer use ordinance. Typically, this ordinance is part of city
or county code. Regional Control Authorities frequently adopt similar provisions in the form of regulations. Likewise, State agencies
implementing a State-wide program under 40 CFR § 403.10(e) set out pretreatment requirements as agency regulations, rather than
as a sewer use ordinance. If State law does not confer adequate authority on the Control Authority to comply with minimum Federal
Module 2
Narrative Page 5
-------
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority The Pretreatment Training Course
retirements, the Control Authority must request the State to enact or amend statutory provisions granting such authority [40 CFR §
403.8(f)(1)].
Sewer use ordinances and regulations 'implement* the legal authority which State law confers on the Control Authority. The
sewer use ordinance cannot give the Control Authority greater enforcement powers (such as higher penalty authority) than are allowed
under State laws which created or empowered the Control Authority. Therefore, once the ordinance is adopted, it defines the Control
Authority's legal authority. If an industry believes that the Control Authority has acted beyond or contrary to its ordinance when enforcing
against that user, the user may challenge the action in court If, in turn, the reviewing court finds that the Control Authority has indeed
acted beyond its authority or in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the court may prevent or overturn the enforcement action. Thus, the
Control Authority must ensure that its legal authority is both specific and comprehensive, particularly with regard to its enforcement
provisions.
Control Authorities should enact sewer use ordinances which fulfill the legal authority requirements of 40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1).
Although Federal regulations authorize Control Authorities to operate pursuant to legal authority conferred through State statutes, most
statutes are not sufficiently detailed to be 'self-implementing,* and the broad grants of regulatory authority which statutes confer to
Control Authorities must be detailed in specific ordinance provisions to be legally enforceable. For example, a State statute which
provides that Control Authorities may enforce pretreatment program requirements through "Administrative Orders' does not set forth
the specific types of Administrative Orders which a Control Authority may issue to its industrial users, or whether administrative fines
may be assessed through the Administrative Orders. While Control Authorities may also operate pursuant to legal authority provided
by contracts (with industries or with neighboring jurisdictions), or joint powers agreements (with the neighboring jurisdictions), these
sources of legal authority are most effective in multijurisdictional situations (i.e., when a Control Authority must regulate industries
located beyond its territorial jurisdiction).
A review of the sewer use ordinance should be performed to ensure it grants the Control Authority legal authority to implement
the Federal requirements detailed below.
Definitions
Although (he Federal pretreatment regulations do not require local sewer use ordinances or regulations to include a 'definitions'
section, EPA believes that definitions clarify and strengthen the substantive pretreatment provisions. Furthermore, to the extent that
Control Authorities choose to use terms which are defined in the Federal regulations [40 CFR §§-403.3 and 403.8(f)(2)(vii)], the
definitions may not be less stringent or less inclusive than EPA's definitions.
Prohibited Discharges
Discharges which cause interference [40 CFR § 403.5(a)(1)]
Discharges which cause pass through [40 CFR § 403.5(a)(1)]
Discharges which violate the specific prohibitions [40 CFR § 403.5(b)(1 )-(8)]
Discharges which violate local limits adopted by the Control Authority [40 CFR § 403.5(c) and (d)]
Discharges which use dilution as a partial or complete substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with a
pretreatment standard or requirement [40 CFR § 403.6(d)]
Discharges which violate National categorical pretreatment standards [40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(ii)]
Page 6'Narrative Module 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
Control Discharges to POTW Treatment Rant and Collection System
Deny or condition new or increased.contributions of pollutants or changes in the nature of pollutants to the POTW by
industrial users where such contributions do not meet applicable pretreatment standards and requirements or where such
contributions would cause the Control Authority to violate its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOES)
permit [40 CFR§403.8(f)(1)(i)]
Require industrial users to notify the Control Authority in advance of any substantial change in volume or characteristics
of their discharge [40 CFR § 403.120)]
Requre compliance with applicable pretreatment standards (including National categorical pretreatment standards, local
limits, and prohibited discharge standards) and requirements by industrial users [40 § 403.8(f)(1)(ii)]
Control through permit, order, or similar means, the contribution to the POTW by each industrial user to ensure compliance
with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. Control significant industrial user discharges through an
individual control mechanism that contains five minimum conditions [40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(iii)J.
Require Development of Compliance Schedules. Plans, and Reports
Require each industrial user to develop a compliance schedule to install necessary pretreatment technology [40 CFR §
403.8(f)(1)(iv)]
Require industrial users to submit to the Control Authority plans to control slug discharges which contain 4 minimum
elements [40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(v)]
Requre each industrial user to submit all notices and self-monitoring reports necessary to assess and ensure compliance
with prelreatment standards and requirements, including reports and applicable signatories and certifications required in
40 CFR § 403.12 [40 CFR § 403.8{f)(1)(iv)].
Inspection and Monitoring Procedures
Authority to carry out all inspections, surveillance, and monitoring procedures necessary to determine (independent of
information supplied by industrial users) compliance or noncompliance with applicable prelreatment standards and
requirements at least once a year [40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(v)] including:
Right to enter at reasonable times
Right to inspect generally for compliance
Right to take independent samples
Right to require installation of monitoring equipment
Right to inspect and copy records [40 CFR § 403.12(o)(2)]
Requre the use of 40 CFR Part 136 methods for self-monitoring and analysis [40 CFR § 403.12(b)(5)(vi), (g)(4), and
(h)].
Enforcement
Nonemeroencv Response - Authority to seek injunctive relief for noncompliance by industrial users with pretreatment
standards and requirements, and authority to seek or assess civil or criminal penalties in at least the amount of $1,000 a
day for each violation by industrial users of pretreatment standards and requirements [40 CFR 403.8(f)(vi)(A)]
Emergency Response - Authority to immediately and effectively halt or prevent any discharge of pollutants to the POTW
which threatens human health, the environment, or the POTW [40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B)].
Confidentiality
Authority to ensure that effluent date are made available to the public [40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(vii) and 40 CFR § 403.14].
Module 2 Narrative - Page 7
-------
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority The Pretreatment Training Course
Assessing Authority to Impose Pretreatment Requirements
The Control Authority should use the following five questions as a basis for its review of the sewer use ordinance:
Are all industrial users discharging to the sewer collection system subject to regulation?
Does the ordinance authorize it to implement program requirements under 40 CFR 403?
Does the ordinance authorize it to enforce local limits to prevent pass through and interference?
Does the ordinance incorporate all enforcement authorities allowable under State law?
Does the ordinance contain any obstacles to effective enforcement?
These questions are discussed in greater detail in the following subsections.
Authority Over All Industrial Users
The Control Authority's sewer use ordinance must be applicable to all nondomestic (industrial) users of the Control Authority.
The "Scope* or 'Applicability" section of the ordinance should specify that all users are subject to regulation. The definitions of "person"
and "user* should also be reviewed to see whether they encompass all dischargers. For example, definitions of these terms in a
number of ordinances fafl to include "government facilities" (that is, Federal, State, or local government facilities) as part of the regulated
community. Since such governmental entities are subject to the pretreatment program, they must not be excluded from consideration
as regulated dischargers. If the ordinance contains similar exclusions or does not explicitly address all industrial dischargers, the
Control Authority must revise it Many Control Authorities treat wastewater from industrial users located outside their political
boundaries. These 'multijurisdictional* arrangements require special legal/contractual mechanisms to ensure adequate authority to
enforce program requirements. EPA has published guidance to assist Control Authorities in addressing multijurisdictional issues (1994
Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Programs Guidance Manual).
Implementation of Federal Program Requirements
The General Pretreatment Regulations establish minimum Federal requirements for industrial users. While these requirements
are Federally enforceable (which means that U.S. Attorneys can enforce them in Federal court), a Control Authority has the primary
responsibility for implementing and enforcing pretreatment requirements. However, the Control Authority will not be able to fulfill its
obligations unless these Federal retirements are specifically applied by its ordinance. In order for the Control Authority to successfully
impose and enforce Federal pretreatment requirements in local courts, its ordinance must either include these requirements verbatim
or incorporate them by reference. The Control Authority should examine its ordinance to determine whether Federal requirements are
satisfied and in which manner they are satisfied. EPA recommends that incorporation by reference be used to require compliance with
categorical pretreatment standards since reiteration of these standards could be cumbersome. Of course, the Control Authority should
make sure that it follows proper State legal procedure when it incorporates Federal requirements by reference.
Generally, a proper incorporation by reference includes specific language evidencing the intent to incorporate the standards and
includes a citation to where the standards are found (i.e., "the National categorical pretreatment standards, located in 40 CFR Chapter
I, Subchapter N. Parts 405-471, are hereby incorporated"). However, State law may contain additional content and format requirements
with which the Control Authority must comply.
The Control Authority should be aware that incorporation of future (as yet unpromulgated) Federal rules is usually considered
invalid by reviewing courts. Generally, only regulations which are in existence on the date that the ordinance is adopted may be
incorporated into the ordinance. For instance, an ordinance provision adopted in 1983, incorporating the Federal categorical pre-
treatment standards and requirements, will only effectively incorporate Federal regulations promulgated as of 1983. Therefore, the
Page 8 - Narrative 'Module 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
Control Authority must periodical)/ reincorporate new or revised Federal regulations in order to ensure its own authority to impose and
enforce these requirements against local industrial users. It is recommended that the Control Authority evaluate the need to
reincorporate Federal and State requirements within 6 to 9 months of the effective date of new or revised categorical standards or
revisions to the General Pretreatment Regulations.
Local Limits
In addition to including Federal requirements, the Control Authority should examine its ordinance to make sure that it clearly
authorizes enforcement of more stringent discharge requrements (local limits) adopted to prevent pass through and interference. Local
[mils become Federal pretreatment standards if property adopted pursuant to 40 CFR § 403.5. These limits may be narrative discharge
prohibitions, a set of pollutant-specific numeric limits, or a combination of both. EPA has published guidance to assist Control Authorities
in establishing local limits (1987 Guidance Manual for the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations).
Identifying Obstacles To Enforcement
The Control Authority must be confident that its choice and implementation of enforcement responses are free from procedural
obstacles which could delay their swift and effective use. The Control Authority should, therefore, closely scrutinize its sewer use
ordinance to identify and eliminate requrements which restrict the selection and use of particular enforcement responses. In reviewing
sewer use ordinances nationwide, EPA has identified numerous procedural obstacles to enforcement common to local programs. Too
often, ordinances vest enforcement authority in a single public official, such as the Mayor or the Director of Utilities, which results in
extensive delays in initiating enforcement actions. While city officials should be informed of enforcement activities, experience has
shown that enforcement is most expeditious if it is taken by officials who fully understand the pretreatment program's goals and
requirements. Therefore, it is suggested that the Control Authority make sure that its sewer use ordinance assigns enforcement
authority to the 'POTW Superintendent or his/her designee.' In turn, the Superintendent should delegate the use of particular
enforcement responses as appropriate.
Another common obstacle is defining the use of particular enforcement responses in too narrow a manner. For example, the
ordinance should not require the use of a Notice of violation (NOV) prior to initiation of a more stringent response. The Control Authority
must be free to use whatever action it deems appropriate as an initial action. Similarly, it should not establish a show cause hearing
as a precondition to the issuance of an Administrative Order. The Control Authority must be able to respond to emergency situations
quickly and be authorized to issue a cease and desist order or to seek a court order without delaying to schedule a hearing for the
industrial user. However, the Control Authority may build in an "appeals process* after the immediate danger has passed.
Other common obstacles include making the maximum duration of a compliance schedule so brief (e.g., no more than 10 days)
that it is an unrealistic mechanism for effecting remedial action. The ordinance should not specify an automatic grace period between
identification of the violation and issuance of the enforcement response (that is, language such as the following: 'if the violation is not
corrected within 15 days of being notified of the noncompliance by the Control Authority, the Control Authority may seek appropriate
legal action*). Any violation by the industrial user should trigger immediate liability, and each day that a violation continues must count
as a separate instance of noncompliance.
Sometimes a sewer use ordinance is written so that it restricts the Control Authority's access to information about the industrial
user. For instance, it may limit the right of entry and inspection to only the pretreatment facility or monitoring areas. Control Authority
personnel need access to all areas which are potentially relevant to the wastewater discharge, including areas where chemicals and
raw materials are stored. Consequently, the sewer use ordinance (and discharge permit) should specify that original or duplicate
monitoring records be kept by the industry and that the Control Authority may examine and copy those records.
Module 2 Narrative - Page 9
-------
Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority The Pretreatment Training Course
A final obstacle commonly encountered involves provisions which operate to undermine the program or which are contrary to
Federal or State law. Some examples are:
Incorrectly designating analytical procedures to be conducted in accordance with Standard Methods, rather than 40 CFR
Part 136 or equivalent method approved by EPA. .
Authorizing special agreements that waive ordinance (pretreatment) requirements. For example, this waiver should not
be available for Federal standards and requirements or any local limits or other requirements designed to protect the
POTW and its receiving stream from pass through or interference. Any waiver provision must also be in accordance with
expGcit procedures outlined in the ordinance.
Failing to require significant industrial users to immediately report any noncompliance and repeat sampling for those
parameters found to be in violation as required in 40 CFR § 403.12(g).
Failing to specify authorized signatures for reports and applications submitted by industrial users. This omission may allow
someone without proper authority to respond on behalf of the company and submit permit applications and reports to the
Control Authority. The industry would then be allowed to disavow responsibility for violations or misrepresentations in these
documents.
Failing to require a certification statement as contained in 40 CFR 403.6(a)(2)(ii) for compliance reports submitted by
industrial users.
Authorizing enforcement actions for "wfflfur and 'negligent* violations only (all violations must be actionable; under Federal
law, 'knowing* and/or 'negligent* violations are criminal offenses).
Excusing or absolving any noncompliance (e.g., accidental spills) from enforcement or limiting the enforcement response
to a recovery of actual damages.
The Control Authority should identify any obstacles to enforcement which it uncovers while evaluating its ordinance. It should
then eliminate these obstacles by adding, redrafting, or deleting ordinance provisions.
POTW Program Approval
Federal regulations at 40 CFR § 403.9 outline procedures for a POTW to obtain approval of their pretreatment program. A POTW
requesting approval must submit a POTW pretreatment program to the Approval Authority for review and comment Contents of the
submission must include:
a statement from the City Solicitor (or the Eke) that the POTW has adequate authority to carry out the program requirements
described in 40 CFR §403.8
a copy of statutes, ordinances, regulations, agreements, or other authorities the POTW relies upon to administer the
pretreatment program and a statement from the local board/body responsible for supervising and/or funding the POTW
pretreatment program is approved
a description of the program organization
a description of funding levels and manpower available.
Page 10 - Narrative Module 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Program Regulations: Legal Authority
Upon receipt, the Approval Authority had 60 days to make a preliminary determination of whether the submission meets the
requirements of 40 CFR § 403.9. Based on the Approval Authority review, the POTW may have to revise its submission, or the
Approval Authority may commence the public notice process and (after addressing any comments) formally approve the program.
Module 2 Narrative - Page 11
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Identification and Classification
Industrial User
Identification
and Classification
Industrial User Identification
[40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(i)]
+ Identify and locate all possible
Industrial Users which might be
subject to your POTWs
Pretreatment Program.
Industrial User
[40 CFR § 403.3(h)]
+ A source of indirect
discharge.
Module 3
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Identification and Classification
Indirect Discharge
[40 CFR § 403.3(g)]
+ The introduction of pollutants
into a POTW from any non-
domestic source regulated
under section 307(b), (c), or
(d) of the Act.
Significant Industrial User
[40 CFR § 403.3(t)]
+ Subject to Federal categorical standards
+ Discharges 25,000 GPD or more of process
wastewater
+ Contributes 5 % or more of hydraulic or organic
capacity of the POTW treatment plant
+ Has a reasonable potential for adversely
affecting the POTW or for violating any
standard or requirements
Where to Start...
» Water billing records
+ Applications for sewer service
« Local business directories
* Wastewater collection personnel
+ POTW treatment plant operator(s)
+ Telephone directories
+ Property tax records/business license records
Chamber of commerce records
* Internet
* Drive around
Module 3
Slide Presentation Page 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Identification and Classification
What to Search For...
+ High water use
f Standard Industrial ClassificationCSIC')
codes that may be of concern
» Compare to IDs listed in 40 CFR Parts
405-471
» Types of business that may have an
impact on POTW
Initial Industrial Waste Survey
f Basic facility information
+ General business operations
+ Water use
+ Sewer service
+ Wastewater discharge flow and nature
f Pretreatment
Suggestions
+ Notify indirectly affected persons prior
to sending out surveys
f Provide a cover letter with the survey
« SEND SURVEYS CERTIFIED/
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Module 3
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Identification and Classification
Track Surveys
+ Returned surveys - eliminate those
that:
- are not industrial users
- appear to have little to no impact
- currently do not discharge to the
POTW
Track Surveys, cont
+ Those eliminated should be notified
of such
f Keep those that may meet criteria of
anSIU
+ Perform site visits to clarify
determinations
40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(iii)
+ Notify Industrial Users of
applicable pretreatment
standards and requirements
Module 3
Slide Presentation - Page 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Identification and Classification
Categorical Determinations
f Production processes/products
+ Raw materials
+ Production volume
+ Determine applicable category
+ Determine applicable subcategory
+ Contact Approval Authority for
assistance
What Next?
+ If CIU, commence permitting process
(including federal reporting
requirements).
+ If definitely an SIU, commence
permitting process.
+ If potentially an SIU, perform
additional monitoring and evaluation
prior to making final determination.
Identify Waste Haulers
+ Business license records
+ Telephone directory
+ Inspection of lUs that have wastes
hauled offsite
+ Observations in the field
Module 3
Slide Presentation - Page 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Identification and Classification
SIU Master List Update
* Update regularly
+ Submit annually
+ Burden on lUs to notify(SUO)
* Proactive approach
plumbing, building and/or occupancy permits
- water billing records
- local business journals
- field observations
- sewer connection applications
- 'utility connect questionnaires*
Summary
+ POTWs responsibility to seek out
all possible (Us subject to
pretreatment program.
+ Ideally, survey all lUs initially then
institute a "maintenance plan".
+ Non-SIUs do not require permits.
Problem 1
+ Bradley & Faulk Steel Corporation
- manufacturer of steel pipe
-40 CFR Part 464, Metal Molding
and Casting
- reporting during initial survey that
they operate under a "non-
discharge permit"
no sewer service in their area
Module 3
Slide Presentation - Page 6
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Identification and Classification
Problem 2
+ User reporting the discharge
of only domestic and non-
contact cooling water at
50,000 GPD day.
Problem 3
Initial survey:
+ metal finisher
« 40 CFR Part 433
f uses 10,000 GPD
+ states no waste hauled off
f states no environmental permits held
+ states no process discharge to the sewer
Module 3
Slide Presentation - Page 7
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Industrial User Identification and Classification
Industrial User Identification and Classification
Overview
A complete and up to date Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) provides the backbone of a local pretreatment program. It allows the
Control Authority to determine which users need to be regulated by the program and therefore affects the resources dedicated to the
program. It provides the basis for determining which users are subject to categorical pretreatment standards. It also informs the Control
Authority of the character of the wastes being discharged to the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), thereby providing the basis
for the Control Authority's local limits for specific pollutants.
Federal regulations [40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(i)] require Control Authorities to identify and locate all possible Industrial Users (ILJs)
which might be subject to the Control Authority pretreatment program. An IU is defined as a source of indirect discharge. Indirect
discharge is defined as the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from any non-domestic source regulated under Section 307(b), (c),
or (d) of the Act [40 CFR § 403.3(g)]. The definition [40 CFR § 403.3(1)] of what classifies an IU as a Significant Industrial User (SIU)
is:
any user subject to categorical pretreatment standards;
any user that discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater (excludes sanitary,
noncontact cooling, and boiler blowdown wastewater);
any user that contributes a process wastestream making up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or
organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant; or
any other user designated by the control authority (POTW) to be a significant industrial user because of its reasonable
potential to adversely affect the POTW's operation or violate any pretreatment standard or requirement
In addition (as part of their annual report), 40 CFR § 403.12(i)(1) requires a POTW to update their list of lUs annually and requires a
POTW to detail standards that apply to each IU(induding SlUs). To comply with these requirements, the Control Authority must develop
and implement sound procedures to conduct industrial waste surveys.
Conducting Industrial Waste Surveys
User Identification
The first step in maintaining a comprehensive industrial waste survey is to develop a system to identify a]| industrial and
commercial users that potentially discharge to the POTW. Suggested sources which may be used in creating an initial master list
include:
Water and sewer billing records
Applications for sewer service
Local telephone directories
Chamber of Commerce records
Local business directories
Module 3 ~ Narrative Page 1
-------
Industrial User Identification and Classification The Pretreatment Training Course
Business license records
Wastewater collection personnel
Reid observations
POTW treatment plant operators
Business associations
Internet
For existing programs, surveying current permittees about known competitors may facilitate identification of SIDs. Contributions to the
POTW may also come from connections outside of City limits. Although local regulations may require all IDs b apply for a permit, it
is still the responsibility of the Control Authority to identify and locate all SlUs.
Data Collection to Help in the Evaluation of All Identified Users.
To facilitate classifying users, the Control Authority should distribute an industrial waste questionnaire. The questionnaire should
request general and specific information of potential industrial and commercial users. A two-part questionnaire may be preferred by
Control Authorities: a basic questionnaire sent to all lUs initially identified, followed by a more specific questionnaire for IDs that may
be subject to the pretreatment program. The basic questionnaire should, at minimum, request the following information:
Industry name, mailing address, location of facility, and contact person's name and phone number
Type of business, processes performed and products manufactured
SIC code
Business hours
Number of employees
Sewer service
Water source(s) and average usage
Type of wastewater discharged (i.e.. sanitary, process, noncontact cooling, boiler blowdown) and discharge tocation(s).
A more detailed questionnaire should be distributed to those users which are likely to be subject to the pretreatment program.
This form should request information regarding, at least the following:
Detailed description of processes performed, where water is used and where waste is generated
Process chemicals used and chemicals located onsite
Applicable categorical standards
Schematic including process area, pretreatment system, floor drains, and connections to sewer
Page 2-Narrative Modules
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Industrial User Identification and Classification
Number of sewer connections, location of discharge fines conveying industrial waste (including access for monitoring), type
ofpretreatment
Pollutants present in waste discharged to the POTW (including sampling data where possible)
Nature of waste hauled offsite and identification of waste hauler(s)
P2 measures
Tracking and Data Verification
A Control Authority wffl not know if a questionnare was lost in the mail or was not delivered to the intended recipient unless it was
sent in a manner confirming receipt (e.g., certified mail - return receipt requested, hand delivery), tracking information as such is
necessary in the event that enforcement actions must be taken against a user who refuses to respond.
A cover letter should accompany the questionnaire explaining why the user is required to complete it, who they should call if they
have questions, where it should be returned to and when, who should sign the questionnaire, etc.. The Control Authority also may
choose to outline the penalties that can be assessed for failing to respond and advise the user to make a copy of the complete
questionnare for their records prior to returning the original. It is recommended that 30 days be allowed for the user to respond. This
allows them sufficient time to gather the required information but not too much time that they forget to respond.
Confirmation of when the questionnaire was delivered and returned should be tracked. For those questionnaires that were
returned as 'undeliverable', the Control Authority may follow-up by attempting to contact the user by phone or in person. For those
users who failed to respond, a phone call and/or follow-up in person with a letter notifying them of the noncompliance, is advisable.
[Remember, that occasionally mail may be lost so never assume that the user failed to respond. Merely indicate that the completed
questionnare was never received making it necessary for the Control Authority to follow-up. If the user followed the instructions detailed
in the cover letter, they should have a copy of the completed questionnaire on file making it possible to provide the information
immediately. Providing a blank questionnaire with a requirement to return the survey within a short period of time (e.g., five days) may
be necessary for users who admit they did not respond or have no proof that they responded.] Closure for each user must be brought
about, even if the Control Authority determines they initially identified a user that does not exist
Once the questionnaires have been received they should be reviewed and information verified where possible. In particular, field
verification should be performed in the following situations:
When the questionnaire states that no process wastewater is discharged, but the reported wastewater flow is not
accounted for by number of employees, noncontact cooling water, etc.
When the questionnaire indicates categorical (or potentially categorical) operations but no sewer service, zero discharge
to the POTW, and/or no waste hauled off site.
Whenever the information reported appears unreliable.
Verification of information provided from the user may require a site visit to the facility to determine whether all processes were
described and all discharges correctly reported. This verification process may also require the Control Authority to collect samples.
Users identified not to be SlUs, will need to be notified of such and what standards and requirements apply to their discharge.
It is suggested that a letter be provided detailing their status (user or industrial user) and the basis for the determination (i.e., information
provided in the questionnaire and/or walkthrough performed). The letter should also provide them with a copy of the focal regulations
Module 3 Narrative - Page 3
-------
Industrial User Identification and C/ass/fcaffo/i The Pretreatment Training Course
or the section(s) outlining standards and requirements applying to their discharge. The Control Authority may also choose to define
SIU and list who the ID may call in the event they believe they were classified incorrectly.
The Control Authority shall briefly describe when and why a user was 'dropped* from the survey process. This can be included
in the tracking system used for questionnaire delivery and return dates.
Potential SlUs can be inspected or automatically supplied a more lengthy questionnaire. For SlUs with potential categorical
operations, the Control Authority win also need b pay specific attention b processes performed and the products produced b determine
applicable category(iesysubcategory(ies), if any. If at any point in the process, an IU is determined not b be an SIU, the same process
describe above (i.e., notification and tracking) should be performed. Collection of flow and sampling data may be necessary prior b
making a final determination. Once an IU is determined b be an SIU, they should be notified of such and the permitting process
commenced.
One method of ensuring all potential SlUs are identified, is b compare the pollutants reported in the survey with influent samples
collected torn the POTW treatment plant receiving the IUs' wasb. If pollutants are present in the influent which are not accounted for
in the survey (and current permittees), the Control Authority should look further for the sources of those pollutants, such as wasb
haulers. Waste haulers can be identified by examining local telephone directories, patrolling the discharge locations, questioning the
agency licensing hauled waste operations, etc.. Periodic sampling of the hauled wasbs discharged and requiring the haulers manifest
the waste discharged b the POTW is recommended.
Updating the Master List
The industrial waste survey information must be kept up b date to continue b provide accurate program data. The on-going task
of maintaining a complete list of all users requires the Control Authority b implement a viable system b track both existing users as
they change and new users prior b connection b the POTW. Maintaining an accurate and up-to-date industrial waste survey is a key
component of a wefl operated pretreatment program. The system used b achieve this may include the most successful methods used
b create the initial master list or the Control Authority may use other techniques such as:
Inspections
Review of local business journals
Newspaper advertisements
Periodic review of plumbing, building, and occupancy licenses
Use of'utility connect questionnaires".
Utility connect questionnaires, or the like, are questionnaires required to be completed when applying for a new service, e.g., water,
sewer, electric, etc.. The questionnaire asks basic information about the operations b be performed and potentially, the wastes
generated. This questionnaire can be shared with local agencies for them to contact the applicant and provide them with any relevant
information for compliance with (potentially) applicable regulations.
Page 4-Narrative Module 3
-------
The Presentment Training Course
Industrial User Identification and Classification
Classifying Industrial Users Exercise
EPA defines a significant industrial user (SID) to be:
a. all users subject to a categorical pretreatrnent standard (national effluent guidelines);
b. any user that discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater to the POTW;
c. any user who contributes a process wastestream making up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic
or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant; or
d. any other user designated by the Control Authority (POTW) based on the user having a reasonable potential for
adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement
Industrial Waste Surveys are performed to identify, locate, and classify industrial users (IDs). Those classified as SlUs must be issued
a control mechanism (e.g., permit). As part of an initial survey, the following IDs provided basic information regarding their process
discharge and operations performed. Review the information below and determine for each 111 whether they meet the Federal definition
of an SIU. If you believe insufficient information is available to accurately make a determination, detail what questions you would ask
the IU. Assume an average dry weather flow of 10 MGD and an organic capacity of 15,000 Ibs.
IU Name
Acme Car Wash
Process Flow
4,000 batch
discharge/twice a week
Randy's Radiator 1,000 gpd and a 600 gal.
Repair Service batch discharge/month
The Bumper Palace 4,000 gpd
We clean it all* 24.000 gpd
Laundry Services
Jiffy Quick Plating 42,000 gpd
Company
Vanity
Photofinishing
Riche Hospital
Pin Publishing
Company
Biological
Associates
45,000 gpd
65,000 gpd total flow
26,000 gpd
8,000 gpd
Generic 18,000 gpd
Pharmaceuticals
Bubba's Septic 6,000 gpd
Service
Facility Operations
Automatic car wash facility servicing
50 cars per day
Service and repair of radiator cores
Repair and replating of chrome
bumpers
Industrial laundry of uniforms, shop
and printer towels, floor mats
Commercial and industrial zinc,
cadmium, copper, nickel and
chromium plating
Photoprocessing laboratory for 100
retail outlets
250 bed, complete medical care
facility
Printing of two daily newspapers, six
monthly magazines and several
periodic journals
Biomedical research and laboratory
services
Drug (legal) manufacturing
Waste hauler
Comments
( la
r i /%
I 1°
[ Jno
]a
1 r-
1°
]no
]a
]
c
]no
]a
1-
c
]no
]a
]-
c
]no
]a
]-,
c
Jno
]a
]-
c
]no
]a
]_
c
]no
]a
i /%
]°
]no
]a
]_
c
]no
]a
1
c
]no
]b
1 rl
Jd
]b
1 H
JO
]b
1 rl
Ja
]b
1 rl
Jd
]b
1 rl
Jo
]b
1 J
]d
]b
1 rl
]d
]b
1 H
Jo
]b
1 rl
|d
Jb
1 rl
Jd
]b
[1 J
]d
Modules
Appendix: Classifying Industrial Users Exercise - Page 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Permitting
Permitting
Industrial Users
40CFR§403.8(f)(1)(iii)
Control through permit or
equivalent individual control
mechanism, the contribution from
each significant industrial user.
Permitting SI Us
[40 CFR § 403.(8)(f)(1)0ii)l
* Minimum permit requirements:
-statement of duration
-effluent limitations
-self-monitoring, sampling, reporting,
notification and record keeping
requirements
-statement of non-transferability
-statement of applicable civil and criminal
penalties
Module 4
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
77?e Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Permitting
rfock v?H AUBtricfi
>«>>'-'->v>>\-v. s^. ^,^^%>>>%-L-.^ s%% j--v> \% >, >i. , -.%
Cover Page
Applicable legal authority
Facility name and location
Authorizes discharge of industrial waste
through pretreatment(if any) to POTW
Receiving POTW
Statement of duration
Signature of authorized Control Authority
representative
Pretreatment facilities/devices(if any)
Module 4
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Permitting
Effluent Limitations
Discharge/monitoring point locations
Description of discharges
Pollutant parameters
Effluent limitations
Specific prohibitions
Rule of stringency
Monitoring Requirements
Specifies:
-location
-parameters
-frequency
-sample type
Requires:
-conformance with 40 CFR Part 136
Final Discharge Limitations
8: Categorical Regulated Process
In accordance Win 40 CFR §467.35 the fctaMng irritations and
monitoring is required.
Parameter Max Dairy Max Average Measurement ' Sample
Monthly Frequency Type
Chromium 2.45 1.09 six limes per year composite
Zinc **** **** six times per year composite
Cyanide 1.72 0.72 ax times per year composite
Oil&Grease *** **** six times per year grab
Sampled fcnmedately downstream of pretreatment fadites or the regulated
process, whichever exist
Higher than local limit so total limit applies
Module 4
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Permitting
Example of Clearly Defined Discharge
Description and Monitoring Location
Pipe Description
001 Pretreated: equipment/facility wash down from
the processing areas, potato and com processing
wastewater, and storm water falling on uncovered,
outside pretreatment units. Pipe 001 Is designated
as the entrance of or outfall from the 5" Parshall
(Montana) Flume located In the middle of the open
air structure on the south by southwest side of the
Permittee's property. Note-Sanitary wastewater flows
through the Montana flume closest to the structure's
outside wall.
*!» m «irn«> »Y?*!****'
Reporting Requirements
Monitoring reports
Additional monitoring
Notice of violation and resampling
procedures
Where reports are to be sent
Module 4
Slide Presentation - Page 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Permitting
Other Required Permit Conditions
Record keeping
Non-transferability
Applicable penalties
Additional Monitoring and
Record Keeping Considerations
Representative Sampling
Monitoring Location
Flow Measurement
Inspection and Entry
Record Contents
Additional Reporting
Considerations
Accidental discharges
Facility changes
Anticipated noncompliance
Application for permit renewal
Module 4
Slide Presentation - Page 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Permitting
Special Conditions
Compliance schedules
Special monitoring required
Compliance reports/plans required
Reopener clauses
Standard Conditions
Definitions
Rights, duties and responsibilities
Consistency with local regulations
Fact Sheet
Rationale for
-categorical determination
-values used for calculations
-limitations imposed
-special conditions
Module 4
Slide Presentation - Page 6
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Permitting
Permit Transmittal Letter
Should:
-detail the certified mail number
-be sent to the Industry official or
contact
-specify any comment period and where
comments should be sent
-indicate whom at the Control Authority
can be contacted regarding questions
Waste Haulers
Waste Hauler Permits
Right of Refusal
Nondomestic Loads
Prohibited Discharges
Discharge Limits
Waste Tracking
Designated Discharge Point
Module 4
Slide Presentation - Page 7
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Industrial User Permitting
Industrial User Permitting
Overview
The General Pretreatment Regulations [40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(iii)] require Control Authorities with approved pretreatment programs
to control industrial users through a permit or similar means to ensure compliance with pretreatment standards and requirements. In
cases where an industrial user is significant, an individual control mechanism must be issued to that user.
These control mechanisms must be enforceable and contain the minimal contents specified in 40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A-E).
This includes a statement of duration; a statement of non-transferability; applicable effluent limits; monitoring, reporting and record
keeping requirements; and a statement of applicable penalties and compliance schedules (where applicable).
A permit program is the most effective mechanism for controlling wastewater discharges and has been used successfully
Nationally through the NPDES program and in many pretreatment programs. Permits are site-specific and tailored to the individual
users. Furthermore, the ability to revoke or modify a permit enables the Control Authority to accommodate changes in State, Federal,
and local requirements as well as changes in the user's own discharge. Moreover, the permit, once effective, is easily enforced (i.e.,
the Control Authority must only show that a violation occurred). On the other hand, the permit mechanism requires a dedication of both
manpower and resources in order to succeed. Permits must be weO documented in order to ensure their defensibility and enforceability.
Furthermore, permit conditions must establish dear and explicit requirements on the user or they will prove to be of little regulatory
value. When drafting permit requirements, permit writers must use commands such as "shall", "will" and "must* rather than
"recommend" a "may." finally, the procedures for permit development and issuance must be easily understood by both the applicant
and the permit writer in order to be truly effective. To this end, written permitting procedures are recommended to avoid an appearance
of arbitrary or capricious behavior on the part of the Control Authority.
In order to assist Control Authorities in the development of strong and comprehensive permits, EPA has prepared an Industrial
User Permitting Guidance Manual (September, 1989). This manual discusses in detail the permit writing process including permit
appGcations, fact sheets, permit components, and special situations such as waste hauler permits. In addition, the legal authority issues
pertinent to the permitting process are presented. Excerpts from this manual are provided in the following pages and address contents
of an industrial user permit
Module 4 Narrative - Page 1
-------
Industrial User Permitting The Pretreatmerit Training Course
Example TransmittaJ Letter
(Control Authority letterhead with address should be used)
Certified Mail No.:
Return Receipt Requested
Name of Responsible Official at Industry
Title
Name of Industrial User
Mailing Address
RE: Issuance of Industrial User Permit to [name of the Industrial User] by the [name of Control Authority].
Permit No. [cite permit number].
Dear [name of Responsible Official at Industry]:
Your application for an industrial user pretreatment permit has been reviewed and processed in accordance with [cite specific
section of ordinance].
The enclosed [cite permit number] covers the wastewater discharged from the facility located at [Location Address] into
the [name of Control Authority] sewer system. All discharges from this facility and actions and reports relating thereto shall
be in accordance with the terms and conditions of this permit
If you wish to appeal or challenge any conditions imposed in this permit a petition shall be filed for modification or reissuance
of this permit in accordance with the requirements of [cite specific section of ordinance], within 30 days of your receipt of
this correspondence. Pursuant to [cite specific section of ordinance], failure to petition for reconsideration of the permit
within the allotted time is deemed a waiver by the permittee of his right to challenge the terms of this permit
[Official Seal of Control Authority]
By: [Signature]
[Name and Title]
Issued this Pate] day of [Month], [Year].
Page 2-Narrative Module 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Industrial User Permitting
Contents of an Industrial User Permit
COVER PAGE
INDUSTRIAL USER PERMIT
PERMIT No. [cite permit number]
In accordance with the provisions of [cite specific section of ordinance]
Industrial User's Name
Location address
Mailing address (optional)
is hereby authorized to discharge industrial wastewater from the above identified facility and through the outfalls identified
herein into the [name of Control Authority] sewer system in accordance with the conditions set forth in this permit
Compliance with this permit does not relieve the permittee of its obligation to comply with any or all applicable pretreatment
regulations, standards or requirements under local, State, and Federal laws, including any such regulations, standards,
requirements, or laws that may become effective during the term of this permit
Noncompliance with any term or condition of this permit shall constitute a violation of the [name of Control Authority] sewer
use ordinance.
This permit shall become effective on [Date] and shall expire at midnight on pate].
If the permittee wishes to continue to discharge after the expiration date of this permit, an application must be filed for a
renewed permit in accordance with the requirements of [cite specific section of ordinance], a minimum of 90 days prior to
the expiration date.
[Official Seal of Control Authority]
By: [Signature]
[Name and Title]
Issued this Pate] day of [Month], [Year].
Module 4 Narrative Page 3
-------
Industrial User Permitting The Pretreatment Training Course
Contents of an Industrial User Permit
PART 1- EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
A. During the period of [effective date of permit] to [expiration date of permit] the permittee is authorized to discharge
process wastewater to the [name of Control Authority] sewer system from the outfalls listed below.
Description of outfalls:
Outfall Descriptions
001 [The permit writer must clearly identify the outfalls
using brief detailed narrative descriptions and diagrams
002 as necessary]
B. During the period of Pate] to Pate] the discharge from outfall 001 shall not exceed the following effluent limitations.
Effluent from this outfall consists of [the permit writer should provide a description of the discharges which are
combined at this sampling location].
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Parameter Daily maximum (mo/l) Monthly average (mq/l)
-(god) -(god)
[The permit writer must determine the applicable local, State, and Federal standards that apply to the permittee and
specify the most stringent applicable effluent limits for each regulated pollutant]
C. During the period of pate] to pate] the effluent from outfall 002 shall be of domestic or nonprocess wastewater only
and shall comply with [cite specific section of ordinance containing prohibited discharges and local limits].
D. All discharges shall comply with all other applicable laws, regulations, standards, and requirements contained in [cite
specific section of ordinance] and any applicable State and Federal pretreatment laws, regulations, standards, and
requirements including any such laws, regulations, standards, or requirements that may become effective during the
term of this permit [Specific discharge prohibitions may appear in the Effluent Limits section or in the Standard
Conditions section of the permit]
PART 2 - MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. From the period beginning on the effective date of the permit until pate], the permittee shall monitor outfall [cite outfall
number] for the following parameters, at the indicated frequency:
[The following parameters are an example of what might be included in this section of the permit The permit
writer must include all parameters Identified in Part 1. B.]
Page 4-Narrative Module 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial User Permitting
Contents of an Industrial User Permit
Sample Parameter
(mg/l unless
specified otherwise)
Flow (gpd)
BODS
TSS
Arsenic, Toy
Cadmium, Total
Chromium, Total
Copper, Total
Lead, Total
Mercury, Total
Nickel, Total
Znc, Total
Trichlorophenol4
Pentachlorophenol4
PH
Measurement
Location
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
See note1
Frequency
Continuous
1/Year
1/Year
1/Year
1/Month
1/Month
1/Week
1/Month
1/Year
1/Month
1/Week
1/Quarter5
1/Quarter5
Continuous
Sample Type
Meter2
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
24-hr Composite3
Meter*
B.'- All handling and preservation of collected samples and laboratory analyses of samples shall be performed in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 136 and amendments thereto unless specified otherwise in the monitoring conditions of this permit [As
an alternative, this requirement may be put in the standard conditions section.]
PART 3 - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Monitoring Reports
Monitoring results obtained shall be summarized and reported on an Industrial User Monitoring Report Form once per
month. The reports are due on the [specify date] day of each month. The first report is due on [Date]. The report shall
indicate the nature and concentration of all pollutants in the effluent for which sampling and analyses were performed
during the calendar month preceding the submission of each report including measured maximum and average daily flows.
B. If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, using test procedures prescribed in
40 CFR Part 136 or amendments thereto, or otherwise approved by EPA or as specified in this permit the results of such
monitoring shall be included in any calculations of actual dairy maximum or monthly average pollutant discharge and results
shall be reported in the monthly report submitted to the [name of Control Authority]. Such increased monitoring
frequency shall also be indicated in the monthly report [As an alternative, this requirement may be put in the standard
conditions section.]
C. Automatic Resampling
If the results of the permittee's wastewater analysis indicate that a violation of this permit has occurred, the permittee must
1 [The permit writer needs to include a diagram or narrative description of sample locations.]
2 Daily flows are to be recorded from the permittee's flow meter.
3 Definitions of sample types. [The permit writer must determine the type of composite sample (time or flow proportioned) and
the sampling duration (Le., 8-hour, 12-hour, 24-hour) that is most appropriate for the industrial user, and define it either here
or in the standard conditions.]
4 The permittee may choose b submit a certification statement annually due by [Date] stating that chlorophenolic containing biocides
and sfimiddes are not used at the facility rather than monitoring for trichlorophenol and pentachlorophenol. [This provision applies
only if the user is subject to the pulp and paper categorical standards].
9 Quarterly samples are to be analyzed once every three (3) months and shall consist of three (3) samples collected in a (2) week
period.
8 pH will be monitored and recorded continuously on the permittee's pH meter.
Module 4
Narrative - Page 5
-------
Industrial User Permitting TTie Pretreatment Training Course
Contents of en Industrial User Permit
1. Inform the [name of Control Authority] of the violation within 24 hours; and
2. Repeat the sampling and pollutant analysis and submit, in writing, the results of this repeat analysis within 30 days
of the first violation.
D. Accidental Discharge Report
1. The permittee shall notify the [name of Control Authority] immediately upon the occurrence of an accidental
discharge of substances prohibited by [cite specific section of ordinance] or any slug loads or spills that may enter
the public sewer. During normal business hours the [name of Control Authority] should be notified by telephone
at [telephone number]. At all other times, the [name of Control Authority] should be notified by telephone at either
[telephone number] or [telephone number] after 5 p.m. Monday - Friday or weekends and holidays. The
notification shall include location of discharge, date and time thereof, type of waste, including concentration, and
volume, and corrective actions taken. The permittee's notification of accidental releases in accordance with this
section does not relieve it of other reporting requirements that arise under local, State, or Federal laws.
Within five days following an accidental discharge, the permittee shall submit to the [name of Control Authority]
a detailed written report. The report shall specify:
a. Description and cause of the upset, slug load or accidental discharge, the cause thereof, and the impact on the
permittee's compliance status. The description should also include location of discharge, type, concentration
and volume of waste.
b. Duration of noncompliance, including exact dates and times of noncompliance and, if the noncompliance is
continuing, the time by which compliance is reasonably expected to occur.
c. All steps taken or to be taken to reduce, eliminate, and/or prevent recurrence of such an upset slug load,
accidental discharge, or other conditions of noncompliance.
[As an alternative, this requirement may be put in the standard conditions section.]
E. All reports required by this permit shall be submitted to the [name of Control Authority] at the following address:
[name of Control Authority]
Attn: [name of Pretreatment Coordinator]
Address
PART 4 - SPECIAL CONDITIONS
SECTION A - ADDITIONAL/SPECIAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
[The permit writer needs to include any additional or special monitoring requirements that are applicable to the
permittee. Examples are provided below.]
Examples:
1. One time monitoring for specific pollutants to verify absence (e.g., The permittee shall submit by [Date] sampling data for
pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol).
2. Biomonitoring or other toxitity to determine the toxicity of the discharge.
3. Development of sludge disposal plan, slug loading control plan, or industrial user management practices.
4. Additional monitoring of pollutants that are limited in the permit in response to noncompliance.
SECTION B - REOPENER CLAUSE
Page 6 Narrative Module 4
-------
77?e Pretreatment Training Course Industrial User Permitting
Contents of en Industrial User Permit
[The permit writer should describe here any causes for modifying the permit arising out of facts that are not common
to all industrial users which will or are likely to occur during its effective period. Examples are set out below. (The
more general reasons for modifying a permit may be stated in the standard conditions section.)]
Examples:
1. This permit may be reopened and modified to incorporate any new or revised requirements contained in a National
categorical pretreatment standard promulgated for the pesticide chemicals category (40 CFR Part 455).
2. This permit may be reopened and modified to incorporate any new or revised requirements resulting from the [name of
Control Authority] reevaluation of its local limit for copper.
3. This permit may be reopened and modified to incorporate any new or revised requirements developed by [name of Control
Authority] as are necessary to ensure POTW compliance with applicable sludge management requirements promulgated
by EPA (40 CFR Part 503).
SECTION C - COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
[Sample Compliance Schedule]
1. The permittee shall accomplish the following tasks in the designated time period:
Activity No Later Than
a. Prepare and deliver to the Control Authority by the specified deadline design
plans for a pretreatment facility. Pate]
b. Commence construction of the pretreatment facility. [Date]
c. Develop, and submit to the [name of Control Authority] a slug control plan to
eliminate or minimize accidental spills or slug discharges to the sewer system. [Date]
d. Implement the slug loading control plan. Pate]
e. Complete installation of the pretreatment facility. Pate]
f. Obtain full operational status of the pretreatment facility and achieve full compliance. pate]
2. Compliance Schedule Reporting
No later than 14 days following each date in the above schedule, the permittee shall submit to the [name of Control
Authority] a report including, at a minimum, whether or not it complied with the increment of progress to be met on such
date and, if not the date on which it expects to comply with the increment of progress, the reasons for delay, and the steps
being taken to return the project to the schedule established.
PART 5 - STANDARD CONDITIONS
[The following standard conditions may be placed in industrial user permits. The Control Authority should select (and
modify if necessary) the standard conditions listed here which best suit its needs.]
SECTION A. - GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINITIONS
1. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of this
permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of
this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
2. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit Failure to comply with the requirements of this permit may
be grounds for administrative action, or enforcement proceedings including civil or criminal penalties, injunctive relief, and
summary abatements.
Module 4 Narrative Page 7
-------
Industrial User Permitting The Pretreatment Training Course
Contents of an Industrial User Permit
3. Duty to Mitioate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or correct any adverse impact to the public treatment plant or
the environment resulting from noncompliance with this permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as
necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge.
4. Permit Modification
This permit may be modified for good causes including, but not limited to, the following:
a. To incorporate any new or revised Federal, State, or local pretreatment standards or requirements
b. Material or substantial alterations or additions to the discharger's operation processes, or discharge volume or
character which were not considered in drafting the effective permit
c. A change in any condition in either the industrial user or the POTW that requires either a temporary or permanent
reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge
d. Information indicating that the permitted discharge poses a threat to the Control Authority's collection and treatment
systems, POTW personnel or the receiving waters
e. Violation of any terms or conditions of the permit
f. Misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts in the permit application or in any required report
g. Revision of or a grant of variance from such categorical standards pursuant to 40 CFR § 403.13
h. To correct typographical or other errors in the permit
i. To reflect transfer of the facility ownership and/or operation to a new owner/operator
j. Upon request of the permittee, provided such request does not create a violation of any applicable requirements,
standards, laws, or rules and regulations.
The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification
of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.
5. Permit Termination
This permit may be terminated for the following reasons:
a. Falsifying self-monitoring reports
b. Tampering with monitoring equipment
c. Refusing to allow timely access to the facility premises and records
d. Failure to meet effluent limitations
e. Failure to pay fines
f. Failure to pay sewer charges
g. Failure to meet compliance schedules.
6. Permit Appeals
The permittee may petition to appeal the terms of this permit within thirty (30) days of the notice.
This petition must be in writing; failure to submit a petition for review shall be deemed to be a waiver of the appeal. In its
petition, the permittee must indicate the permit provisions objected to, the reasons for this objection, and the alternative
condition, if any, it seeks to be placed in the permit
The effectiveness of this permit shall not be stayed pending a reconsideration by the Board. If, after considering the
petition and any arguments put forth by the Superintendent, the Board determines that reconsideration is proper, it shall
remand the permit back to the Superintendent for reissuance. Those permit provisions being reconsidered by the
Superintendent shall be stayed pending reissuance.
A Board of Directors' decision not to reconsider a final permit shall be considered final administrative action for purposes
of judicial review. The permittee seeking judicial review of the Board's final action must do so by filing a complaint with the
[name of court] for [name of County] within [insert appropriate State Statute of Limitations].
Page 8 - Nanative Module 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Industrial User Permitting
Contents of an Industrial User Permit
7. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any violation of Federal, State, or local laws
or regulations.
8. Limitation on Permit Transfer
Permits may be reassigned or transferred to a new owner and/or operator with prior approval of the Superintendent
a. The permittee must give at least thirty (30) days advance notice to the Superintendent
b. The notice must include a written certification by the new owner which:
1. States that the new owner has no immediate intent to change the facility's operations and processes
2. Identifies the specific date on which the transfer is to occur
3. Acknowledges full responsibility for complying with the existing permit.
9. Duty to Reapplv
If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the permittee
must submit an application for a new permit at least 90 days before the expiration date of this permit [Alternatively, this
requirement may appear on the Cover Page.]
10. Continuation of Expired Permits
An expired permit will continue to be effective and enforceable until the permit is reissued if:
a. The permittee has submitted a complete permit application at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration date of the
user's existing permit
b. The failure to reissue the permit, prior to expiration of the previous permit, is not due to any act or failure to act on
the part of the permittee.
11. Dilution
The permittee shall not increase the use of potable or process water or, in any way, attempt to dilute an effluent as a partial
or complete substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with the limitations contained in this permit
12. Definitions
a. Daily Maximum - The maximum allowable discharge of pollutant during a calendar day. Where daily maximum
limitations are expressed in units of mass, the daily discharge is the total mass discharged over the course of the day.
Where daily maximum limitations are expressed in terms of a concentration, the daily discharge is the arithmetic
average measurement of the pollutant concentration derived from all measurements taken that day.
b. Composite Sample - A sample that is collected over time, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing discrete
samples. The sample may be composited either as a time composite sample: composed of discrete sample aliquots
collected in one container at constant time intervals providing representative samples irrespective of stream flow; or
as a flow proportional composite sample: collected either as a constant sample volume at time intervals proportional
to stream flow, or collected by increasing the volume of each aliquot as the flow increases while maintaining a
constant time interval between the aliquots. [The permit writer should determine the most appropriate composite
sampling method to be used by the permittee.]
c. Grab Sample An individual sample collected in less than 15 minutes, without regard for flow or time.
d. Instantaneous Maximum Concentration - The maximum concentration allowed in any single grab sample.
e. Cooling Water -
1. Uncontaminated: Water used for cooling purposes only which has no direct contact with any raw material, inter-
mediate, or final product and which does not contain a level of contaminants detectably higher than that of the
intake water.
2. Contaminated: Water used for cooling purposes only which may become contaminated either through the use
of water treatment chemicals used for corrosion inhibitors or biocides, or by direct contact with process
materials and/or wastewater.
Module 4 Narrative - Page 9
-------
Industrial User Permitting . 77?e Pretreatment Training Course
Contents of an Industrial User Remit
f. Monthly Average The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collected during a calendar month or
specified 30 day period (as opposed to a rolling 30 day window).
g. Weekly Average - The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collected over a period of seven
consecutive days.
h. Bi-Weekly - Once every other week.
i. Bi-Monthly - Once every other month.
j. Upset Means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-
based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee, excluding such
factors as operational error, improperly designed or inadequate treatment facilities, or improper operation and
maintenance or lack thereof.
k. Bypass - Means the intentional diversion of wastes from any portion of a treatment facility.
13. General Prohibitive Standards
The permittee shall comply with all the general prohibitive discharge standards in [reference specific section of
ordinance]. Namely, the industrial user shall not discharge wastewater to the sewer system:
a. Having a temperature higher than 104°F (40°C);
b. Containing more than 100 ppm by weight of fats, oils, and grease;
c. Containing any gasoline, benzene, naphtha, fuel oil or other flammable or explosive liquids, solids or gases; and in
no case pollutants with a closed cup flashpoint of less than one hundred forty (140)°F (60°C), or pollutants which
cause an exceedance of 10 percent of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) at any point within the POTW.
d. Containing any garbage that has not been ground by household type or other suitable garbage grinders;
e. Containing any ashes, cinders, sand, mud, straw, shavings, metal, glass, rags, feathers, tar, plastics, wood, paunch,
manure, or any other solids or viscous substances capable of causing obstructions or other interferences with proper
operation of the sewer system;
f. Having a pH lower than 5.0 or higher than 11.0, or having any other corrosive property capable of causing damage
or hazards to structures, equipment or personnel of the sewer system;
g. Containing toxic or poisonous substances in sufficient quantity to injure or interfere with any wastewater treatment
process, to constitute hazards to humans or animals, or to create any hazard in waters which receive treated effluent
from the sewer system treatment plant Toxic wastes shall include, but are not limited to wastes containing cyanide,
chromium, cadmium, mercury, copper, and nickel ions;
h. Containing noxious or malodorous gases or substances capable of creating a public nuisance; including pollutants
which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes;
i. Containing solids of such character and quantity that special and unusual attention is required for their handling;
j. Containing any substance which may affect the treatment plant's effluent and cause violation of the NPDES permit
requirements;
k. Containing any substance which would cause the treatment plant to be in noncompliance with sludge use, recycle
or disposal criteria pursuant to guidelines or regulations developed under section 405 of the Clean Water Act, the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act or other regulations or criteria for
sludge management and disposal as required by the State;
I. Containing color which is not removed in the treatment processes;
m. Containing any medical or infectious wastes;
n. Containing any radioactive wastes or isotopes; or
o. Containing any pollutant including BOD pollutants, released at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which would
cause interference with the treatment plant
14. Compliance with Applicable Pretreatment Standards and Requirements
Compliance with this permit does not relieve the permittee from its obligations regarding compliance with any and all
applicable local, State and Federal pretreatment standards and requirements including any such standards or requirements
that may become effective during the term of this permit
Page 10 - Narrative Module 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Industrial User Permitting
Contents of an Industrial User Permit
SECTION B. - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related
appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit
Proper operation and maintenance includes but is not limited to: effective performance, adequate funding, adequate
operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems only when necessary
to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit
2. Duty to Halt or Reduce Activity
Upon reduction of efficiency of operation, or loss or failure of all or part of the treatment facility, the permittee shall, to the
extent necessary to maintain compliance with its permit, control its production or discharges (or both) until operation of the
treatment facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies, for example, when
the primary source of power of the treatment facility fails or is reduced. It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an
enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain
compliance with the conditions of this permit
3. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
a. Bypass is prohibited unless it is unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage or
no feasible alternatives exist
b. The permittee may allow bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it is
also for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation.
c. Notification of bypass:
1. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior written
notice, at least ten days before the date of the bypass, to the [name of Control Authority].
2. Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall immediately notify the [name of Control Authority] and submit a
written notice to the POTW within 5 days. This report shall specify:
(!) A description of the bypass, and its cause, including its duration;
(ii) Whether the bypass has been corrected; and
(iii) The steps being taken or to be taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent a reoccurrence of the bypass.
4. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be
disposed of in accordance with section 405 of the Clean Water Act and Subtitles C and D of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act [The Control Authority should add citations to local or State regulations that may apply]
SECTION C. - MONITORING AND RECORDS
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored
discharge. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points specified in this permit and, unless otherwise specified,
before the effluent joins or is diluted by any other wastestream, body of water or substance. All equipment used for
sampling and analysis must be routinely calibrated, inspected and maintained to ensure their accuracy. Monitoring points
shall not be changed without notification to and the approval of the [name of Control Authority].
2. Flow Measurements
If flow measurement is required by this permit, the appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with
approved scientific practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the
volume of monitored discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated, and maintained to ensure that the accuracy
of the measurements are consistent with the accepted capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable
of measuring flows with a maximum deviation of less than 10 percent from true discharge rates throughout the range of
expected discharge volumes.
Module 4 Narrative - Page 11
-------
Industrial User Permitting TTie Pretreatment Training Course
Contents of an Industrial User Permit
3. Analytical Methods to Demonstrate Continued Compliance
All sampling and analysis required by this permit shall be performed in accordance with the techniques prescribed in 40
CFR Part 136 and amendments thereto, otherwise approved by EPA, or as specified in this permit
4. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, using test procedures identified in
Section C. 3., the results of this monitoring shall be included in the permittee's self-monitoring reports.
5. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the [name of Control Authority], or an authorized representative, upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where records
must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or
operations regulated or required under this permit;
d. Sample or monitor, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance, any substances or parameters at any location;
and
' e. Inspect any production, manufacturing, fabricating, or storage area where pollutants, regulated under the permit,
could originate, be stored, or be discharged to the sewer system.
6. Retention of Records
a. The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and
all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this
permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at least three years from
the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the [name
of Control Authority] at any time.
b. All records that pertain to matters that are the subject of special orders or any other enforcement or litigation activities
brought by the [name of Control Authority] shall be retained and preserved by the permittee until all enforcement
activities have concluded and all periods of limitation with respect to any and all appeals have expired.
7. Record Contents
Records of sampling and analyses shall include:
a. The date, exact place, time, and methods of sampling or measurements, and sample preservation techniques or
procedures;
b. Who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. Who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
8. Falsifying Information
Knowingly making any false statement on any report or other document required by this permit or knowingly rendering any
monitoring device or method inaccurate, is a crime and may result in the imposition of criminal sanctions and/or civil
penalties.
SECTION D. - ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the [name of Control Authority] 90 days prior to any facility expansion, production
increase, or process modifications which results in new or substantially increased discharges or a change in the nature
of the discharge. [Alternatively, this requirement may appear in Part 3, Reporting Requirements, of the permit]
Page 12 - Narrative Module 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Industrial User Pennitting
Contents of an Industrial User Permit
2. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance notice to the [name of Control Authority] of any planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
3. Automatic Resampling
If the results of the permittee's wastewater analysis indicates a violation has occurred, the permittee must notify the [name
of Control Authority] within 24 hours of becoming aware of the violation and repeat the sampling and pollutant analysis
and submit, in writing, the results of this repeat analysis within 30 days after becoming aware of the violation.
4. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the [name of Control Authority], within [specify time] any information which the [name
of Control Authority] may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating
this permit, or to determine compliance with this permit The permittee shall also, upon request, furnish to the [name of
Control Authority] within [specify time] copies of any records required to be kept by this permit
5. Signatory Requirements [use whichever alternative best applies]
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the [name of Control Authority] must contain the following
certification statement and be signed as required in Sections (a), (b), (c) or (d) below:
'I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.'
a. By a responsible corporate officer, if the Industrial User submitting the reports is a corporation. For the purpose of
this paragraph, a responsible corporate officer means:
1. a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function,
or any other person who performs similar policy- or decision-making functions for the corporation, on
2. the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operation facilities employing more than 250 persons
or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second-quarter 1980 dollars), if
authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate
procedures.
b. By a general partner or proprietor if the Industrial User submitting the reports is a partnership or sole proprietorship
respectively.
c. The principal executive officer or director having responsibility for the overall operation of the discharging facility if
the Industrial User submitting the reports is a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, or their agents.
d. By a duly authorized representative if:
1. the authorization is made in writing by the individual described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c);
2. the authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the
facility from which the industrial discharge originates, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well,
or a well field superintendent, or a position of equivalent responsibility, or having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company; and
3. the written authorization is submitted to the City.
e. If an authorization under paragraph (d) of this section is no longer accurate because a different individual or position
has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, or overall responsibility for the environmental matters for the
company, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section must be submitted to the
City prior to or together with any reports to be signed by an authorized representative.
6. Operating Upsets
a. Any permittee that experiences an upset in operations that places the permittee in a temporary state of
noncompliance with the provisions of either this permit or with [reference specified section of ordinance] shall
Module 4 ' Narrative-Page 13
-------
Industrial User Permitting The Pretreatment Training Course
Contents of an Industrial User Permit
inform the [name of Control Authority] within 24 hours of becoming aware of the upset at [daytime telephone
number] or [nighttime and weekend telephone number] after 5 p.m. Monday - Friday or weekends and holidays.
b. A written follow-up report of the upset shall be filed by the permittee with the [name of Control Authority] within five
days. The report shall specify:
1. Description of the upset, the cause(s) thereof and the upset's impact on the permittee's compliance status;
2. Duration of noncompliance, including exact dates and times of noncompliance, and if not corrected, the
anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue; and
3. All steps taken or to be taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of such an upset
c. The report must also demonstrate that the treatment facility was being operated in a prudent and workmanlike
manner.
d. A documented and verified operating upset shall be an affirmative defense to any enforcement action brought against
the permittee for violations attributable to the upset event
7. Annual Publication
A list of all industrial users which were subject to enforcement proceedings during the twelve (12) previous months shall
be annually published by the [name of Control Authority] in the largest daily newspaper within its service area.
Accordingly, the permittee is apprised that noncompliance with this permit may lead to an enforcement action and may
result in publication of its name in an appropriate newspaper in accordance with this section.
8. Civil and Criminal Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from civil and/or criminal penalties for noncompliance
under [reference specific section of ordinance] or State or Federal laws or regulations.
9. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
The [cite specific section of ordinance] provides that any person who violates a permit condition is subject to a civil
penalty of at least [cite dollar amount] per day of such violation. Any person who willfully or negligently violates permit
conditions is subject to criminal penalties of a fine of up to [cite dollar amount] per day of violation, or by imprisonment
for [number] of year(s), or both. The permittee may also be subject to sanctions under State and/or Federal law.
10. Recovery of Costs Incurred
In addition to civil and criminal liability, the permittee violating any of the provisions of this permit or [reference specific
section of ordinance] or causing damage to or otherwise inhibiting the [name of Control Authority] wastewater disposal
system shall be liable to the [name of Control Authority] for any expense, loss, or damage caused by such violation or
discharge. The {name of Control Authority] shall bill the permittee for the costs incurred by the [name of Control
Authority] for any cleaning, repair, or replacement work caused by the violation or discharge. Refusal to pay the assessed
costs shall constitute a separate violation of [reference specific section of ordinance].
Page 14 - Narrative Module 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course ' Industrial User Permitting
Fact Sheets
In addition b ensuring an industrial user permit communicates all requirements to a Permittee, the Control Authority should
document all rationale for determining standards and specific requirements imposed. EPA recommends that this information be
contained in a fact sheet which is made part of the permit At a minimum, fact sheets should explicitly detail the following:
ForCIUs:
the basis for the categorical determination(s) (i.e., what processes and wastestreams are present and are subject to
categorical regulation(s))
the identity and flow volume of all wastestreams generated and discharged to the POTW, and classified accordingly (i.e.,
regulated process, unregulated process, or dilution)
data used and/or justification for estimates used to determine categorical limitations
basis for limits imposed for categorical parameters (i.e., limited by categorical standards or local limits).
ForSIUs/CIUs:
basis for limits imposed for non-categorical parameters
rationale for compliance schedules, special plans required, special conditions, etc.
basis for monitoring and reporting frequencies.
Approval Authorities may require additional information or that the information be contained in a specific document Regardless,
information contained in a fact sheet is vital to ensuring Control Authority actions are just and consistent
Waste Haulers
Although industrial users permits are the most common control mechanism issued by Control Authorities, it is recommended that
a permit system be developed for regulating hauled waste. Prior to developing such a system, local regulations should be evaluated
and modified if necessary, to ensure a Control Authority has the legal authority to permit such discharges. At a minimum, local
regulations should contain the following:
requirements that hauled discharges must comply with all applicable Federal, State and local standards and requirements
requirement for waste haulers to obtain a permit
requirement for hauled waste to be discharged only at specified locations
authority for the Control Authority to collect samples from each load of hauled waste
the prohibition of a discharge without prior consent of the Control Authority
authority to require analysis of a hauled waste load prior to discharge
requirements for waste haulers to utilize a manifest system.
The permitting system developed for waste haulers will depend upon the location and number of discharge points (i.e., located
throughout the collection system or at the POTW treatment plants)), and manpower available for surveillance activities. However, at
a minimum, it is recommended that the permits issued contain the following conditions:
Module 4 Narrative Page 15
-------
Industrial User Permitting The Pretreatmerrt Training Course
the right to refuse any toad of hauled waste (a.k.a. Right of Refusal)
prohibition of the discharge of all nondomestic waste loads, unless:
the Control Authority identifies the types of nondomestic wastes a POTW treatment plant can treat
the hauler maintains a list of customers which includes the type and volume of waste hauled from each customer
the requirement to comply with all prohibited discharge standards and established local limits
the requirement for a hauler to provide the nature, origin, and volume of waste hauled
specifying where (and when) hauled waste shall be discharged.
The Control Authority may also choose to forbid the discharge of RCRA hauled waste, or to accept it and require compliance with the
permit-by-rule' regulations [40 CFR § 270.60(c)J. It is recommended that EPA's Guidance for Implementing RCRA Pemit-by-Rule
Requirements at POTWs be reviewed for further information on this topic.
Conclusion
Permits are the most effective mechanism for controlling discharges to a POTW. Therefore, it is absolutely vital for a Control
Authority to establish written permitting procedures which result in well documented permits that are both defensible and enforceable.
Page 16 - Narrative Module 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
Pretreatment Standards
General & specific prohibitions
Categorical standards
Local limits
General Prohibitions
[40CFR§403.5(a)(1)]
No user shall introduce into a
POTW any pollutants which
cause Pass Through or
Interference.
Specific Prohibitions
[40 CFR § 403.5(b)]
<*Pollutant(s) creating a fire or explosion
hazard
* Pollutants causing corrosive structural
damage
* Solid/viscous pollutants causing
obstruction
* Pollutants released at a flow rate or
concentration causing Interference
Module 5
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
Specific Prohibitions, cont
[40 CFR § 403.5(b)]
* Heat in amounts causing interference
* Certain oils in amounts causing
interference or pass through
« Pollutants resulting in the presence of
toxic gases, vapors or fumes above
acute worker exposure levels
* Trucked or hauled pollutants
Categorical Standards
Applicable to specific industry categories
Arose from 1976 EPA/NRDC agreement.
Currently at 51 categories.
» Found in 40 CFR Parts 405-471.
Applicable to direct & indirect dischargers.
Part 405 - Dairy Products Procmslng
Part 406 Grain Mills
Part 407 Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables Practising
Part 408 > Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing
Part 409 - Sugar Processing
Part 410-Textile Mills
Part 411 - Cement Manufacturing
Part 412-Feedlots
Part 413 Electroplating
Part 414 - Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fiber*
Part 415 - Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
Part 417 - Soap and Detergent Manufacturing
Part 418 - Fertilizer Manufacturing
Module 5
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
7?7e Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
Part 41» - Petroleum Refining
Part 420 Iran «nd StMl Manufacturing
Put 421 - Nonftrrous Metals Manufacturing
Put 422 - Phosphate Manufacturing
Part 423 - Steam Btctric Powtr Generating
Part 424 - Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Part 425 - Leather Tanning and Finishing
Part 42t Glass Manufacturing
Part 427 Asbestos Manufacturing
Part 42S - Rubber Manufacturing
Part 429 - Timber Products Processing
Part430-Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Part 431 - The Builders- Paper and Boardmllls
Part 432 - Meat Product*
Part 433 - Metal Finishing
Part 4M-Coal Mining
Part435-Oiland Oas Extraction
Part 4M - Mineral and Mining Processing
Part 438 - Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Part 440 Ore Mining and Dressing
Part 443 - Paving and Roofing Materials(Tars and Asphalt)
Part 446 - Paint Formulating
Part 447 Ink Formulating
Part 454 - Oum and Wood Chemicals Manufacturing
Part 455 - Pesticide Chemicals
Part 457 Explosives Manufacturing
Part 45f > Carbon Black Manufacturing
Part 459 - Photographic Processing
Part 480- Hospital
Part 461 - Battery Manufacturing
Part 463 - Plastics Molding and Forming
Part 464 - Metal Molding and Casting
Part465-Coll Coating
Part 466 - Porcelain Enameling
Part 467 Aluminum Forming
Part 468 - Copper Forming
Part 469 - Electrical and Electronic Components
Part 471 Nonftrrous Metals Forming and Metal Powder
The CWA(304(m)) requires that every
two years EPA develop and publish
plans for effluent guidelines, review,
revision, development, and adoption.
Module 5
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
October 7,1996
Effluent Guideline Plan
Continue development of 10 rules.
Begin development of revised iron and
steel guidelines.
Initiate three preliminary studies.
Complete two preliminary studies.
Plan for development of seven
additional guidelines, new or revised.
Flow Chart of Development Process
Categorical Standards
National standards
technology available
economic impacts
processes performed
Apply to regulated process flow only
Concentration or mass based limits
Daily maximum and long term averages
Developed for new and existing sources
Module 5
Slide Presentation - Page 4
-------
TTie Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
Why is Existing/New Source
Determination So Important?
New source standards most times
are more stringent
New sources required to be in
compliance upon commencement of
discharge
Existing sources can have up to three
years after the effective date of the
standard to achieve compliance
Production Based Standards
Equivalents
mass based limitations
concentration based limitation
CbfyMsdnun 0.004 kg Cuton of product
taMnun Mxtfy A/eraga. 0.002 kg Cuton of product
Condtions
Aoraga Produ*on(1996). SCO tons of productfrfey
Aoraga Row<1996) 200,000 (3=0(02 MGQ
Equivalent Mass Unit* Calculations
DeO/NMrnm 0.004kgCUtonXSCOtors/day -
aOOZkgOA^XSDOtons/dty -
Module 5
Slide Presentation - Page 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
Undvds
MV Maknum ........ . ....... ... 0.004 kg Cu*en of product
Muhmim MentMy Aw«p»._ 0.002 kg CuAon of product
Conation*
Aw«g« Pradudlon(ime) ..... 500 ten* of product/day
Awrag* Ftov(1996) .......... _ 200.000 CPD(0.2 MGD)
Equivalent Concentration Uroll. OlcuUllora
0.004 kg CuAon X
0.2 MGD
DalV Uulmum
X 0.264* 2JLmoJ
Maximum
Avwaga
0.2 MGD
X 0.264* »
Wastestream Types
Regulated process wastestreams
Unregulated process wastestreams
Dilute wastestreams
Wastestreams and Calculations
Combined Wastestream Formula(CWF)
is used where regulated, unregulated
and/or dilution wastestreams are
combined prior to pretreatment
Flow Weighted Average(FWA) formula is
used when regulated, and unregulated
and/or dilution wastestreams combine
after pretreatment, but prior to the
specified monitoring location.
Module 5
Slide Presentation - Page 6
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
CWF vs. FWA
Dilution
Cttegoiy
SBrttayWbste Qiiion
Off In* CTtateHcnt
VtatuOnam ttmga WlyMn. Mix MmtHy
iyp« How(MSO) ailirit^mg
Q02D 261 1.43
QOffl MA MA
XQCBMSO
(QQ2 + Q003) MGD
1.48 rrBTIXQQ2 MOD
Q003)MGO
: 977 rrpH
' 1 9Q rrjjfl
Application of Categorical
Pretreatment Standards
Module 5
Slide Presentation - Page 7
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
Total Toxic Organics("TTOs")
Defined in categorical regulation
Toxic Organic Management Plan(TOMP")
toxic organic compounds used
method of disposal
spill prevention/control
Certification in lieu of self-monitoring
Oil and grease
Other Things to Consider...
Dilution prohibition
[40CFR§403.6(d)J
Removal credits
[40 CFR § 403.7]
Fundamentally different factors
[40 CFR §403.13]
Net/Gross calculation
[40 CFR §403.15]
Question
A plating shop has been in business
since 1980. In 1990, it was bought
out by Such N Such Metal Finishing.
Is Such N Such Metal Finishing, a
new source?
Module 5
Slide Presentation - Page 8
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
Pretreatment Standards
Introduction
The National Pretreatment Program as implemented under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and General Pretreatment Regulations
[40 CFR Part 403] is designed to control the discharges of nondomestic wastes to POTWs. The objectives of the Program are to
prevent pass through and interference, to protect the receiving waters, and to improve opportunities for the reuse and reclamation of
municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges. To accomplish these objectives, the National Pretreatment Program relies on three
types of standards:
General and specific prohibitions
established at the Federal level
found in 40 CFR § 403.5(a) & (b)
apply to all users of a POTW
provide generally for protection of POTWs
Categorical standards
developed and established at the Federal level
found in 40 CFR Parts 405-471
apply to specific industrial categories
based on available treatment technology
Local limits
developed and established by Control Authorities
requirements for development are found in 40 CFR §§ 403.5(c) and 403.8(f)(4)
apply to all nondomestic discharges
provide site specific protection for a POTW, including the health and safety of POTW workers.
These standards are complimentary and are not intended to conflict One of a POTW's responsibilities is to identify and implement
applicable standards, applying the most stringent requirements where multiple provisions exist Compliance with imposed standards
can be achieved through implementation of best management practices, development of a pollution prevention program, and/or
installation of pretreafrnent The following narrative and module describe in detail, the three types of standards noted above and how
these different standards interact
General and Specific Prohibitions
All industrial users, whether or not subject to National categorical pretreatment standards, are subject to 40 CFR Part 403
requrements, including the prohibitions identified in 40 CFR § 403.5(a) and (b). These requirements include both general and specific
prohibitions and forbid the following:
discharges causing pass through*
1 A discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with
a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTWs NPOES permit (including an
increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation).
Module 5 Narrative - Page 1
-------
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards The Pretreatment Training Course
discharges causing interference2
discharges creating a fire or explosion hazard in the POTW3
discharges causing corrosive structural damage to the POTW4
discharges causing obstruction to the flow in the POTW resulting in interference
discharges of any pollutants at a flow rate and/or concentration which will cause interference with the POTW
discharges of heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW resulting in interference9
discharges of petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause
interference or pass through
discharges which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that may cause
acute worker health and safety problems
discharges of trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the Control Authority.
Excluding discharges creating a fire or explosion hazard, discharges causing corrosive structural damage, and discharges of trucked
or hauled pollutants, 40 CFR § 403.5(a)(2) provides when a user shall have an affirmative defense for violating a prohibition. Otherwise,
compliance with these prohibited standards is mandatory.
Categorical Standards
Introduction
Local administration of National categorical pretreatment standards has become a major focus for municipalities in the
implementation and enforcement of their pretreatment programs. This section provides a short history of the development by EPA of
effluent guidelines and categorical pretreatment standards to regulate direct8 and indirect7 dischargers, respectively, and introduces
several special considerations in implementing categorical pretreatment standards.
Categorical pretreatment standards are national, uniform, technology-based standards that apply to industrial users in specific
industrial categories and that limit the discharge of specific pollutants. They are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that
could pass through, interfere with, or otherwise be incompatible with POTW operations. They are based upon the capability of available
2 A discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, both: (1) inhibits or disrupts the POTW,
its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; and (2) therefore is a cause of a violation of any
requirement of the POTWs NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of
sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with... [applicable] statutory provisions and regulations or permits issued thereunder (or
more stringent State or local regulations).
3 Includes, but is not limited to, wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140°F(60°C) using the test methods specified
in 40 CFR Part 261.21.
4 In no case discharges with pH lower than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate such discharges
9 In no case heat in such quantities that the temperature at the POTW treatment plant exceeds 40°C(104°F) unless the Approval
Authority, upon request of the Control Authority, approves alternative temperature limits.
8 Direct dischargers are industries that discharge treated wastewaters directly to waters of the U.S. and are regulated by a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
7 Indirect dischargers are industries that discharge treated or untreated wastewaters to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
Page 2 - Narrative Module 5
-------
The Pititreabnent Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
freatment technologies to reduce pollutant discharges and. as such, they constitute minimum standards. They may be superseded by
more stringent local limitations developed to protect POTW operations; water quality standards of specific lakes, streams, and other
natural water; and sludge disposal practices. Economic impacts on affected industries are taken into consideration in the development
of categorical standards, which assume industry-wide usage of the level of pollution control technology considered economically
achievable and appropriate for the type of facility being regulated. Categorical standards are promulgated by EPA pursuant to Section
307(b) and (c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Pollutant discharge standards applicable to specific categories of industries were promulgated as early as the mid-1970s and
included industries such as: processors of dairy products, fruits and vegetables, seafood, and sugar, as well as manufacturers of
chemicals, plastics, fertilizer, soap, paint, and other products. Although the regulations were primarily concerned with setting standards
for industries that discharge directly into rivers, lakes, and other natural water bodies, many of them also contained pretreatment
standards for industries that discharge to POTWs.
Most of the pretreatment standards in the early regulations limited only conventional pollutants such as pH, oil and grease,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and total suspended soidsfTSS). In some industrial categories, the pretreatment standards section
simply referred to 40 CFR Part 128, which has since been deleted and substantively replaced by 40 CFR Part 403.
Background of Categorical Standard Categories
The initial fist of 27 categorical industries was established by Congress under Section 306 of the CWA of 1972. Several changes
have occurred in the list since 1972 as a result of court decrees, of settlement agreements resulting from litigation, and from EPA's
internal work plan development process. The most significant change grew from the 1976 Settlement Agreement between EPA and
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). This Agreement identified 21 industrial categories by Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) code and required EPA to establish toxic pollutant regulations for those categories. In 1979, as a result of the court-ordered
modification to the 1976 NRDC Settlement Agreement, the categorization scheme was changed to include 34 categories. Court
challenges have continued to refine the number of categories to be evaluated and regulated by effluent guidelines. To date, EPA has
developed guidelines and standards for 51 industrial categories and is currently in the process of expanding the list
Development of Categorical Pretreatment Standards
As a result of the suit brought by NRDC and others in 1976, EPA broadened its focus from the control of conventional pollutants
to the control of both conventional and toxic pollutants. As part of the settlement of this suit EPA agreed to develop technology-based
standards to control 65 toxic substances and classes of toxic substances produced in the original 21 categories of industries. EPA later
refined its effort to include a more detailed Gst of 129 pollutants representative of the broader list of 65 toxic pollutants. In developing
the pretreatment standards for these pollutants and these industries, EPA needed to know what level of each pollutant would cause
interference with wastewater treatment processes. It also had to determine what amount of each pollutant is removed by typical
fceatment processes and, therefore, does not pass through into the receiving waters. Various studies were conducted to provide the
technical data needed to establish specific pretreatment standards. As a result of these efforts, categorical pretreatment standards have
been, and continue to be, promulgated for pollutants discharged from industries identified as being the primary sources of toxic
pollutants.
EPA has issued categorical pretreatment standards that are: (1) concentration-based, (2) production-based, or (3) both.
Concentration-based standards are expressed as milligrams of pollutant allowed per liter of wastewater discharged. Production-based
standards are generally expressed on a mass basis (e.g., milligrams per kilogram, pounds per million pounds, etc.).
Module 5 Narrative - Page 3
-------
Pretieatment Standards: flrpfaMons and Categorical Standards The Pretreatment Training Course
Categorical pretreatment standards for a given industrial category are based on the capability of wastewater treatment
technology(ies) to reduce pollutant discharges to a POTWs collection system. In some industries, one of the major treatment
technology options available to reduce pollutant discharges relies on the reduction of an industry's wastewater flow. In these cases,
EPA has issued production-based pretreatment standards because concentration-based standards would not ensure an equivalent
reduction in volume of pollutant discharged. For categories where reducing a facility's flow volume does not provide a significant
difference in the pollutant load discharged, EPA has established both production- and concentration-based standards. Finally, where
production rates do not correlate with pollutant discharges, EPA has issued only concentration-based standards. A production-based
standard is based on a facility's level of production (e.g., so many pounds of pollutant per 1000 pounds of product) and, therefore, is
a particularly equitable type of standard since industries that conserve process waters are not penalized by a production-based
standard as they would be with a concentration-based standard. Moreover, production-based standards discourage the substitution
of dilution for treatment and often encourage flow reduction. However, application of these standards requires a Control Authority to
have reliable data concerning industrial production rates and discharge flow rates.
EPA generally establishes two categorical standards for every pollutant regulated: a daily maximum and a long-term average.
The daily maximum for a mass-based Omit is defined as the total pollutant discharge by weight during any day. The daily maximum for
a concentration-based limit is defined as the average concentration of the pollutant during a day. The long-term average is defined as
the arithmetic mean of the daily values for samples collected during a calendar month.
EPA has and continues to prepare guidance manuals for implementing categorical standards for specific industry categories.
These manuals are designed for use by Control Authorities and industrial users.
Exclusions from Regulation
A number of industries identified as primary sources of toxic pollutants have been excluded from regulation for various reasons
allowed in the 1976 NRDC v. SPA Settlement Agreement EPA may exclude a point source category or subcategory or specific toxic
pollutants from specific technology-based effluent regulations under Paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement The reasons for
exclusion provided within Paragraph 8 are as follows:
sufficient protection is already provided by the Agency's guidelines and standards under the Act [paragraph 8(a)(Q]
except for pretreatment standards, a specific pollutant is present in the effluent solely as a result of its presence in the
intake water [paragraph 8(a)(ii)]
for pretreatment standards, the specific pollutant is present in the effluent which is introduced into a POTW solely as a result
of its presence in the point sources's intake waters [paragraph 8(a)(iQ]
a pollutant is not detectable with the use of analytical methods approved pursuant to Section 304(h) of the Act, or where
approved methods do not exist, with the use of state-of-the-art methods [paragraph 8(a)(iii)]
a pollutant is detectable from only a small number of sources within a subcategory and the pollutant is uniquely related to
those sources [paragraph 8(a)(iii)J
a pollutant is present only in trace amounts and is neither causing nor likely to cause toxic effects [paragraph 8(a)(fli)]
the pollutant is present in amounts too small to be effectively reduced by technologies known to the Administrator
[paragraph 8(a)(iii)]
the pollutant wi be effectively controlled by the technologies upon which other effluent limitations and guidelines, standards
of performance, or pretreatment standards are based [paragraph 8(a)(fii)]
Page 4 - Narrative Module 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
the amount and toxicity of each pollutant in the discharge does not justify developing National regulations in accordance
with the NRDC Settlement Agreement schedule [paragraph 8(a)i
for pretreatment standards. 95 percent of the dischargers in the industrial category or subcategory do not discharge
pollutants to a POTW which meet the Section 307(a) criteria [paragraph 8(b)(i)]
for pretreatment standards, the amount and toxicity of incompatible pollutants discharged to POTWs is so insignificant that
it does not justify developing pretreatment standards in accordance with the schedules in the Agreement [paragraph
Paragraph 8(c) requres EPA b prepare an affidavit for the parties involved in the Settlement Agreement explaining the reasons
for each exclusion from regulation. This provision also requires EPA to solicit public comments on the exclusion via any Federal Register
preamble announcing proposed regulations. Finally. Paragraph 8(d) requires EPA to submit paragraph 8(c) statements any time the
Agency has decided to curtail or not initiate studies covered by the Settlement Agreement
Industrial categories thus far deferred under Paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement include:
Industrial Category 40 CFR Part Number
Adhesh/es and Sealant 456
Auto and Other Laundries 444
Carbon Black Manufacturing 458
Explosives Manufacturing 457
Gum and Wood Chemicals Manufacturing 454
Ink Formulating 447
Paint Formulating 446
Paving and Roofing Materials 443
Photographic Processing 459
Printing and Publishing 448
Rubber Manufacturing8 428
Soaps and Detergents Manufacturing* 417
A partial fist of additional subcategories excluded in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 8 is shown in Appendix D of the 40
CFR Part 403.
Pre-Consent Decree Standards
In response to confusion about the status of categorical pretreatment standards promulgated prior to the 1976 NRDC Consent
Decree. EPA issued memorandums dated August 24,1988, and February 16,1989, clarifying the status of those standards. While
recent efforts have concentrated on implementation and enforcement of standards for the industrial categories established as a result
of the Consent Decree, regulations issued prior to the 1976 Consent Decree remain in effect and POTWs need to address them as
well. Control Authorities should be aware that they are responsible for implementing and enforcing the toxic, nonconventional, and
conventional pollutant categorical standards and the requirements for no discharge of process wastewater promulgated for the 13 Pre-
Consent Decree industrial categories identified below.
8 The affidavit excludes only the 'reclaimer* portions of this category.
9 The affidavit excludes only the SICs addressed by the Settlement Agreement
Module 5 Narrative - Page 5
-------
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards TTie Pretreatment Training Course
Industrial Category Subparts Affected
40 CFR Part 406 - Grain Mills C, E
40 CFR Part 409 - Sugar Processing A
40CFRPart412-Feedlots A,B
40 CFR Part 417 - Soap and Detergent Manufacturing 0-R
40 CFR Part 418 -Fertilizer Manufacturing . A-G
40 CFR Part 424 - Ferroalloy Manufacturing A-C
40 CFR Part 426 - Glass Manufacturing A-H, K-M
40 CFR Part 427 - Asbestos Manufacturing A-G
40 CFR Part 428 -Rubber Manufacturing D-K
40 CFR Part 443 Paving and Roofing Materials A-D
40 CFR Part 446 - Paint Formulating A
40 CFR Part 447-Ink Formulating A
40 CFR Part 458 - Carbon Black Manufacturing A-D
Pre-Consent Decree pretreatment standards for these categories apply only to new source facilities and have been established
only for selected subparts as indicated above. To determine whether an industrial user is subject to pretreatment standards for new
sources10 (PSNS) for these categories. Control Authorities should obtain the date a facility commenced construction and compare it
to the proposed date of the appropriate regulation. Control Authorities are responsible for informing industries subject to such
regulations of their requirement to comply and should establish expeditious compliance schedules with (Us, where necessary, for the
acquisition of pollution control techniques needed to obtain ID compliance.
In addition, the EPA guidance clarifies that Pre-Consent Decree industries whose regulations do not set out specific numerical
standards or no discharge requirements, but instead only require compliance with the General Pretreatment Regulations in 40 CFR
Parts 128 or 403 are not considered categorical industrial users. However, these users are still subject to the general and specific
prohibitions h Federal regulations and to any State and local requirements imposed (e.g., local limits). If warranted and at the discretion
of the Control Authority, such users may be classified as SlUs thus imposing additional permitting, monitoring and reporting
requirements. A fist of additional subcategories excluded in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 8 is shown in Appendix D of
40 CFR Part 403.
NRDC Consent Decree and Current EPA Activities
In 1989, NRDC and Public Citizen, Inc. filed suit against EPA alleging ft had failed to comply with its obligations under Section
304(m) of the CWA. The complaint, amended in January 1990, charged that EPA had failed to list in its 1990 effluent guidelines plan
aO industrial categories discharging toxic or nonconventional pollutants and that it failed to commit to publishing new regulations by a
February 1991 deadline. Under the terms of a January 31,1992, Consent Decree {NRDC etalv. Browner (D.D.C. 89-2980)), EPA
committed to proposing and finalizing effluent guidelines for seven of the nine categories under development at that time and to a total
of 12 other effluent guidelines by December 31,2003. In addition, EPA was required under conditions of the Consent Decree to conduct
preliminary studies of an additional 11 industries to determine whether effluent guidelines development would be appropriate. Finally,
the Consent Decree requ'red EPA to establish a special task force composed of representatives from EPA Regional offices, State and
local governments, industry, citizen groups and the scientific community to advise EPA on ways to improve the process for selecting
10 A new source is defined as any building, structure, facility or installation from which there is (or may be) a discharge of pollutants, the
construction of which commenced after the publication of proposed pretreatment standards under Section 307(c) of the Act which will
be applicable to such source if such standards are thereafter promulgated in accordance with that section provided that the building,
structure, facility or installation is constructed at a site at which no other discharge source is located; or the building, structure, facility
or instaDafion totally replaces the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or the
production or wastewater generating processes of the building, structure, facility, or installation are substantially independent of an
existing source at the same site.
Page 6 - Narrative Module 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
industries to be regulated and for devebping guidelines and standards. EPA has completed 4 regulations and 7 studies, and published
3 other proposed rules required by the decree.
On October 7,1996 EPA published its third biennial effluent guidelines plan. This plan provided for continued development of
10 rules11, commencement of the development of revised effluent guidelines for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing category, initiating
three preliminary studies to assist in determining whether new or revised rules should be developed for particular categories, completing
preliminary studies on the Photographic Processing and Chemical Formulating and Packaging industries, and planning for development
of seven additional new or revised effluent guidelines. On February 4,1997, EPA obtained approval to modify the Consent Decree.
This resulted in the following modifications to the effluent guidelines plan:
merging the development of phases I & II of the Metal Products and Machinery regulations into a single project
revising and extending final action for 6 categories12
modifying preliminary study deadlines for 4 categories.
One of EPA's current effluent guideline and pretreatment standard development initiatives is the incorporation, where possible, of
pollution prevention and source control analyses and techniques. EPA recognizes the need to control the generation of pollution
through process changes by regulating in-process activities in addition to calling for end-of-pipe treatment EPA is also studying
multimedia impacts and the opportunity for joint media rulings during guidelines development efforts.13
Development Process
EPA's first step in the development of categorical regulations is to evaluate the likelihood of an industrial category needing
standardized limitations. If it is determined that limitations are necessary, EPA investigates affected industrial users and gathers
information regarding their operations, treatment and
management practices. From there, it is determined whether
subcategorization within an industrial category is necessary
based on variability in manufacturing processes employed,
raw materials used, types of items produced, characteristics
of typical wastes generated, facility size, age of facilities and
equipment, wastewater characteristics and availability and
cost of control technology, non-water quality environmental
impacts, available pollution prevention technology, etc. EPA
then compiles their findings in proposed development
documents and publishes notice of the proposed regulations
in the Federal Register. Regulations are then either modified
in response to comments received or published as final. Development Process of Effluent Guidelines
Data
CatteBtfcft
Regalaboiy
Taste
11 Pulp, Paper and Paperboard; Pesticide Chemicals (Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging); Coastal Oil and Gas Extraction;
Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT); Pharmaceutical Manufacturing; Metal Products and Machinery (Phase I); Landfills and
Incinerators; Industrial Laundries; Transportation Equipment Cleaning; and Metal products and Machinery (Phase II).
"CWT, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, Industrial Laundries, Transportation and Equipment Cleaning, Landfills and Incinerators, and
Metal Products and Machinery (Phases I & II).
13 Extension of the deadline for final action of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing regulations will allow EPA to simultaneously complete
final action on a National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rule for the industry, as required by the Clean
Air Act
Modules
Narrative - Page 7
-------
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards The Pretreatment Training Course
Existing and New Source Standards
Most categorical pretreatment standards have separate pollutant limits for 'existing source* and 'new source* dischargers, with
the standards for new sources being either the same or more stringent than those for existing sources. Industrial users are classified
as either existing or new sources based on whether their facilities or operations meet the definition of 'new source* set out in 40 CFR
§ 403.3(k) of tie General Pretreatment Regulations. As defined, a new source is a facility that began construction after the publication
of proposed pretreatment standards if such standards are thereafter promulgated. The definition of new source was revised on October
17, 1988. (53 FR 40562) to clarify the criteria for distinguishing between existing and new sources, particularly where changes in
operations or facilities are made at an existing source. According to the revisions, a discharger is classified as a new source:
if the building, structures, facility, or installation is constructed at a site at which no other source is located;
the new construction totally replaces the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an
existing source; or
the production or wastewater generating processes of the new building, structure, facility or installation are substantially
independent of an existing source at the same site.
Construction at an existing source which does not meet the above criteria, but instead alters, replaces, or adds to existing process or
production equipment is considered a modification to an existing source, and the user is thus not classified as a new source. For
regulatory purposes, construction has commenced if the owner or operator has:
begun placement, assembly or installation of facilities or equipment
initiated significant site preparation work, or
entered into a binding contractual obligation for the purchase of facilities or equipment which cannot be terminated.
The definition of new source has significance to the regulation of categorical industrial users because it is used to determine the
standards to which a user is subject, the date by which it must comply with those standards, and the user's reporting requirements. First,
Control Authorities must establish whether a user is subject to Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) or to Pretreatment
Standards for New Sources (PSNS). As mentioned previously, standards for new sources are often more stringent than those for
existing sources based on the opportunity of new sources to install the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater
treatment technologies during construction of their facilities.
The classification of a user as an existing or new source determines the required date for compliance with the appropriate
standards. Users subject to PSES are required to achieve compliance with those standards by a specified date, usually three years
after the effective date of the categorical standards. Users subject to PSNS, however, are required to achieve compliance within the
shortest feasible time, not to exceed 90 days from commencement of discharge from an operation meeting the definition of 'new
source." The difference in compliance deadlines is based on the requirement of new source dischargers to install, have in operating
condition, and start up all necessary pollution control equipment before commencing discharge from a regulated process.
Finally, the designation of a user as either an existing or new source determines the due dates for three reports required under
40 CFR § 403.12 and the specific information required to be contained in those reports. In some cases, Control Authorities may need
to coordinate their efforts to categorize an industrial user as either an existing or new source with EPA Regional or NPDES State
Pretreatment Coordinators to ensure the correct classification of the discharger.
Page 8 Narrative Module 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
Applicability of Categorical Pretreatment Standards
Categorical pretreatment standards apply only to regulated wastewaters. A regulated process wastewater is defined as
wastewater from an industrial process that is regulated for a particular pollutant by a categorical pretreatment standard. Compliance
with categorical pretreatment standards is intended to be based on measurements of wastestreams containing only the regulated
process wastewater. Other wastewaters14 potentially generated by a categorical industrial user (CIU) are classified as either dilute or
unregulated wastestreams. Dilute wastestreams, include:
boiler blowdown streams, non-contact cooling streams, storm water streams, and demineralized backwash streams'5
sanitary wastestreams where such streams are not regulated by a categorical pretreatment standard
any process wastestreams which were, or could have been, entirely exempted from categorical pretreatment standards
pursuant to paragraph 8 of the NRDC v. CosHe Consent Decree (12 ERC1833) for one more of the following reasons (see
Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 403):
the pollutants of concern are not detectable in the effluent from the industrial user (paragraph (8)(a)(iii))
the pollutants of concern are present only in trace amounts and are neither causing nor likely to cause toxic effects
(paragraph (8){a)(iii))
the pollutants of concern are present in amounts too small to be effectively deduced by technologies known to the
Administrator (paragraph (8}(a)(iii))
the wastestream contains only pollutants which are compatible with the POTW (paragraph (8)(b)(i)).
Unregulated wastestreams are simply defined as neither regulated process wastestreams nor dilute wastestreams. Further discussion
of the importance of identifying and classifying a ClU's wastestreams is discussed in the Combined Wastestream Formula/Flow-
Weighted Average section.
Special Considerations in Implementation of Categorical Pretreatment Standards
Various provisions exist in the General Pretreatment Regulations and in certain categorical standards that allow for modification
of the standards. These modification provisions include:
Combined wastestream formula/now-weighted average
Removal credits
Fundamentally different factors variance
Net/gross adjustment
Innovative treatment
Total Toxic Organic (TTO) compliance.
These modification provisions and the conditions which must be met to obtain these modifications are discussed in the following
sections. Control Authorities reviewing requests for any of these modifications should also consult applicable EPA guidance.
14 Nonregulated wastestreams.
19 Provided, however, that where such streams contain a significant amount of a pollutant, and the combination of such streams, prior
to treatment, with an industrial user's regulated process wastestream(s) will result in a substantial reduction of that pollutant, the Control
Authority, upon application of the industrial user, may exercise its discretion to determine whether such stream(s) should be classified
as diluted or unregulated. In its application to the Control Authority, the industrial user must provide engineering, production, sampling
and analysis, and such other information so the Control Authority can make its determination.
Modules Narrative - Page 9
-------
Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categories/ Standards The Pretreatment Training Course
Combined Wastestream Formula/Flow-Weiohted Average
In implementing its pretreatment program, a Control Authority is required to enforce the 'applicable pretreatment standards' (i.e.
local/State/Federal). However, the determination of which limits are more stringent may be a complicated task. One of the complicating
factors is that local limits and categorical pretreatment standards are applied at different points-local Emits at the end-of-pipe (i.e., the
industry's connection to a municipal sewer) and categorical standards at the end-of-process.
In the situation where an industrial user's sewer connection to the POTWs sewer line contains only wastewater from a process
regulated under a particular categorical pretreatment standard, then the end-of-process is the same as the end-of-pipe and the
determination of which limits apply, local or Federal, is simply the limit which are numerically more stringent on an individual pollutant
basis.
More commonly, the industry's discharge at the point of connection contains other regulated process wastestreams, unregulated
process wastestreams, and dilute wastestreams (e.g., sanitary wastes). In these cases, the Control Authority may use the Combined
Wastestream Formula (CWF) or Flow-Weighted Average (FWA) formula to adjust the categorical pretreatment standards to end-of-pipe
limits. Alternatively, the Control Authority could require an industry to sample at separate locations to determine compliance with both
types of standards.
The CWF is applicable pursuant to 40 CFR § 403.6(e) where a regulated Wastestream combines with one or more regulated,
unregulated or dilute wastestreams prior to treatment Where a regulated Wastestream combines with an unregulated or dilute
Wastestream after treatment the flow-weighted average formula generally applies. However, in situations where a regulated
wastestream combines with an unregulated Wastestream after treatment, either the combined Wastestream formula or the flow-weighted
average formula may be used so tona as the unregulated wastestream(s) added after treatment contain(s) the regulated pollutant being
adjusted in at least the amount regulated in the applicable categorical pretreatment standards. If it does not the flow-weighted average
formula must be used.
When applying the CWF, Control Authorities should ensure that they are familiar with the difference between regulated,
unregulated, and dilute wastestreams. Note, when determining whether a wastestream is regulated, dilute, or unregulated, the Control
Authority should refer to a category's regulations or the development document for more information on the different wastestreams since
some wastestreams commonly identified as unregulated wastestreams may be considered regulated process wastestreams under
a particular category.
Dilute wastestreams are those which have no more than trace or non-detectable amounts of the regulated pollutant Dilute
wastestreams are defined in 40 CFR §403.6(e)(1) of the General Pretreatment Regulations to include sanitary wastestreams,
demoralized backwash streams, boiler blowdown, noncontact cooling water, storm water, and process wastestreams from certain
standards based on the findings that these wastewaters contained none of the regulated pollutant or only trace amounts of it Dilute
waters are often difficult to identify and measure in industrial facilities. However, it is essential that a reasonably accurate estimate of
their contribution be made because the CWF and FWA require that the categorical pretreatment standards be reduced in direct
proportion to the amount of dilution water in the wastestream. It should also be noted that this reduction cannot be so large as to cause
the resulting limits to be below detection level, consequently making it impossible to determine or demonstrate compliance. In such
cases, an alternate monitoring location must be selected to avoid this problem.
Unregulated wastestreams are those wastestreams from an industrial process that are not regulated for a particular pollutant by
a categorical pretreatment standard and are not defined as a dilute wastestream. Examples of unregulated wastestreams are:
Page 10 - Narrative Module 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
an industrial process wastestream for which categorical standards have been promulgated but for which the deadline for
compliance has not yet been reached
an industrial process wastestream that currently is not subject to categorical pretreatment standards
an industrial process wastestream that is not regulated for the pollutant in question but is regulated for other pollutants.
In certain circumstances, boiler blowdown, noncontact cooling water, storm water, and demineralized wastestreams may be
considered 'unregulated* process wastestreams. Where any of these wastestreams contain a significant amount of a regulated
pollutant and the treatment of these wastewaters with the regulated process wastestream results in substantial reduction of the
regulated pollutant the Control Authority can classify the wastestream as unregulated rather than as a dilute wastestream. The
categorical pretreatment standard is not reduced to reflect the amount of unregulated flow contributed to the regulated wastestream.
EPA's intent in establishing the CWF was two-fold. First the CWF was designed to account for the dilution of a regulated
wastestream by other wastestreams. Second, EPA did not want to force industrial users to segregate their process wastestreams (either
regulated or unregulated), particularly when there could be some benefit in the treatment of the combined wastestreams. Concurrent
pretreatment of the combination of the unregulated and the regulated wastestream could result in an overall decrease in the pollutant
loading; whereas, no pretreatment of the unregulated wastestream may allow a net increase of the pollutant load in the final discharge
tothePOTW.
The application of the CWF is a regulatory requirement If unregulated, dilute, or other regulated wastestreams are combined
with a regulated process wastestream prior to treatment then the CWF must be used. To ensure the proper application of the CWF,
the following conditions must be met
alternative limits must be established for each regulated pollutant in each of the regulated processes
both daily maximum and long-term average (i.e., 4-day, 30-day, or monthly) alternative limits must be calculated for each
regulated pollutant
«
if two or more categorical pretreatment standards apply to the facility and one of the processes is regulated by the
Electroplating Standards where a 4-day average Emit is the long-term limit and the other process(es) are regulated by other
standards with a monthly average long-term limit then the Electroplating 4-day average limit must be adjusted to the
appropriate equivalent monthly average
a calculated alternative Emit may not be used if it is below the analytical detection limit for that pollutant If a calculated limits
is below the detection limit the industrial user must either.
not combine the dilute streams with the regulated streams prior to the combined treatment facility, or
segregate all wastestreams entirely.
Where regulated process wastestreams are combined with either an unregulated or dilute wastestream after treatment but before
the monitoring point the categorical pretreatment standards must be adjusted to reflect the amount of regulated pollutants) added and
to ensure thatcompGance is not achieved through dilution. As explained in the preambles to EPA's June 12,1986, proposed rule (51
FR 21454) and to its October 17,1988, final rule (53 FR 40562), use of the CWF is allowed in situations where an unregulated
wastestream added after treatment contains at least the level of the regulated pollutant as limited in the applicable categorical standard.
However, where the unregulated or dilute wastestream(s) added does not contain such levels of a regulated pollutant use of the CWF
is not appropriate. Instead, a flow-weighted average formula must be applied. Concentration-based and mass-per-day standards can
be adjusted using the formulas presented in the June 12,1986, proposed rule (see 51 FR 21462). In the event an adjusted standard
Module 5 Narrative - Page 11
-------
Piebtsutment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards The Pretreatment Training Course
is below detectable Emits, monitoring of the regulated wastestreams for compliance with the categorical standards must be performed
prior b the point where the treated regulated wastestreams combine with other nonregulated streams.
Removal Credits
EPA regulations governing removal credits have a long and complex history. EPA has promulgated five sets of removal credits
regulafions-in 1973,1978,1981,1984, and 1993. The central objective of all versions of these regulations has been to lay down the
conditions by which POTWs may demonstrate consistent removal of pollutants regulated by categorical standards, and in so doing,
may extend removal credits to industries on a pollutant-specific basis to prevent redundant treatment
The 1984 removal credits regulations (49 PR 31212) were challenged by the NRDC, by industry, and by a POTW in a
consolidated petition before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (NRDC v. EPA No. 84-3530, No. 85-3012, April 30,
1986). In addition, the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, Illinois Manufacturers
Association, and Mid-America Legal Foundation intervened in this lawsuit
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of NRDC, concluding that EPA's 1984 removal credit rule fails to meet the
requirements mandated by Section 307 of the CWA. The following four points served as the rationale for this decision:
EPA's method of calculating waste removal by POTWs violates the statutory requirement that direct and indirect
dischargers be held to the same standard
similarly, EPA's decision to delete requirements concerning combined sewer overflow events in calculating POTW waste
removal violates the mandate of the Clean Water Act and was administratively improper
EPA's actions in modifying the test for determining when a credit must be withdrawn due to noncompliance violates the
Administrative Procedures Act.
without regulations providing for a comprehensive framework to regulate the disposal and utilization of sludge, EPA cannot
authorize the issuance of removal credits as permitted in the 1984 rules.
On Novembers, 1987, EPA replaced those portions of the 1984 regulatory revision which had been invalidated by the U.S. Third
Ocuit Court of Appeals with language from the previously upheld 1981 version of the regulations and also made other minor revisions
(see 52 PR 42434). On October 9,1991, EPA promulgated revisions to the 'Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria" under 40 CFR Parts
257 and 258 (see 56 FR 50978). On February 19,1993, EPA promulgated 'Standards for the Use or Disposal Sewage Sludge* under
40 CFR Part 503 (see 58 FR 9248). These regulations provide (he comprehensive framework to regulate the use or disposal of sewage
sludge and provide the opportunity for application by POTWs for removal credit authority.
On February 19,1993, revisions to 40 CFR Part 403 were made to complete the regulatory effort The amendments to 40 CFR
§ 403.7 clarified that removal credits are only available for a pollutant if the pollutant is regulated for the sewage sludge use or disposal
option employed by the POTW applying. The amendment lists three categories of pollutants (found in Appendix G) removal credits
may be made available: (1) those regulated by Part 503 standards, (2) those not regulated by Part 503 but for which EPA has
established threshold levels (as identified in that amendment); and (3) those pollutants regulated by siting and management practice
requirements stipulated in 40 CFR Part 258 for disposal in non-hazardous solid waste landfills. Appendix G was last modified on
October 25,1995 to move chromium from the list of regulated "land applied sewage sludge* pollutants eligible for removal credit to the
list of unregulated pollutants eligible for removal credit This was the result of EPA amending 40 CFR Part 503 as a result of their
reconsideration of certain issues remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for additional justification or modification.
Page 12 - Narrative Module 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
Fundamentally Different Factors Variance
Section 301(n) of the CWA authorizes adjustments of the categorical pretreatment standards for existing sources for those
facilities demonstrated to have factors which are fundamentally different from the factors EPA considered during standards development
(also see 40 CFR § 403.13). This provision allows an industrial user or any interested person to request a variance for the establishment
of limits different from those required by a categorical pretreatment standard. The primary criterion required for approval of a
Fundamentally Different Factor (FDF) variance is that the facility is fundamentally different with respect to the six factors considered
by the EPA in establishing the National categorical pretreatment standards:
the nature or quality of pollutants contained in the raw waste load of the user's process wastewater
the volume of the user's process wastewater and effluent discharged
nonwater quality environmental impact of control and treatment of the user's raw wasteload
energy requirements of the application of control and treatment technology
age, size, land availability, and configuration as they relate to the user's equipment or facilities, processes employed,
process changes, and engineering aspects of the application of control technology
cost of compliance with required control technology.
In addition to these fundamental factors, the statute designates other rules for eligibility:
the variance request is based solely on information and data submitted during the development of the categorical standards
which raised the facility's fundamentally difference with the above factors or new information since promulgation of the
standard
the adjusted effluent limitation is not more or less stringent than justified by the fundamental difference
the adjusted effluent limitation will not result in a nonwater quality environmental impact which is markedly more adverse
than the impact considered by EPA when developing the categorical standard.
In February 1985, the Supreme Court held that EPA has authority to grant FOF variances from pretreatment standards for toxic
pollutants. Subsequently, Section 301(1) of the CWA was amended to allow for FDF variances from toxics.
Prior EPA decisions regarding FDF applications dearly establish that it interprets the term fundamentally different* in its literal
sense. A factor must be weD outside the range considered by EPA in establishing the standard and not merely away from the average.
Moreover, differences must not be similar to a significant number of other facilities in the category. Industries must raise these
fundamental differences during the development of categorical standards. If an affected facility believes EPA did not sufficiently consider
the issue, the appropriate action is to seek review of the standard in the U.S. Court of Appeals under Section 509 of the Act as well as
to apply for an FDF variance.
Net/Gross Adjustment
A net/gross credit allows the subtraction of the initial concentration level of pollutants in the intake water to the industrial user from
fiie concentration level in the effluent of the industrial user. To obtain this credit, the industrial user must submit a formal written request
that demonstrates the following:
Module 5 Narrative - Page 13
-------
Pretreatmerrt Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards The Pretreatment Training Course
its intake water is drawn from the same body of water that the POTW discharges into<6
the pollutants present in the intake water will not be entirely removed by the treatment system operated by the user;
the pollutants in the intake water do not vary chemically or biologically from the pollutants limited by the applicable standard;
and
the user does not significantly increase the concentrations of pollutants in the intake water, even if the total amount of
pollutants remains the same.
Inherent in this provision is the requirement that the industrial user employ a treatment technology capable of meeting the categorical
pretreatment standard(s). Net/gross adjustments should not be granted to industrial users without treatment Further, credits shall only
be granted to the extent necessary to meet the applicable standard(s), up to a maximum value equal to the influent value.
Innovative Treatment
Control Authorities may grant up to a 2-year extension of the otherwise applicable compliance deadline for existing industrial users
which install an innovative treatment system. Section 307(e) of the CWA establishes the following three factors which must be used
in evaluating a request for such an extension:
the innovative treatment must have a reasonable potential to result in significantly greater pollutant removal or equivalent
removal at a substantially lower cost than the technologies considered by EPA when developing the categorical standard
the innovative technique must also have the potential for industry-wide application
the proposed compliance extension will not cause or contribute to the violation of the POTW's NPDES permit
Total Toxic Organic (TTO) Compliance
Categorical pretreatment standards for seven industrial categories (as listed below) regulate the discharge of toxic organic
pollutants by setting a limit on the TTO pollutant concentration or mass that can be discharged to a POTW.
Electroplating
Metal Finishing
Electrical and Electronic Components (phase I and II)
Copper Forming
Aluminum Forming
Metal Molding and Casting
Coil Coating
For each of the standards, TTO refers to the sum of the masses or concentrations of certain toxic organic pollutants found in the
process discharge at a concentration greater than 0.01 milligrams per liter (mg/l). The toxic organic pollutants regulated by a TTO limit
in the categorical standards differ for each industrial category in which TTO is limited. Each standard should be consulted, as
appropriate, to determine the regulated toxic organic pollutants.
Only the electroplating and metal finishing categories allow the exercise of judgment in determining which toxic organic
compounds listed in the categorical standards must be sampled and analyzed. This judgment must demonstrate which toxics can
16 The Control Authority may waive the requirement if it finds that no environmental degradation will result
Page 14 - Narrative Module 5
-------
The Pietioatment Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
reasonably be expected b be present in the regulated wastestreams. Appropriate documentation of this judgment should be required
by the Control Authority. Additional TTO guidance related to the electroplating and metal finishing categories can be found in the EPA's
1984 Guidance Manual for Electroplating and Metal Finishing Pretreatment Standards. For the other industrial categories regulating
TTO, all the toxic organic compounds listed must be sampled and analyzed unless the available alternative option, described below,
is exercised. It should Denoted that regulations for the electrical and electronic components category do not allow discretion in choosing
which toxic organics to regulate. As stated in EPA's 1985 Guidance Manual for Implementing Total Toxic Organics (TTO) Pretreatment
Standards, EPA has aieady determined that aO of the pollutants listed in the definition of TTO for that category are reasonably expected
to be present
Fa details on implementing TTO standards, the reader is referred to EPA's 1985 Guidance Manual. The manual will be helpful
both to POTWs and to their industrial users who are subject to a categorical pretreatment standard for TTO. Subjects covered in the
manual include:
TTO regulatory requirements for each industrial category with TTO standards
TTO monitoring guidance
reporting requirements
use of the combined wastestream formula and removal credits as they relate to TTO
guidance for the preparation of a Toxic Organic Management Plan (TOMP)
example TOMP.
Since TTO monitoring is costly, EPA has made available in the standards alternative options for such monitoring. The option
available to the industrial categories listed below is monitoring and controlling oil and grease to a designated limit in lieu of TTO
monitoring.
Aluminum Forming
Copper Forming
Cofl Coating
Metal Molding and Casting.
Oil and grease is less costly to sample and analyze and, upon .selection by an industrial user, may serve as an indicator for TTO
pollutant levels. This alternative may be used to fulfill the TTO monitoring requirements of the Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR), the
final (90-day) compliance report, and all subsequent periodic compliance reports. If it is not used, analytical data for all organics
regulated by a specific category must be included in each of these reports.
Industrial users regulated by the electroplating, metal finishing, and electrical and electronic components categories have the
option (upon approval of the Control Authority) of preparing and implementing a TOMP. The purpose of a TOMP is to identify all
potential sources from which toxic organic materials could enter the wastewater treatment system and to propose control measures
for each source that would eiminate the possibility of toxic organics entering the wastestream. Thus, in lieu of monitoring for TTO, the
industrial user may install control technology and implement appropriate procedures that will reasonably ensure that toxic organics will
not enter the wastewater treatment system. Industrial users implementing this option must also certify (using the statement specified
in each standard) that no dumping of concentrated toxic organic pollutants has occurred and that the facility's TOMP is being
Module 5 Narrative - Page 15
-------
Pretreutment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards The Pretreatment Training Course
implemented This certification statement must be submitted to the Control Authority at the time the TOMP is submitted for review and
approval.
It should be noted that the TOMP monitoring options cannot be used to fulfill the monitoring requirements of the BMR or the final
compliance report for the electroplating, metal finishing, and electrical and electronic components categories. To fulfill the reporting
requirements of the electrical and electronic components category, analyses must be performed for all the toxic organics specified in
the definition of TTO for those standards. The BMR and 90-day reporting requirements for the electroplating and metal finishing
categories may be met by analyzing afl organics that could reasonably be expected to be present in the effluent Only after completion
of these reports can the certification and TOMP option be exercised. Thereafter, if the TOMP option is chosen, the certification
statement specified in each standard must be submitted twice a year in the lU's periodic compliance report
Clarifications of Applicability
For some industries, EPA issued standards that simply refer to the "General Pretreatment Regulations." There has been
confusion and inconsistencies in identifying whether such industrial users are categorical. For example, in the Textile category, the
PSES and PSNS require that industrial users "must comply with 40 CFR Part 403." Such industrial users, which are not regulated
beyond the General Pretreatment Regulations (i.e. have no categorical limits), are not considered categorical industrial users.
In the case of other industrial categories, EPA has issued PSES and PSNS for certain pollutants. However, in the event a facility
does not use or generate the regulated pollutants) or a raw or intermediate material which leads to the discharge of the regulated
poOutant(s), the categorical standards provide users with the opportunity to submit a certification statement in lieu of monitoring results.
For example, facilities regulated by standards of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing category must either conduct monitoring for cyanide
to demonstrate compliance with the standards or, if they do not use or generate cyanide, must submit a certification to that effect to
the POTW to avoid monitoring requirements. Likewise, industrial users regulated by PSES and PSNS for the Pulp, Paper and
Paperboard category may certify they do not use chlorophenolic-containing biocides and slimicides in lieu of routinely monitoring for
pentachlorophenol (POP) and trichbrophenol (TCP). However, monitoring for PCP and TCP may be required in the Baseline Monitoring
Report (BMR) if the pollutants "would reasonably be expected to be present" Facilities regulated by such standards are considered
categorical industrial users, even if they do not use, generate or discharge a regulated pollutant but rather submit certification
statements in lieu of periodic compliance monitoring date.
Research and Development Facilities
The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force (PIRT), while recognizing that at a minimum, Research and Development
(R&O) facilities are covered by National prohibited standards, local prohibited standards, and local limits, recommended that EPA issue
guidance as to whether these facilities are regulated by categorical pretfeatment standards. To respond to the PIRT recommendation
and to correct previously conflicting interpretations provided to EPA Regions, the Office of Water and the Office of General Counsel
completed a thorough review of the applicability of categorical pretreatment standards to stand-alone R&D facilities. Based on the
records supporting the categorical pretreatment standards, EPA has determined that stand-alone R&D facilities are not subject to the
categorical standards currently promulgated. For a plant to be considered a stand-alone R&D facility, there should be no commercial
sale of products made at the facility. This position is stated in a letter dated June 26,1987, from Ms. Rebecca W. Hanmer, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Water.
EPA reserves the right to issue specific categorical standards which are applicable to stand-alone R&D facilities; however, such
activity is not currently underway. The lack of currently applicable categorical standards does not mean that pollution controls are not
necessary. As mentioned above, noncategorical indirect dischargers are still required to comply with the General Pretreatment
Standards (general and specific prohibitions) and with limits that may be established by local or State authorities. When local or State
Page 16-Narrative Module 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Prohibitions and Categorical Standards
authorities address needed pollution controls for noncategorical industrial users, EPA does consider the categorical standards and the
accompanying development documents as excellent guidance on the performance of pollution control technologies. However, other
site-specific factors may be considered in setting limits (e.g., potential for interference or pass through, raw waste load, age of
pretreatment equipment, size of the POTW, land availability, flow, nonwater quality impacts, energy, and costs).
Category Determinations
In accordance wflh the provisions of the General Pretreatment Regulations, a category determination may be requested by either
a POTW or an industrial user. The determination will be made by the Water Division Director in the EPA Regional office. Such requests
must be made within 60 days after the effective date of the standards in question (40 CFR § 403.6(a)).
Module 5 Narrative - Page 17
-------
Monday
October 7, 1996
Part V
Environmental
Protection Agency
Effluent Guidelines Plan; Notice
52581
-------
52582
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 195 / Monday. October 7. 1996 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-6617-7]
RIM 2040-AC86
Effluent Guidelines Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of effluent guidelines
plan.
SUMMARY: Today's notice announces the
Agency's plans for developing new and
revised effluent guidelines, which
regulate industrial discharges to surface
waters and to publicly owned treatment
works. Section 304 (m) of the Clean
Water Act requires EPA to publish a
biennial Effluent Guidelines Plan.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public record for this
notice is available for review in the EPA
Water Docket, 401 M Street, SW..
Washington, DC. For access to Docket
materials, call (202) 260-3027 between
9 a.m. and 3 p.m. for an appointment.
The EPA public information regulation
(40 CFR Part 2) provides that a
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Strassler, Engineering and Analysis
Division (4303), Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone 202-
260-7150.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulated Entitles
n. Legal Authority
III. Introduction
A. Purpose of Today's Notice
B. Overview of Today's Notice
IV. 1996 Proposed Effluent Guidelines Plan
V. 1996 Effluent Guidelines Plan
A. Regulations
1. Ongoing Rulemaklngs
2. Future Regulations
a. Iron and Steel Manufacturing
b. Additional Rulemaklng Projects
B. Preliminary Studies
C. Summary of Changes from Proposed
Plan
D. Updates on Rulemaklng Activities
1. Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
2. Centralized Waste Treatment
3. Leather Tanning and Finishing
4. Ore Mining and Dressing
VI. Public Comments
A. Scope of Specific Effluent Guidelines
Rules
B. Metal Products and Machinery
C. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
D. Preliminary Studies
£. Industry Selection Criteria
VII. Economic Impact Assessment
VIII. Executive Order 12866
Appendix AEffluent Guidelines
Rulemaking Projects and Preliminary Studies
I. Regulated Entities
Today's proposed plan does not
contain regulatory requirements and
does not provide specific definitions for
each industrial category. Entities
potentially affected by decisions
regarding the final plan are listed below.
Category of entity
Industry
Examples of potentially affected entities
Pulp Paper and Paperboard; Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging; Coastal Oil and Gas Extraction; Cen-
tralized Waste Treatment; Pharmaceutical Manufacturing; Metal Products and Machinery; Landfills and Incinerators;
Industrial Laundries; Transportation Equipment Cleaning; Iron and Steel Manufacturing; Chemical Formulators, Pack-
agers and Repackages; Feedlots; Inorganic Chemicals; Petroleum Refining; Photographic Processing; Steam Electric
Power Generating; Storm Water dischargers; Textile Mills.
To determine whether your facility
would be regulated, you should
carefully examine the applicability
criteria in the appropriate proposed rule
(previously published or forthcoming).
Citations for previously published
proposed rules and schedules for
forthcoming proposed rules are
provided in Appendix A of today's
notice.
n. Legal Authority
Todays notice is published under the
authority of section 304 (m) of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1314(m).
HI. Introduction
A. Purpose of Today's Notice
Today's notice announces the
Agency's third biennial plan for
developing new and revised effluent
guidelines pursuant to sec. 304 (m) of
the Clean Water Act.
EPA published a proposed Effluent
Guidelines Plan (the "Proposed Plan")
on July 3.1996 (61 FR 35042). The
Agency accepted comment on the notice
until August 9,1996. Today's notice
summarizes and addresses the major
comments the Agency received.
B. Overview of Today's Notice
The Agency intends to develop
effluent limitation guidelines and
standards ("effluent guidelines") as
follows:
1. Continue development often rules
listed in the Proposed Plan. The
categories are: Pulp, Paper and
Paperboard; Pesticide Chemicals
(Formulating, Packaging and
Repackaging); Coastal Oil and Gas
Extraction; Centralized Waste
Treatment; Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing; Metal Products and
Machinery, Phase 1; Landfills and
Incinerators; Industrial Laundries;
Transportation Equipment Cleaning;
and Metal Products and Machinery,
Phase 2.
2. Begin development of revised
effluent guidelines for the Iron and Steel
Manufacturing category.
3. Initiate three preliminary studies to
assist in determining whether new or
revised rules should be developed for
particular categories. Each preliminary
study will generally take approximately
two years to complete.
4. Complete preliminary studies on
the Photographic Processing and
Chemical Formulating and Packaging
industries.
5. Plan for development of seven
additional effluent guidelines, either
new or revised. The point source
categories to be covered by these
guidelines will be identified in future
biennial Effluent Guidelines Plans.
These actions are identical to those
described in the Proposed Plan.
IV. 1996 Proposed Effluent Guidelines
Plan
In the Proposed Plan, EPA described
its intent to continue development of
ongoing rulemaklngs, develop
additional rules, and conduct
preliminary studies. The Proposed Plan
set forth EPA's rationale for the
selection of particular industries as
candidates for hew or revised effluent
guidelines. The Proposed Plan also
described the relevant statutory
framework, the components and process
for development of an effluent
guidelines regulation, and other
background information. The principal
elements of the Proposed Plan were
designed to implement sec. 304 (m) and
a consent decree in Natural Resources
Defense Council et al v. Browner (D.D.C.
89-2980, January 31,1992, as modified)
(the "Consent Decree"). See 61 FR
35042-35052.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 195 / Monday, October 7. 1996 / Notices
52583
V. 1996 Effluent Guidelines Plan
EPA's 1996 Effluent Guidelines Plan
is set forth below. Today's Plan is
substantlvely identical to the Proposed
Plan. As noted above, the basis for
selection of the industries identified in
today's Plan is described in the
Proposed Plan.
A. Regulations
1. Ongoing Rulemaklngs
The Agency is currently in the
process of developing new or revised
effluent guidelines for ten categories.
(These categories were listed in the
Proposed Plan.) The categories and
actual or projected dates for proposal
and final action are set forth in Table 1.
TABLE 1.EFFLUENT GUIDELINES CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Category
Pulp Paper and Paperboard
Pesticide Formulating Packaging and Repackaging
Centralized Waste Treatment
Coastal Oil and Gas Extraction
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing . i.. .,..,,..,. ,,...,. - , -
Metal Products and Machinery Phase 1 ^. . ..>. ...,..,, ,,,...,,,,,,-
Industrial Laundries ^ , ,....... ., .,--,
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Landfills and Incinerators
Metal Products and Machinery. Phase 2
Proposal
Consent de-
cree or actual
12/17/93
4/14/94
1/27/95
2/17/95
5/2/95
5/30/95
'3/97
2 3/97
3 3/97
34 12/97
Final action
Consent
Decree
P)
9/96
23/97
10/96
23/97
24 3/97
3 12/98
3 12/98
3 3/99
3412/99
1The Pulp. Paper and Paperboard rulemaking is not covered by the January 31.1992 consent decree.
23/97 is an interim deadline by which EPA and NRDC expect to conclude negotiations. EPA may not propose or promulgate these rules by 3/
97.
3 EPA Is discussing extensions to Consent Decree dates with NRDC.
4 EPA is considering merging Phases 1 and 2 of the Metal Products and Machinery rule.
The Agency has not yet received
funding for Fiscal Year 1997, and
funding restrictions may affect
rulemaking schedules. EPA is
discussing extensions to most of the
Consent Decree dates with NRDC, for
both budgetary reasons and specific
policy, technical and administrative
issues in some regulations.
2. Future Regulations
a. Iron and Steel Manufacturing. As
announced in the Proposed Plan, EPA
intends to propose revised regulations
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Category. The current consent decree
deadlines are December 1998 for
proposal and December 2000 for
promulgation; however, EPA is
discussing extensions to these deadlines
with NRDC.
b. Additional Rulemaking Projects.
The Decree currently requires that EPA
develop seven additional rules. Based
on the discussion of data sources in the
Proposed Plan (61 FR 35047), the
Agency may choose the next rulemaking
projects from the following list of
categories:
Chemical Formulators, Packagers
and Repackagers.
Feedlots.
Inorganic Chemicals.
Petroleum Refining.
Photographic Processing.
Steam Electric Power Generating.
Storm Water.
Textile Mills.
Completed, ongoing or potential
preliminary studies on these categories
were discussed in the Proposed Plan (61
FR 35047-35051). The Agency may
consider other categories for rulemaking
as it receives additional data. The
Consent Decree deadlines for the
additional rules are part of the Agency's
ongoing negotiations with NRDC.
B. Preliminajy Studies
In the Proposed Plan EPA described
preliminary studies either completed or
underway, and announced that it
intended to begin additional
preliminary studies. The studies assist
the Agency in selecting industries to be
subject to future effluent guidelines
rulemaking.
The Agency is completing work on
two studies: Photographic Processing
and Chemical Formulating, Packaging
and Repackaging. EPA will begin
additional studies, but has not yet
selected the categories for study.
C. Summary of Changes From Proposed
Plan
Today's Effluent Guidelines Plan is
substantlvely identical to the Proposed
Plan. However, some clarifications are
provided below in response to several
comments the Agency received on the
proposal.
D. Updates on Rulemaking Activities
1. Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
On July 15,1996, EPA published a
notice of data availability (61 FR 36835)
that described the Agency's goals for
environmental improvement in the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry.
This notice also announced the
availability of new data related to the
proposed effluent limitation guidelines
and standards and discussed the
preliminary results of detailed analysis
relative to a portion of this industry.
Finally, this notice discussed an
innovative new approach to foster
continuing environmental improvement
through the development and use of a
voluntary incentives-based program for
implementing advanced pollution
prevention technologies that move the
industry closer to meeting the Clean
Water Act goal of zero discharge.
2. Centralized Waste Treatment
EPA published a Notice of
Availability on September 16, 1996 (61
FR 48805). The notice describes new
information the Agency has obtained
since the proposed rule of January 27,
1995. The notice also explains, based on
this information, the Agency's revised
estimates of the size and regulatory
impacts of the proposed rulemaking on
the proposed oils treatment and
recovery subcategory.
3. Leather Tanning and Finishing
EPA Issued a direct final rule
concerning minor revisions to the
Leather Tanning and Finishing
regulations (40 CFR Part 425) on July 8,
1996 (61 FR 35680). These revisions
-------
52584
Federal Register / Vol. 61. No. 195 / Monday. October 7. 1996 / Notices
will become effective on October 6,
1996.
4. Ore Mining and Dressing
EPA proposed modifications to the
Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver and
Molybdenum subcategory of the Ore
Mining regulations (40 CFR part 440,
Subpart J) on February 12.1996 (61 FR
5364). The proposed modifications
involved an exemption from a
requirement for a mine to use
impoundments or "tailings ponds"
where such requirements would be
impractical due to severe topographic
and climatic conditions. Such
conditions appear to exist at the Alaska-
Juneau (A-J) gold mine project near
Juneau, Alaska. The public comment
period for comments concerning
technological alternatives for the A-J
project site closed on August 12,1996.
EPA is reviewing the comments and
evaluating alternatives as part of the
Region 10 Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS). The Agency
will publish a notice announcing the
additional data and is scheduling a
series of public meetings for late
October or early November 1996. These
meetings will be announced in the
Federal Register.
VI. Public Comments
EPA accepted public comment on the
Proposed Plan until August 9,1996. The
Agency received comments that covered
approximately 30 topics from 48
commenters, including industries, an
environmental group, States, publicly
owned treatment works, and Federal
agencies. The summary in this section
highlights the significant comments
submitted. The administrative record for
today's notice includes a complete text
of the comments and the Agency's
responses.
A. Scope of Specific Effluent Guidelines
Rules
Several comments addressed the
scope of coverage and other Issues
pertaining to specific effluent guidelines
rules which EPA recently proposed or
will propose in the next few years.
EPA will forward these comments to
the dockets for the appropriate rules.
The Agency has not made final
decisions about the scope and
applicability of these guidelines.
B. Metal Products and Machinery
In the Proposed Plan, EPA stated that
it was considering merging Phases 1 and
2 of the Metal Products and Machinery
(MP&M) rule (61 FR 35045). Eighteen
commenters supported EPA's proposal
to merge Phases 1 and 2 of the MP&M
rulemaking into one final rule. EPA will
consider these recommendations as it
continues to negotiate extensions of the
Consent Decree deadlines for the MP&M
rules with NRDC.
C. Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
In the Proposed Plan, EPA stated that
It was considering the merits of jointly
promulgating effluent guidelines along
with planned National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) regulations for the
pharmaceutical industry (61 FR 35046).
Eleven commenters supported
simultaneous promulgation of air and
water standards for the Pharmaceuticals
Industry. EPA will consider these
recommendations as it continues to
negotiate an extension of the Consent
Decree deadline for the Pharmaceuticals
effluent guidelines rule with NRDC.
D. Preliminary Studies
Several comments supported or
opposed EPA's conducting preliminary
studies of certain categories, and some
of the commenters also recommended
issues to be considered if the studies
were conducted. The Agency has not
selected categories for studies. As
studies are selected, EPA will consider
the issues raised by the commenters.
E. Industry Selection Criteria
In the Proposed Plan, EPA described
its process for selection of new effluent
guidelines (61 FR 35046). In discussing
the Agency's use of various factors in
comparing industrial categories, one
commenter recommended that the
Agency's use of "total pollutants
discharged" Information should be
adapted In recognition of significant
changes in influent loadings to publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) as the
result of implementation of local
pretreatment programs and changes In
analytical techniques. EPA agrees that
load estimates should reflect local
pretreatment programs and current
conditions. However, the Agency
generally cannot obtain category-wide
data on pretreatment of industrial
loadings during the selection process. In
addition to its quantitative estimates,
EPA does make qualitative evaluations
about the relative extent of POTW local
limits for different industrial categories
during the selection process.
Another commenter recommended
that in the environmental factors, EPA
should consider the availability of
treatment technologies that may result
in significant reductions of existing
pollutants; discontinue use of "total
pollutants discharged"; compare
industry discharges on a facility basis,
not total industry basis, and look at
pollutant concentrations; use NPDES
permit application data for
comparisons; and evaluate effects of
other EPA regulations on effluent
quality. EPA does consider the
availability of treatment technologies as
well as relative costs. In the Proposed
Plan (61 FR 35046), the discussion on
the "Utility" criterion stated that "EPA
typically looks at a variety of factors",
however only several of these factors
were listed for brevity: Average priority
pollutants discharged per facSity,
Average priority toxic pounds-
equivalent discharged per facility, and
Number of discharging facilities. The
other factors the Agency considers
under the "Utility" criterion are:
Potential For Additional Control,
Pollution Prevention Opportunity,
Multi-Media Rule Opportunity, Extent
of Industry Not Covered by Existing
Effluent Guidelines, Variability of
Industry Discharges, Inapplicability of
Existing Regulations, and Potential
Impact of Indirect Dischargers. For some
of these factors, EPA may not have
quantitative data, and the Agency relies
on the engineering judgment of its
professional staff.
EPA uses total pollutant discharge to
evaluate an industry's overall impact on
the nation's waters. Additionally, EPA
does examine average discharge per
facility. EPA considers pollutant loads
rather than pollutant concentrations in
order to evaluate potential impact to the
environment (e.g. sediment loadings
and bioaccumulation potential). EPA
uses the NPDES Permit Compliance
System (PCS) .which includes self-
monitoring data, to estimate loads.
Resource limitations preclude the
Agency from reviewing individual
permit applications. EPA agrees that
estimating impacts on wastewater
discharges from non-water
environmental regulations Is important,
and will attempt to calculate these
impacts where data are available.
Typically, after implementation of a
final rule, there Is a delay of perhaps
several years before wastewater impacts
can be estimated for a category.
A third commenter stated that among
the environmental factors, a description
of contact path and associated risk
should be included, e.g.
bioaccumulation in food chain to levels
much greater than originally in the
receiving water. EPA agrees that the
exposure route is an important criterion
but the Agency does not have the
resources to evaluate each chemical
discharged for all industries. However,
EPA does consider the relative risk of
pollutant discharge by using the criteria
toxic pound equivalence. Toxic pound
equivalence allows comparison of the
relative toxlclty of pollutants in terms of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 195 / Monday. October 7, 1996 / Notices
52585
human health and aquatic life
protection. This criterion also accounts
for the bloaccumulation potential of
pollutants.
VII. Economic Impact Assessment
Today's notice proposes a plan for the
review and revision of existing effluent
guidelines and for the selection of
priority industries for new regulations.
This notice does not establish any
requirements; therefore, no economic
impact assessment has been prepared.
EPA will provide economic Impact
analyses or regulatory impact analyses,
as appropriate, for all of the future
effluent guideline rulemaklngs
developed by the Agency.
VIE. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4.1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is "significant" and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines "significant
regulatory action" as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities:
(2) create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule
is not a "significant regulatory action"
under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Dated: September 27. 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Appendix AEffluent Guidelines Rulemaking Projects and Preliminary Studies
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES CURRENT AND FUTURE RULEMAKING PROJECTS
Category
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard . .
Pesticide Formulating Packaging and Repackaging
Centralized Waste Treatment
Coastal Oil and Gas Extraction
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Metal Products and Machinery Phase 1
Industrial Laundries
Transportation Equipment Cleaning .
Landfills and Incinerators
Metal Products and Machinery, Phase 2
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
1 category .. .
2 categories
2 categories
2 categories ....
40 CFR part
430
455
437
435
439
438
441
442
437
438
420
Proposed
12/17/93 (58 FR 66078)
4/14/94 (59 FR 17850)
1/27/95 (60 FR 5464) . .
2/17/95 (60 FR 9428)
5/2/95 (60 FR 21592)
5/30/95 (60 FR 28209)
3/972
3/972
3/97 3
12/97*.«
12/983
12/983
12/99*
12/003
12/013
Final
P)
9/96
23/97
10/96
23/97
* < 3/97
3 12/98
3 12/98
3 3/99
3.<12/99
3 12/00
3 12/00
3 12/01
312/02
3 12/03
rVofes
1 The Pulp, Paper and Paperboard rulemaking is not covered by the January 31, 1992 consent decree.
2 3/97 is an Interim deadline by which EPA and NRDC expect to conclude negotiations. EPA may not propose or promulgate these rules by 31
97.
3 EPA is discussing extensions to Consent Decree dates with NRDC.
4 EPA Is considering merging Phases 1 and 2 of the Metal Products and Machinery rule.
CURRENT AND FUTURE PRELIMINARY
STUDIES
CURRENT AND FUTURE PRELIMINARY
STUDIESContinued
CURRENT AND FUTURE PRELIMINARY
STUDIESContinued
Category
Petroleum Refining
Metal Finishing
Textile Mills
Inorganic Chemicals
Steam Electric Power Generat-
ing
Complete
Category
1993
1993
1994
1994
1995
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Photographic Processing
Chemical Formulators and
Packagers M 996.
Complete
1995
1996
Category
Three studies M 997.
Complete
Note
1 EPA Is discussing extensions to Consent
Decree dates with NRDC.
IFR Doc. 96-25653 Filed 10-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLMQ CODE 6360-80-P
-------
United States Office of Water EPA-821-F-97-003
Environmental Protection
^ Code 43Q3 Fg
Agency J
Fact Sheet: Modification to Effluent Guidelines Consent Decree
Summary
EPA has obtained approval in U.S. District Court to modify a consent decree governing the Effluent
Guidelines Program. The modification extends the deadlines for several effluent guidelines rulemaking
projects. It allows the Agency to merge two related rulemakings, Metal Products and Machinery Phases 1
and 2, into one consolidated project. The Agency also signed a related settlement agreement, stating its
intent to take final action on a Clean Air Act NESHAP rule for the Pharmaceuticals industry,
simultaneously with final action on effluent guidelines for that industry. *
Background
Effluent guidelines are national regulations that set numerical limits for specific pollutants in wastewater
from categories of industrial dischargers. The limits are based upon the application of specific process or
treatment technologies to control the pollutants present in industrial waste streams discharged to surface
waters and to POTWs. Although the guidelines are developed based upon particular technologies,
dischargers may meet their requirements using whatever combination of treatment technologies and
process changes they choose. Since the guidelines were first issued in 1974, the Agency has promulgated
limitations and standards for 51 industrial categories.
Effluent Guidelines Program Modifications
Development of effluent guidelines is largely governed by a consent decree in Natural Resources Defense
Council et al v. Browner (D.D.C. 89-2980, January 31, 1992). The decree requires EPA to propose and
take final action on effluent guidelines regulations for 19 industrial categories, and publish 11 preliminary
studies according to a prescribed schedule. The Agency has completed 4 regulations and 7 studies, and
published 3 other proposed rules required by the decree. The current modification extends deadlines for
completing work on the 3 proposed rules, 3 additional rules not yet proposed, and 4 studies.
Also included in the modification is the consolidation of two rule projects, Metal Products and Machinery
(MP&M) Phases 1 and 2, into one rule. EPA proposed the MP&M Phase 1 rule in May 1995 and began
work on the Phase 2 rule in 1995. The modification allows the Agency to publish a new proposal
covering MP&M Phase 1 and 2 facilities in 2000, with final action in 2002. The consolidated MP&M
project will allow the Agency to use its resources more effectively in developing a comprehensive final
rule. This consolidation was widely supported in public comments received after publication of the Phase
1 proposed rule.
EPA filed the unopposed motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on January 31,
1997. Judge Royce C. Lamberth approved the motion on February 4, 1997.
Iof2
-------
Complete List of Revised Dates
IJProposed ([Final Action
Rules Previously Proposed
Centralized Waste Treatment
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Metal Products & Machinery
1/27/95*
5/2/95*
5/30/95* (Phase n
10/00 (Phases 1 & 2
re-proposal)
8/15/99
4/98
12/02
Rules to be Proposed
Metal Products & Machinery, Phase
2
Industrial Laundries
(see above - combined
proposal)
9/97
Landfills and Incinerators || 1 1/97
Transportation Equipment Cleaning]
1/98
6/99
11/99
2/00
* Federal Register publication dates (future dates are signature dates)
As shown in the above table, EPA intends to take final action on the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Effluent Guidelines by April 1998. This will allow EPA to simultaneously complete final action on a
NESHAP rule for the industry, as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). Because the NRDC consent
decree does not have jurisdiction over CAA rules, EPA and NRDC have signed a separate settlement
agreement stating the Agency's intent to finalize the two actions concurrently. EPA is pleased with this
result, as it supports the Agency's goal of utilizing a multimedia approach to regulation where possible.
Joint rulemaking for the Pharmaceutical industry was widely supported in public comments on the 1996
Effluent Guidelines Plan.
For Further Information
Contact Eric Strassler, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone 202-260-7150. E-Mail: strassler.eric(g>.epamail. epa.eov
OW-GENERAL@epamailepa.gov
Revised February 21,1997
http://Tmw.epa.gov/OST/NEW/eglconsenthtmI
2 of 2
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Engineering and Analysis
Division (4303)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone (202) 260-7120
Fax (202) 260-7185
March 1997
&EPA
Industrial Wastewater
Contacts in the
Effluent Guidelines Program
Industry/Subject
Regulation
Person
Phone (Area Code 202)
Acid Mine Drainage
Aluminum Forming
Analytical Methods Support
(a/so see Streamlining)
Bill Telliard
Joe Vitalis
40 CFR 467 George Jett
40CFR136 Bill Telliard
Ben Honaker
260-7134
260-7172
260-7151
260-7134
260-2272
Asbestos Manufacturing 40 CFR 427
Asphalt - see Paving and Roofing Materials
Ron Kirby
Battery Manufacturing 40 CFR 461 George Jett
Canmaking - see Coil Coating
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Cement Manufacturing
Centralized Waste Treatment
Chemicals - see Gum & Wood, Inorganic, Organic, Pesticides
Cluster Rule - see Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Coal Mining 40 CFR 434 Bill Telliard
(also Coal Remining, Coal Slurry Pipelines) Joe Vitalis
260-7168
260-7151
40 CFR 458
40 CFR 411
George Jett
Ron Kirby
Jan Matuszko
Ed Terry
260-7151
260-7168
260-9126
260-7128
Coil Coating
(includes Canmaking)
Copper Forming
Dairy Products Processing
40 CFR 465 George Jett
40 CFR 468
40 CFR 405
George Jett
Don Anderson
260-7134
260-7t72
260-7151
260-7151
260-7189
Development Documents (Ordering) - see Water Resource Center
-------
EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts
Docket - see Water Docket
Drinking Water Methods - see Analytical Methods
Drum Reconditioning
Economic Analysis
Effluent Guidelines Plan
(Clean Water Act - Section 304(m))
Effluent Guidelines Task Force
Electrical & Electronic Components 40 CFR
Electroplating 40 CFR
Environmental Monitoring Methods Index (EMMI)
Ethanol for Fuel
Explosives Manufacturing 40 CFR
Feedlots 40 CFR
Ferroalloy Manufacturing 40 CFR
Fertilizer Manufacturing 40 CFR
(Nitrogen & Phosphate)
Fish Hatcheries
469
413
457
412
424
418
Foods - see Dairy, Fruits & Vegetables, Grain Mills, Meat
Foods and Beverages, Miscellaneous
Foundries - see Metal Molding & Casting
Fruits & Vegetables Processing 40 CFR
Glass Manufacturing 40 CFR
Gold Mining - see Ore Mining & Dressing
Grain Mills 40 CFR
Gum & Wood Chemicals Manufacturing 40 CFR
Hospitals 40 CFR
407
426
406
454
460
Bill Telliard
Ben Honaker
Don Anderson
Neil Patel
Eric Strassler
Beverly Randolph
George Jett
Steve Geil
Marion Thompson
Ben Honaker
Bill Telliard
Joe Vitalis
Anna Kinney
George Jett
Anna Kinney
Don Anderson
260-7134
260-2272
260-7189
260-5405
260-7150
260-5373
260-7151
260-9817
260-7117
260-2272
260-7134
260-7172
260-7127
260-7151
260-7127
260-7189
Products, Poultry, Seafood, Sugar
Don Anderson
Don Anderson
Wendy Smith
Ron Kirby
Don Anderson
Don Anderson
Frank Hund
260-7189
260-7189
260-7184
260-7168
260-7189
260-7189
260-7182
-------
EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts
Incinerators (Thermal Destruction)
Industrial Laundries
Ink Formulating
Inorganic Chemicals
Internet Information
Iron & Steel Manufacturing
Landfill Leachate
Leather Tanning & Finishing
Low BTU Gasification
Marine Discharges from Vessels of the
Armed Forces [CWA312(n)]
(also called UNDS)
Meat Products
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding & Casting (Foundries)
Metal Products and Machinery
Mineral Mining & Processing
Samantha Hopkins 260-7149
40 CFR 447
40CFR415
40 CFR 420
40 CFR 425
40 CFR 432
40 CFR 433
40 CFR 464
40 CFR 436
Mining - see Acid Mine Drainage, Coal Mining, Gold Mining,
Ore Mining & Dressing
Nonferrous Metals Forming
(includes Metal Powders)
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Oil and Gas Extraction
Offshore
Coastal/Onshore
Ore Mining & Dressing
Organic Chemicals, Plastics &
Synthetic Fibers
Paint Formulating
40 CFR 471
40 CFR 421
40 CFR 435
40 CFR 440
40 CFR 414
40 CFR 446
Susan Burns
Don Anderson
Anna Kinney
Bev Randolph
George Jett
John Tinger
Ed Terry
Bill Telliard
Ron Jordan
Don Anderson
Steve Geil
George Jett
Steve Geil
Ron Kirby
Mineral Mining
George Jett
George Jett
Ron Jordan
Chuck White
Ron Kirby
George Jett
Don Anderson
260-5379
260-7189
260-7127
260-5373
260-7151
260-4992
260-7128
260-7134
260-7115
260-7189
260-9817
260-7151
260-9817
260-7168
& Processing, and
260-7151
260-7151
260-7115
260-5411
260-7168
260-7151
260-7189
-------
EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts
Paving and Roofing Materials
(Tars and Asphalt)
Pesticide Chemicals
Petroleum Refining
pH Effluent Limitations under
Continuous Monitoring
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Phosphate Manufacturing
Photographic Processing
Plastics Molding & Forming
Pollutants - Lists, Types, References
Conventional-CWA Section 304(a)(4)
Toxic-CWA Section 307(a)(1)
Priority Pollutants (Appendix A)
EAD Analytes
Porcelain Enameling
Poultry Processing
40 CFR 443
40 CFR 455
40 CFR 41 9
40 CFR 401. 17
40 CFR 439
40 CFR 422
40 CFR 459
40 CFR 463
40 CFR 401. 16
40 CFR 401. 15
40 CFR 423
40 CFR 466
Bill Telliard
Shari Zuskin
Ron Kirby
Henry Kahn
Frank Hund
Marv Rubin
Anna Kinney
Joe Daly
Woody Forsht
Bill Telliard
Ben Honaker
Joe Vitalis
George Jett
Don Anderson
Pretreatment Joe Vitalis
(or call Permits Division/Pretreatment Branch: 202-260-7539)
Printing & Publishing
Don Anderson
260-7134
260-7130
260-7168
260-5408
260-7182
260-3028
260-7127
260-7186
260-7190
260-7134
260-2272
260-7172
260-7151
260-7189
260-7172
260-7189
Publications - see Water Resource Center
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Rubber Manufacturing
Seafood Processing
Shipbuilding
Soap & Detergent Manufacturing
Solvent Recovery
Statistical Analysis
Steam Electric Power Generation
40 CFR 430
40 CFR 428
40 CFR 408
40 CFR 417
40 CFR 423
Don Anderson
Wendy Smith
Joe Vitalis
Don Anderson
Steve Geil
Woody Forsht
Woody Forsht
Henry Kahn
Joe Daly
260-7189
260-7184
260-7172
260-7189
260-9817
260-7190
260-7190
260-5408
260-7186
-------
EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts
Storm Water
Streamlining of Analytical Methods
(and Method Flexibility)
Sugar Processing
Superfund Sites - Discharges to
POTWs (Guidance Document)
Textile Mills
Timber Products Processing
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
(Tank Cleaning)
UNDS - Uniform National Discharge Standards
[CWA312(n)J
Used Oil Reclamation
Eric Strassler
Jesse Pritts
40CFR136, 141 BillTelliard
Marion Thompson
40 CFR 409
Don Anderson
Ron Jordan
Ron Kirby
260-7150
260-7191
260-7134
260-7117
260-7189
40 CFR 410
40 CFR 429
Woody Forsht
Hugh Wise
Don Anderson
Gina Matthews
260-7190
260-7177
260-7189
260-6036
260-7115
260-7168
Waste Treatment - see Centralized Waste Treatment, Incinerators, Landfill Leachate
Water Docket (Rm. 2616) Colleen Campbell 260-3027
Water Intake Structures - CWA 316(b) 40 CFR 401.14 Joe Daly
Water Resource Center (WRC) - Publications (Rm. 2615) Mary Conway
Automated Document Ordering
Water Supply
Web Sites - see Internet Information
Don Anderson
260-7186
260-2814
260-7786
260-7189
-------
SUMMARY STATUS OF NATIONAL CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS: MILESTONE DATES
Industry Category
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Coil Coating (Phase I)
Coil Coating (Canmaking)
Copper Forming
Electrical and Electronic
Components (Phase I)
Electrical and Electronic
Components (Phase II)
Electroplating
Inorganic Chemicals
(Interim, Phase I, and
Phase II)
Iron and Steel
Leather Tanning and
Finishing
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding and Casting
(Foundries)
Nonferrous Metals Forming
and Metal Powders
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
(Phase I)
40CFR
Part
467'
461'
465
465
468
469
469
413
415
420
425
433
464
471"
421
Proposed
New Source1
Rule Date
11-22-82
11-10-82
01-12-81
02-10-83
11-12-82
08-24-82
03-09-83
07-03-80'
_
07-24-80
10-25-83
01-07-81
07-02-79
01-21-87
08-31-82'
11-15-82
03-05-84
02-17-83
01-22-87
Promulgation2
Date
10-24-83
03-09-84
12-01-82
11-17-83
08-15-83
04-08-83
12-14-83
01-28-81
07-15-83
07-20-77
06-29-82
08-22-84
05-27-82
11-23-82
03-21-88
07-15-83
10-30-85
08-23-85
03-08-84
01-21-88
Effective'
Date
12-07-83
04-23-84
01-17-83
01-02-84
09-26-83
05-19-83
01-27-84
03-30-81
08-29-83
07-20-77
08-12-82
10-05-84
07-10-82
01-06-83
05-04-88
08-29-83
12-13-85
10-07-85
04-23-84
03-07-88
PSES4
Compliance
Date
10-24-86
03-09-87
12-01-85
11-17-86
08-15-86
07-01-84 (TTO)7
ll-08-85(As)
07-14-86
04-27-84 (Non-integrated)
06-30-84 (Integrated)
07-15-86 (TTO)
07-20-80'
06-29-85
08-22-87
07-10-85
11-25-85
03-3 1-89 (SubpartC)10
06-30-84 (Part 433, TTO)"
07-10-85 (Part 420, TTO)
02-15-86 (Final)
10-31-88
08-23-88
03-09-87
02-22-88 (Subpart J)"
Pagel
-------
SUMMARY STATUS OF NATIONAL CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS: MILESTONE DATES
Industry Category
40CFR
Part
Proposed
New Source'
Rule Date
Promulgation2
Date
Effective1
Date
PSES4
Compliance
Date
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
(Phase II)
Organic Chemicals, Plastics,
and Synthetic Fibers
Pesticide Chemicals
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Steam Electric Power Generation
Timber Products Processing
421
414
06-27-84
03-21-83
09-20-85"
11-05-87
11-04-85
12-21-8715
09-20-88
11-05-90
455
419
439
466"
430,431"
423
429
11-30-82
12-21-79
11-26-82
02-27-81
01-06-81
10-14-80
10-31-79
10-04-85"
10-18-82
10-27-83
11-24-82
11-18-82
11-19-82
01-26-81
-
12-01-82
12-12-83
01-07-83
01-03-83
01-02-83
03-30-81
-
12-01-85
10-27-86
11-25-85
07-01-84
07-01-84
01-26-84
Footnotes:
'The term "new source" means any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction of which commenced after the
publication of proposed pretreatment standards under Section 307(c) of the Clean Water Act which will be applicable to such source if such standards are thereafter promulgated in
accordance with that section, provided that: (1) the construction occurs at a new or "greenfield" site; (2) the construction on an existing site "totally replaces" the process or production
equipment causing the discharge; or (3) the construction is "substantially" independent of an existing source at the same site.
*The promulgation date is the date the an official announcement of the regulation is made. According to 40 CFR §23.2, the promulgation date is two weeks after publication in the Federal
Register, unless otherwise specified in the regulations.
*The effective date is the date the regulation is operative.
*The PSES compliance date is the date by which all existing indirect dischargers are required to be in compliance with the categorical pretreatment standards.
*The Aluminum Forming Categorical Pretreatment Standards were revised on 12/27/88, as issued in 53 FR 52366. These revisions include relaxed pretreatment standards for existing
sources. New discharge limits were set for oil and grease for all subparts and for chromium, cyanide (T), zinc, and Total Toxic Organics (TTO) for the cleaning or etching rinse of Subparts
C and D.
Page 2
-------
'The Battery Manufacturing pretreatment standards were revised on 8/28/86, as issued at 51 FR 30814. These revisions include additional allowances for new and existing source
discharges from battery washes using detergents. Also, an allowance for employee shower wastewater was added for existing sources.
*The compliance date for TTO for facilities subject to existing source Electrical and Electronic Components, Phase I regulations, is July 1, 1984. The compliance date for arsenic under
this category is November 8, 1985.
*The Electroplating proposed rule date is not used to determine the new source/existing source status of a facility. The Metal Finishing proposed rule date is used to make this determination
for all electroplating and metal finishing facilities.
*The compliance date for Subparts A, B, L, AL, AR, BA, and BC of the Inorganic Chemicals category is July 20, 1980. The compliance date for Subparts AJ, AU, BL, BM, BN, and
BO (except discharges from copper sulfate or nickel sulfate processes) is August 22, 1987. The compliance date for copper sulfate or nickel sulfate processes and for all Subparts of Part
415 not listed above is June 29, 1985.
'"These dates apply only to Subpart C. On August 8, 1996, EPA issued a direct final rule, effective October 7, 1996, to revise existing requirements for unhairing operations.
"Existing sources that are subject to the Metal Finishing standards in 40 CFR Part 433 must comply only with the interim limit for TTO by June 30, 1984. Plants also subject to the Iron
and Steel Manufacturing standards in 40 CFR Part 420 must comply with the interim TTO limit by July 10, 1985. The compliance date for metals, cyanide, and final TTO is February
15, 1986 for all sources.
"These regulations were revised on March 17, 1989 (54 FR 11346) to allow pollutant discharge from the tube reducing spent lubricant process of Subpart C and Subpart I provided
nitrosamine compound discharge limits are met.
Footnotes:
"These dates are for Subpart J, tungsten category.
"*The Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing (Phase II) regulations were revised on 8/3/90, as issued at 55 FR 31692. This rule amended pretreatment standards for subparts I, O, S, T, X,
and AC.
"On June 29,1989, and June 29,1990 parts of the OCPSF regulations were remanded to EPA for additional consideration. The revised final rule was published on July 9, 1993, as issued
in 58 FR 36872.
"On July 25, 1986, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the EPA the final regulation originally promulgated on October 4, 1985, for the Pesticide Chemicals category.
EPA removed the regulation from the Code of Federal Regulations on December 15, 1986 (40 FR 44911). Final regulations for organic pesticide active ingredient manufacturers was
published on 9/28/93, at 58 FR 50638. Categorical standards for facilities which formulate, package, and/or repackage pesticides were promulgated on November 6, 1996.
"The Porcelain Enameling pretreatment standards were revised on 9/6/85, as issued at 50 FR 36540. This rule amends pretreatment standards for subparts B and C.
"On December 17, 1993, EPA proposed revised categorical standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard industry, at 58 FR 66078.
Note: The compliance date for any discharge that is subject to Pretreatment Standards for New Source (PSNS) facilities is within 90 days of the date of the commencement of the
discharge. The Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR) for a new source is due 90 days prior to the commencement of discharge.
Page 3
-------
7776 Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Local Limits
Pretreatment Standards:
Local Limits
[40 CFR §§ 403.5(c) & (d)]
Local Limits Address Site
Specific Concerns:
correct existing problems
prevent potential problems
protect the receiving waters
improve sludge disposal options
protect POTW personnel
Process
wastewater
onlyl
Local vs.
Limits
Categorical
Standards
Module 6
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Local Limits
Types of Local Limits
Additional specific prohibitions
Collection system
Industrial user management
practices plans
Case-by-case discharge limits
Chemical specific
Actual
Loading
Allowable
Loading
1
1
1
*J*Wtt>~ Collect Data & Characterize Existing Loadings
L
Determine Pollutants of Cone
- any pollutant which might be reasons
discharged and capable of causing:
» pass through
» interference
» sludge contamination
» POTW worker health/safety risks
- EPA policy: Cd. Cr. Cu, Pb. Ni. Zn,
As. CN-. Ag, Hg
o
ern
bly
1
1
Determine Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings U****
n
j
i
"j
rj
!
Module 6
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
77?e Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Local Limits
1
1
1
:
i
JBBBUH
i*
8
1
1
|
i
^ttk
Collect Data & Characterize Existing Loadings
-i
0-,
Characterize Existing Loadings
-Industrial users/commercial sources
-Hauled waste
-Domestic loadings
c
**
f
o
£
-Treatment plant data
| Determine Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings
hsnJ
ii
1:
?j««
§aL_
Collect Data & Characterize Existing Loadings
Develop MAHLs
Calculate either the maximum amou
(Ibs/day) of each toxic pollutant:
-contributed by an industrial user, c
- received at the headworks of the
WWTP
which allows the POTW to achieve
total compliance.
nt
>r
1 { Determine Maximum Allowable Industrial Loactnoa [..^^
4
I
\
rt
1*1
IS
ia
1
Actual
Loading
Allowable
Loading
Module 6
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
TTre Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Local Limits
i§3
|g
"§4
<*
3
1
: | Determine Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings
ha
!
(
;
&
fl
y
1 !
!i
i
?^
|
:
'<
^P* I Pnllrrt FViH ft rhnmrtorirn Fvhtinn t nnrfinrrT: L.
Allocate MAIL
Uniform concentration
Industrial contributory flow
«WYNIWYG
Mass proportion
Select industrial reduction
>- . Determine Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings
i
\
\
:
!
?
:
>
1
**«i
ls>
$£xL,
If
%»,_
w
Updating Local Limits
NPDES application
Process changes
Non-compliance
Additional monitoring data
Environmental criteria changes
"~- Determine Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings
*»«««
!
M
!S
11
)i>
Is
Module 6
Slide Presentation - Page 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Standards: Local Limits
u
Applying Local Limits
Adopt local limits into POTW Legal
Authority
Include in individual IU Control
Mechanism
Combination of both
Determine Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings
&££&&£
Module 6
Slide Presentation - Page 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Local Limits
Pretreatment Standards: Local Limits
Introduction
In 1977, EPA initially proposed the use of local limits and in 1978 the concept was adopted. Three years later, EPA promulgated
40 CFR § 403.5(c), (d), and (e) which set out EPA requirements for local limits development and enforcement These sections require
all Control Authorities with approved programs to develop and enforce local limits to implement the general and specific prohibited
discharges. In addition, POTWs with recurring pass through and interference problems must also develop and enforce local limits.
As a result of the recommendations made to EPA by the Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force (PIRT) to develop
guidance on local limits, EPA issued a policy memorandum in 1985 and in 1987, developed the Guidance Manual on the Development
and Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program. EPA also developed the computer program
PRELIM to provide assistance in developing local limits.
. In response to recommendations made to EPA in the Domestic Sewage Study, EPA amended the Federal regulations requiring
Control Authorities to submit, as part of the NPDES permit application, a technical evaluation of the need to revise local limits. The
regulations were also clarified in 40 CFR § 403.5(c)(1) to provide that POTWs with approved pretreatment programs shall continue to
develop and enforce appropriate local limits after developing an approved pretreatment program. Thus, the groundwork was set for
all POTWs with approved pretreatment programs to develop and periodically update local limits.
Local limits consist of limitations for any pollutant, such as metals, cyanide, BOD,, oil and grease, and possibly organics
developed by a Control Authority to prevent interference, pass through, sludge contamination, and worker health and safety problems
from excessive discharge of those pollutants. They are generally expressed as maximum limitations; however, some POTWs have
established both maximum and average values. Locally derived limits apply to all industrial users, not just to categorical industries.
These Emits are usually imposed at the end of the facility's property line prior to its wastewaters entering the municipality's main sewer
line. If local limits are more stringent than an applicable categorical standard (taking into account the use of the CWF and/or FWA, if
necessary), the industrial user must meet the more stringent limit before it discharges its wastewater.
Development of Local Limits
Although the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes development and enforcement of categorical pretreatment standards, it is
recognized that the technology-based categorical pretreatment standards may not be sufficient in all cases to protect POTWs and to
meet local environmental objectives. Therefore, the General Pretreatment Regulations, primarily through 40 CFR § 403.5(c), require
Control Authorities to evaluate the need for local limits and, if necessary, implement and enforce specific limits as part of pretreatment
program activities.
Local limits are different from categorical pretreatment standards in many significant ways. First, the categorical pretreatment
standards are based on pollutant levels that are deemed achievable when given pollution control technologies are applied. They are
also developed for specific industrial categories or subcategories. Generally, 'local limits" are technically derived, meaning a Control
Authority evaluates the ability of its treatment system to receive and adequately treat nondomestic wastes, and sets limitations for all
industrial users, regardless of category or subcategory. These limitations are based on what is necessary to protect the treatment plant
Module 6 Narrative - Page 1
-------
: Local Limits The Pretreatment Training Course
POTW products (e.g., sludge and effluent), human health and the environment Therefore, development of these local limits must rely
on local conditions and POTW-specific data to the greatest extent possible.
Another important difference is that categorical pretreatment standards apply to the end of a regulated industrial process whereas
local Emits are generally applied to the end-of-pipe discharge from an industrial user (i.e.. at the point of connection to the POTWs
collection system). Depending on the industrial user, these two locations where standards apply may be significantly different because
of the following factors:
introduction of other process wastestreams regulated by different categorical pretreatment standards
introduction of other contaminated wastestreams not regulated by categorical pretreatment standards
introduction of dilution flows such as sanitary wastestreams.
Comparison of categorical pretreatment standards and local limits is discussed in detail in the EPA's Guidance Manual for Production
Based Pretreatment Standards and the Combined Wastestream Formula. Common to both limitations, however, is the fact that
categorical pretreatment standards and local limits are enforceable as pretreatment standards.
Summary of National Policy
There has been some confusion about when local Omits are required to be developed by Control Authorities and by States that
have elected to run State-wide pretreatment programs. In an effort to clarify this issue, EPA issued two policy memoranda that
elaborate on local limits requirements for pretreatment programs. The memos, dated August 5,1985, and March 22.1988, explain
the minimum requirements for the evaluation of the need for local limits as well as other issues; they are summarized as follows:
conduct an industrial waste survey to identify all industrial users that might be subject to the pretreatment program
determine the character and volume of pollutants contributed to the POTW by these industries
determine which pollutants have a reasonable potential for pass through, interference, or sludge contamination
conduct a technical evaluation to determine the maximum allowable treatment plant headworks (influent) loading for at least
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc
identify additional pollutants of concern
implement a system to assure these loadings will not be exceeded.
Available Guidance Materials
Recognizing that Control Authorities may need assistance in developing technically sound local limits, EPA has developed a
methodology for establishing local limits. This methodology is presented in Appendix L of EPA's Guidance Manual for POTW
Pretreatment Program Development (1983). EPA has also developed the Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation
of Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program (1987). This manual provides practical assistance to POTWs on
technically based approaches to selling local Emits. The manual is geared towards scientific, engineering and operational issues rather
than policy issues. Additional materials include Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs (1987) and Supplemental
Guidance on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program (1991).
Page 2 Narrative Module 6
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Loca/ Limits
In addtion to these guidance documents, EPA has created a computer program called PRELIM 5.0 (1996) which guides Control
Authorities through the local limit development process. After entering the site-specific data and information, PRELIM leads the user
through the calculations and allocation process. PRELIM is IBM-compatible and is available for distribution to POTWs through EPA.
Development Approaches
EPA's Guidance on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program
provides various methods for calculating local limits. The predominant approach used by Control Authorities and advocated in the
guidance is a chemical-specific approach known as the Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading (MAHL) method. This method
involves back calculating from environmental and plant protection criteria to MAHLs. This is accomplished, pollutant by pollutant, for
each envronmental criteria or plant requirement The lowest or most limiting value for each pollutant serves as the basis for allocation
to industry and ultimately setting local limits. The following steps detail the MAHL local limits development process.
Step 1 - Collect Data for Local Limits Development
A. Determining Pollutants of Concern
EPA's August 1985 policy memorandum identified six pollutants which are potentially of concern to all Control Authorities
because of their widespread effects on POTWs. These are cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. EPA's policy
memorandum from March 1988 that was included in the guidance manual identifies four additional pollutants that all Control
Authorities should consider, unless analysis of their wastewater and sludge shows that they are not present in significant
amounts. These pollutants are arsenic, cyanide, silver, and mercury. The policy memo also states that Control Authorities must
also consider the full range of priority, conventional and nonconventjonal pollutants when identifying pollutants of concern.
However, POTWs which discharge wastewater into marine waters and have been granted a § 301 (h) waiver from the requirement
for secondary treatment [§ 301(n)(1)(B)], are required to develop local limits for any and all toxic pollutants of concern. Therefore,
data should be collected to determine any toxic pollutants of concern which could reasonably be expected to be discharged to
the POTW in quantities that could pass through or interfere with the POTW treatment process, contaminate the sludge, or
jeopardize worker health and safety or the collection system.
The Control Authority should perform at least one priority pollutant scan and 40 CFR Part 261 Appendix 8 scan to identify
potential pollutants of concern in the influent effluent and sludge. The Control Authority must then address all pollutants that
are identified in any analysis above detection limits by developing a local limit for each pollutant or providing an adequate.
justification for not doing so.
B. Characterizing Existing Loadings
Industrial Users
During the local Emits development process, the Control Authority must characterize existing loadings to the treatment plant
Local Emits should be based on site-specific monitoring date. This can be accomplished by conducting monitoring of all industrial
users. Control Authority monitoring or industrial user serf monitoring are both acceptable date and information from the Control
Authority's industrial waste survey may also be useful.
Hauled Waste
If hauled wastes are accepted at the POTW, they may be a significant source of pollutant loadings or flows. In such a case,
the Control Authority should consider them as a significant nondomestic source in the determination of local limits.
Module 6 Narrative - Page 3
-------
Pretreatment Standards: Local Limits The Pretreatment Training Course
Domestic Loadings
The Control Authority must also characterize domestic loadings! Site-specific monitoring of a representative portion of the
POTWs collection system should form the basis for loadings from domestic/background sources. Use of literature values must
be justified by the Control Authority.
Treatment Plant Monitoring
The Control Authority must conduct sufficient monitoring at the treatment plant to characterize influent, effluent, and sludge
loadings for its pollutants of concern. Monitoring of the treatment plant influent, effluent, and sludge should, at a minimum,
represent 5 consecutive days. Preferably, monitoring should include data for at least 1 day a month over at least a year for
metals and other inorganic pollutants, and 1 day of sampling a year for toxic pollutants (priority pollutants and 40 CFR Part 261
Appendix 8 constituents).
C. Determining AppBcable Environmental Criteria
Environmental criteria generally include National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits, water
quality standards or criteria, sludge disposal requirements, and unit process inhibition values. The Control Authority should use
afl applicable environmental criteria when developing local limits. Other appropriate requirements may include worker health and
safety criteria, collection system effects, incineration emissions requirements or other applicable Federal, State, or local
envronmental protection requrements. Further information on how to incorporate applicable environmental criteria into the local
limits development process is contained in the guidance manual.
Another less frequently used environmental criteria is biological toxicity. Control Authorities which have conducted
biological toxicity testing indicating a problem, should develop local limits to correct the toxicity. Although there is no method in
the guidance manual to calculate MAHLs based on the results of toxicity testing, the manual provides guidance and additional
references on the Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) process.
Step 2 Development of Maximum Allowable Headwords Loadings f MAHLs}
The Control Authority must calculate the maximum amount (Ibs/day) of each toxic pollutant contributed by an industrial user
or received at .the headworks of the treatment plant which will allow the POTW to achieve all of the above applicable
envronmental criteria. If the Control Authority does not calculate the MAHL to the POTW for each pollutant of concern, it must
provide justification of why it has not done so. The nonconservative pollutants (volatiles) require special consideration when
conducting headworks analysis (e.g., alternative formulas and allocation methods). All calculations should be consistent with
the approach outlined in the local limits guidance manual.
During this step of the local Emits development process, the Control Authority should demonstrate that an acceptable mass
balance exists between the actual loadings of pollutants at the headworks and the estimated loadings of pollutants from specific
source discharges. This can be accomplished by calculating the actual loading of each pollutant from influent monitoring date
and comparing this value with the sum of the estimated loadings from all individual sources (domestic, industrial, hauled waste,
etc.). The resulting calculated loadings from various sources should be within 80-120 percent of the actual total influent loading
and flow.
Step 3 - Determine Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings (MAIL)
Once the Control Authority has calculated the MAHL, a safety factor must be applied and the value discounted for
domestic/background loadings in order to determine the maximum allowable allocation available for industrial users. A safety
factor is incorporated into the calculations to allow for future industrial and residential growth and other discrepancies which may
Page 4 Narrative Module 6
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Standards: Local Um'rts
enter into the calculations because of the use of default data or variations in analytical procedures. The Control Authority should
provide justification for the selected safety factor which may range from 10-30 percent The Control Authority should recognize
that selection of a high safety factor does not constitute an appropriate substitute for periodic review and revisions.
Step 4 Allocating Allowable Industrial Loading
After the Control Authority has calculated the allowable industrial loading, the Control Authority allocates this loading
depending on the number and types of industrial users and the method of application (permits, contracts or sewer use ordinance)
employed by the Control Authority. Where the current loading of a pollutant exceeds the MAHL. the Control Authority must
establish a local limit to reduce loadings to within the range of the MAHL. Where the current loading is far below or approaches
the MAHL. the Control Authority must set industrial discharge limits at current loadings to maintain the status quo.
By far, the most common allocation approach is the uniform concentration method, whereby all industrial users must meet
an identical Emit This provides one set of limits for all non-domestic contributors which makes implementation and enforcement
straightforward. Other specific approaches include:
ID contributory flow method where by only those IDs that are contributors of specific pollutants are limited, with the
allocation based only on flow from these discharges.
Mass proportional method whereby the allowable loading is allocated to existing users based on current loadings.
Selected industrial reduction method whereby the POTW selects pollutant loading reductions for each ID based on
treatability potential.
The Control Authority should ensure that it has selected local limits that are reasonable. All local limits should be at or
above detection limits and should not be so lenient as to provide industry additional opportunity to pollute or encourage
hazardous waste to be discharged to the Control Authority.
Step 5 - Revisions to Local Limits
Many variables on which these local limits calculations are based may vary with time. Local limits must be revised on a
periodic basis to reflect changes in conditions a assumptions. Conditions which might require that local limits be revised include
changes in environmental criteria, availability of additional monitoring data, changes in plant processes, or capacity or
configuration.
Step 6 - Implementation of Local Limits
Once local Emits have been developed, they must be effectively implemented. Local limits should be incorporated into the
sewer use ordinance and/or some form of individual control mechanisms.
Other Local Limits Approaches
Other methods of local Emits development have been used by Control Authorities. They include the collection system approach,
industrial user management practice plans, case-by-case discharge limits and developing local specific prohibitions. These approaches
are briefly described below. EPA has published extensive guidance on the development and implementation of the local limits. Further
information on each of these methods and the MAHL method can be found in the Guidance Manual on the Development and
Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program (1987).
Module 6 Narrative - Page 5
-------
Piubttatiiient Standards: Local Limits The Pretreatment Training Course
Collection System Approach
To apply this method, the Control Authority identifies pollutants which may cause fire and explosion hazards or other worker
health and safety concerns. Pollutants found to be present are evaluated for their propensity to volatilize and are modeled to evaluate
their expected concentration in air. Comparisons are made with worker health exposure criteria and lower explosive limits. Where
values are of concern, the Control Authority may set limits or require development of management practice to control undesirable
discharges. The collection system approach may also consider the prohibition of pollutants with specific flashpoints to prevent
discharge of ignitable wastes. Additional information on the development of limits based on collection system concerns can be found
in the Guidance to Protect POTW Workers from Toxic and Reactive Gases and Vapors (1992).
Industrial User Management Practice Plans
This approach consists of Control Authorities requiring industrial users to develop management practices as enforceable
pretreatment requirements for the handling of chemicals and wastes. Example practice plans include chemical management practices,
best management practices, and spill prevention plans. Management practice plans are usually narrative local limits.
Case-bv-Case Discharge Limits
In this approach, a Control Authority may set numeric local limits based on BPJ and on available technologies which are known
to be economically feasible. This approach is most often used when insufficient date is available to employ other methods above.
Local Specific Prohibitions
The Control Authority may choose to develop specific prohibitions for their POTW. Examples of such prohibited discharges are
as follows:
noxious or malodorous liquids, gases, or solids creating a public nuisance
wastestreams which impart color and pass through the POTW treatment plant
storm water, roof runoff, swimming pool drainage
wastewaters containing radioactive wastes or isotopes
removed substances form pretreatment of wastewater.
Page 6 - Narrative Module 6
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Permitting Exerese
PERMITTING EXERCISE
Audits and inspections on POTW pretreatment programs have identified numerous technical and
procedural problems with industrial user discharge permits issued by POTWs. While many of the
deficiencies may seem to be insignificant often, this "insignificance" is the difference between a facility
demonstrating compliance with applicable limitations and a facility not being able to provide the
necessary information to make this demonstration. The attached permit highlights some of the types
of problems experienced by POTW permit writers.
Please review the permit and identify areas that do not meet the minimum requirements as
specified in 40 CFR Part 403. Also, recommend changes to the permit that could clarify the permit
conditions, strengthen its enforceability, or simplify its use. Focus on the cover page and Parts 1-4.
If you have more time, feel free to review and comment on Part 5. Refer to the enclosed copy of 40
CFR Part 403 to evaluate the adequacy of the permit.
Identified
Deficiencies:
Recommended
Improvements:
Module 7 Exercise Page 1
-------
Permitting Exercise The Pretreatment Training Course
INDUSTRIAL USER PERMIT
PERMIT No. 000
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 31 of the Nowhere City Code,
Bradley and Faulk Metal Finishing
830 65* Street
Nowhere, District of Columbia 43210
is hereby authorized to discharge industrial wastewater from the above identified facility and through the outfalls identified
herein into the City of Nowhere's sewer system in accordance with the conditions set forth in this permit
Noncompliance with any term or condition of this permit shall constitute a violation of the City of Nowhere's sewer use
ordinance.
This permit is effective at midnight on June 30,1997.
D
Barry D. Marion, Superintendent
Page 2 - Exerase Module 7
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Permitting Exercise
PART 1- EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
A. During the period of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge wastewater to the City of Nowhere's sewer
system from the outfalls listed below.
Outfall Descriptions
001 Nonregulated wastewater.
002 Regulated process wastewater.
B. The effluent from outfall 001 shall be of domestic or nonprocess wastewater only and shall comply with 40 CFR §
403.5(a) and (b).
PART 2 - MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. From the period beginning on the effective date of the permit until it expires, the permittee shall monitor outfall 002
for the following parameters, at the indicated frequency:
PARAMETER(MG/LUNLESSSPEC.RED MEASUREMENT LoCAT10N SELF-MONrTORING FREQUENCY
OTHERWISE)
Fbw (gpd) See note1 Continuous
BOD5 See note1 2/Year
TSS See note1 2/Year
Chromium, Hexavalent See note1 2/Year
Nickef, Total See note1 2/Year
pH See note1 2/Year
B. All handling and preservation of collected samples and laboratory analyses of samples shall be performed in
accordance wth EPA approved methods or'Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater* and
amendments thereto unless specified otherwise in the monitoring conditions of this permit
PART 3 - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Monitoring results obtained shall be summarized and reported on an Industrial User Monitoring Report Form once
Dermpthf The reports are due each month. The first report is due next month. The report shall indicate the nature
and concentration of all pollutants in the effluent for which sampling and analyses were performed during the calendar
month preceding the submission of each report
B. If the results of the permittee's wastewater analysis indicate that a violation of this permit has occurred, the permittee
must inform the City of Nowhere of the violation within 5 days of becoming aware of the violation.
C. All reports required by this permit shall be submitted to the City of Nowhere.
Manhole.
Module 7 Exercise - Page 3
-------
Permitting Exercise TTie Pretreatment Training Course
PART 4 - SPECIAL CONDITIONS
A. Compliance Schedule
1. The permittee shall accomplish the following tasks in the designated time period:
Activity
a. Develop, and submit to the City of Nowhere a slug control plan to eliminate or minimize accidental spills
or slug discharges to the sewer system.
b. Implement the slug loading control plan.
2. No later than 14 days following each date in the above schedule, the permittee shall submit to the City of
Nowhere a report including, at a minimum, whether or not it complied with the increment of progress to be met
on such date and, if not the date on which it expects to comply with the increment of progress, the reasons for
delay, and the steps being taken to return the project to the schedule established,
PART 5 - STANDARD CONDITIONS
SECTION A. - GENERAL CONDITIONS AND DEFINITIONS
1. Severabilitv
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of (his permit, or the application of any provision of
this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the
remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
2. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit Failure to comply with the requirements of this permit
may be grounds for administrative action, or enforcement proceedings including civil or criminal penalties, injunctive
relief, and summary abatements.
3. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or correct any adverse impact to the public treatment plant
or the environment resulting from nonoomplianoe with this permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring
as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge.
4. Permit Termination
This permit may be terminated for the following reasons:
a. Falsifying serf-monitoring reports
b. Tampering with monitoring equipment
c. Refusing to allow timely access to the facility premises and records
d. Failure to meet effluent limitations
e. Failure to pay fines
f. Failure to pay sewer charges
g. Failure to meet compliance schedules.
5. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any violation of Federal, State, or local
laws or regulations.
Page 4 - Exercise Module 7
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Permitting Exercise
6. Duty to Reapply
If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit the
permittee must submit an application for a new permit at least 90 days before the expiration date of this permit
7. Dilution
The permittee shall not increase the use of potable or process water or, in any way, attempt to dilute an effluent as
a partial or complete substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with the limitations contained in this
permit
8. Definitions
a. Daily Maximum - The maximum allowable discharge of pollutant during a calendar day. Where daily maximum
limitations are expressed in units of mass, the daily discharge is the total mass discharged over the course of
the day. Where daily maximum limitations are expressed in terms of a concentration, the daily discharge is the
arithmetic average measurement of the pollutant concentration derived from all measurements taken that day.
b. Composite Sample - A sample that is collected over time, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing
discrete samples. The sample may be composited either as a time composite sample: composed of discrete
sample aliquots collected in one container at constant time intervals providing representative samples
irrespective of stream flow; or as a flow proportional composite sample: collected either as a constant sample
volume at time intervals proportional to stream flow, or collected by Increasing the volume of each aliquot as
the flow increases while maintaining a constant time interval between the aliquots.
c. Grab Sample - An individual sample collected in less than 15 minutes, without regard for flow or time.
d. Monthly Average - The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples collected during a calendar month
or specified 30 day period (as opposed to a rolling 30 day window).
e. Weekly Average - The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samp||s collected over a period of seven
consecutive days,
f. Upset - Means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with
technology-based permit effluent [imitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee,
excluding such factors as operational error, improperly designed or inadequate treatment facilities, or improper
Operation and maintenance or lack thereof.
g. Pypass - Means the intentional diversion of wastes from any portion of a treatment facility.
SECTION B. - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
1. Proper Operatiort and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and
related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this
permit Proper operation and maintenance includes but is not limited to: effective performance, adequate funding,
adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate quality
assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems only
when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit
2. Duty to Halt or Reduce Activity
Upon reduction of efficiency of operation, or loss or failure of all or part of the treatment facility, the permittee shall,
to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with its permit, control its production or discharges (or both) until
operation of the treatment facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement
applies, for example, when the primary source of power of the treatment facility fails or is reduced. It shall not be a
defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted
activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit
Module 7 Exercise - Page 5
-------
Permitting Exercise The Pretreatment Training Course
SECTION C. - MONITORING AND RECORDS
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge. All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points specified in this permit and, unless
otherwise specified, before the effluent joins or is diluted by any other wastestream, body of water or substance. All
equipment used for sampling and analysis must be routinely calibrated, inspected and maintained to ensure their
accuracy. Monitoring points shall not be changed without notification and approval.
2. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, using test procedures identified
in Part 2 Section B., the results of this monitoring shall be included in the permittee's self-monitoring reports.
3. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall albw the City of Nowhere, or an authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials
and other documents as may be required by law, to:
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is Jocated or conducted, or where
records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;.
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this
permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices,
or operations: regulated or required under this permit
d. Sample or monitor, for the purposes of assuring permit compliance, any substances or parameters at any
location; and
e. inspect any production, manufacturing, fabricating, or storage area where pollutants, regulated under the
permit, could originate, be stored, or be discharged to the sewer system.
4. Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and
all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this
permit and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at least three years from
the date of the sample, measurement, report or application.
5. Record Contents
Recojfl of sampling and analyses shall include:
a. the date, exact place, time, and methods of sampling or measurements, and sample preservation techniques
or procedures;
b. who performed the sampling or measurements;
c. the date(s) analyses were performed;
d. who performed the analyses;
e. the analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. the results of such analyses.
Page 6 - Exercise Module 7
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Inspections and POTW Monitoring
Inspections
and
POTW Monitoring
40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(v)
SlUs must be
inspected at least
once a year.
Review Your Files Before
Going Out Into the Field...
Permit/Applications
Inspection notes
"Site & process flow diagrams
Compliance schedules
Plans
-Analytical data
Module 8
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
The Pretmatment Training Course
Inspections end POTW Monitoring
Examine/Determine Before
Going Out Into the Field...
> Water use/billing records
>*POTW sewer maps
>-Categorical regulations
» Enforcement actions taken
>-POTW problems
> Compliance status
1 So/prise/ 1
Inspections
Unannounced
vs.
Announced
Monday,
July 14,1997
ut10:00am.
^
097
m-l
Entry Procedures
>- Signing IU entry waivers
>- Delays
>- Safety issues
Module 8
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
7776 Pretreatment Training Course
Inspections and POTW Monitoring
Inspection Questionnaire
> General facility information
> Process areas
> Facility changes
>-Wastewater generation
* Pretreatment
Inspection Questionnaire, cont
> Hazardous waste management
» Chemical/waste storage areas
> Facility plans
> Sampling procedures
> Records review
40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(v)
Evaluate need for a slug
discharge control plan at
least every two years
Module 8
Slide Presentation Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Inspections and POTW Monitoring
Operations/Sources of Discharge
Restroomfehowers
Air pollution control
devices
Backwash water
Boilers
Cafeteria/breakroom
Contact coding water
Equipment washdown
Reel maintenance
In-product
Lab
Maintenance shop
Noncontact cooling water
Cooling tower bleed off
Off spec/out of date/returned
product or raw materials
Pump sealant water
Remediated grounowater
Storm water
Tank bottoms
Walkthrough
» Housekeeping
>~Labels & containment
»Dilution sources
»Piping configurations
^Monitoring point location/ accessibility
>-Condition of monitoring point and
pretreatment equipment
Walkthroughs
can be performed
prior to asking
questions
Module 8
Slide Presentation Page 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Inspections and POTW Monitoring
Follow-Up With IU Before Leaving
> Comment on housekeeping
and/or compliance issues
> Identify potential P2
opportunities
> Allow IU to ask questions
Prepare
inspection report
and follow-up with
facility promptly
POTW Monitoring
[40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(v)]
Annually
(at a minimum)
Module 8
Slide Presentation - Page 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Inspections and POTW Monitoring
Purpose of POTW Monitoring
»-Verify compliance status
>- Maintain up-to-date information
>» Support enforcement activities
>-Verify correction of problem
>~ Identify source of problem
discharge
> Provide user charge data
Types of POTW Monitoring
^Scheduled
>~ Unscheduled
>~ Demand
40 CFR Part 136
>- Collection containers
> Preservatives
>- Holding times
>- Preferred sample type
>- Approved methods
Module 8
Slide Presentation - Page 6
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Inspections and POTW Monitoring
Unique circumstances
> Batch dischargers
>-Split and side by side sampling
»-Flow proportional vs. time
composited samples
>~ Multiple outfalls
> Tampering with sampling
equipment
> Meter out of calibration
tii
\i
Module 8
Slide Presentation - Page 7
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Inspections and POTW Monitoring
Inspections and POTW Monitoring
Introduction
The overall success of a Control Authority's pretreatment program is largely dependent on a comprehensive and property
designed monitoring program of its industrial users. It is through monitoring activities that compliance with permits and ordinance
requirements is determined, user charges are confirmed, and data are generated for annual pretreatment reports and other reports
requred by EPA or the State. Control Authority monitoring of industrial users also helps to verify self-monitoring data submitted by the
industrial user, supports enforcement action, and identifies the industrial user(s) responsible for interference or pass through problems
experienced at the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Labor and resources have a direct bearing on how many sampling
and inspection visits will be conducted. The Control Authority should develop a list of industrial users to be inspected, sampled, and
evaluated for a slug control plan and include the frequencies of these activities. This list should be updated annually by the Control
Authority and presented in its annual report to EPA or the State.
This chapter summarizes guidelines and procedures to be used by Control Authority personnel when conducting onsite
inspections and/or sampling activities at industrial facilities that discharge or could potentially discharge process wastewater to the
POTWs collection system. The intent is to assist Control Authority personnel in planning, collecting, and documenting information
necessary to determine compliance ornoncompliance by all industrial users with Federal, State, and local pretreatment standards and
requirements. Control Authority personnel are encouraged to read and understand the material presented in the Industrial User
Inspection and SampBng Manual for POTWs (1994).
The Need for Inspections and POTW Monitoring
Regulatory Intent
The General Pretreatment Regulations require industrial inspections and sampling to ensure compliance with all applicable
pretreatment regulations. Section 403.8(f)(2)(v) of 40 CFR states that Control Authorities must develop procedures to:
randomly sample and analyze the effluent from industrial users and conduct surveillance activities in order to identify,
independent of information supplied by industrial users, occasional and continuing noncompliance with Pretreatment
Standards
inspect and sample the effluent from each Significant Industrial User at least once a year
evaluate, at least once every two years, whether each Significant Industrial User needs a plan to control slug discharges.
Inspections and sampling are two of the most important ongoing tasks in implementation of a local pretreatment program.
Information collected during inspections and sampling activities is usually the basis for assessing compliance and for enforcement
actions taken by Control Authorities against industrial users in violation of pretreatment standards and requirements. The information
collected will also be used in any necessary updates of local limits.
Module 8 Narrative - Page 1
-------
Inspections and POJW Monitoring TTie Pretreatment Training Course
Importance of Industrial Inspections
Industrial inspections are valuable in the overall implementation of pretreatment programs because they provide:
a mechanism for maintaining current data on industrial users and determining users' compliance status
a means to check the completeness and accuracy of the industrial user performance/ compliance records
a means to assess the adequacy of the user's self-monitoring and reporting program and the industrial discharge permit
a basis for establishing sampling requirements for the industry
a means for communicating and developing a good working relationship with industrial users
a means to evaluate construction of pretreatment facilities
a means to evaluate the industrial user's operation and maintenance activities of its pretreatment system
a means to assess the potential for spills
a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of slug discharge control and prevention procedures
a means of obtaining data to support enforcement actions.
Current data on industrial dischargers is necessary in a pretreatment program to identify sources of problems and to provide a
foundation for developing or amending local discharge limits for industrial users. Industrial inspections will help the Control Authority
maintain curent data on all its industrial users and, if performed on a frequent basis, the Control Authority may use inspections as its
primary mechanism to maintain a comprehensive list of users. However, other resources should be used as well.
Property implemented onsite industrial inspections set the groundwork for monitoring tasks associated with the pretreatment
program. Industrial inspections can furnish the Control Authority with information needed to plan future monitoring activities (e.g.,
operating data, sampling considerations and locations, safety considerations, and laboratory considerations). In addition to this type
of logistical information, the inspection can provide information about needed changes in existing procedures at the industrial facility.
For example, if a firm changes its processes to use fewer pollutants, the inspector might recommend that the Control Authority's
analyses also be cut back to match the new discharge. Similarly, a series of inspections can show a trend or a change that
necessitates a modification of monitoring schedules or frequency, or even of the industry's discharge permit In this way, inspections
can be a useful tool for adjusting and refining the Control Authority's pretreatment program to allocate resources and undertake activities
efficiently.
An inspection should also check the industrial users' self-monitoring procedures and equipment (where applicable) to ensure
that data obtained by these procedures and equipment are proper and accurate. Items to be checked in this regard during the
inspection include verification and examination of the following:
the sampling location specified in the permit is adequate for the collection of a representative sample of the wastewater
the user's sampling technique is adequate to ensure the collection of a representative sample
the user's permit sampling and monitoring requirements will yield representative samples
Page 2 - Narrative Modules
-------
TTie Pretreatment Training Course Inspections and POTW Monitoring
the parameters specified in the user's permit are adequate to cover all pollutants of concern that may be discharged by
the user
the appropriate Emits are being applied at the specified sampling location.
Industrial inspections also serve b establish and maintain a good rapport between the Control Authority and industrial users.
The inspection is a good time for exchanging ideas and concerns. During industrial inspections, inspectors can inform the industrial
user of any new or updated pretreatment regulations or offer technical suggestions on pretreatment techniques and/or pollution
prevention opportunities.
Importance of Sampling Activities
The only way to determine industrial user compliance with applicable regulations and wastewater discharge requirements is to
obtain accurate flow measurements and representative samples of the industrial user's discharges. Control Authority personnel may
often visit an industrial user only to collect samples and not conduct a complete industrial inspection. Many Control Authorities may
even use two different teams of personnel to conduct sampling and inspection activities. Because of the importance of accurate,
precise, and reproducible sampling results and the potential for significant errors in the sampling procedures and analysis, it is essential
that extreme care be exercised in selecting representative sampling locations, using proper equipment, and using approved sampling
and analysis protocol If different teams are used, the inspectors should be aware of the sampling and analysis protocols used by the
sampling and analytical personnel. The inspector must carefully evaluate the sampling locatJon(s), the designation of pollutant
parameters to be measured, and sample collection methods to ensure that the collection of analytical data is representative of the
industrial effluent
Types and Frequency of Inspections and Sampling
Industrial inspections and sampling activities are prompted or initiated in the same way. They may be: (1) scheduled in advance
with the industry, (2) unscheduled with little or no prior notice to the industry; or (3) on demand, usually in response to a problem or
emergency such as a spill at an industry or an upset at the POTW.
Scheduled
Scheduled inspections and sampling are planned in advance by the Control Authority with prior notice to the industry. Depending
on the size and type of industry, the date and time of the planned visit should be mutually agreed to one week to one month in advance.
The purposes of scheduled inspections and sampling are to:
collect information and obtain samples to evaluate industry compliance with local, State, and Federal pretreatment
standards and requirements
identify changes in industrial processes that may affect the quality of the industrial discharge and subsequent permit
limitations
talk with and answer questions of industrial representatives, thus maintaining a cooperative as well as a regulatory
presence with the industrial community
update the Control Authority's industrial user data base
verify information in reports submitted to the Control Authority by the industrial user.
ModuleB Narrative - Page 3
-------
Inspections and POTW Monitoring The Pretreatment Training Course
Unscheduled
Unscheduled monitoring and inspections represent a random spot check to evaluate industry compliance. These unscheduled
visits have the same purposes as the scheduled inspections, but with no advance notice provided to the industry. The unscheduled
inspection is most effective when conducted in conjunction with sampling of the industry's effluent Most cases of noncompliance are
identified during the unscheduled inspections and sampling activities. Unscheduled monitoring activities can occur as often as on a
daily or weekly basis when an industrial user is suspected of having difficulties maintaining consistent compliance.
Demand
Demand sampling and industrial inspections are usually performed in response to a complaint or an emergency situation. A
Control Authority may receive complaints from the public or reports from other agencies concerning discharges to the POTW by an
industrial user. Demand sampling and inspections should also be initiated if Control Authority personnel notice changes in the influent
characteristics of the treatment plant or an upset or interference of treatment plant processes. Sampling and inspections of this type
should:
determine the nature, duration, and hazard of the discharge
obtain samples to verify the source and constituents of the discharge
ascertain the necessary corrective actions needed to be taken to contain or halt the discharge
initiate corrective actions, if needed
document information needed for follow-up compliance or enforcement activities.
When emergency situations arise in the treatment plant or collection system (upsets, blockages, fires, or explosions), industrial
inspections should be initiated immediately. Similarly, sampling and laboratory staff should be notified to aid in determining the source
and constituents of the discharge. Inspections and sampling of suspected industrial users will generally determine the source(s) of the
problem. Remedial actions to be undertaken by the responsible industrial user can also be determined during the industrial inspection.
In addition to the information stated above, Control Authority personnel performing demand inspections in response to an emergency
should:
notify other agencies (local, State, or Federal) as appropriate
make all information on the industry available to the person or agency in charge of the response effort
stay in direct contact with the Control Authority managers in case:
special equipment or remedial actions are needed
injunctions or legal opinions are needed
high level decisions are needed
collect and adequately document all information for use in enforcement or litigation procedures that may be pursued at a
later date.
Frequency of Inspections and Sampling
The Control Authority personnel must determine the frequency with which industrial inspections and sampling will occur. EPA
requires that significant industrial users be inspected and sampled, at a minimum, once a year. It is recommended that the Control
Authority perform two inspections and sampling trips: preferably one scheduled and one unscheduled. However, there are overall
factors to be considered in determining the frequency of sampling and inspections, including:
Page 4 - Narrative ' Modules
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Inspections and PO1W Monitoring
past performance of and compliance by an industrial user
flow and constituents of the industrial user's discharge
extent and number of problems in the collection system and at the treatment plant which are the result of industrial waste
discharges
number and significance of industrial users in the Control Authority's service area
quality of the industrial user data base
proposed methods to update the data base
new or additional pretreatment standards and requirements
seasonal production schedules at an industry
monitoring frequency requirements contained in the Control Authority's approved pretreatment program.
The inspection and sampling frequency described in a Control Authority's approved pretreatment program submission will need
to be evaluated during the implementation phase of the program. Once a history has been established for each industrial user, the
Control Authority can reallocate resources for inspections and sampling to focus on industrial users which have difficulty with
compliance.
Entry Procedures
Section 403.8(f)(1)(v) of 40 CFR requires that Control Authorities have the authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance, and
monitoring procedures necessary to determine, independent of information supplied by the industrial user, compliance with applicable
pretreatment standards and requirements. This authority is required to be at least as extensive as provided in Section 308 of the Clean
Water Act which (CWA) states:
The EPA Administrator or his authorized representative, upon presentation of his credentials shall have a right of entry
to, upon, or through any premises in which an effluent source is located or in which any records required to be maintained
... are located... and may at reasonable times have access to copy any records, inspect any monitoring equipment or
methods... and sample any effluents which the owner or operator of such source is required to sample.'
The authority to enter an industrial facility will normally be contained in the Control Authority's local sewer use ordinance. It is
recommended that the inspector be familiar with the Control Authority's legal authority to enter an industrial facility, so the appropriate
reference can be made during any monitoring visit
Gaining Entrance
When entering an industrial facility the inspector should first identify himself/ herself and present appropriate identification (i.e.,
business card or badge). These credentials indicate that the holder is a lawful representative of the Control Authority who is authorized
to perform pretreatment monitoring activities. The credentials should be presented whether or not identification is requested.
After industrial facility officials have acknowledged the credentials, they may, if they wish, telephone the Control Authority's office
for verification of personnel identification. It is important that the credentials never leave the sight of the inspector.
Module 8 ~ Narrative - Page 5
-------
Inspections and PQTW Monitoring The Pretreatment Training Course
An interview should then be requested with the plant manager, production manager, or equivalent person in authority. The
inspector should explain the purpose of the inspection. If necessary, the manager should contact additional personnel who have a
more thorough knowledge of the workings of the plant to accompany the inspector and answer specific questions.
Consent to inspect and sample on the premises must be given by the owner or operator at the time of the inspection unless a
search warrant has been obtained. As long as the inspector is allowed b enter, entry is considered voluntary and consensual, unless
the inspector is expressly told to leave the industrial premises. Express consent is not necessary; absence of an express denial
constitutes consent
Denial of Entry
The receptiveness of industrial facility officials toward inspectors is likely to vary from facility to facility. Most compliance
monitoring will proceed without difficulty. However, in some cases, officials may be reluctant to give entry consent because of
misunderstandings of responsibilities, inconvenience to a firm's schedule, or other problems that may be resolved by diplomacy and
discussion. A Control Authority should discuss potential scenarios with legal staff and determine and establish appropriate responses,
preferably prior to encountering them.
If the inspector is refused entry into a facility for the purpose of authorized monitoring, certain procedures must be followed. The
following procedures have been developed in accordance with the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Marshal v. Barlow's, Inc.
make certain that all credentials and notices have been properly presented to the facility owner or agent in charge
if entry is not granted, ask why. Tactfully probe the reason for the denial to see if problems (such as misunderstandings)
can be resolved
if entry is stiD denied, the inspector should withdraw from the premises and contact his or her supervisor. The supervisor
may confer with attorneys to discuss the desirability of obtaining an administrative warrant
a! observations pertaining to the denial are to be carefully noted and documented by the inspector as soon as possible.
Include facility name and exact address; name and title of person(s) approached; authority of person(s) who refused entry;
date and time of denial; detailed reasons for denial; facility appearance; and any reasonable suspicions that refusal was
based on a desire to cover up regulatory violations. All such information will be important should a warrant be sought
under no circumstances should the inspector discuss potential penalties or do anything that may be construed as coercive
or threatening
the inspector should use care and discretion to avoid threats of any kind, inflammatory discussions, or deepening of
misunderstandings. In the event of a threatening confrontation, the inspector should document the event and report it
immediately to his or her supervisor. If feasible, statements from witnesses should be obtained and included in the
documentation
The following are some additional situations that the Control Authority may be subject to:
uncredenGaled persons accompanying Control Authority inspector - the consent of the owner or agent in charge must be
obtained for the entry of persons accompanying an inspector to a site if they do not have specific authorization. If consent
is not given voluntarily, these persons may not enter the premises. If consent is given, these persons may not view
confidential business information unless officially authorized for access
waivers, releases, and sign-in bgs - when the facility provides a blank sign-in sheet, log, or visitor register, it is acceptable
for the inspector to sign it Note however, that the inspector should not sign any type of 'waiver' or "Visitor release* that
Page 6-Narrative " " ~ Module B
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Inspections and POTW Monitoring
would relieve the industrial facility of responsibility for injury or which would limit the rights of the Control Authority to use
data obtained from the industry. The inspector should not agree to any such unnecessary restrictions
If such a waiver or release is presented, the inspector should politely explain it cannot be signed and request a blank
sign-in sheet If the inspector is refused entry because of refusal to sign such a release, the inspector should leave and
immediately report all pertinent facts to the appropriate supervisory and/or legal staff. All events surrounding the refused
entry should be fully documented. Problems should be discussed cordially and professionally. Facility officials must not
be subjected to intimidation by the Control Authority's right to inspect
problems with entry or consent- because monitoring may be considered an adversary proceeding by some industries, the
inspector's legal authority, techniques, and competency may be challenged. Facility officials may also display antagonism
towards the inspector. In all cases, the inspector must cordially explain legal authorities and objectives and the reasons
for the protocols followed. If explanations are not satisfactory or disagreements are unresolvable, the inspector should
leave and obtain further direction from the appropriate Control Authority supervisory or legal staff. Professionalism and
politeness must prevail at all times
withdrawal of consent during monitoring - if the industrial facility official asks the inspector to leave the premises after
monitoring has begun, the inspector should leave as soon as possible, following the procedures for denial of entry. All
activities and evidence obtained prior to the withdrawal of consent are valid. The inspector should ensure that all personal
and government equipment is removed from the facility
denial of access to some areas of the Industrial User facility - if, during the course of the inspection or sampling, access
to some parts of the industrial facility is denied, the inspector should document the circumstances surrounding the denial
of access and of the portion of the inspection or sampling that could not be completed. The inspector should then proceed
with the rest of the monitoring and after leaving the facility, contact the Control Authority supervisor to determine whether
a warrant should be obtained to complete the monitoring.
Obtaining Warrants
The inspector may be instructed by Control Authority attorneys, under certain circumstances, to conduct compliance monitoring
under a search warrant A warrant is a judicial authorization for appropriate persons to enter specifically described locations and to
perform specific monitoring functions. It is possible that a pre-inspection warrant could be obtained where there is reason to believe
that entry will be denied when the inspectors arrive at the facility or when inspectors anticipate violations that could be hidden during
the time required to obtain a search warrant The inspectors should discuss various reasons and procedures for obtaining warrants
with the Control Authority attorneys. This prior knowledge of when and how to obtain a warrant will save a great deal of time should
such an event ever become necessary.
Conducting Industrial Inspections
Utilizing the industrial inspection to its fullest capabilities will depend upon the ability of the inspectors to ask the right questions
and to look closely in the appropriate site locations during inspections. This will require inspectors to become thoroughly familiar with
industrial production processes, wastewater sources and treatment technology, as well as with correct inspection procedures and
techniques. The procedures recommended for conducting a thorough inspection are discussed in greater detail below.
In order to ensure that adequate steps are taken to prepare for the inspection and that all necessary information is collected
during the onsite visit a checklist should be developed as a guide for inspectors. The checklist should cover three areas: (1)
preparation for the inspection; (2) conducting the onsite inspection; and (3) follow-up compliance activities. Once inspectors have
conducted several onsite industrial inspections and are familiar with the necessary steps, the checklist would only be necessary for
occasional reference and training of new inspectors.
Module 8 " Narrative - Page 7
-------
Inspections end POTW Monitoring The Preireatment Training Course
Preparation
Prior to going to the industrial facility, the inspector must prepare for the inspection. This includes determining the purpose and
scope of inspections; reviewing the appropriate files; alerting the laboratory if sample analyses will be required; and preparing the
equipment to be used A comprehensive review of the files concerning the industry to be inspected will save much t'me and confusion
in the field and in the office later. Prior to an inspection, it is helpful to review the following material:
existing files for available information about the industry. Information such as plant layouts, process flow diagrams,
compliance schedules, slug discharge control plans (if applicable), and wastewater analytical data should be taken along
during the inspection and verified for accuracy
water and sewer records to determine water usage and verify connection to the sanitary sewer
ftarature about unfamiliar industrial processes which may be encountered. Prepare specific questions to be asked about
these industrial processes. EPA's development documents and guidance manuals contain detailed information on
production processes, wastewater sources and characteristics, and applicable wastewater treatment technologies. Review
of this information will help the inspector better understand the facility during a visit and enable the inspector to ask more
meaningful and pertinent questions
previous enforcement actions which may indicate the industry's compliance status
POTW collection system and/or treatment plant problems.
Scope of an Inspection
Once the inspector has completed the necessary preparations, the inspection process can proceed. The actual inspection is
broken into several phases beginning with a discussion with industry officials. After giving a brief explanation of the industrial pretreat-
ment program, the inspector should obtain a verbal description of the industrial facilities and processes in order to gather as much
information as possible pertaining to industrial waste or waste potential. Questions asked should be based on the date required to
complete the industrial inspection report Presented below is a description of the information which should be collected and
documented during an onsite inspection.
Industry name
site address
correspondence address
contact name, title, and telephone number
year the industry was established onsite
number of employees per shift
applicable Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes
a schematic of the water flow through the industry and the location of all wastewater discharge lines that flow to the POTW
system. The schematic should also include the layout of major plant features
a description of each discharge (including any batch discharges), including the amount, chemical nature, frequency and
destination of each discharge
Page 8 - Narrative Module 8
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Inspections and POTW Monitoring
Ideally, aO wastewater flows should be measured. If measurements cannot be obtained, industry officials should be asked
for the duration of flow to estimate how much wastewater is discharged. Pipe diameter should be noted as well as how
full the pipe is. If the wastestream is uncontaminated water for air conditioners, reactor vessels, or air compressors, the
size of the unit cooled should be noted. As emphasized in the initial interview, the discharge of these flows, whether to
storm drains, combined sewers, sanitary sewers, or streams should be determined. All recirculating systems should be
described. Where the industry has a metered waste flow, readings for a representative period of time should be recorded
as well as any monitored waste parameters such as pH. An attempt should be made to account for all water uses and
losses such as evaporation, loss to product and washwater for the plant Determine if there are batch discharges.
Reactors, plating tanks, and all types of process tanks often contain chemicals which may be periodically discharged.
Metal cleaning solutions are a prime example. The amounts, chemical nature, brand name, and frequency of discharge
are all important If pretreatment of these solutions is practiced (neutralization, etc.), this fact should be noted as well as
the method used to determine that the waste has been pretreated to acceptable levels. How these solutions are fed into
the wastestream (whether gradual or all at once) is significant. If products are of a liquid nature, spoiled batches may be
either discharged or sent out for disposal. This information should be recorded including the name and location of any
disposal service employed. General plant washdown (its frequency and quantity) is also of concern; in many plants the
washdown is the largest and/or most significant discharge
a description and process flow diagram of each major product line and process utilized within the industrial facility,
particularly processes which may be subject to Federal categorical pretreatment standards
the size and shape of all vessels containing liquids should be noted. The proximity of floor drains and type of liquid stored
should also be noted. If the vessels or containers are cleaned, the amount of discharge at the time of cleaning, the
frequency of cleaning, and the methods of cleaning are all important If vessels are not cleaned, this fact should be noted
as well as reasons why cleaning is not necessary
a detailed description and appropriate sketches of existing pretreatment facilities, including operating date, if available.
Note if there is no pretreatment If the industrial facility employs pretreatment of any kind, the process should be described
in detail as well as the final disposal of any removed constituents and sludges. When oil and grease traps are present
(her frequency of deanout and the name and location of the firm employed to clean the traps should be recorded. If stone
chip neutralizing units are used, the maintenance frequency should be noted. Any details pertaining to chemical
pretreatment systems such as analytical date, discharge pH, and method of sludge disposal should be carefully gathered
a list of pollutants of interest at the industrial facility. The list should be divided into two categories: (1) pollutants that come
in direct contact with the water that is discharged to the POTW; and (2) pollutants that do not come in direct contact tut
have a potential to enter the wastewater due to spills or machinery malfunctions
identification of appropriate sampling locations
for industries with nondomestic waste flows, the inspector should determine, during the industrial facility tour, the best points
for samples to be taken. Ideally, the sampling points would be at the end of process streams and before any dilution with
uncontaminated water or domestic waste occurs. The sampling points) should then be noted for future use by sampling
personnel. If the industry itself has taken samples of wastewater for analysis, the location of the points where samples
were taken should be recorded as well as relevant date concerning flow which might contribute to dilution. Also, if no
suitable sampling points are available, the industry should be informed of local regulations which require the construction
of suitable monitoring facilities at the industry's expense
availability of all analytical results performed by the industry. If analyses of wastewater have been performed by the
industry, results of such analyses should be obtained wherever possible
description of sampling and analytical protocols used by industry for results submitted in required reports
proximity of chemical storage to floor drains and whether floor drains discharge to storm or sanitary sewers
Module 8 Narrative - Page 9
-------
Inspections and POTW Monitoring The Pretreatment Training Course
Al liquid storage areas should be examined. The volume of all hazardous chemicals encountered should be listed. Any
floor drains should be noted. If chemicals stored are unknown, the brand name, use, and chemical supplier should be
noted and safety data sheets obtained and/or reviewed. The supplier's address should be noted in case it becomes
necessary to seek data from that source
a description of spill control practices the industry uses, or the stage of implementation of its slug discharge control plan.
Information about the past spills, unusual discharges, or temporary problems with any of the process units that may affect
the wastewater discharge should be included. The inspector may want to request copies of any plans or descriptions of
the devices used to prevent or react to accidental spills for each hazardous substance stored onsite
a description of air pollution control equipment that may generate a wastestream, pollutants which are likely to be found
in the wastestream, or if not discharged to the sewer, the disposal method and location
Equipment installed in the industrial facility for air pollution control may use water. In some industrial facilities, the effluent
from air scrubbing may be the principal waste source and may contain a wide variety of process chemicals which are not
encountered in any other wastestream. Booths for spray painting sometimes use a "water curtain" for fume control. Any
such devices encountered should be described as weD as any pollutants which are likely to be found in the water discharge
from them
a description of how waste residuals (solids) are handled, stored, and/or disposed
many industrial facility processes such as cleaning, degreasing, grinding, or chemical pretreatment produce sludges which
must be disposed. How this occurs, how often, and the quantities involved are all important For example, vapor
degreasers are used for cleaning metal in a wide variety of industrial applications. They almost always produce sludges
and solvent waste, and are usually water cooled, producing a steady stream of uncontaminated cooling water. The
presence of these devices should always be noted as well as appropriate answers to questions concerning the wastes
associated with them. As is the case with batch discharges, any waste disposal service should be recorded. Sludges
which are put in the dumpster should be described
a description of proposed or recent changes to the industry's processes that would affect the discharge characteristics or
sampling locations
a description of any operational problems or shutdowns of pretreatment facilities
identification of specific hazards and establishment of procedures to ensure the safety of Control Authority personnel while
at the industrial facility
other information as may be necessary.
A team of two inspectors may be useful In this case, the report form could be completed by one of the inspectors while the other takes
freehand notes. These will be compared later for consistency and completeness.
Occasionally, difficulties will arise with industries where process information is proprietary. In these cases it is important to
reassure industry officials that the interest is in the waste flows and in possible hazardous materials stored on hand. Details of process
machinery or of proportions of product constituents used are not normally essential. However, it may be necessary to request the
chemical nature of the proprietary material if it is the suspected source of a toxic compound of concern. The Control Authority shall
extend confidentiality of sensitive materials where allowed.
Industrial Facility Tour
After the initial interview, a complete tour of the industrial facility should be taken to visually examine the site. A tour should
always be taken. No interview, no matter how complete, is a substitute for an actual visualization of the waste generating processes
Page 10 - Narrative , Modules
-------
77?e Pretreatment Training Course Inspections end POTW Monitoring
involved. It may be discovered that waste sources have been overlooked simply because industrial facility officials consider them minor.
Some waste sources simply may not be recalled by industrial facility officials until they are seen when touring the operation. The tour
gives an opportunity both to determine details and to reaffirm answers given earlier to significant questions asked in the interview. It
is best to tour the facility in order of production, from raw materials to finished product
Review of Records
Records requred by the permit to be kept at the user's facility should be reviewed. The Control Authority should document what
records were reviewed, and where they found the records to be incomplete and/or inconsistent with those on file at the Control Authority.
Closing Interview
After the industrial facility tour, the inspector may need to request additional information or data. Copies of the local regulations,
pretreatment program information, or RCRA information should be given to the industrial facility officials, if required. Further explanation
of the local pretreatment regulations may be necessary to avoid difficulties which can arise from a misunderstanding of the information.
At this time, the inspector may summarize inspection findings.
Inspections of Industries Which Are Not Connected
Concerns of the inspector when inspecting an industry which is not connected to the sewer system include: (1) the possibility
of connecting in the future; (2) the name of the POTW to which the industry is connected; and (3) the industry's authority (NPDES
permit) to discharge to a natural watercourse. Along the same lines, if the industry requires the cleaning of a gas/oil separator or of
a sludge pit (e.g., laundry settling pits), the name and location of the firm performing this task should be noted. The inspection report
should contain all relevant information, as if the industry were connected to the sewer system.
Industrial Inspection Reports
After the inspector returns to the office, the field notes will be used as the basis for writing an inspection report This is one of
the most crucial points of the whole inspection procedure, yet it is most often the greatest source of problems. The need to write a clear
and concise report which contains pertinent information to be used as a basis for future decisions cannot be stressed enough.
Information should be presented in a neat organized manner. Scattered thoughts, fragmented sentences, bad grammar, and spelling
mistakes erode the credibility of the report Keep in mind that the inspection report will be a permanent record on the industry and may
be reviewed several times for purposes of determining compliance with permit conditions, monitoring and sampling requirements, and
even litigation, if necessary. The report should be factual and contain no subjective opinions concerning the industry's representatives,
employees, processes, or facilities; however, the degree of cooperation of the industry should be noted. All reports should be
completed within 5 working days after completion of the inspection.
If a standardized report form is used, all blanks on the report form should be completed for each facility inspected. If the required
information cannot be obtained, an explanation should be provided in the blank or in the comments section. The data recorded must
be as accurate as possible as it provides most of the basic information about the industry, including correct address and contacts for
future correspondence.
Violations
Inspectors must become very familiar with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements in order to be able to recognize
and document violations during inspections. When direct violations are encountered, the inspector should document such violations.
If the inspector does not have the authority to determine if a particular situation is, in fact a violation, the inspector should document
what appears to be a violation, then refer the matter to the Control Authority official responsible for determining violations. The most
Module 8 Narrative Page 11
-------
Inspections and POTW Monitoring The Pretreatment Training Course
common violations encountered which can be readily detected include caustic and acidic discharges, excessive oil and grease
concentrations, high coloration, and the dumping of viscous substances or solids into the sewers.
Conducting POTW Monitoring
Sampling activities can be performed in conjunction with an inspection or on its own. The purpose of sampling is to evaluate
compliance with applicable effluent limits. As mentioned previously, the frequency of sampling will vary depending on a number of
factors, most often on the industrial user compliance and potential for POTW impact1. Further information on compliance monitoring
can be found in EPA's Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance (July, 1986) and EPA's Interim Guidance for
Performance-Based Reduction ofNPDES Permit Monitoring Frequencies (April 1996).
POTW monitoring of SlUs must be performed annually, at a minimum. To ensure compliance with 40 CFR Part 136 procedures
and protocols and record keeping requirements as detailed in 40 CFR § 403.12(o)(1), and to ensure monitoring is performed with
sufficient care to produce evidence admissible in enforcement proceedings or in judicial actions [40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(vi)], the Control
Authority should develop and utilize standardized forms for the reporting of measurements obtained in the field and for sample handling.
Example Chain of Custody and Field Measurement Record formats are included in the Appendices.
Conclusion
Inspection and monitoring activities performed by a Control Authority are instrumental in determining industrial users' compliance
with imposed regulations and pretreatment standards. Development of standardized procedures and forms for use during inspections
and monitoring activities are the key to ensuring required information and documentation is obtained.
1 For example: amount of available data (historical data); type of facility (toxic vs. conventional wastes discharger); type and
concentrations of poDutants in the discharge; type of discharge (continuous vs. batch); seasonal variations in operations and wastewater
flow, type of production (24-hour operation vs. 8-hour operation, seasonal vs. daily production); past performance of, and compliance
by, an industrial user; potential for impact on POTW/receh/ing stream, etc.
Page 12-Narrative Module 8
-------
* use 24 hour I
POTW/lndWalUser
COC#:
Perrnjt#:
Chain of Custody (COC) Record Form
Permit effective dates: to
Industrial User
Facility Address:
Contact
Phone #:
Sample(s) collected by: (print name)
Sample Information
Sample description and location
(e.g.ww/bipeOOl)
| Lab use only |
time(s)'grab(s)
collected and time*
composite poured
into individual
sample boWes
Type
£
1
Containers)
{
3
volume (ml)
!
Composite samples (refer to the corresponding FMR for more information)
Composite type: (<*<*> on* one)
Composite start date/time*:
Composite end date/time*:
Date sample(s) collected / /
Chemical Preservative
I
j
Sample integrity: (<** one response tor each question end use comments section B proHafW are detected)
Samples received on ice:
Samples properly field preserved:
Zero headspace & teflon septa for volatile organic samples:
Samples in proper containers upon receipt into the lab:
Samples relinquished by whom and their affiliation:
Samples received by whom and their affiliation:
Samples relinquished by whom and their affiliation:
Samples received by whom and their affiliation:
Samples relinquished by whom and their affiliation:
Samples described above received for lab by whom:
yes no n/a
yes no n/a
yes ho n/a
yes no n/a
|
i
|
,
flow time hand
/ / @ :
/ / @ :
Lab use only
Sample collector's signature:
Analyses Requested
t
0
z
&
i
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Mo
Ni
Ag
Zn
oil & grease, t
I
Lab us* only
tsbsamp)9l.0.#
Comments:
on": / / @
on / / @
on / / @
on / / @
on / / @
Lab's State Certification #: on / / @ '
-------
' use 24 hour format
User
Field Measurement Record (FMR) Form
Industrial User
?,i'<. -*.
Corresponding COC Number
Automatic Composite Sampler
Composite type: (cn*> m only)
Sampler programmed by whom:
Programmed start collection date/time*:
Actual Sampler end collection date/time':
Number of aliquots comprising composite:
Programmed pulse or time interval:
Collection bottle chilled during sampling?
Flow Measurement t *3 frfl 1
Meter type(s); JU wastewater , water, in-product)
Meter(s) reporting units: (ie. cf. gallons, ccf)
{lor wastewater
Sampler flow puke every: meters only)
Date/Time* n-r totalizer(s) read initially;
Rnal non-resettable(n-r) totafeer readings:
Initial non-resettable(n-r) totalizer readings:
Interval flow volume in gallons:
N-R totalizers read initially by whom:
Field oH Measurement m K
Date/lime* pH sample collected:
Time* of pH analysis: p Afferent hmcohofaifi)
pH sample collected by and analyzed by:
pH result(S.U.) and sample temperature:
Comment* & Miscellaneous
Upon set up of the automatic sampling equipment for
Day 1 , is the sampler collection bottle and tubing dean?
(write in "yes" or "no") If no, please detail
why in the comments section for Day 1 .
Facility Address:
Dav1
Row / Time
/ / 6 :
/ / 8 :
1 ;
I / 8 :
%. ' ,, "%r
s.u. e »c
Day 4
^
Flow / Timeii
/ / e ;
/ / e :
* M W<
1 1 * :
SH. ..;.. " c H
/ / 9 :
|s '^
i^ Is *
s.a « °c
m *$
Fmal date/time' n-f totalizers read and by whom:
/ / @ : by
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Report/no Requirements
Reporting Requirements
Self-Monitoring Frequency
+ Federal
- 40 CFR §§ 403.12(e), (g) & (h)
+ State
f Local(permit)
CIU/SIU Self-Monitoring Reports
[40 CFR § 403.12(e) & (h)]
+ Nature and concentration of
discharged pollutants
+ Flow/production data
Module 9
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Reporting Requirements
Certification statement
[40 CFR § 403.6(a)(2)(ii)]
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision In accordance with a system designed to
assure that qualified personnel property gather and
evaluate the Information submitted. Based on my inquiry
of the person or persons who manage the system, or
those persons directly responsible for gathering the
Information, the Information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for submitting
false information including the possibility of fines and
Imprisonment for knowing violations.
Signatory Requirements
[40 CFR § 403.12(1)]
+ Responsible corporate officer,
+ General partner or proprietor, or
+ Duly authorized representative
POTW may monitor in lieu
of IU self-monitoring
[40 CFR § 403.12(g)&(h)]
Module 9
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Reporting Requirements
CIU Reports
40 CFR § 403.12
(b) BMRs
required information [§ 403.12(b)(1-7)]
existing sources 180 days
new sources 90 days
(c) Compliance schedule reports
(d) 90 Day compliance reports
40 CFR §403.16
(c) Upset
CIU/SIU Reports
40 CFR § 403.12
(0 Notice of potential problems
(g)(2) Noncompliance notification and
remonitoring
(j) Notice of changed discharge
(p) Notification of discharge of
hazardous waste
40 CFR §403.17
(c) Bypass
Record Keeping Requirements
[40 CFR § 403.12(0)(1)]
All (Us and POTWs subject to reporting must
maintain:
- date, exact place, method, and time of sampling
and the names of the person(s) taking the samples
- the dates the analyses were performed
- who performed the analyses
- the analytical techniques/methods used
-the results of the analyses
Module 9
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Reporting Requirements
Q**M»t
Retention of Records
[40 CFR § 403.12{o)(2) & (3)]
+ Requires both POTWs and (Us
to retain records for at least 3
years.
+ Records must be available for
inspection and copying.
Module 9
Slide Presentation - Page 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Report/no Requirements
POTW Annual Report to
Approval Authority
[40 CFR § 403.12(i)]
+ Updated list of lUs/SIUs/CIUs
+ Summary of IU compliance
4 Summary of POTW enforcement
+ Any other relevant information
+ Signature[40 CFR § 403.12(m)]
Module 9
Slide Presentation Page 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Reporting Requirements
Reporting Requirements
Introduction
40 CFR § 403.12 outlines minimum Federal Pretreatment Prog-am reporting requirements for industrial users and POTWs. Since
Control Authorities are responsible for communicating applicable standards and requirements to industrial users and for receiving and
analyzing reports, ft is essential for Control Authority personnel to understand POTW and industrial user reporting requirements. This
module provides a brief discussion of the reporting requirements contained in the General Pretreatment Regulations.1
Categorical Industrial Users (ClUs) Reporting Requirements
Baseline Monitoring Reports [40 CFR § 403.12(b)1
As a first step in applying categorical pretreatment standards, a Control Authority must have basic data about its industrial
dischargers that are subject to these standards. Section 403.12(b) of the General Pretreatment Regulations requires every existing
industrial user subject b a categorical standard to submit a report within 180 days after the effective date of the standard2. This report
is commonly referred b as the Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR). If a category determination has been requested, the BMR is not
due until 180 days after a final administrative decision has been made concerning the industry's inclusion in the category. The BMR
must contain the following items of information:
name and address of the facility and names of the operator and owners
list of all environmental control permits held by or for the facility
description of operations, including the average rate of production, applicable Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes,
schematic process diagrams, and points of discharge to the POTW from regulated processes
flow measurements for regulated process wastestreams and nonregulated wastestreams, where necessary
pollutant measurements and applicable standards
certification, by a qualified professional, reviewed by a representative of the CIU, of whether applicable pretreatment
standards are being met and, if not a description of the additional operation and maintenance (O&M) or pretreatment
facilities that are needed to comply with the standards
a schedule by which the industrial user will provide the additional O&M or pretreatment needed to comply with the
applicable pretreatment standards.
If a CIU has already submitted the specific information required in a permit application or data disclosure form and this information is
still current, it need not be reproduced and resubmitted in the BMR.
1 Note - States and industrial user permits may require additional reports and/or information from POTWs or (Us.
2 New sources are required to submit the report 90 days prior to commencement of their discharge to the POTW.
Module 9 ~~ Narrative - Page 1
-------
Reporting Requirements The Pretreatment Training Course
Compliance Schedule Progress Reports [40 CFR S 403.12fcV3l|
A CIU who is not in compliance with applicable discharge Omitations will frequently have to make in-plant process changes and/or
install end-ofyipe teatment To address this situation, 40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(iv) requires the Control Authority to develop and impose
a compliance schedule. As part of the BMR, a CIU in noncompliance of standards must present to the Control Authority the shortest
schedule of CIU actions enabling it to meet the applicable categorical standards. For ClUs, the final or completion date in the schedule
must be no later than the final compfiance date specified in the Federally promulgated standards. Compliance schedules are formalized
either in the industrial user's permit frf the compliance date is pending) or a compliance order (if the compliance date has past). Where
reasonable, the Control Authority may require a final compliance date earlier than the Federal standards. If a user must develop a
compliance schedule to meet local Emits, the user should develop a schedule with the Control Authority deciding on the final compliance
date.
Compliance schedules must contain increments of progress in the form of dates (not to exceed 9 months per event) for
commencement and completion of major actions leading to construction and operation of a pretreabnent system and/or in-plant process
modifications9. Major activities could include hiring an engineer, completing preliminary analysis and evaluation, finalizing plans,
executing a contract for major components, commencing construction, completion of construction, or testing operation.
In addition, 40 CFR § 403.12(c)(3) requires that the CIU submit progress report to the Control Authority no later than 14 days
following each date in the compliance schedule (and final date for compliance), which includes:
a statement on the ClU's status with respect to the compliance schedule
a statement on when the CIU expects to be back on schedule if it is falling behind, the reason for the delay and steps being
taken by the industrial user to return to the established schedule.
The Control Authority should review these reports as quickly as possible. When a CIU is falling behind schedule, the Control Authority
should maintain dose contact with the CIU. If the CIU fails to demonstrate good faith in meeting the schedule, the Control Authority
may consider initiating appropriate enforcement action to correct the problem(s).
90-Dav Compliance Reports [40 CFR § 403.12fcfl
Section 403.12(d) of he General Pretreatment Regulations requres ClUs submit a final compliance report to the Control Authority.
Existing ClUs must file a final compliance report within 90 days following the final compliance date specified in a categorical regulation
or within 90 days of the compliance date specified by the Control Authority, whichever is earlier. New source ClUs must file a
compliance report upon commencement of their discharge to the POTW. The Control Authority should notify each of its ClUs of the
requirement for submittal of the final compliance report, and the following necessary contents:
results of sampling the industrial wastestreams for regulated pollutants
average and maximum daily flow for industrial process wastewaters being regulated
a statement of compliance
where necessary, a statement as to whether additional O&M changes and/or pretreatment equipment are needed to bring
the CIU into compliance.
1 Includes pollution prevention activities.
Page 2-Narrative Module 9
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Reporting Requirements
Upset Reports 140 CFR § 403 16)
ClUs are allowed an affirmative defense for noncompliance of categorical limitations if they can demonstrate that the
noncompliance was the result of an upset4. 40 CFR § 403.16 outlines conditions necessary to demonstrate an upset has occurred
which includes providing a report containing the following information:
a description of the indirect discharge and the cause of the noncompliance
the date(s) and times of the noncompliance
steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
The CIU shall submit this information to the Control Authority within 24 hours of becoming aware of the upset9
Categorical and Significant Industrial User Reporting Requirements
Periodic Compliance Reports [40 CFR § 403.12 (e) & (M]
After the final compliance date, ClUs are required to report, at least semi-annually, the self-monitoring results of their wastewater
dscharge(s). The Control Authority must also require semi-annual reporting from SlUs not subject to categorical standards. All results
tor self-monitoring performed must be reported to the Control Authority. A Control Authority may choose to monitor industrial facilities
in lieu of the industrial user doing the self-monitoring.' Periodic compliance reports should include:
nature and concentration of pollutants limited by applicable categorical standards or required by the Control Authority
flow data as required by the Control Authority
mass of pollutants discharged7
production rates'
40 CFR § 403.12(e) and (h) also requires compliance with 40 CFR Part 136. Based on the aforementioned, further information
regarding sample handling and analytical procedures shall be submitted to the Control Authority from the user. Development of
standardized forms for use by users and (her testing labs will facilitate users providing all required information necessary for evaluation
and will streamline reviews performed by both the user and the Control Authority. An example self-monitoring report format is included
in the attachments.
4 Upset is defined as an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with categorical standards
due to factors beyond the reasonable control of the CIU. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational
error, improperly designed or inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
* If the information was provided oraDy, a written submission must be provided to the Control Authority within 5 days of becoming aware
of the upset
6 In this case, self-monitoring reports are not required to be submitted.
7 Applicable to ClUs where mass limitations have been imposed.
' Applicable to ClUs where equivalent limits have been imposed or where limits imposed are expressed in allowable pollutant
discharged per unit of production.
Module 9 Narrative - Page 3
-------
Reporting Requirements The Preireatment Training Course
Bypass f40 CFR S 403.171
The General Pretreatment Regulations define "bypass* as the intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of a users
teatment facility. If the bypass resulted in noncompliance or was not due to essential maintenance to assure efficient operation, the
user must provide a report to the Control Authority detailing the following:
a description of the bypass and the cause
the duration of the bypass
steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass.
Oral notice must be provided to the Control Authority within 24 hours of the detection of an unanticipated bypass, with a written follow-up
due within 5 days. For an anticipated bypass, a user shall submit notice to the Control Authority, preferably 10 days prior to the intent
to bypass.
Notification of Potential Problems f40 CFR S 403.12ffl1
AD industrial users are required to notify the Control Authority immediately of any discharges which may cause potential problems.
These discharges include spills, slug loads, or any other discharge which may cause a potential problem to the POTW.
Noncomplianee Notification MO CFR S 403.12foK2H
If monitoring performed by a user indicates noncompliance, the user is required to notify the Control Authority within 24 hours
of becoming aware of Ihe violation. In addition, the user must repeat sampling and analysis and report back within 30 days. The repeat
sampling is notrequred if the Control Authority samples the industrial user at least once per month or if the Control Authority samples
the industrial user between the time the user originally samples and the time the user receives the results of this sampling.'
Notification of Changed Discharge f40 CFR § 403.12fn1
All industrial users are required to promptly notify the Control Authority prior to changes in their discharge. This notification
includes substantial changes in volume or character, including the list of characteristic hazardous wastes discussed below.
Notification of Discharge of Hazardous Wastes 140 CFR § 403.12foM
Industrial users discharging more than 15 kilograms per month of hazardous wastes or any amount of acutely hazardous wastes
under 40 CFR Part 261 are required to provide a one time written notification of such discharge to the Control Authority, State, and EPA.
This written notification must contain the EPA hazardous waste number and the type of discharge (i.e., batch, continuous). If the
industrial user discharges more than 100 kilograms per month of the hazardous waste, the written notification must also include:
an identification of the hazardous constituent in the industrial user's discharge
an estimate of the mass and concentration of the constituents in the industrial user's discharge in a calendar month
an estimate of the mass and concentration of constituents in the industrial user's discharge in a year.
8 Some POTWs may prohibit waiving the requirement for performing repeat sampling. They reason that for circumstances where
Control Authority monitoring also indicates noncompliance, the user is more likely to quickly resolve their noncompliance if they are
required to incur the costs of repeat sampling.
Page 4-Narrative Module 9
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course . Reporting Requirements
Industrial users must also provide a certification accompanying this notification that a waste reduction program is in place to reduce
the volume and bxicity of hazardous wastes to the greatest degree economically practical. Additionally, within 90 days of the effective
date of the listing of any additional hazardous wastes, industrial users must provide a notification of the discharge of such wastes.
Signatory and Certification Requirements f40 CFR § 403.12fW
Pursuant to 40 CFR § 403.12(1) BMRs, 90-day compliance reports and periodic compliance reports from categorical industrial
users must be signed by an authorized representative of the industrial user and contain a certification statement attesting to the integrity
of the information reported. The reports should be signed as follows:
by a responsible corporate officer if the industrial user is a corporation. A responsible corporate officer includes:
president, secretary, treasurer or vice president of the corporation (or person performing similar functions)
manager of at least one manufacturing, production of operation facility which employs over 250 people or has gross
annual sales or expenditures over $25 million, if signature authority is delegated to the manager
by a general partner or proprietor if the industrial user is a partnership or sole proprietorship
by a duly authorized representative of the above specified persons if such authorization is in writing, submitted to the
Control Authority and specifies a person or position having overall responsibility for the facility where the discharge
originates or having overall responsibility of environmental matters for the facility.
As defined in 40 CFR § 403.6(a)(2)(ii), the certification statement shall be as follows:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and aO attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision
in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible
for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are Significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment for knowing violations.'
Control Authorities may impose these requirements on all industrial users. Regardless, to facilitate compliance, the Control Authority
may develop forms for use by users which includes the certification statement and signatory requirements. An example format that
can accompany a user's self-monitoring report is included in the attachments.
POTW Reporting Requirements
Pursuant to 40 CFR § 403.12(i), the following information shall be provided in a POTW's annual report to the Approval Authority:
an updated list of industrial users, including their names, addresses and applicable standards
a summary of each industrial users compliance status for the reporting period
a summary of compliance, surveillance and enforcement activities performed by the POTW
any other relevant information requested by the Approval Authority.
This report must be signed a person meeting the requirements specified in 40 CFR § 403.12(m). Note that many states and EPA
regions have modified their annual report requirements to include additional information.
Module9 '. Narrative-Page 5
-------
Reporting Requirements The Pretreatment Training Course
Record Keeping Requirements 140 CFR § 403.12(o)|
Industrial users and Control Authorities are required to maintain records of their monitoring activities. Information, at a minimum,
shaO include the following:
sampling methods, dates and times
identity of the person(s) collecting the samples and of the sampling location(s)
the dates the analyses were performed and the methods used
the identity of the person(s) performing the analyses and the results of the analyses.
These records shall be retained for at least 3 years, or longer in cases where there is pending litigation involving the Control Authority
or industrial user, or when requested by the Approval Authority. These records must be made available to the Control Authority and
Approval Authority upon request
Conclusion
The General Pretreatment Regulations outline required reports and minimum contents of such, for both industrial users and
Control Authorities. Different types of users are subject to different reporting requirements, making it necessary for Control Authority
personnel to understand what is required of (her users and communicate those requirements effectively. Development of standardized
formats for use by industrial users facilitates their compliance with reporting requirements and the subsequent review by the Control
Authority.
Page 6 - Narrative Module 9
-------
'use 24 hour format
Permit No.:
Industrial User
Date Samples) Collected:
POTW/Industrial User
Periodic Compliance Report(PCR)
Interval flow volume in gallons:
Corresponding Chain of Custody #:
of
lab
Sample: ID
seeFMR
Parameter
ID
Ammonia as N
BOD-Sday
Cd,T
Cr.T
COD
Cu,T
CyanictyT
Rashpolnt
Pb.T
Hg,T
Mp,T
NIJ
08 & Grease J
Phenol, T
Ag,T
TPH
TSS
Zn,T
PH
Prep
Method
M£&
lt^$
H»i«iti
IC^»;
^8?
^M^
Prep Start
Date/Time*
@
?&:?T\: :.
@
@
5*^«f VX?" * °° % s '&' i "°
- *; -.'^v.^ %< !£ s
Nw .. -^ ^ * $,",; % ff
@
e
^^Hj^EV;
e
e
e
e
|-|M>^^!is
@
6
Fl^^lt';^"-;^-"
^^p^r ^S
@
?M-;\M4^
Analyst's
Initial (prep)
»/
s '^,-i >
. ,S >f.?-. ^
- *»4» $ ^$5 .v
l^v|#-l^
ts^Hil*i
^1^1
s|t? - ^
L;j|!hff
Analytical
Method
Analysis Start
Date/Time*
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
8...
«...
@
f
e
e
e
@
@
@
@
..«
@
@
@
@
Analyst's
Initials
Detection
Umit
mgfl
mg/l
mgfl
mg/l
mg/l
mgfl
mgfl
mgft
rr^t
tsfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
fng/l
mgfl
mgfl
mgd
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Analytical
Result
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgd
»F
mg/f
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
, mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
S.U.
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mgfl
Pounds of
Pollutant (opt.
1
fi ' P
Lab |
Comments j|
'
By signing below t an certifying that I am a Laboratory Supervisor as defined by the State; at the time of analysis a State certification in wastewater analysis was held for each analysis reported as having been performed above;
and except for notations made in the lab comments section above, all authorized analytical procedures and protocols have been utilized. I further certify that all results from the analyses performed on these samples using
approved methodologies and for which a State certification in wastewater analyses is held, are reported above or on the accompanying pagespf any).
Laboratory's Name
State Certification #
Laboratory Supervisor's Name(pnnt)
Laboratory Supervisor's Signature
Date Signed
-------
Industrial User
Periodic Compliance Report(PCR) Certification Form
Permttf
Industrial User!
Sample Date(s):
Monitoring Event Type(s): Q] self-monitoring Q compliance monitoring
(check all that apply) [j| consent order [] compliance order
other: ;
Viplation(s):
The Control Authority was notified of the violation(s) detailed above on / / @, :
via (e.g. phone, voice mail, fax, etc.).
I, ^ (print name), certify under penalty of law that this document and
all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to
assure that qualified personnel property gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry
of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete.
I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines
and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Signature of Company Official Title of Company Official Date Signed
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Data Management and Compliance Evaluation
Data Management
and
Compliance Evaluations
Key Concepts
Thorough documentation is essential
Retain all documents and data (at least
3 years)
Document all activities
Maintain general and facility-specific
files
General Documentation
Regulations
Legal authority
Industrial user classification
Local limits development
Other documentation
Module 10
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Data Management and Compliance Evaluation
Facility-Specific Documentation
Permitting
Application of standards
Industrial user reporting
Monitoring/Inspections
Compliance evaluations
Enforcement
Industrial User Files
+ General facility information
Discharge permits
Monitoring data
Inspection reports
Compliance evaluation conclusions
Enforcement actions
Correspondence, meeting notes, phone
logs
Inspection Documentation
Date and time
Names of inspectors and facility
contacts
Notes on areas inspected
* Identified changes from previous
inspection
Findings from records review
Evaluation of facility plans (e.g., TOMPs,
SPCCs)
Module 10
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Data Management and Compliance Evaluation
Monitoring Documentation
Date, time, and location
Sample type
Characteristics of wastewater
Preservatives used
QA/QC for sampling and analysis
Sampler and custody signatures
Analytical methods
Identification of violations
Enforcement Documentation
Comprehensive explanation of
violation
Assume any action could be used
in an enforcement case
Document ALL actions (includes.
phone calls, meetings, etc.)
Data Tracking
Industrial waste survey
Permit reissuance
IU report due dates
POTW enforcement actions
IU reporting requirements
IU compliance status and violation
dates
Module 10
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Data Management and Compliance Evaluation
Significant Noncompliance (SNC)
Chronic violations
Technical Review Criteria (TRC)
violations
Failure to meet, within 90 days, a
compliance schedule milestone
Failure to submit a report within
30 days of the due date
SNC (continued)
Violation that causes pass-through or
interference
Discharge that causes imminent
endangerment
Failure to accurately report
noncompliance
Other violations that adversely affect
the POTW Pretreatment Program
Chronic and TRC SNC
Calculations
Calculate SNC quarterly
Evaluate daily maximums and long-
term averages
"But I only collected one sample for the
month"
Module 10
Slide Presentation - Page 4
-------
77>e Pretreatment Training Course
Data Management and Compliance Evaluation
Tracking Systems
Manual
Automatic
Standardized forms
Approval Authority Oversight
» EPA or the State WILL review your flies (and
will expect the flies to make sense and
present a clear picture of the chronology of
events)
Expect IU compliance tracking summaries
Expect each violation (reporting and
discharge) to be noted with POTW/1U
response
Anything less will complicate the review
Module 10
Slide Presentation - Pages
-------
TTie Pretreatment Training Course Data Management and CompBance Evaluations
Data Management and Compliance Evaluations
Introduction
A local pretreatment program requires the maintenance of related records in a readily accessible manner for effective program
implementation. The Control Authority should be aware that industrial user records must be retained for a minimum of 3 years and
throughout the course of any ongoing litigation. Use of standardized forms (e.g., inspection questionnaires, chain of custodies, field
measurement records, etc.) and procedures (e.g., sampling, periodic compliance report reviews, etc.) facilitate effective data
management for further ease of tracking and accessibility to data. Control Authorities with more than 20 significant industrial users
should consider automating their industrial user records. Elements that should be considered when designing a data management
system for a local pretreatment program are discussed in this module, but first the importance of documentation.
Documentation. Documentation. Documentation
POTW Pretreatment Program Files
A POTW should maintain files on its pretreatment program, which include:
pretreatment program approval, including modifications
program procedures
local regulations
annual reports to the Approval Authority
Enforcement Response Plan
local limits, including development documentation
Files should also include, but are not limited to containing, copies of NPDES permits for all POTW treatment plants under the POTWs
jurisdiction, current regulations applicable to the pretreatment program1 (e.g., 40 CFR Parts 136,403, and 405-471, State regulations),
aD correspondence to and from the Approval Authority and EPA, and rate and other special studies. Information should be filed in an
orderly manner and be readily accessible for review:
Permittee Files
POTWs are responsible for maintaining files for all permitted lUs. Although the means of accomplishing such is usually at the
discretion of the POTW, permittee files should include all POTW information regarding the user, such as:
permits and fact sheets
permit applications
inspection reports
BMRs, 90-Day Compliance Reports, and Compliance Schedule Reports
ID and POTW monitoring data
required plans (e.g., slug control, sludge management, pollution prevention)
ill correspondence to and from the Permittee
Demonstrating access to regulations via BNA on CD, the Internet, etc. is acceptable.
Module 10 Narrative - Page 1
-------
Data Management and CompBance Evaluations T7ie Pretreafrnerrf Training Course
all enforcement documentation
Phone togs2 should be kept by all pretreatment program personnel. Important conversations with Permittees should be summarized
and included as part of their file. Meetings held should also be summarized in narrative form and included as part of the Permittee's
file.
Tracking
Industrial Waste Surveys
A POTW is required to identify and locate all lUs subject to their program and to provide, in their annual report to the Approval
Authority, a list of all IDs discharging to their system and the standards which apply to each ID's discharge. Therefore, it is essential
that a POTW have a system in place that tracks users identified, justification for their classification (i.e., ID, SIU or CIU), and any other
relevant information (e.g., applications, phone conversations, field verifications). The information should be kept up-to-date and allow
for quick identification of a potential source of a problem at the POTW as well as identify which users may need to be notified in
response to changes in applicable regulations.
Compliance Evaluation
The Control Authority should have a system which alerts pretreatment staff of all pending deadlines for each IU (e.g., self-
monitoring reports, compliance schedule milestones, responses to enforcement action). A good tracking system will facilitate timely
enforcement actions, and potentially prevent noncompliance by an ID.
As part of date tracking, POTWs must evaluate, semi-annualty. whether an ID was in Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) for the
previous six month reporting period. 40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(vii)(A-H)3 defines SNC to be an Ill's violations meeting one or more of the
following criteria:
chronic violations of wastewater discharge limits, defined here as those in which sixty-six percent or more of all of the
measurements taken during a six month period exceed (by any magnitude) the daily maximum limit or the average limit
for the same pollutant parameter
technical review criteria (TRC) violations, defined here as those in which thirty-three percent or more of all of the
measurements for each pollutants parameter taken during a six-month period equal or exceed the product of the daily
maximum Emit or the average Emit multiplied by the applicable TRC (TRO1.4 for BOD, TSS, fats, oil, and grease, and 1.2
for all other pollutants except pH)
any other violation of a pretreatment effluent Omit (daily maximum or long-term average) that the Control Authority
determines has caused, alone or in combination with other dischargers, interference or pass through (including
endangering the health of POTW personnel or the general public)
any discharge of a pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to human health, welfare or to the environment or
has resulted in the POTW's exercise of its emergency authority under 40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B) to halt or prevent such
a discharge
2 Phone logs should include the date and duration(start and stop time) of the conversation, the identify of the person(s) spoken with,
who initiated the phone call, and a summary of what was discussed. Voice mail messages received should be documented in phone
logs as well.
1 On July 24,1990 (55 FR 30082), EPA codified its long-standing definition of significant noncompliance.
Page 2-Narrative Module 10
-------
TTie Pretreatment Training Course Data Management and Compliance Evaluations
failure to meet, within 90 days after the schedule date, a compliance schedule milestone contained in a local control
mechanism or enforcement order for starting construction, completing construction, or attaining final compliance
failure to provide, within 30 days after the due date, required reports such as baseline monitoring reports, 90-day
compliance reports, periodic self-monitoring reports, and reports on compliance with compliance schedules
failure to accurately report noncompliance
any other violation or group of violations which the Control Authority determines will adversely affect the operation or
implementation of the local pretreatment program.
IDs determined to be in SNC are required to be published in the largest local newspaper [40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(vii)).
Tracking Systems
' The number and type of IDs, number and size of the POTW, interjurisdictional relationships, and politics all impact the type of
data management system implemented. Regardless, data management must be conducted in an organized manner. For smaller
programs, use of standardized forms for use by (Us and for use by the POTW to report information to the Approval Authority may be
sufficient to accomplish this. However, for larger or more complex programs, use of existing commercially available off the shelf tracking
systems, or development of a tracking system specific to a POTW's needs, may be necessary.
Conclusion
Documentation and data tracking are an integral part of the pretreatment program. POTWs are responsible for utilizing a data
management system which allows for ready access to and location of records. Management of information can be as simple as color
coding multiple partitioned files to development of a totally comprehensive computer system.
Module 10 ' Narrative Page 3
-------
TTie Pretreatment Training Course Data Management and Compliance Evaluation
Periodic Compliance Report Evaluation Exercise
Bradley & Faulk Metal Finishing (B&F) is a new source metal finisher subject b the 40 CFR Part 433 categorical standards. B&F's
primary business area is nickel/chrome plating, but the facility does occasionally plate other types of metals when requested. The
facility is required, by permit to monitor its process effluent biweekly for all pollutants regulated by the metal finishing standards,
ammonia, and pH and submit the results of this monitoring to the Control Authority monthly consistent with the periodic reporting
requrements specified in 40 CFR §403.12(e). A copy of B&F's self-monitoring report for July 1997 is attached. Please review the report
and note any problems, violations, etc. with the information provided in this report [All of the Control Authority's local limits are less
stringent than the metal finishing categorical standards.]
Supporting materials: 40 CFR §403.12(e) Periodic Reporting Requirements
40 CFR Part 433 Metal Finishing Categorical Standards
40 CFR Part 136 Test Procedures
Deficiencies. Discrepancies, and Problems Noted
1. Certification Form
2. PCR(Dayt)
3. PCR(Day2)
Module 10 Appendix Periodic Compliance Report Evaluation Exercise - Page 1
4. Chain of Custody
Record Forms
5. Field Measurement
Record
-------
Industrial User
Periodic Compliance Report(PCR) Certification Form
Permit* 000
Industrial User: Bradley & Faulk Metal Finishing
Sample Date(s): 07/01/97,07/02/97
Monitoring Event Type(s): [x] self-monitoring Q] compliance monitoring
(check all that apply) Q consent order \^\ compliance order
n other:
Vlolation(s): none/
The Control Authority was notified of the violation(s) detailed above on / / @
via (e.g. phone, voice mail, fax, etc.).
I, _ Patrick Bradley _ (print name) , certify under penalty of law that this document and
all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed
to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gath-
ering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including
the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing violations.
__
Sigr^ture of Company Official Title of Company Official Date Signed
-------
Remit No.: 000
Industrial User Bradley & Fiulk Metal Finishing
Date Sample(s) Collected: 07/01/97
POTW/ Industrial User
Periodic Compliance Report(PCR)
Interval flow volume in gallons: 25000
Page: 1 of 1
Corresponding Chain of Custody fc 0000-07-01-97
Lab
Sample ID
WW97296
WW97296
WW97296
WW97297
WW97296
WW97296
seeFMR
Parameter
ID
Ammonia as N
Cr.VI
Cu,T
Cyanide. T
Ni,T
Ag,T
PH
Prep
Method
350.2
Sec. 4.1.4
Sec. 4.1.4
4500-CN-C
Sec. 4.1.4
Sec. 4.1.4
.
Prep Start
Date/Time
07/04/97 @ 08:00
07/01/97 @ 17:00
07/01/97 @ 17:00
07/06/97 @ 13:00
07/01/97 @ 17:00
07/01/97 @ 17:00
Analyst's
Initials (prep)
JRF
CKC
CKC
CKM
CKC
CKC
Analytical
Method
350.3
218.4
3113B
4500-CN-E
249.2
272.2
150.1
Analysis Start
Date/Time*
07/03/97 @ 18:00
07/10/97 @ 09:30
07/10/97 @ 09:30
07/21/97 @ 08:00
07/10/97 @ 09:30
07/10/97 @ 09:30
07/01/97 @ 07:22
Analyst's
Initials
DHH
MMR
MMR
CKM
MMR
MMR
KM
Detection
Limit
0.1 mg/l
0.03 mg/l
0.03 mg/l
0.01 mg/l
0.02 mg/l
0.03 mg/l
Analytical
Result
20 mg/l
5.4 mg/l
3.0 mg/l
0.06 mg/l
9.5 mg/l
< 0.03 mg/l
4.9 S.U.
Permit
Limits (mg/l)
50
2.77
3.38
1.2
3.98
0.43
5-10 S.U.
Lab
Comments
Date Sample(s) Collected: 07/02/97
Interval flow volume in gallons: 5000
Corresponding Chain of Custody #: 0000-07-02-97
Lab
Sample ID
WW8888
WW97343
WW97343
n/a
WW97343
WW97343
seeFMR
Parameter
ID
Ammonia as N
Cr.VI
Cu.T
Cyanide, T
Ni,T
Ag,T
PH
Prep
Method
350.2
Sec. 4.1.4
Sec. 4.1.4
Sec. 4.1.4
Sec. 4.1.4
-
Prep Start
Date/Time
07/03/97 @ 18:00
07/01/97 @ 17:00
07/01/97 @ 17:00
@
07/01/97 @ 17:00
07/01/97 @ 17:00
;
Analysts
Initials (prep)
JRF
CKC
CKC
CKC
CKC
Analytical
Method
350.3
218.4
3113B
249.2
272.2
150.1
Analysis Start
Date/Time*
07/04/97 @ 08:00
07/10/97 @ 09:30
07/10/97 @ 09:30
@
07/10/97 @ 09:30
07/10/97 @ 09:30
07/02/97 @ 07:18
Analyst's
Initials
DHH
MMR
MMR
MMR
MMR
KM
Detection
Limit
0.1 mg/l
0.03 mg/l
0.03 mg/l
mg/l
0.02 mg/l
0.03 mg/l
Analytical
Result
5 mg/l
1.6 mg/l
1.4 mg/l
mg/l
3.3 mg/l
* 0.03 mg/l
9.8 S.U.
Permit
Limits (mg/l)
50
2.77
3.38
1.2
3.98
0.43
5-10 S.U.
Lab
Comments
By signing below I am certifying that: I am a Laboratory Supervisor as defined by the State; at the time of analysis, a State certification in wastewater analysis was held for each analysis reported as having been performed above;
and except for notations made in the lab comments section above, all authorized analytical procedures and protocols have been utilized. I further certify that all results from the analyses performed on these samples using approved
methodologies and for which a State certification in wastewater analyses is held, are reported above or on the accompanying pagesjif any).
Ace Labs
DC 101
Bert Ace
Laborator/s Name
State Certification #
Laboratory Supervisor's Name(print)
Laboratory Supervisors Signature
-------
POTW/ Industrial User
COC#: 0000-07-02-97
3ermit #; 000
Permit effective dates: 4/3/92
Chain of Custody (COC) Record Form
to 6/30/97
Industrial User Bradley & Faulk Metal Finishing
Facility Address: 830 65th Street, Nowhere, DC 43210
Contact Patrick Bradley
Sample(s) collected by: (p
Phone it:
rHram) fc/rVJ AI<*£'C
Sample Information
Sample desctytion and location
/
/
A*
7
/
/
| Ub UM onl) |
Sample integrity:
cohctad and time
composite poured
into IndMduaJ sample
bottles
01 23
ol 23
OT JL3
Type
}
v^
/
t
202-260-6963
Contamer(s)
|
^
y
/
I
f
500
/ 000
5^60
C
1
/
a
Composite samples (refer to the corresponding FMR for more information)
Composite type: (dnfcoriyone)
Composite start date/bme*:
Composite end data/time*:
Date sample(s) collected: 7/5 / 97
Chemical Preservative
,
«/
I
V
(ctate one nttponM for oach quostxm and un cwnnenti wction if probtems tn dotecled)
Samples received on ice:
Samples property field preserved:
Zero headspace & teflon septa for volatile organic samples:
Samples in proper containers upon receipt into the lab:
Samples relinquished by whom and their affiliation:
Samples received by whom and their affiliation:
Samples relinquished by whom and their affiliation:
Samples received by whom and their affiliation:
Samples relinquished by whom and their affiliation:
Samples described above received for lab by whom:
f^ye?) no n/a
(yeT) no n/a
yes no (n/a,'
(yeiT) no n/a
,
S
s
/
to
?
flow time hand
111 1 97 @ (J7:30
?/ 5 /?7 @ 07:c?/
Lab use only
P.0.#201223
2 week turn-around
requested
Sample collector's signature: \/H( A,-((L-L(JL
Analyses Requested
BOD-Sday
^
£
v/
Z
8
§
/
Cd
V
Cr
Cu
X
Pb
/
Mo
X
Ni
v/
Afl
Zn
v^
8
I
*/
Lib UM only
Lab sample 1.0. #
WLJqi3W3
uWl^ 3>43
00^1344
/
/
/
/
/
/
Comments: y 6Hlo£l,ME DeTECTtP - a^cogftiC aClO GIOWD. ^/jjj
iJ^L- /l/'C < -<^> ,-f-^-^ on T/ d / 97 @ h 00
^- ' on / / @
___- on / / @
____ on / / @
^ 1
T^ // / /'} /") on / / @
J^/'LJ/CX Lab's State Certification*: DC 101 on *} / ,3 /97 @ 15" 00
-------
POTW/ Industrial User
Field Measurement Record (FMR) Form
Industrial User Bradley & Faulk Metal Finishing (Facility Address: 830 65th Street [sampling Location:
Corresponding COC Number
(Automatic Composite Sampler
Composite type: (cntemoriy)
Sampler programmed by whom:
Programmed start collection date/time:
Actual sampler end collection date/time:
lumber of aliquots comprising composite:
Programmed pulse or time interval:
Collection bottle chilled during sampling?
How Measurement
deter type(s): (i.e. wastewater, water, In-product)
Meter(s) reporting units: (i.e. cf.gatons.cct)
Sampler flow pulse every: meters only)
Date/Time n-r totalizers) read initially:
:inal non-resettable(n-r) totalizer readings:
Initial non-resettable(n-r) totalizer readings:
Interval flow volume in gallons:
f R totalizers read initially by whom:
:leldpH Measurement
Date/Time pH sample collected:
Time of pH analysis: fldahnrtfromeotecfontiM)
pH sample collected by and analyzed by:
>H resutt(S.U) and sample temperature:
Comments & Miscellaneous
Upon set up of the automatic samping equipment for
Day 1, is the sampler cotecfion bottle and tubing dean?
no (write In 'vas' or 'no') If no, please detai
why In the comments section for Day 1 .
Dav1
0000-01-0.1-11
(JkH/*) / Time
1C ,Hfl£lF
(f 1 SO/I '7 6 OT : tft
'!> t i^l 6 or? :asr
«K-
to
Lf6
^
uj dfeVdujco^r
lO Q£v>S
lOOac^\S
K Mai? IF
in /q 7 e OT:^6
07 :^ 3L
^ MaRit
4-9 s.u. e ^>b *c
"2nS?
Oav2
OOOO -0') -Q~A -c)7
Flow / Time
^. Mn&E
I/ ( /en e 01 =33
T 5 /T? e o?:i5*
15 *
5
SORT O-F
U»^vOCcW
lO^tiS
\ CO
lOSl^C'O
5^00(^1
i/ Mo^iG
T/3 /S9 e 01 : iff
K.M^it
^.9 s.u e ^0*c
bcittle ^vl^ .Achja'
sump!*"' end (oll?cbai
Dav3
Flow / Time
116:
116:
11%:
116:
s.u. e *c
Dav4
Flow / Time
116:
116:
116:
116:
S.U. « *C
Rnal datenme n-r totabers read and by whom:
T d T? ecn as ^ K.Macie
-------
PART 433METAL FINISHING POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
Subpart AMetal Finishing Subcategory
Sec.
433.10 Applicability; description of the metil finishing
point uurce category.
433.11 Specialized definitions.
433.12 Monitoring requirements.
433.13 Effluent limitation: representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by applying the best
practicable control technology currently available
(BPT).
433.14 Effluent limitations representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by applying the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT)
433.15 Pretreatment standards for existing sources
(PSES).
433.16 New source performance standards (NSPS)
433.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
AUTHORITY: Sees. 301. 304(bX (c). (eX and (gX 306(b)
and (cX 307(b) and (cX 308 and 501 of the Clean Water
Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1971. as amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977) (the "Acf'X 33 U.S.C. 1311. 1314(b) (cX (eX and
(gX 1316(b) and (cX 1317(b) and (cX 1318 and 1361: 86
SlaL 816. Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Slat 1567. Pub. L. 95-217.
SOURCE: 48 FR 32485, Jury 15. 1983. unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart AMetal Finishing
Subcategory
§433.10
.the metal
category.
description of
.ing point source
(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (cX
of this section, the provisions of this subpart apply
to plants which perform any of the following six
metal finishing operations on any basis material:
Electroplating, Electroless Plating, Anodizing,
Coating (chromating, phosphaiing, and coloringX
Chemical Etching and Milling, and Printed Circuit
Board Manufacture. If any of those six operations
are present, then this part applies to discharges
from those operations and also to discharges from
any of the following 40 process operations: Clean-
ing, Machining, Grinding, Polishing, Tumbling,
Burnishing, Impact Deformation, Pressure Defor-
mation, Shearing, Heat Treating, Thermal Cutting,
Welding, Brazing, Soldering, Flame Spraying,
Sand Blasting, Other Abrasive Jet Machining,
Electric Discharge Machining, Electrochemical
Machining, Electron Beam Machining, Laser
Beam Machining, Plasma Arc Machining, Ultra-
sonic Machining, Sintering, Laminating, Hot Dip
Coating, Sputtering, Vapor Plating, Thermal Infu-
sion, Salt Bath Descaling, Solvent Degreasing,
Paint Stripping, Painting, Electrostatic Painting,
Electropainting, Vacuum Metalizing, Assembly,
Calibration, Testing, and Mechanical Plating.
(b) In some cases effluent limitations and stand-
ards for the following industrial categories may be
effective and applicable to wastewater discharges
from the metal finishing operations listed above.
In such cases these part 433 limits shall not apply
and the following regulations shall apply:
Nonferrous metal smelting and refining (40 CFR part
421)
Coil coating (40 CFR part 465)
Porcelain enameling (40 CFR part 466)
Battery manufacturing (40 CFR part 461)
Iron and steel (40 CFR part 420)
Metal casting foundries (40 CFR part 464)
Aluminum farming (40 CFR part 467)
Copper forming (40 CFR part 468)
Plastic molding and forming (40 CFR part 463)
Nonferrous forming (40 CFR part 471)
Electrical and electronic components (40 CFR part 469)
(c) This part does not apply to:
(1) Metallic platemaking and gravure cylinder
preparation conducted within or for printing and
publishing facilities; and
(2) Existing indirect discharging job shops and
independent printed circuit board manufacturers
which are covered by 40 CFR part 413.)
[48 FR 32485. Jury 15. 1983; 48 FR 43682. Sept. 26.
1983; 48 FR 45105. Oct 3. 1983; 51 FR 40421. Nov. 7.
1986]
§433.11 Specialized definitions.
The definitions set forth in 40 CFR part 401
and the chemical analysis methods set forth in 40
CFR part 136 are both incorporated here by ref-
erence. In addition, the following definitions apply
to this part:
(a) The term "T", as in "Cyanide, T", shall
mean total.
(b) The term "A", as in "Cyanide A", shall
mean amenable to alkaline chlorination.
(c) The term "job shop" shall mean a facility
which owns not more than 50% (annual area
basis) of the materials undergoing metal finishing.
(d) The term "independent" printed circuit
board manufacturer shall mean a facility which
manufacturers printed circuit boards principally for
sale to other companies.
(e) The term "TTO" shall mean total toxic
organics, which is the summation of all quantifi-
able values greater than .01 milligrams per liter for
the following toxic organics:
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Bcnzidine
Carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
Chlorobenzene
1,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
1
-------
§433.12
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2,-Dichloroethane
1.1.1-Trtchloroethane
Hexachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1.1.2-Tricbloroelhane
1,1.2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethyi) ether
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
2-Chloronaphthalene
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
Parachlorometa cresol
Chloroform (trichloromethine)
2-Chlorophenol
1.2-Dichlorobenzene
13-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
33-Dichlorobenzidinc
1.1-Dichloioethy lene
1 ,2-Trans-dichlaroethy lene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
13-Dichloropropylene (1.3-dichloropropene)
2,4-DimethyIphcnol
2.4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dffiitrotoluene
1 ,2-Dipheny Ihy drazine
EthylbenzEne
Fluoranthene
4-Chlorophcayl phenyl ether
4-BromophenyI phenyl ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
Methyl chloride (chloromethane)
Methyl bromide (bromomethane)
Bromoform (tribromcmethane)
Dichlorobromomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4.6-Dinitro-o-cresol
N-nhrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
PenUchlorophenol
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
1,2-Benzanthr scene
(benzo(a)anthracene)
Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
3,4-Benzofluoranthene (benzo(b)fluoranthene)
11,12-Benzofluoranthene (benzoOOfluoranthene)
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
1,12-Bauoperylene (benzo(ghi)perylene)
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
1 J.5,6-Dibenzanthncene (diben2o(aji)uithracene)
Indeao(1.23-cd) pyrenc (23-o-phenlene pyrene)
Pyrene
Tetrachloroelhylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
Aldrin
Dieldnn
Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
4.4-D0T
4,4-DDE (p.p-DDX)
4.4-DDD (p,p-TDE)
Alpha-endosulfan
Beta-endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
(BHC-hexachloro-
cyclohexane)
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC
Delta-BHC
(PC8-porychlorinated biphenyls)
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 12S4)
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
Toxapbene
24.7,S-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
[48 FR 32485, Jury IS. 1983; 48 FR 43682. Sept 26,
1983. as amended at 51 FR 40421. Nov. 7. 1986]
§433.12 Monitoring requirements.
(a) In lieu of requiring monitoring for TTO, the
permitting authority (or, in the case of indirect dis-
chargers, the control authority) may allow dis-
chargers to make the following certification state-
ment: "Based on my inquiry of the person or per-
sons directly responsible for managing compliance
with the permit limitation [or pretreaunent stand-
ard] for total toxic organics (TTO), I certify that,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, no dump-
ing of concentrated toxic organics into the
wastewaters has occurred since filing of the last
discharge monitoring report. I further certify that
this facility is implementing the toxic organic
management plan submitted to the permitting [or
control] authority." For direct dischargers, this
statement is to be included as a "comment" on
the Discharge Monitoring Report required by 40
CFR 122.44(iX formerly 40 CFR 122.62(i). For in-
direct dischargers, the statement is to be included
as a comment to the periodic reports required by
-------
§ 433.14
40 CFR 403.12(e). If monitoring is necessary to
measure compliance with the TTO standard, the
industrial discharger need analyse for only those
pollutants which would reasonably be expected to
be present.
(b) In requesting the certification alternative, a
discharger shall submit a solvent management plan
that specifies to the satisfaction of the permitting
authority (or, in the case of indirect dischargers,
the control authority) the toxic organic compounds
used; the method of disposal used instead of
dumping, such as reclamation, contract hauling, or
incineration; and procedures for ensuring that toxic
organics do not routinely spill or leak into the
wastewater. For direct dischargers, the permitting
authority shall incorporate the plan as a provision
of the permit.
(c) Self-monitoring for cyanide must be con-
ducted after cyanide treatment and before dilution
with other streams. Alternatively, samples may be
taken of the final effluent, if the plant limitations
are adjusted based on the dilution ratio of the cya-
nide waste stream flow to the effluent flow.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget
under control number 2040-0074)
[48 FR 32485. July 15. 1983: 48 FR 43682. Sept. 26.
1983. as amended at 49 FR 34823. Sept 4. 1984]
§433.13 Effluent limitations represent-
ing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by applying the best
practicable control technology cur-
rently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 123.32, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of effluent re-
duction attainable by applying the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT):
BPT EFFLUBJT LIMITATIONS
Polutant or pollutant property
Chromium (T)
LeadCH .
Nickel (T)
Silver (T)
Zinc (T)
Cyanide fT)
TTO _
Oil & Grease _
TSS
pH .
Maximum for
any 1 day
Monthly aver-
age shall not
Miigrame per liter (mg/l)
0.69
2.77
3.38
0.69
3.98
0.43
2.61
1.20
2.13
52
60
(')
0.26
1.71
Z07
0.43
2.38
0.24
1.48
0.65
26
31
m
source subject to those limits and the pollution
control authority, the following amenable cyanide
limit may apply in place of the total cyanide limit
specified in paragraph (a) of this section:
Polutant or pollutant property
Cyanide (A)
Maximum for
any 1 day
Monthly aver.
age shall not
exceed
Milligrams per liter (mo/I)
0.86 1 0.32
(c) No user subject to the provisions of this sub-
part shall augment the use of process wastewater
or otherwise dilute the wastewater as a partial or
total substitute for adequate treatment to achieve
compliance with this limitation.
§433.14 Effluent limitations represent-
ing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by applying the best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 12532, any existing point source subject
to this subpart must achieve the following effluent
limitations representing the degree of effluent re-
duction attainable by applying the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT):
BAT EFFUJBJT LIMITATIONS
Polutant or pollutant property
Cadmium (T)
Copper (T) .
Lead (T)
Nickel (T)
Silver (T)
ZinefT)
Cyanide (T) .
TTO
Maximum for
any 1 day
Monthly aver-
age ahall not
exceed
Milligrams per liter (mg/l)
0.69
2.77
3.38
0.69
3.98
0.43
2.61
1.20
2.13
0.26
1.71
2.07
0.43
Z38
0.24
1.48
0.65
(b) Alternatively, for industrial facilities with
cyanide treatment, and upon agreement between a
source subject to those limits and the pollution
control authority, the following amenable cyanide
limit may apply in place of the total cyanide limit
specified in paragraph (a) of this section:
< Within 6.0 to 9.0.
(b) Alternatively, for industrial facilities with
cyanide treatment, and upon agreement between a
Polutant or pollutant property
Cyanide (A)
Maximum for
any 1 day
Monthly aver-
age shall not
oxcood
Mligrams per liter (mo/1)
0.66
0.32
-------
§433.15
(c) No user subject to the provisions of this sub-
part shall augment the use of process wastewater
or otherwise dilute the wastewater as a partial or
total substitute for adequate treatment to achieve
compliance with this limitation.
§433.15 Pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and
403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart
that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned
treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part
403 and achieve the following pretreatment stand-
ards for existing sources (PSES):
PSES FOR Au PLANTS EXCEPT JOB SHOPS
AND INDEPENDENT PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD
MANUFACTURERS
Poiutant or pollutant property
Chromium (T)
Lrad (T)
Nickel (T)
Sfeer (T) . _
Zinc (T)
Cyanide (T)
TTO
Maximum tar
»ny 1 day
Monthly aver-
age shall not
XCeed
Milligram! per (tor (mo/)
0.69
2.77
3.38
0.69
3.98
0.43
2.61
1.20
2.13
0.26
1.71
2.07
0.43
2.38
0.24
1.48
0.65
(b) Alternatively, for industrial facilities with
cyanide treatment, upon agreement between a
source subject to those limits and the pollution
control authority. The following amenable cyanide
limit may apply in place of the total cyanide limit
specified in paragraph (a) of this section:
PoButawit or poiutent property
Cyanide (A)
Maximum for
any 1 day
Monthly aver-
age shall not
QtOOOO
Milligrams per liter (mg/Q
0.86
0.32
(c) No user introducing wastewater pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works under the
provisions of this subpart shall augment the use of
process wastewater as a partial or total substitute
for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with
this standard.
(d) An existing source submitting a certification
in lieu of monitoring pursuant to §433.12 (a) and
(b) of this regulation must implement the toxic or-
ganic management plan approved by the control
authority.
(e) An existing source subject to this subpart
shall comply with a daily maximum pretreatment
standard for TTO of 4.37 mg/1.
(0 Compliance with the provisions of paragraph
(c), (d), and (e) of this section shall be achieved
as soon as possible, but not later than June 30,
1984, however metal finishing facilities which are
also covered by part 420 (iron and steel) need not
comply before July 10, 1985. Compliance with the
provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
shall be achieved as soon as possible, but not later
than February IS, 1986.
[48 FR 32485, Jury 15, 1983, as unaided at 48 FR
41410. Sept 15, 1983; 48 FR 43682. Sept. 26. 1983]
§ 433.16 New source
standards (NSPS).
performance
(a) Any new source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following performance standards:
NSPS
Petulant or pollutant properly
Cadmium (T)
Copper (T)
Lead (T) _
Nickel (T)
Siver (T)
Zinc (T)
Cyanide (T) _
TTO.. ..
Oil and Create
TSS _...
pH
Maximum for
any 1 day
Monthly aver-
age shall not
exceed
Milligrams per liter (mo/1)
0.11
2.77
3.38
0.69
3.98
0.43
261
1.20
2.13
52
60
C1)
0.07
1.71
2.07
0.43
138
0.24
1.48
0.65
26
31
0)
'WHhine.Oto9.0.
(b) Alternatively, for industrial facilities with
cyanide treatment, and upon agreement between a
source subject to those limits and the pollution
control authority, the following amenable cyanide
limit may apply in place of the total cyanide limit
specified in paragraph (a) of this section:
Poiutant or pollutant property
Cyanide (A)
Maximum for
any 1 day
Monthly aver-
age shall not
exceed
Milligrams per tier (mg/l)
0.88
0.32
(c) No user subject to the provisions of this sub-
part shall augment the use of process wastewater
or otherwise dilute the wastewater as a partial or
-------
§433.17
total substitute for adequate treatment to achieve
compliance with this limitation.
[48 FR 32485. July 15. 1983; 48 FR 43682. Sept. 26.
1983]
§433.17 Pretreatment standards for
new sources (PSNS).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any
new source subject to this subpart that introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works
must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve
the following pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS):
PSNS
Polutant or pollutant property
Lead (T) _
Nickel (T)
Silver (T)
Zinc (T)
Cyanide (T) _
TTO
Maximum
for any 1
day
Monthly av-
erage thai
not exceed
Miigraim per liter (mg/l)
0.11
277
3.38
0.68
3.96
0.43
261
1.20
213
0.07
1.71
207
0.43
236
0.24
1.46
0.6S
(b) Alternatively, for industrial facilities with
cyanide treatment, and upon agreement between a
source subject to these limits and the pollution
control authority, the following amenable cyanide
limit may apply in place of the total cyanide limit
specified in paragraph (a) of this section:
Polulant or pollutant property
CvankJe (A)
Maximum
for any 1
day
Monthly av-
erage thai
not exceed
Milligrams per liter (mo/I)
0.66
0.32
(c) No user subject to the provisions of this sub-
part shall augment the use of process wastewater
or otherwise dilute the wastewater as a partial or
total substitute for adequate treatment to achieve
compliance with this limitation.
(d) An existing source submitting a certification
in lieu of monitoring pursuant to §433.12 (a) and
(b) of this regulation must implement the toxic or-
ganic management plan approved by the control
authority.
[48 FR 32485. July 15. 1983; 48 FR 43682. Sept. 26.
1983]
-------
PART 136GUIDELINES ESTABLISH-
ING TEST PROCEDURES FOR THE
ANALYSIS OF POLLUTANTS
See.
136.1 Applicability.
136.2 Definitions.
136.3 Identification of test procedures.
136.4 Application for alternate test procedures.
136.S Approval of alternate test procedures.
APPENDIX A TO PART 136METHODS FOR ORGANIC
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUS-
TRIAL WASTEWATER
APPENDIX B TO PART 136DEFINITION AND PROCEDURE
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE METHOD DETEC-
TION LwrrREVISION 1.11
APPENDDC C TO PART 136INDUCTIVELY COUPLED
PLASMAATOMIC EMISSION SPECTROMETRJC METH-
OD FOR TRACE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF WATER AND
WASTES METHOD 200.7
APPENDDC D TO PART 136PRECISION AND RECOVERY
STATEMENTS FOR METHODS FOR MEASURING MET-
ALS
AUTHORITY: Sees. 301, 304(10. 307 and 501 («X Pub. L.
95-217. 91 SUL 1566. et seq. (33 U.S.C. 1251. et seq.)
(the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977).
§136.1 Applicability.
The procedures prescribed hereto shall, except
as noted in § 136.3, be used to perform the meas-
urements indicated whenever the waste constituent
specified is required to be measured for
(a) An application submitted to the Adminis-
trator, or to a State having an approved NPDES
program for a permit under section 402 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended (CWA),
and/or to reports required to be submitted under
NPDES permits or other requests for quantitative
or qualitative effluent data under parts 122 to 123
of Title 40, and,
(b) Reports required to be submitted by dis-
charges under the NPDES established by parts 124
and 123 of this chapter, and,
(c) Certifications issued by States pursuant to
section 401 of the CWA, as amended.
[38 FR 28758. Oct. 16. 1973. as amended at 49 FR
43250, Oct 26. 1984]
§136.2 Definitions.
As used in this part, the term:
(a) Act means the Clean Water Act of 1977,
Pub. L. 93-217, 91 StaL 1366, et seq. (33 U.S.C.
1231 et seq.) (The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977).
(b) Administrator means the Administrator of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(c) Regional Administrator means one of the
EPA Regional Administrators.
(d) Director means the Director of the State
Agency authorized to carry out an approved Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Pro-
gram under section 402 of the Act
(e) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) means the national system for
the issuance of permits under section 402 of the
Act and includes any State or interstate program
which has been approved by the Administrator, in
whole or in part, pursuant to section 402 of the
Act
(f) Detection limit means the minimum con-
centration of an analyte (substance) that can be
measured and reported with a 99% confidence that
the analyte concentration is greater than zero as
determined by the procedure set forth at appendix
B of this part
[38 FR 28758. Oct. 16, 1973, as amended at 49 FR
43250. OcL 26, 1984]
§136.3 Identification of test proce-
dures.
(a) Parameters or pollutants, for which methods
are approved, are listed together with test proce-
dure descriptions and references in Tables LA, IB,
1C, ID, and IE. The full text of the referenced test
procedures are incorporated by reference into Ta-
bles LA, IB, 1C, ID, and IE. The references and the
sources from which they are available are given in
paragraph (b) of this section. These test procedures
are incorporated as they exist on the day of ap-
proval and a notice of any change in these test
procedures will be published in the FEDERAL REG-
ISTER. The discharge parameter values for which
reports are required must be determined by one of
the standard analytical test procedures incorporated
by reference and described in Tables LA, IB. 1C,
ID, and IE, or by any alternate test procedure
which has been approved by the Administrator
under the provisions of paragraph (d) of this sec-
tion and §§ 136.4 and 136.3 of this part 136.
Under certain circumstances (§ 136.3 (b) or (c) or
40 CFR 401.13) other test procedures may be used
that may be more advantageous when such other
test procedures have been previously approved by
the Regional Administrator of the Region in which
the discharge will occur, and providing the Direc-
tor of the State in which such discharge will occur
does not object to the use of such alternate test
procedure.
-------
TABLE IA.LIST OF APPROVED BIOLOGICAL METHODS
Parameter end unn
Bacterta:
1. Cofiform (fecal) number per
100 mL
mL
3 ColiTonn (total) number per
100 mL
mL
per 100 mL
Aquatic Toxlchy
6 Toxicity acute fresh water
organisms, LCSO, percent
effluent
and marine organisms,
LCSO, percent effluent
6 Toxiciry chronic fresh
and marine organisms,
NOEC or IC25, percent ef-
fluent
MeHWxM
Most Probable Number (MPN), Stub*
3 dilution, or Membrane filter (MF)1, single step
MPN, 5 tube 3 dilution, Of
MF single step1
MPN 5 tuba 3 dilution or .'.
MF' single step or two step ..
MPN 5 tube 3 dilution or
MF1 with enrichment
MPN 5 tube 3 dilution
MF1 or
Daphnta Ceriodaphnla, Fathead Minnow Rainbow Trout Brook
Trout or Bannerfish Shiner mortality.
Sheepshead minnow embryo-larval survival and teratogenfclty
Menidia beryllina larval and growth
Arbacia punctutata fertilization
EPA
p 132'
124*
. 1321
124'
114'
108'
114'
111'
139'
136'
. 143'
Sec. 8'
Sec 9'
10000*
10010*
10020*
1003.0*
10040*
1005.0*
10060*
10070*
10080*
1009.0*
18th Ed.
9221CE4
9221CE4
9221 B4
9222B4
9221B4
9222(B+B5c)4
ASTM
USGS
B-OQ5O-858
B-0025-8S*
B-0055-85'
w
Notes to Table IA:
* The method must be specifledwhen results are reported.
1A 0.45 urn membrane f
growth.
'USEPA. 197a Microbiological Methods (or Monitoring the Environment Water, and Wastes Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/600/8-78/017.
« APHA. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Heath Association. 16th Edition. Amer. Publ. Hlth. Assoc., Washington, DC.
5 USGS. 1989. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 5, Laboratory Analysis, Chapter A4, Methods for Collection and Analysis of Aquatic Biological
and Microbiological Samples, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Interior. Reston, Virginia.
Because the MF technique usually yields low and variable recovery from chlorinated wastewaters, the Most Probable Number method win be required to resolve any controversies.
' USEPA. 1993. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fourth Edition. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. August 1993, EPAmV4-90/Q27F.
-------
Environment!! Mentoring Systems
USEPA. 1994. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxtefty of Effluent! and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Third Edition.
Laboratory, U.S Environmental Protection Agency USEPA. 1894, Cincinnati, Ohio (Jury 1894, EPA/600M-91/002).
Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxidty of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarlne Organisms. Second Edition. Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab-
oratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio (July 1994, EPA/800/4-01/003). These methods do not apply to marine voters of the Pacific Ocean.
TABLE IB.LIST OF APPROVED INORGANIC TEST PROCEDURES
Parameter, unls and method
1. Addity, as CaCO,, mg/L
Election all Ic endpoint or phenolphrjiateln endpolnt
2. Akafinrty, as CaCO,, mg/L:
EnctJUiiietlic or ColorBTtetnc (JU*uo4t to pH 4.5,
manual or automated.
3. Aluminum Total,4 mg/L; Digestion4 Mowed by.
AA direct aspiaton3*
Inductively Coupled Plasma/Atomic Emission Spec-
trometryOCP/AES)".
4. Ammonia (as N). mg/L:
Manual, distiPation (at pH 9.5),* Mowed by
Nesslerlzation
Electrode . .
5. Antimony-Total,' mg/L: Digestion4 followed by:
AA direct aspiration34
ICP/AES"
6. Arsenic-Total,4 mg/L:
Digestion4 followed by .
ICP/AES " or
7. Barium Total,4 mg/L; Digestion4 foDowad by.
AA direct aspiration3*
ICP/AES"
DCP »
S. Berylhim Total,4 mg/L; Digestion4 fotowad by:
AA direct aspiration
ICP/AES
DCP. or
Reference (method number or page)
EPA'*
305.1
310.1
310.2
2021
202.2
'200.7
350.2
350.2
350.2
350.3
350.1
204.1
204.2
»200.7
206.5
206.3
208.2
«200.7
206.4
208.1
208.2
200.7
210.1
210.2
200.7
STD methods
18th ed.
2310 B(4a)
2320 B
3111 D
3113 B
3120 B
3500-AID
4500-NH, B
4500-NH]C
4500-NH, E
4500-NHjForO
4500-NH, H . .
3111 B
3113 B
3120 B
3114 B4d
3113 B
3120 B
3500-As C
3111 D
3113 B
3120 B
3111 D
3113 B
3120 B
ASTM
01087-02
01 087-82
D4190-82(B8)
D1426-83(A) .
D1428-83(B)
D2972-93(B)
D2972-93(C)
D2972-63(A)
D4382-61
D3645-83(88)(A)
03645-93(88)(B)
04190-82(88)
USGS>
M030-85
I-2030-S5
1-3051-85
1-3620-85
M523-85
1-3062-85
1-3060-85
1-3084-85
1-3095-85
Other
873.43.»
Note 34.
973.49.'
873.48.»
Note 7.
Note 34.
Note 34.
tot
p>
w
-------
TABLE IB.LIST OF APPROVED INORGANIC TEST PROCEDURESContinued
Paianiebi, units end method
Cobrimetric (atumlnon) ..
9. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOOi), mg/L:
Dissolved Oxygen Depletion
10. Boron" Total, mg/L
ICP/AES or
DCP
11. Bromide, mg/L
TKrimeUic
12. Cadmium Total,4 mg/L; Digestion4 followed by:
AA direct aspiration1*
ICP/AES u
DCP"
Vottameby "or
Cobrimetric (Dithizone)
13. Calcium Total,4 mg/L; Digestion4 followed by:
AA direct aspiration
ICP/AES .
DCP or . .
14. Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
(CBOD,), mg/L":
Dissolved Oxygen Depletion with nitrification Inhibi-
tor.
IS. Chemical oxygen demand (COD), mg/L; Titrimetric,
or.
16. Chloride, mg/L
17. Chlorine Total residual, mg/L; Titrimetric:
lodometric direct
Back titjation ether end- point15 or
DPD-FAS
Or Electrode
Mowed by:
Reference (method number or page)
EPA"'
405.1
212.3
200.7
320.1
2131
213.2
200.7
215.1
200.7
215.2
410.1
410.2
410.3
410.4
325.3
325.1 or
325.2
330.1
330.3
330.2
330.4
330.5
STO methods
18th ed.
3500-BeD
5210 B
4500-BB
3120 B
3111 BorC
3113 B
3120 B .. ..
3500-CdD
3111 B
3120 B
3500-CaD
5210 B
5220 C . .
5220 D
4500-CI- B
4500-CI- C
4500-CI- E
4500-CI D
4500-CI B
4500-CI C
4500-OF
4500-CI G
ASTM
D41 90-82(88)
D1246-82(88)(C)
D3557-60( A or B)
O3557-eo(D)
D41 90-82(88)
D3557-flO(C)
051 1-63(B)
D511-e3(A)
D1252-88(A)
D1252-88(B)
0512-89(8)
D512-89(A)
01253-86(92)
USGS'
M578-78*
1-3112-85
M12S-85
1-31 35-85 or 1-3136-85
1-1 472-65
1-3152-85
1-3560-65
1-3562-85
1-3561-85
M183-85
M1B4-85
1-1 187-85
l-2187-e5
Other
973.44,> p. 17.»
Note 34
p. S44.<*
974.27.» p. 37.»
Note 34.
Note 34.
973.46.' p. 17.»
Notes 13 or 14.
973.51. >
Note 16.
ten
w
-------
AA chelation-extraction or
Cobrimetric (Diphenylcarbazide)
18. Chromlurn-Total' mg/L; Question' loiowed by:
AA direct aspiration"
AA chelation extraction
ICP/AES"
DCP,»or
Cobrlmetric (Dlphenyfcarbazlde)
20. Cobalt Total,4 mg/L; Digestion' Mowed by:
AA direct aspiration
AAfumaoa ..
ICP/AES
OCP
21. Color platinum eobai units or dominant wavelength,
hue, luminance purity:
Cotorknetric (ADMI) or
Spectiophotometric
22. Copper Total,' mg/L; Digestion' Wowed by:
AA direct aspiration"
ICP/AES"
DCPuor
23. Cyanide Total, mg/L:
Manual distillation with MgCfe followed by
Automated10
24. Cyanide amenable to crilodnatlon.mg/L:
Manual distillation with MgCI> followed by titrimetric
or Spectrophotometric.
25. Fluoride Total, mg/L:
Manual distillation* followed by
Automated
Cotorlmetrlc (SPADNS) :
26. Gold Total' mg/l; Digestion' followed by:
AA direct aspiration
DCP
27. Hardness Total, as CaCO,, mg/L
Titrimetric (EDTA) or Ca phis Mg as their carbon-
ates, by Inductively coupled plasma or AA direct
aspiration. (See Parameters 13 and 33).
28. Hydrogen fon (pH), pH units
218.4
2iai
218.3
2182
200.7
2191
219.2
»2007
1101
1102
1103
2201
220.2
'200.7
113352
"335.3
3351
3402
340.1
3403
231 1
231 2
130.1
1302
3111 C .
3500-CrD
3111 B
3111 C
3113 B
3120 B
3500-CrD
3111 BorC
311S B
3120 B
2120 E
2120 B
2120 C
3111 BorC
3113 B
3120 B
3500-CuD
Or E
4500-CNC
4500-CN D
4500-CN E
4500-CN 0
4500-f B
4500-FC
4500-F D
4500-F E
3111 B
2340 BorC
D1687-82(A)
01887-02(6)
D1 987-92(0)
D41 90-62(88)
D3S58-60(A or B)
D3S58-90(C)
04190-62(88)
D1688-90(A Of B) . .
D1688-90(C)
D4190-62(88)
D2038-91(A)
D2038-91(A)
02036-61 (B)
01179-93(8)
D1179-93(A)
01128-86(92)
1-1 232-65
M 230-85
1-3236-65
1-3239-65
1-1 250-65
1-3270-85 or 13271-85 ..
1-3300-85
1-4327-85
M338-85
974.27.'
Note 34.
p. 37*
Note 34.
Note 16.
974.27' p. 37»
Nots34.
Note 19.
p. 22»
Note 34.
973.52B.'
ten
W
-------
TABLE IB.LIST OF APPROVED INORGANIC TEST PROCEDURESContinued
Parameter, unBs and method
Automated electrode
29. Irklium-Total.' mg/L; Digestion* followed by
AA direct aspiration or
AAfUmace
30. Iron-Total,' mpA: Digestion' Mowed by:
AA direct aspiration"
AA furnace
ICP/AES M
DCP"or _...
Cokxlmetric (Phenanthroline)
31. KjeldaH Nitrogen Total, (as N), rng/L:
Digestion and distillation followed by
Titration
Ness lore atton
Electrode
Semi-automated block digester ootorimatric
Block Digester, folowed by.
Nessterization
Flow Injection gas diffusion
32. LeadTotal,' mg/L; Digestion' followed by
AA furnace
ICP/AES"
OCP"
Cobrimetric (Dithizone)
33. Magnesium Total,' mg/L; Digestion' followed by
AA direct aspiration
ICP/AES
OCP or
34. Manganese Total,' rng/L; Digestion' foDowed by
AA direct aspiration**
ICP/AES"
DCP"Of
Cobrlmetric (Persutfate) or
(Period ate)
35. Mercury-Total,' mg/L:
Reference (method number or page)
EPA'-»
150.1
235.1
235.2
238.1
236.2
»200.7
351.3
351.3
351.3
351.3
351.1
351.2
351.4
239.1
239.2
'200.7
242.1
» 200.7
243.1
243.2
'200.7
STB methods
18th ed.
4500-Ht B
3111 B
3111 BorC
3113 B
3120 B
3500-Fe 0
4500-NH, BorC
4500-NH) E
4500-NH, C
4500-NH, F or O
3111 BorC
3113 B
3120B
3500-PbD
3111 B
3120 B
3SOO-MgD
3111 B
3113 B
3120 B
3500-Mn D
ASTM
D1293-B4(90)(AorB)
D1068-flO(A or B)
Dioea-eoiq
04190-82(88)
D1088-80(D)
D3590-89(A)
D3590-89(A)
D3590-89(A)
D3590-89(B)
D3590-89(A)
D3559-80(A or B)
D355S-eO(D)
04190-82(88)
D3559-eO(q
0511-93(8)
D858-eO(A or B)
O8S8-90(Q
04190-82(88) .
USGS>
M 588-85
1-3381-85
M551-78,
1-3399-85
1-3447-85
1-3454-85
Other
973.41.>
Note 21.
974.27.'
Note 34.
NoteZZ
973.48).
Note 39.
Note 40.
Note 41.
974.27.'
Note 34.
974.27.»
Note 34.
974.27.'
Note 34.
920.203.'
Note 23.
w
p>
w
-------
Cold vapor, manual or
36. Molybdenum Total,4 mg/L; Digestion* followed by:
AA direct aspiration
AA furnace
ICP/AES
DCP
37. Nickel Total,4 mg/L Digestion4 fotowed by:
AA direct aspiration M
AA furnace
ICP/AES"
DCP" or
Cobrtmetrie (heptoclme)
38. Nitrate (as N), mg/L
Cohxbnetrie (Bruclne tuffata), or Nctrate-rttoie N
minus Nitrte N (See parameter* 39 and 40).
30. Nitrate-nitrite (as N), mg/L
Cadmium reduction. Manual or
Automated, or
Automated hydrazfne
40. Nitrite (as N), mg/L. Spectrophotometric
Automated (Diazotization)
41 . Oi and grease Total recoverable, mg/L;
Gravimetric (extraction)
42. Organic carbon Total (TCC), mg/L:
43. Organic nitrogen (as N), mg/L
Total Kjeldahl N (Parameter 31) minus ammonia N
(Parameter 4)
44. Orthophosphate (as P), mg/L Ascorbic acid method:
Automated or
Manual two reagent
45. Osmium Total4, mg/L; Digestion4 Mowed by:
AA direct aspiration or
46. Oxygen, dissobed, mg/L:
Winkter (Azide modification), or
Electrode
47. Palladium-Total.4 mg/L: Digestion4 followed by:
DCP
48. Phenols, mg/L
Manual distillation1' .. .
Followed by:
Colorimetric (4AAP) manual or
Automated "
49. Phosphorus (elemental), mg/L
245.1
2452
248.1
2482
»2007
2491
249.2
»2007
3521
3533
353.2
3531
3541
413.1
4151
3651
3652
365.3
2521
2522
3602
360.1
2531
2532
4201
4201
4202
3112 B
3111 D
3113 B
3120 B
3111 Bor C
3113 B .
3120 B
3500-NID
4500-NCv E
4500-NCv F
4500-NCv H
4500-NOj- B
5520 B"
5310 B C or D
4500-P F
4500-PE
3111 D
4500-O C
4500-OG
3111 B
03223-01
D1888-60(AorB)
D1888-eO(C)
04190-82(88)
D3867-00(B)
D3867-eO(A)
02579-63 (A or B)
0515-68(A)
D888-62(A)
0668-62(8)
I-3462-85
I -3490-85
1-3499-85
1-4545-65
M540-65
1-4601-85
1-1575-78"
1-1578-78'
977.22.»
Note 34.
Note 34.
973.50,' 419 D," p.
28."
Note 25.
973.47,' p. 14."
973.56.'
973.55'.
973.45B.'
p. S27."
p. S28.i«
Note 34.
Note 27.
Note 27.
un
w
p>
-------
TABLE IB.LIST OF APPROVED INORGANIC TEST PROCEDURESContinued
Parameter, units
III
-------
ICP/AES
OCR
83. SodiumTotal4 mg/L; Digestion4 Mowed by
ICP/AES
OCP. of
84. Specific conductance, fnterornhostan at 25 °C:
Wheatstone bridge
65. Sufete (as SO«), mg/L
Automated cobrimetric (barium chloranilate)
Gravimetric
68. Suffide (ai S), mo/L
Titrlmetrie (iodine), or
67. Suffite (as SO,), mg/L:
Titiimetric (todine-iodate)
88. Surfactants, mg/U
Cotofimetric (methytene blue)
89. Temperature, *C:
70. ThalBum Total.4 mg/L: Digestion4 followed by:
AA ditect aspiration . .
ICP/AES or
71. Tin Total,4 mg/L: Digestion4 fotownd by:
ICP/AES
72. Titanium Total,4 mg/U Digestion4 followed by:
AA direct asplraten
DCP
73. Turbidity. MTU:
Nephetometnc
74. Vanadium Total,4 mg/L; Digestion4 followed by:
AAfumaoe
ICP/AES
DCP or
Cobrbnetrlc (Gallic add)
75. Zinc Total,' mg/L; Digestion4 followed by:
AA direct aspiration1'
ICP/AES"
DCP "or
CoterimeWc (DttHzone) or ...
(Zincon)
200.7
2731
200.7
120.1
375.1
3753
3754
376.1
376.2
3771
4251
170.1
2791
2792
2007
2821
2822
200.7
2831
2832
1801
286.1
286.2
200.7
2891
2892
200.7
3120 B
3111 B
3120 B
3500 NaD
2510 B
4500-SV1 C Of D
4500-S-1 E
4500-S-'D
4500-SQr* B
5540 C
2550 B
3111 B
3120 B
3111 B
3113 B
3111 D
2130B
3111 D
3120 B
350O-VD
3111 BorC
3120 B
3500-Zn E
3500-Zn F
01 125-61 (A)
0518-00
02330-88
D1B89-88(A)
03373-03
04190-82(88)
01891-00 (A or B)
04190-82(88)
1-3735-85
M780-85
1-3840-85
(-3850-78*
1-3860-85
1-3900-85
Note 34
973 54 '
Note 34
97340'
92554*
426CM
Note 32.
Note 34
Note 34.
974 27 'p 37
Note 34
Note 33.
vn
tf)
O)
Table IB Notes:
-------
1 "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Cincinnati (EMSL-d). EPA-eOV4-79-020, Re- <*>
vised March 1983 and 1079 where applicable. -»
} Flshman, M.J., et al, "Methods for Analysis of Inorganic Substances In Water and Ruvlat Sediments." U.S. Department of the Interior, Techniques of Water-Resource Investigations of £
the U.S. Geological Survey, Denver. CO. Revised 1689, unless otherwise stated. P
'"Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists," methods manual. 15th ed. (1990). «>
4 For the determination of total metals the sample Is not filtered before processing. A digestion procedure is required to tdubiltze suspended material and to destroy possble organic-metal
complexes. Two digestion procedures are given in "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. 1979 and 1983". One (section 4.1.3), is a vigorous digestion using nitric acid. A
less vigorous digestion using nitric and hydrochloric adds (section 4.1.4) is preferred; however, the analyst should be cautioned that this mild digestion may not suffice for al samples types.
Particularly, I a cdorimetric procedure is to be employed, I Is necessary to ensure that all organo-metallic bonds be broken so that the metal a in a reactive state. In those situations, the
vigorous digestion is to be preferred making certari that at no time does the sample go to dryness. Samples containing large amounts of organic materials may also benefit by this vigorous
digestion, however, vigorous digestion with concentrated nitric add wll convert antimony and tin to Insoluble oxides and render them unavailable for analysis, use of ICP/AES as wrt as de-
terminations for certain elements such as antimony, arsenic, the noble metals, mercury, selenium, silver, tin, and titanium require a modified sample digestion procedure and in all cases the
method write-up should be consulted for specific retractions and/or cautions.
NOTE TO TABLE IB NOTE 4: If the digestion procedure for direct aspiration AA induded In one of the other approved references Is Afferent than the above, the EPA procedure must be
used.
Dissolved metals are defined as those constituents which wll pass through 0.45 micron membrane filter. Following filtration of the sample, the referenced procedure for total metals must
be followed. Sample digestion of the filtrate for dissolved metals (or digestion of the original sample solution for total metals) may be omitted for AA (direct aspiration or graphite furnace)
and ICP analyses, provided the sample solution to be analyzed meets the following critera:
a. has a low COD (<20)
b. Is visibly transparent with a turbidity measurement of 1 NTU or less
c. is colorless with no perceptible odor, and
d. Is of one liquid phase and free of paniculate or suspended matter Mowing acidification.
'The fun text of Method 200.7, "Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometric Method for Trace Element Analysis of Water and Wastes," is given at Appendix C of this Part
Manual distillation Is not requked V comparably data on representative effluent samples are on company file to show that this preliminary distillation step Is not necessary: however,
manual distillation will be required to resolve any controversies.
' Ammonia, Automated Electrode Method, Industrial Method Number 379-75 WE, dated February 19,1976, (Bran & Luebbe (Technlcon) Auto Analyzer II, Bran & Luebbe Analyzing Tech-
nologies, Inc., Elmsford, NY 10523.
The approved method Is that cited In "Methods for Determination of Inorganic Substances In Water and Fluvial Sediments", USGS TWRI, Book 5, Chapter A1 (1979).
American National Standard on Photographic Processing Effluents, Apr. 2,1975. Available from ANSI, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
'"Selected Analytical Methods Approved and Cited by the United States Environmental Protection Agency', Supplement to the Fifteenth Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater (1981).
1' The use of normal and differential pulse voltage ramps to Increase sensHvKy and resolution Is acceptable.
"Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBODi) must not be confused with the traditional BOD> test which measures "total BOD". The addition of the nitrification Inhibitor Is not a
procedural option, but must be included to report the CBODi parameter. A discharger whose permit requires reporting the traditional BOD> may not use a nitrification inhibitor In the proce-
dure for reporting the results. Only when a discharger's permit specifically states CBODj is required can the permittee report data using the nitrification Inhibitor.
"QIC Chemical Oxygen Demand Method, Oceanography International Corporation, 1978, 512 West Loop, P.O. Box 2980, College Station, TX 77840.
"Chemical Oxygen Demand, Method 8000, Hach Handbook of Water Analysis, 1979, Hach Chemical Company, P.O. Box 389, Lcveland, CO 80537.
"The back ttration method wBI be used to resolve controversy.
"Orion Research Instruction Manual, Residual Chlorine Electrode Model 97-70, 1977, Orion Research Incorporated, 840 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02138. The calibration graph
for the Orion residual chlorine method must be derived using a reagent blank and three standard solutions, containing 0.2, 1.0, and 5.0 ml 0.00281 N potassium bdate/100 ml solution, re-
spectively.
"The approved method Is that cited In Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition 1978.
"National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, (Inc.) Technical Bulletin 253, December 1971.
"Copper, Biocinchoinate Method, Method 8506, Hach Handbook of Water Analysis, 1979, Hach Chemical Company, P.O. Box 389, Lovetand. CO 60537.
"After the manual distiBatbn Is completed, the autoanalyzer manifolds in EPA Methods 335.3 (cyanide) or 420.2 (phenols) are simplified by connecting the re-sample Ine directly to the
sampler. When using the mainfold setup shown in Method 335.3, the buffer 6.2 should be replaced with the buffer 7.6 found in Method 335.2.
"Hydrogen ton (pH) Automated Electrode Method, Industrial Method Number 378-75WA, October 1976, Bran & Luebbe (Technicon) Autoanalyzer II. Bran & Luebbe Analyzing Tech-
nologies, Inc., Elmsford. NY 10523.
"Iron, 1.10-Phenanthroline Method. Method 8008.1980, Hach Chemical Company, P.O. Box 389, Lcveland, CO 80537.
"Manganese, Periodate Oxidation Method. Method 8034, Hach Handbook of Wastewater Analysis, 1979, pages 2-113 and 2-117, Hach Chemical Company, Lovetand. CO 80537.
"Wershaw, R.L, et al, "Methods tor Analysis of Organic Substances In Water," Techniques of Water-Resources Investigation of the U.S Geological Survey, Book 5, Chapter A3, (1972
Revised 1987) p. 14.
"Nitrogen, Nitrite, Method 6507, Hach Chemical Company, P.O. Box 389, Lcveland, CO 80537.
n Just prior to distillation, adjust the surfurlc-ecid-preserved sarrmle to pH 4 with 1 + 9 NaOH.
"The approved method is cited in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition. The colorimetric reaction is conducted at a pH of 10.0±0.2. The ap-
proved methods are given on pp 576-61 of the 14th Edition: Method 510A for distillation, Method 510B for the manual colorimetric procedure, or Method 51OC for the manual
spectophotometrie procedure.
-------
"R. F. Addison «nd R.O. Ackman, "Direct Determination ol Elemental Phosphorus by Gas-Uquid Chrometography,- Journal of Chromatography, vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 421-428.1870.
"Approved method! for the analysis of fiber in Industrial wastewaters at concentrations of 1 mart, and above are Inadequate where silver exists as an inorganic haHde. Slver halides
such as the bromide and chloride are relatively Insoluble In reagents such as nitric acid but are readily soluble in an aqueous buffer of sodium thiosulfate and sodium hydroxide to pH of 12.
Therefore, for levels of silver above 1 mart., 20 nt of sample should be diluted to 100 ml by adding 40 mi each of 2 M Na,S,O, and NaOH. Standards should be prepared In the same
manner. For levels of slver below 1 mg/L the approved method Is satisfactory.
"The approved method Is that cited in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15th Edition.
>< EPA Methods 335.2 and 335.3 require the NaOH absorber solution final concentration to be adjusted to 0.25 N before cobrimetric determination of total cyanide.
"Stevens. H.H., Ffcke, J.F.. and Smoot, Q.F., "Water Temperature-Influential Factors. Field Measurement and Data Presentation", Techniques of Water-Resource* Investigations of the
U S Geological Survey Book 1 Chapter D1 1975
'"Zinc, Zincon Method, Method 6009, Hacn Handbook of Water Analysis, 1979, pages 2-231 and 2-333, Hach Chemical Company. Leveland, CO 80537.
w"Oirect Current Plasma (DCP) Optical Emission Spectrometrlc Method for Trace Elemental Analysis of Water and Wastes. Method AES0029," 1886Revised 1991, Fawn Instruments,
Inc., 32 Commerce Center, Cherry Hi) Drive. Oanvers, MA 01823.
"Precision and recovery statements for trie atomic absorption direct aspiration and graphite furnace niettiuds, and for the spectrophotometrlc SOOC method for arsenic are provided in
Appendix 0 of this part tided, "Precision and Recovery Statements for Methods for Measuring Metals".
"^Closed VesselMlcrowave Digestion of Wastewater Samples for Determination of Metals", CEM Corporation, P.O. Box 200, Matthews, NC 28106-0200, April 16,1992. AvalaMe from
the CEM Corporation.
"When determining boron and slica, only plastic. PTFE, or quartz laboratory ware may be used from start until completion of analysis.
" Only the UiOiloronuoioniethane extinction solvent is approved.
"Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl, Method PAI-DK01 (Block Digestion, Steam Distillation, Titrimetric Detection), revised 12/22/94, Perstop Analytical Corporation.
"Nitrogen, Total KeUahl, Method PAI-DK02 (Block Digestion, Steam Distillation. Colorimetric Detection), revised 12/22/84, Perstop Analytical Corporation.
"Nitrogen, Total l^eldahl. Method PAI-DK03 (Block Digestion, Automated FIA Gas Diffusion), revised 12/22/94. Perstop Analytical Corporation.
TABl£ 1C.LIST OF APPROVED TEST PROCEDURES FOR NON-PESTICID6 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1. Acenaphthene
3 Acrotein
4 Acrytonrtrile
7. Benzidine
13 Benzyl chloride
14 Benzyl butyl phthalate
16 Brsp-chtoroethyl) ether
17 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
20 Bromomethane
22. Carbon tetrachtoride
23. *Chtoro-3-methvlphenol
GC
610
610
603
603
610
602
610
610
610
610
610
606
611
611
606
601
601
601
611
601
604
GC/MS
625,1625
625, 1625
4 604, 1624
4 624, 1624
625,1625
624 1624
'625. 1625
625,1625
625,1625
625 1625
625, 1625
625,1625
625,1625
625,1625
625,1625
625,1625
624, 1624
624, 1624
624, 1624
625,1625
624, 1624
625,1625
HPLC
610
610
610
610
605
610
610
610
610
610
EPA method number2 '
Standard method 18th Ed.
6410 B. 6440 B
6410 B, 6440 B
6410 B, 6440 B
6210 B 6220 B
6410 B 6440 B
6410 B. 6440 B
6410 B 6440 B
6410 B 6440 B
6410 B, 6440 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B, 6230 B
6210 B, 6230 B
6210 B, 6230 B
6210 B, 6230 B
6410 B
6230 B, 6410 B
6410 B, 6420 B
ASTM
D4657-02
D4657-82
D4657-62
D4857-02
D4657-42
D4657-62
D4657-82
04657-82
Other
Note 3, p.1.
Note3, p.13ft
Note 6, p.
S102.
Note 3, p.130.
W
O>
Id
-------
TABLE 1C.LIST OF APPROVED TEST PROCEDURES FOR NON-PESTICIDE ORGANIC COMPOUNDSContinued
24 Chlorobenzene
25. Chtoroethane
yi Chtarafnrm
28 Chloromethane
29 2-ChloronapMhalene
30 2-Chlorophenol
35 1 2-Dfchlorobenzene
36 1 3-Dfchlorobenzene
37. 1.4-Diehterobenzene
38. 3, 3-Ofchloroberttidine
39 Dfchlorodifluofomethane
40. 1, 1-Dfchtoroettnne
41 1 2-DJchloioethane
42 1 1-Dichloroethene
43 trans-1 2-Dichloroethene
44 2 4-Dichbraphenol
46 cis-1 3-Dichloropropene
47 trans-1 3-OcNoropropene
48 Diethyl phthalata
49 2 4-Dimettiylphenol
SO Dimethyl phthalate
51 Di-n-butyl phthalate
52 Df-n-octyl phthatate
53 2 3-Dinrtrophenol
54 2 4-Dinitratoluena
55 2 6-DinitratoKiene
57 Ethylbenzena
59 Ruoreno
61 Hacachtorobutadlene
62. Hexachtaiocydopentadlene -
63 Hacachbroettwne
64. Idenofl .2.3-od) nvrene
GC
601, 602
601
601
601
601
612
604
611
610
610
601
601 602 612
601602612
601, 602, 612
601
601
601
601
601
604
601
601
601
608
604
606
603
608
604
609
609
602
610
610
612
612
612
616
610
GC/MS
624, 1624
624, 1624
624 1624
624, 1624
624, 1624
625, 1625
625,1625
624 1624
624, 625, 1625
625, 1625
624, 1624
624, 1624
624, 1624
624, 1824
625, 1625
624, 1824
624. 1624
624, 1624
625,1625
625,1625
625,1625
625, 1625
625, 1625
625,1625
625,1625
624. 1624
625, 1625
625,1625
625, 1625
625, 1625
625, 1625
625,1625
625,1625
HPLC
610
610
605
610
610
610
EPA method number"
StatnoSPu ffiOtnOQ totn Ed.
6210 B 6220 B
8230 B
6210 B 6230 B
6210 B 6230 B
6210 B, 6230 B
6210 B. 6230 B
6410 B
6410 B 6420 B
6410 B
6410 B, 6440 B
6410 B, 6440 B
8210 B 6230 B
6410 B 6230 B, 6220 B
6410 B 6230 B, 6220 B
6410 B. 6220 B, 6230 B
6410 B
6230 B
6230 B, 6210 B
6230 B, 6210 B
6230 B, 6210 B
6230 B, 6210 B
6420 B, 6410 B
6230 B, 6210 B
6230 B, 6210 B
6230 B, 6210 B
6410 B
6420 B, 6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
8420 B, 6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6220 B, 6210 B
6410 B, 6440 B
6410 B, 6440 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B, 6440 B
ASTM
04857-92
D46S7-92
04657-92
04657-92
04657-92
Other
Note 3 p. 130.
Note, p.130.
Note 3. p. 130
Nota6,
P.S102.
(0)
_t
M
pi
w
-------
66. Methykme chloride
67. 2-Methyl-4,6-dinltrophenol
68. Naphthalene
70. 2-Nitrephenol
71 4-Nttrophenol
72 N-NSrosodimethyramlne . ... . .
73. N-Nitrosodi-n-propytamine
74. N-NSrosodiphenylamlne
75. 2,2-Oxybls(1-chbropropane)
76 PCB-1016 .
77 PCB-1221
78 PCB-1232
79 PCB-1242
80 PCB-1248
61 PC8-12S4
82. PCB-1280 .
83 Pentachtorophenol
84 Phenanthrene
85 Phenol
86 Pyrene
88 1 1 2 2-Tetrachloroethane
89 Tetrachbroethene
91 1 2 4-Trfchbrobenzene
92 1 1 1-Trichloroethane
93 1 1 2-Trehtoroethane
94 Trfchtoroethene
98 2 4 6-TrfchtofOphenol
97. Vinyl chloride
601
604
610
609
604
604
607
807
607
611
608
608
608
60S
608
608
80S
604
610
604
610
601
601
602
612
601
601
601
601
604
601
624, 1624
625,1625
625.1825
625,1825
625,1625
625,1625
625,1625
'825,1625
'625,1625
625,1625
625
625
625
625
625
625
625
625,1625
625,1625
625,1625
625,1625
"613
624, 1624
624, 1624
624, 1624
625,1625
624, 1624
824, 1624
624, 1624
624
625,1625
624, 1624
610
610
610
6230 B
6420 B, 6410 B
8410 B, 6440 B
6410 B
6410 B, 6420 B
8410 B, 6420 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B
6410 B, 6630 B
6410 B, 6830 B
6410 B, 6440 B
6420 B, 6410 B
6410 B. 6440 B
6230 B, 6210 B
6230 B, 6210 B
6210 B, 6220 B
6410 B
8210 B. 8230 B
6210 B, 8230 B
6210 B, 8230 B
6210 B, 6230 B
6410 B, 6240 B
6210 B, 8230 B
04657-92
D4875-92
Note 3, p. 130.
Note 3, p. 43;
noteS.
Note 3. p. 43;
noteS.
Note 3, p. 43;
noteS.
Note 3, p. 43;
noteS.
Note 3, p. 43;
noteS.
Note 3, p. 43;
noteS.
Note 3, p. 43;
noteS.
Note 3, p.140.
Note 3. p. 130.
Note 3, p.130.
Note 3. p.130.
Note 3, p.130.
Table 1C notes:
1 AU parameters are expressed In micrograms per liter ftig/l).
'The lull text of Methods 601-613, 624, 625, 1824, and 1625, ire given at appendix A, 'Test Procedures tor Analysis of Organic Polutants," of this part 136. The standardized test pro-
cedure to be used to determine the method detection liml (MOL) for these test procedures is given at appendix B, "Definition and Procedure tor the Determination of the Method Detection
Limit" of this part 136.
'"Methods for Benzidlne: Chlorinated Organic Compounds, Pentachbrophenol and Pesticides in Water and Wastewater," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September, 1978.
4 Method 624 may be extended to screen samples tor Aorolein and Acrylonitrie. However, when they are known to be present, the preferred method for these two compounds Is Method
603 or Method 1624.
' Method 625 may be extended to Include benzldine, hexachlorocyclopentadlene, N-nltrosodimethylamine, and N-nitrosodiphenylamine. However, when they are known to be present,
Methods 605, 607, and 612, or Method 1625, are preferred methods for these compounds.
'625, Screening only.
M
O>
W
-------
"Selected Analytic*! Methods Approved and Cted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency", Supplement to the FReenth Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Whitewater (1981).
' Each Analyst must make an Initial, one-time demonstration of their abUtty to.generata acceptable precision and accuracy with Methods 601-603. 624, 625.1624. and 1625 (See Appen-
dix A of this Part 138) h accordance wth procedures each In section 6.2 of each of these Methods. AddBonaly, each laboratory, on an on-going basis must spike and analyze 10% (5% for
Methods 624 and 625 and 100% for methods 1624 and 1625) of all samples to monitor and evaluate laboratory data quality In accordance with sections 8.3 and 6.4 of these Methods.
When the recovery of any parameter fals outside the warning limits, the analytical results for that parameter in the unspiked sample are suspect and cannot be reported to demonstrate reg-
ulatory compBance.
NOTE These warning limits are promulgated as an "Interim final action with request for comments."
"Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBi in Wastewater Using Empore TM Disk", 3M Corporation Revised 10/28/94.
TABLE ID.LIST OF APPROVED TEST PROCEDURES FOR PESTICIDES '
tot
.4
M
O>
W
Parameter
1 AUrki
4 Atraton
5 Atiazhe
8 o-BHC
9 P-BHC
10 8-BHC
11 8-BHC (Undane)
12 Captan
13 Carbaryl
15 Chlordane
17 24-0
18 4 4'-ODO
19 44'-DDE
20 44'-OOT
21 Demeton-O
23 Oiazinon
24. Dicamba
Method
GC
GC/MS
GC
TLC
GC
GC
GC
TLC
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC
TLC
GC
GC
GC/MS
TLC
GC
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC
GC
GC
EPA"
608
625
608
»625
608
»825
608
"625
606
625
608
625
608
625
608
625
608
625
Standard methods
18th Ed.
6630 B & C
8410 B
6630B&C
6410 B
6630 C
6410 B
6630 C
6410 B
6630B&C .
6410 B .
8830 B
6630B&C
6410 B
6640 B _
6630 B&C
6410 B
6630 B&C
6410 B
6630 B&C
6410 B
ASTM
03086-90
D3086-90
03086-90
03086-00
03086-90
03086-90
D3088-90
03086-40
03086-90
Other
Note 3, p. 7; note 4, p 30- note 8.
Note 3 p 83' Note 6 p S68
Note 3 p 94- Note 6 p S16.
Note 3 p 83' Note 6 p S68
Note 3 p 83; Note 6 p S88.
Note 3 p 25- Note 6 p SS1.
Note 3 p 104- Note 6 p S64.
Note 3 p 7' note 8
Note 6.
NoteS
Note 3, p 7- note 4 p 30- note 8
Note 3 p 7
Note 3 p. 94- Note 6 p S60.
Note 4 p 30' Note 6 p S73
Note 3, p. 7; note 8.
Note 3 p 104- Note 6 p SB4
Note 3 p 115' Note 4 p 35
Note 3, p. 7; note 4, p. 30; note 8.
Note 3, p. 7; note 4, p. 30; note 8.
Note 3 p 7' note 4 p 30' note 8
Note 3 p 25' Note 6 p S51
Note 3 p 25- Note 6 p S51.
Note 3, p. 25' Note 4 p 30, Note 6 p S51
Note 3, p. 115.
-------
25 DldUflfflJ itfduu
26 Diohlonui
27. Dicofel
28 DleUrin
29 Dknathbn
30 DtaJltoton
31. Oiuron
33 Endosutan II
34 Endosufan Sulfate
35. Endrin
38 Endrin aldehyde
37. Ethbn _
39 Fenuron-TCA
40 Heptachlor
41 Heptachlor epoxlde
42 liodrin
43 Unuron
44 Mabttiton
45 Methtocarb
48 Methoxyohtor
47 Mexacatbate
48 Mirex
51 Nuburon
52 Parathbn methyl
53 Parathfan ethyl . ....
54 PCNB
55 Perthane
57 Prometryn
58 Prepazlne . . ..
59 Propham
81. Secbumeton
GC
GC
GC
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC
TLC
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC
TLC
TLC
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC
GC
GC
TLC
GC
TLC
GC
TLC
TLC
TLC
GC
GC
GC
GC
GC
GC
GC
TLC
TLC
TLC
608
625
808
825
608
'625
608
625
608
'625
608
625
608
625
608
625
6830B&C
8830B&C
6410 B
6630 B&C ... .
8410 B
6630 B&C
6410 B
6630 C
8410 B
6630 B&C
8410 B
6630B&C
6410 B
6630B4C
6410 B
8630 C
6630B&C
6630 B&C
6630 C
6630 C
6630B&C
03086-90
03086-90
03088-90
O3086-90 . .
03086-90
03086-90
03086-90
03086-90
Note 4, p. 30; Note 6, p. S73.
Note 3, p. 7.
Note 3, p. 7; note 4, p. 30; note 8.
Note 4, p. 30; Note 6, p. S73.
Note 3, p. 25; Note 6, p. S51.
Note 3, p. 104; Note 6, p. S84.
Note 3, p. 7; note 8.
Note 3, p. 7) note 8.
NoteS.
Note 3, p. 7; note 4, p. 30; note 8.
NoteS.
Note 4, p. 30; Note 6. p. S73.
Note 3, p. 104; Note 8, p. S64.
Note 3, p. 104; Note 6, p. S64.
Note 3, p. 7; note 4, p. 30; note 8.
Note 3, p. 7; note 4, p. 30; note 6, p. S73; note
8.
Note 4. p. 30; Note 6, p. S73.
Note 3. p. 104; Note 6, p. S64.
Note 3, p. 25; Note 4. p. 30; Note 6, p. S51.
Note 3, p. 94; Note 6, p. S60.
Note 3, p. 7; note 4, p. 30; note 6.
Note 3, p. 94; Note 8, p. S60.
Note 3, p. 7.
Note 3. p. 104; Note 8. p. S64.
Note 3. p. 104; Note 6. p. S84.
Note 3, p. 104; Note 6, p. S64.
Note 3, p. 25; Note 4, p. 30.
Note 3, p. 25.
Note 3, p. 7.
Note 3, p. 83; Note 6,
Note 3, p. 83; Note 6,
Note 3. p. 83; Note 6.
Note 3. p. 104; Note 8 p.
Note 3, p. 94; Note 6,
Note 3, p. 83; Note 8,
.568.
.see.
S64.
.560.
S68.
p>
w
-------
TABUE ID.LIST OF APPROVED TEST PROCEDURES FOR PESTICIDES 1Continued
Parameter
62. Siduron
63. Simazlne
64 Stnoane
65. Swep
66 2,4 S-T
67. 2.4 5-TP (SDVex)
68. Terbuthybzhe
69. Toxaphene
70. Trtluraln
Method
TLC
GC
GC
TLC
GC
GC
GC
GC
GC/MS
GC
EPA"
608
625
Standard methods
18th Ed.
6630B&C
6840 B
6640 B
6830 B 4 C
6410 B
6630 B
ASTM
03086-00
Other
Note 3 p 104' Note 6 p S64
Note 3 p 83' Note 6 p S68
Note 3 7
Note 3 104' Note 6 p S64
Note 3 115' Note 4 p 35
NoteS 115
Note 3 63- Note 6 p 568
Note 3 7- note 4 p 30- note 6
Note 3, p. 7.
(0)
W
O)
Table ID notes:
< Pestiddes are toted in this table bya
1 The ful text of Methods 608 and 62S are given at Appendbt A. 'Test Procedures for Analysis of Organic Pollutants,'
TO tor the convenience of the reader. Additional pesticides may be found under Table 1C, where entries are listed by chemical name.
_ it Appendix A. 'Test Procedures for Analysis of Organic Pollutants," of this Part 136. The standardized test procedure to be used to de-
termine the method detection limit (MDL) for these test procedures Is given at Appendix B. "Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method Detection Limit", of this Part 136.
'"Methods for BenzWine. Chlorinated Organic Compounds, Pentachlorophenol and Pesticides In Water and Wastewater," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September, 1978. This
EPA publication Includes thin-layer chromatography (TLC) methods.
"Methods for Analysis of Organic Substances in Water and Fluvial Sediments," Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 5. Chapter A3 (1887).
'The method may be extended to Include o-BHC, j-BHC, endosullan I, endosurfan II, and endrin. However, when they are known to exist. Method 608 is the preferred method.
"Selected Analytical Methods Approved and Cited by the United States Environmental Protection Agency." Supplement to the Fifteenth Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater (1981).
' Each analyst must make an Initial, one-time, demonstration of their abiBty to generate acceptable precision and accuracy with Methods 608 and 625 (See Appendix A of this Part 136) In
accordance with procedures given in section 8.2 of each of these methods. Additionally, each laboratory, on an-ooing basis, must spike and analyze 10* of all samples analyzed with Meth-
od 608 or 5% of all samples analyzed with Method 625 to monitor and evaluate laboratory data quality in accordance with Sections 8.3 and 8.4 of these methods. When the recovery of any
parameter fans outside the warning limits, the analytical results for that parameter in the unspiked sample are suspect and cannot be reported to demonstrate regulatory compliance. These
quality control requirements also apply to the Standard Methods, ASTM Methods, and other Methods cited.
NOTE These warning limits are promulgated as an "Interim final action with a request for comments."
1 "Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs In Wastewater Using Empore Disk", 3M Corporation, Revised 10/28/94.
TABLE IE.LIST OF APPROVED RADIOLOGC TEST PROCEDURES
Parameter and units
1 Alpha-Total pCI per Her
3 Beta-Total pCI per liter
5 (a) Radium Total pCI per liter
(b)Ra, pClperltor
Melhod
Proportional or sdntilation counter
Proportional or scintilation counter
Scintillation counter
Reference (method number or page)
EPA'
900
900.0
Appendix B
803.0
903.1
Standard meth-
ods 18th Ed.
7110 B
7110B
7110 B
7110B
7500RaB
7500RaC
ASTM
D1 943-90
01943-80
01 890-80
01890-80
02460-90
03454-41
USGSJ
pp. 75 and 78.'
P. 79.
pp. 75 and 78.'
p. 79.
p. 81.
Table IE notes:
i Prescribed Procedures for Measurement of Radioactivty In Drinking Water," EPA-600/4-80-032 (1980), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1980.
'Frshman. M.J. and Brown, Eugene," Selected Methods of the U.S. Geological Survey of Analysis of Wastewators," U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 76-177 (19761.
The method found on p. 75 measures only the dissolved portion while the method on p. 78 measures only the suspended portion. Therefore, the two results must be addea to obtain the
"totar.
-------
§136.3
(b) Hie full texts of the methods from the fol-
lowing references which are cited in Tables IA,
IB, 1C. ID, and IE are incorporated by reference
into this regulation and may be obtained from the
sources identified. All costs cited are subject to
change and must be verified from the indicated
sources. The full texts of all the test procedures
cited are available for inspection at the Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King
Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268 and the Office of the
Federal Register, room 8301, 1110 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20408.
REFERENCES, SOURCES, COSTS, AND TABLE
CITATIONS:
(1) The full text of Methods 601-613, 624, 625,
1624, and 1623 are printed in appendix A of this
part 136. The full text for determining the method
detection limit when using the test procedures is
given in appendix B of this part 136. The full text
of Method 200.7 is printed in appendix C of this
part 136. Cited in: Table IB, Note 5; Table 1C,
Note 2; and Table ID, Note 2.
(2) USEPA. 1978. Microbiological Methods for
Monitoring the Environment, Water, and Wastes.
Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cin-
cinnati. Ohio. EPA/600/8-78/017. Available from:
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, Publ.
No. PB-290329/AS. Cost S36.95. Table IA, Note
3.
(3) "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-600/4-79-020, March 1979, or
"Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA-600/4-79-020, Revised March 1983. Avail-
able from: ORD Publications, CERL U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio
45268, Table IB, Note 1.
(4) "Methods for Benzidine, Chlorinated Or-
ganic Compounds, Pentachlorophenol and Pes-
ticides in Water and Waste water," U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1978. Available from:
ORD Publications, CERL, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, Table 1C,
Note 3; Table D. Note 3.
(5) "Prescribed Procedures for Measurement of
Radioactivity in Drinking Water," U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, EPA-600/4-80-032,
1980. Available from: ORD Publications, CERI,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45268, Table IE. Note 1.
(6) American Public Health Association. 1992.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater. 18th Edition. Amer. Publ. Hlth.
Assoc., 1015 15th Street NW, Washington, DC
20005. Cost: S160.00. Table IA, Note 4.
(7) Ibid, 15th Edition, 1980. Table IB, Note 30;
Table ID.
(8) Ibid, 14th Edition, 1975. Table IB, Notes 17
and 27.
(9) "Selected Analytical Methods Approved and
Cited by the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency," Supplement to the 15th Edition of
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, 1981. Available from: American
Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street
NW., Washington, DC 20036. Cost available from
publisher. Table IB, Note 10; Table 1C, Note 6;
Table ID, Note 6.
(10) Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Water
and Environmental Technology, Section 11, Vol-
umes 11.01 and 11.02, 1994 in 40 CFR 136.3, Ta-
bles IB, 1C, ID and IE.
(11) USCS. 1989. U.S. Geological Survey
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations,
Book 5, Laboratory Analysis, Chapter A4, Meth-
ods for Collection and Analysis of Aquatic Bio-
logical and Microbiological Samples, U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Reston, Virginia. Available from: USGS Books
and Open-File Reports Section, Federal Center,
Box 25425, Denver, Colorado 80225. Cost:
$18.00. Table IA, Note 5.
(12) "Methods for Determination of Inorganic
Substances in Water and Fluvial Sediments," by
M.J. Fishman and Linda C. Friedman, Techniques
of Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Ge-
ological Survey, Book 5 Chapter Al (1989).
Available from: U.S. Geological Survey, Denver
Federal Center. Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225.
Cost: $108.75 (subject to change). Table IB, Note
2.
(13) "Methods for Determination of Inorganic
Substances in Water and Fluvial Sediments,"
N.W. Skougstad and others, editors. Techniques of
Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Book 5, Chapter Al (1979). Avail-
able from: U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Fed-
eral Center, Box 25425. Denver. CO 80225. Cost
$10.00 (subject to change). Table IB, Note 8.
(14) "Methods for the Determination of Or-
ganic Substances in Water and Fluvial Sedi-
ments," Wershaw, R.L., et al. Techniques of
Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Book 5, Chapter A3 (1987). Avail-
able from: U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Fed-
eral Center, Box 25425. Denver, CO 80225. Cost
$0.90 (subject to change). Table IB, Note 24;
Table ID, Note 4.
(15) "Water TemperatureInfluential Factors,
Field Measurement and Data Presentation," by
H.H. Stevens, Jr., J. Ficke, and G.F. Smoot, Tech-
niques of Water-Resources Investigations of the
17
-------
§136.3
U.S. Geological Survey, Book. 1, Chapter Dl,
1975. Available from: U.S. Geological Survey,
Denver Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO
80225. Cost: SI.60 (subject to change). Table IB,
Note 32.
(16) "Selected Methods of the U.S. Geological
Survey of Analysis of Waste waters," by M.J.
Fishman and Eugene Brown; U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Open File Report 76-77 (1976). Available
from: U.S. Geological Survey, Branch of Distribu-
tion, 1200 South Eads Street, Arlington, VA
2220Z Cost: $13.50 (subject to change). Table IE,
Note 2.
(17) "Official Methods of Analysis of the Asso-
ciation of Official Analytical Chemicals", Meth-
ods manual, 15th Edition (1990). Price: $240.00.
Available from: The Association of Official Ana-
lytical Chemists, 2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite
400. Arlington, VA 22201. Table IB, Note 3.
(18) "American National Standard on Photo-
graphic Processing Effluents," April 2, 1975.
Available from: American National Standards In-
stitute, 1430 Broadway, New York. New York
10018. Table IB, Note 9.
(19) "An Investigation of Improved Procedures
for Measurement of Mill Effluent and Receiving
Water Color," NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 253,
December 1971. Available from: National Council
of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improve-
ments, Inc., 260 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10016. Cost available from publisher. Table IB,
Note 18.
(20) Ammonia, Automated Electrode Method,
Industrial Method Number 379-75WE, dated Feb-
ruary 19. 1976. Technicon Auto Analyzer II.
Method and price available from Technicon Indus-
trial Systems. Tarrytown, New York 10591. Table
IB. Note 7.
(21) Chemical Oxygen Demand, Method 8000,
Hach Handbook of Water Analysis, 1979. Method
price available from Hach Chemical Company,
P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado 80537. Table
IB, Note 14.
(22) QIC Chemical Oxygen Demand Method,
1978. Method and price available from Oceanog-
raphy International Corporation, 512 West Loop.
P.O. Box 2980. College Station, Texas 77840.
Table IB, Note 13.
(23) ORION Research Instruction Manual, Re-
sidual Chlorine Electrode Model 97-70, 1977.
Method and price available from ORION Research
Incorporation, 840 Memorial Drive, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02138. Table IB, Note 16.
(24) Bicinchoninate Method for Copper. Method
8506, Hach Handbook of Water Analysis, 1979,
Method and price available from Hach Chemical
Company, P.O. Box 300, Loveland, Colorado
80537. Table IB, Note 19.
(25) Hydrogen Ion (pH) Automated Electrode
Method, Industrial Method Number 378-75WA.
October 1976. Bran & Luebbe (Technicon) Auto
Analyzer II. Method and price available from Bran
& Luebbe Analyzing Technologies, Inc. Elmsford.
N.Y. 10523. Table IB, Note 21.
(26) 1,10-Phenanthroline Method using
FerroVer Iron Reagent for Water, Hach Method
8008, 1980. Method and price available from
Hach Chemical Company, P.O. Box 389
Loveland, Colorado 80537. Table IB, Note 22.
(27) Periodate Oxidation Method for Man-
ganese, Method 8034, Hach Handbook for Water
Analysis, 1979. Method and price available from
Hach Chemical Company, P.O. Box 389,
Loveland, Colorado 80537. Table IB, Note 23.
(28) Nitrogen, NitriteLow Range,
Diazotization Method for Water and Wastewater,
Hach Method 8507, 1979. Method and price avail-
able from Hach Chemical Company, P.O. Box
389, Loveland, Colorado 80537. Table IB, Note
25.
(29) Zincon Method for Zinc, Method 8009.
Hach Handbook for Water Analysis, 1979. Method
and price available from Hach Chemical Com-
pany, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado 80537.
Table IB. Note 33.
(30) "Direct Determination of Elemental Phos-
phorus by Gas-Liquid Chromatography," by R.F.
Addison and R.G. Ackman, Journal of Chroma-
tography, Volume 47, No. 3. pp. 421-426, 1970.
Available in most public libraries. Back volumes
of the Journal of Chromatography are available
from Eisevier/North-HoUand, Inc., Journal Infor-
mation Centre, 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York,
NY 10164. Cost available from publisher. Table
IB, Note 28.
(31) "Direct Current Plasma (DCP) Optical
Emission Spectrometric Method ' for Trace Ele-
mental Analysis of Water and Wastes", Method
AES 0029, 1986-Revised 1991. Fison Instruments.
Inc.. 32 Commerce Center, Cherry Hill Drive,
Danvers. MA 01923. Table B. Note 34.
(32) "Closed Vessel Microwave Digestion of
Wastewater Samples for Determination of Metals.
CEM Corporation, P.O. Box 200. Matthews, North
Carolina 28106-0200, April 16, 1992. Available
from the CEM Corporation. Table IB, Note 36.
(33) "Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs in
Wastewater Using Empore Disk" Test Method
3M 0222, Revised 10/28/94. 3M Corporation, 3M
Center Building 220-9E-10, St. Paul, MN 55144-
1000. Method available from 3M Corporation.
Table 1C, Note 8 and Table ID, Note 8.
(34) USEPA 1993. Methods for Measuring the
Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Ma-
rine Organisms. Fourth Edition, December 1993.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
18
-------
§136.3
Ohio (EPA/600/4-90/027F). Available from: Na-
tional Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Publ.
No. PB-91-1676SO. Cost $31.00. Table IA, Note
17. See changes in the manual, listed in Part V of
this rule.
(35) "Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl, Method PAI-
DK01 (Block Digestion, Steam Distillation,
Titrimetric Detection)", revised 12/22/94. Avail-
able from Perstorp Analytical Corporation, 9445
SW Ridder Rd., Suite 310, P.O. Box 648,
Wilsonville, OK 97070. Table IB, Note 39.
(36) "Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl, Method PAI-
DK02 (Block Digestion, Steam Distillation, Col-
orimetric Detection)", revised 12/22/94. Available
from Perstorp Analytical Corporation, 9445 SW
Ridder Rd, Suite 310, P.O. Box 648, Wilsonville,
OK 97070. Table IB, Note 40.
(37) "Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl, Method PAI-
DK03 (Block Digestion, Automated FIA Gas Dif-
fusion)", revised 12/22/94. Available from
Perstorp Analytical Corporation, 9445 SW Ridder
Rd., Suite 310, P.O. Box 648, WilsonviUe. OK
97070. Table IB, Note 41.
(38) USEPA. 1994. Short-term Methods for Es-
timating the Chronic Toxichy of Effluents and Re-
ceiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Third
Edition. July 1994. Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. (EPA/600/4-91/
002). Available from: National Technical Informa-
tion Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161, Publ. No. PB-92-139492. Cost:
S31.00. Table IA, Note 8.
(39) USEPA. 1994. Short-term Methods for Es-
timating the Chronic Toxichy of Effluents and Re-
ceiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Orga-
nisms. Second Edition, July 1994. Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/
600/4-91/003. Available from: National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, Publ. No. PB-92-
139484. Cost: S45.00. Table LA, Note 9.
(c) Under certain circumstances the Regional
Administrator or the Director in the Region or
State where the discharge will occur may deter-
mine for a particular discharge that additional pa-
rameters or pollutants must be reported. Under
such circumstances, additional test procedures for
analysis of pollutants may be specified by the Re-
gional Administrator, or the Director upon the rec-
ommendation of the Director of the Environmental
Monitoring Systems LaboratoryCincinnati.
(d) Under certain circumstances, the Adminis-
trator may approve, upon recommendation by the
Director, Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab-
oratoryCincinnati, additional alternate test pro-
cedures for nationwide use.
(e) Sample preservation procedures, container
materials, and maximum allowable holding times
for parameters cited in Tables IA. IB, 1C. ID, and
IE are prescribed in Table II. Any person may
apply for a variance from the prescribed preserva-
tion techniques, container materials, and maximum
holding times applicable to samples taken from a
specific discharge. Applications for variances may
be made by letters to the Regional Administrator
in the Region in which the discharge will occur.
Sufficient data should be provided to assure such
variance does not adversely affect the integrity of
the sample. Such data will be forwarded, by the
Regional Administrator, to the Director of the En-
vironmental Monitoring Systems LaboratoryCin-
cinnati, Ohio for technical review and rec-
ommendations for action on the variance applica-
tion. Upon receipt of the recommendations from
the Director of the Environmental Monitoring Sys-
tems Laboratory, the Regional Administrator may
grant a variance applicable to the specific charge
to the applicant. A decision to approve or deny a
variance will be made within 90 days of receipt of
the application by the Regional Administrator.
TABLE IIREQUIRED CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES, AND HOLDING TIMES
Parameter No ./name
Table lA-Bacteria Tats:
1-4 CoWorm, fecal and total
Table IA Aquatic T«erty Test*
6-10 Toxicity. acute and chronic - _..
Table IB-4norganie Tests:
1 Acidity
7 Akainly
4 Ammonia -
8. Biochemical oxygen demmd .
10. Bonn
11. Bromide _ _.
15. Chemical oxygen demand _ -.
18 Chloride _. . _.
17. Chlorine, total residual
Container1
p,G
P.G . ...
P.O
p. o _
P, O
P. G
p. G _
P PFTE. or
Quartz.
p. G _
p G
P, G
p, G
P. G
Preservation"
Cool, 4C, 0.008% NaAO, > ...
Cool, 4C, 0.008% NajSiQi > ...
Cool, 4C» _ _
Cool 4°C . ...
do
Cool, 4-C, HjSO, to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
HNOi TO pH<2
None required
Cool, 4«C .. ..
Cool, 4°C, HjSO, to pH<2
None required .. _..
do
Maximum holding bme<
6 hours.
Shows.
6 hours.
14 day*.
Da
28 day*.
48 hour*.
28 days.
48 hours.
28 days.
Da
Analyze immediately.
19
-------
§136.3
TABLE IIREQUIRED CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES, AND HOLDING TIMESContinued
Ptrsmotef No./n3rno
21 Color _ _.
23-24. Cyanide, total and amenable to
clMonnAuon,
25 Fluoride
27 Hardness
28 Hydrogen ion (pH) _
31 43 IQeldahl and organic nlrogan
Metals?
18 Chromium VI
35 Mercury . -.
3. 5-8. 12. 13. 19, 20. 22. 26. 29. 30. 32-34.
36. 37. 45, 47. 51. 52. 58-60. 62. 63, 70-72.
74, 75. Metals, except boron, chromium VI
and mercury.
38 Nitrate _
39 Nitrate-nitrite _ _ _
40 Nitrite
41 Ol and great*
42. Organic Carbon ... _
44. Ortnophosphata ..._ _
46 Oxygen, Dfesorved Probe
47. WMder _ _.
48. Phenols
48 Phosphorus (elemental) .
53. Residue, total _ _
54 Residue Filterable
55. Residue Nonfittarable (TSS) ._
56 Residue SettteaMe
57 Residue vobtito
61 Sica
65 Sufata
66 Sufide
67 Sufite
69. Temperature _
73 Turbidity
Table 1C Organic Tests*
13. 16-20. 22. 24-28, 34-37, 39-43, 45-47.
56, 66, 88. 89, 92-05, 97. Purgeable
Hatocarbons.
6, 57, 60.' PufflOflbiQ uonutic nyorocevfaons .....
3 4. AcroWn and acrylonitrie
23. 30, 44, 40. 53. 67. 70. 71. 83. 85, 96.
Phenols".
7 38 Genuine*11
14 17 48 50-^2. Phthatata esters"
72-74 Nrtroumim*"-"
76-82. PC8s» eoytontoite
54. 55, 65, 69. Nttoaromatics and tsophorone»
1. 2. 5. 8-12. 32, 33. 58, 59, 64, 68. 84. 86.
15. 16. 21. 31. 75. Habethers"
29 35-37 60-63, 91. Chbritatad hydro-
carbons11.
87 TCDD"
TaMe ID Pesticides Testa:
1-70. Pesticides1'
Container1
P, G
p. Q _.
p
P, G _
p G _
P, G ._
P G
P. G
P, G
P. G
P, G
G
pt o
P, G
G Bottle and
top.
do
G
P, G
p, G
P G
P G
P, G
P G ...
P PFTE. or
Quartz.
p, G
p, G -
P G
P G
P G
P. Q
P G
G, Tedon-
lined sep-
tum.
do
_....do
G. Teflon-
lined cap.
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
do
Preservation"
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4-C, NaOH to pH>12,
0.6g ascorbic acid «.
HNO, to pH<2, HjSO« to pH<2
Cool, 4°C, HjSO. to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
HNOj to pH^
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C, HjSO, to pH<2
Coot 4«C
Cool to 4*C, HCI or H2SO< to
pH<2.
Cool to 4 *C HCI or H.SO4 or
H,PO4, to pH<2.
Fiter immediately, Cool. 4°C
Cool, 4°C HiSQj to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C, HjSO< to pH<2
Cool 4°C _
do
do
do _
. . do
Coo1. 4°C
do _
do
Cool 4*C add zinc acetate
plus sodium hydroxide to
pH>9.
Cool, 4-C
Cool, 4*C
Cool, 4°C. 0.008% Na>S,O>.»
Cool, 4«C. 0.008% NajSiOjS.
HC1 to DH21.
Cool, 4°C 0.008% NaaSiOi9;
Adjust pH to 4-5".
Cool, 4«C, 0.008% Naj&CV
do
Cooi 4°C
Cool, 4*C, store in dark.
0.008% NajSjO,'.
Cool, 4"C
Cool. 4°C. 0.008% Na,SaO,>
store in dark.
do -
Cool, 4-C. 0.008% Na,S,Oi>
Cool 4°C
Cool, 4°C 0 008% NsoSaOj'
Cool. 4°C. pH 5-9"
Maximum holdirtg time4
48 hours.
14 days*
6 months.
28 days.
24 hours
48 hours.
28 days.
48 hours.
28 days.
28 days.
48 hours.
Analyze immediately
Bhours.
28 days
48 hours
28 days.
7 days.
7 days
7 days
48 hours.
7 days.
28 days
Do.
Da
7davs.
Analyze rnmediatety
48 hours
Analyze.
48 hours
14 days.
Do.
Do.
7 days until wdivcljofi,
40 days after extrac-
tion.
7 days until extraction "
40 days after extrac-
tion.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do
Do.
20
-------
§136.4
TABLE llREQUIRED CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES, AND HOLDING TIMESContinued
Parameter No/name
Table IE Radiological Tests:
1-6. Alpha, beta and radium
Container1
P, G
Preservation"
HNO, to pH«2
Maximum holding time4
6 months.
Table II Notes
'Polyethylene (P) or glass (G). For microbiology, plastic sample containers must be made of steriiizable materials (poly-
propylene or other autodavable pbstic).
' Sample preservation should be pel (mined imm
mediately upon sample collection. For composite chemical samples each aliquot
should be preserved at the time of collection. When use of an automated sampler makes it impossible to preserve each aliquot,
then chemical samples may be preserved by maintaining at 4°C until compositing and sample splitting is completed.
'When any cample is to be shipped by common earner or sent through the United States Mails, t must comply with the De-
partment of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 172). The person offering such material for transpor-
tation is responsible for ensuring such compliance. For the preservation requirements of Table II, the Office of Hazardous Mate-
rials, Materials Transportation Bureau, Department of Transportation has determined that the Hazardous Materials Regulations
do not apply to the tallowing materials: Hydrochloric acid (HO) in water solutions at concentrations of 0.04% by weight or less
(pH about 1.96 or greater): Nitric acid (HNO,) in water solutions at concentrations of 0.15% by weight or less (pH about 1.62 or
greater); Sulfuric acid (HjSO,) in water solutions at concentrations of 0.35% by weight or less (pH about 1.15 or greater); and
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) In water solutions at concentrations of 0.060% by weight or less (pH about 1230 or less).
4 Samples should be analyzed as soon as possible after collection. The times listed are the maximum times that samples may
be held before analysis and still be considered valid. Samples may be held for longer periods only if the permittee, or monitoring
laboratory, has data on file to chow that for the specific types of samples under study, the analytes are stable for the longer time,
and has received a variance from the Regional Administrator under § 136.3(e). Some samples may not be stable for the maxi-
mum time period given in the table. A permittee, or monitoring laboratory, is obligated to hold the sample for a shorter time if
knowledge exists to show that this is necessary to maintain sample stability. See § 136.3(e) for details. The term "analyze imme-
diately" usually means within 15 minutes or less of sample collection.
'Should only be used in the presence of residual chlorine.
Maximum holding time is 24 hours when sulfide is present Optionally all camples may be tested with lead acetate paper be-
fore pH adjustments in order to determine if sulfide is present If sulfide is present, it can be removed by the addition of cadmium
nitrate powder until a negative spot test is obtained. The sample is filtered and then NaOH is added to pH 12.
' Samples should be filtered immediately on-site before adding preservative for dissolved metals.
Guidance applies to samples to be analyzed by GC, LC, or GC/MS for specific compounds.
Sample receiving no pH adjustment must be analyzed within seven days of sampling.
'The pH adjustment is not required if acrolein will not be measured. Samples for acrotein receiving no pH adjustment must be
analyzed within 3 days of campling.
"When the extractable analytes of concern fall within a single chemical category, the specified preservative and maximum
holding times should be observed for optimum safeguard of sample integrity. When the analytes of concern fall within two or
more chemical categories, the sample may be preserved by cooling to 4°C, reducing residual chlorine with 0.008% sodium
thbsuVata, storing in the dark, and adjusting the pH to 6-8; samples preserved in this manner may be held for seven days be-
time procedure are noted
(re the analysis of benzi-
fore extraction and for forty days after extraction. Exceptions to this _r.. ,
in footnote S (re the requirement for thiosulfate reduction of residual chlorine), and footnotes 12, 1
dine).
"If 1,2-diphenylhydrazine is ikely to be present, adjust the pH of the sample to 4.0±0.2 to prevent rearrangement to benzt-
dine.
"Extracts may be stored up to 7 days before analysis if storage is conducted under an inert (oxidant-free) atmosphere.
"For the analysis of diphenyMtrosamine, add 0.008% NajSjO, and adjust pH to 7-10 with NaOH within 24 hours of sanv
"the pH adjustment may be performed upon recent at the laboratory and may be omitted if the samples are extracted wHhn
72 hours of collection. For the analysis of aldrin. add 0.008% Na2S,O,.
"Sufficient ice should be placed with the samples in the shipping container to ensure that ice is still present when the sam-
ples arrive at the laboratory. However, even if ice is present when the samples arrive, it is necessary to immediately measure the
temperature of the samples and confirm that the 4C temperature maximum has not been exceeded. In the isolated cases where
it can be documented that this holding temperature can not be met. the permittee can be given the option of on-site testing or
can request a variance. The request lor a variance should include supportive data which show that the toxiciry of the effluent
samples is not reduced because of the increased holding temperature.
[38 FR 28758, Oct 16, 1973. as amended at 41 FR
52781. Dec. 1. 1976; 49 FR 43251. 43258. 43259.
Oct 26, 1984; JO FR 691. 692. 695. Jan. 4. 1985;
51 FR 23693. lime 30, 1986; 52 FR 33543. Sept
3. 1987; 55 FR 24534. June 15. 1990; 55 FR
33440. Aug. 15. 1990; 56 FR 50759. Oct 8. 1991;
57 FR 41833. Sept 11. 1992; 58 FR 4505, Ian.
31. 1994; 60 FR 17160. Apr. 4. 1995; 60 FR
39588, 39590. Aug. 2. 1995; 60 FR 44672. Aug.
28. 1995; 60 FR 53542. 53543. Oct 16, 1995]
§136.4 Application for alternate test
procedures.
(a) Any person may apply to the Regional Ad-
ministrator in the Region where the discharge oc-
curs for approval of an alternative test procedure.
(b) When the discharge for which an alternative
test procedure is proposed occurs within a State
having a permit program approved pursuant to
section 402 of the Act, the applicant shall submit
his application to the Regional Administrator
through the Director of the State agency having
responsibility for issuance of NPDES permits
within such State.
(c) Unless and until printed application forms
are made available, an application for an alternate
test procedure may be made by letter in triplicate.
Any application for an alternate test procedure
under this paragraph (c) shall:
(1) Provide the name and address of the respon-
sible person or firm making the discharge (if not
the applicant) and the applicable ID number of the
existing or pending permit, issuing agency, and
type of permit for which the alternate test proce-
dure is requested, and the discharge serial number.
21
-------
§136.5
(2) Identify the pollutant or parameter for which
approval of an alternate testing procedure is being
requested.
(3) Provide justification for using testing proce-
dures other than those specified in Table I.
(4) Provide a detailed description of the pro-
posed alternate test procedure, together with ref-
erences to published studies of the applicability of
the alternate test procedure to the effluents in
question.
(d) An application for approval of an alternate
test procedure for nationwide use may be made by
letter in triplicate to the Director, Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio 43268. Any application for an alternate test
procedure under this paragraph (d) shall:
(1) Provide the name and address of the respon-
sible person or firm making the application.
(2) Identify the pollutants) or parameters) for
which nationwide approval of an alternate testing
procedure is being requested.
(3) Provide a detailed description of the pro-
posed alternate procedure, together with references
to published or other studies confirming the gen-
eral applicability of the alternate test procedure to
the pollutants) or parameters) in waste water dis-
charges from representative and specified indus-
trial or other categories.
(4) Provide comparability' data for the perform-
ance of the proposed alternate test procedure com-
pared to the performance of the approved test pro-
cedures.
[38 FR 28760. Oct. 16, 1973, as amended at 41 FR
S278S. Dec. 1. 1976]
S 136.5 Approval of alternate test pro-
cedures.
(a) The Regional Administrator of the region in
which the discharge will occur has final respon-
sibility for approval of any alternate test procedure
proposed by the responsible person or firm making
the discharge.
(b) Within thirty days of receipt of an applica-
tion, the Director will forward such application
proposed by the responsible person or firm making
the discharge, together with his recommendations,
to the Regional Administrator. Where the Director
recommends rejection of the application for sci-
entific and technical reasons which he provides,
the Regional Administrator shall deny the applica-
tion, and shall forward a copy of the rejected ap-
plication and his decision to the Director of the
State Permit Program and to the Director of the
Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora-
tory, Cincinnati.
(c) Before approving any application for an al-
ternate test procedure proposed by the responsible
person or firm making the discharge, the Regional
Administrator shall forward a copy of the applica-
tion to the Director of the Environmental Monitor-
ing and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati.
(d) Within ninety days of receipt by the Re-
gional Administrator of an application for an alter-
nate test procedure, proposed by the responsible
person or firm making the discharge, the Regional
Administrator shall notify the applicant and the
appropriate State agency of approval or rejection,
or shall specify the additional information which is
required to determine whether to approve the pro-
posed test procedure. Prior to the expiration of
such ninety day period, a recommendation provid-
ing the scientific and other technical basis for ac-
ceptance or rejection will be forwarded to the Re-
gional Administrator by the Director of the Envi-
ronmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati. A copy of all approval and rejection
notifications will be forwarded to the Director, En-
vironmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, for the purposes of national coordina-
tion.
(e) Approval for nationwide use. (1) Within 60
days of the receipt by the Director of the Environ-
mental Monitoring Systems LaboratoryCin-
cinnati (EMSL-CI) of an application for an alter-
nate test procedure for nationwide use, the Direc-
tor of EMSL-CI shall notify the applicant in writ-
ing whether the application is complete. If the ap-
plication is incomplete, the applicant shall be in-
formed of the information necessary to make the
application complete.
(2) Within 90 days of the receipt of a complete
package: EMSL-CI shall perform any analysis
necessary to determine whether the alternate meth-
od satisfies the applicable requirements of this
part; and the Director of EMSL-CI shall rec-
ommend to the Administrator that he/she approve
or reject the application and shall also notify the
applicant of such recommendation.
(3) As expeditiously as practicable, an alternate
method determined by the Administrator to satisfy
the applicable requirements of this part shall be
proposed by EPA for incorporation in subsection
136.3 of 40 CFR part 136. EPA shall make avail-
able for review all the factual bases for its pro-
posal, including any performance data submitted
by the applicant and any available EPA analysis of
those data.
(4) Following a period of public comment, EPA
shall, as expeditiously as practicable, publish in
the FEDERAL REGISTER a final decision to approve
or reject the alternate method.
[38 FR 28760. Oct. 16. 1973, is amended at 41 FR
52785. Dec. 1. 1976; 55 FR 33440, Aug. 15, 1990]
22
-------
77>e Pretreatment Training Course
Enforcement
Enforcement
Enforcement Legal Authority
40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(A)
Local Regulations
-all violations must be actionable
-remedies must be non-exclusive
VtoJafloos
Unauronzed Discharges
Prohbted Standards
Permit Linfts
Mentoring Requirements
Repotting Requirements
Pwiiiit Condfons
Compianoe Schedule Deacfres
Erftxoement Oiders/AcGons
Enfcicement Actions
liibnnal Notice
Nofoe of Violations
Ainhistralive Fries
Shew Cause Ordere
Consent Orders
Compiarce Orders
Cease and Desist Orders
CrVi Penalties
Crrnral Prosecution
Supplement Enforcement
Module 11
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Enforcement
UnaufioiUBd Discharges
Prohbted Stsndaids
Permit Lfrits
Moretonng Reqinrrants
Re put big ReojuBments
Compfance Schedule Deadhes
Ertbroemert OrdersfAcfons
Hbtmal Note
Nofce of Violations
AAnriistrafr^ Fuss
Show Cause Orders
Consent Orders
Comptanos Orders
Cease and Desist Orders
InJLncfive Refef
Crvi Penalties
CrvTWial Prosecution
S^jpbment Enbroemert
Notice of Violation
Initial POTW response
Official notice
Provides IU opportunity to
correct deficiency
Provides consistency
Administrative Fines
Issued at POTW's discretion
Punitive in nature
Deterrent for future violations
Module 11
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Enforcement
Administrative Orders
Show cause orders
Consent orders
Compliance orders
Cease and desist
Civil Litigation
Why?
Remedies available:
-Consent decree
-Injunctions
-Civil penalties & cost recovery
Clean Water Act
Strict Liability - Users are held
legally responsible for
noncompliance, regardless of
intent or negligence
Module 11
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Enforcement
Criminal Prosecution
Acted in violation of the law
Criminal intent/negligence
Results in fines and/or
imprisonment
Each violation, each day, a
separate offense
Supplemental Enforcement
Public notice
Water service severance
Termination of sewer service
Performance bond/liability
insurance
Increased monitoring/reporting
Enforcement Response Plans
[40 CFR § 403.8(f)(5)]
reflect POTWs responsibility to enforce
pretreatment requirements & standards
identify how the POTW will investigate
noncompliance
specifies officials responsible for each type of
enforcement
specifies types of and time frames for taking
escalating enforcement for anticipated types of
violations
Module 11
Slide Presentation - Page 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Enforcement
Factors to Consider for Appropriate
Enforcement Response
Magnitude and duration of violation
Effect on POTW
Effect on receiving stream
Pattern of past violations/success
of previous enforcement actions
Attitude of Industrial user
Effective enforcement
actions
are
timely
Enforcement Data Management
Specify reports required from lUs
Notify Ills of untimely submittals
Review reports received
Notify users, within specified timeframes, of
deficiencies in reports and any noncompliance
issues
Schedule ID responses
Track IDs responses
Escalate enforcement
Module 11
Slide Presentation - Page 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Enforcement
Indicators of an Effective ERP
Ensure violators return to compliance
ASAP
Penalize noncompllant users for
pretreatment violations
Deter further noncompliance
Recover additional expenses incurred by
POTW attributable to noncompliance
Module 11
Slide Presentation - Page 6
-------
The Preireatment Training Course Enforcement
Enforcement
Introduction
As part of its implementation responsibilities, the Control Authority should establish requirements for IU pollution control,
monitoring, and reporting and should Incorporate these requirements into control mechanisms. Pollution control requirements should
reflect Federal categorical standards, general pretreatment standards, and local limitations. Each control mechanism should enable
the Control Authority to monitor and control discharges to its sewer system, implement its pretreatment program, and meet the goals
of the General Pretreatment Regulations. To administer the pretreatment program efficiently, the Control Authority should have a
system to determine whether IDs are complying with pretreatment standards and requirements in the control mechanisms and how
and when to respond to noncompliance by lUs.
On July 24,1990 (55 PR 30082), the EPA promulgated regulations that require all POTWs to adopt an enforcement response
plan (ERP) as part of (her approved pretreatment programs. The regulations require POTWs to describe their compliance monitoring
procedures, and use an escalation of various enforcement responses, as well as timeframes and responsibilities for taking these
actions. EPA developed a simflar system to plan, administer, and evaluate its NPDES enforcement program. POTWERPs most likely
will be based on the same management principles and internal controls that have been used successfully in the NPOES program. To
assist POTWs in meeting this requrement, EPA, in September 1989, issued its Guidance for Developing Control Authority Enforcement
Response Plans.
The principles identified in the next section describe the process for obtaining and evaluating information on IU compliance by:
identifying noncompliance
selecting an appropriate enforcement action
resolving noncompliance in a timely, fair, and consistent manner
These principles establish a framework for managing an enforcement process, while providing the flexibility for each Control Authority
to develop management procedures that best suit its operations and resources.
Enforcement Response Plans
Responsibilities. Procedures, and Timeframes
Throughout the enforcement process, it is important for all levels of management to be able to assess the effectiveness of the
program and identify progress or deficiencies. Consequently, the Control Authority's enforcement procedures should give management
the information it needs to ensure that the pro jam makes timely decisions and successfully implements its local program. For internal
management control, an enforcement response plan should provide for
the identification of the individuals or unit responsible for each element
procedures for collecting and disseminating information (e.g., developing standardized reporting forms, computerizing date,
notifying (Us of violations, etc.)
Module 11 Narrative - Page 1
-------
Enforcement The Pretreatment Training Course
a method of tracking program activities at any given time, including issuance of control mechanisms, compliance reviews,
and enforcement actions
a system of evaluating specific activities in terms of their quality, timeliness, results, and accomplishment of program
objectives.
Industrial User Inventory Data
The foundation of a compliance tracking and enforcement system is a complete and accurate compilation of the pertinent data
on all industrial dischargers to the POTW. Therefore, the Control Authority must maintain a current inventory of IDs [40 CFR §
403.8(f)(2)(i)]. This inventory should include the name, location, classification, applicable standards, basis for limits imposed, volume
of discharge, control mechanism status, compliance dates and other special requirements, for each IU. The industrial waste survey
should provide most of the information required to develop the inventory, although some supplementary information might be required
from other sources, such as the permit application or monitoring data.
A routine schedule and an identified process for updating the inventory of IDs should be implemented, including the specific data
available concerning each user. Sources of information that might be used in the process include data developed through inspections
of the facility, a review of water use records and/or building permit applications, and information on changes reported by the IU.
Responsibility for maintenance of the inventory should be assigned to one specific individual or group (such as the data management
staff) and the flow of information within the Control Authority should be organized to ensure that all relevant data are directed to that
group.
The date inventory should provide an index of the nature and type of IDs in the Control Authority system. The list can be used
to plan monitoring, enforcement, and permitting activities. For each ID on the list, a separate backup file should be maintained to
include descriptions of the facility, monitoring data, inspection reports, summaries of violations and enforcement actions, and other
detailed, relevant information. This historical information should be maintained to evaluate the performance of lUs and the success
of enforcement actions.
Collect and Dispense Information
To ensure that its system has the needed information and that the information is current the Control Authority should actively
manage the flow of information into its system. For each IU, the Control Authority must determine what data are legally required or
needed, as well as when and how they can be obtained.
The Control Authority should specify reporting requirements for the IU in the permit or other control mechanism used. The Control
Authority then must track the submission of reports. If the information submitted is deficient or late, the IU should be notified and
required to submit the information within a fixed time period.
Other sources of information exist that should be consulted routinely to update or add information. The Control Authority may
monitor water and sewage usage, issuance of building permits, violations of other local ordinances, and local news outlets to identify
changes that have occurred (or are planned for an IU) and may affect its wastewater contribution to the Control Authority. The Control
Authority should plan the receipt processing, and retaining of routine and nonroutine date to ensure they are available when needed
to make the decisions on compliance activities (such as inspections or meetings) and, if necessary, as evidence in enforcement
proceedings.
The Control Authority must retain aD records of monitoring activities and results for at least 3 years. This period is to be extended
during the course of any unresolved litigation or when requested by the Approval Authority [see 40 CFR § 403.12(o)(3)].
Page 2 Narrative Module 11
-------
The Prefreatment Training Course Enforcement
In addition to collecting data, the Control Authority needs to dispense certain information. IDs must be notified of applicable
pretreatment standards and hazardous waste disposal requirements under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901). lUs should
be continually apprised of their compGance status, changes in pretreatment requirements, the results of inspections, and other pertinent
information. IDs should also be informed of the Control Authority's enforcement strategy and its general responses to noncompliance.
The Control Authority should also make a concerted effort to inform the public of the progress of its pretreatment program. As
required by regulation [40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii)], it must publish a list of lUs in significant noncompliance in the newspaper. In addition,
it might undertake public education efforts in such areas as proper disposal of household chemicals or used motor oil.
Conduct Sampling and Inspection of Industrial Users
The Control Authority should have an inspection plan for scheduling field investigations, which may include site visits, sample
collection, facility inspections, and flow monitoring. The Control Authority should use field investigations to verify the compliance status
determined from (Us self-monitoring activities, including collecting samples, initiating emergency or remedial actions, and gathering
additional information. Field investigations may be routine compliance monitoring or special monitoring in response to violations,
technical problems, or support for permit modifications. The Control Authority must plan routine field investigations and/or collection
of wastewater samples of each significant IU at least once a year. The Control Authority should develop checklists and procedures
for these routine visits and ensure the results of each visit are documented and lUs are advised of any deficiencies found during an
inspection. Special onsite investigations may require warrants (if entry is refused or limited), specialized sampling equipment, and
additional resources. These investigations should be conducted according to established procedures. Warrants should be obtained
with advice from legal counsel. The Control Authority should advise the Approval Authority of its routine and special field investigation
activities each year. The Control and Approval Authorities inspectors should conduct some joint investigations of IDs to promote
consistency and technical understanding of the inspection activities.
Compliance Screening
The compliance screening process involves reviewing all available information to sort out noncomplying dischargers for
appropriate enforcement response. This initial review should assess, as appropriate, compliance with schedules, reporting
requirements (including "slug* discharge notices), and applicable pretreatment standards. Since this step is designed primarily to
identify apparent violations and not to determine the appropriate enforcement response, this review can usually be handled by
nontechnical personnel. In any case, the person responsible for screening should be clearly specified.
The screening process should verify that the reports are submitted on schedule, cover the proper time period, include all
information required, and are properly signed and certified. The reviewer should compare the parameters reported, the number of
measurements for each parameter, the method of analysis, the sampling procedures, the discharge concentration (or mass per day),
and other information supplied by the ID with the requirements in the lU's permit or other control mechanism. Any discrepancy is a
violation that the ID should be required to correct If a report lacks a required certification or signature, it is incomplete. All alleged
violations (including those arising from inspections and private complaints) should be identified by the Control Authority and recorded
in a violation summary specific to each ID. This summary will serve as a log for the compliance history of the ID and the enforcement
responses of the Control Authority.
The compliance screening process may also include notifying an ID when certain types of obvious noncompliance are found.
For example, the Control Authority might establish procedures for routinely notifying the IU when a report is not received. This
notification should include a deadline by which the IU must respond. The Control Authority should have a timeframe for follow-up by
screening personnel to ensure that the IU has complied.
Module 11 Narrative - Page 3
-------
Enforcement The Prefreatment Training Course
Although al violations must be identified and responded to, as detailed in the Module on Data Management, Control Authorities
must identify (Us in significant noncompliance and respond swiftly to the violation(s) with an appropriate enforcement action.
Enforcement Evaluation
The violations and discrepancies that were identified during the compliance screening process should be reviewed to evaluate
the type of enforcement response needed. This review normally should be conducted by technical personnel, although legal
consultation may be necessary in some cases. EPA uses an Enforcement Response Guide (ERG) to assist in this evaluation for
NPDES cases. The guide identifies types of responses that are appropriate based on the nature of the violation (effluent
instantaneous, average or maximum limit; reporting: late or deficient; or compliance schedule: begin or complete construction); the
duration of the violation; the frequency of the violation (isolated or recurring); the potential impact of the violation (such as interference,
pass through, or POTW worker safety); economic benefit enjoyed by the violator and their attitude.
Control Authorities are encouraged to develop a similar type of guide for use in managing enforcement actions taken against
violating IDs. An example of an Enforcement Response Plan that the Control Authority might use has been developed and is included
the Enforcement Response Plan Guidance. The responses available will vary among Control Authorities depending on legal authority,
but win normaDy include informal responses such as telephone contacts or written notices of violation, and formal responses such as
Administrative Orders with or without penalties, judicial actions, and termination of sewer service. The guide should reflect the following
concepts:
all violations of requirements must be reviewed and responded to by the Control Authority
generally, the Control Authority should notify the ID when a violation is found
for most violations, the Control Authority should receive an explanation and, as appropriate, a plan from the IU to correct
the violation within a specified time period
if the violations persist or the explanation and the plan are not adequate, the Control Authority's response should become
more formal and commitments (or schedules, as appropriate) for compliance should be established in an enforceable
document
the enforcement response selected should be related to the seriousness of the violation. Enforcement responses should
be escalated if compliance is not achieved expeditiously after taking the initial action. A serious initial violation requires
a formal enforcement action.
The Control Authority should set deadlines for the IU to respond to notification of violations and should ensure that unfulfilled due dates
are noted in violation summaries. Frequently, direct contact with the IU may appear to resolve the problem. However, such contacts
and commitments should be confirmed in correspondence between the parties and noted in the violation summary. Otherwise, there
is no permanent record that would be necessary to enforce the commitment
Formal Enforcement and Follow-up
A decision to seek formal enforcement is generally triggered by a failure to achieve compliance in a specified time period through
less formal means, a review of the violation records, and in some cases, the advice of counsel. Formal enforcement should be
considered for each violation or group of violations that satisfies the EPA definition of significant noncompliance. The decision to
pursue formal action should be supported by a well-documented record of the violations by the IU and any prior efforts to
obtain compliance on the part of the Control Authority. The Control Authority should review all records to assure that proper
procedures were used to collect the information and that all contacts with the IU are recorded. If the IU has received conflicting
information regarding its compliance status, the status should be clarified in writing. The Control Authority should consider a special
Page 4 - Narrative Module 11
-------
TTie Pretreatment Training Course Enforcement
onsite review or inspection to verify the data available, including a review of original analysis records to confirm the accuracy of
information contained in periodic reports. The Control Authority may also consider a 'show cause* meeting with the ID before
commencing formal enforcement action. Verification of data should be completed quickly (usually within 1 or 2 weeks).
The Control Authority should specifically designate timeframes and responsibilities for initiating each enforcement action or for
providing the necessary information to legal counsel and should develop its own guidance covering the form and substance of the
formal enforcement action for use by the staff. Additionally, the guidance should cover procedures for escalating the action if
compliance is not achieved expeditiously. The Control Authority needs to coordinate closely with the city solicitor or other counsel in
developing and processing the action.
Enforcement Mechanisms
To achieve a maximum degree of compliance by lUs, Control Authorities will need to use a range of enforcement mechanisms.
The range of enforcement mechanisms available to the Control Authority will depend on the specific legal authorities it has been given
by city, county, or State legislatures. These mechanisms may range from a simple reminder call to significant criminal penalties. In
decision making, the Control Authority should recognize that some violations are also violations of Federal (and State) law, and that
under such circumstances (e.g., significant noncompGance by a major corporation with extensive resources), the Control Authority may
seek the assistance of the Approval Authority. The purpose of this section is to describe the range of available enforcement
mechanisms. The mechanisms listed below are examples of activities that are generally available to an approved pretreatment
program.
Informal notice to IU (i.e., telephone call)
Informal meetings
Warning letter or Notice of Violation
Administrative orders and compliance schedules
Administrative fines
Civil suit for injunctjve relief and/or civil penalties
Criminal prosecution
Termination of service (revoke permit).
Each of these categories of enforcement activity will be discussed below.
Informal Notices to Industrial Users
Informal notice is the least coercive of the enforcement mechanisms and rarely requires specific authority. Informal notice may
consist of a telephone call or 'reminder* letter to an appropriate official (e.g., plant manager or environmental coordinator) of an IU.
Such a call or tetter may be used to notify an official of a minor violation (e.g., a report submitted a few days late) and to seek an
explanation, to suggest the exercise of more due care, and/or to notify the 'violator' that subsequent violations of the same type may
be dealt with more severely. Such informal notice may be used to correct minor, inadvertent noncompliance and to demonstrate that
the Control Authority will note and follow-up all instances of noncompliance.
Module 11 " Narrative - Page 5
-------
Enforcement The Pretreatment Training Course
Informal Meetings
If a telephone call does not produce compliance or an adequate explanation of the reason for the noncompliance, a meeting
between officials of the Control Authority and the ID may produce the desred results. At such a meeting, Control Authority officials might
emphasize the importance of maintaining compliance. If informal meetings are unsuccessful in obtaining the firm's commitment to
complying with its pretreatment obligations, the Control Authority might inform the IU representatives of stronger enforcement
mechanisms that are available. The Control Authority should record all informal contacts, notices, and meetings with representatives
of (Us in its violation summary.
Warning Letter or Notice of Violation (MOV)
The warning letter or notice of violation is a written notice to the ID that the Control Authority has observed a violation of
pretreatment standards or requirements and expects the noncompliance to be corrected and explained. The warning letter, if State
law provides, can also require specific corrective actions and schedules to which the Control Authority expects the ID to adhere and
a statement that additional enforcement action may be pursued if corrective actions are not accomplished as scheduled. The letter
should also make it clear that compliance with the requirements of the letter does not excuse previous violations.
Such warning letters should be sent by certified mail1 with return receipt requested. Copies should be maintained in the IU file.
Certified mail wffl bring the notice to (he serious attention of appropriate industry officials. Moreover, the return receipt will serve as proof
that the IU received the notice in the event that more formal enforcement proceedings are necessary.
Administrative Orders
The Control Authority may wish b consider meeting with the IU or issuing an Administrative Order to "show cause* to the IU prior
to taking formal enforcement action and/or to discontinuing service. Generally, the Control Authority presents facts which it believes
demonstrate noncompliance and the IU is asked to 'show cause* why the Control Authority should not initiate formal action or
discontinue sewer service. However, this hearing is not a prerequisite to taking a formal enforcement action or to discontinuing sewer
service.
Section 309(a) of the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to issue orders, without notice or opportunity for prior hearing, requiring
compliance with standards or other requirements developed under the authority of the Act To the extent that their legal authorities
allow, some Control Authorities may issue similar orders. Although the exact nature of these orders will vary among Control Authorities,
they can be used to place an IU on an enforceable schedule to comply with pretreatment standards (e.g., install treatment and operate
and maintain facilities), including appropriate interim limits. The Enforcement Response Plan Guidance manual contains model orders
which may be of value. Copies of the guidance may be obtained through Approval Authorities.
Penalties2
Penalties and fines are tools that the Control Authority may use to enforce its local pretreatment program. Administrative fines
are assessed by Control Authorities against (Us for violations and are intended to recapture partial or full economic benefit for the
noncompliance. Civil penalties are normally sought by Control Authorities as a result of administrative fines topping out at a level below
that necessary to recapture the benefit gained by the IU for the noncompliance and/or to recover the cost associated with damage
caused by the noncompliance. Civil penalty amounts are generally limited through State or municipal laws. However, the General
Pretreatment Regulations require Control Authorities to have the legal authority to seek or assess civil or criminal penalties of at least
1 The certified mail number should be recorded on the original letter, prior to making copies for internal files.
2 Surcharges are not penalties. Surcharges should generally recover the Control Authority's cost of treatment, but they must not
be used to allow discharges of toxic pollutants that cause interference or pass through
Page 6 - Narrative Module 11
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Enforcement
$1000 per day for each violation. The Control Authority should consider the range of options available under State law to collect
penalties.
Civil Suit for Iniunctive Relief
Approved pretreatment programs must have authority to file a civil suit against alleged violators of applicable pretreatment
standards to seek 'mjunctive relief. In a civil suit for injunctive relief, the Control Authority collects pertinent information sufficient to prove
the violations at issue and turns the information over to the city solicitor (or appropriate Control Authority counsel) for case filing. The
city solicitor asks the court to order the discharger to take specific actions (e.g., comply with pretreatment requirements) or to refrain
from specific actions (e.g., cease a prohibited discharge). The civil suit for injunctive relief may be used when the IU is unlikely to
successfully execute the steps that the Control Authority believes are necessary to achieve or maintain compliance, when the violation
is serious enough to warrant court action to deter future similar violations, or when the danger presented by an lU's noncompliance does
not permit lengthy negotiation of a settlement If the Control Authority is able to show irreparable harm to the POTW operation, its
workers, or the receiving stream as a result of an ongoing IU violation, a court may issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction restraining the IU from violating standards pending the outcome of the suit Injunctive court relief may require such actions
as installation of facilities needed to come into compliance, or cessation of prohibited discharges.
Criminal Prosecution
Section 309(c) of the Act authorizes the Federal Government to seek criminal punishment for any person who willfully or
negligently violates pretreatment standards, among other standards, or for any person who knowingly makes a false statement
regarding any report, application, record, or other document required by the General Pretreatment Regulations. Approved pretreatment
programs may contain similar authority for the Control Authority. State Approval Authorities also have this option. A Control Authority
with insufficient authority may seek the assistance of the Approval Authority in this matter.
Several factors should be considered to determine when violations necessitate criminal prosecution. These factors include the
willfulness of the violation, negligence of the IU, nature and seriousness of the offense, adequacy of the evidence, and the adequacy
of penalties and sanctions available through civil or administrative enforcement actions. For criminal cases, there must be proof beyond
a reasonable doubt that the violation occurred through the'willful or negligent action" of the IU3. Examples of criminal violations include
falsification of date, tampering with results a equipment, willful or negligent failure to provide notice of slug discharges, or willful violation
of a permit All suspected instances of criminal violation should be evaluated.
Many cases of willful or negligent noncompliance (e.g., late night dumping of toxic substances into the collection system) could
seriously damage the Control Authority treatment system and the environment Such acts should be punished severely when adequate
proof exists.
Termination of Service
Approved pretreatment programs must have the authority to halt immediately an actual or threatened discharge to the Control
Authority that may represent an endangerment to the public health, the environment, or the POTW [see 40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(vi)(B)].
Additionally, the Control Authority must be able to deny or condition new or increased discharges or changes in the nature of pollutants
discharged to the Control Authority by the IU if the discharges do not meet applicable pretreatment standards or will cause the Control
Authority to violate its NPDES permit Use of these remedies can be effective in bringing recalcitrant users into compliance. Without
sewer service, a firm may have to obtain a NPOES permit to discharge wastes directly to the waters of the United States, and thus, be
3 The CWA provides that users are held legally responsible for noncompliance, regardless of intent or negligence. This is commonly
referred to as "strict liability".
Module 11 Narrative - Page 7
-------
Enforcement The Pretreertmerrt Training Course
requred b install treatment equipment b achieve drect discharge limitations. Alternatively, the IU must either arrange for its wastewater
to be hauled off or cease operations.
Approval Authority and Public Interventions
The Approval Authority and EPA (if the Approval Authority is the State) have a responsibility to ensure that the Control Authority
is effectively implementing its approved pretreatment program, including timely and appropriate enforcement of pretreatment
requirements. In this role, the Approval Authority will routinely review the overall performance of the Control Authority in monitoring IDs
and in enforcing regulations where violations are identified. The Approval Authority will evaluate performance based on POTW self-
monitoring data, written enforcement response plans, audits, inspections, and pretreatment program reports. The Approval Authority
will discuss the evaluation with the Control Authority. If an lU's noncompliance persists after notification by a Control Authority, the
Approval Authority may proceed b enforce directly against the IU and/or Control Authority, where the Control Authority has not taken
timely action or has failed b impose adequate sanctions. The Control and Approval Authorities may jointly decide what action by the
Approval Authority is preferable in a given situation. Also, EPA retains authority b take its own enforcement action if it deems action
by either the State or the Control Authority is inappropriate.
Finally, Section 505 of the Act allows citizens b file suit against a Control Authority that has failed b implement its approved
pretreatment program as required by its NPOES permit A citizen may sue the Control Authority b obtain judicial enforcement of that
approved program. Thus, the Control Authority may be compelled b apply standards to IDs, b enforce violations of pretreatment
standards, or b otherwise implement its approved program in a court order.
Resources to Enforce the Program
Informal enforcement mechanisms require relatively few resources and, in many cases, can be effective. Formal judicial action,
by contrast can be very resource-intensive. Factors which should be considered in determining appropriate enforcement responses
b noncompliance events are discussed in detail in EPA's Guidance for Developing Control Authority Enforcement Response Plans.
Page 8 - Narrative Module 11
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Resources and Funding
Resources
+ Personnel
+ Equipment
* Funding
Personnel
t
Program Coordinator
Permitting
Sampling/Inspecting
Reviewing reports
Enforcing
Clerical
Small Programs
Pretreatment Program
Pretreatment Coordinator
Duties: Sampling, Inspecting,
Permit Writing, Reviewing, Enforcing
Module 12
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
7?7e Pretreatment Training Course
Resources and Funding
Medium Programs
I Pretreatment Program |
| Pretreatment Coordinator |
[Mostduties] [Mostduties| |Mostduties|
|SIU||SIU||SIU| |SIU|[SIU |[CIU| |CIU|[CIU|[CIU|
Larger Programs
| Pretreatment Program
t
]
| Pretreatment Coordinator |
*
Inspecting
Group
t_
* * *
t
t *
Permit Writing Sampling
Group Group
* *
*****
*
Review and
Enforcement Group
|
* * * *
[SIU ||SIU ||SIU |SIU ||SIU ||CIU ||CIU ||CIU ||CIU ||SIU ||SIU ||CIU |
Personnel Considerations
Lines of authority
Staff responsibilities
Technical expertise
Two-person field crews
Duplicate experience
Module 12
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Resources and Funding
Equipment
Sampling equipment
Vehicles (with two-way radio)
pH and flow meters
Safety equipment
Analytical equipment
Surveillance equipment
Computers, file cabinets, etc.
Funding Alternatives
Monitoring fees
Permitting fees
Program fees
Surcharges
Pollutant strength charges
Penalties/Fines
Factors Affecting Resources
Size of treatment system
Number/Type of industries
Interjurisdictional relationships
Political considerations
Consulting/Laboratory services
Module 12
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Resources and Funding
Resources and Funding
Introduction
While legal authority, a sound technical understanding, and proper procedures are important to pretreatment program
implementation and enforcement, adequate resources are necessary to be able to fully administer the program. Therefore, a POTW
must be able to disseminate program requirements into appropriate resources. Personnel, equipment and funding are key to
adequately executing a successful pretreatment program.
Personnel
The number of personnel and duties performed can vary depending on the size and complexity of the pretreatment program.
However, in general, most POTW pretreatment programs are comprised of a Program Coordinator and other staff.
The Program Coordinator is responsible for ensuring all required activities are performed in accordance with the approved
program. The coordinator may also evaluate status of IU compliance and determine if appropriate actions are being taken, and
coordinate the exchange of information between other local departments (e.g.,
building and water departments) and state agencies. As such, the Program
Coordinator should have a thorough knowledge and understanding of all
applicable regulations and requirements, as well as proposed regulations, and
how other regulations affect both the POTW and the (Us.
'?«treaftnwrt Program |
Other staff responsibilities may include any of the following:
applications reviews
interpretation of technical information
drafting/writing permits
collection of samples
inspection and surveillance activities
report reviews
initiation of enforcement actions
performing clerical duties (e.g., filing, mass mailings, etc.).
Programs with a few industrial users may have an operator at the POTW
treatment plant performing all required duties (Figure 12-1). Medium size
programs may choose to distribute total responsibility (excluding sampling) for
an IU to one person (Figure 12-2} while larger programs, to maintain
consistency, may opt to separate out the different duties to a group of people
(Figure 12-3).
Duties: Sampling, Inspecting,
Permit Writing, Reviewing, Enforcing
Figure 12-1
mm mm mm mmm
Figure 12-2
Module 12
Narrative - Page 1
-------
Resources and Funding
The Prefreafrnenf Training Course
QoUp
Ctaup
Sarpfcng
QO|>
B*K
f MM* TM M t
au
SRI
3U
OU
ou cu ou
3U
SU:
Figure 12-3
Maintaining a successful program requires paying
attention to details to ensure the continuity of program
implementation. There shall be clear and appropriate lines of
authority such that directions are given that are consistent with
program procedures. Staff responsibilities shall be clearly
defined to ensure all aspects of the program are appropriately
implemented. Personnel must keep up-to-date with regulatory
and technical issues in the fields of pretreatment and pollution
prevention by reading Federal Register notices and technical
journals, communicating with Approval Authority personnel
regarding program changes, and attending technical
conferences. Where possible, a minimum of two persons shall
conduct each inspection, surveillance or sampling activities to
not only ensure the safety of workers but to have 'two sets of
eyes' to provide confirmation of details. Also where possible, the Control Authority should have at least two persons knowledgeable
oteach aspect of the pretreatment program to avoid loss of knowledge during staff turnovers.
Equipment
Discussion of equipment necessary for conducting pretreatment program activities may seem trivial but outside of having
adequate personnel, it is the other commonly overlooked key to program implementation. The most obvious equipment a Control
Authority would need is for conducting sampling activities. This task requires not only automatic samplers and instruments for collecting
grab samples, but collection containers, sample bottles, preservatives, labels, vehicles, pH meters, gloves and other personal protective
equipment, safety vests, manhole pullers, manhole sampler inserts, dye, sewer maps, and air monitoring equipment An ice machine
may even be necessary. Extra equipment should be available for response situations and for true surveillance activities. Besides tools
needed for sampling, Control Authority personnel also need office equipment such as computers, computer software, copy machines,
file cabinets, etc.
Funding
The pretreatment program may a may not be a line item on the City or POTW budget Quite often, the program is funded through
the sewer utility general operating fund. Ideally, revenues should be generated from the (Us based on the effort invested by the Control
Authority to oversee (he Ill's discharge. Cost allocation schemes provide the most direct means of recovering costs based on program
activities. Collecting fees for each monitoring event, each permit issued (potentially based on volume of flow), or for each SID included
in the program are all means of funding the program based on program activities. Surcharges for excess conventional pollutant
contributions (i.e.. BOD, TSS, O&G) are also an equitable means of funding, but normally these funds go directly toward POTW
freatment plant operational costs. For those POTWs where the surcharges fund the POTW, a flat charge per water used or wastewater
generated for all lUs is another way to fund the program. Innovative approaches include toxic pollutant strength charges based on
toxics contributed to the POTW. Note that these cannot be used in place of enforcement of limitations and standards. Also, the
approach must be technically-based and documented (i.e., not arbitrary and capricious).
Fines and penalties should not be relied upon as primary funding but may also fund program implementation, often providing
for specialized equipment or activities (e.g., pollution prevention assessments).
Page 2 Narrative
Module 12
-------
77?e Pretreatment Tra'ning Course Resources and Funding
Factors Affecting Resources
Obviously, more resources are likely for larger pretreatment programs. However, the type of SlUs (including facility age) regulated
also have a significant impact on resources. Some IDs requ're much less effort to comply with the pretreatment regulations than others,
e.g., oversight of one problematic production-based CIU subject to two different categorical standards may require as much effort as
overseeing non-categorical 8-10 SlUs. Availability of information to find Ills as well as cooperation of the IDs will also have an affect
of resources needed.
Normally, more resources are needed to establish a program (i.e., the first 2-3 years of implementation) and then the resource
requirements should drop and stabilize as the program develops. If growth in the service area has plateaued, most likely so will the
program and the resources required. Outside jurisdictions may affect necessary resources by wanting or demanding to implement
certain aspects of the program within their jurisdiction.
Available resources may be dependent upon the attitude of local officials with respect to the environment or to local business.
Also, required resources may be reduced while necessary funds may increase for subcontracted program implementation activities,
such as laboratory analysis.
Conclusion
Regardless of the factors affecting program resources and funding, the General Pretreatment Regulations require [40 CFR §
403.8(f)(3)] POTWs to have sufficient resources and qualified personnel to carry out their program. It is at the discretion of the Control
Authority, and subject to approval by the Approval Authority, to decide how this will be accomplished.
Module 12 Narrative - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Program Quiz
Pretreatment Program Quiz
1. According to the General Pretreatment Regulations, what size POTWs (based on gallons
per day design flow) must be evaluated to determine the need to develop and implement
a pretreatment program?
2. A metal finishing firm that discharges to the local POTW, owns 40% of the metal that it
plates and has been in business at the same location since 1980. What categorical
standard(s) apply? 40 CFR and Category Name
3. What is the maximum duration allowed for a permit issued by a POTW to a significant
industrial user?
4. Local limits can be used in place of categorical standards. True OR False - Explain
your answer:
5. According to the 40 CFR Part 403, how often (at a minimum) must a POTW inspect and
a significant industrial user with an average flow of 1 MGD?
6. Contracts between the POTW and a significant industrial user are an acceptable type of
individual control mechanism. True OR False
7. List four criteria that are used to determine if an industrial user should be considered a
significant industrial user?
a.
b.
c.
d.
8. Are enforcement response plans required or just a good idea?
9. All industrial users must be permitted by POTWs with approved Pretreatment Programs.
True OR False
Module 13 Page!
-------
Pretreatment Program Quiz The Pretreatment Training Course
10. All chemical analyses performed to determine compliance with pretreatment standards
must comply with "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater".
True OR False
11. How many years must POTWs and industries retain their records and test results?
12. If a significant industrial user has a violation, they must notify the POTW(Control Authority)
within after they become aware of the violation. The industry must then
resample and report the results for the sampling and analysis within .
13. As required by the pretreatment regulations in 40 CFR Part 403, industrial users that
discharge to POTWs must maintain their pH between 6.0 & 9.0 S.U.. True OR False
14. In certain instances, Industries may use dilution to achieve pretreatment standards rather
than treatment or pollution prevention techniques. True OR False
15. Explain the difference between regulated, unregulated, dilute, and nonregulated
wastestreams:
16. Define Interference and Pass Through:
17. New sources must achieve compliance with categorical standards upon commencement
of discharge to the POTW while existing sources must achieve compliance in accordance
with Federal Register specified deadlines. True OR False
Page 2 Module 13
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course ___^__ Pretreatment Program Quiz
18. Circle all of the following requirements that must be included in a control mechanism, as
specified in 40 CFR Part 403.
(POTW) official's signature permit duration pollutants to be monitored
sampling location Permittee sampling frequency record keeping requirements
sample type applicable penalties compliance schedules
effluent limits statement of nontransferability POTW sampling requirements
right of entry development of a slug control plan definitions.
19. Publishing users in significant noncompliance is optional. True OR False
20. What is Bob Dylan's real name?
Name
Remember... Valuable prizes will be offered both for accuracy and being nice to the instructors.
Module 13 PageS
-------
77?e Pretreatment Training Course
Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment Program
Pollution Prevention
(a.k.a. "P2")
Source reduction of
environmental risk while
avoiding cross-media transfers.
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
Establishes pollution prevention
as a "National Objective"
Establishes pollution prevention
hierarchy as a "National Policy"
A+ Prevent
A Reduce
B Recycle
C Treat
D Dispose
Module 14
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment Program
P2 Opportunities
Operating practices
Inventory control
Spill/Leak prevention
Raw materials
Process modifications
Cleaning operations
Surface preparation
Product modifications
P2 and Pretreatment
Clean Water Act
Inspections
IU discharge permits
Local limits
Enforcement negotiations
P2 assessments
Technical assistance/training
Benefits to the POTW
Environmental improvements
Regulatory compliance
Financial benefits
Political benefits
Module 14
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment Program
Benefits to the IU ($$$)
Reduce raw material costs
Reduce waste management costs
Reduce health risks
Increase productivity
Improve product quality
Reduce reject product costs
Improve public relations
Example: P2 Opportunities
at Auto Manufacturer
Acid/Alkaline wastes
Heavy Metal wastes
Solvent wastes
Waste oils
Potential P2 Opportunities
(Technical)
Acid regeneration
Reduce dragout
Automatic valves
Separate wastewater
Aqueous cleaners
Heat exchangers
Module 14
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment Program
Potential P2 Opportunities
(Non-technical)
»Improve scheduling for
cleanup
Inventory tracking procedures
(FIFO)
» Educate/Train employees
P2 Incentives
Regulatory incentives
Permitting/compliance
incentives
Environmental liability
Financial incentives
P2 Barriers
Technology-based
Financial
Organization
Behavioral
Regulatory
Module 14
Slide Presentation - Page 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment Program
Where to Get More
Information...
Trade Associations
Compliance Assistance Centers
State technical assistance
Electronic media
EPA's Steps to P2
Implementation
> Identify/Overcome barriers
Develop indicators
Develop partnership
Invest in outside programs
Improve outreach/training
EPA's Steps to P2
Implementation (continued)
Develop regulations/permits
Incorporate Into enforcement
settlements
Research P2 technologies/strategies
Look to future for emerging
technologies
Module 14
Slide Presentation - Page 5
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Pollution Prevention In the Pretreatment Program
Pollution Prevention
Introduction
Many dollars are spent on controlling and managing pollution in the U.S.. Prior to 1990, most existing regulations focused upon
treatment and disposal and did not emphasize multi-media management of pollution. The Federal government recognized that
opportunities for industries to reduce or prevent pollution at the source exist, and that source reduction is more desirable than waste
management and pollution control. As such, the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 was created, establishing pollution prevention (P2)
as a National Objective. The Act established the P2 Hierarchy as national policy, declaring that
Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible.
Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, whenever feasible.
Pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible.
Disposal or other release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and should be conducted in an
environmentally safe manner.
In response to this Act, EPA established the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) to carry out its functions
under this Act
Pollution Prevention fP2\
P2 is indirectly defined in the P2 Act defined as source reduction of environmental risk while avoiding cross media transfers1.
Source reduction is any practice which reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant entering any waste
stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment or disposal; and reduces
the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Source reduction can be achieved by equipment or technology modifications, process or procedural modifications, reformulation
or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control, and
any other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation of pollutants through increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy,
water, or other resources, or protection of natural resources by conservation.
Under the Pollution Prevention Act recycling, energy recovery, treatment and disposal are not included within the definition of
pollution prevention. However, some practices commonly described as 'in-process recycling" may qualify as pollution prevention. Note
that recycling conducted in an envronmentally sound manner shares many of the advantages of prevention for it can reduce the need
for treatment or disposal, and conserve energy and resources.
1 Conventional treatment and disposal can transfer pollutants from one medium to another with no net reduction e.g., a wet scrubber
is used to reduce metal emissions to the air, the scrubber water is pretreated prior to discharge, the metals drop out into the
pretreatment sludge where they are then landfilled, the landfill leachate, for this scenario, must be treated producing another metallic
sludge, etc.
Module 14 Narrative Page 1
-------
Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment Program The Pretreatment Training Course
P2 and POTWs
Since most POTWs are designed to treat 'domestic pollutants* at domestic levels, preventing the discharge of high strength
wastes or toxic pollutants helps ensure the proper operation of the plant and allows for future growth in the community, all without harm
to the envronment This approach is further supported by the imposition of tighter 40 CFR Part 503 sludge limitations, air regulations
applicable to POTWs, and the NPDES anti-backsfiding rule.
Potentially, P2 can expand sludge disposal options, decrease POTW operational and maintenance costs, and reduce capital
expenditures for POTW treatment plant expansions. Further, the Control Authority can become a recognized environmental leader
in the community.
P2 and Pretreatment Programs
Pretreatment Programs are mandated by the Clean Water Act and therefore, have the authority to require and enforce waste
management practices that allow them to meet the requirements of their NPOES permit and eliminate interference with treatment
facilities, etc. P2 is not new to the Pretreatment Program, it is an extension of current activities. Requiring slug control plans and
developing compliance schedules for improved O&M procedures are examples of P2 activities already being performed by Pretreatment
Programs. Other existing pretreatment program implementation tools available to make pollution prevention a more integral part of a
pretreatment program include:
Inspections - pretreatment personnel are usually quite familiar with processes performed at their IDs and have exposure
to a variety of IDs performing the same or similar processes, and therefore, can easily disseminate (nonconfidential)
information about actual P2 measures implemented.
Permits - where local regulations provide for such, questions about P2 measures and plans can be made part of the permit
application process. Also, a Permittee may be required to undergo a P2 assessment and /or develop a P2 plan as a
condition of their permit
Local limits - POTWs near or above maximum allowable headworks loadings may institute POTW wide-P2 Programs to
reduce specific pollutants.
Enforcement negotiations - a P2 audit may be required as an activity in a consent or compliance order, or implementation
of P2 measures may be required as part of a settlement
Some Approval Authorities actually require approved pretreatment program to provide a detailed description of each Ill's P2
practices as part of the Control Authority's annual report to the Approval Authority. Control Authority's should ascertain what is required
and fully institute procedures to comply.
P2 and Industrial Users
P2 provides economic benefits, enhances process efficiency, avoids regulatory costs, reduces future liabilities, protects worker
health, and improves corporate image both in the business community and with the public. Before implementing a P2 practice, the
benefits of the potential opportunity must be evaluated. Benefits identified may be classified as follows:
Page 2 - Narrative Module 14
-------
The Pretreulinent Training Course Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment Program
Regulatory
elimination of regulated wastewater discharges, and hence, monitoring requirements
reduced paperwork requirements for waste hauling and treatment
compliance with a RCRA required report on waste reduction (i.e., companies generating RCRA wastes are required
to certify that they have a program to reduce the volume and toxicity of hazardous waste generated)
compliance with land disposal restrictions and bans
Environmental
generator liability, both on and off site, may be reduced ("cradle to grave")
minimization of material emissions to all medias resulting in reduced health risks to workers and the community
Financial
reduced landfill and treatment costs due to less waste being generated (includes reduced transportation costs as
well)
reduced raw material and manufacturing costs (e.g., by preventing spills or leaks, improving equipment maintenance
and inventory control techniques, reuse, etc. raw materials are handled more efficiently and do not have the chance
to become waste. With a greater percentage of raw material going into process, raw material use goes down in
relation to volume of product produced)
P2 requires that best management practices be implemented. Hence, a more consistent product should be
produced more efficiently with fewer offspec products thereby potentially increasing productivity, improving product
quality, and reducing reject product costs
Compliance and public relations
P2 may directly result in an ID achieving compliance with local limits and categorical standards
reducing waste and implementing best management practices can improve public and community relations.
Although there may appear to be sufficient benefits for lUs to pursue P2 opportunities, in reality, the alternatives may be
unadvisable to implement Common barriers and hindrances include the following:
Technology
the proposed P2 alternative may decrease product quality
based on current available technology, an IU may be unable to change raw materials
Financial
incur high costs associated with implementing alternatives (i.e., new equipment or materials, or personnel and
training)
loss due to downtime during switch overs and start ups
foreign competitions may have an economic advantage if they are not obligated to comply with US regulations
binding contracts with existing waste haulers and TSD facilities may exist
Organizational
lack of or poor communication between persons possessing the knowledge and ideas for improvements and those
that can actually implement the changes
limited personnel or internal resources available to investigate and/or make changes
"turf wars' - P2 is a multimedia approach requiring IDs cross internal divisions to develop strategies
Behavioral
alternatives may be considered inconvenient by personnel (e.g., dry sweeping then a wet wash down as opposed
to just a wet wash down)
Regulatory
concentrating poDutants for recycling may classify it as a hazardous waste (e.g., silver). As such, an industrial user
may chose to discharge the poDutants than be subject to regulations regarding the handling, treatment and disposal
of a hazardous waste.
Module 14 Narrative - Page 3
-------
Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment Program The Pretreatment Training Course
EPA's Pollution Prevention Strategy
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 required EPA to develop a plan for incorporating P2 concepts into EPA's ongoing
environmental protection efforts, hence EPA's development of a Pollution Prevention Strategy. The specific objectives of the strategy
are to provide guidance and direction for efforts to incorporate P2 within EPA's existing regulatory and nonregulatory Programs, and
to set forth an initiative that will achieve specific objectives in P2 within a reasonable time frame.
EPA is continuing to undertake numerous activities to accomplish the goals of the Pollution Prevention Act, including the following:
coordinating development of regulations that will help identify the potential for multi-media prevention strategies and that
reduce end of pipe compliance costs
examining the use of P2 in enforcement actions and negotiations
investigating the feasibility of overcoming identified regulatory barriers to encourage cost effective(source reduction)
strategies
working with State and local governments and trade associations to promote P2 among small and medium size business
that often lack the capital to make changes
developing a network between large and small business to increase technology transfer
developing better information on environmental performance by improving date and developing indicators to measure
progress
crossing traditional boundaries to work with other Federal agencies (e.g. DOE) having authority over activities affecting the
environment to incorporate P2 strategies at federal facilities and established criteria for evaluating products in the
governmental procurement program
investing in outside programs, usually States, providing grant funds for the reduction of target chemicals, the agricultural
and transportation industry, etc.
improving outreach and training programs, to include the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse(PPIO)
providing scientific and technical knowledge necessary to implement P2 initiatives on a cross media basis, pursuant to he
Pollution Prevention Research Strategic Plan
looking to the future for emerging technologies and products
identifying and avoiding environmental problems before they arise by encouraging development of safer substitutes for
hazardous raw materials or products.
Assistance
With the creation of the P2 Act, came an overwhelming abundance of P2 related assistance. This includes direct technical
assistance, training courses, and a variety of publications. Specific industry trade associations usually are aware of P2 assistance
Page 4 - Narrative Module 14
-------
The Pretreatinent Training Course Pollution Prevention in the Pretreatment Program
materials, specific P2 opportunities, and the costs and success of implementing these. Some of the Compliance Assistance Centers
in existence that contain P2 information include:
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC) - a free, nonregulatory clearinghouse available to the public which
focuses on source reduction and recycling for industrial toxic wastes
State Programs - provide technical assistance in conducting P2 assessments, develop guidance manuals on conducting
P2 assessments, conduct P2 assessments, provide assistance in developing POTW-wide P2 plans, provide training for
industry, State and POTW personnel, offer grants for P2 projects
Envirosense - an on-line computer system of summary information for PPIC documents, includes P2 news, upcoming
events, mini-exchanges (discrete P2 topic areas, P2 databases, and message center
ICPIC - International Cleaner Production Information Clearinghouse, sponsored by United Nations Environment
Programme(UNEP), promotes cleaner production through the exchange and transfer of technical, policy, programmatic,
legislative and financial expertise.
NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology (an office of the Department of Commerce) develops technology
to improve product quality, modernize manufacturing processes, ensure product reliability, and facilitate rapid
commercialization of products based on new scientific discoveries. NIST web sites for different industry sectors are
available.
Module 14 Narrative - Page 5
-------
TTie Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Update
Pretreatment Update
Streamlining & Reinvention
Streamlining
-403 Lite (40 CFR § 403.18)
-403 Heavy (40 CFR Part 403)
EPA HQs Projects
Streamlining - Pretreatment
Program Modification
July 30,1996 - Proposed Regulation
Expect final regulation shortly
Module 15
Slide Presentation - Page 1
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Update
Streamlining - Pretreatment
Program Modification
Procedures (403 lite) - cont
25 Comments Received
Number of modifications deemed
substantial would be reduced
Only one public notice would be
required for substantial program
modifications in most cases
Streamlining - 40 CFR Part 403
May 1996 -Issue papers to 90+
stakeholders
35 sets of comments received
* WEF/AMSA workshop (Aug '96) &
report
Proposed Regulation by December
1997
Streamlining Issues
Prohibition against wastes with pH <
5.0
Allow alternative limits; mass for
concentration standard (§ 403.6(c))
Allow alternative limits; concentration
for standards with mass limit (§
403.6(c))
Module 15
Slide Presentation - Page 2
-------
The Pretoatment Training Course
Pretreatment Update
Streamlining Issues (cont.)
Oversight of SIUs
* Sampling by SIUs
Sampling for pollutants not present
Grab and composite sampling
requirements
Streamlining Issues (cont.)
Removal credits
Slug discharge control plans
Electronic reporting
Best management practices
General permits
Significant Noncompliance
EPA HQ Pretreatment Team
Projects & Planned Guidance
Pretreatment Streamlining
-Lite
-Heavy
Update of Local Limits Guidance
Manual
Training
-Video Training Course
Two-day workshop style
Module 15
Slide Presentation - Page 3
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Update
EPA HQ Pretreatment Team Projects
& Planned Guidance (cont)
Pretreatment Program Summary
Guidance
Cost Accounting and Budgeting
Guidance for Local POTW
Pretreatment Programs
Choosing a Contract Laboratory
EPA HQ Pretreatment Team Projects
& Planned Guidance (cont)
Data Management Guidance for
Local POTW Pretreatment Programs
Guidance Manual for Control of
Hauled Waste
EPA HQ Pretreatment Team
104(b)(3) Grants
Watersheds - Integrating Existing
Environmental Programs
Performance Measures
Module 15
Slide Presentation - Page 4
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Update
EPA HQ Pretreatment Team
104(b)(3) Grants (cont.)
* Pretreatment Program - Video
Training Course
Code of Management Practices for
Silver Discharges
Watershed-Based Trading
« Trading Policy - January 1996
"Draft Framework for Watershed-
based Trading" - May 1996
- Chapter 6- Pretreatment Trading
Planning Workshops
Planning Pilot Projects
Any Questions???
Module 15
Slide Presentation - Page 5
-------
EPA's Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Update
PRETREATMENT COORDINATORS
(Updated as of 7/17/96)
Region I
Mark Spinale
U.S. EPA- Region 1
Municipal Assistance Unit (CMU)
J.F.K. Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617)565-3554
FAX (617) 565-4940
Mr. Mike Harder, Director
Engineering and Enforcement
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Management
75 Elm SL 2nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06106
860/424-3701
Mr. Jim Grier,
Pretreatment Coordinator
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Management
75 Elm St, 2nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06106
860/424-3839
Mr. Peter Done, Chief*
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Section
MA DepL of Environmental Protection Division of Water
Pollution Control
One Winter Street - 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617)292-5665
Mr. Gene Romero,*
Environmental Engineer
MA DepL of Environmental Protection Division of Water
Pollution Control
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617)556-1134
e-mail "gromero@state.ma.us"
Mr. Brian Kooiker, Chief
Direct Discharge Section
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Permits, Compliance and Protection Division
The Annex Building
103 South Main Street
Waterbury.VT 05676
802/241-3822
Mr. George F. Carlson, Jr.*
Surface Water Quality Bureau
NH Department of Environmental Services
P.O. Box 95
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03302-0095
603/271-2052; FAX 271-2867
Mr. Ted Hickey,
Supervising Engineer
Permits, Pretreatment & Planning Sect
Rl DepL of Environmental Management
Water Resources Division
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908
401/277-6519 exL 7230
Mr. Jim Rogers,*
Environmental Specialist
Division of Water Resource Regulations
ME Department of Environmental Protection
Land & Water Quality Bureau
Statehouse Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
207/287-7774
Module 15
Appendix: List of Contacts Page 1
-------
Pretreatinent Update
EPA's Pretreatment Training Course
Region II
Virginia Wong
U.S. EPA-Region 2
Water Permits & Compliance Branch
25th Floor
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212)637-4241
FAX (212) 637-3771
Other Contact Phil Sweeney (212) 637-3765
Ms. MaryJoAiello,
Bureau Chief (CN-029)
Bureau of Pretreatment and Residuals
NJ DepL of Environmental
Protection
401 E. State Street, 4th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625
609/633-3823
Jim Murphy,
Principal Environmental Engineer
NJ DepL of Environmental
Protection
401 E. State Street, 4th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625
609/633-3823
Ms. Wanda Garcia,*
Permits Section Chief
Environmental Quality Board
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
P.O. Box 11488
Santruce, PR 00910
787/751-1891
Mr. Robert Cronin, Director*
Bureau of Water Compliance Programs
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Room 318
Albany, NY 12233-3505
518/457-5968
Page 2 - Appendix List of Contacts
Module 15
-------
EPA's Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Update
Region III
John Lovell
U.S. EPA -Region 3
Office of Municipal Assistance (3WP-24)
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)566-5790
FAX (215) 566-2302
Other Contacts: Steve Copeland (215)566-5792
Martin Matlin (215) 566-5789
Mr. James Collier, Chief
Water Hygiene Branch
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
2100 Martin Luther King Ave., SE
Suite 203
Washington, DC 20020
202/404-1120
Mr. Gary F. Kelman, Head
Pretreatment Section
Maryland Department of the Environment
Industrial Discharge Permits Division
Water Management Administration
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
410/631-3630
Mr. David Montali,
Pretreatment Coordinator
Water Resources Section
Department of Commerce, Labor and Environmental
Resources
Division of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
304/558-4086
Mr. Paul Janiga, *
Environmental Engineer
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Division of Water Resources
Pollution Control Branch
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE19903
302/739-5731
Mr. Burton R. Tuxford,
Pretreatment Coordinator
VA DepL of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Permit Support
629 E. Main Street
PO Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240
804/698-4086; FAX 698-4500
e-mail 'brtuxford@deq.state.va.us'
Mr. Tom Brown,*
Pretreatment Coordinator
PA Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Water Quality Management
P.O. Box 625, RD #3
Wilmore Road
Ebbensburg, PA 15931
814/472-1900
Module 15
Appendix: List of Contacts - Page 3
-------
Pretreatment Update
EPA's Pretreatment Training Course
Region IV
Douglas Lankford
U.S. EPA - Region 4
Water Permits & Enforcement Branch
61 Forsyth St
Atlanta, GA 30303-3415
(404) 562-9757
Mr. Jim Sommerville, Manager
East Compliance Unit
GA DepL of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Atlanta Tradeport, Suite 110
4244 International Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30354
404/362-2624; FAX 362-2691
e-mail: jim_sommerville@mail.dnr.state.ga.us'
Mr. Tom S. Poe
Division of Water Quality
NC DepL of Environment Health, and Natural
Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
919/733-5083 exL 522
FAX 733-9919
Mr. Michael Montebello, Manager Wastewater
Management Section
SC Department of Health and Environmental Services
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201-1706
803/734-5268
Mr. Abe Rowson
SC Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803/734-5273
Mr. Jimmy Coles,
Pretreatment Coordinator
Water Division
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Cong. WL Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
334/271-7936
Mr. Bob Rogers, Supervisor
Pretreatment Section
KY Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Cabinet
Division of Water/KPDES Branch
14 Reilly Road, Frankfort Office Park
Frankfurt, KY 40601-1189
502/564-3410 x432; FAX 564-5105
e-mail "rogers@mail.nr.state.ky.us'
Mr. J. Earl Mahaffey, Chief
Pretreatment Program
Office of Pollution Control
MS Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209-0385
601/961-5122; FAX 961-5703
Mr. Chuck Durham
TN Division of Water Pollution Control
6th Floor, L & C Annex
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
(615)532-0638; FAX 532-0614
e-mail 'cdurham@mail.state.tn.us'
Mr. Robert E. Heilman
Domestic Wastewater Section (MS #3540)
FL Department of Environmental Protection
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
904/488-4524; FAX 921-6385
e-mail'heilman_r@dep.state.fl.us'
Page 4 - Appendix List of Contacts
Module 15
-------
EPA's Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Update
Region V
Matthew Gluckman
Pretreatment Coordinator
U.S. EPA - Region 5
Water Quality Branch (5-WQP-16J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
(312) 886-6089
FAX (312) 886-7804
Mr. Mark Stump,
State Pretreatment Coordinator
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
1800 Water Mark Drive
Columbus, OH 43266-1049
(614)644-2028
Mr. Charles Randy Case,
Pretreatment Coordinator
Wl DepL of Natural Resources
Wastewater Management WW72
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
608/261-438-7054
Mr. Bob Babcock
Ml DepL of Natural Resources
Knappes Center, 2nd Floor
300 Washtenaw Street
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48933
517/373-8566
Mr. Steve Nightengale*
Division of Water Pollution Control
IL Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 96792-9272
217/782-0610
Mr. Randy Dunnette,
Pretreatment Coordinator
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
SL Paul, MN 55155-4194
612/296-8006
Mr. Reggie Baker,*
Pretreatment Coordinator
IN Department of Environmental Management
105 South Meridian SL
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
317/233-0473
Module 15
Appendix Ust of Contacts - Page 5
-------
Pmlicaliiient Update
EPA's Pretreatment Training Course
Region VI
Lee Bohme
U.S. EPA-Region 6
NPDES Permits Branch (6WQ-PM)
Fountain Place, 12th Floor, Suite 1200
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-7532
FAX (214) 665-2191/665-6490
Other Contacts: MikeTillman (214)665-7531
Al Hernandez (214) 665-7522
Mr. Allen Gilliam,
Pretreatment Coordinator
AR Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 8913
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
501/682-0625
e-mail "gilliam@adpce.lrk.ar.us'
Ms. Ann Young,"
Water Resources Specialist
Surface Water Quality Bureau
New Mexico DepL of the Environment
1190 Saint Francis Drive,
Room N-2050
Santa Fe, NM 87502
505/827-2823
Mr. Daniel R. Burke,*
Pretreatment Team Leader
Watershed Management Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087
512/239-4564
e-mail "dburke@smtpgate.tnrcc.state.tx.us*
Mr. Dave Farrington,*
Pretreatment Coordinator
Water Quality Service
Oklahoma DepL of Environmental Quality
1000 NE 10th
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1212
405/271-7440
e-mail "dave.farrington@oklaosf.state.ok.us"
Mr. Ronnie Bean, *
Pretreatment Coordinator
Water Pollution Control Division
Louisiana DepL of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2215
504/765-2779
e-mail *ronnie_b@deq.state.la.us'
Page 6 - Appendix: List of Contacts
Module 15
-------
EPA's Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Update
Region VII
Paul Marshall, P.E.
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7419
FAX (913) 551-7765
Other Contact: MikeTurvey (913)551-7424
Mr. Steve Williams,
Environmental Specialist
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
515/281-8884; FAX 281-8895
Mr. Richard Kuntz, P.E.,
Pretreatment Coordinator
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
205 Jefferson Street
Jefferson City, MO 65102
573/751-6996
Mr. Rudy Fiedler,
Pretreatment Coordinator
NE Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 98922
State Office Building
Suite 400, The Atrium
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
402/471-4209; FAX 471-2909
Mr. Steve Gaspers,*
Pretreatment Specialist
Industrial Programs Section
KS Department of Health and Environment
Bureau of Water
Forbes Field, Bldg 283
Topeka, KS 66620-0001
913/296-5551; FAX 296-5509
Module 15
Appendix: LJst of Contacts - Page 7
-------
Pretreatment Update
EPA's Pretreatment Training Course
Region VIII
Curt McCormick
U.S. EPA Region 8
NPDES Branch (8P2-W-P)
99918th Street, suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303)312-6377
FAX (303) 312-7084
Other Contact Debra Thomas (303) 312-6373
Mr. Joe Strasko,*
Permits Officer
MT Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Bldg., Room A-206
Helena, MT 59620
406/444-2406
Ms. Lillian Gonzalez, *
Pretreatment Coordinator
Colorado Department of Health
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3607; FAX 782-0390
e-mail "lilliangonzalez@state.co.us"
Mr. Gary Bracht, *
Environmental Scientist
North Dakota State Health DepL
P.O. Box 5520
Bismark, ND 58502-5520
701/328-5227
Ms. Carta Wobschall, *
Environmental Scientist
ND State DepL of Health and Consolidated Laboratories
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58502
701/328-5221
Mr. Lonnie Steinke,
Natural Resources Engineer
SD Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Joe Foss Bldg.
523 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
605/773-3351
Ms. Marisa Latady,*
NPDES Coordinator
WY Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Division
Herschler Bldg., 4th Floor West
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307/777-7082; FAX 777-5973
Mr. Nathan Guinn,
Pretreatment Coordinator
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Quality
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
801/538-6146; FAX 538-6126
Page 8 - Appendix List of Contacts
Module 15
-------
EPA's Pretreatment Training Course
Pretreatment Update
Region IX
Keith Silva
U.S. EPA-Region 9
Permits and Compliance Branch (W-5-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1907
FAX (415) 744-1235
Mr. Joseph Livak*
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
NV Division of Environmental Protection
Capital Complex
333 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
702/687-4670x3143; FAX 687-5856
Mr. Mark Charles*
Surface Water Enforcement
Office of Water Quality
AZ Department of Environmental Quality
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2809
602/207-4567; FAX 207-4467
Mr. Denis Lau, Chief
Clean Water Branch
Hawaii Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
500 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu, HI 96801-3378
808/586-4309
Mr. James W. Kassel, Chief
Regulation Unit
California State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 100
901 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-0100
916/657-0775; FAX 657-2388
Module 15
Appendix: List of Contacts Page 9
-------
Pretreatment Update EPA's Pretreatment Training Course
Region X
Sharon Wilson
U.S. EPA-Region 10
Wastewater Management & Enforcement Branch (OW-130)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-1128
(206) 553-0325
FAX (206) 553-0165/553-1280
Mr. Chuck Hopkins, David J. Knight,
Pretreatment Coordinator Pretreatment Coordinator
Water Quality Division Washington Department of Ecology
OR Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Program
811 SW 6th Avenue P. 0. Box 47775
Portland, OR 97204-1390 0lympia, WA 98504-7775
5Q3/229-6528 360/407-6277
e-mail 'dakn461@ecy.wa.gov"
Mr. Raj Kapur,
Pretreatment Program Specialist
Water Quality Division
OR Department of Environmental Quality
811SW 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1390
503/229-5185
Page 10 - Appendix List of Contacts Module 15
-------
EPA's Pretreatment Training Course Pretreatment Update
OTHER POTENTIAL CONTACTS
(States & Territories with no interest in or active Pretreatment programs)
Mr. Ben Nizario, Director * Mr. Robert Dolan, *
Environmental Protection Division Environmental Engineer
VI Department of Natural Resources AK DepL Of Environmental Conservation
Nisky Center, Suite 231 555 Cordova SL
North 45A Estate Nisky Anchorage, AK 99501
Charlotte Amalie 907/269-7559
SL Thomas, VI00802
809/774-3320 Mr. Gene Rehfield, *
Environmental Engineer
Mr. Jerry Yoder * AK DepL Of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Quality SE Region Office
ID DepL Of Health and Welfare 410 Willoughby Avenue, #105
State House Mail Juneau, AK 99801-1724
1410 North Hilton 907/789-3151
Boise, ID 83720-9000
208/334-5898
* State Program Not Approved; EPA is Approval Authority.
Module 15 Appendix: List of Contacts - Page 11
-------
The Pretreatment Training Course Bibfiography
Bibliography
Aluminum, Copper, and Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders Pretreatment Standards Guidance
Manual (\m)
Control of Slug Loadings to POTWs - Guidance Manual (1991)
Environmental Regulations and Technology: The National Pretreatment Program (1986)
Guidance Manual for the Use of Production-based Pretreatment Standards and the Combined Wastestream
Fom?u/a(1985)
Guidance on Evaluation, Resolution, and Documentation of Analytical Problems Associated with Compliance
Monitoring (1993) Note: This document is particularly relevant to OCPSF analytical concerns.
Guidance Manual for the Identification of Hazardous Wastes Delivered to Publicly Owned Treatment Works
by Truck, Rail, or Dedicated Pipe (1987)
Guidance Manual for POTWProgram Development (1983). Note: This document included guidance on POTW
legal authority and multijurisdictional situations. Also, a model sewer use ordinance was included in Appendix
I and a sample attorney's statement in Appendix K. This information has been superseded by the following
documents.
Guidance Manual for Preparation and Review of Removal Credit Applications (1985) Note: this manual was
developed before several regulatory changes. While the concepts presented may reflect the general technical
approach to be used in developing or reviewing a removal credit application the current regulatory
requirements take precedence.
Guidance Manual for POTWs to Calculate the Economic Benefit of Non-Compliance (1990)
Guidance Manual for Electroplating and Metal Finishing Pretreatment Standards (1984)
Guidance for Developing Control Authority Enforcement Response Plans (1989)
Guidance Manual for Battery Manufacturing Pretreatment Standards (1987)
Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTWs (September 1987)
Guidance Manual for the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the
Pretreatment Program (December 1987)
Guidance Manual for Leather Tanning and Finishing Pretreatment Standards (1986)
Guidance to Protect POTW Workers from Toxic and Reactive Gases and Vapors (June 1992)
Guidance Manual for Implementing the Total Toxic Organics (TTO) Pretreatment Standards (1985)
Student Manual : Pagel
-------
Bibliography TTie Pretreatment Training Course
Guidance Manual for Iron and Steel Manufacturing Pretreatment Standards (1985)
Guidance Manual for Pulp, Paper and Papertoard and Builder's Paper and Board Mills Pretreatment Standards
(1984)
Industrial User Inspection And Sampling Manual For POTWs (1994)
Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual (September 1989)
Interim Guidance for Performance-Based Reduction ofNPDES Permit Monitoring Frequencies (April 1996)
Model Pretreatment Ordinance (1992)
Multijurisdictjonal Pretreatment Programs - Guidance Manual (1994)
NPDES Compliance Flow Measurement Manual (1981)
NPDES Compliance Inspection Manua/(1994)
NPDES Compliance Inspector Training Modules (1990)
=£> Overview
=£> Legal Authority
=4> Sampling
=f> Laboratory
=£> Biomonitoring
NPDES Permit Writers Training Manual (1996)
PCME Software User's Manual and Diskettes (1993)
POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance Document (1989)
PRELIM 5.0 User's Manual and Diskette (September 1996)
Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force - Final Report to the Administrator (1985)
Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (1986). Note: This document contains out of date
information. It has been almost entirely replaced by the Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual, the and
the other manuals listed below.
RCRA Information on Hazardous Wastes for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (1985)
Supplemental Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the
Pretreatment Program: Residential and Commercial Toxic Pollutant Loading and POTW Removal Efficiency
Estimates (May 1991)
Page 2 Student Manual
------- |