States
   mental Protection
Office of
Public Awareness (A-1Q?)
Washington DC 20460
Novenmar 1978
OPA 129/8


     _ *. '

A Guide
to the*Clean Water
Amendments
                                *

-------
Contents
 Introduction                                           i
 Background                                             1
 Why Amend the 1972 Law?                                2
Technology Related
Amendments
 Pollutant Classification and
 Control System                                          5
 Municipal Pollution                                         5
 A New Classification System for
 Industrial Pollution                                         6
 Toxic Pollutants and Hazardous
 Substances                                               7
 Innovative and Alternative
 Technology                                              8
 What is Alternative and
 Innovative?                                               8
 Major 1977 provisions for
 Innovative and Alternative
 Technology                                               9
 Innovative and Alternative
 Technology Related Provisions                                10
 Cost Effectiveness                                        1 0
 Pretreatment                                            10
 Sludge Management                                      1 1
 Institutional
 Amendments                                          13
 State Role                                               1 3
 Needs of .Small Communities and
 Rural Areas                                               1 4
 Agricultural Pollution Provisions                               1 5
 Dredge and Fill Program                                16
 Sewer Policy                                             1 6
 Treatment Deadlines                                      1 6
 Areawide Waste Treatment
 Management (208)
 Amendments                                             17
 Federal Facility Compliance                                17
Additional Amendments                               19
User Charges/Industrial Cost
Recovery                                                19
Buy American                                            1 9
Clean Lakes                                             1 9

-------

-------
                              Introduction
                              This guide explains the major 1977 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
                              known as the Clean Water Act. Congress first approved national water quality legislation in
                              1948, and has updated it periodically since that time. The 1972 Act (PL 92-500) represented a
                              major course change in  Federal water pollution control law. In contrast, the 1977 legislation
                              provides adjustments  — commonly referred to as  "mid-course corrections" — to an on-going
                              program.

Background: The 1972       Prior to 1972, the central national strategy for controlling water pollution was  to base clean-up
Amendments                requirements on the desired uses  of effluent-receiving waters  (drinking water,  body-contact
                              recreation, fishing, navigation, etc.) as determined by State governments,  and the water quali-
                              ty conditions necessary to support those uses. Accordingly, the state water pollution control
                              agency applied a "water quality standard" to each stream or portion of a stream, and where
                              this water quality standard  was not being  met, sought to determine the responsible
                              discharger(s) for enforcement action. As increased or new discharges were introduced, it was
                              intended that treatment  capabilities be upgraded in order to maintain  the quality of the  receiv-
                              ing waters. This strategy was generally ineffective due to a number of political, technical, and
                              legal weaknesses: stream use designations tailored to protect  or attract industrial development,
                              inadequate information on the cause and effect links between discharges and  water quality, in-
                              adequate consideration of the health of aquatic ecosystems, problems of equity between  old
                              and new pollution sources, and general inattention to pollution emanating  from sources other
                              than a pipe.
                                These problems were  attacked  head-on in 1972 by P.L. 92-500. This sweeping revision  of
                              the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was predicated on the philosophy, as set forth in the
                              Senate committee  report, "that no one has the right to pollute     and that pollution con-
                              tinues because of technological limits, not because of any inherent right to use the Nation's
                              waterways for the purpose of disposing of waste." The Act established a national goal  of
                              eliminating pollutant discharges by 1985, and directed "that wherever attainable, an interim
                              goal  of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
                              and wildlife and provides for recreation in  and  on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983."
                                While the 1972 amendments retained — and strengthened —  the previous system of water
                              quality standards, they more importantly changed the course  of the whole national clean  water
                              effort by:

                              • requiring three phases of nationally  uniform industrial effluent limitations"; these limitations
                              are developed by EPA based upon the economic and technological capabilities of each  in-
                              dustry;
                              *BPT: best practicable technology, to be achieved by 1977
                               BAT: best available technology, to be achieved by 1383 (changed to 1334 in the 1977 amer,drncn:si
                              NSPS" new source performance standards, to be achieved when a new source commences operation  Thid 
-------
                             • requiring special controls over severely toxic pollutants (a pollutant-specific approach requir-
                             ing a great amount of information for proof of toxicity — see Toxic Pollutants and Hazardous
                             Substances section below);

                             • requiring National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for all point
                             sources of pollution, providing the first major direct enforcement procedure against polluters;
                             these permits are to be renewed,  and upgraded,  at least every five years;

                             • requiring national effluent limitations for municipal dischargers, and providing for an ex-
                             panded Federal program of financial assistance to local governments for planning and con-
                             struction of wastewater treatment works;

                             • requiring comprehensive river basin and regional water quality planning for both point
                             sources and nonpoint sources of pollution —  a provision which set in motion major planning
                             initiatives in all states.

Why Amend the 1972 Law?  Congress has periodically  improved the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Indeed, even as it
                             adopted P.L. 92-500, Congress clearly anticipated that review, course-correction, and fine tun-
                             ing would be required soon after  1972. EPA was directed to report to Congress annually on
                             the measures taken toward implementing the objective of the Act; additionally EPA was
                             directed to submit biennially a detailed estimate the costs of carrying out the provisions of the
                             Act and "... a comprehensive analysis of the national requirements for and the cost of
                             treating municipal, industrial, and other effluent to attain the water quality objectives as
                             established  by this Act or applicable  State law."  The 1972  amendments also established the
                             National Commission on Water Quality which was instructed to conduct a three-year com-
                             prehensive study of the economic, social, technological and environmental effects of achieving
                             or not achieving the 1983  goals of the Act. In short, Congress well recognizes that the water
                             quality field is changing rapidly; new problems emerge, new technology is developed, overall
                             knowledge improves apace. And the law must be adjusted in  response.
                               A practical but especially compelling motivation for the 1977 amendments lay in the fact that
                             the financial authorizations of P.L. 92-500 applied only until June 30, 1975, with short term
                             funding extensions voted  after that date. The 1977 amendments provide long-term authoriza-
                             tions,  generally to September 30,  1980. Authorizations for  the construction grants program ex-
                             tend until September 30, 1982, generally at $5 billion annually.
                               The 1977 amendments were shaped in part by what might be described  as "institutional
                             forces." For instance, though recognizing a continuing and important state role in water quali-
                             ty planning  and management, P.L. 92-500 had defined the Federal interest to be both broad
                             and, in some areas, pre-eminent.  Implementation of the 1972  law thus led  to some conflicting
                             interpretations of the division of authorities and responsibilities between  Federal and state
                             agencies. The 1977 amendments  respond to this problem by more explicitly defining the roles
                             of the different levels of government.
                               Similarly, priority and program decisions by state agencies in response to the 1972 law
                             tended understandably to focus on urban areas,  where problems loomed largest and needs
                             were found greatest — an emphasis  which aroused frustrations in some rural communities. At
                             the same time, agricultural interests began to voice concern about difficulties potentially in-
                             herent in the Act's— language governing nonpoint source  pollution and disposition of
                             dredge-and-fill materials. Accordingly, several of  the 1977 amendments deal directly with the
                             needs  and problems of small communities, rural  areas, and agriculture.
                               A third "institutional force" stemmed from findings  that lack of compliance with the 1972
                             law could in a great many cases be traced to failures of the Federal Government to adhere to
                             its own policies or to follow through  on promised actions.  Major industry,  it was noted in the
                             Congressional hearings to amend  the Act, was better than 85% in compliance; municipalities

-------
were complying at only 33% level. And, in the words of the Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Water Resources of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, "in many
areas the prime violator of environmental laws has been the Federal Government itself." Most
of the municipal and industrial (facilities waiting to discharge into municipal facilities) failure to
comply was attributed to delays in Federal funding as well as procedural delays (the time it
takes to plan and  build facilities for large communities); the President had impounded con-
struction grant appropriations in the early days of P.L. 92-500, and the drafting of regulations
to implement the  new law became an extended and uncertain process.  In adopting the 1977
amendments, Congress formally noted several Federal shortcomings, and attempted to correct
them.
   Probably the most important of the 1977 amendments, however, are  those which might be
described as based upon "technological forces" — emerging public philosophies and ex-
pressed concerns about chemical pollution, materials recycling, and environmentally compati-
ble technical systems.
   The 1977 amendments reflect Congressional recognition that dangerous toxic pollution was
going unabated while much attention was focused on less serious forms of pollution.  Major oil
spills on the open seas,  carbon tetrachloride contamination of the Ohio River,  the Kepone
disaster in Virginia, PCB's in the Great Lakes, and growing concern about the chemical con-
tamination  of drinking water supplies nationwide, have driven home the fact that there are dif-
ferent kinds of pollution, and that some kinds pose a greater threat to public health than
others. This recognition,  combined with emerging questions about the cost effectiveness of
applying our more stringent technology-based limitations on "ordinary" wastes, led in 1977 to
a new classification of pollutant types, with different requirements specified for each category.
These changes result in  a much greater emphasis on the control of toxic pollutants.
   Finally, a  number of the 1977 amendments reflect a strong Congressional desire to en-
courage deployment of new waste treatment technology — in part because it  may in some
cases cost  less than conventional technology, and in part because it offers substantial en-
vironmental benefits. Beyond that, the 1977 legislation  promotes recycling and reuse of pollu-
tion control by-products (effluent, sludge, nutrients), energy conservation, and multiple use of
lands and waters  which  are components of wastewater treatment systems.

-------

-------
                            Technology  Related
                            Amendments  of  1977
Pollutant Classification
and Control System
In effect, P.L. 92-500 divided effluent limitations into three categories: municipal (domestic
waste), industrial, and toxic. Unless the quality of the receiving waters dictated more stringent
limitations, different general controls were applied to each category. Municipal discharges were
to meet secondary treatment requirements by July 1,  1977, and  municipal best practicable
waste treatment technology (BPWTT) by July 1,  1983. Industrial discharges were subject to in-
dustrial best practicable technology currently available (BPT) by  July 1, 1977,  and best
available technology  economically achievable (BAT) by July 1, 1983. Toxic effluent standards
(including prohibition of discharges) were to be set by EPA in accordance with formal rulemak-
ing procedures, for pollutants placed on a toxic pollutant list.
  Problems quickly developed. Provisions of the Act relating to toxic pollutants were cumber-
some (putting a  great burden of proof upon EPA  to show toxicity) and so subject to varying
interpretation that  EPA experienced great difficulty in speeding their implementation. And a
special variance for thermal pollution —  allowing  relaxation of effluent limitations where the
discharger could demonstrate the less stringent controls would not mean damage to fisheries
and wildlife resources — quickly turned  into a major stumbling block. EPA found itself in court
in both areas.
  Meanwhile, national public concern had been growing with respect to pollution of water
supplies, toxic chemicals in the environment, oil spills, and accidential discharges of  hazardous
substances. Congress approved the Safe Drinking Water Act in  1974 and the  Toxic
Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in  1976. On the
other hand, treatment of conventional industrial wastes was fairly well on schedule (although
compliance by municipalities was lagging).
  All of this led  Congress to establish in the 1977 amendments a new pollutant classification
system, with different deadlines and treatments requirements for each class. The Chairman of
the Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Public Works and Transportation Committee of
the House put it this way:  "The highlight of the bill — the most important and far-reaching
amendments are contained in a package of provisions responding to the most critical deficien-
cies of P. L 92-500,  dealing with toxic pollutants and the 1983 requirements in the Act for
treatment of industrial discharges. Taken together, they will result in a major redirection and
refinement of the Environmental Protection Agency's  regulatory program and immeasurably
improve its capability to achieve the purposes and objectives of  the Act."
Municipal Pollution:
Requirements for municipal treatment remain basically as they were established by the 1972
law, except that the 1977 secondary treatment deadline may be extended in some cases
(where construction cannot be completed in time or Federal financial assistance was not
available in time to  achieve compliance with the 1977 deadline) to no later than July 1, 1983 —
which is also the deadline for attainment of municipal BPWTT. In fact, however, there is no
real conflict here, for the standards which EPA has approved  for secondary treatment are
closely akin to those it has established for municipal BPWTT.

-------
A New Classification System   Under the 1977 amendments, there are essentially three categories of industrial pollutants:
for Industrial Pollution:
                             • Conventional —  BOD (biological oxygen demand), suspended solids, fecal coliforms, pH
                             (acidity), and other pollutants so designated by EPA.

                               Treatment required — best conventional technology (BCT)

                               Deadline - July 1, 1984

                               Variances allowed — none

                             • Toxic (also see Toxic Pollutants and Hazardous Substances section below) — the 1977
                             amendments specify an "initial list" of toxic substances, to which EPA  may add or from which
                             it may subtract.

                               Treatment required — best available technology (BAT)

                               Deadline — July 1, 1984, or not later than three years after a substance is placed on the
                               toxics pollutant list.

                               Variances allowed — none

                             The 1977 amendments leave in force the original pollutant-specific approach.

                               Treatment required — Not applicable (These are effluent restrictions or prohibitions for each
                               chemical which apply to all dischargers, regardless of treatment technologies.)

                               Deadline — Not later than three years  after effluent standard is established

                               Variances —  None

                             • Nonconventional —  "gray area" or "all other" pollutants, those not classified by EPA as
                             either conventional or toxic

                               Treatment required — best available technology (BAT)
                               Deadline — July 1, 1984, or within three years of  the date EPA established effluent limita-
                               tions, but not later than July 1, 1987.

                               Variances allowed — EPA may permit  treatment levels below BAT, but no lower than BPT,
                               if the discharger demonstrates that either 1) such  lower  level represents the maximum level
                               economically feasible and that such level will result in "reasonable further progress" toward
                               elimination  of the discharge, or 2) such lower level is environmentally acceptable.

                               Some specialized departures from these requirements should be kept in mind:

                             • The 1977 amendments do allow EPA, in lieu of enforcement proceedings where an industrial
                             polluter has acted in good faith but has not met the 1977 BPT deadline, to extend the BPT
                             deadline to no later than April 1, 1979.

                             • The 1977 BPT deadline may be extended to July  1, 1983, in cases where the industrial
                             discharger has contracted to discharge to a publicly owned treatment system, but the public
                             system is not yet ready to accept the discharge (see later section on extension of municipal
                             deadlines due to lack of Federal funds).

-------
                              • The 1984 BAT deadline for nonconventional and toxic pollutant discharges may be extended
                              to July 1, 1987, to allow replacement of existing production capacity with an innovative pro-
                              duction process which will result in greater pollution  reduction or lower cost, and which has
                              potential for industry-wide application (see later section on innovative technology).

                                The 1977 amendments leave intact a 1972 provision for review and upgrading of effluent
                              limitations every five years. The 1977 legislative history indicates that Congress intends that
                              guidelines for both BCT and BAT be upgraded on a regular basis.

Toxic Pollutants and           |n the 1972 law. Congress  attacked the problems of pollution  by toxic and hazardous
Hazardous Substances:         substances —  but found it necessary to deal with both issues again in 1977.
                                P.L. 92-500 had established a formal rulemaking process under which  EPA was to identify
                              toxic pollutants and issue effluent standards (including prohibition of discharge) for control of
                              those substances  on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis rather than by industrial categories.
                              However, the procedural requirements set forth in 1972 led to a tangle of legal debates —
                              clouded by scarcity of toxicological data  — as to what was and wasn't "toxic," how much of
                              a toxic substance was "safe," how much regulation Congress really intended, and so on.
                              Under these circumstances, EPA proceeded slowly to identify and regulate six chemicals.
                                The Natural  Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several other citizens groups took the
                              toxics question to court in  a series of cases — these resulted  in a June 1976 Consent Decree
                              issued by the U.S. District Court in Washington,  D.C. The court decree (NRDC Consent
                              Decree) mandated that effluent  limitations for 21  major industrial categories based on BAT be
                              established for 65 specified toxic pollutants by December 31,  1979, and implemented by the
                              July 1, 1983, deadline of P.L. 92-500.
                                In 1977, Congress rewrote the toxic pollutants portion of the Federal Water Pollution Control
                              Act, in effect codifying the NRDC Consent Decree — though extending the court-imposed
                              deadlines, and empowering EPA to add to and subtract from  the court's list of 65 toxic
                              pollutants. (Note:  the court's list of 65 included some categories and families of substances;
                              these were refined by  EPA to an "initial list" of 129 specific pollutants referenced by the 1977
                              amendments.)  The amendments retain the original pollutant-by-pollutant approach as an alter-
                              native control technique for particularly pervasive toxic pollutants, but simplify and clarify the
                              regulatory procedure, with the intent of precluding another administrative impasse.
                                Under the new  legislation, EPA has until July 1, 1980, to promulgate  BAT toxic effluent
                              guidelines, on an industry-by-industry basis, for the  Consent Decree pollutants  — industry be-
                              ing  required to comply by July 1, 1984. For substances later added to the initial  list, industry
                              will  have a three year period following promulgation of effluent guidelines within which to
                              comply with effluent guidelines.
                                In the 1977 amendments Congress also approved  language  regulating industrial management
                              of toxic and hazardous materials which might enter the environment other than  through ef-
                              fluent discharges.  EPA is authorized to establish  "best management practices" (BMP's) to be
                              implemented as provisions of NPDES permits,  for the control  of plant site runoff, leaks,
                              spillages, sludge and other waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage sites.
                                The BMP provision of the 1977 amendments is a key link in the Nation's defenses against
                              toxic substances in the environment. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA is inven-
                              torying chemicals  produced or used  in the United States, and setting the stage to prohibit
                              manufacture or distribution of those found unreasonably dangerous to human or environ-
                              mental  health.  The Clean Water Act, with the new toxics provisions of  1977, provides controls
                              over dispersal into the Nation's waters of those toxic substances which continue in use — and
                              the  Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act of 1976 provides similar controls over disposition
                              of toxics-laden solid wastes, including municipal  sewage sludge. Thus, BMP requirements
                              close a potential gap between laws.
                                Looking to a broader range of materials than those classified as "toxic," section 311 of  P.L.
                              92-500 declared a  national  policy of seeking to prevent discharge of oil or hazardous sub-
                              stances (to be  defined by EPA) into  U.S. waters, and established procedures by which EPA
                              could act to prevent or respond  to spills and other non-routine releases of such  substances.
                              Regulations pursuant to this section were not finalized due in  part to conflicting interpretations

-------
                             of key subsections. The amendments clarify the situation in one respect by broadening the
                             definition of "costs of removal" to specifically include costs incurred by Federal and state
                             government in restoring or replacing natural resources damaged or destroyed by a discharge.
                             Furthermore, section 311 now authorizes EPA to mitigate the damage caused by discharges of
                             substances deemed not actually removable, and to assess the mitigation costs against the
                             discharger (in addition to penalties established in 1972); mitigation includes such measures as
                             containment of the discharge, public warnings, monitoring water supplies  and the  environ-
                             ment,  and raising of sunken  ships leaking hazardous substances. The 1977 amendments
                             strengthen section 311  in several other respects —  primarily by making those responsible for
                             spills and releases  potentially subject to increased costs.  Liability limits for costs incurred  by
                             the Federal Government in removing oil or hazardous substances are raised to $50 million
                             (from $8 million) for discharges from onshore and offshore facilities;  new liability formulas are
                             established to cover discharges from ships and barges. Finally,  section 311 was broadened to
                             cover activities carried out in connection with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands and Deep-
                             water  Port Acts.
                                In a related action, Congress added extensive language to the "emergency powers" section
                             of P.L. 92-500, requiring EPA to prepare a plan, and establishing a special fund, for emergency
                             assistance to persons and  communities in cases of  pollutant and contaminant discharges. This
                             new program is not limited to water pollution emergencies, but covers all  "releases into the
                             environment." It also applies to "any pollutant  or other contaminant" — thus not being limited
                             to toxics, or oil and hazardous substances as defined in accordance with the law.
Innovative and Alternative
Technology
What is Alternative and
Innovative
The 1977 amendments to P.L. 92-500 enunciate a major policy of promoting the utilization of
innovative and alternative waste management techniques, with special focus on the municipal
waste treatment program. Though mentioned only briefly, innovative and alternative
technology was explicitly encouraged in the 1972 law — but few projects (10%) applied such
technology,  largely because of perceived greater risks and higher costs on the part of
water quality administrators,  public health officers, and consulting engineers. However, several
other factors were also involved:  engineering orientation toward conventional technology;
public health laws, and the focus of EPA resources on other activities required by the Act.  So
Congress used the 1977 amendments to require every community seeking  Federal grants for
construction of wastewater facilities to consider innovative and alternative options in order, in
the words of the Chairman of the Subcommittee on  Environmental Pollution of the Senate
Committee on  Environment and  Public Works, "to force technology so that new and better
alternatives which have not been demonstrated can become available."
  The Chairman summed up the  Congressional intent, "to underscore the requirements of
(P.L. 92-500) that all those involved in implementing  the program —the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, states, communities, and consulting engineers —direct the program away from
the conventional collection and secondary treatment  approach and toward the use of alter-
native technologies, especially those which rely on controlled natural processes, such as  land
or lagoons or marshes,  in order to make use of the nutrients in the waste waters.  More than
any other issue concerning the construction grant program, (Congress is) concerned with the
need to  encourage alternative and innovative systems."

Innovative and alternative techniques, taken together, foster three central objectives:  recycling
and reuse  of water and waste materials (nutrients, sludge), energy conservation and recovery,
and cost reduction. In this context, EPA has defined innovative and alternative.
  "Innovative" refers to new and promising technology which is not yet fully proven  under the
circumstances  of its contemplated use. In conventional treatment systems, "innovative"
describes technology which reduces costs by 15% or more, or reduces the amount of energy
required for  waste treatment by at least 20%. "Innovative" could also refer to new technology
which advances the state of  the waste treatment art — in terms of cost reduction, energy  con-
servation or  recovery, recycling and  conservation of  water resources, pollutant containment,
reclamation  and reuse of effluents, treatment efficiency or reliability,  beneficial use of sludge,
better management of toxics, and increased environmental benefits.

-------
Major 1977 Provisions for
Innovative and Alternative
Technology:
  "Alternative" technology is better known than innovative, offering treatment approaches
which are clearly alternate to conventional secondary and advanced waste treatment pro-
cesses.  Included in this category are such techniques as land treatment, aquifer recharge,
water reclamation, use of nutrients, aquacuiture, silviculture, direct industrial reuse of ef-
fluents,  composting and  land application  of sludges, burning sludge to produce energy, and
anaerobic digestion to produce methane.
  Among the 1977 amendments are requirements that EPA publish guidelines for identifying
and evaluating innovative and alternative  wastewater treatment processes and technologies,
and that EPA establish a  national clearinghouse for information about such technologies. Fur-
thermore, EPA must develop and operate a public information program concerning recycling
and reuse of wastewater  and sludge, land treatment, and methods of reducing wastewater
volumes.
  Sewer construction and rehabilitation are specifically excluded from these categories by the
amendments.

• The keystone amendment in this area is straight forward: "(EPA) shall not make grants  .  .
to any state, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the erection, building, ac-
quisition, alteration, remodeling,  improvement, or extension of treatment works unless the
grant applicant has satisfactorily  demonstrated to (EPA)  that innovative and alternative
wastewater treatment processes  and techniques     have been fully studied  and
evaluated
                              •  Federal grants for innovative and alternative facilities will provide 85% of construction costs
                              rather than the normal 75%.

                              •  To provide funds for the increase from 75% to 85% grants, two percent (1979-1980) of con-
                              struction grant funds allocated to each state (three percent in fiscal 1981) must be set aside for
                              innovative and alternative facilities — with at least one-half of one percent earmarked for in-
                              novative facilities.
                              •  To help speed deployment of innovative and alternative technology, projects using alternative
                              or innovative techniques are to be given preference and qualify for the 85% grant if their life
                              cycle cost under a cost effectiveness analysis does not exceed the life cycle cost of the most
                              cost effective conventional alternative by more than 15%.

                              •  The amendments provide an "insurance policy" — EPA will pay 100% of the costs of modi-
                              fying or replacing any innovative or alternative facility which does not meet design perfor-
                              mance standards, and  shows significantly increased operation and maintenance costs. (One
                              hundred percent grants are also available for technical evaluation  and dissemination of infor-
                              mation.)

                              •  States are empowered to modify their priority systems for allocating Federal grant funds to
                              give higher  priority ratings to innovative and alternative facilities.

                              •  Four percent of grant funds allotted to each state with a rural population of 25%  or greater
                              "shall be available only for alternatives to  conventional  sewage  treatment works for
                              municipalities having a population  of 3,500 or less, or for the highly dispersed sections of
                              larger municipalities." (See small communities section below.)

                              •  The Federal Government is to play a leadership role in  utilizing innovative and alternative
                              technologies.  After September 30, 1978, construction may not  be initiated on any wastewater
                              treatment works at a Federal property or facility unless innovative or alternative techniques are
                              utilized; this requirement does not apply, however, if the costs  of innovative and alternative
                              techniques are more than 15% above the  most cost effective alternative.

                              •  On the industrial side,  the 1983 BAT deadline may be extended until July 1, 1987, for an  in-
                              dustry installing an innovative pollution control  system  (see pollution classification section
                              above.)

-------
Cost Effectiveness
• Two amendments specifically prohibit EPA from granting funds for construction of municipal
wastewater facilities unless the applicant dejnonstrates that it has considered methods, pro-
cesses and techniques to reduce total energy consumption, and has analyzed the open space
and public recreation potential of lands, waters, and rights-of-way which are parts of the pro-
posed project.

• EPA is instructed to study and report by October 1978 upon the use of effluents and sludges
for agricultural and other processes that utilize  nutrients, and to advise Congress whether or
not further legislation is  desirable to "encourage or require" the use of sludge for agricultural
and other beneficial purposes.

In 1977, Congress amended P.L. 92-500 in three important ways to reflect its desire not to
waste money in waste treatment —  and yet to  assure that economic criteria point the way to
desired treatment systems.
  Congressional  dissatisfaction with the amount of land treatment or  reuse systems led to an
amendment which provides a 15% "cost effective bonus" as an incentive to application of in-
novative or alternative technology. EPA was also required to republish the cost  effectiveness
guidelines, emphasizing  in them the identification and selection of cost effective alternatives
which provide for recycling and reuse of effluents, pollutants, and sludges. (Cost effectiveness
guidelines describe procedures for identifying the least cost treatment alternative that will pro-
duce effluent of  required quality.)
  The Chairman  of the House Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Public Works and
Transportation Committee,  offered a context for attention to economic considerations in set-
ting industrial best conventional technology (BCT) guidelines: "Progress to date and justifiable
anticipation of further progress in the conventional pollutant area militates against preserving
the requirements in existing law that BAT be required across-the-board for  all conventional
pollutants. The result would be treatment for treatment's sake." So Congress amended the
Act to direct that "factors to  be taken into account in determining (BCT  measures and prac-
tices) shall include consideration  of the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of
attaining  a  reduction in effluents and the effluent reduction benefits desired." Furthermore, in
approving this language, Congress instructed EPA to "review every (existing) effluent
guideline     which applies to (conventional) pollutants," with  adjustments favored wherever
necessary to reflect the concern about cost-effectiveness.
  Concern about reasonable costs is also reflected in the 1977 provisions which modify the
1972 philosophy  that all  municipal discharges should be subject to uniform  requirements. The
National Commission on Water Quality had found that application of the 1977 secondary treat-
ment standard to certain ocean discharges might not be required to protect water quality.
After consideration of this and information submitted by coastal municipal dischargers. Con-
gress amended the law to allow waiver or modification of the secondary treatment requirement
for certain municipal discharges into deep marine waters with currents that provide rapid
dispersal, if specified conditions can be met.  Such waivers are subject to the normal NPDES
five-year review,  require special monitoring of discharge impacts on the marine  ecosystem,
allow no new or  substantially increased discharges, and require compliance with industrial
pretreatment regulations, and removal of toxics from the discharge.
Pretreatment
"Pretreatment" refers to treatment provided by an industrial facility which discharges to a
publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The purpose of pretreatment is to remove those in-
dustrial wastes which might create problems in sewers (fire, corrosion, explosion), inhibit
municipal sewage treatment processes, or pass untreated into waterways or the POTW's sludge
rendering it unfit for beneficial use or disposal. As observed by the Chairman of the Sub-
committee on Environmental Pollution of the Senate Committee on Enviornment and  Public
Works, "often sludge is so contaminated by the chemicals and metals which find their way in-
to municipal waste treatment systems, that it is useless." Pollutants which cause the  above
problems are said to be "incompatible" with a POTW  and thus require some form of  pretreat-
ment prior to their discharge to a municipal sewer system.
  The 1972 legislation directs EPA to establish pollutant discharge limits or national pretreat-
ment standards on an industry-by-industry basis for toxic pollutants determined to be "incom-
patible" with POTW's. The  1977 amendments required discharge limits set forth in pretreat-
                              10

-------
                             ment standards to be based upon the application of BAT to "indirect dischargers" (those in-
                             dustries that discharge to POTW's).  State and local government may set pretreatment re-
                             quirements for substances not regulated by standards and more stringent limits for toxic
                             pollutants which are regulated by national standards. Indeed, as municipal NPDES permits are
                             revised, EPA is to require development of a local pretreatment program through which the
                             POTW will  govern industrial use of public waste treatment facilities. Such programs are to
                             establish limits for specific pollutants contained in industrial discharges, enforce the national
                             toxic pretreatment standards, and provide for compliance monitoring and adequate revenue to
                             run the local enforcement program.
                               Subject to state and EPA approval, the municipality may also provide at least partial treat-
                             ment for industrial toxic wastes in a  way which allows the industry to reduce its pretreatment
                             costs. Thus, if the municipal facility  consistently removes a certain  percentage of an industrial
                             toxic pollutant, the discharge limit set forth in any national pretreatment standard for discharges
                             of that pollutant may be relaxed accordingly, permitting industrial cost-saving. Authority to
                             modify the  discharge limits in national pretreatment standards will  be granted for specific
                             pollutants on a case-by-case basis. To be authorized to revise pretreatment standards  the
                             POTW must demonstrate that the subject pollutant is removed in absolute terms; simple dilu-
                             tion of industrial wastes with municipal sewage does not qualify as removal. Revisions will be
                             further conditioned upon EPA or NPDES state approval of the POTW's local pretreatment pro-
                             gram and the POTW's municipal sludge meeting any applicable EPA criteria for the disposal
                             method used by the POTW.
                               If a municipal (or state) government does not enforce violations  of national pretreatment
                             standards EPA will do so — including going into court against the municipality. POTW pollu-
                             tant removals that justified revisions  to national pretreatment standards as well as the  revised
                             limits themselves will be included in the POTW's permit and will be enforceable against the
                             municipality.

Sludge Management         The 1977 Clean Water Act's provisions for sludge management clearly indicate Congressional
                             support for properly managed utilization of the increasing volumes of sludge generated by the
                             Nation's municipal wastewater treatment plants. The objectives of the 1977 amendments for
                             sewage sludge management are two-fold:

                             (1) To assure adequate protection of public health and the environment by promulgation of
                             minimum Federal standards for sludge disposal and utilization;

                             (2) To maximize encouragement of beneficial uses of sludge which conform with Federal stan-
                             dards.

                               Provisions regulating the management of sewage sludge under the 1972 Act were limited to
                             conditions where disposal "would result" in pollution of navigable waters. The 1977 amend-
                             ments make two major changes to the regulation of sludge disposal requirements: the 1972
                             Act's provisions for controlling sludge disposal were tied to the NPDES permit program, and
                             regulatory authority was expanded to include any disposal or utilization of sludge from
                             POTW's.
                               The beneficial utilization of sludge is encouraged by the amendments' emphasis upon  and
                             increased funding for alternative and innovative technology. Also,  the  1977 amendments re-
                             quire EPA to submit to Congress a report on the use of sludge in agriculture and other ac-
                             tivities that utilize its nutrient content. This report must include a discussion of EPA's  research
                             and development programs and  grants regarding alternatives to conventional disposal  options
                             and an analysis of current sludge utilization technologies and impediments to implementation
                             of these technologies. EPA must also make recommendations, in this report, for future legisla-
                             tion which will encourage or require  greater utilization of sludge. The report is to be submitted
                             to Congress by October 1, 1978.
                            11

-------

-------
                            "Institutional"
                            Amendments  of  1977
                            Separating the amendments in the institutional category from those which are related to tech-
                            nology is difficult because of the interrelationships among them. The "institutional" amend-
                            ments, however, tend to deal more with the process than the technical substance of water
                            quality management. By and large, they are intended to recognize the responsibility of state
                            and local governments in reaching national water quality goals.

State Role                  The Clean Water Act is designed to encourage Federal/State cooperation to achieve clean
                            water. Even while outlining broad new Federal authority, the Act stated:  "It is the policy of the
                            Congress to recognize,  preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of states to
                            prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution." In ensuing years, however, as  new powers and  pro-
                            grams were implemented, concern was voiced in several quarters that the Federal Government
                            was preempting state authority in areas related to water quality, that the  Federal Government
                            held the authorities granted  in P.L. 92-500 too closely, and that there was overlap and  duplica-
                            tion of activity between Federal and state levels.
                              So, in the 1977 amendments, Congress made its feelings very clear: "It is the policy of  Con-
                            gress  that the states manage the construction grant program under this Act and implement the
                            permit programs under sections 402 (NPDES permits) and 404 (dredge and  fill permits) of  this
                            Act." State, local and the Federal governments each have water pollution control respon-
                            sibilities, the nature of which varies from program to program. A major thrust of the 1977
                            amendments is to shift toward the exercise of more authority by the states.
                              To  support the states in implementing this policy, the 1977 amendments  authorize (but  do
                            not require) EPA to reserve 2% of each state's allotment of construction  grant money  — or
                            $400,000,  whichever is greater —  to be used as "state management assistance funds." Top
                            priority expenditure of such  funds is to underwrite state operation of the  construction grant
                            program, but  they may  also be applied to administration of the NPDES and dredge and fill per-
                            mit programs, as well as to management of the section 208 statewide water quality planning
                            program (if requisite construction  grant activities  have been taken over by the state). The
                            legislative  history underscores  Congressional  intent that these funds result in additional person-
                            nel and expanded activities —  and that they not simply replace funds from  some other source.
                            Management  assistance grants will be based on assessments of state capabilities to use them
                            as intended by Congress.
                            In other 1977 actions to clarify the state role, Congress:
                             •  amended the law to provide that "the determination of the priority to be given each
                             category of projects for construction of publicly owned treatment works within each state shall
                             be made solely by that state" — where category refers to such functional descriptions such as
                             secondary treatment, advanced waste treatment, and new collector sewers. The amendment,
                             however, also allows EPA to remove a specific project from the priority list if it is not
                             necessary to comply with enforceable requirements of the Act, such as municipal and in-
                             dustrial effluent limitations. And there was guidance to the states from the Senate  Subcom-
                             mittee Chairman: "The states are expected to continue to give priority to projects within each
                             category . .   on the basis of the severity of the pollution problem to be corrected and related
                             factors such as the size of the existing population to be served."
                             13

-------
                             • amended the Act to assure that it would not interfere with state water rights and water
                             allocation systems.

                             • used the legislative history to emphasize Congressional intent in approving P.L. 92-500 that
                             "the provisions of this Act with respect to any pollutant ...  are not preemptive  of any (more
                             stringent) applicable state or local requirement, standard, limitation, or deadline."

                               Such language, of course, should be read in the context of EPA's overall authority to over-
                             see the national water quality program. As explained here.  Congress clarified the state role in
                             determining priorities— and at the same time emphasized EPA's authority to challenge a
                             specific project. And Congress combined  its intention that states administer the permit  pro-
                             grams with EPA authority to veto a state  permit (where the limitations and requirements of a
                             state  permit are contrary to the provisions of Federal law), and with the requirement that the
                             state  certify that each permit is in compliance with state water quality standards.

Needs of Small Communities   As mentioned above —  because of the magnitude of pollution problems, state priority policies,
and Rum! Areas:              and the economics of conventional waste treatment technology — the national clean water
                             program has historically tended to focus on the needs of metropolitan areas. Small com-
                             munities have often been either overlooked altogether, or subjected to pressures  to build
                             highly expensive, growth-inducing conventional treatment facilities.
                               The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Senate  Committee on
                             Environment and Public Works offered one example of the  problem:  "In a county neighboring
                             Washington, D.C., the state and county had proposed to construct a $400 million advanced
                             waste treatment facility whose capacity was at least four times that needed by the existing
                             population. Meanwhile, 43 other (communities) in that same state which would have gone
                             without funds to construct needed secondary  treatment facilities are  potentially subject to en-
                             forcement action for failure to  comply with minimum treatment standards."

                             The 1977 amendments included a series of provisions designed to assist rural and other small
                             communities:

                             • no  state shall receive less than one-half of one percent of the total construction grant funds
                             available each year (may  require special appropriations).

                             • four percent of the construction grant funds available each year to any state with a rural
                             population of 25% or greater — or in any other state where the Governor so requests —
                             "shall be available only for alternatives to  conventional sewage treatment works for
                             municipalities having a population of 3,500 or  less, or for the  highly dispersed sections of
                             larger municipalities."

                             • in order to save money, reduce project  delays, and remove certain planning uncertainties
                             facing small cities and towns, communities of 25,000 or less in population may combine proj-
                             ect design and construction phases (steps 2 and 3) for federally-assisted waste treatment proj-
                             ects having an estimated cost of $2 million or  less ($3 million  in states with unusually high con-
                             struction costs).

                             • the state management  assistance grant amendment pointedly mentions state assistance to
                             small  communities, and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the
                             Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works specified during floor discussion that "it
                             is understood that no grant would be made under this provision until the state has
                             demonstrated a commitment to acquiring  the  capability to manage grant awards  in small com-
                             munities."

                             • at community request,  EPA is authorized to provide technical and legal assistance in  ad-
                             ministration and enforcement of any contract for planning,  design, or construction of treat-
                             ment  facilities.
                             14

-------
                             •  "A grant may be made ... to construct a privately owned treatment works serving one or
                             more principal residences or small commercial  establishments constructed prior to, and in-
                             habited on (December 27, 1977), when (EPA) finds that 1) a public body .  . . eligible for a
                             grant . . . has applied on behalf of a number of such units and certified that public ownership
                             of such works is not feasible; 2) such public body has entered into an agreement with (EPA)
                             which guarantees that such treatment works will be properly operated and maintained and
                              .  . . includes a system of charges to  assure that each recipient of waste treatment services
                             under such a grant will pay its proportionate share of the cost of operation and maintenance
                             (including replacement) and; 3) the total cost and environmental impact of providing waste
                             treatment services to such residences or commercial establishments will be less than the cost
                             of providing a system of  collection and central treatment of such wastes." (Recreation
                             residences or "second homes" are not eligible.)

                             •  EPA is to work with other Federal agencies and the state to "develop a comprehensive  pro-
                             gram for achieving  adequate sanitation services in Alaska villages."

Agricultural Pollution          Agricultural interests had pointed out  that certain  provisions of P.L. 92-500 might prove dif-
Provisions:                    ficult for farmers to meet. Specific concern was voiced about potential farm-related re-
                             quirements of the nonpoint source pollution provisions of section 208, dredge and fill permit
                             requirements, and whether or not irrigation return flow conduits constituted point sources sub-
                             ject to NPDES permit requirements. Congress amended  the law in all three areas:

                             •  irrigation return flows are specifically exempted  from the definition of "point source" and
                             from NPDES permit procedures. Instead, irrigation return flows will be treated as nonpoint
                             sources subject to section 208 planning and control.

                             •  normal farming, ranching, and forestry activities — plowing, harvesting, soil and crop
                             management, stock pond and farm road construction  (in accord with best management prac-
                             tices) — are explicitly exempt from NPDES and section 404 dredge and fill permit re-
                             quirements.

                             •  to help ease the potential financial  burden of implementing required BMP's (best manage-
                             ment practices) on farms, a major amendment  to section 208 establishes a rural landowner
                             assistance program  —  with annual authorizations as high as $400 million to be administered  by
                             the Department of Agriculture.  This program involves  long term contracts for installation of
                             BMP's by landowners, under Federal cost sharing up to  50%. To be eligible for cost sharing
                             assistance, an area  must:  (1) have a critical water quality problem that results from agricultural
                             nonpoint source pollution (2) be included in an approved agricultural portion of a 208 plan, and
                             (3) be able to ensure an adequate level of  participation by rural landowners.  Participation will
                             be considered adequate when 75 percent of the critical acreage or source of the  pollutant
                             problem  are under contract. This may vary in those areas where the approved  agricultural  por-
                             tion of the 208 plan provides data and analysis  which indicate that a greater or lesser percen-
                             tage of the acreage or  source of the pollutant must be treated to attain water quality standards
                             or water quality goals.  BMP's eligible for cost sharing are those that reduce agricultural non-
                             point source pollution and which are  included in the approved agricultural portion of the 208
                             plan. The function of this program is to reduce nonpoint source pollution, not to augment
                             other agricultural support efforts administered by the Department of Agriculture. Indeed, as
                             pointed out by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Resource Protection of the Senate
                             Committee on the Environment and Public Works, "Existing soil conservation programs have
                             simply not addressed the problem of  nonpoint  source pollution and, frankly, have contributed
                             to poor water quality in several instances."
                             15

-------
Dredge and Fill Program
Sewer Policy
Treatment deadlines
The Clean Water Act of 1977 made substantial changes in EPA's role in the section 404
dredged or fill permit program. Perhaps the most important of these is EPA's responsibility for
reviewing and approving State permit programs. Such programs will operate in lieu of the per-
mitting responsibilities of the Corps of Engineers in certain waters of the United states (in
general, those waters traditionally considered to be non-navigable.) EPA's role both in approv-
ing and overseeing these State programs is to be similar to its approval and oversight of State
NPDES programs.  The touchstone of the section 404 permit process is compliance with EPA's
environmental guidelines, which describe the evaluations necessary to  ascertain the en-
vironmental damage potential of both the dredged or fill material  composition and  the pro-
posed disposal site, the value of ecosystems at the site, and  measures to protect such values.
The 1977 amendments  also identify a number of activities which do not require 404 permits in-
cluding several farming and forestry activities. The basic purpose of these exclusions and ex-
emptions is to make both the Corps and the States permit programs operate more efficiently
by alleviating the necessity for case-by-case review of activities which are not major sources of
pollution of the aquatic ecosystem. Federal  dredge and fill activities in  connection with a proj-
ect specifically authorized by Congress do not require a 404 permit — so long as an en-
vironmental impact statement is submitted to Congress in timely fashion which  includes con-
sideration of the environmental guidelines.
  The net effect of the 1977 amendments has been to increase EPA's  responsibility for ensur-
ing the success of  the 404 program even though EPA does not issue 404 permits. The EPA 404
environmental guidelines, which under prior law were applicable only to Corps-issued  permits,
will now serve a variety of functions.  They will  limit the issuance of State-issued 404 permits,
the approval of Best Management Practices promulgated by Statewide 208(b)(4) regulatory
programs, and the  operation of the exemption for particular Federal projects. Additionally, EPA
now has the responsibility for publishing procedures and standards governing the approval and
operation of state programs.

Since its inception  in the 1960's, the central purpose of the Federal program of grants for plan-
ning and construction of wastewater  facilities has been to catch up with the Nation's
municipal pollution backlog, not to subsidize new local growth. Because of that policy, and as
facilities have been installed in the areas of greatest need, debate has arisen in recent years
over the extent to which Federal funds should continue to be used for sewer construction and
rehabilitation  — activities which are viewed  as growth supporting or inducing.
  The 1977 amendments in this area  provide that not less than 25% of construction grant
funds available to each state in any year shall be obligated for sewer construction and
rehabilitation, if such projects are on the state priority list and are otherwise eligible for fund-
ing. However, the  1977 amendments  did not change the requirement of the 1972 law that col-
lector funding be limited to communities in existence on October 18, 1972.

The most significant of these actions  is extension until July 1, 1983, of the original 1977
deadline for municipal secondary treatment  in those cases where construction was already
underway,  or Federal financial assistance has not been available. An application for such ex-
tension must  be filed by June 25,  1978.
  The 1977 BPT deadline is extended for an industrial facility which has a permit issued prior
to July 1, 1977, allowing connection to a municipal facility where that facility is not yet able to
accept industrial wastes. EPA must determine that the industry involved is otherwise acting in
good faith.  An industrial extension will not be granted if the municipal  facility will not be
available prior to July 1, 1983. The industrial facility may be required to meet any applicable
pretreatment  requirements.
                             16

-------
Areawide Waste Treatment
Management (208)
Amendments
The 1977 Clean Water Act Amendments provide for extending the planning period for develop-
ment of initial water quality management plans, pending the EPA Regional Administrator's ap-
proval. Agencies designated after 1975 will have three years from the time of their first grant
award to complete their initial plan. The amendments further state that all future grants will
not exceed a 75%  Federal share. In addition, a provision is added which  requires that 208
plans identify open space and recreation opportunities that can be expected to result from im-
proved water quality.
  It should be noted that the 1977 amendments do not reflect the extent of interest in non-
point source pollution indicated in the legislative history. This is because  Congress regarded
the provisions of PL 92-500 as sufficient to achieve nonpoint source pollution control, but re-
quire greater implementation by EPA and the states.
Federal Facility
Compliance:
Many Federal waste treatment facilities do not meet Federal pollution control requirements —
as well as state standards. Congress has now directed Federal agencies to take the lead in
utilizing innovative and alternative treatment methods. In addition, the 1977 amendments pro-
vide that all Federal facilities and activities comply with all substantive, procedural, and ad-
ministrative clean water requirements of Federal, state, interstate or local agencies (including
permitting and enforcement). The President may exempt military facilities from this provision.
                             17

-------


•


-------
                            Additional
                            Amendments
"User Charges/Industrial Cost
jftfteovary'
There were a number of amendments to P.L. 92-500 not discussed in detail. Most of these
amendments make minor administrative changes, but a few are significant.

A central concept of P.L. 92-500 was that local water quality programs had to pay for
themselves, with the clear implication that the Federal construction grants program would be
terminated when the municipal pollution backlog was eradicated.  Accordingly, the Act re-
quired establishment of systems both to charge domestic users of Federally financed
wastewater systems for operations and  maintenance (0 and M), and to recover  Federal costs
attributable to the capacity needs of industrial users. Objections were raised to both charge
systems. The 1977 amendments remove one problem by allowing ad valorem taxes, rather
than metering, as the basis of charges to residential users for 0 and M, under certain conditions.
And they declare an  18-month moratorium on industrial cost recovery charge collection while
EPA conducts a study of their efficiency and  necessity.
Buy American
Clean Lakes
Waste treatment facilities assisted by Federal grants must use materials which come substan-
tially from U.S. sources (unless American materials are significantly more expensive).

Section  314(a)(1) requires states to identify publicly owned lakes and classify them according
to their state of eutrophication. This is done in conjunction with grant applications for lake
restoration projects funded under this section. The 1977 amendments make funding available
for the inventory requirements in 314 (a)(1).

  The 1977 Clean Water Act amendments, while not a major change in direction, do represent
extensive modifications to the existing law. Implementation of these amendments will result
from many varied activities by various levels of government, private industry, and the public.
For example, the amendment will give rise to many new or revised regulations from EPA or
state or  local agencies; additionally, the amendments will  likely  result in the states assuming
more of  the authority and responsibility for administering the Clean Water Act. It is, of course,
anticipated that they will result in improved quality of the  Nation's waters.
                            19
                                                                           ir U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1978 O - 275-392

-------