Office of Wastewater £???unitedsta|es/ and ComvHanc&Mb&fjie&i of WastewattttEx/Qjysement and
Environmental Protection (WH-546), _ .££ fj$£
Compliance » Office of A^a^/tewater Enforcement ana Compliance Offwe of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance » Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of
Wastewater Enforceme^t^^f^\^^'\^(^^^Q^^I\^f^^^^rcementand Compliance
Office of Wastewater Ei^mxemenL&t^LjGffi?'£&&&££ J^i^i §^^^£F^|""£2^rCf?WK-n^ fln^
Compliance * Office o/CSOKIHCBjfflBCH «ffmlJMf;iirfQl I iBflJSMGfJf ra*?fer
I
Enforcement and Compl&mmMLlEr}\Wa5tewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of
Wastewater EnforcemenrknuComp Tel * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance * Office °!^ffiF$\&f Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Office of Wasteivater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance *
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance *
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wasteioafer Enforcement and Compliance Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office, of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance » Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
-------
A Primer on the
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
and Its Programs
OWEC
dean water... a better environment
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
(WH-546)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
January 1993
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
TO: Employees of the Office of Water
This Primer was developed to describe the integrated water
pollution control, permitting and enforcement program activities
operating in the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
(OWEC).
The intent of the Primer is to inform new employees and the
public of OWEC's missions, initiatives and goals developed to
prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution in surface waters for the
protection of human health.
I would like to thank the Resources Management and Evaluation
Staff and all OWEC employees who contributed to the development of
this Primer. I hope you enjoy reading it and that your experiences
in contributing to OWEC's overall efforts are challenging and
rewarding.
Michael B. Cook
Director
Office of Wastewater Enforcement
and Compliance
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this Primer 1-1
1.2 Organization of this Primer . 1-1
2.0 Overview of the Water Pollution Problem
2.1 Sources of Pollution 2-1
2.2 Municipal Water Pollution 2-1
2.3 Industrial Water Pollution 2-2
2.4 Industrial Wastewater Discharged to Publicly Owned Treatment Works 2-2
2.5 Sewage Sludge 2-2
3.0 Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC): Its Role, Organization, and
Management
3.1 OWEC and the Office of Water 3-1
3.2 OWEC Organization 3-2
3.3 OWEC Centralized Policy, Budget, and Management 3-3
3.4 Data Management '..-... 3-3
4.0 Delegation and Authorization of State Programs
4.1 Procedures for Determining State Delegation and Authorization 4-1
4.1.1 Program Oversight after Authorization 4-1
4.2 Direct Program Implementation and State Oversight 4-1
-------
5.0 The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
5.1 Scope of the NPDES Program 5-1
5.2 Contents of NPDES Permits 5-1
5.2.1 Standard Conditions in All Permits 5-2
5.2.2 Effluent Limits 5-2
5.2.3 Compliance Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 5-3
5.2.4 Other Conditions in NPDES Permits 5-3
5.3 The Permit Issuance Process 5-4
5.4 Current Permitting Priorities 5-4
5.4.1 Toxicity Elimination 5-4
5.4.2 Stormwater Permitting 5r4
5.4.3 Combined Sewer Overflow Permitting 5-6
5.4.4 Sewage Sludge Use and Disposal Permitting 5-7
5.5 Program Accomplishments 5-7
6.0 Pretreatment and Municipal Pollution Prevention
6.1 History of the Pretreatment Program 6-1
6.2 Pretreatment Program Goals 6-2
6.3 Responsibilities of POTWS, States, and EPA 6-2
6.4 Pretreatment Standards 6-2
6.5 Pretreatment Enforcement Criteria and Requirements 6-3
6.6 Pretreatment Program Accomplishments and Future Directions 6-4
6.7 Municipal Water Pollution Prevention Program 6-4
6.7.1 Voluntary Source Reduction 6-5
6.72 Water Use Efficiency 6-5
6.7.3 Pilot Program Grants 6-5
-------
6.7.4 Operation and Maintenance Program 6-6
7.0 The National Sludge Management Program
7.1 Historical Sludge Control 7-1
7.2 Interim Sludge Program ; 7-1
7.3 Long-Term Program 7-2
7.4 Technical Assistance for the Beneficial Use of Sludge 7-2
8.0 The Enforcement Program -
8.1 Determining Violations 8-1
8.2 Determining the Action to be Taken 8-2
8.3 Available Enforcement Actions 8-2
8.3.1 Administrative Actions 8-2
8.3.2 Judicial Actions 8-3
8.4 Permit Compliance System (PCS) 8-3
8.5 Administration of the Enforcement Program: Compliance Assessment 8-4
8.5.1 Implementing EPA's Inspection Policy/Strategy 8-4
8.5.2 Evaluation of QNCRs 8-5
8.5.3 Implementation of the National Municipal Policy 8-5
8.6 Administration of the Enforcement Program: Major Responsibilities 8-5
8.6.1 Enforcement Case Review and Support 8-6
8.6.2 Development and Implementation of EPA's Penalty Policies 8-6
8.6.3 Review of Citizen Suits 8-6
8.7 Management of the NPDES Enforcement Program and State Oversight 8-7
8.7.1 Development of Enforcement Criteria and Enforcement of
Pretreatmem Requirements Against POTWs 8-7
-------
9.0 Funding and Technical Assistance
9.1 Administration and Management of Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements Under Section 104(b)(3) .. 9-1
9.2 Administration and Management of the Section 106 Grants Program 9-1
9.3 Construction Grants 9-2
9.3.1 Construction Grants Qoseout Strategy 9-2
9.4 State Revolving Funds (SRFs) Program and Special Projects 9-3
9.5 Privatization and User Charge Certification Program 9-3
9.5.1 Federally-funded Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 9-4
9.6 Pilot Grant and Technical Assistance Programs 9-4
9.6.1 Municipal Technology Program 9-5
9.62 Small Community Assistance Program 9-5
9.6.3 Indian Set-Aside Program 9-5
9.7 Enhancing State Capacity 9-6
9.7.1 Assessing and Building State Capacity 9-6
10.0 Special Projects
10.1 Mexican Border Initiative 10-1
10.1.1 Coloflias 10-1
10.1.2 Tijuana ; 10-1
10.2 Designated Coastal Cities 10-2
11.0 OWEC Strategic Plan
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
3-1 Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance Divisional Program Activities 3-6
5-1 Types of Regulated Pollutants 5-9
5-2 Summary of Technology Standards 5-10
6-1 Organization of the Pretreatment Program and
Summary of Responsibilities 6-8
Figures
2-1 Sources of Water Pollution 2-4
3-1 Office of Water 3-4
3-2 The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance . 3-5
4-1 Status of State NPDES and Pretreatment Program Delegation 4-3
6-1 Problems That May Occur When Industrial Wastewaters are
Discharged Into Municipal Sewage Treatment Systems 6-7
8-1 Categories of Data Stored in PCS 8-9
8-2 NPDES Compliance Inspections 8-10
Appendices
A Glossary of Acronyms
B Citations to Applicable Regulations
C Chronological History of the NPDES Program
-------
Chapter One
Introduction
The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEQ is responsible to the Assistant
Administrator for Water to administer pollution control programs that will protect public health and the
aquatic habitat and achieve the foals of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
1.1 Purpose of this Primer
The purpose of this Primer is to inform new
employees on the mission and program activities
of OWEC. Program activities from the former
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits and
the former Office of Municipal Pollution Control
have been integrated where appropriate and are
continuing more effectively in the Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
Included in this Primer is information on the
programs OWEC administers in order to reduce
and ftiJTtiinate water pollution from industrial and
municipal discharge pipes as well as diffuse
sources such as stormwater, combined sewer
overflows, and sludge.
\2 Organization of this Primer
This Primer is designed to provide general
information about OWEC and the programs it
oversees and enforces. Chapter 2 of the Primer
provides an overview of the water pollution
problem. Chapter 3 describes OWEC's
organization, both as an office within EPA's
Office of Water and as an entity in itself.
Chapter 4 explains OWEC's delegation of State-
level programs to States and EPA's Regional
management of State-level programs when the
State has not been authorized to operate these
programs. Chapter 5 discusses the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Program, a cornerstone of OWEC's
. program. . Chapter 6 covers the National
Pretreatment Program and OWEC's
complementary programs in pollution prevention.
Chapter 7 contains a description of the National
Sludge Management Program and OWEC's
technical assistance for the beneficial use of
sewage sludge. Chapter 8 traces OWEC's
enforcement process and strategies. Chapter 9
describes the funding anfl technical assistance
OWEC offers to States and municipalities, and
Chapter 10 discusses Special Projects. Chapter
11 covers OWEC's Strategic Plans. Appendix A
contains a glossary of acronyms used throughout
this Primer. Appendix B provides citations to
applicable regulations, and Appendix C gives a
chronological history of the NPDES Program.
Footnotes are listed at the end of the appropriate
chapters. The status of the programs described
in this Primer is as of January 1993, and its
pages are dated. In that way, updates to each
program's status may be added at the end of the
appropriate chapter.
-------
Chapter Two
Overview of the Water Pollution Problem
Pollutants in our water can impair or destroy aquatic life, threaten human health, and ruin recreational
opportunities and aesthetic potential. Fishing bans, restrictions on harvesting shellfish, beach closings, and
algae-coated lakes and rivers are only the most visible and publicized outcomes of water pollution.
The job of cleaning and protecting the nation's surface waters is complex because of the variety of
pollution sources. Whatever the source, however, and whatever the pollutant, "wastewater" is collected
in a "discrete conveyance," i.e., a pipe, a ditch, a sanitary or storm sewer, and then emitted or discharged
into receiving waters. The end of the pipe or sewer, the point at which the wastewater enters the receiving
water, is called the "point source." It is there that, under authority of the Clean Water Act, OWEC
regulates what goes into our wetlands, lakes, rivers, estuaries, bays, and oceans. OWEC provides guidance
and technical assistance on sewage sludge management, pretreatment requirements and groundwater
contamination from leaky sewers. Under the NPDES Program, municipalities and industries are required
to obtain a permit which specifies monitoring and reporting provisions and establishes limits on the
pollutants that are discharged by the source in order to assure compliance with the CWA.
2.1 Sources of Pollution
Traditionally, the Agency has addressed point
sources and nonpoint sources of water pollution
as separate problems. Now we are adopting a
more integrated, holistic strategy, applying a total
watershed approach which assesses all sources of
water pollution, and focuses on the more specific
kinds of pollution problems affecting water
quality. A body of water may be affected by
discharges from municipal and/or industrial
facilities, as well as pollutants from other sources
that are not as easily identified and therefore
harder to control.
Unlike municipal/industrial sources of pollution,
which emanate from a single discrete facility,
these other sources are usually more diffuse in
nature. For example, rain water washing over
farm lands and carrying top soil and fertilizer
residues into nearby streams is a major source of
pollution. The runoff may carry oil and
gasoline, agricultural chemicals, nutrients, heavy
metals, and other toxic substances, as well as
bacteria, viruses, and oxygen-demanding
compounds, and now comprises the largest
source of uncontrolled water pollution.
OWEC's main areas of responsibility are to
address the continuing demands of municipal and
industrial water pollution problems, including
non-traditional sources of water pollution which
are caused by stormwater and combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) during wet weather events, as
well as pollution problems that arise from the
improper disposal of municipal sewage sludge.
OWEC's water pollution control program
activities are authorized by the CWA. Water
pollution permitting and enforcement activities
are addressed under the NPDES program of the
CWA. EPA is currently seeking CWA
reauthorization, which will include water
pollution control requirements for traditional as
well as for non-traditional sources of water
pollution problems.
2.2 Municipal Water Pollution
Municipal wastewater consists primarily of
domestic wastes from households and industrial
wastewater from manufacturing and commercial
activities. Both of these types of wastewater are
.collected in sanitary sewers and are usually
treated at a municipal wastewater treatment plant,
often referred to as a Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW). After treatment, the wastewater
is discharged by the POTW into its receiving
water, e.g., a river, an estuary, or an ocean.
Wastewater entering the treatment plant may
include organic pollutants, metals, nutrients,
-------
January 1993: pago 2-2
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
sediment, bacteria, and viruses. Toxic substances
used in the home, including motor oil, paint,
household cleaners, and pesticides, also make
their way into sanitary sewers. In addition,
stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces such
as roofs, streets, and parking lotsrmay drain into
municipal separate storm sewers and then
directly into surface waters. Stormwater can
pick up a number of contaminants such as solids,
nutrients, bacteria, metals, and pesticides. The
environmental impacts of stormwater are
considerable. The 1990 Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress and a study sponsored by the-
Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA),
among others, indicate that stormwater including
urban runoff, is a major cause of surface water
pollution. In some cases, storm water may enter
municipal sanitary sewers, mix with the sanitary
wastewater, and be discharged before treatment
at the POTW through CSOs.
Discharges of pollutants from POTWs or
municipal separate storm sewer systems are
governed under the CWA by the NPDES
program.
23 Industrial Water Pollution
The water used in industrial processes, such as
steel or chemical manufacturing, produces
billions of gallons of wastewater daily. Some
industrial pollutants are similar to those in
municipal sewage but often are more
concentrated. Others are more exotic and
include a variety of heavy metals and synthetic
organic substances. In sufficient dosages, these
pollutants may present serious hazards to human
health and aquatic organisms. While as many as
several hundred thousand industrial facilities
discharge to municipal treatment plants, about
48.000 discharge wastewater directly to a
waterbody.
In addition, there are over 100,000 facilities that
have discharges of stormwater associated with
industrial activity that discharge into municipal
separate storm sewers or directly into surface
waters. Stormwater can pick up a number of
contaminants such as solids, oil und grease,
metals, ?n
-------
Overview January 1993: page 2-3
and can be used for beneficial purposes such as
fertilizer or soil conditioners. Other sewage
sludge may contain toxic pollutants and
pathogens which limit disposal options.
Municipal sewage sludge use and disposal are
regulated under the CWA by the National Sludge
Management Program. Under the program,
sewage sludge must be used and disposed of in
a manner that protects human health and the
environment
-------
January ..sJ: page 2-4
Office til Wastowator Enforcement and Compb^
lUlitl
Municipal Sewage
Sludge
Indirect Industrial
Users
Stormwater Runoff
Municipal
Treatment
Plant*
Combined
Sewer
Overflows
rCSOs)
Separate
Stormwater
(Municipal)
Direct
Industrial
Sources
Stormwater
(Industrial)
Figure 2-1: Sources of Water Pollution
-------
Chapter Three
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC):
Its Role, Organization, and Management
The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance was created in April 1991 and is one of four
offices within EPA's Office of Water (OW) (see Figure 3-1). OWEC consists of an immediate office (the
Office of the Director and the Resources Management and Evaluation StaffRMES) and three
divisionsPermits, Enforcement, and Municipal Supportwith branches and sections further subdividing
the Office's responsibilities. Figure 3-2, shows OWEC's organizational structure.
3.1 OWEC and the Office of Water
OWEC is responsible to the Assistant
Administrator for Water for
Directing NPDES, CWA, pretreatment,
sewage sludge management, compliance and
administrative enforcement programs.
Protecting the multi-billion dollar
infrastructure built under the construction
grants program through municipal water
pollution prevention activities while
effectively closing out the remaining
workload involved to complete the
construction grants program.
Managing the State Revolving Loan Fund
program, making awards to States, and
assisting States to develop long-term self-
sustaining programs.
Developing national strategies, program and
policy recommendations, regulations and
guidelines for municipal water pollution
control.
Developing and defending a national
program budget reflecting program needs and
priorities.
Ensuring the implementation of Agency
policy and priorities in the Regions and
Headquarters.
Providing technical direction and support to
regional offices and other organizations.
Managing the development and
implementation of State authorization and
oversight procedures for NPDES,
Construction Grants (CO) and State
Revolving Fund (SRF) programs.
Evaluating
regional municipal
control pTOffntms
source
related water quality and cost effectiveness
issues, in cooperation with the Office of
Science and Technology (OST) and the
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
(OWOW).
Developing program policy, guidance and
regulations for permitting, sludge
management, compliance, and pretreatment
activities.
Evaluating regional permitting, pretreatment
and compliance programs.
Managing CWA Sections 104(b)(3) and 106
grant programs.
Providing financial assistance for the
planning, design, and construction of
wastewater treatment projects related to the
North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) for unincorporated communities
along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Providing outreach, education, training,
coordination, liaison, and information
exchange with Regions, States, Indian Tribes.
localities, other agencies, Congress.
environmental, industrial, citizens' interest
groups and other nations, in consultation
-------
January 1993: pago 3-2
Office of Wastewafw £nfon»m«rt and Comptenc*
with the Office of International Activities
(OIA).
Providing legislative analysis and
coordination with the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) on research strategy, in
cooperation with OST.
Incorporating water use efficiency principals
including short and long term water use
reduction, water recycling and wastewater
reclamation and reuse into Agency programs.
Implementing the EPA/OW quality assurance
(QA) Program involving environmentally-
related measurements.
Planning and managing resources incfodfag
strategic planning, budget formulation,
budget execution, fiscal management,
program management, Strategic Targeted
Activities For Results System (STARS), and
human resources management
3.2 OWEC Organization
The Office's program activities can be broadly
grouped into six areas:
Implementation of existing water pollution
permit and control programs, including
strong oversight and quality assurance/quality
control measures;
Support for wastewater financing by
managing construction projects; by working
with the States and Indian Tribes treated as
states; by establishing SRFs; and by
providing technical assistance to small
communities which have problems
addressing wastewater treatment needs;
Development of new programs mandated by
the Water Quality Act of 1987;
strategies and developing new initiatives to
reduce whole-effluent toxicity,
Enforcement of both new and existing
programs; and
Integration of water programs with other
Agency activities, such as air pollution and
hazardous wastes.
Figure 3-3 shows the program activities handled
by RMES and the three divisions. The Water
Quality Act of 1987 has created new
responsibilities for OWEC adding the
development of new water pollution control
programs to the administration of older, estab-
lished programs under the CWA. Managing the
original NPDES permitting program is combined
with creating newer permit programs designed 40
strengthen controls in such areas as sewage
sludge management, storm water discharges, w*$
CSOs. In wastewater financial support, OWEC
is working with the States to implement SRFs at
the same time as it is closing out the CO
Program. In carrying out its mission under the
CWA, OWEC must maintain the achievements
of the past while meeting the demands of new
program development
The activities of OWEC divisions support a
coordinated program to address integrated
wastewater issues. For example, in the
development and oversight of the sewage sludge
management and permitting program, the
Pretreatment and Multi-Media Branch of the
Permits Division takes the lead in regulation
development, implementation policy, and State
programs Establishing sludge compliance
monitoring and working with enforcement issues
is ted by the Policy Development Branch of the
Enforcement Division. Technology assistance,
information dissemination, and promoting the
beneficial uses of sludge are the responsibility of
the Municipal Technology Branch of the
Municipal Support Division.
Improved control of toxic pollutants by
expanding the use of existing control
-------
OWEC Role, Organization, and Management
January 1993: page 3-3
3.3 OWEC Centralized Policy, Budget,
and Management
RMES provides support for the three operating
divisions through centralized administrative and
management services. These services includer
Administration and management of the
Sections 104(b)(3) and 106 grant programs
under the CWA that provides financial
assistance to state water quality management
projects (discussed in Chapter Nine).
Centralized management functions, such as:
budget formulation and execution; contract
and grants management; and program status
and evaluation reports. The staff initiates
special projects and studies, enhances state
water program capacity building,
communication, and outreach activities both
inside and outside EPA. Strategic planning
goals and human resources activities,
including personnel and training are also.
managed by the staff.
Cross-media responsibility for issues such as:
state funding and capacity building for all
aspects of the water quality program,
Mexican border activities associated with the
North American Free Trade Agreement, and
activities related to Eastern Europe and
targeted watershed areas.
Management responsibilities include
accountability systems, such as Federal
Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA),
reports and the preparation of Information
Collection Requests (ICRs) in response to
Paperwork Reduction Act requirements.
3.4 Data Management
The programs mat OWEC manages are
supported by data management systems such as
the Grant Information and Control System
(GICS), STARS, Needs Survey data base and
Permit Compliance System (PCS).
-------
January 1993: page M
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Figure 3-1
Office of Water
Policy and
Resources
Management
Office
Assistant Administrator
for Water
Policy Staff
Communications Staff
Budget and Administrative
Management Staff
Human Resources Staff
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Associate Assistant Administrator
1
Office of
Ground
Water and
Drinking
water
Resources Management
~ 'and Evaluation Staff
Ground Water
1 1
~ Protection Division
Enforcement and Program
"" Implementation Division
Drinking Water
""Standards Division
Technical Support
Division (Cincinnati)
Office of
Science and
Technology
Budget and Program
"" Management Staff
Engineering and
"~ Analysis Division
_ Health and Ecological
Criteria Division
Standards and Applied
Science Division
Office of
Wastewater
Enforcement and
Compliance
Resources Managment
"" and Evaluation Staff
Municipal Support
"~ Division
Enforcement
Division
Permits
Division
.
1
Office of
Wetlands,
Oceans and
Watersheds
Policy and
Communications
Staff
Budget and
Program Management
Staff
Oceans and Coastal
Protection Division
Division
_ Assessment and
Watershed Division
-------
OWEC Rok. jiizathn. and Management
January 1993: page
OFFICE OF WASTEWATER
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
Municipal Assistance Branch
Steve Allbee. Chief
Debra Remvtek. Sec.
Municipal Technology Branch
Robert Lee. Chief
Shawnta Ball, Sec.
James
Special/
Jeff 1
Special
Horne.
Assistant
-ape.
Assistant
1
^
MUNICIPAL SUPPORT DIVISION
Michael Qulgley. Dlr.
Mildred Joyce. Sec.
Paul Baltay. Dep. Dlr.
Valerie Barnes, Sec.
Slate Revolving Fund Branch
DonNiehus, Acting CHel
Ernestine Hunter. Sec.
Construction Grants Branch
Gary Hudburgh. Acting Chief
Delores Keith. Sac.
Program Management Branch
Cleora Scott, Chief
Gloria Miles. Sec.
xx
MMEDIAT
Michael B. C
Georgette E
John P. Lehmai
UndaBrc
^
E OFFICE
ook. Director
Irown, Sec.
n Dep. Director
loks. Sec.
\
ENFORCEMENT DTvTSON
Richard Kodowskl. Dir.
Barbara Augustus, Sec.
Compliance Eval. A Info. Mgmt. Branch '
Carol Galloway, Chief
Beverly LeHridge, Sec.
Enforcement Support Branch
Anne Lasslter, Acting Chief
RosheH Johnson-WNttey, Sec.
Policy Development Branch
Richard KuNman , Acting CNef
Brenda Savage, Sec.
\
Resources Managemer
Jane Ephrem
Budget P
Anna Ga
Resources Mar
Lois Cam
it and Evaluation Staff
des , Director
BUcy Staff
rda. CNef
lagement Staff
ida. CNef
PERMITS DIVISION
Cynthia Dougherty, Dir.
Frank E. Hall. Dep. Dlr.
Barbara Featherstone, Sec.
Pretreatment ft Multi-Media Branch
Elaine Brenner, Chief
Pal Blackwell. Sec. '
(
NPDES Program Branch
Ephraim King. CNef
Shavorme Slmms. Sec.
Water-Quality & Indus!. Permits Br.
J im Pendergast, Chief
Adelaide Webb. Sec.
Figure 3-2
-------
January 1993: page 3-6 Offiw of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Table 3-1
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Divisional Program Activities
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION STAFF
Financial and Administrative Management
Management Reporting (FMFIA, STARs, AOO)
Contracts Management
Administration, Management and Financial Assistance for Sections 104(b)(3) and 106 Water Quality
Management Grant Programs
State Capacity Building
Budget Formulation/Execution
Communications
MUNICIPAL SUPPORT DIVISION
Develop Municipal Water Pollution Control National Polkies/Strategies/Regulations/Guidance
Develop/Defend National Program Budget for the Construction of Wastewater Treatment Projects
National Overall Management of Ongoing Construction Grants Program/Implement Completion Closeout
Strategy
Protect Previous Investments and Existing Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure
Oversee Management of Special Construction Projects, including Projects in the Mexican
Border/Tijuana/Colofiias/Coastal Cities
Train/assist States, including Indian Tribes
Develop and Implement the State Revolving Loan Fund Program
Manage the Development and Implementation of Delegation Oversight Procedures
Implement Agency Policies and Priorities in the Regions and Headquarters
Evaluate Regional Municipal Point Source Abatement and Control Programs Related to Water Quality and
Cost Effectiveness Issues
Prepare Biennial Needs Survey Report to Congress
Develop/Manage Municipal Water Pollution Prevention Activities
Develop/Manage Water Use Efficiency (Wise Water Use) Activities
Develop/Manage Public Private Partnership Activities (Privatization)
Promote Beneficial Use of Sludge
Liaison with other offices
-------
OWEC Role, Organization, and Management January 1993: page 3-7
Table 3-1 (continued)
PERMITS DIVISION
NPDES Permit Issuance Policies/Guidance
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm Water
State Program Approval/Oversight
Local Pretreatment Program oversight
Sludge Program Development and Implementation
Develop Special Pennit/Pretreatment/Sludge Initiatives.
RCRA/CWA Overlapping Issues
Technical Assistance and Training
Regulatory/Policy Development for NPDES, Pretreatment and Sludge
Permit Appeals Tracking and Assistance
Liaison with Other Offices
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
NPDES Enforcement Policies/Strategies
Enforcement Case Support
Evaluate Proposed Enforcement Settlement Agreements
Targeted Enforcement Initiatives
PCS Maintenance and Enhancements
Review and Analysis of Compliance Reports
Coordination of Compliance Inspections
Monitor Citizens Suit Activity
Liaison with the Office of Enforcement
Training for Federal/State/Local Compliance Personnel
Discharge Monitoring Reports Quality Assurance
Feedlots
Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Combined Sewer Overflow Monitoring and Enforcement
Sludge Program Implementation
-------
Chapter Four
Delegation and Authorization of State Programs
EPA is responsible for implementing and enforcing the NPDES and CO programs. However, authorized
States (or federally recognized Indian Tribes'), may perform these functions in lieu of EPA, thereby
shifting EPA'-s-role-to one of .oversight inthose jurisdictions. This chapter describes how delegation and
authorization of States is determined, how OWEC's programs are implemented by headquarters and the
Regions in the absence of such authorization, and what changes are taking place in these roles.
4.1 Procedures for Determining State
Delegation and Authorization
Under current regulations, any State or U.S.
Territory may apply to administer its own
NPDES program. They may also be authorized
to administer a Pretreatment or Sludge Program,
issue general permits, and permit federal
facilities. To obtain approval, the State must
submit an application explaining the State
program and its legal authority. Upon approval,
a memorandum of agreement defining program
roles and responsibilities is executed by the
appropriate Regional Administrator and the State
Program Director. Currently, 39 out of 57 States
and Territories have received NPDES program
approval from EPA (see Figure 4-1).
Under the 1987 Water Quality Act, federally
recognized Indian Tribes may apply to
administer their own NPDES programs. A Tribe
seeking authorization must first apply for
"treatment in the same manner as a State." After
EPA approves this application, the Tribe must
develop and submit a NPDES program
application. EPA is encouraging Indian Tribes
to assume NPDES authority and is promulgating
regulations for Indian-Tribe program assumption.
(For a description of funding of wastewater
treatment plants through the Indian Set-Aside
Program, see Chapter Nine, Funding and
Technical Assistance.)
4.1.1 Program Oversight after Authorization
The Strategic Targeting Activities for Results
System, under which States and Regions
annually commit to particular program goals,
reflects the status of certain program activities.
STARS includes information such as number of
permits to be issued and number of permit
appeals to resolve. As part of EPA
Headquarters' oversight activities, OWEC then
evaluates, among other tilings, whether States
and Regions are meeting their STARS
commitments by tracking numbers of permits
issued and number of permit appeals resolved,
auditing programs, and performing Permit
Quality Reviews (PQRs). Where targets are not
being met, OWEC assists in the analysis of
special or common causes and facilitates
improvement of the processes.
4.2 Direct Program Implementation and
State Oversight
Where EPA is the Permitting Authority. OWEC
is responsible for the overall development and
implementation of the NPDES program
regulations, policy and guidance. The Permits
Division of OWEC conducts program
development and implementation activities such
as providing technical assistance to permit
writers, developing budget guidance and program
strategies, and overseeing EPA Regional and
State programs. The Enforcement Division is
responsible for NPDES compliance, including
developing technical guidance on facility
inspections, managing and reviewing
compliance data, and overseeing EPA Regional
and State enforcement activities. EPA Regional
Offices undertake day-to-day permitting and
enforcement activities and act as principal
liaisons with approved NPDES States.
Where EPA is responsible for developing and
achieving national programs for funding
-------
January 1993: page 4-2
Office of Wastowater Enforcement and CompKance
construction, operations and maintenance of
POTWs and sludge management facilities, the
Municipal Support Division has the lead role. It
is continuing to manage State completion and
closeout of the delegated construction grants
program. Between 1978 and 1986 alTSO'States
assumed delegation. Since then, the grant
program has been replaced by State Revolving
Funds that allow States to tailor wastewater
treatment programs to fit their needs.
The Municipal Support Division (MSD)
continues to provide support hi the CO and SRF -
programs. For the U.S. territories and Indian
Tribes that were not delegated authority to
manage the construction grants program, MSD
provides oversight in completing and closing out
those programs. For the 51 States (including
Puerto Rico) that manage their own SRF
program, MSD provides program oversight This
oversight consists of ensuring that States meet
federal requirements in carrying out the SRF
program.
MSD also produces a Municipal Needs Survey
every two years that calculates the unmet needs
of all municipalities in meeting EPA's
requirements. These needs are assessed in terms
of labor hours and financial obligations and
encompass all requirements EPA establishes for
municipalities.
-------
State fti«,.dsn Delegation and Authorization
January 1993: page-,-j
Approved State NPDES Permit Program
Approved State NPDES and Pretreatment Programs
&>
Guam
^
«»
American Simoa
cr?
Puerto Rico
^^^"^
Virgin Islandi
Figure 4-1 Status of State NPDES and Pretreatment Program Delegation
-------
Chapter Five
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
The NPDES pennit program was established by the CWA. A chronology of the program's development
is set out in Appendix B. According to the Act, all discrete sources of pollutants must obtain a pennit
which regulates their discharge into waters of the United States.1 Regulated pollutants are conventional
pollutants, such as suspended solids; nonconventional pollutants, such as ammonia; and toxic pollutants,
such as heavy metals and toxic organic compounds. Table 5-1 briefly describes these three types of
pollutants.
5.1 Scope of the NPDES Program
Any source discharging pollutants into waters of
the United States through a discrete conveyance,
such as a pipe or a system of conveyances, is
covered under this program. As of June 1993,
there were approximately 75,000 sources
regulated by NPDES permits.
NPDES regulated entities are generally divided
into two types: industrial and municipal. There
are approximately 48,000 industrial sources-
commercial and manufacturing facilities that
discharge directly into waters of the United
States. Municipal sources, or the discharge
points of POTWs, number about 15,000.
Wastewater from municipal sources results from
domestic wastewater discharged to POTWs as
well as the indirect discharge of industrial wastes
to sewers. In addition, approximately 10,000
facilities in a range of industries are covered by
general permits under the NPDES program.
Both industrial and municipal sources are divided
into major and minor sources to prioritize permit
issuance and oversight.
Industrial facilities are classified as major by a
rating system which allocates points in categories
such as flow, pollutant loadings, potential public
health impacts, and water quality factors. As of
July 1991, there were approximately 3,300 major
and 45,000 minor industrial permits.
Major municipal facilities are those that have:
a design or actual flow of one Million
Gallons Per Day (MOD) or greater, or,
a service population of 10,000 or greater, or,
a significant impact on water quality, i.e.,
- have a potential for toxic discharge;
- are located close to a drinking water
intake;
- discharge into stressed receiving waters;
or,
- require advanced waste treatment
("pretreatment").
Municipal facilities that do not meet the above
criteria are categorized as minor. More than
3,800 major and 11,700 minor municipal permits
have been issued. Nationwide, there are
approximately 7,000 major and 57,000 minor
industrial and municipal sources.
5.2 Contents of NPDES Permits
Permits for both industrial and municipal sources
contain the following terms and conditions:
Standard conditions common to all permits;
Site-specific discharge or effluent limits;
Standard and site-specific compliance
monitoring and reporting requirements; and
Other site-specific conditions that EPA may
deem necessary to adequately control the
discharge.
-------
January 1993: page 5-2
The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Each of these elements is briefly discussed
below.
52.1 Standard Conditions in All Permits
NPDES regulations require standard or
boilerplate conditions in every permit for several
reasons.2 Fust, the standard conditions describe
the legal effect of the.permit and how it may be
revoked. These conditions also explain the
recourse which may be available to a
noncompliant permittee. Second, the conditions
describe the permittee's duties and obligations
during the effective period of the permit For
example, a permittee must report changed
conditions at the facility, mitigate
noncompliance, allow compliance inspections,
and reapply for permit renewal. Finally, the
conditions put the permittee on notice of
penalties which may be assessed if the permit is
violated.
Effluent Limits
Each effluent limit imposed on an NPDES
permittee is established using either a
technology-based or water quality-based standard
methodology, with the more stringent and
protective method used to set the limit.
Technology-based limits define a consistent,
industry-wide level of control and are imposed at
the point of discharge or "end-of-the-pipe."
Water quality-based standards define site-specific
ambient water quality targets and usually are
applied after the wastewater has mixed with the
receiving stream. The levels of technology to be
applied through effluent guidelines for direct
dischargers are summarized in Table 5-2.
Technology-Based Limits for Industrial
Sources
There are two ways to establish technology-
based effluent limitations for industrial sources:
1) national effluent limitation guidelines; and 2)
the permit writer's Best Professional Judgment
(BPJ). Effluent limitation guidelines are
developed by the Engineering and Analysis
Division (HAD) of OST.3 These uniform
national standards are developed industry-by-
industry and are generally expressed' as
maximum daily and monthly mass loading or
concentration limits.
When promulgating these regulations, EAD first
surveys the target industry for information on its
typical wastewater characteristics and on model
technologies used to treat the discharge. EAD
then determines the best economically achievable
technology for toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutant treatment available to
that industry.4 These initial Agency conclusions
are published to solicit public comments, which
are taken into consideration before the regulation
becomes final
At this time, EPA has established Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA,
or BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology (BCT) guidelines for about
41 industrial categories. The Agency is
developing new or revised effluent guidelines for
industrial technologies, and is also performing
additional studies to decide whether to revise
existing guidelines.
In the absence of industry-based effluent
limitation guidelines, the industrial permit writer
establishes technology-based controls using
BPJ.* In essence, the permit writer undertakes
an effluent limitation guideline analysis for a
single facility. In order for the permit writer's
judgment to be defensible, it must be based on
the best information reasonably available at the
time of permit issuance and adequately
documented in the factsheet or statement of
-basis.6
In addition, the industrial permit writer can
establish other technology-based limits by
requiring a facility to develop a Best
Management Practices (BMP) plan. A BMP
plan lays out procedures by which the facility
will reduce the overall pollutant level in
-------
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
January 1993: page 5-3
wastewater by source reduction and good
operation/maintenance practices.
Technology-Based Limits for POTWS
All POTWs must achievenn effluent quality at
least as high as "secondary treatment" These
technology-based standards represent effluent
quality expected from well-operated municipal
treatment plants. The secondary treatment
regulations are set out in the Code of Federal
Regulation, 40 CFR Part 133, and address three
of five conventional pollutants [Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids
(TSS), and pH]. The limits may be expressed in
average concentrations for 7-day and 30-day
periods. The permit writer must also impose
requirements for at least 95 percent removal of
BOD and TSS.
Water Quality-Based Limits for
Industrial/Municipal Point Sources
In addition to the technology-based limits
applicable to all sources, permittees must comply
with limits derived from additional or more
stringent State water quality standards. These
pollutant-specific standards are authorized under
the CWA and established under State regulations
to achieve or maintain the beneficial uses of a
particular waterway. They take precedence when
technology-based controls are insufficient to
achieve the requirements of State water quality
standards. Water quality standards do not
usually apply at the end-of-the-discharge pipe.
Consequently, permit writers must first calculate
available dilution in the receiving water and
determine the proper mixing zone (if allowed by
the State) to develop an effluent limit7
EPA and States have been concerned that the
traditional pollutant-specific regulatory approach
controls only a limited number of substances,
due in pan to the prohibitive costs of monitoring
for hundreds of pollutants. Therefore, State
water quality standards also prohibit overall
toxicity in receiving waters through use of a "no
toxics in toxic amounts" requirement States
measure overall toxicity by conducting tests
using live organisms. Permit limits to control
effluent toxicity using toxicity tests with live
organisms are required of all sources known or
suspected of exhibiting whole effluent toxicity.
5.2.3 Compliance Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
To a large extent, NPDES permittees police
themselves. Permits instruct each permittee on:
the frequency for collecting wastewater
samples.
the location for sample collection,
the pollutants to be analyzed, and
the laboratory procedures to be used in
conducting the analysis.
Detailed records of these self-monitoring
activities must be retained by the permittee for at
least 3 years. Furthermore, each permittee is
required to submit periodically the results of
these analyses in a Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR).1 (For further information, see Chapter
Eight on Enforcement)
5.2.4 Other Conditions in NPDES Permits
Other site-specific conditions and requirements
may be imposed on both industrial and
municipal sources through their NPDES permits.
These additional conditions include:
Construction schedules,
Additional monitoring for nonregulated
pollutants of concern,
Spill prevention plans, and
Compliance schedules for pretreatment
program development or implementation!
-------
January 1993: page 5-4
The Office ofWastewater Enforcement and Compliance
5.3 The Permit Issuance Process
There are two types of NPDES permits:
individual and general. To obtain an individual
permit, the owner or operator of a source must
begin the process by filing a permit application
form. This form is reviewed by the permit
writer who then prepares a draft permit and a
fact sheet or statement of basis. When the draft
is ready, it is sent to the applicant, and the
proposed permit is published following standard
public notification procedures. The permit writer
then accepts comments on the draft permit from -
all interested persons. If warranted, a public
hearing may also be held for additional verbal or.
written response to the draft permit A response
is prepared for all significant comments and then
the permit is issued in its final form. Any
person who has participated in the process has a
right to appeal or challenge the permit's
conditions as too lenient or too stringent
General permits, which cover a number of
similar dischargers in a defined geographic area,
follow the same general procedures for permit
issuance except that a permit application is not
required. Once the general permit is issued by
EPA or an authorized State, dischargers must file
Notices of Intent (NOIs) in order to receive
coverage or else must submit an application for
an individual permit.
5.4 Current Permitting Priorities
At the time of this writing, there are a number of
initiatives that will strengthen the effectiveness
of the NPDES program. These priorities include
the following:
Toxicity elimination,
Stormwater permitting,
Combined sewer overflow permitting, and
Sewage sludge use and disposal permitting.
These activities are described briefly in the
sections below.
5.4.1 Toxicity Elimination
Section 3040) was added to the CWA by the
1987 Water Quality Act amendments. The new
section required all States to assess the quality of
their waters and to submit to EPA a list of
waterways which have not achieved compliance
with State water quality standards due to the
discharge of toxic pollutants. Section 304(1) also
required States to identify the point sources
toxic pollutants to the listed
waterbodies, and to establish more stringent toxic
pollutant controls for those dischargers. The
new controls, nQi?^ individual control strategies,
were required to control the toxic dischargers by
1992 and in some cases 1993. EPA is required
to review, approve, and oversee these individual"
control strategies. For States that are unable to
develop approvable control strategies, EPA
Regional Offices develop and implement the
strategies on the State's behalf. Currently, EPA
has approved approximately 600 of the 680
required individual control strategies.
In 1989, EPA revised the NPDES regulations to
clarify and strengthen its surface water toxics
control program. These amendments also served
as the basis to implement the Section 304(1)
requirements described above (see 54 FR 23868,
June 2, 1989). EPA continues to develop
guidance material to help the Regions and States
implement these regulations in NPDES permits.
In March 1991, EPA revised the Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Control to provide Regions and States
with technical support for permit decisions. EPA
has also published a series of technical guidance
manuals to assist facilities in identifying
substances that contribute to toxicity in
wastewater.
-------
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
January 1993: page 5-5
5.4.2 Stormwater Permitting
Section 402 (p) of the 1987 Water Quality Act
amendments to the CWA established a
comprehensive two phased approach for
addressing storm water discharges. Stormwater
denotes the potentially large volumes of water
that drain from rain, snow melt surface runoff,
street washing, and other causes, that discharge
into surface waters through discrete conveyances.
Discrete conveyances include any pipe, ditch,
Chanel, tunnel, conduit, well, and other
conveyances from which pollutants are or may
be discharged. Section 402(p) precluded EPA
and States from requiring a permit until October
1, 1992 for all but five types of Stormwater
discharges:
Discharges for which a permit has been
issued prior to February 4,1987;
Discharges associated with industrial activity;
Discharges from medium (100,000 to
250,000 population) and large (over 250.000
population) municipal separate storm sewer
systems; and
Discharges contributing to violations of
water quality standards or significantly
contributing pollutants to waters of the
United States.
The Water Quality Act clarified that permits for
discharges of Stormwater associated with
industrial activity must meet all of the applicable
CWA required provisions including technology-
based requirements and that permits for
discharges from municipal separate storm sewer
must meet a new statutory standard requiring
controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to
the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). The
Water Quality Act also specifies deadlines for
EPA to promulgate permit application
requirements, for applicants to submit permit
applications, for EPA and authorized NPDES
States to issue NPDES permits, and for permit
compliance for regulated Stormwater discharges.
To implement these provisions, EPA has
developed and published permit application
requirements for Stormwater discharges
associated with industrial activity,9 and for
discharges from medium and large municipal
separate storm sewer systems. The regulation
presented three permit application options for
industrial Stormwater dischargers: individual
applications, group applications, and notices of
intent (NOls) to be covered under a general
permit for Stormwater. Municipal separate storm
sewer systems covered by the rule must submit
two-pan applications. The first part of the
application requests information on potential
sources and pollutants, and the second pan
requests quantitative data.
To address the large number of industrial
dischargers of Stormwater (at over 100,000
facilities), EPA has developed a strategy which
includes a tiered framework to control the
administrative burden and at the same time
emphasize reducing the risk to human health and
aquatic resources:
Tier I - Baseline Permitting
General permits will initially cover the majority
of Stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity in a State. These permits will
establish pollution prevention and/or best
management practices, collect data on Stormwater
discharges from priority industries and for
supporting subsequent permitting activities.
Tier H - Watershed Permitting
Facilities within watersheds shown to be
adversely impacted by Stormwater discharges
associated with industrial activity will be targeted
for individual and more specific general
permitting activities. EPA and the States will
identify surface waters where Stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activity
have been identified as a cause of water quality
problems and will target classes of Stormwater
discharges in these locations for additional
permit conditions.
-------
January 1993: page 5-6
The Office ofWastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Tier m - Industry-Specific Permitting
Specific industry categories will be targeted for
individual or industry-specific general permits.
These permits will allow permitting authorities to
focus attention- and resources- on industry
categories of particular concern and/or industry
categories where tailored requirements are
appropriate. EPA and the States will develop
model permits for selected classes of industrial
stonnwater discharges.
Tier IV - Facility-Specific Permitting.
Individual permits will be appropriate for some
stonnwater discharges in addition to those
identified under Tier H and Tier IE activities.
Individual permits would be issued where
warranted by the environmental risks of the
discharge, the need for additional and more
complex individual control mechanisms, a
facility's compliance history or the potential to
consolidate permit requirements for a particular
facility.
The strategy also asks States to develop
Stonnwater Permitting Plans to provide an
effective basis for ensuring public participation
and evaluating program implementation at the
State level. At a minimum, State Stonnwater
Permitting Plans should describe the
implementation of NPDES permits for discharges
from large and medium municipal separate storm
sewer systems; the implementation of permits for
stonnwater discharge associated with industrial
activity; the protection of impacted waters; and
case-by-case designations of stonnwater
discharges needing a permit
EPA with the States is required to conduct two
studies on stonnwater discharges for which EPA
and NPDES States cannot require permits prior
to October 1.1992. The first study will identify
these stormwater discharges or classes of
stonnwater discharges and will determine the
nature and extent of pollutants in such
discharges. The second study will investigate
procedures and methods to control these
stonnwater discharges to the extent necessary to
mitigate impacts on water quality. Based on the
two studies, EPA will issue regulations which
designate new classes of stonnwater discharges
to be regulated to protect water quality and to
establish a comprehensive program to regulate
such designated sources. The program may
include performance standards, guidelines,
guidance, and management practices and
treatment requirements, as appropriate.
The strategy also calls for developing State
stormwater permitting plans as a basis for public
participation and to ensure appropriate
implementation of stonnwater permitting
activities at the State level.
5.4.3 Combined Sewer Overflow Permitting
Combined sewers collect both stormwater and
domestic sewage. During heavy or prolonged
rainfall, combined sewers often cany more
wastewater than the treatment plant can handle.
To prevent hydraulic overload, most combined
sewers have relief outlets which discharge
untreated wastes during peak flows. These
discharges are known as Combined Sewer
Overflows. EPA estimates that 1,050
communities, concentrated in 30 States, have
combined sewer systems with 10,770 overflow
discharge points. They are found mainly in
older cities in the northeast, mid-central states,
and along the west coast
During heavy rains, as much as 90 percent of the
pollutants that enter a combined sewer system
never reach the treatment plant and are
discharged untreated through CSOs into
receiving waters. Dry weather overflows can
also occur. These untreated-wastes may contain
high levels of suspended solids, heavy metals,
nutrients, bacteria, and other pollutants.
CSO impacts depend on the frequency, volume,
duration, and components of the overflow, on
topography and land runoff, and on the nature
and uses of receiving waters. Nationally, CSOs
-------
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
January 1993: page 5-7
impair 10 percent of estuaries, 11 percent of the
Great Lakes shoreline, and up to 4 percent of the
coastal shoreline and major rivers. High fecal
coliform levels from CSOs have led to beach
closings and shellfishing bans in Puget Sound,
beach closings-on-the New Jersey, New York,
and Connecticut coasts, and the six-month
closing of 10 percent and permanent closing of
25 percent of the shellfishing beds in Rhode
Island's Narragansett Bay.
CSOs are subject to CWA treatment and
compliance requirements. CSOs that discharge
without NPDES permits are unlawful and must
be issued permits or eliminated.
Nevertheless, CSOs present enough distinctive
problems that OWEC has formulated a special
CSO Strategy. Each of the 30 states that have
municipalities with CSOs is responsible for
developing CSO data and planning, including an
inventory of all its CSO points, the current
permit status of each, and a priority ranking for
issuing permits to CSOs with inadequate or no
permits.
OWEC's CSO Strategy has three major goals:
To ensure that if CSO discharges occur, they
are only a result of wet weather, by:
- prohibiting dry weather overflows;
- making maximum use of the collection
system for storage; and,
- maximizing "flows to POTWs for
subsequent treatment
To bring all wet weather CSO discharge
points into compliance with the technology-
based requirements of the CWA and
applicable State water-quality standards, by:
- achieving proper operation and regular
maintenance programs for the sewer
system and CSO points; and,
reviewing and modifying pretreatment
programs to ensure that CSO impacts are
To minimize water quality, aquatic biota,
and human health impacts from wet
weather overflows, by:
- controlling solids/floatables in discharges.
Municipalities are responsible for ensuring that
CSO discharge points are permitted, for
complying with the permit, and for finding the
funding to develop needed controls.
The draft 1992 Needs Survey estimates CSO
control costs to be $412 billion to eliminate or
capture for primary treatment at least 85 percent
of the volume of the combined sewage collected
in combined sewer systems during rainfall events
on a system-wide annual average basis. This
estimate is consistent with the draft 1992 CSO
policy. Limited federal financing is currently
available through the State Revolving Fund Loan
Program. (See Chapter Nine.)
As pan of the effort to increase productivity,
since 1991 CSO and Stormwater Excellence
Awards have recognized outstanding work in
CSO and stormwater innovation and cost-
effectiveness.
5.4.4 Sewage Sludge Use and Disposal
Permitting
The management of sewage sludge is controlled
by self-implementing regulations and/or by
conditions in NPDES permits, other federal
permits, or permits issued by States with
approved sludge management programs. Permits
for treatment works generating sewage sludge
contain pollutant limitations, management
practices, and self-monitoring and reporting
requirements. (For more information on this
activity, see Chapter Seven.)
-------
January 1993: page 5-8
The Office ofWastewater Enforcement and Compliance
S3 Program Accomplishments
Substantial efforts in NPDES program
development and implementation have produced
significant improvements in the quality of United
States waters. Current estimates indicate that the
NPDES program has contributed to meeting the
fishable/swimmable water quality objectives of
the CWA in 70 to 75 percent of all United States
waters. Over 47,000 stream miles and 390,000
lake acres have shown significant improvement
in water quality over the pollutant loadings
measured in 1972.
Under the long-tenn infrastructure investment,
EPA will initiate inclusion of safe drinking water
projects under the new Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund. OWEC will use as much of
the existing SRF financial framework as possible
and work closely with the Drinking Water
program and the States to initiate loans for
drinking water facilities. A 1994 Needs Survey
will focus on assessing the capital financing
needs for safe drinking water facilities and will
include needs for non-traditional areas like
CSOs, stormwater, estuaries, and wetlands.
OWEC will continue to develop and implement
major permitting and enforcement needs in
accordance with dean Water Act requirements.
It is also significant that during the early 1980s,
the rate of permit issuance slipped behind the
rate of permit expiration and a large backlog of
unissued permits developed. Since that time the
backlog has been reduced significantly.
-------
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program January 1993: page 5-9
Table 5-1
Types of Regulated Pollutants
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS. Conventional pollutams^ai^contained in the sanitary wastes
of households, commercial establishments, and industries. These wastes include human wastes, sand,
leaves, trash, ground-up food from sink disposals, and laundry and bath waters. Five specific
pollutants are considered "conventional pollutants":
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) * This parameter measures the quantity of oxygen used
in aerobic oxidation of the organic matter in a sample of wastewater.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - This parameter is a measure of the concentration of solid
panicles suspended in wastewater.
Fecal Coliform - The bacteriological quality of water is based on testing for nonpathogenic
indicator organisms, principally the colifonn group. Fecal coliform bacteria are used as a
measure of health risk since they are more easily detected than pathogens. Fecal coliform
bacteria are found in the digestive tracts of humans and animals. Their presence hi water
indicates the potential presence of pathogenic organisms.
pH - pH is a measure of acidity or alkalinity. pH is measured on a scale of 1 to 14; 1 being
extremely acidic, 7 neutral, and 14 extremely alkaline. Most healthy surface waters have a
nearly neutral pH; i.e., they are neither strongly acidic nor alkaline.
Oil and Grease - This parameter is a measure of the concentration of a variety of organic
substances including hydrocarbons, fats, oils, waxes, and high-molecular fatty acids. These
pollutants degrade receiving water treatment because they reduce the biological treatability of
the waste and produce sludge solids that are difficult to process.
TOXIC POLLUTANTS. Toxic pollutants represent a list of 126 pollutants that are particularly
harmful to one or more forms of animal or plant life. They are primarily grouped into organics and
metals.
Organic Pollutants These pollutants include pesticides, solvents. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs), and dioxins.
Metals - The metals of concern include lead, silver, mercury, copper, chromium, zinc, nickel,
and cadmium.
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS. Nonconventional pollutants are any additional
substances that are not in the groupings "conventional" or "toxic" that may require regulation. These
include "whole effluent toxicity" and nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
-------
January 1993: page 5-10 The Office ofWastewatcr Enforcement and Compliance
Table 5-2
Summary of Technology Standards
Best Practical Control Technology (BPT). BPT was required to, be installed by all-industries by
July 1,1997. In determining BPT, EPA considered:
the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction,
benefits to be achieved..., the age of the equipment and facilities involved, the
process employed, the engineering aspects of... various types of control techniques,
process changes, non-water quality environmental impact and such other factors as
deem[ed] appropriate.
Best Conventional Poliutant Control Technology (BCT). Initially, BCT guidelines were to be
in place for the control of all conventional pollutants and complied with by July 1,1984; however,
EPA was not able to complete guidelines for all industries by then and Congress extended the
deadline to March 31, 1989. Criteria under the BCT standard are similar to those for BPT but
require a more stringent costbenefit analysis for the reduction achieved. The benefits of installing
BCT, though, do not necessarily have to exceed the costs in order for it to be required by the permit
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA, or BAT). Initially, BAT was
required for control of toxic and some nonconventional pollutants by July 1,1984, but again EPA
was not able to meet this deadline and it was extended to March 31,1989. As pan of its increasing
concern with toxics control in the 1977 amendments, Congress limited the economic criteria for
setting BAT to consideration of the cost of control technology, and not the more lenient cost-benefit
analysis (i.e., EPA considers if the industry can afford a technology, not if the amount of reduction
is worth the cost).
-------
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program January 1993: page 5-11
Endnotes - Chapter 5
1. NPDES permits can be issued to individual dischargers (individual NPDES permits) or to many
similarly situated dischargers subject to the same terms and conditions (general NPDES permits).
2. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 122.
3. See 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter N.
4. While permittees need not install the model technology identified by EPA, they must achieve the
same effluent quality.
5. BPJ may not be used instead of an existing guideline, but BPJ methodology may be used to
supplement an effluent guideline (e.g., where the regulation does not address a particular pollutant
of concern at an otherwise EAD-regulated facility).
6. Many tools are available to assist the permit writer in the development of permit limits based on
BPJ. These tools include permit limits for similar facilities using similar treatment technology.
performance data from actual operating facilities found in the Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR), and the scientific literature. In developing permit limits based on BPJ, the permit writer
must consider the same factors as those required for the development of effluent limitations
guidelines (e.g., age and size of facility and treatment employed).
7. For more information on water quality-based toxic controls, see the Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (March 1991).
8. For most facilities, this reporting requirement is monthly or quarterly but in no case less than once
per year.
9. Facilities with storm water discharges associated with industrial activity include: 1) those subject to
storm water effluent guidelines, new source performance standards, or toxic pollutant effluent
standards; 2) manufacturing facilities; 3) mining operations and oil and gas operations; 4)
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; S) landfills, land application sites and
open dumps; 6) recycling facilities; 7) steam electric power generating facilities; 8) certain
transportation facilities; 9) certain sewage treatment plants; 10) construction activity disturbing five
or more acres; and 11) other manufacturing facilities where materials or activities are exposed to
storm water. Operators of industrial facilities that are Federal, State or municipally owned or
operated that meet the description of the facilities listed in 122.26(b)(14)(iMxi) must also submit
applications. (55 FR 47990)
-------
Chapter Six
Pretreatment and Municipal Pollution Prevention
Industrial plants are only one of the sources of wastewater discharged into municipal sewers. The
wastewater discharged by industry often contains a variety of toxic or otherwise harmful substances at
concentrations not-common to domestic sources of wastewater. These pollutants include, to give just a
few examples, metals and cyanide from electroplating and metal-finishing shops, organic compounds from
the manufacture of pesticides and chemicals, and lead from the manufacture of batteries.
Most sewage collection and treatment systems are not designed to treat harmful industrial wastes. As
depicted in Figure 6-1 such wastes can damage the collection system, interfere with the operation of
treatment plants, pass through the plants to contaminate receiving water bodies, threaten worker health and
safety, and increase the cost and risks of sludge treatment and disposal
Problems such as these can be prevented, however. Using proven pollution control technologies and
practices that promote reuse and recycling of material, industrial plants can remove or eliminate pollutants
from their wastewaters before discharging them into the municipal sewage treatment system. This practice
is known as pretreatment.
Currently, industries in many communities are pretreating their wastewater. The National Pretreatment
Program, a cooperative effort of federal. State, and local officials, is fostering this practice nationwide.
In tandem with the National Pretreatment Program, OWEC promotes the Municipal Water Pollution
Prevention (MWPP) program, described in Section 6.7 below, as a non-regulatory approach to similar
problems. Federal, State and local governments have invested billions of dollars in POTW construction
since the enactment of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. creating a vital national
infrastructure that needs protection. By reducing the level of pollutants discharged by industry into
municipal sewage systems, the program ensures POTW infrastructure protection and mat industrial
development vital to the economic well-being of a community will be compatible with a healthy
environment.
6.1 History of the Pretreatment Program
In 1972, Congress enacted Section 307 of the
CWA, requiring EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for pollutants not susceptible to
treatment by POTWS. As a response to this.
statutory requirement, EPA promulgated 40 CFR
Pan 128 at the end of 1973. While these
regulations contained general prohibitions against
interference with treatment plant operation and
pass through of pollutants to receiving waters,
they were not specific about pollutants of
concern or potential problem industries. In 1977,
as Congress amended the CWA, two particular
issues involving pretreatment surfaced: 1) an
emphasis on control of pollutants through
national technology-based standards; and 2) a
determination that local governments through
POTWs would be primarily responsible for
enforcing these standards.
On June 26,1978, EPA promulgated the General
Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403).
These regulations maintained the general and
specific prohibitions of Part 128, but in addition.
required local program development and
established the need for local limits. These
regulations were further revised in 1981 and
1988. Furthermore, under Section 519 of the
Water Quality Act of 1987, OWEC evaluated the
National Pretreatment Program and reported to
Congress in July 1991.
-------
January 1993: page 6-2
Office ofWastewater Enforcement and Compliance
62 Pretreatment Program Goals
The General Pretreatment Regulations specify
three primary objectives for the pretreatment
program:
To prevent the introduction of those
pollutants into a POTW that will interfere
with its operation or with the disposal of
municipal sludge;
To prevent the introduction of pollutants that
will pass through a POTW into receiving
waters; and
To improve opportunities to recycle and
reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters
and sludge.
These goals establish the overall framework for
the National Pretreatment Program. The
regulations themselves apply and enforce.
pretreatment standards and requirements on
industrial users and establish specific
responsibilities for EPA, States, and POTWS.
Roles and responsibilities for each party are
summarized in Table 6-1.
6 J Responsibilities of POTWS, States, and
EPA
The General Pretreatment Regulations require
any POTW with a design flow of more than five
million gallons per day (MGD) and smaller
POTWs receiving discharges that cause
interference or pass-through to obtain an
approved local pretreatment program. The
National Pretreatment Program extends to more
than 200,000 non-domestic sources (30.000 are
considered significant industrial users) and more
than 1,400 POTWS. which treat almost 80
percent of the national municipal wastewater
flow. Each local program must enforce all
national pretreatment standards. The local
POTW, or "Control Authority," must also
enforce more stringent discharge requirements
(i.e., local limits) to prevent disruption of the
sewage treatment system, adverse environmental
impacts, or disruption of sludge use or disposal.
The pretreatment program is built, to a large
extent, upon the framework of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Each POTW's NPDES
permit includes a provision requiring the POTW
to implement its approved pretreatment program.
NPDES-approved States can also receive
pretreatment program approval and then are
expected to exercise program oversight
responsibilities as the "Approval Authorities."
Figure 4-1 shows the 27 States that have
approved State pretreatment programs. In those
States, EPA Regions oversee the implementation
of the State programs. Where a State has not
been approved, EPA continues to serve as the
Approval Authority.
'NPDES States may elect to administer the
program directly rather than requiring its POTWs
to do so. Vermont, Connecticut, Alabama,
Mississippi, and Nebraska have elected to
State-wide programs in lieu of
requiring local programs in accordance with 40
CFR 403.1
-------
Pretreatment and Municipal Pollution Prevention
January 1993: page 6-3
any nondomestic user which cause pass-through
or interference.
Specific Prohibitions [40 CFR 403.5(b)] are
national prohibitions against pollutant discharges
from any nondomestic user that cause: (1) fire or
explosion hazard; (2) corrosive structural
damage; (3) interference due to flow obstruction;
(4) interference due to flow rate or concentration;
and (5) interference due to heat. In 1990 the
following additional prohibitions were added: (6)
interference due to oils; (7) the release of toxic
gases, vapors, or fumes that may cause acute
worker health and safety problems; and, (&) the
release of any trucked or hauled pollutants,
except at designated discharge points.
Local Limits: Specific pollutant limits must be
developed at the local level to protect the POTW
against pass-through and interference. These
local limits are considered pretreatment standards
and are federally enforceable.
The rationale behind the three types of standards
is, first, that categorical standards provide
nationally uniform effluent limits with a
technology-based degree of environmental
protection for discharges from particular
categories of industry. Second, the prohibited
discharge standards recognize the site-specific
nature of the problems at sewage treatment
works and provide a broader baseline level of
control that applies to all nondomestic sources
discharging to POTWS, whether or not they fall
within particular industrial categories. Third,
local limits are site-specific requirements
developed and enforced by individual POTWs to
implement the general and specific prohibitions,
and are more stringent than categorical standards
to protect the POTW and meet local-
environmental objectives. This approach ensures
that site-specific protections necessary to meet
pretreatment objectives, are developed by
POTWS, the agencies best placed to understand
local concerns.
6.5 Pretreatment Enforcement Criteria
and Requirements
OWEC issued guidance in FY 1990 (.Guidance
for Reporting and Evaluating POTW
Noncompliance with Pretreatment
Implementation Requirements) which identified
criteria for determining when a POTW should be
listed in the Quarterly Noncompliance Report
(QNCR) for failure to adequately implement an
approved pretreatment program and established
a definition of significant noncompliance for
pretreatment implementation. The criteria for
both reportable noncompliance and significant
noncompliance established performance measures
related to program implementation which tall in
the following general areas:
timely issuance and reissuance of control
mechanisms to industrial users (lUs);
inspection and sampling of lUs as required;
enforcement of pretreatment standards as
required, including effective and quick
enforcement actions against lUs for causing
interference or pass-through;
timely completion of compliance schedule
milestones; and
timely compliance with reporting
requirements.
OWEC has also promulgated a definition of
significant noncompliance for lUs which must be
applied by POTWS. This definition is modeled
on the NPDES definition and takes into account
the magnitude and frequency of effluent
violations, as well as the timely compliance with
reporting requirements and compliance
schedules.
-------
January 1993: page 64
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
6.6 Pretreatment Program
Accomplishments and Future
Directions
Findings of the May 1991 Report to Congress on
the National- Pretreatment Program-indicate-that
the program has been significantly successful:
EPA Regions and States have successfully
identified those POTWs whose receipt of
industrial discharges makes pretreatment
necessary. POTWs with approved programs,
or covered by State-run programs, receive
more than 80 percent of the national
wastewater flow discharged to POTWs.
«
Control mechanisms have been issued to 84
percent of Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)
and 90 percent of SIUs have been inspected
under local programs.
Analysis of local limits for a sample of 200
POTWs found that 90 percent have adopted
local limits for one or more toxic pollutants
and that more than 70 percent have adopted
local limits for the 10 toxic pollutants listed
in EPA guidance as those of highest concern.
Many POTWs report that pretreatment
programs have led to significant declines in
concentrations and loadings of toxic
pollutants in influent, effluent, and sludge.
These decreases have reduced operational
problems and improved the quality of
receiving waters and sludge. Toxic metal
pollutant loadings are estimated to have been
reduced by 95 percent where categorical
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
have been instituted, and, though studies
differ, toxic organic loadings are estimated to
have been reduced by 40-75 percent
Findings also indicate that the program can be
made even more productive:
Commercial and industrial facilities not yet
subject to categorical pretreatment standards
may discharge considerable levels of toxic
pollutants to POTWS. Such facilities include
machinery manufacturing and rebuilding,
industrial and commercial laundries,
hazardous waste treatment facilities, and
waste reclaimers.
POTWs may also still receive significant
loadings of toxic pollutants from hauled
waste, landfill leachate, stormwater,
underground storage tanks, and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
Superfund cleanups. Categorical standards,
under development for a number of these
sources, are expected to reduce loadings
further.
EPA's analysis indicates that removal efficiency
varies widely from POTW to POTW. This
variation underscores the need to use POTW-
specific data in making removal decisions
applicable to individual POTWS.
As part of the effort to increase productivity and
acknowledge the efforts by POTWS, EPA
established the Pretreatment Excellence Awards
in 1989 to recognize POTWs' outstanding work
in pretreatment design, implementation,
innovation and environmental benefits.
6.7 Municipal Water Pollution Prevention
Program
Through the MWPP program, OWEC also works
to protect our POTW investment Its goals are
to: (1) protect the quality of the infrastructure,
(2) ensure the maintenance of wastewater
facilities, (3) encourage reduction and
elimination of water pollution, and (4) and
maintain high municipal compliance rates. The
MWPP works with the Regions and States to
implement programs including regular facility-
based self-assessments, voluntary source
reduction, wise water use, and pilot program
grants to attain these goals.
-------
Pretreatmeni and Municipal Pollution Prevention
January 1993: page 6-5
6.7.1 Voluntary Source Reduction
MWPP promotes voluntary efforts to reduce
hazardous waste discharges from non-regulated
sources. Such efforts can reduce the need for
-substantial future investments in treatment
technologies and facilities.
Currently there are no hazardous waste
regulations for very small sources such as local
photograph processing laboratories and dentists'
offices. Each of these businesses may be
disposing small levels of hazardous waste into
local water systems, but the number of individual
businesses of the kind referred to can combine to
make a significant influx of waste. MWPP is
wpricing to involve communities in alternative
disposal mechanisms, such as community
collection projects, to handle such wastes.
Some cities have successfully established such
programs. MWPP has found that if alternative
disposal mechanisms are made available, small
businesses will use them. If many small sources
take advantage of these alternatives, the problem
of non-regulated sources of hazardous waste
could be solved locally.
of the Task Force's projects was to evaluate the
performance of low-flow fixtures in buildings.
Another project will develop a standard
methodology to calculate how much water is
saved when a community implements a water
conservation program. The Task Force also
funded the development of state guidelines for
the reclamation and reuse. of wastewater.
The MWPP works with water suppliers to
establish voluntary agreements to reduce water
consumption by studying their water-use patterns
and installing low-flow fixtures. The MWPP
provides publicity regarding the importance of
water conservation while water suppliers
the pm^grflTn , 'me
targeted motels and hotels for water use
efficiency improvements. The MWPP plans to
distribute case studies documenting the financial
and environmental benefits of low-flow fixtures
to hotels and motels.
The MWPP also works to integrate outreach and
education activities in its programs. Outreach
efforts are intended to educate a large, diverse
audience about the importance of water
conservation.
6.12 Water Use Efficiency
Increasing the efficiency of our water use has
gained support as people have become more
aware of the importance of protecting our water
supply. MWPP supports an Agency task force'
on water use efficiency.
The Water Use Efficiency Task Force, made up
of representatives from throughout the Office of
Water (OW) seeks to integrate water use
efficiency principles in Agency programs. The
Task Force works toward establishing a national
water ethic, encouraging State and municipal
action to reduce per capita water consumption,
and promoting an increase in the reclamation and
reuse of wastewater. The Task Force relies on
congressional add-on funding for a variety of
projects that further the Task Force's goals. One
6.7 J Pilot Program Grants
The MWPP sponsors grants for pilot programs to
support water pollution prevention. The program
is in its third year of awarding grants. A total of
23 grants have been awarded. These grants are
intended to help States establish programs to
regularly assess POTWS, to report the ability of
POTWs to remain in compliance with NPDES
permit requirements, and to promote timely
financing and other measures for POTWs to
maintain compliance.
Each program described in a grant application
should contain an action plan for an early
warning system to make changes in a facility
before noncompliance occurs, a formal reporting
mechanism to ensure that the results of early
warning systems are routinely reported, and
-------
January 1993: page 6-6
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
corrective actions to ensure that all necessary
changes in a facility are made in a timely
manner. In consultation with the Regions,
eligible States submit grant applications to the
MWPP coordinator which reviews the
applications and awards-grants ta the States with
the best proposals. MWPP pilot programs are
funded based on how well they address the
objectives of the ideal program outlined in the
MWPP guidance. State proposals demonstrating
efforts to institutionalize the MWPP program and
promote source reduction are given favorable
consideration.
6.1 A Operation and Maintenance Program
Section 104(g)(l) of the dean Water Act
authorizes operator training programs. Since
1982, funding has been provided for onsite
operator training and technical assistance to
small wastewater treatment plants with
compliance problems. Operation and
maintenance (O&M) assistance is provided
primarily by State water pollution control
agencies or State Environmental Training
Centers, and in some cases the EPA Regional
Office. EPA, in conjunction with a selected
State Environmental Training Center, hosts a
National Operator Training Conference annually
in June to afford Headquarters, Regional and
State personnel and trainers an opportunity to
exchange experiences and ideas.
Since 1986, EPA has also sponsored an annual
National O&M Awards Program. The objectives
of the program are to: 1) heighten public
awareness about the contributions of publicly
owned wastewater treatment facilities to clean
water, 2) encourage public support for effective
O&M and user charge systems, and 3) recognize
communities that continue to meet permit
requirements because of their outstanding O&M
practices. The awards arc presented at the Water
Environment Federation's annual conference with
winners selected in nine categories from
nominations made at the Regional level.
In addition to MWPP, Section 104(g)(l) of the
dean Water Act authorizes operator training
pilot programs. Under mis Section
Congressional funding has been authorized since
1982 to support onsite training a*vf technical
assistance to operators of ynipii community
treatment plants
-------
Prctreatment and Municipal Pollution Prevention
January 1993: page 6-7
Figure 6-1
Problems That May Occur When Industrial Wastewaters are
Discharged Into Municipal Sewage Treatment Systems
All These Problems Can be Controlled Through Pretreatment
3 ElOOSU't 0' WQfttrS 10
Tone SuDltanctt ana
Miuraoui Fumts
* LimiWO Or Mori
Eiotntiw Smage
Ootions
Tone POIIUI*CM*
into Surtict *V«t»'t
-------
January 1993: page 6-8 Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Table 6-1
Organization of the Pretreatment Program
and Summary of Responsibilities
EPA 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 and Training
Develop Enforcement Policy and Guidance
EPA Regions (10)
Fulfill Approval Authority Responsibilities for States without Program Delegation
Oversee State Program Implementation
Initiate Enforcement Actions
Serve as Control Authorities for Industries in Unapproved States and Cities
State Approval Authorities (27)
(NPDES States with Pretreatment Program Delegation).
Notify POTWs of Their Responsibilities
Review and Approve POTW Pretreatment Programs
Review Modifications to Categorical Pretreatment Standards
Oversee POTW Program Implementation
Provide Technical Guidance to POTWs
Regulate Industries in Nonpretreatment Cities
Initiate Enforcement Action Against Noncompliant POTWs or Industrial Users
Control Authorities (Approximately 1.450)
(POTWs with Approved Pretreatment Programs)
Develop and Maintain an Approved Pretreatment Program
Evaluate Compliance of Regulated Industrial Users
Initiate Enforcement Action Against Noncompliant Industrial Users
Submit Reports to Approval Authority
Industrial Users (As Many as 200.000)
Comply with Applicable Pretreatment Standards: Prohibited Discharge Standards, Categorical
Standards, State Requirements, and Local Limits
Comply with Federal and POTW Reporting Requirements
-------
Chapter Seven
The National Sludge Management Program
For many years, federal water pollution control programs have been directed principally to preventing
pollutants from reaching the waters of the United States by promoting the development of technologies
capable of removing significant pollutants from wastewater. Success in treating municipal wastewaterhas
brought with it another challengeproper management and disposal of sewage sludges, or biosolids (the
solids that are removed from wastewater during treatment) which may contain high concentrations of toxic
pollutants and pathogens.
Sewage sludge is both a waste and a resource. Treated properly, it can be recycled as a fertilizer and soil
conditioner, improperly handled it can threaten air, surface water, ground water, or the food chain. It is
therefore important to regulate sewage sludge to ensure that it is properly handled, decontaminated, and
tested to make it safe for use or disposal
7.1 Historical Sludge Control
EPA's first sewage sludge policy (1984) stated
that sewage sludge management was a responsi-
bility to be shared by EPA, States, and local
governments, and established roles and duties for
each of the parties. EPA's primary responsibility
is to develop and enforce technical standards ?nd
oversee State programs. States are responsible
for direct implementation of the sludge program.
Local governments must manage sewage sludge
and control its quality in accordance with federal
requirements.
In early 1987, Congress reemphasized EPA's
obligation to address sludge management
comprehensively by amending Section 405 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). The 1987 amendments
require the use of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination (NPDES) permits (or other permits
affording equivalent regulation) to regulate
sludge use and disposal. The new statutory
provisions also required the Agency to protect
public health and the environment from any
reasonably anticipated adverse effects of
pollutants in sewage sludge by:
promulgating technical use and disposal
regulations for sewage sludge;
requiring compliance with these technical
standards within one year of promulgation
(within two years if the regulations require
construction of pollution control facilities);
sewage sludge in municipal
NPDES permits. Before promulgation of
technical standards, this may be done on a
BPJ basis or through other measures that will
protect the environment from adverse effects
of sludge use or disposal.
7.2 Interim Sludge Program
To implement Congress* requirement for sludge
permitting, OWEC issued a "Sewage Sludge
Interim Permitting Strategy" (September 1989)
and has prepared guidance (see Guidance for
Writing Case-by-Case Permit Requirements for
Municipal Sewage Sludge, May 1990) to assist
federal and State permit writers. The Interim
Strategy defined the following three types of
POTWs as "priority POTWs" to have special
case-by-case permits:
POTWs with known sewage sludge or sludge
disposal problems,
POTWs which incinerate sludge,
POTWs with approved local pretreatment
programs.
-------
January 1993: page 7-2
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Complianco
The strategy also includes guidance to assist
permit writers in developing standard conditions
as well as monitoring and reporting requirements
for all POTWs (priority and nonpriority), and
describes the process by which EPA intends to
coordinate sludge pernut-issuance-with'States. In
1989, EPA issued regulations (54 FR 18716)
which sets requirements tot the issuance of
sewage sludge permits to NPDES and
non-NPDES facilities. The 1989 regulations also
require the development of State sewage sludge
programs, either as a subcomponent of the
NPDES program or as a separate regulatory
program.
The Interim Strategy is designed only to bridge
the gap with controls essential to protect public
health and the environment until technical
regulations are promulgated. Thereafter,
technical regulations will form the cornerstone
for sludge conditions in NPDES permits or
equivalent permits issued under other EPA
programs and other approved State sludge
programs.
7.3 Long-Term Program
EPA is continuing its efforts to promulgate the
technical sewage sludge regulations mandated by
the CWA. Regulations [to be published at 40
CFR, Pan 503], were initially proposed by EPA
on February 6, 1989 (54 FR 5746). For a large
universe of pollutants of concern, the initial
proposed regulations controlled five common
sludge use and disposal practices:
1) incineration; -2) land application;
3) distribution and marketing; 4) disposal in
sludge-only landfills; and 5) surface disposal.
Pan 503 was promulgated in November 1992.
The number of use and disposal practices
regulated have been combined into three:
Incineration requirements control five metals
through site-specific development of sludge
quality limits and total hydrocarbon
emissions according to a national operational
standard. Management practices are
stipulated for good operating procedures.
Land application requirements control metals
through numerical limits (based on pollutant
concentrations or total pollutant loadings at
a site), require the reduction of pathogens
and vector-attracting properties of sludge,
and impose management, record-keeping.
and reporting requirements. The rule will
lessen administrative controls over sludge
that meets certain standards for a highly-
treated, "product-like" material.
Surface disposal requirements control
pollutants by providing national sewage
sludge quality limits and management
practices.
OWEC will be responsible for ensuring mat the
Pan 503 requirements are properly incorporated
into permits and enforced as necessary. OWEC
has developed a strategy for implementation to
ensure a smooth transition to a sewage sludge
permitting program. Guidance and training
materials will be developed to help permit
writers gain additional expertise in sludge
permitting. As with the NPDES and National
Pretreatment Programs, States are encouraged to
apply for authorization to administer the program
themselves. Sludge permitting authority can be
granted outside the NPDES Program. OWEC
will address the need for approved cities to
modify local limits under the pretreatment
program to satisfy sewage sludge requirements.
OWEC has also enhanced its automated Permit
Compliance System to accept sludge data.
7.4 Technical Assistance for the Beneficial
Use of Sludge
In 1981, the Administrators of EPA and the
Food and Drug Administration and the Secretary
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an
interagency guidance and policy statement that
endorsed the utilization of sewage sludge for the
production of fruits and vegetables. In 1984.
-------
Sewage Sludge Management
January 1993: page 7-3
EPA issued a formal policy promoting the
beneficial use of sewage sludge while.
maintaining environmental quality and protecting
public health.
A national "Interagency Policy on Beneficial Use
of Municipal Sewage Sludge on Federal Land,"
reaffirming and supplementing the 1981 and
1984 policies, was published as a Notice in the
Federal Register on July 18,1991.
Organic and nutrient content makes sewage
sludge a valuable resource for improving
marginal lands and supplementing fertilizers and
soil conditioners. In silviculture, sewage sludge
can increase forest productivity, and re-vegetate
and stabilize harvested or devastated forest land.
Sewage sludge has also been used successfully to
reclaim severely disturbed land. Philadelphia
sludge studies have shown that the microbial
communities in reclaimed mined soils revert to
those of normal soils at a rate five times faster
than in conventional reclamatioa Sludge is
often disposed at sites specifically set aside for
sewage sludge disposal. The objective of this
practice is to employ the land as a treatment
system by using soil to bind metals and by using
soil microorganisms, sunlight, and oxidation to
destroy the organic matter and pathogens in the
sludge. Landfilling involves depositing sludge,
alone or with solid waste, in a dedicated area,
buried beneath a soil cover.
In addition to its benefits, reusing sewage sludge
can reduce costs. Sales of sewage sludge
products can be used to defray the costs of de-
watering and composting the sewage sludge,
while there are no offsets to the costs of de-
watering sewage sludge placed in landfills or
incinerated. Furthermore, the labor, capital, and
operating and maintenance costs of incinerating
sewage sludge are substantially higher than reuse
costs. The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
(METRO), which treats wastewater in the'
Seattle-King County region, says that by creating
a demand for sludge and developing a variety of
recycling options, it reduced program expenses
per ton of sludge solids from $227 in 1983 to
$148 in 1987.
Although the benefits of using sewage sludge to
improve land productivity are substantial, some
people fear the associated risks. Handled
improperly, sewage sludge containing high levels
of pathogenic organisms (e.g., viruses, bacteria)
or high concentrations of pollutants could
contaminate the soil, water, crops, and livestock.
Analyses show, however, that current beneficial
use practices (i-e., land application, distribution
and marketing) are, in terms of carcinogenic risk,
on the order of 100,000 times safer than disposal
practices.1
Sewage sludge disposal can be both more
expensive and more hazardous than its reuse.
Some methods of sewage sludge disposal, such
as incineration and uncovered landfills, may
contribute to global wanning by releasing carbon
dioxide and methane. On surface disposal sites,
sewage sludge with high concentrations of
organic fl"(i metal pollutants can contaminate
ground water or release volatile pollutants to the
air. Incineration destroys the organic pollutants
and reduces the volume of sewage sludge by
about 90 percent on a wet weight basis, but
emissions from sewage sludge incinerators, if left
uncontrolled, will contribute particulars, sulfur
dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, heavy metals, toxic
organic compounds, and hydrocarbons to the air.
Realizing mat ocean dumping of sludge may
result in the destruction of biota that influence
the balance between oxygen and carbon dioxide,
Congress banned mis practice after 1991.
EPA's National Beneficial Use of Sludge
Awards Program continues to recognize
outstanding operating projects, technology
development efforts, and research activities that
have promoted the beneficial use of sludge. A
number of USDA-related scientists and projects
have been awarded high honors for their
outstanding contributions during the three years
of this program.
-------
January 1993: page 7-4 Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Endnotes - Chapter 7
1. Nevertheless, in spite of the benefits of sludge reuse, the United States effectively reuses only 25
percent of its sewage sludge by applying it to the land or by distributing and marketing it for use in
home gardens. In comparison, the twelve countries in the European Economic Community reuse 35
percent (the United Kingdom, 51 percent), and Japan reuses 42 percent
-------
Chapter Eight
The Enforcement Program
The ultimate goal of the wastewater enforcement program is to improve environmental quality through
compliance with environmental laws. More specifically, EPA's wastewater enforcement program is
designed to accomplish four major objectives:
Identify instances of noncompliance,
Return the violator to compliance,
Recover any economic advantage obtained by the violator's noncompliance, and
Deter other regulated facilities from noncompliance.
To achieve these objectives, the program relies on several tools: an extensive network of compliance
monitoring techniques and protocols to screen compliance information, a data management system, and
enforcement response strategies. Combined, these tools speed compliance assessment and foster timely
Agency and State responses to violations of J«JPDES and pretreatment requirements.
8.1 Determining Violations
Each NPDES permit contains specific terms and
conditions which the industry or POTW must
follow. Adherence to these permit conditions is
tracked by three mechanisms:
Self-monitoring by the permittee. The
permittee reports its self-monitoring data on
a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
which it submits .to either the appropriate
State agency or EPA regional office.
Compliance inspections (which can include
sampling at the permittee's facility), are
performed by the State or EPA.
Pretreatment compliance inspections or audits
where the POTW has an approved
pretreatment program.
In addition, public complaints can trigger follow-
up by the relevant enforcement agency to see
whether or not a violation has occurred.
The general types of violations possible under
the NPDES program are:
Permit limit (effluent) violations-failure to
meet the specific limits of particular
pollutants in the discharge, or the character
of the discharge from each outfall of a
facility.
Schedule violations-failure to meet a
compliance schedule for the construction of
a treatment or spill prevention system,
modification of process, training of
personnel, or development of a program to
improve discharge quality. Failure to
achieve schedule milestones is a NPDES
permit violation.
Permit reporting violations-failure to submit
the required reports in a timely fashion; also
failure to submit complete and accurate
reports.
Enforcement order violations-failure to fulfill
enforcement actions previously determined
against the permitted facility. Violations of
these formal (administrative or judicial)
enforcement actions are additional violations.
Other permit requirement violations-such as
failure of any approved POTW to implement
-------
January 1993: page 8-2
77)9 Office of Wastwater Enforcement and Compiance
its pretreatment program adequately or
enforce industrial user pretreatment
requirements.
Data from DMRs are entered on to EPA's data
base managementsystem; the PermitCompliance
System (PCS). PCS tracks permit, compliance,
and enforcement status of the approximately
7,200 major NPDES facilities. PCS enables
States and EPA Regions to list automatically all
major facilities not in compliance with their
NPDES permits. EPA has established specific
criteria in 40 CFR 123.45 to determine when the.
five general types of NPDES violations should
be reported on a special report, the Quarterly
NoncompUance Report (QNCR). The QNCR
helps enforcement personnel set priorities for
acting on permit violations.
The Agency has also developed criteria for
determining when a pretreatment POTW should
be listed on the QNCR for failure to implement
its approved pretreatment program. These
criteria, known as "Reportable Noncompliance"
(RNC), are used to review key local program
functions and address the failure to issue permits,
inspect facilities,, and enforce pretreatment in a
timely fashion.
8.2 Determining the Action to be Taken .
Depending on the severity of the permit
violation, the State (or Region) can take several
different kinds of action. OWEC has developed
the Enforcement Management System (EMS) to
help NPDES States or Regions identify instances
of noncompliance and efficiently translate them
into enforcement actions. EMS makes this
translation by:
Maintaining a source inventory that is
complete and accurate;
Handling and assessing the flow of
information available on a systematic and
timely .basis;
Accomplishing a pre-enforcement screening
by reviewing the flow of information as soon
as possible after it is received;
Performing a more formal enforcement
evaluation where appropriate, using
systematic evaluation screening criteria;
Instituting formal enforcement action and
follow-up wherever necessary;
Initiating field investigations based on a
systematic plan; and
Using internal management controls to
provide adequate enforcement information to
all levels of the organization.
The EMS also includes a response guide mat
matches types of violations to a narrow range of
appropriate enforcement responses.
83 Available Enforcement Actions
Enforcement actions available to the NPDES
State or Region can range from simple informal
actions to formal Administrative Orders and civil
and/or criminal judicial actions.
8.3.1 Administrative Actions
Enforcement actions are taken at the Regional
level by the Regional Water Management
Divisions and Regional attorneys. An informal
action consists of telephone calls, a letter, or a
notice of violation, all of which simply
communicates to the permittee that a violation
was detected and should be corrected. A formal
Administrative Order may also be issued,
identifying specific actions to be taken by the
permittee, incHi^ng meeting compliance
schedule milestones, <*»jgjtig and desisting from
a particular activity, or correcting the problems
which cause noncompliance. Administrative
penalties can also be assessed by the Region.
These require public notice and the opportunity
-------
77)9 Enfotcofnoflt Ptognitn
January 1993: page 8-3
for a hearing. Administrative penalties can be of
two types: Class I (up to $25,000) or Class H
(up to $125,000).
8.3.2 Judicial Actions
Beyond administrative action comes civil or
criminal judicial action. The Region typically
forwards a recommendation to pursue judicial
action to EPA's Office of Enforcement (OE) and
OWEC to review the merits of the case. OE
then refers the case to the Justice Department
which actually files the action in the District
Court where the violation occurred. In certain
cases, Regions may refer cases directly to the
Justice Department with simultaneous review by
OE and OWEC. Civil cases are tried on the
basis of strict liability with fines up to $25,000
per day per violation. In most cases, EPA
attempts to settle before the case is brought to
trial. The Regional Counsels and Water
Management Divisions, in conjunction with OE
and OWEC, handle the settlement process. The
final settlement must be consistent with EPA
policy on settlement of judicial actions.
8.4 Permit Compliance System (PCS)
In order to track NPDES permitting and
compliance information and to identify
violations, OWEC uses a computerized
management information system. PCS functions
to:
Track permit issuance, reissuance, and appeal
activities;
Evaluate compliance data to determine
effluent, schedule, and reporting violations;
Track enforcement responses;
Automate Quarterly Noncompliance Report
preparation;
Automate Agency management system
reporting;
Provide facility information; and
Facilitate inspection scheduling.
PCS contains basic facility information on all
NPDES permits and additional extensive
information on the approximately 7,200 major
NPDES permittees. To assist in data storage and
retrieval, PCS organizes permittee information
into the general categories shown in Figure 8-1.
The type of information in each category is
outlined below.
Permit Facility Data - General descriptive
information on each permitted facility,
its name, address, permit number,
location, Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) code, and type of ownership.
Permit Event Data Information tracking
the events related to permit issuance from
receipt of the initial permit application
through actual permit issuance and
expiration.
Pipe Schedule Data Detailed information
describing each outfall within a permitted
facility and the discharge monitoring
requirements associated with each, such as
effluent waste type(s), treatment type(s), and
limit start and end dates (initial, interim, or
final).
Parameter Limits Data Detailed
information specifying self-monitoring
requirements associated with each outfall
within a permitted facility, such as
monitoring location, parameter to be
monitored, required frequency of analysis,
units in which the measurements are
expressed, and quantity and concentration
limits for each parameter monitored.
-------
January 1993: page 84
The Office of Wastewator Enforcement and Compfance
Measurement Violations Data - Actual
sampling data from DMRs, including identi-
fication of violations of permit limits.
Compliance Schedule Data - Information
on permit compliance schedule milestones
and actual accomplishment dates.
Compliance Schedule Violation Data -
Information on compliance schedule
violations, whether from failure to meet a
milestone date or failure to submit a required
report. .
Enforcement Action Data - Data on
enforcement actions taken in response to
violations of effluent parameter limits or
compliance schedule milestones, or for
nonreceipt of Discharge Monitoring Reports,
including the events in violation and dates of
occurrence, the type of enforcement
action(s), the dates they were taken, and the
current status of each action.
Inspection Data - Information describing
inspections performed at a permitted facility,
including inspection data, type, inspector
(State/EPA), and relevant comments.
Pretreatment Summary Data - Information
gathered as pan of the Pretreatment Annual
Report, such as the number of administrative
orders issued, number of judicial actions
taken, and amount of penalties collected.
Evidentiary Hearing Data - Data on
evidentiary hearings contesting permit
requirements.
A management overview of PCS can be found in
the Permit Compliance System Executive
Summary (August 1990). Technical
documentation of the system's operation and
functions is available in the following
documents:
PCS Generalized Retrieval Manual;
PCS Inquiry User's Guide;
PCS Data Elements Directory;
PCS Data Entry, Edit, and Update Manual;
and
PCS Personal Assistance Link (PAL) Users
Guide.
&5 Administration of the Enforcement
Program: Compliance Assessment
Four of the Enforcement Program's basic
activities mat are classed under compliance
Implementing EPA's Inspection
Policy/Strategy,
Managing PCS,
Evaluating QNCRs, and
Implementing special initiatives, such as the
National Municipal Policy (NMP).
8.5.1 Implementing EPA's Inspection
Policy/Strategy
Compliance inspections (including pretreatment
inspections) are a vital tool in implementing the
NPDES program. There are nine different types
of NPDES inspections that may be performed.
Figure 8-2 highlights these nine inspections.
Generally, inspections are conducted to:
Verify permit compliance,
Develop enforcement information,
Respond to citizen complaints,
a
Support permit development, and
Maintain a regulatory presence.
-------
The Enforcement Program
January 1993: page 8-5
Current policy requires that major permittees be
inspected at least annually. The appropriate EPA
Regional or State office decides on the type of
inspection to be performed for each major
permittee and the number and identity of minor
permittees that will be inspected during the year.
EPA has outlined the process used to select
facilities to be inspected on a random basis in
the policy entitled "Neutral Inspection for the
NPDES Program."
In addition to the neutral inspection criteria
policy, the following sources give more
information on' OWEC's compliance inspection
program:
NPDES Inspection Strategy and Guideline
for Preparing Annual State EPA Compliance
Inspection Plans, April 1985;
NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual,
January 1988;
NPDES Compliance Inspectors Training
Modules (in draft form); and
Guidance for Conducting a Pretreatment
Compliance Inspection.
8.5.2 Evaluation of QNCRs
The QNCR lists major facilities that are In
reportable noncompliance with their NPDES
permits. It is prepared by NPDES States and
EPA Regions and submitted quarterly to OWEC.
It lists noncomplianr major facilities, identifies
the violations causing noncompliance, and
summarizes resulting enforcement actions.
QNCRs are used by OWEC, EPA Regions, and
the States to track progress and assess the
effectiveness of NPDES compliance monitoring
and enforcement activities. The QNCR can be
automatically generated by PCS for all
quantitative violations, provided the appropriate
information is entered. For further information
on automating the QNCR, see the Guide to the
Permit Compliance System Quarterly
Noncompliance Report (June 1988).
8.5.3 Implementation of the National
Municipal Policy
The National Municipal Policy (NMP) was
adopted hi January 1984. Although the federal
government had spent over $35 billion on
required treatment construction grants to cities by
1984, 1,500 major POTWs had not achieved
required treatment levels by that time. The NMP
required each of these POTWs to submit either
a Composite Correction Plan (CCP) or Municipal
Compliance Plan (MCP) that established a
construction schedule to achieve compliance on
or before July 1,1988. All NPDES States also
developed municipal enforcement policies to
ensure mat their enforcement activities were
similar to EPA's.
Eighty-seven percent of the nation's 3,750 major
POTWs met the deadline. Of those not
achieving compliance, the vast majority either
are on enforceable court schedules or are the
subject of federal or State judicial action. Since
the deadline, EPA and the States have been
following through with enforcement actions
against POTWs yet to achieve required
treatment
8.6 Administration of the Enforcement
Program: Major Responsibilities
OWEC's major enforcement responsibilities
include:
Providing enforcement case review and
support;
Developing and overseeing the implementa-
tion of EPA's penalty policies;
Reviewing citizen suits (including notices
and proposed settlements);
-------
January 1993: page 84
The Office at Wastewater Enforcement and Compiance
Managing the NPDES enforcement program
and State oversight; and
Developing enforcement criteria and enforc-
ing pretreatment requirements against
POTWs.
These activities are highlighted below.
8.6.1 Enforcement Case Review and
Support
In order to properly discharge the responsibility
for the management of the National Water
Enforcement Program, OWEC reviews all
proposed civil enforcement actions and provides
comments and recommendations to OE prior to
the referral of civil actions to the Department of
Justice. The review includes:
Evaluation of the litigation report to ensure
that the proposed action is consistent with
the goals of the wastewater enforcement
program and with the broad guidelines set
forth in the guidance documents and policy
directives under which OWEC operates;
Basic evaluation of the technical sufficiency
of the proposed injunctive relief and pro-
posed penalty and a determination of the
need for additional technical support by the
Region, Headquarters, or by an outside
expert.
OWEC reviews all new case settlements as well
as associated modifications, terminations, and
withdrawals. OWEC participates jointly with the
Region and OE in the development of the
injunctive relief and civil penalty to be embodied
in a settlement agreement or judgment OWEC
reviews all proposed and final settlement
agreements to determine that the relief agreed to
by the defendant will ensure full compliance
with the permit and is consistent with national
policy and guidance.
8.6.2 Development and Implementation of
EPA's Penalty Policies
The Agency's authority to seek and assess civil
and criminal penalties was established in the
dean Water Act (CWA). In order "to promote
a more consistent agency wide approach to the
assessment of civil penalties while allowing
substantial flexibility for individual cases within
certain guidelines," OWEC and OE developed
the CWA penalty policy. This policy directs the
Regions to use a formula that calculates the
economic .benefit of noncompliance, factors in a
"gravity" (seriousness) component, and adjusts
for ability to pay, litigation, and other factors.
To assist in mis calculation, the Agency has
developed a computer software program called
"BEN" mat calculates the economic benefit a
violating facility receives hi delaying
compliance.
For further information on wastewater penalty
policies, see:
Clean Water Act Penalty Policy for Civil
Settlement Negotiations, February 1986.
BEN User's Manual, revised May 1987.
Guidance on Choosing Among Clean Water
Act Administrative, Civil and Criminal
Enforcement Remedies, August 1987.
Addendum to the Clean Water Act Civil
Penalty Policy for Administrative Penalty,
August 1987.
8.6.3 Review of Citizen Suits
The CWA states that citizens who wish to
independently enforce the CWA requirements in
federal court must file notice of intent to sue
with the EPA Administrator 60 days prior to
filing a complaint. OWEC and OE review each
of these notices to determine: 1) who filed the
action; 2) what the alleged noncompliance was;
and 3) what penalties are being sought In
-------
The Enforcement Program
January 1993: page 8-7
addition, EPA evaluates these notices to deter-
mine whether to file such a suit itself. If a
citizen complaint already has been filed, EPA
decides whether to join the action formally.
Finally, EPA reviews all proposed settlements to
ensure their appropriateness.
8.7 Management of the NPDES
Enforcement Program and State
Oversight
OWEC expects all NPDES States to develop
written enforcement procedures consistent with
the seven Enforcement Management System
principles listed in Section 8.2 above.
Specifically, EMS has established National
review criteria to screen compliance data and a
response guide which matches types of violations
with a narrow range of appropriate Agency
enforcement responses. In addition, EMS
advocates that field inspections and enforcement
follow-up activities be conducted in accordance
with a systematic plan mat considers such
relevant factors as geography, compliance
history, and time since the last site visit.
8.7.1 Development of Enforcement Criteria
and Enforcement of Pretreatment
Requirements Against POTWs
The decentralized approach of the National
Pretreatment Program requires EPA and
municipalities to work together in a pretreatment
implementation partnership. Traditionally,
POTWs have been service-oriented and few have
extensive experience or expertise in enforcement
In 1986, OWEC developed and distributed
implementation guidance for pretreatment
POTWs entitled Pretreatment Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance. The
guidance discussed in detail the following topics:
Industrial user monitoring frequencies;
Inspecting and sampling techniques;
Reviewing self-monitoring data;
Establishing local enforcement priorities; and
Reporting program performance to Approval
Authorities.
The Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement (PCME) guidance also
recommended definitions for "significant
industrial users" and "significant noncompliance
which have now been promulgated as
regulations." These definitions promote National
consistency in POTW implementation of
pretreatment requirements. To ensure that the
PCME principles are understood by local
officials, OWEC has provided training to POTW
personnel and their attorneys in these areas. In
addition, OWEC has developed a computer
software package which POTWs can use to track
industrial user compliance ftn<1 determine whether
any facilities may be in significant
noncompliance.
Local pretreatment implementation is required as
a condition of the POTW's NPDES permit.
When a POTW fails to adequately implement its
program, EPA pursues formal enforcement of
these conditions similar to other NPDES
violations. OWEC has specific procedures for
reviewing POTW program performance and for
determining whether the programs are
inadequately implemented.
For additional information on this area, see:
Guidance for Bringing Enforcement Actions
Against POTWs for Failure to implement
Pretreatment Programs, August 1988.
Penalty Calculations for POTW Failure to
Implement an Approved Pretreatment
Program, December 1988.
Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating
POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment
Implementation Requirements, September
1989.
-------
January 1993: page 84
The Office ofWastewater Enforcement and CompSance
While primary responsibility for insuring the
compliance of industrial users rests with the
approved POTW, EPA can and does take
enforcement action directly against
noncomplying industrial users in some
tsircumstancesr This action- may be
administrative or judicial but almost always
involves penalties. Most frequently, EPA takes
direct action against the industrial user where the
POTW has tried enforcement but has failed to
gain the compliance of the industrial user on a
timely bases. EPA may also take action where
there is no approved local program and the
approved State or EPA has the primary
enforcement responsibility.
-------
77» Entucoment Program
January 1993: pagu »-
Permittee Information
PERMIT FACILITY DATA
Name/Address/Permit Number
Standard Industrial Classification
Type of Ownership
Compliance
Schedule
Data
Enforcement
Action Data
Compliance
Schedule
Violation Data
Enforcement
Action Keys
Pipe
Schedule Data
Parameter
Limits Data
Measurement
Violation Data
1 Inspection '
i Scheduling )
1 Data i
Permit Event
Data
Evidentiary
Hearing Data
Pretreatment
Summary
Data
Inspection
Data
Single Event
Violation Data
PCI/
Audit
Data
Figure 8-1: Categories of Data Stored in PCS
-------
January 1993: page 8-10
The Office of Wastowatar Enforcement and CompBanoo
Reconnaissance Inspection (R)
. Briefest
. Nonsampling
. Preliminary overview
Compliance Evaluation
Inspection (CEI)
Nonsampling
More indepth overview
than Rl
Site review of facility
Examine self-monitoring
data, records, & compliance
schedule
1
Pretreatment Compliance
Inspection (PCI)
Nonsampling
. Evaluates POTW's
compliance monitoring &
enforcement program
, May inspect industrial
user facilities
, Possible sampling of
industrial user discharges
Compliance Sampling
Inspection (CSI)
Sampling by inspector
Evaluate effluent quality
Verify self-monitoring
results
Develop permit limits
May include CEI
components
Performance Audit
Inspection (PAD
Sampling by permittee
Evaluate permitee's self-
monitoring program and
procedures
May include CEI
components
Compliance Biomonitoring
Inspection (CBI)
. Sampling by inspector
. Acute toxicity testing by
inspector
. Determine effluent
Toxics Sampling Inspection
(XSI)
. Sampling by inspector
. Evaluate priority
pollutants in effluent
. Develop permit limits
. May include CEI
components
Legal Support Inspection
(LSI)
Follow up to enforcement
problem identified during
previous inspections
Diagnostic Inspection (Dl)
Response to
noncompliance
Identifies cause(s) or
problem(s)
Leads to issuance of
AOs
Figure 8-2: NPDES Compliance Inspections
-------
Chapter Nine
Funding and Technical Assistance
As the leader in wastewater control, OWEC's involvement is more comprehensive than merely
administering and enforcing pollutant permit programs. Its role is to provide overall direction and
assistance - regulatory, technical, managerial,.and financial - to,national, State and local programs to
prevent and abate municipal water pollution. One major current responsibility, discussed in this Chapter,
is to manage the transition in funding of municipal wastewater systems from the federally funded
construction grants program to a self-sufficient State Revolving Fund program.
As described in Chapter Six, 0 WEC also has responsibility for municipal wastewater pollution prevention
and water conservation to help reduce the need for future municipal wastewater treatment facility funding.
The Office manages several related programs to increase State and local government management
capabilities, to ensure that funds support the highest priority water quality and public health needs, to
promote effective treatment technologies, and to ensure optimum performance and effective maintenance
of the national wastewater treatment infrastructure.
9.1 Administration and Management of-
Water Quality Cooperative
Agreements Under Section 104(b)(3)
The dean Water Act Section 104(b)(3)
authorizes EPA to make grants to State water
pollution control agencies, interstate agencies,
other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions,
organizations, and individuals to conduct and
promote the coordination and acceleration of
research, investigations, experiments, training,
demonstrations, surveys and studies related to the
causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and
elimination of pollution.
Activities supported by Section 104(b)(3) include
unique pilot or special studies and demonstration
programs that will advance the Agency's and the
States' knowledge and ability to deal with water
pollution problems. -Section 104(b)(3) does not
fund on-going programs or administrative
activities. To select grants, a working group
drawn from Regional Office and Headquarters
staff issues a guidance on priority areas and
eligible activities, and the process for proposal
review.
Resources Management and Evaluation Staff
provides management support for OWEC's role
in the Section 104(b)(3) program. This support
includes: support to the workgroup that issues
guidance on funding, and receipt and processing
of recommended grant proposals.
9.2 Administration and Management of
the Section 106 Grants Program
Section 106 of the CWA authorizes EPA to
provide grants to States to assist mem in
administering programs for the prevention,
reduction, and elimination of pollution. Section
106 grants are the primary EPA funding source
for State Water Quality Management (WQM)
program activities such as NPDES permitting
and enforcement, developing water quality
standards, and collecting monitoring data.
Program activities that may be funded by Section
106 grants include but extend beyond point
source programs. Eligible activities include, for
example: permitting, enforcement, pretreatment,
source monitoring, ambient monitoring,
laboratory costs, water-quality standards, water
quality planning, nonpoint source program
implementation, groundwater planning and
implementation, outreach and technical
assistance, sludge management, emergency
response, and administration. Grants are
awarded to a total of 50 States, 7 territories and
the District of Columbia, 71 Indian tribes, and 6
interstate agencies. Targets for funding State,
Territorial, and Interstate agencies lire derived
-------
January 1993: page 9-2
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
from a formula developed in 1972 that is based
on number of point sources. Indian Tribe
allotments are made on a separate, population-
based formula.
Issues facing the-Seetion 106 program during the
1990s include the following:
Formula revision. In 1990, the Office of
Water (OW) committed to revise the current
Section 106 grant allocation formula by
FY93. The Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA) has stated its.
preference to delay the revision until CWA
reauthorization. OWEC efforts to initiate a
formal process to revise the formula are
currently on hold.
Reporting. The HQ & Regional program
offices will work with the States to review
reporting requirements.
RMES issues the annual Section 106 State
funding targets based on final appropriations.
These targets are men sent to the Regional
Offices which begin negotiations with their
States for each fiscal year.
9.3 Construction Grants
Title II of the 1972 CWA mandated a large
federal commitment to municipal water quality
by providing funds for municipalities to build
and renovate Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs). Responsibilities for administering
day-to-day construction activities gradually were
delegated to the States as the program
progressed. Through an interagency agreement,
the Army Corps of Engineers supported the
construction grant program by overseeing
construction projects and.providing training and
assistance to State staff. Currently, EPA
oversees the States' efforts to ensure that
projects are well-managed, designed
appropriately and cost-effectively, and mat each
complies with program and discharge
requirements.
EPA provided construction grants to
municipalities from 1972 through 1990 and in
1991 and 1992 with carryover and deobligated
funds. During that period, 13,000 giants
totalling $50 billion were awarded. As of
September 30,1992,3,800 grants totalling $27.3
billion are still active. The 1987 Amendments to
the CWA set FY 1990 as the last year that
construction grant funds would be appropriated.
Since, then. Congress has provided additional
funds for special construction projects to protect
coastal and border waters. By phasing out the
program, EPA shifted the method of municipal
financial assistance from direct grants to loans
provided by SRFs with EPA capitalization grants
and matching State contributions.
93.1 Construction Grants Closeout Strategy
Although new funding for construction grants is
no longer available, completing and closing out
the program will continue to require substantial
EPA resources through 1997. To be officially
closed, each project must undergo a detailed
administrative completion and audit process. To
ensure an effective phaseout of the program,
EPA Headquarters must work with the Regions
and States to develop and implement multi-year
strategies to complete and close out remaining
construction grant projects efficiently. Grants are
also awarded through the Indian Set-Aside
Program, which helps to pay for the planning,
designing, and building of wastewater treatment
systems to serve Indian Tribes and Alaska Native
Villages (ANY).
The phase-out of the construction grants program
does not end all assistance to municipalities for
the construction of wastewater treatment
facilities. In 1989, EPA began a SRF Program
to provide non-grant assistance to local
governments. Capital from each SRF will, in
part, fund construction projects.
-------
Funding and Technical Assistance
January 1&93: page 94
9.4 State Revolving Funds (SRFs)
Trogram and Spedal Projects
The 1987 CWA Amendments transferred.
management and financial responsibilities for
municipal wastewater projects- from EPA to
States and local governments. The amendments
discontinued funding for the construction grants
program as of FY 1990 and replaced it with SRF
capitalization grants. SRFs are selfsustaining
programs structured to make low interest loans
or provide other non-grant assistance to local
governments for water pollution control.
An SRF allows a State to tailor its wastewater
treatment program to fit its needs. SRFs provide
assistance for the construction of treatment
works, the implementation of nonpoint source
management programs, and the development and
implementation of conservation and management
plans under the National Estuary Program. .
Each SRF is expected to be a permanent, self-
renewing source of loan funds. Capitalization
grants were awarded to every State and Puerto
Rico as federal seed money to start its revolving
fund. Loan repayments are used, at least in part,
to provide loanable funds for subsequent
projects. In this way the initial funding should
be used, replaced and reused so the SRF can
continue to make loans. SRFs should provide a
perpetual source of low-cost financing, unlike
one-time loans or grants. By the end of 1992,
EPA had awarded about $5 billion of federal
funds to assist in capitalizing the SRFs.
Although individual SRF programs are designed
to meet a particular State's needs, their general
nature can be defined. Many States incorporate
a leveraging system in which borrowing by the
SRF generates loanable funds. Leveraging can
be very important in the early years of SRF
operation when capital needs are greatest. It is
also common for federally capitalized SRFs to be
authorized to write loans at any rate between the
market rate and zero percent. This enables SRFs'
to deliver relatively deep subsides to small local
projects by making SRF loans affordable. An
SRF also may arrange for credit enhancement,
such as bond insurance to secure the SRF's own
borrowing on an individual loan or a series of
loans to municipalities. In mis way financially
weak municipalities can benefit from an SRF's
credit-worthiness (Le., its relatively low cost of
borrowing).
Headquarters and the Regions are helping States
SRF programs using guidance
materials developed by EPA. Regional offices
have reviewed many SRFs to ensure that the
programs are viable and well-managed. The
reports of these reviews have been generally
positive; only minor operational problems have
been round. Regional offices work with the
States to make program modifications necessary
to address any problems.
9.5 Privatization and User Charge
Certification Program
Beginning with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, the nation's
waters have benefitted from an investment of
over $70 billion by the federal government, the
States, and local governments in wastewater
treatment facilities and sewers. The federal
government contributed more than $57 billion
of mis initial investment, and its commitment to
assisting in the financing of the nation's
continued investment in wastewater treatment
facilities is demonstrated by its implementation
of the SRF program. The funds available from
SRFs and other State programs will fall short of
the more than $80 billion in wastewater
treatment and conveyance needs identified in the
1990 Needs Survey Report to Congress. Further,
to the extent that SRF funds are used for
nonpoint source and other activities, mis funding
shortfall for wastewater faculties will be even
greater. In an effort to reduce this funding gap,
EPA has encouraged Public-Private Partnerships
(P3s) for wastewater systems.
On April 30, 1992, President Bush issued
Executive Order 12803 to promote private
-------
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
investment in local infrastructure, including
federally-funded wastewater treatment works.
The federal government has invested billions of
construction grant dollars in wastewater
treatment facilities since the enactment of the
CWA. More recently, the federal government
has provided capitalization grants for individual
SRF programs. Before receiving a loan from the
SRF, applicants for projects which receive funds
made available by the capitalization grant must
submit a plan for a user charge system to EPA
for approval User charges provide income for
the facilities to support operations and
maintenance activities and protect the federal
investment in the facilities.
*
It is the responsibility of the MSD Facilities
Finance Section to ensure that all construction
and capitalization grant recipients maintain then*
user charge systems as originally approved by
EPA. In recent years, EPA has reviewed a
limited sample from the existing user charge
systems. EPA addresses problems as they are
identified in these reviews.
9.5.1 Federally-funded Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs)
In the coming years, MSD will be implementing
Executive Order 12803 by assisting States and
local governments to find innovative ways to
support private sector investment in wastewater
treatment systems while protecting the public
interest in federally-funded facilities. Beginning
in the summer of "1992, EPA initiated an
inclusionary rule-making process that will
identify and resolve the basic issues involved in
the implementation of Executive Order 12803.
A few of the issues that likely will arise during
the rule-making are described below.
What is the definition of "publicly owned
treatment works"? While the CWA is silent on
this issue, the Agency traditionally has
interpreted this term to mean 100 percent
ownership by a public entity. What is the
appropriate definition of POTW to implement
Executive Order 12803?
If only a part of the wastewater system were
sold to a private party, how will the overall
integrity of the system be ensured?
Many POTWs receive (or may receive) SRF
loans. What are the implications for
repayment of the SRF loan if such a facility
were to be sold or leased?
A private entity that purchased a municipal
wastewater system could go bankrupt. What
mechanism win exist to protect the users and
the integrity of the system in such an event?
How will users be protected against
unreasonable increases in charge if the
system is privatized?
What are the implications of privatization for
the NPDES permitting and enforcement
programs? What will be the impact of
privatization on the pretreatment program?
How should the assets of wastewater systems
be valued for sale? In the event that the
proceeds from a sale are insufficient to
enable both State and local governments to
recoup their investments, how shall the
proceeds be distributed?
9.6 Pilot Grant and Technical Assistance
Programs
Similar to the Municipal Water Pollution
Prevention Program, there are other programs
that are designed to protect and enhance the
nation's investment in its municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. Financial and technical
assistance is provided to POTWs through
technology advisory services and grant programs.
-------
Funding ami Technical Assistance
January 1993: page 9-5
9.6.1 Municipal Technology Program
It is EPA's policy to assist POTWs by
supporting the development, dissemination, and
review of the latest technology. This function
continues to be important as the POTWs begin
programs to plan for compliance with new
regulations on sludge, stormwater, and CSOs.
The Municipal Technology program is a resource
for information on new treatment technologies.
It is a center of expertise on new and emerging
technologies and serves both the Regions and the
States. For example, as discussed in Section 9.3
above, the Branch has been responsible for
coordinating continuing research in the beneficial
uses of sludge. In this capacity, the program is
in an excellent position to facilitate technology
transfer among municipal wastewater treatment
facilities.
9.62 Small Community Assistance Program
The Small Community Outreach and Education
(SCORE) program is an OWEC information and
technical assistance program directed to local
officials and wastewater managers in
communities with fewer than 10,000 people. It
aims to help these communities build and
maintain self-sufficient wastewater facilities that
comply with the CWA water quality standards.
The SCORE program is a cooperative network
that stretches nationwide. It enlists the expertise
and resources of States, federal agencies, public-
interest and advocacy groups, educational
institutions, and otherenvironmental programs to
help deliver EPA's wastewater messages.
SCORE'S message focuses on the use of
appropriate wastewater technology, sound
financial management and operations, pollution.
prevention, and public education.'
In addition to SCORE, OWEC provides
information, technical and training assistance to
small communities through the National Small
Flows Clearinghouse (NSFCH) and the National
Environmental Training Center for Small
Communities (NETCSQ. Bom of these
programs are managed by EPA through
cooperative agreements with the University of
West Virginia in Morgantown, WV.
i
The Clearinghouse distributes information on
small wastewater systems and technologies. A
variety of services are offered .including a tollfree
hotline, computerized bulletin boards, training
workshops, and technical publications.
Similarly, the NETCSC provides resource
materials and training programs to support small
communities in complying with drinking water,
wastewater, and solid waste program regulations.
9.6.3 Indian Set-Aside Program
The OWEC municipal
program also
provides wastewater treatment information and
assistance to Indian Tribes. The 1987
Amendments to the CWA created a grant
program under Section 518(c) to help pay for
planning, design, and building of wastewater
treatment systems to serve Indian Tribes. The
CWA was further amended, to make Alaska
Native Villages (ANVs) and Tribes in Oklahoma
on former reservations eligible to receive grants.
The CWA authorizes program funding via a 1/2
percent set-aside from either the Construction
Grants or the State Revolving Fund
appropriations for Fiscal Years 1987 - 1992.
The program is administered through guidelines
developed by Tribal members, EPA, the Indian
Health Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
A national Indian Project Priority List is used to
rank projects eligible for a construction grant.
Overall, 39 projects have been identified to
receive funding, accounting for approximately
$36 million for Tribal wastewater treatment
systems.
-------
January 1993: page 93
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
9.7 Enhancing State Capacity
Delegation and authorization of the various
OWEC programs to the State is facing a crisis.
There are shortfalls in State budgets. The
shortfalls for environmental programs are
exacerbated by competing demands for
resources (e.g., health and social services).
OWEC assumes that these shortfalls will persist
If program delegation is to succeed, EPA must
work to build and enhance State capacity.
9.7.1 Assessing and Building State Capacity
To do mis, OWEC will use a three-pronged
approach. First, we will support increases in
State program resources through increases in
federal funds, and/or through the development of
new State program resources (e.g., alternative
funding mechanisms). Second, we will promote
institutional change to use existing resources
more efficiently and effectively. This will be
achieved through a strategic planning dialogue to
establish multi-year State and EPA priorities and
by streamlining administrative processes;
building on innovative State management
approaches through technology transfer,
identifying and promoting resource-efficient tools
such as general permits, administrative penalties,
and alternative dispute resolution techniques;
funding pilot programs; and promoting
cooperative training programs. Third, we will
work with environmental groups, and State and
local organizations to establish a strong
communication network through an aggressive
outreach and education effort to the public, the
regulated community, other environmental
groups, executive and legislative branch officials,
other federal agencies, and other State programs.
To implement mis approach, OWEC will provide
contractor assistance to the States (upon request)
for the purpose of gathering current comparative
data, and preparing informational material in
support of State efforts to seek increased State
program resources. Meanwhile, OWEC will
continue to work to increase federal financial
assistance and will seek to obtain necessary data
to support its budget request OWEC will
initiate a limited number of special projects
designed to promote institutional change.
Working with die States and other stakeholders,
OWEC will identify outreach needs and priorities
and will develop a communications network that
will connect the Regions, States, other federal
agencies, the public, and environmental groups.
-------
Chapter Ten
Special Projects
EPA is directing efforts to protect marine and coastal waters from degradation due to municipal
wastewaier discharges. In previous appropriations, Congress has provided additional funding for special
construction projects.
10.1 Mexican Border Initiative
The United States shares more than 2,000 miles
of border with Mexico. The two nations have
created the International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWQ to address the many
boundary and water issues that affect both sides
of the border. The IB WC negotiates measures to
control water pollution across the U.S.-Mexico
border.
10.1.1 Colonies
U.S. colonias are unincorporated communities
along the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, New
Mexico, Arizona and California populated
largely by economically disadvantaged people of
Hispanic origin. As a result of uncontrolled
subdivision development, colonias often lack
basic public necessities such as safe drinking
water and sanitation facilities. These conditions
pose serious potential public health problems for
colonia residents, the general public in the border
area and the waters along the border.
Coloflias have numerous, distinctive
characteristics which impede drinking water and
wastewater improvements. The low income of
most colonia residents makes many projects
infeasible without management, financial, and
technical assistance. Coloflias often lack:
sufficient nearby water sources; local leadership
to manage and organize water project financing;'
and adequate controls to prevent future problems.
The combined efforts of city, county. State, and
federal officials are required to develop and
enforce local laws and regulations concerning
septic tank installation, water rights, and land-
use. Once in place, these controls will provide
a solid foundation to
public health
threats which now exist in colonias.
The Municipal Support Division (MSD)
Facilities Finance Section is overseeing the
development of a program aimed at improving
living conditions in the colonias, including
appropriation requests to support colonia
wastewater collection and treatment projects.
10.1.2 TUuana
A highly publicized IBWC effort is the ongoing
Tijuana wastewater treatment project. Tijuana
lacks the capability to convey and treat all its
wastewater, so raw sewage flows across the
border into the San Diego area. Mexico built the
Tijuana Wastewater Treatment Plant which can
treat a portion of Tijuana's wastewater. The rest
of the wastewater will be piped to an
International Treatment Plant to be built in the
United States, with an ocean outfall. Plans for
the pipeline, plant, and outfall are currently
under review. The plant, funded jointly by the
United States and Mexico, is scheduled for
completion in 1995.
The Tijuana water pollution control effort is only
one of many joint efforts by the United States
and Mexico included in the International Border
Environment Plan (IBEP). EPA, in concert with
the IBEP is reviewing many possible joint efforts
all along the border, including projects hi the
Nogales, AZ area and in the Mexican',
BC/Calexico, CA area.
-------
January 1993: page 10-2
Office of Wastewator Enforcement and Compliance
10.2 Designated Coastal Cities
Since 1990, funding has not been provided for
traditional new Construction grants projects, but
Congress has provided construction grant funds
for six large- coastal cities-which -have not yet
met secondary treatment standards. Funding
assistance is provided to Boston, New York, Los
Angeles, San Diego, Seattle and Baltimore. This
funding augments EPA's Estuaries Initiative and
helps to improve coastal water quality in targeted
watersheds where environmental and public
health risks are relatively high and where the.
recreational, ecological, public health and
economic benefits are large.
-------
Chapter Eleven
OWEC Strategic Plan
OWEC is undergoing strategic planning and teambuilding efforts to identify a basic vision and mission
statement In building toward mis encompassing goal, OWEC managers began development of eight
strategic planning documents in the fall of 1991, each dealing with an issue of major importance to the
Office. Each of these strategic goals is described below.
Policy Goal #1 Permitting Priorities
Our basic priority setting system will
emphasize addressing first those problems
presenting the greatest risk to the
environment and maintaining a credible
national program which is* responsive to-
statutory mandates. The intent is to ensure
that, as a starting point, Regions and States
have in place consistent and credible
programs based on clear guidance from
Headquarters. As resources become
available, additional activities will be
undertaken based on relative risk to the
environment
High priority is to be placed on issuing
enforceable permits to new facilities or
activities not yet addressed by the NPDES
(e.g., CSOs, stormwater, and sludge) and
incorporating new water quality standards in
NPDES permits. Generally, this will mean
a shift of emphasis and resources into wet
weather programs.
CSO permitting will be conducted consistent
with the Expanded CSO Policy. This policy,
which is an extension of the 1989 CSO
Strategy, is intended to provide guidance to
all relevant parties on coordinating the
planning, selection, sizing, and construction
of CSO controls.
Permitting for Phase I stormwater sources
will be conducted consistent with the strategy
previously laid out for the program. Actions
for Phase n stormwater sources will be
defined based on information from a variety
of sources including the Rensselaerville
Project, the Federal Register Notice which
seeks comments on a number of options for
addressing these sources, and information
garnered for the Reports to Congress required
under Section 402 (p)(5). We will also work
closely with the nonpoint source program in
identifying cost-effective strategies for
addressing Phase n sources.
The fundamental objective of the sludge
program is to help get effective State
programs in place mat promote, to the
maximum extent practicable, the beneficial
reuse of sludge.
Priority for sludge permitting wfll be first
targeted to sludge incinerators, facilities
posing a threat to human health and the
environment, and facilities where permits are
necessary to support or promote beneficial
reuse.
The sludge program will also make extensive
use of education and outreach tools to inform
the public of the importance of beneficial
reuse and effective treatment to ensure high
quality sludge.
We will continue aggressive implementation
of the National Pretreatment program,
placing significant emphasis on industrial,
commercial and domestic sources causing or
contributing to problems at POTWs. We
will also incorporate comprehensive
requirements in NPDES permits requiring
POTW program implementation and
enforcement Finally, we will establish new
measures of performance for local
pretreatment programs, with greater emphasis
on environmental measures and indicators.
-------
January 1993: pago 11-2
OfSot of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
We will encourage watershed initiatives
where watershed management plans have
been developed, including increased attention
to minor permittees where they are a
significant cause of a failure to meet water
quality objectives: Permitting authorities
should require automatic permit reopeners in
order to synchronize permit issuance with
watershed permitting strategies.
Finally, we will examine ways to facilitate
permit issuance through the expanded use of
various innovative ways of "working
smarter" such as expanded use of general
permits, administrative continuance of low
risk permits, use of alternative dispute
resolution techniques in permit appeals, and.
possible elimination of evidentiary hearings
(appeals would instead be referred to civil
court).
Policy Goal #2
Integrated Compliance
Approach
We will continue to implement a vigorous
and effective enforcement program which is
fully consistent with the requirements of the
Clean Water Act (CWA).
Overall thrust of this goal is to maximize
compliance through an integrated program
using all available tools (enforcement,
assistance, training, education, etc) based on
the nature of the noncompliance.
Major permittees in significant
noncompliance (SNC) will continue to be
addressed exclusively through formal
enforcement actions. Majors in Reportable
Noncompliance (RNQ will continue to be
addressed primarily through enforcement,
but, based on an examination of the
underlying causes of .these lesser violations,
other approaches may be employed to
address these violations.
Similarly, we will undertake an extensive
analysis of alternative ways to address
noncompliance by minor permittees focusing
on a wide variety of potential tools and a
better understanding of the relative risk they
pose. In the meantime, we will seek
opportunities to focus compliance efforts on
minors found to be a barrier to water quality
in State or local watershed plans.
Public outreach and generic training will
continue to be used extensively, especially in
emerging programs like stormwater and
sludge to promote initial compliance.
OWEC will systematically explore options
for making the enforcement process more
efficient such as expedited penalty orders
("traffic tickets"), use of Alternate Dispute
Resolution (ADR) techniques in resolving
penalty disputes, use of inspection strategies
in sludge and stormwater designed to focus
on the most environmentally significant
facilities and create maximum deterrence.
We will also analyze the feasibility of
promoting the use of compliance assurance
systems by major industrial faculties or for
an entire industry.
Finally, we will emphasize the need for more
aggressive and efficient enforcement
programs at the State level and at the local
level in the case of pretreatmenL Specific
objectives may include: all States obtaining
administrative penalty authority, EPA and
States implementing policies which define
criteria for EPA oversight of State
enforcement actions, and all States having
written penalty policies generally consistent
with EPA policies.
Policy Goal #3 - Pollution Prevention
The basic intent is to integrate pollution
prevention into all appropriate OWEC
activities in order to reduce pollutant
loadings, conserve resources, and improve
compliance.
-------
OWEC Strategic Plans
January 1993: page 11-3
Effective integration of pollution prevention*
will involve ensuring that pollution
prevention approaches are considered to the
maximum extent possible in developing
effective NPDES permit limits and in POTW
implementation of local pretreatment
programs, negotiating administrative and
judicial settlements, ensuring that Municipal
Water Pollution Prevention programs
designed to assist municipalities identify and
address potential noncompliance problems
early on are institutionalized in all States,
and seeing that municipalities and industries
are routinely performing pollution prevention
self audits.
Other areas of our programs where pollution
prevention will be a major factor include
implementation of Sections 104(b)(3) and
106 grants, our Water Use Efficiency
strategy, and our industrial stormwater
permitting program.
Critical components of our outreach and
education efforts include guidance and
assistance for Regions and States for
pollution prevention in both voluntary and
regulatory actions, including heavy emphasis
on training for permit writers. Other
components include working with national
organizations (e.g., ASIWPCA) to foster and
promote pollution prevention approaches, and
encouraging POTWs to assume a leadership
role in providing technical assistance to
industries, small businesses, and individuals.
Policy Goal #4 -
Leadership for OW
Funding Issues
We will take all appropriate steps to
complete and close out the Construction
Grants program as efficiently and-
expeditiously as possible.
Where appropriate, private firms will be
directly involved in providing capital for
expanding and upgrading facilities previously
funded through the CO and/or SRF
programs.
To mis end, regulations, policies, and
procedures will be revised to remove barriers
to the implementation of Public-Private
Partnerships.
Beyond this, we will work closely with
States to use the SRF as a funding source for
not only wastewater construction, but also
for a variety of other needs such as nonpoint
source (NFS), ground water, water
conservation, pollution prevention, and
wetlands restoration. This will be done
under both current law and through any
legislative amendment!? -that may be
forthcoming.
Finally, the role of personnel (HQ and
Regions) in the CG and SRF programs will
be examined to determine ways to more
effectively integrate these individuals over
the long term into a wider variety of
activities.
Policy Goal #S
Effective Coordination
with Other Offices
A major component of this effort will be to
improve communication efforts among
various programs at the federal and State
level in conjunction with regular outreach,
training, and indoctrination programs to
ensure that all relevant staff can more
effectively coordinate their activities.
Specific areas for improving coordination
within the Office of Water (OW) include
effluent guidelines and water quality criteria
development, development and promotion of
effective nonpoint source controls to
complement the Phase n stormwater
program, and specific analytical tools such as
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).
This effort will also focus on other federal
agencies. For example, we will work closely
-------
January 1993: page 11-4
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
with the Department of the Interior to
address stonnwater permitting issues related
to abandoned mines.
Improved coordination will be extended to
the regulated community as well, through
such efforts as working to see that water
quality criteria are developed based on the
best possible scientific methods.
Policy Goal #7 -
State and Local Capacity
Building
Policy Goal #6
Developing an
Empowered Workforce
The purpose of this goal is to take actions to
empower OWEC employees at all levels to
take innovative actions to get the job done as
effectively as possible, provide the necessary
tools to help employees meet their short and
long-term career goals, and create a
workplace environment where people are
excited about working together at all levels
of the organization.
Specific actions to support this goal include
having in place effective programs to
adequately train employees, including multi-
media training, in all relevant aHiig; to fully
recognizing and rewarding high quality
work; and providing opportunities for career
enhancement, including rotational
assignments both within OWEC and other
parts of the Agency, including Regional
offices.
Finally, a key component of this goal will be
the development and implementation of a
strategy to recruit and hire qualified minority
candidates for positions all across the
organization.
Ensure that State and local programs have
adequate, predictable resources to meet
current and future requirements under the
CWA. This will be done initially through a
detailed characterization of these needs in
order to target our efforts to the greatest
needs first
We will take steps to improve
communications and outreach in order to
inform and educate State and local
governments on innovative approaches in the
areas of technology transfer, funding
approaches, elimination of institutional
barriers to more efficient program
implementation, and building public and
political understanding of the environmental
benefits derived from these programs.
As we identify more specific implementation
approaches, we will make a major effort to
target more resources to mem as well as
incorporate their accomplishments into the
budget and State grants processes, the
relevant OWEC or OW accountability
systems, and future OWEC and OW strategic
planning deliberations.
In addition. Regions will work with States to
develop their own strategic plans, providing
the flexibility necessary to meet the needs of
each while providing sufficient accountability
and consistency with OWEC's strategic
direction.
-------
Appendix A
Glossary of Acronyms
ADR Alternate Dispute Resolution
ANY - Alaska Native Villages
AO - Administrative Order
AOG - Agency Operating Guidance
ASIWPCA Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
BATEA - Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (also referred to as BAT)
BCT - Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
BEN - Short term for computer model tfiat generates the dollar amount a violator gains by not putting in
a pollution control device
BMPs - Best Management Practices
BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BPJ - Best Professional Judgment
BPT - Best Practicable Control Technology
CCP Composite Correction Plan
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
CG - Construction Grants
COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CPR - Consolidated Permit Regulations
CSO - Combined Sewer Overflow
CWA - Clean Water Act
DMR . Discharge Monitoring Report
DOJ - Department of Justice
EAD - Engineering and Analysis Division
ED - Enforcement Division
-------
EMS - Enforcement Management System
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FMFIA - Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
FWPCA - Federal Water Pollution Control Act
GICS - Grant Information and Control System
GPD - Gallons Per Day
IBEP - Inemational Bonier Environmental Plan
IBWC - International Boundary and Water Commission
ITD Industrial Technology Division
IU - Industrial User
MCP - Municipal Compliance Plan
METRO - Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
*
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
MSD - Municipal Support Division
NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement
NMP - National Municipal Policy
NSFC - National Small Flows Clearinghouse
NOI - Notice of Intent
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
OE - Office of Enforcement
OECM - Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
OGC - Office of General Counsel
ORD - Office Research and Development
OST - Office of Science and Technology
OWAS - Office of Water Accountability Ststem
OW - Office of Water
-------
OWEC - Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
OWOW - Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
OWRS - Office of Water Regulations and Standards
P3 - Public Private Partnerships
PASS - Pretreatment Audit Summary System
PCB - Polychlorinated Biphenols
PCI - Pretreatment Compliance Inspection
PCME - Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
PCS - Permit Compliance System
PD - Permits Division
POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PQR - Permit Quality Review
QA - Quality Assurance
QNCR - Quarterly Noncompliance Report
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
*
RMES - Resources Management and Evaluation Staff
RNC - Reportable Noncompliance
SCORE Small Community Outreach and Education Program
SIC - Standard Industrial Classification
SIU - Significant Industrial Users
SNC - Significant Noncompliance
SPMS - Strategic Planning and Management System
SRF - State Revolving Fund
STARS - Strategic Targeting Activities for Results System
TMDLs - Total Maximum Daily Loads
TSS - Total Suspended Solids
UIC - Underground Injection Control
-------
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WQA - Water Quality Act
WQM - Water Quality Management
WQS - Water Quality Standards
WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant
-------
Appendix B
Citations to NPDES, Pretreatment, and Sludge Regulations
NPDES REGULATIONS
40 CFR Pan 122 Basic program requirements
40 CFR Part 123 State program requirements
40 CFR Part 124 Procedures for decision making
40 CFR Part 125 Criteria and standards (for determining permit conditions)
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS
40 CFR Parts 401-471 Categorical pretreatment standards
40 CFR Part 403 General pretreatment regulations for existing and new sources of
pollution; regulations to implement the requirements of the
Domestic Sewage Study (proposed)
SLUDGE REGULATIONS
40 CFR Part 61 Sewage sludge incineration
40 CFR Part 257 Landfilling and land application of sludge
40 CFR Part 501 Permitting procedures and State programs
40 CFR Part 503 Technical use and disposal standards (proposed)
40 CFR Part 258 Solid waste disposal facility criteria (proposed)
RELATED WATER REGULATIONS
40 CFR Part 116 Designation of hazardous substances
40 CFR Part 117 Determination of reportable quantities for hazardous substances
40 CFR Pan 121 State certification of activities requiring a Federal license or
permit
40 CFR Part 129 Toxic pollutant effluent standards
40 CFR Part 130 Water quality planning and management
40 CFR Part 131 Water quality standards
40 CFR Part 133 Secondary treatment regulation
40 CFR Part 135 Prior notice of citizen suits
40 CFR Part 136 Guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of
pollutants
-------
Appendix C
Chronology of the NPDES Program
Date
1948
1965
Sienificant Remlatoiv and Other Developments
1972
1972-3
1978(Aug.)
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(FWPCA)
Water Quality Act (amending FWPCA)
State water quality standards
approach to control of water
pollution.
FWPCA Amendments of 1972
Establishes NPDES permit program
to control direct
-------
Date
1987(Feb.)
1987(June)
1988(Sept.)
1989(Ian.)
19890une)
1990(Nov.)
199l(Aug.)
Statute
The Water Quality Act
- Mandates "Beyond-BAT toxicity
control program.
Creates Federal Sludge Management
Program, implemented largely
through NPDES.
Bolsters EPA enforcement
Significant Regulatory and Other Developments
Court Issues Partial Opinion in NPDES
Upholding Most Regulations, NRDC
v.EPA. 26 ERC 1153 (D.C Or. 1987)
Coon Issues Final Opinion in NPDES
T -tioati _ Ruling for EPA on IHOB
IDCUlQIDff UttuOffuV 10 IDffDIStD COXXCttV
Final Rote to Codifiratinn of the NPDES
Final Rate far Implementation of Toxicity
Requirements, Section 304(1) of the dean
Water Act
Final Rote on Applications for Stonn Water
Proposed Stonn Water Implementation Rule
-------
Date
1987(Feb.)
1987(Junc)
1988(Sepu)
1989(Jan.)
1989(June)
1990(Nov.)
1991(Aug.)
Statute
The Water Quality Act
Mandates "Beyond-BAT toxitity
control program.
- Creates Federal Sludge Management
Program, implemented largely
through NPDES.
- Bolsters EPA enforcement
responses.
Significant Regulatory and Other Developments
Coon Issues Partial Opinion in NPDES
Upholding Most Regulations, NRDC
v.EPA. 26 ERC 1153 (D.C. Or. 1987)
Comt Issues Final Opinion in NPDES
T .higlin Ruling for EPA on most issues,
flUtuOKltV tO VBffD^BfiD tOOUCltV
of the NPDES
Final Role
Regulations
Final Role for Implementation of Toxicity
Requirements, Section 304(1) of the Clean
Water Act
Final Role on Applications for Storm Water
Permitting
Proposed Storm Water Implementation Rule
------- |