Office of Wastewater £???unitedsta|es/ and ComvHanc&Mb&fjie&i of WastewattttEx/Qjysement and
                      Environmental Protection          (WH-546),             _ .££ fj$£
Compliance » Office  of A^a^/tewater  Enforcement ana  Compliance  • Offwe  of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance » Office  of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance • Office of
Wastewater Enforceme^t^^f^\^^'\^(^^^Q^^I\^f^^^^rcementand Compliance •
Office of Wastewater Ei^mxemenL&t^LjGffi?'£&&&££ J^i^i §^^^£F^|""£2^rCf?WK-n^ fln^
Compliance * Office  o/CSOKIHCBjfflBCH «ffmlJMf;iirfQl I iBflJSMGfJf ra*?fer
Enforcement and Compl&mmMLlEr}\Wa5tewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of
Wastewater EnforcemenrknuComp   Tel * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance •
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance * Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance * Office  °!^ffiF$\&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
  dean water... a better environment
                 Prepared by:
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
               401 M Street, S.W.
             Washington, D.C. 20460
                 January 1993

                       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                      OFFICE OF
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

     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
                               Michael  B.  Cook
                               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

      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


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


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


A     Glossary of Acronyms

B     Citations to Applicable Regulations

C     Chronological History of the NPDES Program

                                     Chapter One

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
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

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

January ..sJ: page 2-4
                                                   Office til Wastowator Enforcement and Compb^
                                                          Municipal Sewage
                                    Indirect Industrial
                                                                                     Stormwater Runoff
                                  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 Staff—RMES) and three
divisions—Permits, Enforcement, and Municipal Support—with 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

•  Developing  and   defending  a  national
   program budget reflecting program needs and

•  Ensuring  the implementation of Agency
   policy and  priorities in the Regions  and

•  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.
regional   municipal
  control pTOffntms
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

Developing program policy, guidance and
regulations   for   permitting,   sludge
management, compliance, and pretreatment

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

   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
 Assistant Administrator
           for Water
 Policy Staff
 Communications Staff
 Budget and Administrative
 Management Staff
 Human Resources Staff
 Deputy Assistant Administrator
Associate Assistant Administrator
Office of
Water and
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

Budget and Program
"" Management Staff

Engineering and
"~ Analysis Division
_ Health and Ecological
Criteria Division

Standards and Applied
Science Division
Office of
Enforcement and

Resources Managment
"" and Evaluation Staff

Municipal Support
"~ Division


Office of
Oceans and

Policy and
— Communications

Budget and
— Program Management
Oceans and Coastal
Protection 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.

Jeff 1
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.

Michael B. C
Georgette E
John P. Lehmai
ook. Director
Irown, Sec.
n Dep. Director
loks. Sec.
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

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


      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
                               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
      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
      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

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

State fti«,.dsn Delegation and Authorization
January 1993: page-,-j
                                                       Approved State NPDES Permit Program

                                                       Approved State NPDES and Pretreatment Programs
American Simoa
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
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

   -   discharge into stressed receiving waters;

   -   require   advanced    waste   treatment

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

January 1993: page 5-2
   The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Each of these elements is briefly  discussed
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
       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

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

 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

To  a large  extent,  NPDES permittees police
themselves.  Permits instruct each permittee on:

•   the  frequency for collecting  wastewater

•   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

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  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

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

  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-
5.4.4  Sewage  Sludge  Use  and  Disposal

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

      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
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

•  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

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

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

January 1993: page 64
     Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
6.6    Pretreatment Program
       Accomplishments and Future

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

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

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
 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
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
                                                                  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 challenge—proper 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

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

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

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
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

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

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

•  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

•  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

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

•   Track permit issuance, reissuance, and appeal

•   Evaluate  compliance  data  to  determine
    effluent, schedule, and reporting violations;

•   Track enforcement responses;

•   Automate Quarterly Noncompliance Report
•   Automate   Agency   management  system

•   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

   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

   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

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

•  PCS Generalized Retrieval Manual;
•   PCS Inquiry User's Guide;

•   PCS Data Elements Directory;

•   PCS Data Entry, Edit, and Update Manual;

•   PCS Personal Assistance Link (PAL) Users
&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

•  Managing PCS,

•  Evaluating QNCRs, and

•  Implementing special initiatives, such as the
   National Municipal Policy (NMP).

8.5.1   Implementing   EPA's   Inspection

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,
•  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

•  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
8.6    Administration of  the Enforcement
       Program: Major Responsibilities

OWEC's  major enforcement  responsibilities

•   Providing  enforcement  case  review  and

•   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

These activities are highlighted below.
8.6.1   Enforcement   Case   Review  and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
 Action Data
Violation Data
 Action Keys
                          Schedule Data
 Limits Data
Violation Data
                                        1  Inspection  '
                                        i  Scheduling  )
                                        1    Data    i
                                          Permit Event
                                          Hearing Data
Single Event
Violation 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)

                                                More indepth overview
                                                than Rl
                                                Site review of facility
                                                Examine self-monitoring
                                                data, records, & compliance
 Pretreatment Compliance
     Inspection (PCI)

.  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
Develop permit limits
May include CEI
                   Performance Audit
                     Inspection (PAD

                 Sampling by permittee
                 Evaluate permitee's self-
                 monitoring program and
                 May include CEI
Compliance Biomonitoring
     Inspection (CBI)

.  Sampling by inspector

.  Acute toxicity testing by

.  Determine effluent
                Toxics Sampling Inspection

                .  Sampling by inspector
                .  Evaluate priority
                  pollutants in effluent
                .  Develop permit limits
                .  May include CEI
Legal Support Inspection

Follow up to enforcement
problem identified during
previous inspections
                Diagnostic Inspection (Dl)
                 Response to
                 Identifies cause(s) or
                 Leads to issuance of
                                       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

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

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

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

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
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.
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

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
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

•   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

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
Policy Goal #2
Integrated   Compliance
•   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

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

                                  To  mis  end,  regulations,  policies,  and
                                  procedures will be revised to remove barriers
                                  to  the  implementation  of  Public-Private

                                  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

                                  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
                              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
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

   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
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

                                        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)

   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)

   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
   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

                                      Appendix C
                        Chronology of the NPDES Program


                                                   Sienificant Remlatoiv and Other Developments
Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Water Quality Act (amending FWPCA)

  •  State water quality standards
     approach to control of water

FWPCA Amendments of 1972

     Establishes NPDES permit program
     to control direct 







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








The Water Quality Act

  •  Mandates "Beyond-BAT toxitity
     control program.

  -  Creates Federal Sludge Management
     Program, implemented largely
     through NPDES.

  -  Bolsters EPA enforcement
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

                                       Final Role for Implementation of Toxicity
                                       Requirements, Section 304(1) of the Clean
                                       Water Act

                                       Final Role on Applications for Storm Water

                                       Proposed Storm Water Implementation Rule