-------
MUNICIPAL SLUDGE
PERMIT CONDITIONS
-------
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Definition of sludge
•N
Statutory requirements
Interim program
Implementation procedures
Long term program
NOTES:
ll-l
-------
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
FWPCA Provisions (1972)
Prohibit discharge without a permit
CWA Provisions (1977)
Sludge acknowledged as a resource
EPA must develop technical regulations
No implementation mechanism specified
Contrary POTW disposal unlawful
WQA Provisions (1987)
Renewed emphasis on developing technical
regulations
Requires that standards be implemented
through permits
, 405(d)(4) requires interim program x
NOTES:
11-2
-------
PART 503's MISSION:
Protect human health and the environment
and
Promote beneficial use
Accomplished through commitments to:
Sound science
and
Regulatory flexibility
NOTES:
11-3
-------
STRUCTURE OF PART 503
Use/disposal methods being considered for coverage
in the rule:
Subpart B -Land application
Subpart C - Surface disposal
Subpart E - Incineration
Standards/requirements for each use/disposal method:
Pollutant limits
Pathogen/vector attraction requirements
Management practices
Monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
Reporting requirements
NOTES:
11-4
-------
STRUCTURE OF PART 503
Subpart B • Land Application
• Covers beneficial use through application to:
Agricultural land
Forest, public contact sites, reclamation sites
Home lawns/gardens
• General Requirements: Provide notice and necessary
information to recipients
• Pathogen/vector requirements:
Pathogens: Either Class A (complete removal)
gr Class B (partial removal)
Vector controls
• Pollutant limits:
For metals, limits would be expressed in 3 ways:
Cumulative loadings
Annual loading rates
Concentration limits
Reflect risk analysis for food, air, groundwater
pathways
Provide 10"4 risk protection to highly exposed
individuals
Management Practices: Narrative requirements to
protect wetlands, floodplains, etc.
• Monitoring/Recordkeeping: POTWs and commercial
distributors and appliers
• Reporting: Class I facilities
11-5
-------
STRUCTURE OF PART 503
Subpart C - Surface Disposal
• Considering standards
which would include: but not include:
Monofills - Storage
Impoundment - Municipal landfills
Piles
• Considering standards which would distinguish between sites with,
and sites without, liners.
Pollutant limits:
Numerical limits for metals and organics vary
according to site factors (groundwater quality,
liner)
Reflect risk analysis for air, groundwater
' pathways
Provide 10"4 risk protection to highly exposed
individuals
• Pathogen/vector requirements:
Pathogens: Class A or B
Vector controls
NOTES:
11-6
-------
STRUCTURE OF PART 503
Subpart C - Surface Disposal (continued)
• General Requirements:
Submit closure plan before closing site
Notify subsequent site owners
• Management practices: Narrative requirements
to protect wetlands, endangered species, ensure
structural integrity collect leachate/runoff
• Monitoring/Recorpkeeping
• Reporting: Class I facilities
NOTES:
11-7
-------
STRUCTURE OF PART 503
Subpart E - Incineration
• Covers the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge
incinerator only.
Considering standards like those proposed in
November 1990
• General Requirements
Pollutant limits:
Numeric limits for metals and organics:
* Metals require site-specific air dispersion
modeling
* Organics use THC as surrogate
* Limits based on higher protectiveness:
105 risk
• Management Practices: Continuous temperature,
THC, O2, moisture monitoring
• Monitoring/Recordkeeping
• Reporting: Class I facilities
NOTES:
11-8
-------
DOMESTIC SEPTAGE
Land Application
• Application Rate Limit
Hydraulic loading rate based on nitrogen demand
• Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction
Treatment to pH 12 for 30 minutes
Site Restriction
Food and feed crops
Public access
• Other Requirements
X
« •""'
, Threatened and endangered species
Frozen, snow-covered, or flooded land
Wetlands
NOTES:
11-9
-------
DOMESTIC SEPTAGE
Surface Disposal
• Pathogen and Vector Attraction Reduction
Treatment to pH of 12 for 30 minutes
• Minimum Frequency of Monitoring
Each container must be monitored
• Other Requirements
All other requirements apply
NOTES:
11-10
-------
IMPLEMENTING PART 503
THROUGH PERMITS
Part 503 intended to be self implementing . . .
ill affect all parties involved in sludge generation,
handling, treatment, use, and disposal
will be directly enforceable
will be effective one year after publication
. . .but also administered through permits
CWA 405(f): Any section 402 permit issued to a POTW or
other "treatment works treating domestic sewage" shall include
sludge use and disposal requirements
Sludge permitting regulations, promulgated 5/2/89 (54 FR 18716),
establish framework for sludge permitting and State sludge
programs
X
• Our task: Dovetail new technical standards with existing
programmatic framework
NOTES:
ll-li
-------
IMPLEMENTING PART 503
THROUGH PERMITS
Who must apply for a permit?
Sludge permitting regulations require applications from all
"Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage," i.e. -
All POTWs
• All other generators of sewage sludge
• All entities providing treatment (including commercial blenders,
commercial fertilizer manufacturers)
• All entities providing disposal (including sludge-only landfills,
incinerators)
Parties not required to apply for a permit, but with certain
Part 503 compliance responsibilities:
• Commercial sludge land appliers/haulers, unless designated as a
TWTDS (subject to some management practices, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements)
• Septage haulers/appliers, unless designated as a TWTDS
(subject to limited notification and recordkeeping requirements)
• Farmers, landowners (still must meet site access restrictions
in some cases)
NOTES:
11-12
-------
IMPLEMENTING PART 503
THROUGH PERMITS
When must an application be submitted?
Current sludge permitting regulations (§ 122.21 (c)) require either:
• Within 120 days of applicable use and disposal standards;
or
With next NPDES permit application, if sooner.
NOTES:
11-13
-------
IMPLEMENTING PART 503 THROUGH PERMITS
Proposed expedited rule (May 27, 1992; 57 FR 22197)
would phase in applications:
• Applications within 180 days of promulgation, for facilities
needing site-specific limits (incinerators and some surface
disposal sites)
• Preliminary screening information within 1 year for
non-NPDES (sludge-only) facilities
Applications for TWTDS as their NPDES permits expire
Status of proposed rule:
• Comment period closed June 26
• 12 comments received; generally supportive
X
• Publication of final rule expected in November 1992
NOTES:
11-14
-------
ADVANTAGES OF A PERMIT
1. General/Process Considerations
• Provides an effective way to bring newly regulated facilities
into the program (e.g., sludge-only facilities)
• Adds certainty to each party's obligations
• Facilitates compliance
• Provides a limited defense in legal actions when permit
compliance is demonstrated
• Allows for public participation and can improve public
perception
2. Experience with self-implementation shows that it
is not the most effective means of implementation
/
• ' No known Federal enforcement actions related to Part 257
• Pretreatment program was recently revised to require
"individual control mechanisms" for significant industrial
users
NOTES:
11-15
-------
ADVANTAGES OF A PERMIT
(continued)
3. Permit Content
• Site-specific factors
• Boilerplate
Duty to notify of change in use or disposal practice
Reopener clause
Duty to mitigate
Duty of proper operation and maintenance
Detailed monitoring and reporting requirements
• Clarify the permittee's responsibilities and relationships with
additional parties (e.g., address interstate transfer issues)
Require pretreatment programs for non-discharging POTWs
NOTES:
11-16
-------
THE IMPACT OF THE FEDERAL PERMITS ON
EXISTING STATE PROGRAMS
• Background
Many States already have strong programs
Many States are operating under interim agreements
Post 503
Interim agreements will no longer be valid
EPA AS THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY
• Currently there are no approved State sewage sludge programs
• Sludge data must be sent to EPA Regions
• In States where EPA is implementing the NPDES program,
EPA can simply include the 503 standards into the NPDES
permits it issues. It will also issue sewage sludge permits
to non-NPDES TWTDS.
In States with approved NPDES programs, the NPDES
permittee will submit sewage sludge information to the Regional
EPA office.
NOTES:
11-17
-------
IMPACTS OF EPA-ISSUED SLUDGE
PERMITS ON STATE SLUDGE PROGRAMS
TWTDS will have to comply with both Federal and State
programs.
State sludge requirements are superseded if they are less stringent.
A TWTDS may need both a State and a Federal permit
If one program is more comprehensive, a TWTDS must comply
with the most comprehensive.
CONTROL OVER CHANGES IN USE OR DISPOSAL
PRACTICES THROUGH PERMITS
• Permit may address several use or disposal methods
x
• Permittees are required to provide notice of changes in use
or disposal practices
• Permits can be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated
when there are changes in use or disposal practices
NOTES:
11-18
-------
STORM WATER PERMITTING
-------
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Storm Water Program Overview
Industrial Requirements
Municipal Requirements
NOTES:
12-1
-------
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO STORM WATER
Naturally, pollution from diffuse sources such as runoff from
agriculture and urban areas are the leading causes of water quality
impairment
Diffuse pollution sources are increasingly important as controls
for industrial process dischargers and POTWs are implemented
38 States have reported urban runoff as a major cause of use
impairment
21 States report construction site runoff as a major cause of use
impairment
In some municipalities, illicit connections to separate storm sewers
have had a significant adverse impact. Removing illicit discharges
presents opportunities for dramatic improvement in the quality
of storm water discharges from urban areas.
One study showed that 14% of the buildings studied within a
drainage basin had improper connections to storm sewers;
connections approved when the structures were built.
NOTES:
12-2
-------
CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIRES PHASED APPROACH
FOR PERMITTING STORM WATER DISCHARGES
Prior to 10/1/92, storm water permits are only required for:
Storm water regulated under an existing permit
Storm water that is associated with an industrial activity
Storm water that is discharged from municipal separate
storm sewers serving 100,000 or more persons
Administrator or State Director may designate, for permitting,
storm water discharges contributing to a violation of water
quality standards or which are significant contributors of
pollutants
• All other storm water discharges are the subject of 2 EPA studies,
and subsequent regulation after 10/1/92
NOTES:
12-3
-------
STORM WATER DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
• Discharge from any conveyance which is used for collecting
and conveying storm water
• Directly related to manufacturing, processing, or raw materials
storage areas
• Located at an industrial plant
Other industrial facilities and operations
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR STORM WATER
DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
• Discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity are
required to either:
Apply for an individual permit (Form 2F),
Apply for a permit through a group application, or
Seek coverage under a storm water general permit
using notice of intent
NOTES:
12-4
-------
INDUSTRIAL STORM WATER PERMIT
APPLICATION DEADLINES
Individual:
October 1,1992
Group:
Parti
September 30,1991
Review Period
60 days
Parti
October 1,1992
General Permit NOI
Non-Construction:
Existing: No later
than October 1,1992
New: 48 hrs. before
discharge
General Permit NOI
Construction:
Existing: No later
than October 1,1992
New: Before
construction starts
Estimated coverage: 100,000 facilities
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL
STORM WATER PERMITS
Permits must require the achievement of CWA 301 [effluent
limitations (BAT/BCT)] and water quality-based limitations
Permitted industries must continue to meet all existing
requirements of CWA 402
NOTES:
12-5
-------
MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS
Large system • serving a population of 250,000 or more
Medium system - serving a population of 100,000 or more, but less
than 250,000
MUNICIPAL PERMIT APPLICATION DEADLINES
Medium
Municipalities
Large
Municipalities
Parti
May 18, 199;
i
r
November 18,
1991
Review Period
90 Days
90 Days
Part 2
May 17, 1993
November 16,
1992
Estimated coverage: 173 Cities and 47 Counties
NOTES:
12-6
-------
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL
SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM PERMITS
System or jurisdiction-wide permits allowed
Effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges into storm
sewers
Controls to reduce discharge of pollutants to MAXIMUM EXTENT
PRACTICABLE (MEP)
NOTES:
12-7
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO)
PERMITTING
-------
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
CSO Overview
Permitting Requirements
NOTES:
13-1
-------
cso
Definition
CSOs are flows from a combined sewer in excess of the interceptor
or regulator capacity that are discharged into a receiving water without
going to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
• CSOs are point sources
• CSOs are not bypasses
• CSOs are not subject to secondary treatment regulations
CSOs are subject to BCT and BAT and State water
quality standards
NOTES:
13-2
-------
Typical Combined Sewer System Configuration
CO
I
co
Stormwater
connections
Sanitary
connections
/ Sump
opening
Overflow
Receiving Water
To wastewater
treatment plant
-------
CSO URBANIZED AREAS
13-4
-------
CSO PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS
Form 2A - Permitted in conjunction with a POTW
Form 2C - Permitted separately from a POTW
NOTES:
13-5
-------
CSO PERMITS
Permit issuance
Minimum technology-based limitations
Additional CSO control measures
Monitoring
NOTES:
13-6
-------
MINIMUM BCT/BAT LIMITATIONS
• Prohibition of dry weather overflows;
• Proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the
sewer system and combined sewer overflow points;
• Maximum use of the collection system for storage;
Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment;
Review and modification of pretreatment programs to assure
CSO impacts are minimized; and
• Control of solid and floatable materials in CSO discharges.
NOTES:
13-7
-------
SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS
-------
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Additional nonregulatory monitoring
Compliance schedules in permits
Best management practices
ADDITIONAL NONREGULATORY MONITORING
Used to supplement controls
Used to collect data for future limit development
NOTES:
14-1
-------
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
40 CFR §122.47
Allows for establishing schedules of compliance that lead to
compliance with CWA and regulations
Interim dates if schedule exceeds 1 year from permit
issuance
Reporting 14 days following each interim date
NOTES:
14-2
-------
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
Section 304(e)
The Administrator.. .may publish regulations supplemental
to effluent limitations for a class or category of point
sources for toxic or hazardous pollutants under Section 307(a)
or 311 of the Act to control:
Plant site runoff
Spillage or leaks
Sludge or waste disposal
Drainage from raw material storage
.. .which are associated with or ancillary to the industrial
manufacturing or treatment process and may contribute
significant amounts of such pollutants to navigable waters.
Section 402(a)(l)
X'
In the absence of BMPs promulgated for a category of point
sources (such as steel mills, petroleum refiners, etc.) under
authority of Section 304(e), permit writers may use the authority
of Section 402(a)(l) to place BMPs in permits on a case-by-case
basis
NOTES:
14-3
-------
USE BMPs WHEN...
Numerical limits are infeasible
In lieu of chemical analysis
Where history of leaks and spills exists
Housekeeping is sloppy
Facility is complex and toxic pollutant data lacking
Other options are too t xpensive
BMPs IN NPDES PERMITS
BMP plan
Site-specific BMPs
Facility-specific
Pollutant-specific
NOTES:
14-4
-------
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF A BMP PLAN
• General requirements
Name and location of facility
Statement of BMP policy and objectives
Review by plant manager
• Specific requirements
BMP committee
Risk identification and assessment
Reporting of BMP incidents
Materials compatibility
Good housekeeping
Preventive maintenance
Inspections and records
Security
Employee training
-X
BMPs ARE...
• Flexible
Procedural
• Qualitative
Most effectively used in conjunction with effluent limitations
in permits
NOTES:
14-5
-------
FLEXIBLE
Visual inspections,
Non-destructive testing, or
A dike or berm
PROCEDURAL
Conduct routine training
Maintain maintenance logs
Perform routine wall-thickness testing
QUALITATIVE
BMPs generally tell how or what, not how much
BUT BMPS ALSO MAY BE:
Construction
Instrumentation
Monitoring
Operation and maintenance
NOTES:
14-6
-------
BMPs SHOULD NOT:
Substitute for quantitative controls
Tell managers how to run their plants
Require costly methods when inexpensive ones will suffice
GENERIC BMPs
Preventive maintenance
Water conservation/non-use
Secondary containment
Nondestructive testing
Materials engineering
Materials handling
Visual inspections
Covering
Sealing
Packaging
Waste stream segregation
Source elimination
Good housekeeping
Alarm systems
Diverting
Paving
Runoff control
Sludge management
Training
Monitoring
Security
NOTES:
14-7
-------
14-8
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 11/4/91 - 1:25 PM
NPDES
Best Management Practices
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
NPDES Technical Support Branch
June 1981
14-9
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 11/4/91 - 1:26 PM
PREFACE
During the period June 13, 1978, to February 26, 1979, Hydroscience, Inc., under
Contract No. 68-03-2568 to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), gathered
information leading to the identification of best management practices (BMPs) currently used
by industry. The result of the data gathering and analysis by Hydroscience, Inc. was a draft
report entitled "NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Document" EPA 600/9-79-
045. In response to keen public interest in the draft report, EPA made the report available to
the public and provided a 45-day comment period. The comment period subsequently was
extended twice, resulting in a total 120-day comment period on the report. After evaluating
the comments received, EPA revis< d the draft report, and published the final document. This
document supersedes the Hydrosci tnce draft report dated December, 1979.
14-10
-------
160A/Disk#l - 10/18/91 - 1:21 PM
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this document is to assist National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting authorities, compliance officers, and permit applicants to
develop Best Management Practices (BMP) plans for industry. BMPs are authorized under
the 1977 Clean Water Act for the control of discharges to receiving waters of significant
amounts of any pollutant listed as hazardous under Section 311 of the Act or toxic under
Section 307 of the Act from activities which are associated with or ancillary to industrial
manufacturing or treatment processes. The general types of discharges to be controlled by
BMPs are plant site runoff, spillage and leaks, sludge and waste disposal and drainage from
material storage areas.
This document provides a basis for developing BMP plans. The proper use of the
document requires engineering experience with industrial manufacturing and treatment
processes and knowledge of current laws and regulations applicable to NPDES permits, BMP
plans, and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans.
The guidance herein is based on a review by Hydroscience, Inc. (EPA Contract No. 68-
03-2568) of current practices used by industry to control the non-routine discharge of toxic
_/
pollutants and hazardous substances. Included in the review are published articles and
reports, technical bulletins (also termed material safety data sheets) on specific compounds,
and discussions with industry through telephone contacts, written questionnaires, and site
visits.
14-11
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:24 PM
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 established the objective
of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters. This objective has remained unchanged in the 1977 amendments to the Act,
commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act of 1977, hereinafter "the Act." To achieve this
end, the Act sets forth a series of goals, including the goal of eliminating the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters by 1985. The principal mechanism for reducing the discharge
of pollutants from point source is through implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) established by Section 402 of the Act.
At the time of first round NPDES permit issuance, conventional pollutants (BOD, pH,
TSS, etc.) were considered the parameters which most urgently needed controls. In second
round permitting, however, the Agency emphasis is shifting from the conventional pollutants
to the control of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances.
Traditionally, NPDES permits have contained chemical-specific numerical effluent
limits. Effluent guidelines are not always available to prescribe these effluent limits nor to
guarantee water quality sufficient for the protection of indigenous aquatic life. To improve
water quality, the Act provides for water pollution controls supplemental to effluent
limitations guidelines. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are one such supplemental
control. Pursuant to sections 304 and 402 of the Act, BMPs may be incorporated as permit
conditions. In the context of the NPDES program, BMPs are actions or procedures to prevent
or minimize the potential for the release of toxic pollutants or hazardous substances in
significant amounts to surface waters. BMPs, although normally qualitative, are expected to
be most effective when used in conjunction with numerical effluent limits in NPDES permits.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Section 304(e) of the Act authorized the Administrator to publish regulations to control
discharges of significant amounts of toxic pollutants listed under Section 307 or hazardous
substances listed under Section 311 from activities which the Administrator determines are
associated with or ancillary to industrial manufacturing or treatment processes. The
discharges to be controlled by BMPs are plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste
disposal, and drainage from raw material storage.
14-12
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:24 PM
Section 402(a)(l) of the Act allows the Administrator to prescribe conditions in a
permit determined necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. BMPs are one such
condition.
BMPs are intended to complement other regulatory requirements imposed by RCRA,
OSHA, the Clean Air Act, and SPCC plans for hazardous substances under the Clean Water
Act. Pursuant to Section 311 of the Act, EPA has proposed (40 CFR Part 151) requirements
for SPCC plans to prevent discharges of hazardous substances from facilities subject to
NPDES permitting requirements. The guidelines proposed for hazardous substances SPCC
plans are very similar to those required for oil SPCC plans in the Oil Pollution Prevention
Regulations, (40 CFR Part 112). Since the Agency has received favorable comments about
the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations, the NPDES BMP regulation has been structured to
be similar to the oil SPCC regulation.
BMP REGULATORY HISTORY
On September 1, 1978, EPA proposed regulations (43 FR 39282) addressing the use of
procedures to control discharges from activities associated with or ancillary to industrial
manufacturing or treatment processes. The proposed rule indicated how best management
practices would be imposed in NPDES permits to prevent the release of toxic and hazardous
pollutants to surface waters. The proposed regulation 'was incorporated as "40 CFR Pan
125, Subpart L - Criteria and Standards for Best Management Practices Authorized Under
Section 304(e) of the Act" on the August 21, 1978, proposed NPDES regulations (43 FR
37078). A 60-day comment period on proposed Subpart L was provided.
After evaluating the comments received on the proposed regulation, EPA revised
Subpart L and promulgated the regulation as Subpart K (44 FR 32954-5) on June 7, 1979.
Industries regulated by Subpart K were to develop a BMP program and submit the program
with their permit application. Subpart K stated that information on the development of BMP
programs was contained in a publication entitled "NPDES Best Management Practices
Guidance Document." Subpart K was to become effective on August 13, 1979. However,
publication of the report was delayed beyond August 13, 1979. Therefore, on August 10,
1979, EPA deferred applicability of the BMP portions of the NPDES regulations until 60 days
after publication in the Federal Register of a notice of availability of the final document (44 FR
47063). EPA announced on March 20, 1980 the availability of the draft report and provided a
45-day comment period (45 FR 17997), which subsequently was extended twice, resulting in
a 120-day comment period on the report. Based on public comments on the draft report and
14-13
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:24 PM
further discussion with industry, the Agency revised the draft report and published this
guidance document.
FINAL BMP REGULATION
[Reserved]
FINAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
[Reserved]
14-14
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:25 PM
SECTION II
USE OF THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
This document should be used for guidance in developing BMP plans. The document is
not intended to specify site-specific or pollutant-specific BMPs. As its name suggests, the
NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Document is to be considered guidance by
NPDES permitting authorities, compliance officers, permit applicants and permittees and
should be used in a flexible manner in the formulation of BMP plans. Consequently, the
document identifies elements of each specific requirement that should be considered in the
development of the BMP plan, but does not require that each element be included in every
facility's BMP plan.
In utilizing this document to develop a BMP plan, the applicant/permittee is encouraged
to use the most cost-effective and innovative techniques to fit the particular facility or
circumstances. The format and content of a BMP plan may vary from site to site and industry
to industry, depending upon the specific situation. In addition, an applicant/permittee may
add, delete, or modify the elements of the specific requirements presented in the document
where equivalent results can be attained.
If an applicant/permittee needs assistance to develop a BMP plan, he or she may
contact the appropriate permit issuing authority for advice. The permitting authority, as
necessary, may seek assistance from the Technical Program Development Section of the
NPDES Technical Support Branch in Washington, D.C.
14-15
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
SECTION m
BMP PLANS
SCOPE
The activities which are associated with or ancillary to the industrial manufacturing or
treatment process are subject to BMPs. For brevity, all such activities are referred to as
"ancillary sources." The ancillary sources at the plant should be examined to determine if
there is a reasonable potential for equipment failure (e.g., spillage or leakage), natural
conditions (e.g., plant site runoff or drainage from raw material storage), or other
circumstances (e.g., sludge or waste disposal) which could result in the discharge of a
significant amount of toxic pollu :ants or hazardous substances to receiving waters. The
ancillary sources are divided for
iscussion in this document into five categories: material
storage areas; loading and unload ng areas; plant site runoff; in-plant transfer, process, and
material handling areas; and sludge and hazardous waste disposal areas.
Material storage areas include storage areas for toxic and hazardous chemicals as raw
materials, intermediates, final products or byproducts. Included are: liquid storage vessels
that range in size from large tanks to 55-gallon drums; dry storage in bags, piles, bins, silos,
and boxes; and gas storage in tanks and vessels.
s'
Loading and unloading operations involve the transfer of materials to and from trucks or
railcars but not in-plant transfers. These operations include pumping of liquids or gases from
truck or railcar to a storage facility or vice versa, pneumatic transfer of dry chemicals to or
from the loading or unloading vehicle, transfer by mechanical conveyor systems, and transfer
of bags, boxes, drums, or other containers from vehicles by fork-lift trucks or other materials
handling equipment.
Plant runoff is generated principally from rainfall on a plant site. Runoff from material
storage areas, in-plant transfer areas, loading and unloading areas, and sludge disposal sites
potentially could become contaminated with toxic pollutants and hazardous substances.
Heavy metals from sludge disposal sites are of special concern. Fallout, resulting from the
plant air emissions which settle on the plant site, may also contribute to contaminated runoff.
Contaminated runoff may reach a receiving body of water through overland flow, drainage
ditches, storm or noncontact cooling water sewers, or overflows from combined sewer
systems.
14-15
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
In-plant transfer areas, process areas, and material handling areas encompass all in-
plant transfer operations from raw material to final product. Various operations could include:
transfer of liquids or gases by pipelines with appurtenances such as pumps, valves, and
fittings; movement of bulk materials by mechanical conveyor-belt systems; and fork-lift truck
transport of bags, drums, and bins. All transfer operations within the process area with a
potential for release of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances to other than the process
waste water system are addressed in this grouping.
Sludge and hazardous waste disposal areas are potential sources of contamination of
receiving waters. These operations include landfills, pits, ponds, lagoons, and deep-well
injection sites. Depending on the construction and operation of these sites there may be a
potential for leachate containing toxic pollutants or hazardous substances to seep into
groundwater, eventually reaching surface waters, or for liquids to overflow to surface waters
from these disposal operations. BMP requirements are not intended to duplicate the
requirements of RCRA. Actions taken for compliance with RCRA may be referenced in the
BMP plan.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
BMPs may include some of the same practices used by industry for pollution control,
SPCC plans for oil and hazardous substances, safety programs, fire protection, protection
against loss of valuable raw materials or products, insurance policy requirements or public
relations. The minimum requirements of a BMP Plan are listed in Table 1 and are divided into
two categories: general requirements and specific requirements.
Table 1. Minimum Requirements of a BMP Plan
A. General Requirements
1. Name and location of facility
2. Statement of BMP policy and objectives
3. Review by plant manager
B. Specific Requirements
1. RMP Committee
2. Risk Identification and Assessment
3. Reporting of BMP Incidents
4. Materials Compatibility
5. Good Housekeeping
= 14-17
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
6. Preventive Maintenance
7. Inspections and Records
8. Security
9. Employee Training
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The BMP plan should be organized and described in an orderly narrative format and
should be reviewed by the plant engineering staff and plant manager. A description of the
facility, including the plant name, the type of plant, processes used, and the products
manufactured should be included in the BMP plan. A map showing the location of the facility
and the adjacent receiving waters also should be part of the plan. Specific objectives for the
control of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances should be included in the statement of
corporate policy.
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Each of the 9 specific requirements listed in Table 1 should be addressed in the BMP
plan. The size and complexity of the BMP plan will vary with the corporate environmental
policy, size, complexity, and location of the facility, among other factors. It is anticipated that
the length and detail of the BMP plan will be commensurate with the quantity of toxic and
hazardous chemicals onsite and their opportunity for discharge. A fundamental concept of the
BMP plan is determining the potential for toxic and hazardous chemicals to reach receiving
waters and taking appropriate preventive measures.
Discussions of the specific requirements are presented on the following pages. Each
specific requirement contains important elements that should be considered in developing a
BMP plan. All elements may not be applicable to all facilities. Elements should be added,
deleted, or modified to fit the needs of a particular facility. Permittees are encouraged to use
innovative techniques to achieve equivalent results.
1. BMP Committee
The BMP Committee is that group of individuals within the plant organization which is
responsible for developing the BMP plan and assisting the plant management in its
implementation, maintenance, and updating. Thus, the Committee's functions are similar to
those of a plant fire prevention or safety committee.
14-10
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
The scope of activities and responsibilities of the BMP Committee should include all
aspects of the facility's BMP plan, such as identification of toxic and hazardous materials
handled in the plant; identification of potential spill sources; establishment of incident
reporting procedures; development of BMP inspection and records procedures; review of
environmental incidents to determine and implement necessary changes to the BMP plan;
coordination of plant incident response, cleanup and notification of authorities; establishment
of BMP training for plant personnel; and aiding interdepartmental coordination in carrying out
the BMP plan.
Other Committee duties could include review of new construction and changes in
processes and procedures at the facility relative to spill prevention and control. The
Committee can also periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the overall BMP plan and make
recommendations to management on BMP-related matters.
Plant management has overall responsibility for the BMP plan. The plan should contain
a clear statement of the management's policies and responsibilities related to BMPs.
Authority and responsibility for immediate action in the event of a spill should be clearly
established and documented in the BMP plan, with the Committee indirectly involved in that
responsibility. The Committee should advise management on the technical aspects of
environmental incident control, but should not impede the decisionmaking process for
preventing or mitigating spills and incidents.
The size and composition of the BMP Committee should be appropriate to the size and
complexity of the plant and the specific toxic and hazardous chemicals handled at the plant.
Facility personnel knowledgeable in spill control and waste treatment such as environmental
specialists, production foreman, safety and health specialists, and treatment plant supervisor
should be included. In some small plants, the Committee might consist of the one manager or
engineer assigned responsibility for environmental control. For very small facilities, the
Committee function might even have to be fulfilled by competent engineers or managers from
the corporate staff or the nearest large plant.
A list of personnel on the BMP Committee should be included in the BMP plan. The list
should have the office and home telephone numbers of the Committee members and the
names and phone numbers of backup or alternate people.
14-19
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
Elements of the "BMP Committee," listed below, should be considered in developing a
BMP plan:
• Inclusion of facility personnel knowledgeable in spill control, safety and health, and
waste treatment such as environmental specialists, production foreman, occupational
safety and health specialists, and treatment plant supervisor.
• Responsibility for:
- Providing assistance to plant management for developing a BMP plan
- Providing assistance to plant management in implementing, maintaining, and
updating the BMP plan
— Identifying toxic and hazardous substances
— Identifying potential spill sources
- Establishing BMP incident reporting procedures
- Developing BMP inspections and records procedures
- Reviewing environmental incidents
- Coordinating plant incident response, cleanup, and notification procedures
— Establishing BMP training for plant and contractor personnel
- Providing assistance for interdepartmental coordination in carrying out the BMP
plan
— Reviewing new construction and changes in processes and procedures
- Evaluating the effectiveness of the BMP plan
- Making recommendations to management in support of corporate policy on BMP-
related matters.
2. Risk Identification and Assessment
The areas of the plant subject to BMP requirements should be identified by the BMP
Committee, plant engineering group, environmental engineer, or others in the plant. Each
area should be examined for the potential risks for discharges to receiving waters of toxic
pollutants or hazardous substances from ancillary sources. Any existing physical means
(dikes, diversion ditches, etc.) of controlling such discharges also should be identified.
The areas described above should be clearly indicated on a plant plot plan or drawing. A
simplified materials flowsheet showing major process operations can be used to indicate the
direction and quantity of materials flowing from one area to another. The direction of flow of
potential spills and surface runoff could also be estimated based on site topography and
indicated on the plant site drawings. Dry chemicals which are toxic pollutants or hazardous
substances should be evaluated if they have the potential to reach navigable waters in
significant quantities via rainfall runoff, for example.
14-20
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
A hazardous substance and toxic chemical (materials) inventory should be developed
as a part of the "Risk Identification and Assessment." The detail of the materials inventory
should be proportionate to the quantity of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances on site
and their potential for reaching the receiving waters. For example:
1. The plant has determined that materials stored in bulk quantities at a tank farm
have a high potential for reaching the receiving waters in the event of structural
failure or overfills. Therefore, the materials inventory for the tank farm should be
detailed, and should provide the identity, quantities, and locations of each material.
2. The plant has determined that materials stored in small quantities at the research
laboratory have a low potential for reaching the receiving waters. Therefore, the
materials inventory for the laboratory could be minimally detailed, and may not
include the identity, quantity, or location of each material but might include an
estimate of the total quantity of toxic and hazardous materials stored and would
provide the location of the laboratory. The rational for the "low risk" nature of the
laboratory would be provided in this part of the BMP plan.
3. The plant has determined that materials used in a batch operation in the
manufacturing process have a high potential for reaching the receiving water. The
plant supplies a variety of products through the batch operation process to
accommodate fluctuations in public demand. Consequently, the materials used for
the batch process vary from week to week, oftentimes unexpectedly. Therefore, the
materials inventory for the batch operation should be detailed but remain flexible.
The inventory might include the identification of each material expected for use, and
the maximum quantity of material that the batch process can handle. The materials
inventory could be updated to include any material substitutions unanticipated at
the time of the original inventory.
The examples above illustrate the flexibility of the materials inventory. A materials
inventory should be part of the "Risk Identification and Assessment" of every BMP plan but
the detail of the inventory will vary with the size and complexity of the plant, the quantities of
toxic and hazardous chemicals on site and the potential for those materials to reach surface
waters. Determining the potential for incidents reaching receiving waters as well as the
detail needed for the materials inventory requires sound engineering judgment.
The materials inventory and other useful technical information should be made available
to the BMP Committee but may require separate filing from the BMP plan documents to
protect proprietary information or trade secrets. These data may include physical, chemical,
lexicological, and health information (e.g., technical bulletins or material safety data sheets)
on the toxic pollutants and hazardous substances handled; the quantities involved in various
14-21
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
operations or ancillary sources; and the prevention, containment, mitigation, and cleanup
techniques that are used or would be used in the event of a discharge.
Materials planned for future use in the plant should be evaluated for their potential to be
discharged in significant amounts to receiving waters. Where the potential is high, the same
type of technical data described above should be obtained.
Elements of "Risk Identification and Assessment," listed below, should be considered
in developing a BMP plan:
• Identification of areas of thj plant subject to BMP requirements
• Examination of identified a eas for potential risks of BMP incidents reaching receiving
waters
• Identification of existing site-specific or pollutant-specific containment measures
• Plant plot plans or drawings that clearly label the identified areas
• Simplified flowsheet(s) of the major process operations
• Estimation of the direction of flow of potential discharges toward navigable waters
• Evaluation of the potential for materials planned for future use to be discharged to
receiving waters in significant amounts.
• Materials inventory system tailored to the need of the particular facility
• Physical, chemical, lexicological, and health information on the toxic and hazardous
chemicals on site.
3. Reporting of BMP Incidents
A BMP incident reporting system is used to keep records of incidents such as spills,
leaks, runoff, and other improper discharges for the purpose of minimizing recurrence,
expediting mitigation or cleanup activities, and complying with legal requirements. Reporting
procedures defined by the BMP Committee should include notification of a discharge to
appropriate plant personnel to initiate immediate action; formal written reports for review and
evaluation by management of the BMP incident and revisions to the BMP plan; and
notification as required by law to governmental and environmental agencies in the event that
a spill or other reportable discharge reaches the surface waters.
The reporting system should designate the avenues of reporting and the responsible
company and government officials to whom the incidents would be reported. A list of names,
office telephone numbers, and residence telephone numbers of key employees in the order of
14-22
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
responsibility should be utilized when necessary for immediate reporting of BMP incidents to
plant management for implementation of emergency response plans.
A communications system should be designated and available for notification of an
impending or actual BMP incident. Reliable communications with the person or persons
directly responsible would expedite immediate action and countermeasures to prevent
incidents or to contain and mitigate discharged chemicals. Such a communication system
could include telephone or radio contact between transfer operations, and alarm systems that
would signal the location of an incident. Provisions to maintain communications in the event
of a power failure should be addressed.
Written reports on all BMP incidents should be submitted to the plant's BMP
Committee and plant management for review. Written reports should include the date and
time of the discharge, weather conditions, nature of the materials involved, duration, volume,
cause, environmental problems, countermeasures taken, people and agencies notified, and
recommended revisions, as appropriate, to the BMP plan, operating procedures, and/or
equipment to prevent recurrence.
Procedures and key data should be outlined for necessary reporting or BMP incidents to
federal, state, and local regulatory authorities. In some circumstances, voluntary reporting to
authorities such as municipal sewage treatment works, drinking water treatment plants, and
fish and wildlife commissions may be desirable. The plant individuals responsible for
notification should be listed. Pertinent telephone numbers should be listed for those
individuals in the plant and those in the agencies to be notified. The phone numbers should
be reviewed periodically for accuracy and might actually be used in the course of a "spill
drill."
Elements of "Reporting of BMP Incidents," listed below, should be considered in
developing a BMP plan:
• Maintenance of records of incidents through formal reports for internal review
• Notification as required by law to governmental and environmental agencies should
an incident occur
• Procedures for notifying the appropriate plant personnel and taking preventive or
mitigating actions
• Identification of responsible company and government officials
14-23
-------
!60A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
• A list of names, office telephone extensions, and residence telephone numbers of key
personnel
• A communications system for reporting incidents in-plant (i.e., telephone, alarms,
radio, etc.).
4. Materials Compatibility
Incompatibility of materials can cause equipment failure resulting from corrosion, fire, or
explosion. Equipment failure can be prevented by ensuring that the materials of construction
for containers handling hazardous substances or toxic pollutants are compatible with the
containers' contents and surrounding environment.
Materials compatibility encompasses three aspects: compatibility of the chemicals
being handled with the materials of construction of the container, compatibility of different
chemicals upon mixing in a container, and compatibility of the container with its environment.
The specific requirement of materials compatibility in the BMP plan should provide
procedures to address these three aspects in the design and operation of the equipment on
site handling toxic and hazardous materials.
The BMP documentation on materials compatibility should recognize the engineering
practices already used in the plant, and should summarize these existing practices with
regard to corrosion and other aspects of material compatibility. Specific consideration should
be given to procedures and practices delineating the mixing of chemicals and the prohibition of
mixing of incompatible chemicals which might result in fire, explosion, or unusual corrosion:
Thorough cleaning of storage vessels and equipment before being used for another chemical
should be standard practice to ensure that there is no residual of a chemical that is
incompatible with the second, or later, chemical to be used. Coatings or cathodic protection
should be considered for protecting a buried pipeline or storage tank from corrosion.
Where applicable, material testing procedures should be described. Proposed
substitutions for currently used toxic or hazardous chemicals should be studied to determine
whether the construction materials of the existing containers are compatible with the
proposed new conditions. The procedures utilized by the plant or an outside contractor to
perform the materials compatibility study should be documented. Materials compatibility
aspects of waste disposal which are covered by the RCRA hazardous waste regulations
should be referenced in the BMP plan.
14-24
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
Elements of "Materials Compatibility," listed below, should be considered in
developing a BMP plan:
• Evaluation of process changes or revisions for materials compatibility
• Incorporation of existing engineering practices for materials of construction, corrosion,
and other aspects of materials compatibility
• Evaluation of procedures for mixing of chemicals and of possible incompatibility with
other chemicals present
• Cleansing of vessels and transfer lines before they are used for another chemical
• Use of proper coatings and cathodic protection on buried pipelines if required to
prevent failure due to external corrosion.
5. Good Housekeeping
Good housekeeping is essentially the maintenance of a rlean, orderly work environment
and contributes to the overall facility pollution control effort. Periodic training of employees on
housekeeping techniques for those plant areas where the potential exists for BMP incidents
reduces the possibility of incidents caused by mishandling of chemicals or equipment.
Examples of good housekeeping include neat and orderly storage of bags, d urns, and
piles of chemicals; prompt cleanup of spilled liquids to prevent significant runoff to navigable
waters, sweeping, vacuuming, or other cleanup of accumulations of dry chemicals as
necessary to prevent them from reaching receiving waters; and provisions for storage of
containers or drums to keep them from protruding into open walkways or pathways.
Maintaining employee interest in good housekeeping is a vital pan of the BMP plan.
Methods for maintaining good housekeeping goals could include housekeeping inspections by
supervisors and higher management; discussions of housekeeping at meetings; and publicity
through posters, suggestion boxes, bulletin boards, slogans, incentive programs, and
employee publications.
Elements of "Good Housekeeping," listed below, should be considered in developing a
BMP plan:
• Neat and orderly storage of chemicals
• Prompt removal of spillage
• Maintenance of dry and clean floors by use of brooms, vacuum cleaners, etc.
14-25
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
• Proper pathways and walkways and no containers and drums that protrude onto
walkways
• Minimum accumulation of liquid and solid chemicals on the ground or floor
• Stimulation of employee interest in good housekeeping.
6. Preventive Maintenance
An effective preventive maintenance (PM) program is important to prevent BMP
incidents. A PM program involves inspection and testing of plant equipment and systems to
uncover conditions which could cause breakdowns or failures with resultant significant
discharges of chemicals to receiving waters. The program should prevent breakdowns and
failures by adjustment, repair, or replacement of items. A PM program should include a
suitable records system for scheduling tests and inspections, recording test results, and
facilitating corrective action. Most plants have existing PM programs which provide a degree
of environmental protection. It is not the intent of the BMP plan to require development of a
redundant PM program. Instead, the objective is to have qualified plant personnel (e.g., BMP
Committee, maintenance foreman, environmental engineer) evaluate the existing plant PM
program and recommend to management those changes, if any, needed to address BMP
requirements.
A good PM program should include the following: (1) identification of equipment or
systems to which the PM program should apply (2) periodic inspections or tests of identified
equipment and systems; (3) appropriate adjustment, repair, or replacement of items; and (4)
maintenance of complete PM records on the applicable equipment and systems.
The BMP plan documentation on PM may include a list of procedures, examples of
recordkeeping, a list of the principal systems to which the PM program is applicable, and
directions for obtaining the records for any particular system included or referenced in the
BMP plan. In general, it will be adequate to reference in the BMP plan the scope and location
of existing PM procedures and records applicable to the PM specific requirements.
Elements of "Preventive Maintenance," listed below, should be considered in
developing a BMP plan:
• Identification of equipment and systems to which the PM program should apply
• Periodic inspections of identified equipment and systems
• Periodic testing of such equipment and systems
14-2G
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
• Appropriate adjustment, repair, or replacement of parts
• Maintenance of complete PM records on the applicable equipment and systems.
7. Inspections and Records
The purpose of the inspection and records system is to detect actual or potential BMP
incidents. The BMP plan should include written inspection procedures and optimum time
intervals between inspections. Records to show the completion date and results of each
inspection should be signed by the appropriate supervisor and maintained for a period of three
years. A tracking (follow-up) procedure should be instituted to assure that adequate
response and corrective action have been taken. The recordkeeping portion of this system
can be combined with the existing spill reporting system in the plant.
While plant security and other personnel may frequently and routinely inspect the plant
for BMP incidents, these people are not necessarily capable of assessing the potential for
such incidents. Thus certain inspections should be assigned to designated qualified
individuals, such as maintenance personnel or engineering staff.
The inspection and records system should include those equipment and plant areas
identified in the "Risk Identification and Assessment" portion of the BMP plan as having the
potential for significant discharges. To determine the inspection frequency and inspection
procedures, competent environmental personnel should evaluate the causes of previous
incidents, and assess the probable risks for incident occurrence. Furthermore, the nature of
chemicals handled, materials of construction, and site-specific factors including age,
inspection techniques, and cost effectiveness, should be considered.
Qualified plant personnel should be identified to inspect designated equipment and plant
areas. Typical inspections should include examination of pipes, pumps, tanks, supports,
foundations, dikes, and drainage ditches. Records should be kept to determine if changes in
preventive maintenance or good housekeeping procedures are necessary. Each of the
ancillary sources should have "Inspection and Records" programs designed to meet the
needs of the particular facility.
Material storage areas for dry chemicals should be inspected for evidence of, or the
potential for, windblowing which might result in significant discharges. Liquid storage areas
should be inspected for leaks in tanks, for corrosion of tanks, for deterioration of foundations
14-27
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
or supports, and for closure of drain valves in containment facilities. Inspections could include
the examination of seams, rivets, nozzle connections, valves, and connecting pipelines.
Storage tanks should be inspected for evidence of corrosion, pitting, cracks, abnormalities,
and deformation and such evidence should then be evaluated.
For in-plant transfer and materials handling of liquids, inspections should include visual
examination for evidence of deterioration of pipelines, pumps, valves, seals, and fittings. The
general condition of items such as flange and expansion joints, pipeline supports, locking
valves, catch or drip pans, and metal surfaces, also should be assessed.
For loading and unloading o jerations, inspections during transfer of materials would
permit immediate response if an
ncident occurred. The conditions of pipelines, pumps,
valves, and fittings for liquid transfer systems and pneumatic conveying systems used for
transferring dry chemicals should be inspected. Inspections (together with monitoring)
should be used to ensure that the transfer of material is complete before flexible or fixed
transfer lines are disconnected prior to vehicular departure. Before any tank car or tank truck
is filled, the lower-most drain valve and all outlets of such vehicles should be closely
examined for evidence of leakage and, if necessary, tightened, adjusted, or replaced. Before
departure, all tank cars or tank trucks should be closely examined to ensure that all transfer
lines are disconnected and that there is no evidence of leakage from any outlet.
For plant runoff, inspections should be used for examining the integrity of the
stormwater collection system and the diversion or overflow structures, and for ensuring the
drain valves and pumps for diked areas are properly closed. The plant sewer and storm
sewer system should be periodically surveyed to ensure that toxic and hazardous pollutants
are not discharged in significant amounts. Inspections also should include diked areas to
ensure that hazardous and toxic chemicals are not discharged from inside diked areas to
waterways. Any liquid, including rainwater, should be examined, and where necessary,
analyzed, before being released from the diked areas to a receiving water.
For sludge and hazardous waste disposal sites, visual inspections should include
examinations for leaks, seepage, and overflows from land disposal sites such as pits, ponds,
lagoons, and landfills. Other procedures and inspection techniques should be considered on a
site-specific basis. Any inspections made or records kept to comply with RCRA may be
included in the BMP plan by reference.
14-20
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
Elements of "Inspections and Records," listed below, should be considered in
developing BMP plan:
• Inspection of:
- Storage facilities
- Transfer pipelines
- Loading and unloading areas
- Pipes, pumps, valves, and fittings, tank corrosion (internal and external)
- Windblowing of dry chemicals
- Tank support or foundation deterioration
- Seams along drainage ditches and old tanks
- Deterioration of primary or secondary containment
- Housekeeping
- Drain valves on tanks
- Damage to shipping containers
- Conveying systems for dry chemicals
- Integrity of stormwater collection system
- Leaks, seepage, and overflows from sludge and waste disposal sites.
• Records of all inspections
• Tracking procedures to assure adequate response and corrective actions have been
taken when inspections reveal deficiencies.
8. Security
A security system is needed to prevent accidental or intentional entry to a plant which
might result in vandalism, theft, sabotage, or other improper or illegal use of plant facilities
that could possibly cause as BMP incident. Most plants have security systems to prevent
unauthorized entry leading to theft, vandalism, sabotage, and the like. The BMP plan should
describe those portions of the existing security system which ensure that the pertinent
chemicals are not discharged to receiving waters in significant quantities. Documentation of
the security system may require separate filing from the BMP plan documents to prevent
unauthorized individuals from gaining access to confidential information.
The BMP Committee, plant security manager, plant engineer, or other qualified plant
personnel should evaluate the coverage of the existing security system for those areas of the
plant and the equipment identified by the "Risk Identification and Assessment" specific
requirement as having the potential for significant discharges. They should recommend to
plant management any changes necessary to improve the security system.
14-29
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
Examples of security measures include: routine patrol of the plant by security guards in
vehicles or on foot; fencing to prevent intruders from entering the plant site; good lighting;
vehicular traffic control; a guardhouse or main entrance gate, where all visitors are required to
sign in and obtain a visitor's pass; secure or locked entrances to the plant; locks on certain
valves or pump starters; and television surveillance of appropriate plant sites, such as plant
entrance, and loading and unloading areas.
Whenever possible, security personnel should be instructed to observe leaks from
tanks, valves, or pipelines while patrolling the plant and also be informed of the procedures to
follow when a spill or other discharge is detected. Many plants use contractor or plant
security personnel who may not be qualified or may not have time to carry out such
surveillance. In such cases, the surveillance can be incorporated in the "Inspection and
Records" specific requirement and should be conducted by production or environmental staff.
Elements of "Security," listed below, should be considered in developing a BMP plan:
• Routine patrols of plant by security personnel
• Fencing
• Good lighting
• Vehicular traffic control
• Controlled access at guardhouse or main entrance gate
• Visitor passes
• Locked entrances
• Locks on certain drain valves and pump starters
• Television monitoring.
9. Employee Training
Employee training programs should instill in personnel, at all levels of responsibility, a
complete understanding of the BMP plan, the processes and materials with which they are
working, the safety hazards, the practices for preventing discharges, and the procedures for
responding properly and rapidly to toxic and hazardous materials incidents. Employee
training meetings should be conducted at least annually to assure adequate understanding of
the objectives of the BMP plan and the individual responsibilities of each employee.
Typically, these meetings could be a part of routine employee meetings for safety or fire
protection. Such meetings should highlight previous spill events or failures, malfunctioning
14-30
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
equipment components, and recently developed BMP precautionary measures. Training
sessions should review the BMP plan and associated procedures. Just as fire drills are used
to improve the employee's reaction to a fire emergency, spill or environmental incident drills
may serve to improve the employee's reactions to BMP incidents. Plants are encouraged to
conduct spill drills on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. Spill drills serve to evaluate the
employees' knowledge of BMP-related procedures and are a fundamental part of employee
training.
Of particular importance is the strong commitment and periodic input from top
management to the employee training program to create the necessary climate of concern for
a successful program. A plant manger might accomplish more in a brief, face-to-face,
appearance than an elaborate, impersonal training program would accomplish.
Adequate training in a particular job and process operation is essential for
understanding potential discharge problems. Knowledge of specific manufacturing operations
and how discharges could occur, or have occurred in the past, is important in reducing human
error that can lead to BMP incidents.
The training program also should be aimed at making employees aware of the protocol
used to report discharges and notifying the people responsible for response so that immediate
countermeasures can be initiated. In addition, personnel involved in BMP-incident response
would be trained to use cleanup materials such as sorbents, gelling agents, foams, and
neutralizing agents. As appropriate, they should be educated in safety precautions, in the
side effects of the chemicals they are working with, and in possible chemical reactions.
Operating manuals and standard procedures for process operations should include
appropriate sections of the BMP plan and the spill control program and should be readily
available for reference. Spill response drills, suggestion boxes, posters, and incentive
programs, can be used to motivate employees to be alert to the potential for discharges and
to their prevention.
The employee training program should include records of the frequency, and names and
positions of the employees trained as well as the lesson plans, subject material covered, and
instructors' names and positions. BMP-related training may be combined with other forms of
training, such as safety and fire prevention at the discretion of the plant.
14-31
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
In addition to permanent personnel, contractors or temporary personnel should be
trained in procedures for preventing BMP incidents since these individuals may be unfamiliar
with the normal operating procedures or location of equipment (pipelines, tanks, etc.) at the
facility. Adequate supervision of contractor maintenance personnel should be provided to
minimize the possibility of BMP incidents resulting from damaging equipment such as buried
pipelines.
Elements of "Employee Training," listed below, should be considered in developing the
BMP plan:
• Meetings held at least annually to assure adequate understanding of program goals
and objectives
• Environmental Incident (Spill) drills used at least semiannually
• Periodic input from management
• Adequate training in particular job and process operation and the effect on other
operations
• Transmission of knowledge of past incidents and causes
• Making employees aware of BMP plans and incident reporting procedures
• Training in the use of sorbents, gelling agents, foams, and neutralizing agents for
cleanup or mitigation of incidents
• Operating manuals and standard procedures
• Making employees aware of health risks of chemicals handled through both the
plant's BMP plan and safety program
• Motivating employees concerning incident prevention and control
• Records of the personnel who were trained, and of the dates, instructors, subject
matter, and lesson plans of the training sessions
• Training and supervision of contractors and temporary personnel.
14-32
-------
160A/Disk #1 - 10/18/91 - 1:51 PM
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON BMPs IN THE NPDES PROGRAM
Form of Guidance
Technical Paper
Report EPA No.
600/9-79-045
Report
Technical Paper
Case Histories
Technical
Memorandum No. 1
Technical
Memorandum No. 2
Information
Memorandum
Information
Memorandum
Information
Memorandum
Information
Memorandum
Title Date
Best Management Practices for Control of Toxic and 5/9/79
Hazardous Materials; Thron, H.M. et ah, presented at the
34th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette,
Indiana
NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Document; 12/79
Hydroscience Inc., EPA Contract Number 68-03-2568
NPDES Best Management Practice Guidance Document 6/81
(Revised); NPDES Technical Support Branch
Best Management Practices; Useful Tools for Cleaning Up, 4/20/82
Thron, H.M. and Rogoshweski, P.J., presented at the 1982
Hazardous Material Spills Conference, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
NPDES Best Management Practices; Case Histories; JRS 1/29/83
Associates, Inc., EPA Contract Number 68-01-5052
Technical Guidance on Best Management Practices (BMPs) 4/15/83
in NPDES Permits; Jordan, J.W. to Regional Permit Branch
Chiefs
Technical Guidance on Best Management Practices (BMPs) 3/23/84
in NPDES Permits; Jordan, J.W. to Regional Permit Branch
Chiefs
Best Management Practices (BMPs) in NPDES Permits; 6/3/85
Grubs, Geoffrey to Regional Permit Branch Chiefs
Best Management Practices (BMPs) in NPDES Permits; 8/29/86
Gallup, James to Regional Permit Branch Chiefs
Best Management Practices (BMPs) in NPDES Permits; 8/11/87
Gallup, James to Regional Permit Branch Chiefs
Best Management Practices (BMPs) in NPDES Permits; 8/19/88
Gallup, James to Regional Permit Branch Chiefs
14-33
-------
PART IV
Permit No. VA 0005215
Page 1 of 3
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CONDITIONS
A. General Conditions
1. BMP Plan
For purposes of this part, the terms "pollutant" or "pollutants" refer
to any substance listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean
Water Act, oil, as defined in Section 311(a)(l) of the Act, and any
substance listed as hazardous under Section 311 of the Act. The
permittee shall develop and implement a Best Management Practices
(BMP) plan which prevent:
of pollutants from ancil
areas; plant site runoff
handling areas; loading ,
disposal areas, to the w
, or minimizes the potential for, the release
ary activities, including material storage
in-plant transfer, process and material
nd unloading operations, and sludge and waste
ters of the United States through plant site
runoff; spillage or leaks; sludge or waste disposal; or drainage from
raw material storage.
2. Implementation
The plan for General Conditions shall be developed within 12 months of
the effective date of this permit. An approval plan for General
Conditions shall be implemented within 24 months of the effective
permit date. Specific Conditions of this plan shall be implemented
within 24 months of the effective permit dace.
3. General Requirements
The BMP plan shall:
a. Be documented in narrative form, and shall include any necessary
plot plans, drawings or maps.
b. Establish specific objectives for the control of pollutants.
(1) Each facility component or system shall be examined for its
potential for causing a release of significant amount of
pollutants to waters of the United States due to equipment
failure, Improper operation, natural phenomena such as rain
or snowfall, etc.
(2) Where experience indicates a reasonable potential for
equipment failure (e.g., a tank overlfow or leakage), natural
condition (e.g., precipitation), or other circumstances to
result In significant amounts of pollutants reaching surface
waters, the plan should Include a prediction of the direc-
tion, rate of flow and total quantity of pollutants which
could be discharged from the facility as a result of each
condition of circumstance.
c. Establish specific best management practices to meet the
objectives identified under paragraph b of this section,
14-34
-------
PART IV
Permit No. VA 0005215
Page 2 of 3
addressing each component or system capable of causing a release
of significant amounts of pollutants to the waters of the United
States, -and identifying specific preventative or remedial measures
to be implemented.
d. Include any special conditions established in Section B of this
Part.
e. Be reviewed by plant engineering staff and the plant manager.
4. Documentation
The permittee shall maintain a description of the BMP plan at the
facility and shall make the plan available to the permit issuing
authority upon request.
5. BMP Plan Modification
The permittee shall amend the BMP plan whenever there is a change in
the facility or change in the operation of the facility which
materially Increases the potential for the ancillary activities to
result in a discharge of significant amounts of pollutants.
6. Modification for Ineffectiveness
If the BMP plan proves to be Ineffective in achieving the general
objective of preventing the release of significant amounts of pol-
lutants to surface waters and the specific objectives and requirements
under paragraphs b and c of Section 3, the permit and/or the BMP plan
shall be subject to modification to incorporate revised BMP require-
ments.
B. Specific Conditions
The following Specific Conditions shall be Implemented within 12 months of
the effective date of the permit.
1. Measures shall be taken to control potential discharges at the
following sites:
Building 1341 - Provide containment for freon and
hydrochloric acid tanks
Incinerator - Direct quench recycle overflow to a
treatment facility
Building 1329 - Control spills at the acid cleaning
facility
St. Juliens Building 332 - Control spills from drummed liquids.
Implement controls to ensure proper
operation of the oil transfer valve (PIV)
14-35
-------
14-3
ou
-------
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
(1) What are the two basic ways that BMPs appear in NPDES permits?
/ a \
(2) What is the legal authority for imposing BMPs in permits considering the
fact that no BMPs have been promulgated for specific industries pursuant
to Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act?
(3) GIVEN THE FOLLOWING SITUATION;
Luster Glass Inc. manufactures auto tempered and laminated glass in
Morris, Illinois. A recent compliance inspection revealed storage tank
number 42 containing 12,000 gallons of gasoline was leaking into the
Illinois River. The State compliance inspector, I. M. Curious, also
noticed generally poor housekeeping at Luster, including retired pumps and
miscellaneous pipes and fittings scattered throughout the plant area,
unidentified solid and liquid spills on roadways and a storage area near
the stream bank consisting of about fifty, 55 gallon drums in various
positions and states of deterioration. When questioned about the nature
and contents of the drums by the State compliance inspector, the Luster
plant manager, Wood U. Leave, replied, "They're some old supplies we
discontinued... some contain...nitric acid or some other acid...(cough
cough)... how about some lunch Mr. Curious?" As he was abruptly spun 180
degrees by Mr. Leave, Mr. Curious managed to scribble a note at the bottom
of his inspection report "may be a candidate for BMPs in reissued permit."
DETERMINE;
You are the permit writer assigned to draft Luster Glass Inc.'s NPDES
permit. After reading the compliance inspection report, you sketch your
approach for using BMPs in the reissued permit:
BMP Plan - Conditions at the facility, especially poor housekeeping,
warrant a BMP plan to be developed within six months and implemented
within twelve months of permit reissuance. The BMP Plan should address
each of the nine specific requirements described in the June 1981,-, NPDES
BMP Guidance Document with emphasis on ^
Site-Specific BMPs
(1) Tank Number 42;
(2) Drum Storage Area;
14-37
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
-------
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• Orientation to Pollution Prevention
• . Implementation
• Tools and Resources
NOTES:
15-1
-------
HIERARCHY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
PRACTICES
• Source reduction
• Environmentally sound reuse and recycling
• Treatment
• Disposal
NOTES:
15-2
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT 1990
"Source reduction means any practice which reduces the
amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant
entering any waste stream or released into the environment
prior to recycling, treatment or disposal ..."
EPA POLICY STATEMENT
Pollution prevention is the
"Use of processes, practices, or products that reduce or
eliminate the generation of pollutants and wastes, including
those that protect natural resources through conservation
or more efficient utilization."
NOTES:
15-3
-------
LEGISLATIVE A UTHORITIES AFFECTING
THE LIFE CYCLE OF A CHEMICAL
SARA
SARA
TSCA
Industrial Products
OSHA, FIFRA
Underground Tanks ^^^
Consumer Products (RCRA)
CPSA, FFOCA,
FIFRA
(RCRA)
-KEY-
CAA
CPSA
CWA
FFOCA
FIFRA
HMTA
OSHA
RCRA
SOWA
TSCA
SARA
Clean Air Act
Consumtr Product Safety Ad
Clean Water Act
Federal Food, Drug » Cosmetic Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide * RodentleWe Act
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Occupational Safety ft Health Act
Resource Sonservatton 4 Recovery Act
Safe OrtnUng Water Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
Superfund Amendments • Reauthorttatton Act
15-4
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES IN THE
NPDES PERMITTING PROCESS
• Application review
• Site visit
• BMP plan requirement
• Monitoring conditions
NOTES:
15-5
-------
PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES
-------
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
The permit issuance process
Documenting development of the permit
EPA/State coordination
Public participation
Permit appeals
Modification/termination
NOTES:
16-1
-------
COMMON ELEMENTS OF THE ISSUANCE PROCESS
Permit Application
Filed
Site Visit Conducted
Application Review
for Completeness and
Accuracy
Pre]
or
Sta
j
§1
>are Draft Permit
)eny Application
§124.6
1
ementofBasisor
Fact Sheet
.24.7 and §124.8
Additional
Data Requested
I
1
1
J
Administrative Record
§124.9
Draft Permit Reviewed
by Applicant
Public Notice of Draft
Permit §124.10
Public Hearing
§124.12
Comments Considered
and Draft Permit
Revised
Response to Comments
§124.17
Administrative Record
§124.18
Request for Evidentiary
Hearing §124.74
.Permit Issued
(Process Repeats Itself)
16-2
-------
REASONS FOR GOOD DOCUMENTATION
• Streamlines reissuance/compliance-monitoring process
• Permanent record of the basis for the permit
• Explanation of basis of permit for public, management, permittee,
and attorneys, if appealed
• Provide sound basis for modifications and future permits
• Requires permit writer to be organized and logical, resulting
in better permits
. V
CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD FACT SHEET
• Identify party being permitted
• Bring forward background and history of permit
• Develop rationale for all pertinent permit decisions
• Display all calculations and document sources of data
• Keep accessible to permitting authority personnel and the public
NOTES:
16-3
-------
MINIMUM ELEMENTS OF A FACT SHEET
§124.8(b)
Description of facility or activity
Type and quantity of wastes/pollutants
Basis of the draft permit
Statutory/regulatory citations
References to administrative record
Basis of effluent limitations and conditions
Specific explanation of
Toxic pollutant limits
Limits on internal wastestreams
Case-by-case requirements
Limits on indicator pollutants
Regulation of users
Sketch or description of location
State certification
Sewage sludge land application plan
Inappropriateness of requested variances
Permit procedures
Comment period begin and end dates
Procedures for requesting a hearing
Public involvement in final decision
Contact name and telephone
16-4
-------
CONTENTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
§124.9
• Application and supporting data
• Draft permit
• Statement of basis or fact sheet
• Documents/items cited in statement of basis or fact sheet
• Other items supporting permit development
• EIS for new source draft permits
NOTES:
16-5
-------
EXAMPLE
CONTENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
A brief explanation follows of the express statutory or regulatory precision on which permit requirements are based,
including appropriate supporting references to the Administrative Record required by 40 CFR S124.9:
The following items are used to establish the basis of the draft permit:
(1) NPDES Permit No. LA0002933, effective date 2/17/80, expiration date 3/31/8L
(2) Consolidated Permit Application Forms No. 1 and 20 received 4/3/82.
(3) Louisiana Water Quality Criteria, LSCC, 1977.
(4) Louisiana Water Quality Management Plan, Department of Natural Resources, including Appendix D
(Ponchartrain Basin) and Appendix F (Mississippi River), Phase n, Vols. L
(5) 40 CFR Part 415 Subpart F, [47 £R 28260,6/29/83J.
(6) 40 CFR Part 41S.65(b) [39 fR 9616,3/12/74].
(7) Letter White (EPA) to Vlacos (Vulcan) dated 3/29/76.
(8) Letter White (EPA) to Campbell (Vulcan) DAted 6/9/76.
(9) ROC Hale (EPA) to Leonard (Vulcan) dated 11/10/76.
(10) 40 CFR Part 17779 (d)(l) [48 £R 14146.4/1/83].
(11) Letters Gordon (Vulcan) to McHam (EPA) dated 5/17/82 and 7/19/82.
(12) 40 CFR Part 40L17,6/4/82.
(13) Letters Gordon (Vulcan) to Hale (EPA) dated 1/30/8L
(14) Discharge Monitoring Reports 1980-1982.
(15) 40 CFR Part 122.62(a)(3) [48 £R 14146,4/1/83].
(16) 40 CFR Part 122.44(1)(2)(1) [48 fR 14146,4/1/83].
(17) 40 CFR Part 415.65(b) [47 fR 28260,6/29/82].
(IS) 40 CFR Part 415.62(b) [47 £R 28260,6/29/82].
(19) Final Development Document for Inorganic Chemicals,
EPA 440/1-82/007, June 1982.
(20) Letter Gordon (Vulcan) to Ferguson (EPA) dated 10/30/79.
(21) 40 CFR Part 125J(a)(2)(v) [44 £R 32948,6/7/89, as amended at 45 fR 33512,5/19/80).
(22) 40 CFR part 415.63(b) [47 £R 28260,6/29/82].
(23) 40 CFR Part 12239(d)(2) [48 £R 14146,4/1/83].
(24) 40 CFR Part 14L12 [40 £R 59570,12/24/75, as amended at 44 FR 6864L 11/29/79.
(25) Preamble to Inorganic Chemical Effluent Limitations Guidelines 47 FR 28263,6/29/82, Column 3].
(26) ROC McHam (EPA) to Gordon (Vulcan) dated 5/25/83.
(27) EPA Treatability Manual, EPA 600/2-82/001, September 1982 (Revised).
(28) Work Book for Determining Economic Achievabilitv for NPDES Permits: prepared for Hap Thron, Permits
Division; prepared by Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc.. August 1982.
(29) MoooVs Industrial Manual 1982, pp. 4602-4605
(30) C E Plant Cost Index. Chemical Engineering Magazine, 6/13/83, page 7.
16-6
-------
PUBLIC NOTICE
§124.10
Purpose of public notice
Types of actions requiring public notice
Tentative denial of application
Draft NPDES permit
Public hearing
Formal appeal of permit
Major program modifications
Granting of evidentiary hearing
Methods applicable to public notice process
Publication in newspaper
Direct mailing
x
Contents of public notice
Name and address of regulatory authority
Name and address of permittee
Brief description of facility
Name, address, and telephone number of contact
Additional information (EPA-issued permits)
Timing of public notice
After EPA/State review
EPA/State MOA should address
Significant comments must be responded to in writing
Public hearing is always optional
NOTES:
16-7
-------
EPA REVIEW OF STATE PERMITS
§123.24(d)
EPA may not waive review of:
• Major municipal and industrials
• General permits
• Class I sludge facilities
Other (minor) permits
vhich:
*
Discharge to territorial seas
Affect another State's waters
Cooling water discharges > 500 MGD
Process discharges >0.5 MGD
Primary industry categories
CONTENTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
FINAL PERMIT
§124.18
All comments received
Public hearing tape or transcript
Response to comments
Final EIS for new sources
Final permit
NOTES:
16-8
-------
EXAMPLE FACT SHEET
-------
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT
FACT SHEET
Permittee Name: Luster Glass, Inc.
NPDES Permit
Number: IL0654321
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 319
Morris, IL 60123
Location: 1 River Ridge Drive
Morris, IL 60123
Contact Person: Mr. John Baker, Vice President
Telephone: (312) 834-4536
I. Status of Permit
NPDES Permit No. IL0654321 was issued on August 5, 1984, became
effective on August 31, 1984, and expired on August 31, 1989. The
permittee submitted an NPDES permit application for the renewal of
the permit on March 1, 1989.
II. Facility Description
Luster Glass Inc. operates a manufacturing facility in Morris, IL.
The facility specializes in manufacturing auto glass. On average,
40,000 sq. ft./day of auto tempered glass, and 275,000 sq. ft./day
of auto laminated glass is produced at the facility.
III. Description of Discharge
All wastewater generated at this facility is discharged through
Outfall 001 to the Illinois River. The primary waste streams
discharged through Outfall 001 are process and rinse waters from
the glass manufacturing processes and cooling tower blowdown. The
glass manufacturing process wastewaters from auto glass tempering
(cutting, grinding, polishing edges, bending, and tempering) and
auto glass lamination (cutting, bending, washing, and laminating)
are routed through a wastewater treatment system consisting of oil
and water separators and settling basins. The cooling tower
blowdown is not treated prior to discharge.
IV. Receiving Water
The receiving water for Outfall 001 is the Illinois River, Segment
16 of the Northern Illinois River Basin. Downstream of the
facility, the Illinois River flows approximately 3 miles to Segment
15 of the Northern Illinois River Basin. Following is a summary of
flow data for Segment 16 of the Illinois River:
16-9
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 2 of 21
Average Flow - 446.7 cfs
Harmonic Mean Flow - 245.5 cfs
7Q10 - 70.9 cfs
1Q10 - 58.8 cfs
The use designations for the Illinois River are given below:
Indigenous Aquatic Life
The applicable water quality standards to protect these uses are
specified the State Water Pollution Control Rules in Part 302
(State Administrative Code, Title 35 - Environmental Protection;
Subtitle C - Water Pollution, Chapter 1; adopted March 17, 1989).
The effluent standards are found in Part 304.
V. Description of Discharge
a. Permit Application Summary
The following table summarizes the discharge characteristics of
Outfall 001 as reported in the NPDES permit application dated March
1, 1989:
Long-Term Daily
Parameter Average Maximum
Flow (MGD) 4.563 4.591
TSS (mg/1) 18.8 50.0
COD (mg/1) ND 50.0
pH (S.U.) 6.6 min. 9.0 max.
Oil & Grease (mg/1) 12 22
Phosphorus (Ibs/day) 19 29
Zinc (mg/1) 0.036 0.07
Lead (mg/1) 0.025 0.047
Note: Only data for parameters reported above detection limits are
shown above.
b. Discharge Monitoring Report fDMRl Data
A summary of DMR data is given in Table 1. This data was taken
from March 1988 through February 1989.
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing performed during the last
year of the permit term (March 1988 to February 1989) demonstrated
acute toxicity at Outfall 001. Test results indicated a fathead
minnow LC50 of 8 percent and a Ceriodaphnia LC50 of 15.8 percent.
Chronic Toxicity tests also demonstrated toxicity at Outfall 001.
Chronic toxicity test results indicated a fathead minnow NOEC of
1.3 percent and a Ceriodaphnia NOEC of 2.7 percent. A summary of
WET data for Luster is also presented in Table 1.
16-10,
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 3 of 21
VI. Proposed Technoloav-Based Effluent Limitations
Regulations promulgated at 40 CFR §122.44 (a) require technology-
based effluent limitations to be placed in NPDES permits based on
National effluent limitations guidelines and standards, best
professional judgement (BPJ), or a combination of the two.
Discharges from Outfall 001 are subject to effluent limitations
given in 40 CFR Part 426 for the Glass Manufacturing Point Source
Category, and State effluent and water quality standards.
Limits were developed for Luster Glass Inc. based on an evaluation
of the permit application and DMRs. Lead and zinc were detected in
significant concentrations in the discharge as reported in DMRs.
While the previous permit did not contain limits for lead and zinc,
monitoring was required. Thus, technology-based effluent limits
were set for zinc found in the cooling tower blowdown. Technology-
based limits were also established for lead which is found in the
process wastewater, however water quality-based limits were found
to be more limiting (see Section VII of this Fact Sheet).
Effluent mass limits for total suspended solids (TSS), phosphorus,
and oil and grease are based on the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT) limitations specified for the
Automotive Glass Tempering Subcategory in 40 CFR §426.62 and for
the Automotive Glass Laminating Subcategory in 40 CFR §426.72.
These limitations are shown below:
Automotive Glass Tempering Subcatecrory
Effluent Limits
Monthly Avg. Daily .Max.
Pollutant (Ib/lOOOftM rib/lOOOft2!
TSS 0.25 0.40
Oil and Grease 0.13 0.13
pH shall be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units.
Automotive Glass Laminating Subcateaory
Effluent Limits
Monthly Avg. Daily Max.
Pollutant (Ib/lOOOft2! flb/lOOOft2)
TSS 0.90 0.90
Oil and Grease 0.36 0.36
Phosphorus 0.22 0.22
pH shall be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units.
16-11
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 4 of 21
Effluent limitations for oil and grease, TSS, phosphorus, and pH
from the process wastewater contribution to Outfall 001 are
calculated using the above effluent limits and the production rates
of 40,000 square feet per day of tempered glass and 275,000 square
feet per day of laminated glass. The TSS effluent limitations for
cooling tower blowdown are based on State Effluent Standards for
TSS in non-process wastewaters, including cooling tower blowdown.
Calculations of the effluent limitations are shown below. It
should be noted that both mass and concentration limits will be
applied to Outfall 001 for oil and grease, TSS, and phosphorus.
Oil and Grease
Mass Limitations (Monthly
Oil & Grease = (40,000 f1
(275,000 ft2/day (laminatec
Ibs/day j
Average and Daily Maximum)
2/day (tempered) x 0.13 lb/1000 ft2) +
) X 0.36 lb/1000 ft2) = 5.2 + 99 - 104.2
Concentration Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average and Daily
Maximum)
Oil & Grease = (104.2 Ibs/day) (454 g/ 1 Ib) (1000 mg/ 1 g) (l gal/
3.785 1) (1 day/ 4.563 106 gal) = 2.74 mg/1
Mass Limitations - Process Wastewater (Monthly Average)
TSS = [(40,000 ft2/day (tempered) x 0.25 lb/1000 ft2) + (275,000
ft2/day (laminated) x 0.9 lb/1000 ft2)]/1000 = 257.5 Ibs/day
Mass Limitations - Process Wastewater (Daily Maximum)
TSS = [(40,000 ft2/day (tempered) x 0.4 lb/1000 ft2) + (275,000
ft2/day (laminated) x 0.9 lb/1000 ft2)]/1000 = 263.5 Ibs/day
Mass Limitations - Cooling Tower Blowdown (Monthly Average)
TSS = (25 mg/1)(0.45 106 gal/day)(1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal) =
93.8 Ibs/day
Mass Limitations - Cooling Tower Blowdown (Daily Maximum)
TSS = (50 mg/1)(0.45 10s gal/day)(1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal) =
187.6 Ibs/day
Mass Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average)
TSS - 257.5 Ibs/day +93.8 Ibs/day = 351.3 Ibs/day
16-12
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 5 of 21
Mass Limitations - Outfall 001 (Daily Maximum)
TSS = 263.5 Ibs/day + 187.6 Ibs/day = 451.1 Ibs/day
Concentration Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average)
TSS = (351.3 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day /4.S63 106
gal) =9.23 mg/1
Concentration Limitations - Outfall 001 (Daily Maximum)
TSS = (451.1 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day /4.S63 106
gal) = 11.86 mg/1
Phosphorus
Mass Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average and Daily Maximum)
Phosphorus = 275,000 ft2/day (laminated) x 0.06 lb/1000 ft2) =16.5
Ibs/day
Concentration Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average and Daily
Maximum)
Phosphorus = (16.5 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day
/4.S63 106 gal) = 0.43 mg/1
EH
pH limits are based on State effluent standards, as follows:
State Effluent Standards
Monthly Avg. Daily Max.
Pol lutant / Parameter Range (mg/1) fma/1)
pH 6.0-9.0 N/A N/A
16-13
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 6 of 21
Toxic Pollutants
Zinc and lead were detected in the effluent discharge when the
previous permit was issued. At that time no limits were set, but
a requirement was made to monitor for zinc and lead. Significant
concentrations of zinc (used as a corrosion inhibitor in cooling
water) and lead (from lead soldering of products) have been found,
as reported in DMRs. Therefore, technology-based effluent
limitations are being established and will be included in the draft
permit.
Technology-based effluent limitations for the toxic pollutant zinc
present in the cooling tower blowdown are based on the transfer of
the best available technology economically achievable (BAT)
limitations specified in the Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines and
Standards at 40 CFR §423.13(d)(1). These limitations are shown
below:
BAT Effluent Limitations
Monthly Avg. Daily Max.
Pollutant fma/1) fma/11
Zinc (total) 1.0 1.0
Using the average blowdown flow from the cooling towers (0.45 mgd) ,
monthly average and daily maximum mass limitations are calculated
as follows:
Zinc = (1.0 mg/l)(0.45 106 gal/day) (1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal)
=3.75 Ibs/day
Equivalent end-of-pipe concentration effluent limitations are also
being established in the draft permit. Using the total Outfall 001
flow (4.563 mgd), monthly average and daily maximum concentration
limitations are calculated as follows:
Zinc = (3.75 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day /4.5S3 106
gal) =0.10 mg/1
Technology-based effluent limitations for lead found in the process
wastewaters are based on transfer of BAT limitations specified in
the Metal Finishing Effluent Guidelines and Standards at 40 CFR
§433.14(a). These limitations, which are based on the performance
of lime precipitation and sedimentation, are shown below.
BAT Effluent Limitations
Monthly Avg. Daily Max.
Pollutant fma/n fma/1)
Lead (total) 0.43 0.69
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 7 of 21
Due to the potential for dilution of the treated process
wastewaters by the cooling tower blowdown wastewaters, both mass
and concentration limitations are established. Using the average
process flow (4.113 mgd) , mass limitations are calculated as
follows:
Monthly Average
Lead = (0.43 rog/1)(4.113 106 gal/day)(1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal)
= 14.74 Ibs/day
Daily Maximum
Lead = (0.69 rog/1)(4.113 106 gal/day)(1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal)
= 23.66 Ibs/day
Equivalent end-of-pipe concentration effluent limitations are also
being established in the draft permit. Using the total Outfall 001
flow (4.563 mgd), concentration limitations are calculated as
follows:
Monthly Average
Lead = (14.74 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day /4.S63 106
gal) = 0.38 mg/1
Daily Maximum
Lead = (23.66 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day /4.S63 106
gal) = 0.62 mg/1
VII. Proposed Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
The State water quality standards require that point source
discharges shall not cause a violation of any applicable water
quality standards nor interfere with the attainment or maintenance
of that water quality which assures the protection and propagation
of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water.
In addition, a requirement of the State water quality standards is
that no effluent shall, alone or in combination with other sources,
cause a violation of any applicable water quality standard.
Temperature
Temperature limits are based on State water quality standards as
follows:
16-15
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 8 of 21
State Water Quality Limits
Pollutant/Parameter Range
Temperature Not greater than 2.8°C above ambient, or
1.7°C above the following maximum limits:
in December through March, 16°C (60°F)
and in April through November, 32°C (90°F)
Toxic Pollutants
Based on evaluation of the NPDES permit application and DMR data
submitted by Luster Glass Inc., the following pollutants and
parameters for which applicable State water quality standards are
available are present in Outfall 001: lead and zinc. Based on the
fact that no other toxic pollutants are expected to be present in
Outfall 001 at significant concentrations, evaluation for
compliance with water quality standards will only be performed for
lead and zinc.
The State water quality regulations require that water quality
standards be achieved under the following critical receiving water
flow conditions:
Chronic water quality standards:
7 day, 10 year return frequency flow (7Q.10)
Acute water quality standards:
One-third (1/3) of the 7Q10 flow
The 7Q10 for the Illinois River is 70.9 cubic feet per second (cfs)
The facility provided a study of the outfall which showed that the
outfall quickly achieved complete mixing across the width of the
river. Dilution at the edge of the mixing zone can therefore be
characterized by the complete mixing equation:
Cr = (Cd) (Qd) + (Cs) (Qs)
(Qd + Qs)
where Cr = the receiving water concentration,
Cd = the effluent concentration,
Qd = the effluent flow,
Cs = the receiving water background concentration, and
Qs = the appropriate receiving water flow.
The receiving water concentrations (Cr) expected in the Illinois
River are calculated using the equation described above, and the
following data:
16-16
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 9 of 21
Effluent Receiving Water
Concentration (Cd)* Concentration (Cs)**
Pollutant r ma/11 f ma/11
Lead 0.38 0
Zinc 0.21 . 0.07
* - Maximum daily concentration reported in the application Form 2C
** - Source U.S.G.S. STORET
For comparison with acute water quality standards, receiving water
concentrations are calculated as follows:
Cr (lead) = [(0.38 mg/l)(7.06 cfs) + (0 mg/l)(23.6 cfs)]/(7.06 cfs
+ 23.6 cfs)
= 0.088 mg/1
Cr (zinc) = [(0.21 mg/1)(7.06 cfs) + (0.07 mg/1)(23.6 cfs)]/(7.06
cfs + 23.6 cfs)
= 0.102 mg/1
For comparison with chronic water quality standards, receiving
water concentrations are calculated as follows:
Cr (lead) = [(0.38 mg/1)(7.06 cfs) + (0 mg/1)(70.9 cfs)]/(7.06 cfs
+ 70.9 cfs)
= 0.034 mg/1
Cr (zinc) = [(0.21 mg/1)(7.06 cfs) + (0.07 mg/1)(70.9 cfs)]/(7.06
cfs + 70.9 cfs)
= 0.083 mg/1
The following table compares each receiving water concentration
calculated above with the State Water Quality Standard for aquatic
life protection:
State Receiving Water
Standard Concentration
Pollutant fua/ll fug/I)
Zinc
Chronic no 83
Acute 120 102
Lead
Chronic 3.2 34
Acute 82 88
16-17
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 10 of 21
Since the calculated receiving water concentrations are less than
the criterion for zinc and greater than the criterion for lead,
water quality limits will be necessary for lead, but not for zinc.
It should be noted that the procedure used above does not account
for the variability of the pollutant concentrations in the
effluent. The EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control recommends accounting for this variability by
calculating the reasonable potential for pollutants to cause
exceedances of water quality standards. Specifically, the
reasonable potential is calculated using the maximum expected
effluent concentration, which is estimated by using a
multiplication factor (F) that incorporates both the coefficient of
variation (CV) and the nunuer of effluent samples collected. If
this methodology were used with the existing data for Luster Glass,
Inc., there would be a reasonable potential for the concentration
of zinc in the discharge to
exceed both the acute and chronic water
quality standards, and thus* water quality permit limits will also
be calculated for zinc. '
The following equation is used to calculate the effluent
concentrations [which is commonly referred to as the waste load
allocation (WLA)] for lead and zinc that will ensure protection of
the State water quality standard.
Cd = WLA = Cr (Qd + Qs) - (Cs)(Qs) „
Qd
where Cd = WLA = waste load allocation
Cr = the applicable water quality standard
Qd = the effluent flow =7.06 cfs
Qs = the appropriate receiving water flow
Cs = the receiving water background concentration
Based on the following information, the waste load allocations for
lead and zinc are calculated.
Cr = Acute State Water Cs = Upstream
Pollutant Quality Standard — Concentration
Lead 0.082 mg/1 0 mg/1
Zinc 0.12 mg/1 0.07 mg/1
Cr = Chronic State Water Cs = Upstream
Pollutant Quality Standard Concentration
Lead 0.0032 mg/1 0 mg/1
Zinc 0.11 mg/1 0.07 mg/1
16-18
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 11 of 21
Lead (acute) Cd = [(0.082 mg/1)(7.06 cfs + 23.6 cfs) - (0
mg/1)(23.6 cfs)] / 7.06 cfs
=0.36 mg/1
Lead (chronic) Cd = [(0.0032 mg/1) (7.06 cfs + 70.9 cfs) - (0
mg/1)(70.9 cfs)]/ 7.06 cfs
= 0.04 mg/1
Zinc (acute) Cd = [(0.12 mg/1) (7.06 cfs + 23.6 cfs) - (0.07
mg/1)(23.6 cfs)] / 7.06 cfs
=0.29 mg/1
Zinc (chronic) Cd = [(0.11 mg/1) (7.06 cfs + 70.9 cfs) - (0.07
mg/1) (70.9 cfs)]/ 7.06 cfs = 0.51 mg/1
Given that all State water quality standards are expressed as never
to be exceeded (i.e., water quality-based limits must be protective
of the most stringent waste load allocation), a maximum daily
limitation (HDL) and a average monthly limitation (AML) for lead
and zinc are calculated using the waste load allocations calculated
above. It should be noted that the ratio of daily maximum to
monthly average for the technology-based effluent limitations for
lead and zinc are used to derive the MOL and AML. Specifically,
these ratios are 1.6 for lead and 1.0 for zinc.
Lead - Since the chronic WLA is more limiting than the acute WLA
(i.e., 0.04 mg/1 < 0.36 mg/1), it will be used as the basis for
limitations. Since the chronic WLA can never be exceeded, 0.04
mg/1 is used as the MDL. The AML is calculated as follows:
0.04 mg/1
= 0.03 mg/1
1.6
Zinc - Since the acute WLA is more limiting than the chronic WLA
(i.e., 0.29 mg/1 < 0.51 mg/1), it will be used as the basis for
limitations. Since the acute WLA can never be exceeded, 0.029 mg/1
is used as the MDL. The AML is calculated as follows:
0.29 mg/1
= 0.29 mg/1
1.0
Comparing the chemical specific water quality-based limits
calculated above with the technology-based effluent limitations
calculated for Outfall 001 (see Section VI above), the water
quality-based limits for lead are more stringent than the
technology-based limits, so they will be used as the basis for
effluent limits in the permit. Since the technology-based effluent
limits for zinc are more stringent than the water quality-based
16-19
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 12 of 21
limits, the technology-based effluent limits will be used.
Equivalent end-of-pipe mass effluent limitations are also being
established in the draft permit. Using the total Outfall 001 flow
(4.563 mgd), mass limitations for lead are calculated as follows:
MDL = (0.04 mg/l)(4.563 106 gal/day)(1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal)
=1.52 Ibs/day
AML = (0.03 mg/l)(4.563 106 gal/day)(1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal)
=1.14 Ibs/day
Whole Effluent Toxicitv
The previous NPDES permit issued to the Luster Glass facility
contained a requirement for conducting monthly acute and chronic
toxicity tests during the fourth and fifth year of the permit
(March 1988 through February 1989). The test species selected by
the facility was the fathead minnow, based on an initial comparison
of species sensitivity performed in February 1988. The results of
these toxicity tests were reviewed to determine whether an effluent
limit on toxicity should be developed for the permit.
The concentration of acute and chronic toxicity in the receiving
water is calculated and is then compared to the State water quality
standards. The receiving water concentrations for acute and
chronic toxicity were calculated using the following formula:
Cr = (Cd) (Qd) + (Cs) (Qs)
Where
Cr
Cd
Qd
Cs
Qs
(Qd + Qs)
receiving water concentration
effluent concentration
effluent flow
receiving water background concentration
appropriate receiving water flow
The following summarizes the toxicity data submitted by Luster
Glass for the period from March 1988 to February 1989:
16-20
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 13 of 21
Toxicity Data (Fathead minnows)
LC50 NOEC
(% effluent) (% effluent)
58.0 50
25.2 3
55.0 10
46.3 30
44.8 25
5.9 1
67.8 10
3.9 1
50.1 30
52.0 10
32.1 3
41.7 30
All toxicity testing by Luster Glass involved the use of upstream
ambient water for the control and diluent, so that in all
calculations, the upstream toxicity is assumed to be zero. The
highest result of chronic toxicity measured was an NOEC equal to 1%
effluent. By dividing 1 into 100, the NOEC is converted to chronic
Toxic Units (TUC) . Similarly for acute toxicity, the highest acute
toxicity was measured at an LC50 equal to 3.9 % which converts to
25.6 TUt.
The resultant receiving water concentration (Cr) in toxic units for
both acute and chronic toxicity are calculated using the following
data:
Cs = 0
Qs = 23.6 cfs (one third the 7Q10 for acute protection)
Qs = 70.9 cfs (the 7Q10 for chronic protection)
Qd «= 7.06 cfs
Acute
Cr = (25.6 TUt) (7.06 cfs)/(7.06 cfs + 23.6 cfs)
= 5.9 TU.
Chronic
Cr = (100 TUC) (7.06 Cfs)/(7.06 cfs + 70.9 cfs)
= 9.1 TUC
16-21
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 14 of 21
The State water quality standards for acute and chronic protection
are summarized below:
State Water Quality Standard for Acute Protection =0.3 TU.
State Water Quality Standard for Chronic Protection =1.0 TUC
WET limits would be necessary since the calculated receiving water
concentrations exceed the state water quality standards for both
acute and chronic protection:
For acute protection 5.9 TU. > 0.3 TU.
For chronic protection 9.1 TUC > 1.0 TUC
Using steady state assumptions, the WLAs were calculated using the
following formula:
Cd = [Cr(Qd + Qs)-(Cs)(Qs)] / Qd
where:
Cd = Concentration of the pollutant in the discharge, or waste
load allocation
Cr = State Water Quality Standard
for chronic protection = 1.0 TUC
for acute protection = 0.3 TU.
Qd = Discharge flow =7.06 cfs
Qs = Appropriate receiving water flow
chronic flow (7Q10) =70.9 cfs
acute flow =23.6 cfs
Cs = Receiving water or upstream concentration = 0
Assuming zero background toxicity, the limits are calculated as
follows:
WLA (acute) = [(0.3 TU,)(7.06 cfs + 23.6 cfs)] - [(0)(23.6 cfs)]
7.06 CfS
= 1.3 TU.
WLA (Chronic) = [(1.0 TUC)(7.06 Cfs + 70.9 cfs)] - [(0)(70.9 Cfs)]
7.06 CfS
= 11.0 TUC
An acute to chronic ratio (ACR) was calculated from the toxicity
data by taking the average ACR from each data set as follows:
16-22
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 15 of 21
LC50 NOEC
f% effluent) f% effluent) ACR
58.0 50 1.16
25.2 3 8.40
55.0 10 5.50
46.3 30 1.54
44.8 25 1.79
5.9 1 5.9
67.8 10 6.78
3.9 1 3.9
50.1 30 1.67
52.0 10 5.20
32.1 3 10.7
41.7 30 1.39 ,
Average 4.5
The acute WLA (in TUJ are converted to TUC using the acute to
chronic ratio (ACR) as follows:
WLA (in TU.e) =1.3 TU. * ACR
= 1.3 TU. * 4.5
= 5.9 TU.C
Given that all State water quality standards are expressed as never
to be exceeded (i.e., water quality-based limits must be protective
of the most stringent waste load allocation) , a maximum daily
limitation (MDL) and a average monthly limitation (AML) for WET
were calculated using the waste load allocations calculated above.
A ratio of daily maximum to monthly average of 1.6 is assumed for
WET based upon technolgy-based effluent limits for lead.
\
Since the acute WLA is more limiting than the chronic WLA (i.e.,
5.9 TU.C < 11.0 TUe) , it will be used as the basis for limitations.
Since the acute WLA can never be exceeded, 5.9 TU.C is used as the
MDL. The AML is calculated as follows:
5.9
"' = 3.7 TUC
1.6
The permittee shall conduct chronic toxicity tests according to
methods outlined in "Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms"
(EPA 600/4-89 001).
16-23
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 16 of 21
VIII. Proposed Effluent Limitations
Table 2 summarizes the proposed effluent limitations for Outfall
001. Proposed effluent limitations for zinc are based on BPJ. The
limitation for temperature is based on State water quality
standards. The proposed limitations for lead were calculated above
as chemical specific water quality-based limitations. The
remainder of the effluent limitations are based on BPT/BAT effluent
guidelines at 40 CFR Part 426 and State effluent standards.
IX. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring for those pollutants expected to be present in Outfall
001 (i.e., TSS, oil and grease, phosphorus, lead, and zinc) will be
required once per week. Except for oil and grease, for which a
grab sample is required, 2«4-hour composite samples are required.
Temperature is to be monitored continuously during discharge.
I
Whole effluent toxicity testing for chronic toxicity shall be
conducted 2/month on a 24-hour composite sample of the final
ef.fluent.
X. Special Conditions
Luster Glass Inc. will be required to update their existing Best
Management Practices (BMP) plan to address 'th« potential for
leakage of gasoline from Tank Number 42 and nitric acid from the
drum storage area. Specifically, Luster Glass Inc. should
undertake the following two site-specific BMPs and incorporate them
into their plan. First, remedial action must be taken on Tank
Number 42 to repair the damaged tank. The gasoline must be
transferred to another vessel (e.g., tank truck) while the tank is
cleaned, repaired, welded or holes plugged. To prevent
environmental damage at this site in the future, the following BMPs
should be incorporated into the plan: visual inspection, secondary
containment, preventative maintenance, or some combination thereof.
Secondly, the drum storage area must be cleaned up by following
procedures such as the following: inventory the drums to identify
the contents and amounts of chemicals therein; inspect the drums
for deterioration or leaks, and segregate and adequately dispose of
the leaking or deteriorating drums; remove and adequately dispose
of any contaminated soil; neatly stack the remaining drums in a
manner to eliminate hazards to humans or the environment by
isolating the drums from walkways or roadways, placing them on an
impervious pad, covering the storage area, diking the area, moving
the storage area away from the stream or some combination thereof.
16-24
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 17 of 21
XI. Information Sources
While developing effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and
special conditions for the draft permit, the following information
sources were used:
(1) EPA NPDES Application Forms 1 and 2C dated October 1980 and
February 1985, respectively.
(2) State Effluent Standards, Part 304 of the State Administrative
Code, Title 35 - Environmental Protection; Subtitle C - Water
Pollution, adopted March 17, 1980.
(3) Division files related to the Luster Glass Inc. NPDES Permit
NO. IL0654321.
(4) State Water Quality Standards, Part 302 of the State
Administrative Code, Title 35 - Environmental Protection;
Subtitle C - Water Pollution, adopted March 17, 1980.
(5) EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control.
(6) 40 CFR Parts 423, 433, and 426.
16-25
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 18 of 21
Date
03-88
04-88
05-88
06-88
07-88
08-88
09-88
10-88
11-88
12-88
01-89
02-89
TABLE 1
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
LUSTER GLASS INC.
March 1988 through February 1989
Flow (mgd)
Mon. Aver. Daily Max.
4.575
4.554
4.552
4.568
4.585
4.588
4.571
4.568
4.553
4.551
4.550
4.560
4.583
4.567
4.569
4.573
4.589
4.591
4.581
4.572
4.573
4.541
4.561
4.570
TSS
flb/dl
180.4
245.2
429.3
308.7
Oil &
Grease
(Ib/dV
19
27
88
22
Phosphorus
flb/dl
14
18
29
15
16-26
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 19 of 21
TABLE 1 (Continued)
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
LUSTER GLASS INC.
March 1988 through February 1989
pH Temperature Zinc Lead COD
Date fS.U.l (degrees F) fma/11 . fma/ll fma/11
03-88 6.6 80 0.21 0.10 50
04-88
05-88
06-88 7.1 83 0.08 0.17
07-88
08-88
09-88 9.0 78 0.09 0.12
10-88
11-88
12-88 8.1 61 0.06 0.38
01-89
02-89
16-27
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 20 of 21
TABLE 1 (Continued)
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
LUSTER GLASS INC.
March 1988 through February 1989
Toxicity Test Data: Unless otherwise indicated, acute toxicity
tests were conducted using fathead minnow and
reported as 48 hr. LCSO; chronic toxicity tests
were conducted using fathead minnows and
reported as 7 day NOEC.
LC50 NOEC
DATE (% effluent) (% effluent)
3/88 58.0 50
4/88 25.2 3
5/88 55.0 10
6/88 46.3 30
7/88 44.8 25
8/88 5.9 1
9/88 67.8 10
10/88 3.9 1
11/88 50.1 30
12/88 52.0 10
1/89 32.1 . 3
2/89 41.7 30
* Toxicity tests using Ceriodaphnia dubia 48 hour survival
(acute) and 7 day reproduction (chronic)
16-28
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 21 of 21
TABLE 2
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
NPDES PERMIT NO. IL0654321
DAILY MAXIMUM
MONTHLY AVERAGE
PARAMETER
Flow (mgd)
TSS
Oil & Grease
Phosphorous
PH
Temperature
Total Lead
Total Zinc
Whole' Effluent
Toxicity (WET)
a/ pH shall be
b/ Not greater
LBS/DAY
Report
451.1
104.2
16.5
a/
b/
1.52
3.75
c/
within the
MG/L
—
11.86
2.74
0.43
—
—
0.04
0.10
—
range of
LBS/DAY
Report
351.3
104.2
16.5
—
—
1.14
s 3.75
c/
MG/L
—
9.23
2.74
0.43
—
—
0.03
0.10
— —
6.0 - 9.0 standard units
than 2.8 degrees Centigrade above
ambient, or
c/
1.7 degrees Centigrade above the following maximum
limits:
December 1 through March 31
April 1 through November 30
16 deg C (60 deg F)
32 deg C (90 deg F)
Discharges of effluent with toxicity greater than the
following amounts are prohibited: Maximum Daily Chronic
Toxicity of 5.9 TU.C and Average Monthly Chronic Toxicity
of 3.7 TUe.
16-29
-------
EXAMPLE RESPONSE
TO COMMENTS
16-30
-------
RESPONSE TO .COMMENTS
FINAL PERMIT DECISION
This is our response to comments received on the subject draft permit in
accordance with regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 124.17.
Permit No. " LA0006181
Applicant: Allied Chemical Corporation
P.O. Box 226
Geismar, Louisiana 70734
Issuing Office: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
144S Ross Avenue
Dallas. Texas 75202-2733
Prepared By: Edward C. McHam. Engineer
Industrial Permits Section (6W-PI)
Permits Branch
Vater Management Division
(214) 655-7180
Permit Action: Final permit decision and response to comments
received on the draft permit publicly noticed on
7/7/84.
Date Prepared: 9/5/84
Unless otherwise stated, citations to 40 CFR refer to promulgated regulations
listed at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of 7/1/83.
The following comments have been received on the draft permit:
Letter Dessert (Allied) to Caldwell (EPA) dated 7/30/84
ISSUE NO. 1
The draft permit establishes biomonitoring requirements at Outfall 004. The
company requests deletion of these requirements.
RESPONSE NO. 1
The request Is denied.
The permittee states that biomonitoring will be duplicative and unnecessary
because:
(1) EPA has identified the toxic pollutants of concern.
(2) The proposed permit places BAT limits and monitoring requirements
on these pollutants.
16-31
-------
PERMIT NO. LA0006181 RESPONSE, TO COMMENTS
(3) The BAT limits are more restrictive than water quality-based
limitations.
(4) Biomonitoring results could be distorted and masked by the osmotic
stress on test organisms exerted by the salts present in an H?
plant effluent.
The biomonitoring method is a standardized method used throughout EPA Region 6
to measure the toxicity of various effluents which contain toxic componer.es.
The test is not based on water quality impacts of a specific receiving scream.
Under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, EPA Region 6 has the authority to
require permittees to support development of data bases such as those
associated with toxics. Therefore, biomonitoring requirements as established
in the draft permit are retained in the final permit.
16-32
-------
Mil'-, -r- .-~
Chevron Chemical Company ' \ -v^rr, \~ •,5•-. ,v
PO. Bo» 78. Si. James. LA 70086 • Phone (504| 473-7946
January 12, 1990
D P Teichman
S:-" CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT # P 965 729 397
Ms. Ellen Caldwell
Permits Branch (6W-PS)
U.S. EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
SUBJECT: CHEVRON CHEMICAL COMMENTS
NPDES PERMIT NO. LA0029963
Dear Ms. Caldwell:
We have reviewed draft NPDES Permit No. IA0029963 for Chevron
Chemical's St. James Plant issued for public comment by the EPA on
December 16, 1989. We have the following comments:
1. As represented in the Fact Sheet (Part VIII.Section c 1), we
understand an administrative order will be issued concurrent
with the final permit decision. We understand the
administrative order will establish interim limits which will
be in,effect until 2/1/91, when our upgraded effluent treatment
plant will be operational. As a result, we have not reviewed,
and are not providing comments on the draft permit relative to
it being in effect during the interim period (i.e. from final
permit issuance to 2/1/91).
2. We want to clarify that the discharge description included in
Part V of the Fact Sheet is representative of our current
facility discharge. Following completion of our ongoing
facility expansion, the concentration of pollutants in our
discharge will significantly decrease and the discharge flowrate
will increase from current levels. These changes to our
. discharge were detailed in our submittals to the EPA and have
been properly recognized in development of the proposed permit
limits.
3. We request that you change the pH of the Outfall 002 from 9.0
to 10.0. The plant's clarified water and firewater is purchased
and is lime softened with a pH of 10. This water has a high pH
but a low alkalinity and is not hazardous to personnel nor to
the environment.
In the last 6 months we have had 2 permit ei
these water systems. In the first instance, b
the paved areas of the plant with firewater, we
pH limit. In the second instance, a number of clarified --a-er
JAN 181590
16-33
3- Wash ing
the 9.0
-------
and firewater lines failed due to the hard December freeze.
This water overflowed the retention pond and again we had a
permit exceedence.
We have developed and have begun implementing a plan to
eliminate continuous sources of high pH water currently
discharged to our retention pond. This work will be completed
by the 1/1/91. He therefore feel that a change of the pH limit
on Outfall 002 fr
the environment aid would eliminate nuisance excursions.
We appreciated receiving
om 9.0 to 10.0 would not endanger people nor
the well-organized and readable fact sheet
which clearly established the basis for the permit requirements.
Although the proposed permit limits are substantially lower than those
in our previous permit, we expect to be able to achieve and maintain
compliance once our upgraded effluent treatment plant is fully
operational.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss our comments further,
please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff.
Very truly yours,
P. Teichman
LLR/vho
16-34
-------
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
The Administrative Process
DIRECTIONS;
You are a permit writer and have issued an NPDES permit for Luster Glass Inc.,
a glass manufacturer located on the Illinois River. Luster Glass Inc., unhappy
with your work, seeks an administrative appeal of the permit and in so doing,
raises the following issues:
• The permit is improperly based on the provisions of 40 CFR Part 426
(Glass Manufacturing Point Source Category);
• The effluent limitations for zinc and lead are calculated
incorrectly;
• Luster Glass Inc.'s request to delete the duty to mitigate condition
was improperly ignored;
• The weekly monitoring requirements for lead and zinc are excessive;
and
• The Agency violated its regulations ana established policy by
refusing to hold a hearing as requested by Luster Glass Inc.
QUESTIONS;
(1) Assuming Luster Glass Inc.'s appeal is granted, what effect will this have
on the effectiveness of the NPDES permit?
(2) What standard of review should the Hearing Officer use to evaluate the
permit?
(3) You have been called upon to testify on behalf of the Permit Authority.
How do you respond to each of the issues raised by Luster Glass Inc.?
(a) The improper use of regulations:
(b) The calculation of limitations:
(c) The inclusion of the duty to mitigate condition:
(d) The excessive monitoring requirements:
(e) The failure to hold a hearing:
(4) In addition to this logically organized and undeniably scientific
testimony concerning your actions in developing this permit, what other
assistance might you be asked to lend to your attorney?
(5) Once the Hearing Officer has made a decision, what is the next step in the
process of getting the Luster Glass permit final and effective?
16-35
-------
16-36
-------
PERMIT WRITERS ON APPEAL
• Witness for permit authority
• Source of technical knowledge for attorney
• Assist in developing cross-examination questions
NOTES:
16-37
-------
MAJOR MODIFICATIONS
1. Reopener condition
2. Correct technical and legal mistakes
3. Failure to notify interested State
4. New information
5. Alterations justifying new/different conditions
6. New regulations
7. Modification of a compliance schedule (> 120 days)
8. Require POTW to develop pretreatment programs
9. Unsuccessful BPJ treatment installed
10. Address non-limited pollutants
11. Variance request
12. Adjust limits to reflect net pollutant treatment
13. Insert 307(a) toxic or Part 503 sludge use/disposal
14. Establish notification levels
NOTES:
16-38
-------
MINOR MODIFICATIONS
1. Typographical errors
^
2. More frequent monitoring
3. Change in interim compliance date (<120 days)
4. Change in ownership
5. Change in construction schedule for new source
6. Deletion of point source outfall
7. Incorporate approved local pretreatment program
PERMIT TERMINATIONS
Suspend effectiveness in emergency
Terminate for falsifications, recalcitrants or changed conditions
Post public notice intentions and offer permittee a hearing
NOTES:
16-39
-------
APPLICABLE EFFLUENT STANDARDS
REVIEW EXERCISE
1. Industrial facilities are subject to:
2. POTWs are subject to:
3. Federal facilities are subject to:
4. Industrial storm water
5. Municipal storm waterfis subject to:
is subject to:
6. Combined sewer overflows are subject to:
7. New sources are subject to:
8. New dischargers are subject to:
NOTES:
16-40
-------
Permit No.: IL0654321
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. S1251 et seq; the "Act"),
LUSTER GLASS, INC.
is authorized to discharge from a facility located in Morris, Illinois
to receiving waters named the Illinois River
in accordance with discharge point(s), effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements and other conditions set forth herein. Authorization for discharge
is limited to those outfalls specifically listed in "the permit.
This permit shall become effective
August 31, 1989
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
August 31, 1994.
Signed this day of
Authorized Permitting Official
Director
Water Management Division
Title
16-41
-------
PART I
Page 2 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Sheet—Issuance and Expiration Dates
I. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
A. Definitions
B. Description of Discharge Points
c. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements
(Includes Compliance Schedules as Appropriate)
II. Monitoring, Recording and Reporting Requirements
A. Representative Sampling
B. Monitoring Procedures
C. Penalties for Tampering
D. Reporting of Monitoring Results
E. Compliance Schedules
F. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
G. Records Contents
H. Retention of Records
I. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
J. Other Noncompliance Reporting
K. Inspection and Entry
III. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
D. Duty to Mitigate
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
F. Removed Substances
G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
H. Upset Conditions
I. Toxic Pollutants
J. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances
IV. General Requirements
A. Planned Changes
B. Anticipated Noncompliance
C. Permit Actions
D. Duty to Reapply
E. Duty to Provide Information
F. Other Information
G. Signatory Requirements
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
I. Availability of Reports
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
K. Coast Guard
L. Property Rights
M. Severability
N. Transfers
O. State Laws
P. Water Quality Standard Requirements-Reopener Provision
Q. Toxicity Reopener Provision
V. Special Requirements
A. Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan
B. BMP Implementation
C. Site-Specific BMPs
16-42
-------
PART I
Page 3 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
I. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Definitions.
1. The "30-day (and monthly) average," other than for fecal coliform
bacteria and total coliform bacteria, is the arithmetic average
of all samples collected during a consecutive 30-day period or
calendar month, whichever is applicable. Geometric means shall
be calculated for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform
bacteria. The calendar month shall be used for purposes of
reporting self-monitoring data on discharge monitoring report
forms.
2. The "7-day (and weekly) average," other than for fecal coliform
bacteria and total coliform bacteria, is the arithmetic mean of
all samples collected during a consecutive 7-day period or
calendar week, whichever is applicable. Geometric means shall be
calculated for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform
bacteria. The 7-day and weekly averages are applicable only to
those effluent characteristics for which there are 7-day average
effluent limitations. The calendar week which begins on Sunday
and ends on Saturday, shall be used for purposes of reporting
self-monitoring data on discharge monitoring report forms.
Weekly averages shall be calculated for all calendar weeks with
Saturdays in the month. If a calendar week overlaps two months
(i.e., the Sunday is in one month and the Saturday in the
following month), the weekly average calculated for that calendar
week shall be included in the data for the month that contains
the Saturday.
3. "Daily Maximum" ("Daily Max.") is the maximum value allowable in
any single sample or instantaneous measurement.
4. "Composite samples" shall be flow proportioned. The composite
sample shall, as a minimum, contain at least four (4) samples
collected over . the compositing period. Unless otherwise
specified, the time between the collection of the first sample
and the last sample shall not be less than six (6) hours nor more
than 24 hours. Acceptable methods for preparation of composite
samples are as follows:
a. Constant time interval between samples, sample volume
proportional to flow rate at time of sampling;
b. Constant time interval between samples, sample volume
proportional to total flow (volume) since last sample. For
the first sample, the flow rate at the time the sample was
collected may be used;
c. Constant sample volume, time interval between samples
proportional to flow (i.e., sample taken every "X" gallons
of flow); and,
d. Continuous collection of sample, with sample collection rate
proportional to flow rate.
5. A "grab" sample, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a
single "dip and take" sample collected at a representative point
in the discharge stream.
16-43
-------
PART I
Page 4 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
6. An "instantaneous" measurement, for monitoring requirements, La
defined as a single reading, observation, or measurement.
7. "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is
unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based
permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the
reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error,
improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment
facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or
improper operation.
8. "Bypass" means the intentional diversion of waste streams from
any portion of a treatment facility.
9. "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to
property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to
become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural
resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the
absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean
economic loss caused by delays in production.
10. "Director" means director of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's Water Management Division.
11. "EPA" means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
12. "Sewage Sludge" is any solid, semi-solid or liquid residue that
contains materials removed from domestic sewage during treatment.
Sewage sludge includes, but is not limited to, primary and
secondary solids and sewage sludge products.
13. "Acute Toxicity" occurs when 50 percent or more mortality is
observed for either test species (See Part I.e.) at any effluent
concentration. Mortality in the control must simultaneously be
10 percent or less for the effluent results to be considered
valid.
14. "Chronic Toxicity" occurs when the survival, growth, or
reproduction, as applicable, for either test species, at the
effluent dilution(s) designated in this permit (see Part I.e.),
is significantly less (at the 95 percent confidence level) than
. that observed for the control specimens.
16-44
-------
PART I
Page 5 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
B. Description of Discharge Points
The authorization .to discharge provided under this permit is limited to
those outfalls specifically designated below as discharge locations.
Discharges at any location not authorized under an NPDES permit is a
violation of the Clean Water Act and could subject the person{e}
responsible for such discharge to penalties under Section 309 of the Act.
Knowingly discharging from an unauthorized location or failing to report an
unauthorized discharge within a reasonable time from first learning of an
unauthorized discharge could subject such person to criminal penalties as
provided under the Clean Water Act.
Outfall
Serial Number Description of Discharge Point
001 Discharge of effluent from the wastewater treatment
oil/water separator and settling basins, and cooling
tower blowdown to the Illinois River.
16-45
-------
PART I
Page 6 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
C. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements
1. Effluent Limitations (Outfall 001)
Effective immediately and lasting through the life of the permit, the
permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 001. Such
discharges shall be limited by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent 30-Day a/ Daily a/
Parameter Average Maximum
Flow, MGD N/A N/A
Total Suspended Solids,
Ib/day 351.3 451.1
mg/1 9.23 11.86
Oil and Grease,
Ib/day
mg/1
104.2 104.2
|2.74 2.74
Total Phosphorus, ;
Ib/day J16.5 16.5
mg/1 0.43 0.43
Total Zinc,
Ib/day 3.75 3.75
mg/1 0.1 0.1
Total Lead,
Ib/day 1.14 1.52
mg/1 0.03 0.04.
/
Whole Effluent Toxicity
(WET), TUe b/ 3.7 5.9
pH, s.u. c/ £/
Temperature d/ d/
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
a/ See Definitions, Part I.A. for definition of terms.
b/ The permittee shall demonstrate compliance with WET requirements specified
in Part I.e.3 of this permit.
£/ pH shall not be less than 6.0 s.u. nor greater than 9.0 s.u.
d/ Temperature shall not be greater than 2.8 degrees Centigrade above ambient,
or 1.7 degrees Centigrade above the following maximum limits: from
December 1 through March 31, 16 degrees Centigrade (60 degrees Fahrenheit)
and from April 1 through November 30, 32 degrees Centigrade (90 degrees
Fahrenheit).
16-46
-------
PART I
Page 7 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
C. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements (Cont.l
2. Self-Monitoring Requirements (Outfall 001)
As a minimum, upon the effective date of this permit, the following
constituents shall be monitored at the frequency and with the type of
measurement indicated; samples or measurements shall be representative
of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. If no discharge
occurs during the entire monitoring period, it shall be stated on the
Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1) that no discharge or
overflow occurred.
Effluent
Parameter
Flow, MGD b/
Temperature
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Total Phosphorus
Total Zinc
Total Lead
Whole Effluent Toxicity
(WET), Chronic
PH
Frequency
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
2/Month
Daily
Sample Type a/
Instantaneous or Continuous
Continuous
24-Hour Composite
Grab
24-Hour Composite
24-Hour Composite
24-Hour Composite
24-Hour Composite .
Continuous or Grab
Sampling by the permittee for compliance with the monitoring requirements
specified above shall be performed at the following locations(s): within
100 feet of Outfall 001 to the Illinois River.
a/
See definitions, Part I.A.
b/ Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that
the permittee can affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are
being obtained.
16-47
-------
PART I
Page 8 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
C. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements (Cont.)
3. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing - Chronic Toxicity
Starting the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall
conduct biweekly chronic toxicity tests on a 24 hour composite sample
of the final effluent. If chronic toxicity is detected, the permittee
shall conduct a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation, according to
specifications in Part I.e.4 of this permit. Test species shall
consist of Pimephales promelas (Fathead minnows). The chronic
toxicity tests shall be conducted in general accordance with the
procedures set out in the latest revision of "Short-Term Methods for
Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms", EPA/600-4-89-001. If control mortality exceeds
20 percent, the test shall be considered invalid. Chronic toxicity
occurs when the No Observed Effect Concentrations (NOECs) (calculated
within a 95 percent confidence interval) exceed(s) the permit
limit(s). Test results shall be reported along with the Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) submitted for the end of the calendar period
during which the whole effluent test was run. The report shall
include all the physical testing as specified and shall report test
conditions, including temperature, pH, conductivity, mortality, total
residual chlorine concentration, control mortality, and statistical
methods used to calculate an NOEC.
If the results for one year (26 consecutive weeks) of whole effluent
testing indicate no chronic toxicity, the permittee may request, the
permit issuing authority to allow the permittee to reduce testing
frequency. The permit issuing authority may approve, partially
approve, or deny the request based on results and other available
information.
4. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE)
If the permittee fails to meet toxicity requirements specified in this
permit, the permit issuing authority shall determine that a TRE is
necessary. The permittee shall be so notified and shall initiate a
TRE immediately thereafter. The TRE shall include a TRE Test Plan
that must be submitted to the permitting authority within 60 days
after notification of a TRE requirement. The permitting authority
will then establish a deadline for compliance. The purpose of the TRE
will be to establish the cause of the toxicity, locate the source(s)
of the toxicity, and control or provide treatment for the toxicity
prior to the deadline.
If acceptable to the permit issuing authority, this permit may be
reopened and modified to incorporate any additional numerical
limitations, a modified compliance schedule if judged necessary by the
permit issuing authority, and/or a modified whole effluent protocol.
Failure to conduct an adequate TRE, or failure to submit a plan or
program as described above, or the submittal of a plan or program
judged inadequate by the permit issuing authority, shall in no way
relieve the permittee from the deadline for compliance contained in
this permit.
16-48
-------
PART II
Page 9 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
II. MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Representative Sampling. Samples taken in compliance with the
monitoring requirements established under Part I shall be collected
from the effluent stream prior to discharge into the receiving waters.
Samples and measurements shall be representative of the volume and
nature of the monitored discharge.
B. Monitoring Procedures. Monitoring must be conducted according to test
procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test
procedures have been specified in this permit.
C. Penalties for Tampering. The Act provides that any person who
falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this
permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years
per violation, or by both.
D. Reporting of Monitoring Results. Effluent monitoring results obtained
during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and
reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1),
postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month following the
completed reporting period. If no discharge occurs during the
reporting period, "no discharge" shall r*>e reported. Until further
notice, sludge monitoring results may be reported in the testing
laboratory's normal format (there is no EPA standard form at this
time), but should be on letter size pages. Legible copies of these,
and all other reports required herein, shall be signed and certified
in accordance with the Signatory Requirements (see Part IV). and
submitted to the Director, Water Management Division and the State
water pollution control agency at the following addresses:
original to: United States Environmental Protection Agency
Attention: Water Management Division
Compliance Branch
copy to: State Department of Health
Attention: Permits and Enforcement
E. Compliance Schedules. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or
any progress reports on interim and final requirements contained in
any Compliance Schedule of. this permit shall be submitted no later
than 14 days following each schedule date.
F. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee. If the permittee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, using test
procedures approved under 40 CFR 136 or as specified in this permit,
the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation
and reporting of the data submitted in the DMR. Such increased
frequency shall also be indicated.
G. Records Contents. Records of monitoring information shall include:
1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
2. The initials or name(s) of the individual(s) who performed the
sampling or measurements;
3. The date(s) analyses were performed;
4. The time(s) analyses were initiated;
16-49
-------
PART II
Page 10 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
S. The initials or name(s) of individual(s) who performed the
analyses;
6. References and written procedures, when available, for the
analytical techniques or methods used; and,
7. The results of such analyses, including the bench sheets,
instrument readouts, computer disks or tapes, etc., used to
determine these results.
H. Retention of Records. The permittee shall retain records of all
monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance
records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous
monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this
permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for
this permit, for a period of at least three years from the date of the
sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be
extended by request of the Director at any time. Data collected on
site, copies of Discharge Monitoring Reports, and a copy of this NPDES
permit must be maintained on site during the duration of activity at
the permitted location.
I. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting.
1. The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may seriously
endanger health or the environment as soon as possible, but no
later than twenty-four (24) hours from the time the permittee
first became aware of the circumstances. The report shall be
made to the EPA Emergency Response Branch at (312) 293-1788 and
the State at (312) 370-9395.
2. The following occurrences of noncompliance shall be reported by
telephone to the EPA Compliance Branch at (312) 293-1589 and the
State at (312) 331-4590 by the first workday (8:00 a.m. - 4:30
p.m. ) following the day the permittee became aware of the
circumstances:
a. Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any -effluent
limitation in the permit (See Part III.G.. Bypass of
Treatment Facilities.);
. b. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit (See Part III.H., Upset Conditions.); or,
c. Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of
the pollutants listed in the permit to be reported within 24
hours.
3. A written submission shall also be provided within five days of
the time that the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances.
The written submission shall contain:
a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and
times;
c. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if
it has not been corrected; and,
d. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
16-50
-------
PART II
Page 11 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
4. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis
if the oral report has been received within 24 hours by the
Compliance Branch, Water Management Division by phone, (312) 293-
1589.
5. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part n.D..
Reporting of Monitoring Results.
J. Other Noncompliance Reporting. Instances of noncompliance not
required to be reported within 24 hours shall be reported at the time
that monitoring reports for Part II.D. are submitted. The reports
shall contain the information listed in Part II.I.2.
K. Inspection and Entry. The permittee shall allow the Director, or an
authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials and
other documents as may be required by law, to:
1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or
activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept
under the conditions of this permit;
2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that
must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations
regulated or required under this permit; and,
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of
assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act,
any substances or parameters at any location.
16-51
-------
PART III
Page 12 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Duty to Comply. The permittee must comply with all conditions of this
permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act
and is grounds for- enforcement action; for permit termination,
revocation and reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit
renewal application. The permittee shall give the Director advance
notice of any planned changes at the permitted facility or of an
activity which may result in permit noncompliance.
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions. The Act provides that
any person who violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301,
302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to a civil
penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day of such violation. Any person
who willfully or negligently violates permit conditions implementing
Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, or 308 of the Act is subject to a fine of
not less than $5,000, nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or
by imprisonment for
provided in permit c< mditions in Part III.G.. Bypass of Treatment
Facilities and Part I
shall be construed to
penalties for noncomp
not more than 3 years, or both. Except as
I.H.. Upset Conditions, nothing in this permit
relieve the permittee of the civil or criminal
i_ance.
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense. It shall not be a
defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have
been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit.
D. Duty to Mitigate. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to
minimize or prevent any discharge in violation of this permit which
has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance. The permittee shall at all times
properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment
and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by
the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this
permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes. adequate
laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures.
This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems which are installed by a permittee only
when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the
conditions of the permit. However, the permittee shall operate, as a
minimum, one complete set of each main line unit treatment process
whether or not this process is needed to achieve permit effluent
compliance.
F. Removed Substances. Collected screenings, grit, solids, sludges, or
other pollutants removed in the course of treatment shall be buried or
disposed of in such a manner so as to prevent any pollutant from
entering any waters of the state or creating a health hazard. Filter
backwash shall not be directly blended with or enter either the final
plant discharge and/or waters of the United States.
G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities;
1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any
bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be
exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to
the provisions of paragraphs 2. and 3. of this section.
16-52
-------
PART III
Page 13 of 19
Permit No.: IL06S4321
2. Notice:
a. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of
the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if
possible at least 60 days before the date of the bypass.
b. Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of
an unanticipated bypass as required under Part II.I..
Twenty-four Hour Reporting.
3. Prohibition of bypass.
a. Bypass is prohibited and the Director may take enforcement
action against a permittee for a bypass, unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass,
such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during
normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition
is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should
have been installed in the exercise of reasonable
engineering judgement "to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime
or preventive maintenance; and,
(3) The permittee submitted notices as required under
paragraph 2. of this section.
b. The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, if the Director determines
that it will meet the three conditions listed above in
paragraph 3.a. of this section.
H. Upset Conditions.
1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense
to an action brought for noncompliance with technology, based
permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph 2.
of this section are met. No determination made during
administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by
upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final
administrative action subject to judicial review (i.e.,
Permittees will have the opportunity for a judicial determination
on any claim of upset only in an enforcement action brought for
noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations).
2. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset... -A permittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall
demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence that:
a. An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the
cause(s) of the upset;
b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly
operated;
c. The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required
under Part II.I.. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance
Reporting; and,
d. The permittee complied with any remedial measures required
under Part III.P.. Duty to Mitigate.
16-53
-------
PART III
Page 14 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof.
I. Toxic Pollutants. The permittee shall comply with effluent standards
or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) of the Act for toxic
pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish
those standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been
modified to incorporate the requirement.
J. Chances in Discharge of Toxic Substances. Notification shall be
provided to the Director as soon as the permittee knows of, or has
reason to believe:
1. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result
in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic
pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge
will exceed the highest of the following -notification levels":
a. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/L);
b. Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ug/L) for acrolein and
acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/L)
for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol;
and one milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony;
c. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for
that pollutant in the permit application in accordance with
40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or,
d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40
CFR 122.44(f).
2. That any activity has occurred or will occur whicl. would result
in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a
toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that
discharge will exceed the highest of the following "notification
levels":
a. Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/L);
b. One milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony:
c. Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for
that pollutant in the permit application in accordance with
40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or,
d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40
CFR 122.44(f).
16-54
-------
PART IV
Page 15 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
IV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Planned Changes. The permittee shall give notice to the Director as
soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to
the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one
of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new
source as determined in 40 CFR 122.29(b); or
2. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature
or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This
notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification
requirements under Part IV.A.I.
B. Anticipated Noncompliance. The permittee shall give advance notice of
any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may
result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
C. Permit Actions. This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or
terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the permittee for a
permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not
stay any permit condition.
D. Duty to Reapplv. If the permittee wishes to continue an activity
regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit,'the
permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit. The application
should be submitted at least 180 days before the expiration date of
this permit.
E. Duty to Provide Information. The permittee shall furnish to the
Director, within a reasonable time, any information which the Director
may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking
and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance
with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Director,
upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
F. Other Information. When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to
submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted
incorrect information in a permit application or any report to the
Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
G. Signatory Requirements. All applications, reports or information
submitted to the Director shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer;
b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general
partner or the proprietor, respectively;
c. For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency:
by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected
official.
2. All reports required by the permit and other information
requested by the Director shall be signed by a person described
above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A
person is a duly authorized representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described
above and submitted to the Director, and,
16-55
-------
PART IV
Page 16 of 19
Permit No.: IL06S4321
b. The authorization specified either an individual or a
position having responsibility for the overall operation of
the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of
plant manager, operator of a well or a well field,
superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an
individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a named individual or any
individual occupying a named position.)
3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph
IV.G.2. is no longer accurate because a different individual or
position has responsibility for the overall operation of the
facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of
paragraph IV.G.2. must be submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information, or applications to be
signed by an authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section
shall make the following certification:
"I certify under 'penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the
system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering.the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware
that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations."
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports. The Act provides that any
person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or
certification in any record or other document submitted or required to
be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or
reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction be
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
I. Availability of Reports. Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, all reports prepared in accordance
with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection
at the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the
Director. As required by the Act, permit applications, permits and
effluent data shall not be considered confidential.
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability. Nothing in this permit shall
be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under
Section 311 of the Act.
K. Coast Guard. If the Permittee operates its facility at certain times
as a means of transportation over water, the Permittee shall comply
with any applicable regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating, that establish
specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and
storage of pollutants.
L. Property Rights. The issuance of this permit does not convey any
property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal
rights, nor any infringement of federal, state or local laws or
regulations.
16-56
-------
PART IV
Page 17 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
M. Sever ability. The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any
provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of this
permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit,
shall not be affected thereby.
N. Transfers. This permit may be automatically transferred to a new
permittee if:
1. The current permittee notifies the Director at least 30 days in
advance of the proposed transfer date;
2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and
new permittees containing a specific date for transfer of permit
responsibility, coverage, and liability between them; and,
3. The Director does not notify the existing permittee and the
proposed new permittee of his or her intent to modify, or revoke
and reissue the permit. If this notice is not received, the
transfer is effective on the date specified in the agreement
mentioned in paragraph 2. above.
O. State Laws. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to
any applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by
Section 510 of the Act.
P. Reopener Provision. This permit may be reopened and modified
(following proper administrative procedures) . to include the
appropriate effluent limitations (and compliance schedule, if
necessary), or other appropriate requirements if one or more of the
following events occurs:
s'
1. Water Quality Standards; The water quality standards of the
receiving water(s) to which the permittee discharges are modified
in such a manner as to require different effluent limits than
contained in this permit.
2. Wasteload Allocation; A wasteload allocation is developed and
approved by the State and/or EPA for incorporation in this
permit.
3. Water Quality Management Plan; A revision to the current water
quality management plan is approved and adopted which calls for
different effluent limitations than contained in this permit.
16-57
-------
PART IV
Page 18 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
Toxicitv Limitation-Reopener Provision. This permit may be reopened
and modified (following proper administrative procedures) to include
a new compliance date, additional or modified numerical limitations,
a new or different compliance schedule, a change in the whole effluent
protocol, or any other conditions related to the control of toxicants
if one or more of the following events occur:
1. Toxicity was detected late in the life of the permit near or past
the deadline for compliance.
2. The TRE results indicate that compliance with the toxic limits
will require an implementation schedule past the date for
compliance and the permit issuing authority agrees with the
conclusion.
3. The TRE results indicate that the toxicant(s) represent
pollutant(s) that may be controlled with specific numerical
limits, and the
controls are the
the permit issi
effluent protoco
permit issuing authority agrees that numerical
most appropriate course of action.
4. Following the implementation of numerical controls on toxicants,
ing authority agrees that a modified whole
is necessary to compensate for those toxicants
that are controlled numerically.
5. The TRE reveals other unique conditions or characteristics which,
in the opinion of the permit issuing authority, justify the
incorporation of unanticipated special conditions in the permit.
16-58
-------
PART V
Page 19 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
V. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan
A BMP plan shall be developed within six months of permit reiasuance,
addressing each of the nine specific requirements described in the
June 1981 EPA document, NPDES BMP Guidance Document. Emphasis shall
be placed on good housekeeping practices, visual inspection, and
preventative maintenance.
The BMP plan shall be written up and delivered to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency no later than February 5, 1990.
B. BMP Implementation
The BMP plan shall be fully implemented within twelve months of permit
reissuance. An implementation report shall be delivered to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency no later than August 5, 1990.
C. Site-Specific BMPs
The following site-specific BMPs shall be included:
1. Tank Number 42: Remedial action is required to repair the damaged
tank. This shall include transfer of the contents to another
vessel (e.g., tank truck), cleaning the tank, and repairing,
welding, or plugging the hole. To prevent environmental damage
in the future, secondary containment is required. Monthly visual
inspections and/or preventative maintenance shall be conducted.
2. Drum Storage Area: The drums shall be inventoried to identify
the contents and amounts of chemicals therein. The drums shall
be inspected for deterioration or leaks. They shall be
segregated and any leaking or.-deteriorating drums shall be
disposed of or repaired. Any contaminated soil shall be removed
and adequately disposed of. The remaining drums shall be neatly
stacked in a manner to eliminate hazards to humans or the
environment by isolating the drums from walkways or roadways,
placing them on an impervious pad, covering the storage area,
diking the area, moving the storage area away from the river, or
some combination thereof.
16-59
-------
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
-------
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Common errors in permits
Data management considerations (PCS)
Enforcement tools and considerations
Citizens and enforcement
COMMON ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
Not:
• Issuing permit to correct entity
• Ensuring limits are defensible and compatible with PCS
• Covering all outfalls
• Imposing adequate monitoring or specifying type, frequency
and location
• Using special conditions
• Requiring routine DMRs and specifying signatory
• Including all standard conditions
• Incorporating Federal Regulations without further explanation
• Using precise language
NOTES:
17-1
-------
PCS LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Basic understanding of PCS system
Development process
Data elements
Sources of assistance
Permit writer's responsibilities
PCS POLICY
Adopted - October 1985
Designates PCS as the official NPDES data system
Requires EPA Regions to use
x
Requires NPDES States to use or have interface capability
NOTES:
17-2
-------
PERMIT FACILITY DATA
Parameter
Limits
Data
Compliance
Schedule
Data
Measurement
Violation
Data
L
Enforcement
Action Data
Enforcement
Action Keys
Pretreatment
Summary
Data
Inspection
Data -•"
Permit Event
Evidentiary
Hearing
Data
Grants
Data
PCI Audit
Data
Single Event
Violation
Data
- The effluent record types exist on each of the 10 physical Regional files.
-------
PCS ASSISTANCE
Region/State experts
EPA HQ/PCS hotline [(202) 260-8529]
PCS publications
Other methods
PCS PUBLICATIONS
General retrieval manual
Inquiry user's guide
Data element dictionary
Data entry/edit manual
Manager's guide to PCS
NOTES:
17-4
-------
PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST
CHECKLIST A-l
Procedural Requirements: ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS
Question
1. List any of the following items that have been omitted
inappropriately from the file.
a. Permit application and any supporting data furnished by
applicant;
b. Draft permit;
c. Statement of basis or fact sheet;
d. All documents cited in statement of basis or fact sheet;
e. If a new source, any environmental assessment,
environmental impact statement, finding of no significant
impact or environmental information document and any
supplement to an EIS that was prepared;
f. All comments received during public comment;
g. Tape or transcript of any hearings held and any written
materials submitted at hearing;
h. Response to significant comments raised during comment
period and/or hearing;
i. Final permit;
j. Explanation of changes from draft to final permit;
k. Where appropriate,, materials relating to
o Consistency determinations under the CZMA
o Consultation under the Endangered Species Act
o Determination under section 403(c) of the CWA
17-5
-------
CHECKLIST A-2
Procedural Requirements: PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT
Question
1. Was a public notice issued of the preparation of draft
permit and providing an opportunity for comment at least 30
days prior to final permit decision?
2. Was public hearing held?
(If "no", skip to #4)
3. Was a notice of public hearing issued at least 30 days prior
to hearing?
4. Was a summary response to significant comments raised during
comment period and/or hearing prepared and issued at time of
final permit decision?
CHECKLIST A~3
Procedural Requirements: STATE CERTIFICATION
Question
1. Was a state certification or waiver of state certification
received?
2. List any conditions in the state certification not included
in the permit. Indicate any reasons provided for omissions.
17-6
-------
CHECKLIST A-4
Procedural Requirements: RECORDS OF MODIFICATION
Question
1. Does the permit documentation indicate, that the permit was
modified, revoked or reissued?
(If "no", skip to Checklist A-5)
2. Was the permit modified pursuant to 40 CFR 122.62(a)? If
"yes", specify the basis identified in the permit
documentation: (alteration; new information; new
regulations; compliance schedules; variance request; 307(a)
toxic standard; net limits; reopener; nonlimited pollutants
(level of discharge of any pollutant no limited in permit
exceeds the level which can be achieved by technology-based
treatment); use ore manufacture of toxics (permittee has
begun or expects to begin to use or manufacture a toxic .
pollutant); notification levels (permit has been modified to
establish a "notification level")
3. Did cause exist for modification or revocation and
reissuance pursuant to 40 CFR 122.62(b)?
Specify cause:
a. Cause exists for termination, as provided in 40 CFR
122.64 (noncompliance; misrepresentation of or failure to
disclose facts; endangerment to human health or
environment; change in condition);
b. Transfer of permit;
c. Other (specify)
4. Does the permit documentation indicate that the procedures
of 40 CFR 124.5 for permit modification, revocation and
reissuance or termination were followed?
CHECKLIST A-5
Procedural Requirements: ENFORCEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Question
1. Does the permit documentation indicate that any enforcement
actions have been taken?
Briefly describe (nature of action(s), date(s)):
2. Did the Regional Counsel review or sign off on the permit?
17-7
-------
CHECKLIST B-l
Permit Conditions: BOILERPLATE
Question
1. Identify whether the following general conditions have been
incorporated into the permit, either directly or by
reference to 40 CFR Part 122.41 (or, if permit was issued
prior to April 1983, by reference to 40 CFR Parts 122.7 and
122.60). Identify any variation from the regulation language
in 122.41.
a. Duty to comply;
b. Duty to reapply;
c. Duty to halt or reduce activity;
d. Duty to mitigate;
e. Program operation and maintenance;
f. Permit actions;
g. Property rights;
h. Duty to provide information;
i. Inspection and entry;
j. Monitoring and records;
k. Signatory requirement;
1. Reporting requirements;
m. Bypass; and
n. Upset.
2. If the general conditions are included by reference, is the
CFR citation, date and copy of the regulations provided? If
"no", specify missing item(s): (Skip to #5)
3. Does the permit require notification to the Director as soon
as the permittee knows or has reason to believe that any
activity has occurred or will occur which would result in
the discharge of any toxic pollutant, if that discharge will
exceed the "notification levels1!, specified in 40 CFR Part
122.42(a)(1)?
4. Does the permit require notification to the Director as soon
as the permittee knows or has reason to believe that it has
begun or expects to begin to use or manufacture as an
intermediate or final product or byproduct any toxic
pollutant which was not reported in the permit application?
5. Is the permit effective for a fixed term which does not
exceed 5 years from date of issuance?
17-8
-------
CHECKLIST B-2
Permit Conditions: SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Question
1. Are any special conditions requiring best management
practices (BMPs) included in the permit? Identify and
specify reason for inclusion (part of guideline, substitute
for numeric limitations, etc.)*
Does the permit
expects to use
intermediate or
application indicate that permittee does or
>r manufacture any toxic substance as an
final product or byproduct? (See Form 2C,
Item VI-A.) Have any conditions for the substances so
indicated been Included in the permit? If not, does permit
documentation explain the omission?
3. Does the permit application indicate that there are
intermittent discharges at the outfall? (See Form 2C, Item
II-C) Are they addressed in the permit? Identify any
unexplained omissions.
4. Does the permit include any biological toxicity testing
requirements? Briefly describe the requirements and their
basis.
5. Does the permit include any limitations or conditions for
internal waste -streams? Describe the- limitations/conditions
and the circumstances that make them necessary.
17-9
-------
CHECKLIST C-l
Effluent Limitations: TRANSLATING THE PERMIT APPLICATION
TO PERMITLIMITATIONS
Introduction; Question #1 applies to all outfalls. For the
remaing questions, complete one checklist for each individual
outfall selected by the review team for review.
Question
1. Have a set of effluent limitaions or conditions been
included in the permit for every outfall? (See Form 2C, Item
III-B)
2. For which pollutants are limitations or conditions included
in the permit for: (Identify in an attachment)
a. BPT;
b. BAT; and
c. BCT?
3. Are there pollutants for which limitations or conditions are
not included but which might be appropriate to limit?
Identify the pollutants and the reasons for including
limitations.
CHECKLIST C-2
Effluent Limitations: BASIS FOR LIMITATIONS
Introduction; Complete one checklist for each individual outfall
selected by the review team for review.
Question
1. Are the pollutant limitations based on any of the following:
a. BPT;
b. BCT;
c. BAT;
d. NSPS;
e. Water quality standards?
f. Previous permit
g. Other
(Specify)
2. Are limitations for all pollutants in continuous discharges
expressed as both maximum daily values and average monthly
values? (If "yes", skip to #4)
3. List those pollutants for which either limit is omitted,
where the omission is inappropriate.
4. List any pollutants limited by mass or concentration that
should have been limited in the other fora and indicate the
reason it should have been listed in the other form.
17-10
-------
CHECKLIST C-3
Effluent Limitations: APPLICABLE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
Introduction; complete one checklist for each individual outfall
selected by the review team for review, if effluent guidelines
are applicable.
Question
1. Were promulgated effluent guidelines applicable to the
source category at the time permit was under consideration?
(See Form 1, Items III and XII) (If "no", skip to Checklist
C-4) If not, does the permit contain a reopener clause?
2. WEre effluent guideline limitations used as a basis for
permit effluent limitations at the outfall.
3. Did the permittee receive a variance based on the presence
of "fundamentally different factors" from those on which-the
guideline was-based? (If "yes", skip to Checklist C-4)
4. Are applicable effluent guidelines limitations based on
production?
(If «no", skip to #9)
5. Was production basis in the permit a reasonable measure of
average actual production, not design production capacity?
(See Form 2C, Items III-B and C.)
Specify production basis:
a. Maximum production during high month of previous
year;
b. Monthly average for the highest of previous;
c. Other: .
17-11
-------
CHECKLIST C-3 (continued)
Effluent Limitations: APPLICABLE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
Question
6. Does the permit documentation indicate the means used to
determine actual production?
Specify:
a. In permit application;
b. Other: , ; •
7. Does the permit documentation indicate that the permit
writer conducted any follow-up activites to confirm
production estimates?
8. Have alternate permit limitations been included to address
different production levels?
Specify the number of tiers of limits:
9. Are all pollutant limitations in the applicable guidelines
included in the permit? List any that are not.
10. Was the adjustment formula for disposal to wells, POTW's, or
land application applicable (40 CFR 122.50)? (If '•no", go to
C-4) Was it used?
17-12
-------
CHECKLIST C-4
Effluent Limitations: BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
Introduction; This checklist is intended to point review team
inquiry toward those questions which can help in determining
whether or not the BPJ analysis was "reasonable". Review team
should provide a qualitative explanation of the limitation
development process on the evaluation form. Complete one
checklist for each individual outfall selected by the review team
for review.
Question
1. Is a BPJ analysis (for BPT, BAT, or BCT) missing where it
seems to be required? Identify the outfall, pollutant(s),
and type of limitation.
2. Indicate which of the following sources were used in
establishing any BPJ limitations:
a. Promulgated Guideline
b. Proposed Guideline
c. Development Document
d. Treatability Manual
e. Other (specify)
3. Identify any significant sources not used which should have
been.
4. Indicate what method was used to establish BPJ/BCT for
conventional pollutants.
5. - Have effluent guidelines been promulgated since the time,of
permit issuance? If "yes", indicate the relative stringency
of guideline limitations in permit:
(Note if unable to determine this.)
17-13
-------
CHECKLIST C-5
Effluent Limitations: WATER QUALITY BASED LIMITATIONS
Introduction: This checklist is intended to point review team
inquiry toward those questions which can help in determining
whether or not the water quality analysis was "reasonable."
Review team should provide a qualitative explanation of the
limitation development process on the evaluation form. Complete
one checklist for each individual outfall selected by the review
team for review.
Question
1. Is a water quality analysis missing where it seems to be
required? Identify outfalls(s) and pollutants.
2. Identify type of water quality limitation in permit (:free
from", numerical, or both).
3. Is basis of the water quality based limitation identified in
the permit file?
Specify:
a. State certification
b. Water quality modeling
c. Other: ,
x''
4. Were water quality standards included in the permit in lieu
of effluent limitations?
5. Have all applicable water quality standards toward which
water quality-analysis is directed been clearly identified?
6. Are current water quality conditions clearly identified?
If possible, specify basis:
a. Actual water quality
b. Estimated water quality
7. Does the permit document that water quality-based
limitations are at least as stringent as BPT, BCT, or BAT
standard?
8. Were water quality modeling and a mixing zone used in
establishing the limitation?
(If "no", skip to #20)
b. Inputs to Quantitative Analysis;
9. Has the outfall discharge rate used in analysis been clearly
identified? (See Form 2C, item II)
a. Average discharge rate
b. Maximum discharge rate
c. other:
17-14
-------
CHECKLIST C-5 (Continued)
Effluent Limitations: WATER QUALITY BASED LIMITATIONS
10. Has the stream flow rate used in the analysis been clearly
identified? If possible, specify whether:
a. Low flow rate (years of record)
b. Average flow rate
c. Other:
11. Was the analysijs directed toward water quality within a
mixing zone? (it "yes", skip to 113)
12. Has the analysis directed toward water quality beyond the
mixing zone (i.fe., wasteload allocation modeling)
(If "yes",?skip to 117)
c. Quantitative Analysis; Mixing Zone
13. Are the size and configuration of the mixing zone clearly
identified?
14. Has the water quality model used been clearly identified?
Speci f y: /_
15. Were the impacts of other major dischargers taken into
account in the analysis?
16. Does the permit documentation demonstrate that, based on
modeling conclusions/ applicable water quality standards.
were met in the mixing zone?
(If "yes", skip to 120)
d. Quantitative Analysis; Wasteload Allocation
17. Has the water quality model used been clearly identified?
Speci fy: ; •
18. Were the impacts of other major dischargers taken into
account in the analysis?
19. Does the permit documentation indicate the level of
discharges and limitations assumed for other major sources?
20. Does the permit documentation demonstrate that, based on
modeling conclusions, applicable water quality standards are
met? If not, does the permit documentation explain why the
limitation was used in spite of modeling results?
Specify:
17-15
-------
CHECKLIST D-l
Monitoring Requirements: DISCHARGE SAMPLING
Introduction; Complete one checklist for each individual outfall
selected by the review team for review.
Question
1. Does the permit require monitoring for every pollutant for
which limitations are included in the permit? List any
inappropriate omissions.
2. Does the permit stipulate, either in the general conditions
or in the permit limitations, that monitoring for all
pollutants with limitations be conducted according to test
procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136? Identify any
exceptions.
3. Does the permit require monitoring the volume of effluent
discharged from the outfall? If not, is an explanation
provided?
4. Are effluent sampling frequencies specified for every
pollutant ror which monitoring is require? Specify for each
pollutant (e.g., daily, weekly, quarterly, etc.):
CHECKLIST D-2
Monitoring Requirements: DISCHARGE REPORTING
Question
1. Are there any pollutants for which discharge monitoring
reports are not required at least once a year? List then.
2. Is reporting on discharge monitoring report (DMR) forms
required?
3. Specify discharge reporting frequency or frequencies
required in permit for the outfall under review (e.g.,
monthly, quarterly, etc.):
17-16
-------
CHECKLIST E-l
Compliance Schedules: INCLUSION IN PERMIT
Introduction: Complete one checklist for each individual outfall
selected by the review team for review.
Question
1. Does the permit include a compliance schedule(s) for each
outfall which is not in compliance with the limitations
specified in the permit?
2. Does the permit documentation provide an explanation of why
compliance schedules were not included where necessary?
Identify if an explanation was not provided.
CHECKLIST E-2
Compliance Schedules: INTERIM AND FINAL REQUIREMENTS
Question
1, Are distinct interim requirements -(milestones) with specific.
dates included in compliance schedule(s)?
2. Does the compliance schedule provide for compliance by
ceasing the regulated activity? If so, is a date certain
identified?
3. Does the compliance schedule include:
a. A date certain for the permittee to decide whether or
not to cease the regulated activity;
b. A compliance schedule in the event that the decision is
to continue the regulated activity, and
c. A schedule for cessation of the regulated activity in
the event that the decision is to cease the activity?
4. Is the time between each interim date in the compliance
schedule (s) less than one year? If not, does the permit.
specify interim dates for submission of reports?
5. Does the compliance schedule provide for final compliance by
the appropriate time? (7-1-84 in most cases)
6. Has the source received a section 301(k) (innovative
technology) waiver to extend the compliance date up to
7-1-87?
7. was an ECSL or Section 309 (a) (5) (A) order with a compliance
schedule ever issued? If so:
a. Did the facility meet the criteria for issuance of the
ECSL/order?
b. Was the facility in compliance with the ECSL/order?
c. Was a subsequent enforcement action brought?
17-17
-------
TOOLS TO DETER VIOLATORS
Informal contacts
Notice of violation
Administrative orders
Civil suit
Criminal suit
Termination
CITIZENS AND ENFORCEMENT
Section 505 allows citizen suits (civil action) after 60-day notice
to EPA/States and permittee
Penalties to U.S. or State Treasury
Citizens can recover court costs
Supreme Court: Gwaltnev decision
NOTES:
17-18
-------
EPAfs PRINCIPLE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
(see §122.41 (a))
Administrative Order
Schedule for compliance
Interim limits
APO Class I/n ($25,000/$125,000)
Civil Action
Brought in U. S. District Court
Injunction
Judicially enforceable schedule
Civil penalties (up to $25,00 per day per violation)
Criminal Action
Negligent violations* ($2,500 - $25,000 and 1 yr. imprisonment)
Knowing violations* ($5,000 - $50,000 and 3 yrs. imprisonment)
Imminent endangerment* ($250,000 and 15 yrs. imprisonment)
*Doubles for second or subsequent violations
NOTES:
17-19
-------