SP
Office of Water
Office of Wastewater Management
SECTION 106 PROJECT OFFICERS*
ORIENTATION To
STATE WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
-------
COURSE INTRODUCTION
This is an introductory course. Its objective is to give new regional water program
project officers a basic understanding of state water quality management programs. It
is designed to present the information a project officer needs to know in order to
negotiate effective water quality management work programs with states and interstate
agencies. Thus, the course provides an overview of the entire water quality manage-
ment process, not an in-depth discussion of any single component. The course
illustrates how the water quality management program components, or processes,
relate to each other and explains their basis in the Clean Water Act and Environmental
Protection Agency regulations.
Although, the primary audience for this course is new project officers in the regions, it
is appropriate for other regional office staff (including experienced project officers)
and state program staff. This course is to be offered in conjunction with the Head-
quarters Grants Administration Division's grants administration course, "Managing
Your Financial Assistance Agreement—Project Officer Responsibilities."
Course Content
This course begins with a review of the statutory and regulatory bases for state water
quality management and ground water protection. It discusses the two types of
assistance agreements, grants and cooperative agreements, and examines the role and
responsibilities of the 106 project officer. The course concludes with a description of
the process for developing a state work program including: developing regional
guidance, negotiating, and monitoring and evaluating performance.
This information is organized into nine modules:
Module 1: The Process of State Water Quality Management
Module 2: Ground Water Protection
Module 2A: Program Coordination Through the Watershed Protection Approach
Module 3: Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Module 4: Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Module 5: Developing Regional Guidance
Module 6: Negotiating the Work Program
Module 7: Performance Management
Module 8: Special Subjects
Module 1 sets the stage with an overview of the evolution of the statutory framework
(specifically, the requirements of the Clean Water Act) which serves as the foundation
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Course Introductio
for state'water quality management. The module discusses the complexity of the state
water quality management program and takes a look at each of the program activities
that comprise state water quality management. Six program activities are presented in
detail: Designating Uses, Criteria Development and Adoption; Assessment/Water
Quality Monitoring; Total Maximum Daily Loads; Implementing Point Source Controls,
Implementing Nonpoint Source Controls; and Water Quality Program Management. At
the end of this module, the planning process is emphasized with a discussion of Wat&
Quality Management (WQM) Planning, WQM Plans and the Continuing Planning
Process (CPP), and Priority Setting.
Module 2 examines ground water protection, including: funding eligibility, priority
setting, coordination, implementation strategies, information management, public
education, and a review of the EPA ground water protection program.
Module 2A provides an overview of the Watershed Protection Approach and its
leading form for States, the Statewide Basin Management Approach (BMA). The nine
basic components of a BMA are reviewed, along with the stages of BMA development
and implementation.
Module 3 provides an overview of grants and cooperative agreements and reviews the
program elements eligible for funding under Section 106, agency policy, and the
process of applying for an assistance agreement.
Module 4 examines the role and responsibilities of the project officer, including: the
legal basis for the project officer's authority; the roles of federal, state, and local
agencies; and the unique nature of state programs. The issue of limited resources
versus workload is discussed along with how the project officer manages these
challenges. The module ends with a review of the cooperative agreement process.
Module 5 addresses the development of regional guidance: the role and basis of
guidance, requirements and restrictions, and the elements in a guidance document.
Module 6 explains the process of negotiating a work program, including: content an<
objectives; the sequence of events; scheduling; and the role of the project officer in
negotiating, monitoring, and evaluating the plan.
Module 7 discusses the elements of performance management, evaluation strategies,
mid-year and end-of-year reviews, reports and products, and the types and application
of incentives and sanctions. An appendix to Module 7 provides an example of a work
program tracking system.
1-2
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Couise Introduction
Module 8 introduces special subjects that affect state water quality management pro-
grams, including: quality assurance (requirements, monitoring objectives, docu-
mentation, and project elements) and pollution prevention (priorities and incorpora-
tion into the work program).
1-3
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Course Introduction
Course Materials
This is the Participant Manual. It contains all of the viewgraphs and information
required to achieve the overall course objective. The top of each page is a viewgraph
which presents the key points of the material. The text beneath each viewgraph
provides more detail and examples as appropriate. Legislative references are provided
for all mandated activities and programs. The Reference Manual which accompanies
this course contains a copy of the Clean Water Act, applicable regulations, policy
memoranda, and other materials that supplement the information provided in the
modules.
The course was developed with substantial regional office input into the design and
contents of the course. It is designed to be a regional training program to be revised
and maintained by the Regions with continued oversight by Headquarters Office of
Wastewater Management (OWM) to ensure national consistency in implementation.
To facilitate regional involvement and input into the development of this course, Jane
Ephremides, Director, Resource Management Evaluation Staff, Office of Wastewater
Management and Carol Crow, Headquarters Section 106 Coordinator established a
steering committee consisting of Regional Water Quality Coordinators:
Mr. wllliam Nuzzo, Region 1
Ms. Alice Jenik, Region 2
Ms. Signe Pereira, Region 2
Mr. Gene Mattis, Region 3
Mr. Ken Cox, Region 3
Ms. Grace Deatrick, Region 4
Ms. Janet Causey, Region 5
Ms. Debora Dawley, Region 5
Mr. Russell Bowen, Region 6
Mr. Larry Ferguson, Region 7
Mr. John Houlihan, Region 7
Mr. Rick Claggett, Region 8
Ms. Cheryl McGovern, Region 9
Mr. Rick Albright, Region 10
1-4
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Course Introduction
In addition, advice and review was sought from key headquarters personnel. They
include:
Mr. Donald Brady, OWOW
Ms. Elizabeth Jester, OWOW
Ms. Mary Belefski, OWOW
Mr. Kenneth Hay, OGDW
Mr. George Hoessel, OGDW
Ms. Frances DeSalle, OST
Mr. Dave Sabock, OST
Mr. Robert Wood, OWM
Mr. James Pendergast, OWM
Ms. Corrine Allison, GAD
1-5
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality
Management
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Module 1: The Process of State Water Quality Management 1-1
Designating Uses, Criteria Development and Adoption 1-13
Assessment/WQ Monitoring 1-27
Total Maximum Daily Loads 1-39
Implement Point Source Controls 1-55
Implement Nonpoint Source Controls 1-93
Program Management 1-102
Module 1: Appendices
Statutory and Regulatory References
Permit Issuance Procedures
Example Permit
Module 2: Ground Water Protection 2-1
Module 2A: Program Coordination Through the Watershed
Protection Approach (WPA) 2A-1
The Statewide Basin Management Approach (BMA) 2A-6
BMA Development and Implementation Steps 2A-22
Module 3: Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements 3-1
Module 4: Project Officer Role and Responsibilities 4-1
Module 5: Developing Regional Guidance 5-1
Module 6: Negotiating the Work Program 6-1
Module 7: Performance Management 7-1
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management _ _ _ Table of Contents
Module 7: Appendices
Example of a Work Program Tracking System
Module 8: Special Subjects .....................................
Quality Assurance ........................................ 8-1
Pollution Prevention ..................................... 8-13
REFERENCE MANUAL
Who's Who in the Regions
40 CFR 25
40 CFR 30
40 CFR 31
40 CFR 35, Subpart A
40 CFR 130
40 CFR 131
Superceded Regulations for Background Information
The 1987 Clean Water Act
WEF Users' Guide to the Clean Water Act of 1987
Performance Based Assistance Policy
11
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Glossary of Acronyms
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
Acronym
AC&C
AG
AOA
AOG
BMA
BMP
BOD
BPJ
CBI
CEI
CERCLA
CFR
COD
CPP
CR
CSGWPP
CSI
CSO
CWA
CZARA
DI
DMR
DOJ
Abatement, Control, and Compliance
Attorney General
Advice of Allowance
Agency Operating Guidance
Basin Management Approach
Best Management Practice
Biological Oxygen Demand
Best Professional Judgement
Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Continuing Planning Process
Continuing Resolution
Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection Program
Compliance Sampling Inspection
Combined Sewer Overflow
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
Diagnostic Inspection
Discharge Monitoring Report
Department of Justice
111
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Glossary of Acronyms
DQO
EPA
ESD
FMF1A
FMO
FWPCA
GAO
GMO
HQ
IFMS
ISTEA
ITFM
LA
LC
LTCCP
MOD
MOA
MOS
MOU
NOAA
NOI
NPDES
NFS
NRDC
O&M
OMB
ORC
OW
Data Quality Objective
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Sciences Division
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
Financial Management Office
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
General Accounting Office
Grants Management Office
Headquarters
Integrated Financial Management System
Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
Load Allocation
Loading Capacity
Long-Term CSO Control Plan
Million Gallons Per Day
Memorandum of Agreement
Margin of Safety
Memorandum of Understanding
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Notice of Intent
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Nonpoint Source
Natural Resources Defense Council
Operation and Maintenance
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Regional Counsel
Office of Water
IV
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Glossary of Acronyms
OWM
P2
PAI
PCI
PCS
P.O.
POTW
PT
QA
QAPP
QA/QC
QMP
QNCR
RI
RO
SCS
SRF
STORET
TMDL
TRI
TSS
UIC
uses
UST
WLA
WPA
WQ
WQM
Office of Wastewater Management
Pollution Prevention
Performance Audit Inspections
Pretreatment Compliance Inspection
Permit Compliance System
Project Officer
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Pretreatment
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality Management Plan
Quarterly Noncomphance Report
Reconnaissance Inspection
Regional Office
Soil Conservation Service
State Revolving Fund
EPA's database for STORage and RETrieval of water quality data
Total Maximum Daily Load
Toxics Release Inventory
Total Suspended Solids
Underground Injection Control
United States Geological Survey
Underground Storage Tank
Wasteload Allocation
Watershed Protection Approach
Water Quality
Water Quality Management
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Glossary of Acronyms
wos
Water Quality Standard
XSI
Toxics Sampling Inspection
VI
-------
Module 1:
The Process of State Water Quality
Management
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
History of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)
• First Federal Involvement
• Studies & Funding
• Water Quality-Based
Approach
• Technology-Based Controls
• Combined Approach
VIEWGRAPH #1:
KEY POINTS
History of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899: Prohibited deposit of refuse into "navigable water
of the United States." The federal government enforced the statute. Its primary
purpose was to facilitate navigation.
Water Pollution Control Act of 1948: Required that technical assistance in water
pollution control be provided to states and local governments. There were, however,
no federal goals, objectives, limits, or guidelines.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956: Provided for pollution studies and
started large-scale funding of publicly owned treatment works.
Water Quality Act of 1965: Introduced a water quality-based approach to water
quality management Specifically, it required the development of state water quality
standards for interstate waters. Enforcement was limited: an action against a
discharger had to be based on a showing that the discharge reduced the quality of the
receiving waters below the standards, or that it endangered health and welfare.
1-1
-------
Orientation to State Water Qua*
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Clean Water Act
• I - Research and Related Programs
• II - Grants for Construction of
Treatment Works
• III - Standards and Enforcement
• FV - Permits and Licenses
• V - General Provisions
• VI - State Water Pollution Control
Revolving Funds
VIEWGRAPH #2:
KEY POINTS
Clean Water Act
The numbers of the titles in the Clean Water Act can assist you in learning about die
statute. For example, the first digit in each section number refers to its tide. Thus, for
example, CWA § 205 is in Tide II, CWA § 402 is in Tide IV, and CWA § 319 is in Tide
III.
The structure of die Act also mirrors its historical evolution. Tide I provides for
research and related programs, and Tide II is grants for construction of treatment
works. Both of diese federal activities go back to die Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1956. Tide III, standards and enforcement, was added by die Water Quality Act
of 1965, with its emphasis on a water quality-based approach to water quality
management. Tide IV, permits, reflects die emphasis on technology-based effluent
limitations of die National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program in
die Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972. Tide VI, for state water
pollution control revolving funds, was added in die Clean Water Act of 1987.
1-3
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
EPA & State Programs
• EPA Programs Establish
Objectives and Framework
• State Develops Total
Program Needed in State
VIEWGRAPH #3:
KEY POINTS
EPA & State Programs
Summary of EPA and State Programs in Water Quality Management
EPA programs establish national objectives and regulatory framework, promote
delegation of regulatory programs to states, and support mat delegation in a
manner that ensures achievement of national objectives.
State water quality programs are programs legislatively mandated by state
legislatures. They do much more than simply administer programs delegated
by EPA. The delegated EPA programs are the minimum programs acceptable
from the federal perspective. They are not me total program needed in any
state.
As an example of the unique aspects of state programs, consider the fact that
many states permit all discharges in the state. NPDES, by definition, permits
only discharges to navigable waters. Examples of discharges into waters that are
not navigable include discharges to irrigation systems, discharges to ground
water, and so forth. In California, more than half of all permitted facilities do
not discharge to navigable waters. These regulated facilities require inspection,
monitoring, and may require enforcement.
1-4
-------
Onentation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
Another example: many states locate the agencies that regulate water quality
with those that regulate water quantity. There is a connection between these
two that is not made in federal law because quantity issues (particularly water
rights) are a state and local issue.
1-5
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
Water Quality Management
Process
1-7
-------
^
-50*
.*•
-^ ^\
^VWManageo^
Designating Uses
Criteria Development
and Adoption
\
\
'&
§
/
S"
&
• Designate Use
• Establish Criteria
• EPA Review
Vk1
%?*
°&
>•> ^
\\
%
. »
•o
^ i \\\ > 1
4 ^\ f^
xv ^. th.^« ««*>_ ^ IP /=n^ o«io^
*\ V<$**+ r \ £$*$&?* *
\°* \&*&S / *lssue \ o*^r^^° -f
I %& ^J^<\^ /and ReissueX •^^^^oj1 ^
\ °«\ \V f /Industrialand \^/V// /£
\ °G^ \ \ /Municipal Permits\ • vfr/^ ^f
\ %% % /• Monitor ComplianceX frC^wp ^x
\ \ ^»*k / •Enforcement \^ ' J^V>
\%% / 'Manage POTW \ #Qj
* / Construction \ /
• Facility Plans \ /
Implement \r <$&
Point Source Controls^x^ ^ *X
' ^ ,
t
<&
7%
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
VIEWGRAPH #4:
KEY POINTS
State Water Quality Management Programs (1)
This wheel represents the entire water quality management process. Obviously this
wheel and the process are very complex. The many components of the process are
interrelated and are all designed to help the state meet its water quality standards
(WQS). To facilitate understanding of the process, we will discuss each component of
the wheel separately.
1-9
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
VIEWGRAPH #5: State Water Quality Management Programs (2)
KEY POINTS
The diagram in the viewgraph will be used throughout this course to organize the
elements of state water quality management programs included in a Section 106
assistance agreement.
This diagram shows that all activities coordinated by water quality management
planning are aimed at achieving water quality standards.
1-10
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
VIEWGRAPH #6:
KEY POINTS
State Water Quality Management Programs (3)
Starting at the top of the diagram, there are six key activities:
Designating uses, criteria development and adoption
Assessment and water quality monitoring
Establishing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
Implementing point source controls
Implementing nonpoint source controls
Program management
In terms of the sequence of activities, the first step is to designate uses and develop
and adopt criteria. These criteria establish measurable goals of water quality
management. The second step is to do an assessment of existing water quality to
determine if water bodies meet these criteria. To the extent that criteria are not met,
the process of establishing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) allocates control
responsibilities and develops an integrated pollution control strategy for point and
nonpoint sources. Having defined control responsibilities, the next steps are to
implement point and nonpoint source controls. The final category of activities is
program management.
1-11
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality A- uugeinent The Process of State Water Quality Management
The outer ring of the diagram is the water quality management planning process. This
is designed to coordinate all six activities.
The six activities will be used to organize our discussion of state water quality
management programs.
1-12
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
VIEWGRAPH #7: Designating Uses, Criteria Development and Adoption
KEY POINTS
This is the first activity in the wheel. Our discussion of this activity will address the
following subjects:
An introduction to the concept of water quality standards
Designating uses and establishing criteria to protect those uses
Antidegradation policy and use attainability analyses
The state role
The EPA role
Each of these will be discussed in the following section of this module.
1-13
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
What is a Water Quality
Standard?
• Designate Use
• Establish Criteria
Appropriate for Use
VIEWGRAPH #8:
KEY POINTS
What is a Water Quality Standard?
A water quality "standard" (WQS) designates the desired uses for a body of water,
and establishes water quality criteria to protect those uses. By "water quality
criteria" we mean specific levels of water quality that, if not exceeded, will probably
result in a body of water suitable for its designated uses. Uses may include aquatic
life, recreation, public water supply, industrial or agricultural water supply, etc. Water
quality criteria are expressed in terms of concentration, frequency, and duration.
Concentration levels vary during times of the year due to varying hydrologic
conditions (i.e., storm events, droughts, etc.). Flow conditions are specified to clarify
the ambient conditions when standards will be attained. WQS can also be based on
higher quality water conditions to protect ambient water quality.
1-14
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Designated Uses:
Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife
Recreation
Public Water Supplies
Agricultural Purposes
Industrial Purposes
Other Purposes (navigation)
VIEWGRAPH #9:
KEY POINTS
Designated Uses:
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 130.3 establishes the role of water quality
standards in water quality management.
"A WQS defines the water quality goals of a water body, or portion thereof, by
designating die use or uses to be made of the water and by setting criteria
necessary to protect the uses. States and EPA adopt WQS to protect public
health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). "Serve the purposes of the Act" (as defined in [CWA
§ 101(a)(2) and § 303(c),]) means that WQS should, wherever attainable,
provide water quality for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and
wildlife and for recreation in and on the water and take into consideration
their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish, shellfish,
wildlife, recreation in and on the water, and agricultural, industrial and other
purposes including navigation."
Since most waters have many uses, and many criteria to protect those uses, water
quality control efforts should focus on protecting the most sensitive designated use.
Waste assimilation is not a recognized, acceptable use for waters of the U.S.
1-15
-------
Orientation to Sate Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Dual Purpose of WQS
• Establish Water Quality
Goals
• Regulatory Basis for Water
Quality-Based Controls
VIEWGRAPH #10:
KEY POINTS
Dual Purpose of WQS
The standards described in 40 CFR 130.3 serve a dual purpose.
"Such standards serve the dual purposes of establishing the water quality
goals for a specific water body and serving as the regulatory basis for
establishment of water quality-based treatment controls and strategies
beyond the technology-based level of treatment required by [CWA § 301(b) and
§ 306]. States shall review and revise WQS in accordance with applicable
regulations and, as appropriate, update their Water Quality Management (WQM)
plans to reflect such revisions. Specific WQS requirements are found in [40
CFR 131]."
1-16
-------
Orientation to Stmie Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
WQS Special
Considerations
Antidegradation
Use Attainability Analysis
Endangered Species Act
VIEWGRAPH #11:
KEY POINTS
WQS Special Considerations
Policy
40 CFR 131.12 requires states to develop and adopt a statewide antidegradation
policy and to specify how the policy will be implemented. Regulations, policies,
and procedures for implementing antidegradation policies ensure protection of
existing uses, consideration of alternatives to degrading existing high levels of
water quality, and protection of outstanding national resource waters.
Use A<>a*MarliHtv Analysis
CWA § 101(a)(2): It is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim
goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be
achieved by July 1, 1983. This has come to be known as the
"fishable/swimmable" goal.
When a state believes mat the level of water quality mentioned above is not
attainable, the state must perform a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) to support
that belief (40 CFR 131.100)) A UAA "is a structured scientific assessment of
1-17
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
die factors affecting the attainment of die use which may include physical,
chemical, biological, and economic factors." (40 CFR 131.3(g))
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) established methods to conserve species of
fish, wildlife, and plants threatened wim extinction. Under Section 7 of ESA,
each federal agency is required to "utilize their authority in furtherance of the
purposes of this Act" and to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to "insure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency ... is not
likely to jeopardize die continued existence of endangered and threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [their critical
habitat]," unless granted an exception under conference procedures outlined in
ESA. (50 CFR 402)
Currently, implementation of ESA is coordinated through the U.S. Department
of die Interior (USDI) Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and die USDI National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Formal consultations with these agencies
under ESA may not be needed if: (a) a biological assessment is prepared; or
(b) an informal consultation concludes mat no threat from me proposed action
is projected; and (c) me Service(s) provides a written concurrence.
EPA, FWS, and NMFS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on July
27, 1992, regarding development of water quality criteria and standards. This
MOA establishes die procedures to be followed by these agencies to ensure
compliance with ESA § 7 in the development of water quality criteria and
standards published under section CWA § 304(a) and § 303(c), with the aim of
increasing protection of endangered and threatened species and their critical
habitats.
1-18
-------
Orientation to State Waf Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Manageme
Types of Standards
> Numeric
Quantifiable
Human Health/Aquatic Life
> Narrative
Unquantiflable
Address Interacting Factors
VIEWGRAPH #12:
KEY POINTS
Types of Standards
Numeric water quality criteria:
Are used when a particular quantitative level of a physical, chemical, or
biological parameter can be established to protect a designated waterbody use.
They can be applied on a statewide or site-specific basis.
Are used for toxics when the cause of the toxicity is known (i.e., specific
chemical). Toxic standards may be set for the more stringent of human health
or aquatic life protection levels (though usually this decision is made during
the implementation phase), and are often expressed in units of concentration.
Narrative water quality criteria:
Are usually used when the critical levels of a parameter of concern are either
not quantifiable or where they vary according to circumstances (e.g., no
noticeable algal growths).
Are also used where protection of a use may depend on the control of a
number of interacting pollutants or other environmental stressors. For
example, a narrative standard is often adopted for toxicity in general (e.g., no
1-19
-------
Orientation to Slate Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
toxics in toxic amounts) where the toxicity cannot be traced to a singular
pollutant.
Narrative criteria are used when me cause of toxicity is known, but chemical-
specific numeric criteria have not been adopted. In these instances, EPA criteria
guidance or other quantifiable information is used to implement me narrative
criterion.
1-20
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
State Role
Establish WQS
Review WQS
Revise WQS
Hold Public Hearings
Minimum Requirements for
WQS Submittal
VIEWGRAPH #13: State Role
KEY POINTS
States are responsible for reviewing, establishing, and revising water quality
standards. (40 CFR 131.4)
According to CWA § 303(c)(l), each state shall from time to time (but at least once
each three years), hold public hearings for the purpose of reviewing applicable WQS
and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. Results of such review shall
be made available to the Administrator.
Minimum requirements for WQS submittal are specified in 40 CFR 131.6.
Use designations. (40 CFR 131.10)
Methods and analyses conducted to support WQS revisions.
Water quality criteria sufficient to protect designated uses. (40 CFR 131.11)
Antidegradation policy. (40 CFR 131.12) [Note: This protects higher quality
waters where that quality is necessary to maintain existing uses.]
1-21
-------
Orientation to State Water Qualln Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
Certification by state attorney general or other appropriate legal authority that
water quality standards were adopted pursuant to state law.
General information that will aid cPA in determining the adequacy of the
scientific basis of the standards.
1-22
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Federal Role
Develop Regulations,
Policies, and Guidance
Review New or Revised WQS
Promulgate WQS
VIEWGRAPH #14: Federal Role
KEY POINTS
EPA:
Develops regulations, policies, and guidance to facilitate implementation of
the WQS program.
Reviews new or revised state WQS to determine if standards meet CWA
requirements and ensure consistency with the Endangered Species Act.
May promulgate WQS for the state if it fails to submit WQS on time or if the
state submits standards that do not meet the regulatory requirements. (CWA
§ 303(b)(l))
1-23
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
EPA Checks That:
Uses Consistent with Act
Criteria Protect Uses
Legal Procedures Followed
Appropriate Data Used
Submission Meets
Requirements
VIEWGRAPH #15: EPA Checks That:
KEY POINTS
EPA Review Process (40 CFR 131.5).
When reviewing water quality standards, EPA makes the following determinations:
Uses are consistent with the Clean Water Act.
Water quality criteria protect uses.
Legal procedures have been followed.
Appropriate technical and scientific data and analyses were used.
Submission meets requirements in 40 CFR 131.6.
1-24
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
WQS Review Timeline
• Approval Within 60 Days
• Disapproval Within 90 Days
VIEWGRAPH #16:
KEY POINTS
WQS Review Timeline
Procedural aspects in EPA review: note the timeline.
After the state submits its officially adopted revised standards, the Regional
Administrator shall either: (1) Notify the state within 60 days that the revisions
are approved, or (2) notify the state within 90 days that the revisions are
disapproved. [40 CFR 131.21]
Before disapproving a state standard, EPA notifies the state of its intent to
disapprove the standard unless changes are made. EPA indicates what changes
must be made for the standard to be approved.
If a state fails to make the required changes, EPA initiates promulgation, setting
forth a new or revised water quality standard applicable to the state. The
federal rulemaking proceeds in a manner similar to the rulemaking procedures
of some states. A state WQS remains in effect, however, until the state revises it
or EPA promulgates a rule that supersedes the state WQS. [40 CFR 131.21(c)]
1-25
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
To further your knowledge of the water quality standards
and criteria programs, EPA provides
die Water Quality Standards Training Academy Course,
available through die Standards and Applied Science Division
of the Office of Science and Technology.
Contact: Frances Desselle (202) 260-1320
1-26
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
VIEWGRAPH #17: Assessments and Water Quality Monitoring
KEY POINTS
This is the second activity on the water quality management process wheel. The
subjects to be discussed in this area, include:
Types of water quality assessments required by states (e.g., the 305(b) report
and the 303(d) list)
Reporting schedules and statutory requirements
Ambient monitoring: current issues and new directions
Volunteer monitoring
1-27
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Types of Water Quality
Assessment Reports
• § 305 (b) - All Navigable
Waters
• § 303 (d) - Waters Not Likely
to Meet WQS With Only
Technology-Based Controls
• Specialized Assessments
VIEWGRAPH #18: Types of Water Quality Assessment Reports
KEY POINTS
Introduction to water quality (WQ) assessment reports
Given that water quality standards have been established, the purpose of assessment is
to determine whether designated uses have been met. Several different types of
assessments are required.
CWA § 305(b) requires biennial assessments of water quality for all navigable
waters. This report is the primary assessment of state water quality (40 CFR
130.8). The assessments determine whether designated uses are being
maintained.
According to "Guidelines for the Preparation of the [year] State Water
Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports)," the categories to be used in use
assessment are-.
Supporting
Support threatened
Partially supporting
Not supporting
1-28
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
These categories describe the relationship between the water quality and
the designated use (e.g., the water quality "supports" the designated use).
305(b) assessments cover surface and ground waters.
CWA § 303(d) requires states to identify waters not expected to meet WQS
with technology-based point source controls alone, i.e., those controls
required by CWA § 301 (b), § 306, or § 307, or nonpoint source controls
required by EPA or state agencies. It also requires states to prioritize impaired
waters for development of TMDLs.
The 303(d) list typically is a subset of impaired waters assessed under
CWA § 305(b) and described as "partially supporting" or "not supporting".
In addition to the assessments required by CWA § 305(b) and § 303(d), the
CWA also requires other specialized assessments, including:
CWA § 304(1) - A one-time report (due in 1989) that identifies waters
impaired by toxics (also known as "hot spots").
CWA § 3l4(a) - Assessment of impaired lakes.
CWA § 319(a) - Identify waters impaired by nonpoint sources.
These contribute to 305(b) and 303(d) assessments.
Regulations and guidance providing instructions for these assessments:
40 CFR 130.8 ("Water quality report") explains in detail the content of the
biennial 305(b) assessment and report by the state.
40 CFR 130.10 C'State submittals to EPA") mandates that states submit the
305(b) report, the 303(d) assessment, and the lists required by 304(1).
EPA Office of Water publishes guidelines prior to each reporting period
titled "Guidelines for the Preparation of the [year] State Water Quality
Assessments (305(b) Reports)." These guidelines provide instructions
and categories for use assessment.
Section 106 funds typically fund the state water quality monitoring used in
assessments.
1-29
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Reporting Schedules
• Even # Years:
§ 305 (b) Assessments
§ 303(d) Updates
• Odd # Years:
§ 305 (b) Certification or
Update
VIEWGRAPH #19:
KEY POINTS
Reporting Schedules
CWA § 305(b) assessments are due April 1 of every even-numbered year. According to
40 CFR 130.8, in those years in which it is submitted, me 305(b) report satisfies the
requirement for the annual water quality report under CWA § 205Q). In years when
the 305(b) report is not required, states may meet the 2050) requirements by
certifying that the most recently submitted 305(b) report is current, or by updating the
305(b) report.
CWA § 205(j)(2)(Q requires that recipients of 2050) grants determine the
"nature, extent, and causes of water quality problems in various areas of the
State and interstate region," and report on these annually.
Incorporated in the CWA § 305(b) report are CWA § 314 lake assessments, and CWA
§ 319 nonpoint source assessments.
According to 40 CFR 130.7 as amended (see 57 Federal Register 33040; Friday, July
24, 1992), the first 303(d) list was due on October 22, 1992. Updates are due April 1
of every even-numbered year thereafter. A copy of the amendment to 40 CFR 130.7
(57 Federal Register 33040) can be found behind the 1992 version of 40 CFR 130 in
the reference manual of this course.
1-30
-------
Orientation to State Water' .ally Management TOe Process of Suite Water Quality Management
According to CWA § 303(d)(2), the Administrator shall approve or disapprove the
identification of water quality-limited waters within 30 days after submission by the
state.
Unlike 303(d) lists, 305(b) reports are accepted, rather than approved, by EPA.
1-31
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Statutory Requirement
Must Monitor Water Quality
Must Provide Annual
Updates
VIEWGRAPH #20:
KEY POINTS
Statutory Requirement
CWA § 106(e)(l) stipulates that the Administrator shall not make any grant under CWA
§ 106 to a state that has not provided, or is not carrying out as part of its program:
"The establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and
procedures necessary to monitor, and to compile and analyze data on (including
classification according to eutrophic condition), the quality of navigable waters and to
the extent practicable, ground waters including biological monitoring; and provision
for annually updating such data and including it in [the (305(b) report)]."
40 CFR 130.4 says that a state's monitoring program shall include quality assurance
and quality control programs to ensure scientifically valid data.
1-32
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Monitoring Types
Ambient Monitoring
Intensive Surveys
Compliance Monitoring
VIEWGRAPH #21: Monitoring Types
KEY POINTS
The three types of monitoring activities funded by CWA § 106 are:
1) Ambient monitoring
2) Intensive surveys
3) Compliance monitoring
1-33
-------
Orientation to State Water Qual)r Management
The Pioceas of State Water Quality Management
Ambient Monitoring
Helps Evaluate:
WQM Progress
WQS Attainment
Source Controls Required
Necessity of WQS Revision
VIEWGRAPH #22:
KEY POINTS
Ambient Monitoring Helps Evaluate:
Through ambient monitoring, the states and EPA assess the effectiveness of point and
nonpoint source controls. In doing so, it is possible to determine whether water
quality standards are attained, whether additional point and nonpoint source controls
are required, and whether water quality standards should be revised.
1-34
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
New Monitoring
Directions
Geographic Targeting
Biological Diversity
Wetlands, Habitat &
Sediment
VIEWGRAPH #23:
KEY POINTS
New Monitoring Directions
EPA is undertaking new efforts to implement an integrated nationwide monitoring
strategy to ensure that monitoring programs change to support new water program
directions such as geographic targeting, biological diversity, wetlands, habitat, and
sediment.
1-35
-------
(Mentation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
ITFM
Institutional Framework
Choose & Monitor Core
Indicators
Store & Share Data
Assess & Report Data
VIEWGRAPH #24: ITFM
KEY POINTS
The nationwide monitoring effort is headed by die Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM), chaired by EPA. ITFM is looking to:
Devise an institutional framework to better integrate existing federal, state, local,
and private monitoring activities.
Choose core environmental indicators to monitor.
Use comparable methods to monitor indicators; store and share data in each
agency's information system so it can be easily shared.
Assess data and report information to support management decisions.
1-36
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
EPA & Ambient
Monitoring
Emphasizes State Programs
Program Elements Eligible
for Funding
VIEWGRAPH #25: EPA & Ambient Monitoring
KEY POINTS
EPA's portion of the nationwide monitoring strategy emphasizes states and state
monitoring programs. The 106 program is important in supporting and managing
monitoring programs.
Ambient monitoring elements eligible for 106 funding include: development and
continued planning of monitoring strategies and plans (objectives); monitoring design
(including stations/parameters), frequency (i.e, fixed station network, intensive
surveys, targeted areas under watershed, multi-program and individual programs, and
biological and physical integrity monitoring (including reference site characterization));
development of written protocols (field/lab/assessment); laboratory analytical support;
quality assurance/quality control (field/lab/data); data storage, management, and
sharing; assessment; reporting (including CWA § 305(b)); monitoring and data
management training; volunteer monitoring; and evaluation.
1-37
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Cooperative & Volunteer
Monitoring
• Maximize Limited Resources
• Use Volunteers
• Scientifically Valid Data
VIEWGRAPH #26:
KEY POINTS
Cooperative & Volunteer Monitoring
Cooperative monitoring involves shared efforts by individuals or groups in assessing
water quality conditions. Such projects require careful planning and strong
management and Quality Assurance (QA) controls. This approach can provide a
mechanism to maximize limited resources and may help encourage "grass-roots"
support for water quality awareness and improvement. In addition to making more
efficient use of resources, cooperative monitoring enables the user to have more site-
specific data from which to develop site-specific water quality criteria.
Volunteer monitoring involves the use of volunteers in identifying sources of
pollution, tracking the progress of protection and restoration projects, and reporting
special events such as fish kills and storm damage.
Current guidance describes factors to be considered in designing and implementing
cooperative and volunteer monitoring projects so that water quality data are
scientifically valid and state water pollution control agencies have the necessary
information for final review and approval of all projects.
1-38
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
VIEWGRAPH #27 TMDLs
KEY POINTS
The third activity in the WQM process is establishing total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs). The following subjects will be discussed in Module 1:
List and rank waterbodies (the 303(d) list)
Establish TMDL (Waste Load Allocation/Load Allocation (WLA/LA))
Alternative approaches to developing TMDLs
The process for TMDL approval: state responsibilities and EPA role
1-39
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Objective of 303(d)
Assessment
> List and rank water bodies
where technology-based
controls will not meet WQS
VIEWGRAPH #28: Objective of 303(d) Assessment
KEY POINTS
The objective of the assessment process outlined in CWA § 303(d) is to determine
whether there are water bodies where technology-based pollution controls will not
meet water quality standards. If not, then the state is required to list the waterbody
and develop TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs. Appendix C of "Guidance for Water Quality-
based Decisions: The TMDL Process," (Office of Water, EPA 440/4-91-001, April 1991),
available from die Watershed Branch of the Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division, offers a process and 16 recommended screening categories for states to use
when considering candidates for inclusion in the 303(d) list.
1-40
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Data Sources for WQ
Assessments
• State Monitoring Data/
Ambient & Intensive Survey
• Compliance NPDES Self-
Monitoring Data
• Toxic Release Inventory
• Other Agency Reports
VIEWGRAPH #29 Data Sources for WQ Assessments
KEY POINTS
A primary data source is the monitoring data collected by the state. This information
is often found in EPA's STORET database (EPA's database for STORage and RETrieval
of water quality data).
Another source is NPDES facility self-monitoring data. All regulated dischargers must
monitor and report using the discharge monitoring reporting (DMR) system in the
Permit Compliance System (PCS) database.
Where a state agency doing assessments does not have WQ data in sufficient quantity
or quality, the following sources might be used to supplement the information
available.
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Reports of water quality problems from local, state and federal agencies.
1-41
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Non-Listed Impaired
Waters
Justify Not Listing
Demonstrate Controls:
Are Enforceable
Are Problem-Specific
Meet WQS
VIEWGRAPH #30:
KEY POINTS
Non-Listed Impaired Waters
According to the TMDL Process Guidance (EPA 440/4-91-001), for impaired waters that
are not listed under CWA § 303(d), states should be able to demonstrate why they are
not listed. Specifically, states should show that existing or planned controls are
enforceable, specific to the pollution problem of that water body, and stringent enough
to meet the water quality standards for that water body. States are expected to provide
a schedule for implementation of controls that are not yet implemented.
1-42
-------
Orientation to State Water -uality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
CWA § 303(d) Public
Participation
• States Include Public
• Increases Probability of
Success
VIEWGRAPH #31:
KEY POINTS
CWA. § 303(d) Public Participation
States are expected to include the public in the development of the high-priority
targeted water list. "The process for ... involving the public, affected dischargers,
designated areawide agencies, and local governments in this process shall be clearly
described in the State Continuing Planning Process (CPP)." (40 CFR 130.7(a))
The goal of public involvement in the TMDL process is to increase the probability of
success. States can and should coordinate notice and hearings for TMDLs with other
issues that require public notice and participation (e.g., NPDES permits, WQS
revisions, and WQM plan updates).
1-43
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Loading Capacity vs.
Total Maximum Daily
Load
• LC: Overall Pollutant
Loading Capacity
• TMDL: Sum of Allocations
VIEWGRAPH #32:
KEY POINTS
Loading Capacity vs. Total Maximum Daily Load
After ranking and targeting waterbodies (CWA § 303(d)), the next task is to define and
allocate control responsibilities. The state does this by determining what pollution
controls will be necessary to achieve the water quality standards. To determine this,
states rely on the concept of Loading Capacity (LC) and a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for a waterbody.
Loading Capacity (LC) is the overall pollutant loading capacity of a waterbody, i.e., the
greatest loading that a waterbody can receive without violating water quality standards
(40 CFR 130.2(f)). Loading capacity reflects assimilative capacity. Assimilative capacity
is not limited to water chemistry; it also includes features such as physical habitat and
biological integrity.
A TMDL reflects a waterbody's assimilative or loading capacity. However, a TMDL and
loading capacity are not necessarily equivalent. A TMDL reflects the sum of all the
individual allocations of portions of the assimilative capacity. Therefore, a TMDL is
equivalent to the loading capacity only if all of the assimilative capacity has been
allocated. The TMDL may represent only a portion of the waterbody's loading capacity
if, under the set of allocations for the watershed, there is still assimilative capacity
remaining. A TMDL must never exceed the loading capacity.
1-44
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
TMDL Relationships
TMDL = EWLAs + ElAs + MOS
Where TMDL Maintains WQS.
VIEWGRAPH #33: TMDL Relationships
KEY POINTS
To understand the process of establishing TMDLs, we need to define some terms.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a tool for implementing state water quality
standards for a given waterbody through controls of point and nonpoint sources of
pollution.
Wasteload Allocation (WLA) is the portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that
is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution. (40 CFR
130.2(h))
Load Allocation (LA) is the portion of a receiving water's loading capacity mat is
attributed either to one of its existing or future nonpoint sources of pollution or to
natural background sources. Load allocations are best estimates. (40 CFR 130.2(g))
Theoretically,
TMDL = EWLAs + ELAs + MOS
1-45
-------
Orientation to State Water Quali Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
where:
TMDL maintains WQS ar
WLAs = Wasteload Allocations
LAs = Load Allocations
MOS = Load reserved as a margin of safety.
1-46
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
TMDL Components
i Waste Load Allocations
i Load Allocations
> Margin of Safely
VIEWGRAPH #34:
KEY POINTS
TMDL Components
As mentioned previously, a primary function of the TMDL is to direct control
responsibilities.
Waste Load Allocations are implemented through issuance of NPDES permits for
point sources. Water quality-based limits for these permits are typically based on
modeling.
Load Allocations should be set to reflect nonpoint source and natural background
stress. These loads are only best estimates because of the difficulty in accurately
predicting nonpoint source pollution loads. Nonpoint sources are controlled through
best management practices (BMPs).
The Margin of Safety (MOS) can be handled implicitly through incorporation of
conservative model assumptions. Alternatively, it can be handled explicitly as a
separate component of the TMDL. As a general rule of thumb, me MOS should
increase with the degree of uncertainty in the TMDL. (CWA § 303(d)(l)(Q)
1-47
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Approaches to
Developing TMDLs
> Chemical-Specific Approach
Water Chemical Contents
> Whole Effluent Toxicity
Effects on Living Organisms
VIEWGRAPH #35:
KEY POINTS
Approaches to Developing TMDLs
There are three approaches to developing TMDLs. They may be used individually, or
in combination.
The chemical-specific approach is one where loadings are evaluated in terms
of their impact on physical-chemical water quality conditions (e.g., dissolved
oxygen or toxic pollutant concentrations). It is accomplished by subjecting
samples to laboratory tests that identify chemical substances and measure their
concentrations. This approach targets a specific water quality parameter related
to water quality standards or EPA criteria. Quantitative analysis (e.g., modeling)
is used to establish the allocations. Use of chemical-specific numeric criteria is
the approach preferred by EPA for human health criteria.
Whole effluent toxicity is used to develop TMDLs for discharges of complex
wastewaters. In this approach, one evaluates the toxic effects of an effluent on a
given test species. Toxicity testing requirements are typically based on the in-
stream waste concentration.
1-48
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Approaches to
Developing TMDLs
(Cont.)
> Biocriteria/Bioassessment
Effects on Biota
> Integrated Approach
Combination of 3
Approaches
VIEWGRAPH #36:
KEY POINTS
Approaches to Developing TMDLs (Cont.)
Continued from previous page.
The third approach is the biocriteria/bioassessment approach. In this
approach, loadings are evaluated in terms of their impact on the ecology of the
waterbody. This is accomplished by studying the organisms inhabiting the
receiving water. Bioassessment evaluates the biological condition of a body of
water by studying its biota, which are its resident organisms, and its chemical
and physical characteristics. Ecological indicators of health include:
• Phytoplankton
• Benthic macroinvertibrates
• Fish community structure
• Fish tissue toxic concentrations
The ratings in this approach typically are based on levels of diversity and
abundance. Physical habitat sometimes is used as a surrogate measure.
Because the previously mentioned approaches are limited, an integrated
approach using all three approaches is preferred for the protection of aquatic
life as expressed in EPA's national guidance. When this approach presents
several options, the most stringent option should be used.
1-49
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
TMDL Iterative Process
• Lack of Information
• Activities Performed
Incrementally
• Interim Controls
• Used Where BMPs Are
Required
VIEWGRAPH #37:
KEY POINTS
TMDL Iterative Process
Iterative Process to TMDL Development
An iterative process is preferred in situations where problem assessment and goal
setting are limited by lack of information. As indicated above, that is the situation in
many cases of TMDL development An iterative process allows for additional
information to be collected or the following activities to be performed
incrementally.
Problem scoping
Additional monitoring
Model development
TMDL development
Performance monitoring
Reassessment/TMDL modification
1-50
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
The iterative process allows for die possibility of interim controls to be implemented
while final TMDLs are being developed.
This is the method preferred by EPA where extensive BMPs are required for load
allocations since the response to these BMPs is often uncertain.
It also works well when basin water quality management planning is performed on a
cyclical basis. For example, gaps uncovered in one cycle of controls can be filled
during the next cycle.
1-51
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
TMDL Approval Process
State Responsibilities:
• Public Notice
• Hearing (option)
• Submit to EPA
• Supporting Information
• Phased TMDL Schedule
VIEWGRAPH #38: TMDL Approval Process, State Responsibilities:
KEY POINTS
Approval Process
State responsibilities include:
Publicly notice proposed TMDLs.
Hold hearing if warranted.
Submit TMDLs to EPA for approval.
Provide supporting information.
Outline schedule of activities for phased TMDLs.
1-52
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
TMDL Approval Process
EPA Responsibilities:
• Review TMDL or Process
• Approve/Deny w/in 30 Days
Answer in Writing
TMDL w/in 30 Days of
Disapproval
• Cooperation with State
VIEWGRAPH #39: TMDL Approval Process, EPA Responsibilities:
KEY POINTS
EPA responsibilities include review and approval or disapproval of TMDLs proposed
by states. CWA § 303(d) requires that EPA review TMDLs. Typically, the review of
TMDLs is by one of two methods:
An in-depth review of each TMDL (generally used where the state does not have
an approved process for establishing TMDLs).
A review and approval of the overall state process and a spot check of TMDLs.
EPA must approve or disapprove of states' TMDLs within 30 days after submittal.
Approvals must be transmitted in writing to the state. If EPA disapproves, it must
establish an alternative control strategy to attain WQS within 30 days of disapproval.
These alternative control strategies must be developed in cooperation with the state.
1-53
-------
Orientation to Slate Water Quality Management
The Pioceas of State Water Quality Management
Keys to Successful TMDL
Development
• Geographic Basis
• Coordinated Basinwide
Planning
• Staggered Activities
• Monitoring/Modeling
Support
VIEWGRAPH #40: Keys to Successful TMDL Development
KEY POINTS
Proceed along a geographic basis (i.e., watershed or basin).
Coordinate with other water quality program activities organized within a basinwide
planning context:
Use a planning cycle (e.g., 5 years) to stagger program activities within a basin:
Monitoring
Assessment
Prioritization
Modeling
TMDL development
Implementation plan
Performance monitoring
Schedule NPDES permit issuance by basin so that all permits within a
manageable hydrogeologic unit are issued at the same time.
Provide strong support of the TMDL management strategy through well-orchestrated
monitoring and modeling programs.
1-54
-------
Orientation to State Water ' jality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
VIEWGRAPH #41: Implement Point Source Controls
KEY POINTS
This is the fourth activity in the WQM process. The tasks undertaken by state
programs and EPA in mis area include:
Issue and reissue industrial and municipal permits
Monitor compliance
Enforcement
Manage Publicly Owned Treatment Work (POTW) construction
Each of these will be discussed in the following section of this module.
1-55
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
NPDES Permits
Point Source Control
Permitting System
Renewed Every 5 Years
VIEWGRAPH #42:
KEY POINTS
NPDES Permits
Control Strategies: Permitting
The next stage in the state water quality management process is to establish
point source controls. This section of the course will discuss control of point
source pollution via the permitting program.
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)—authorized by
CWA § 402, and implemented by 40 CFR 122-125—is a permitting system for
the direct or indirect discharge of pollutants through point sources (any
discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance) into waters of the United States.
A NPDES Permit is a license to discharge a specified amount of pollutants under
specified conditions into a water of the United States. NPDES permits are
required for all discharges into waters of the U.S. except indirect discharges to
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), some discharges from marine
vessels, and nonpoint source runoff. NPDES permits must be renewed at least
every five years.
1-56
-------
Orientation to Matt Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Pollutant Categories
• Conventional: BOD, TSS, pH
• Toxic: Heavy Metals, Organic
Chemicals
• Nonconventional: Ammonia,
COD
VIEWGRAPH #43: Pollutant Categories
KEY POINTS
There are three categories of pollutants limited by NPDES permits: conventional,
toxic, and nonconventional.
Conventional pollutants listed in CWA § 304(a)(4) are:
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Oil and grease
Fecal coliform
pH
According to the Act, it is the national policy mat the discharge of toxic
pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited (CWA § 101(a)(3)). After several
years of debate, these pollutants finally were defined as a result of a consent
decree that resulted from a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDQ. The final list of toxics include 65 classes of pollutants plus
their derivative compounds. The total list is 126 priority pollutants. These
generally are divided into two categories:
1-57
-------
Orientation to State Water Qualf Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
Heavy metals
Organic chemicals
The final category includes pollutants that are not conventional or toxic. These
are called "nonconventional pollutants." They include:
Ammonia
Nitrogen
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
1-58
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
State NPDES Program Status
NPDES A»tt»xil>
VIEWGRAPH #44: State NPDES Program Status
KEY POINTS
The NPDES program is administered in one of two ways. Where the Agency has
authorized states to administer the program, states issue NPDES permits. In states that
are not authorized, the program is administered by EPA regional offices. EPA may
authorize NPDES programs for states, territories, and Indian tribes.
There are 39 authorized states, as shown in the map above. Not all NPDES
authorized states have the authority to administer all aspects of the NPDES
program, however. There are five different types of programs, and a state must
be authorized for each one. The programs are:
Basic municipal and industrial permit programs. 39 states are
authorized.
Pretreatment programs. 27 states are authorized
Federal facilities programs. 34 states are authorized.
1-59
-------
to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
General permit programs for stormwater point sources or categories of
similar wastes or discharges. 35 states are authorized.
Sewage sludge permit programs. 0 states are authorized.
1-60
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Program Submission
Contents
• Request for Authority
• Program Description
• AG Certification
• State/EPA MOA
• State Statutes & Regs
VIEWGRAPH #45:
KEY POINTS
Program Submission Contents
CWA § 402(b) provides that any state may administer the NPDES program if it requests
authority and receives EPA approval. The CWA requires submittal and approval of "a
full and complete description of the program [the state] proposes to establish and
administer under State law." It further requires the state to submit "a statement from
the Attorney General . . . mat the laws of such State . . . provide adequate authority to
carry out the described program."
States requesting NPDES or sludge program approval must submit three copies of a
program submission (40 CFR 123-21). Each submission must contain the following:
• A letter from the state's governor requesting program approval.
• A complete program description that summarizes the structure, scope,
coverage, and processes of the proposed state program and outlines die
state's permitting and review procedures. In addition, copies of all
relevant permit forms, application forms, and reporting forms must be
submitted.
1-61
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
• A statement from the state Attorney General (AG) certifying that the
state laws provide adequate authority to carry out the program
requirements as outlined in the program description.
• A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the state Director and
the EPA Regional Administrator. The MOA must clarify the division of
responsibilities between the state agency and EPA. It also must specify
the procedures that will ensure adequate coordination between EPA and
the state, and it must discuss this coordination in detail. In particular, it
must address compliance activities, enforcement activities, and the
transfer of information between the state and EPA. It must also describe
which classes and categories of permits the Regional Administrator must
review before a permit is issued by the state and further specify those
classes for which the Regional Administrator will waive review.
• Copies of all relevant state regulations and statutes.
To further your knowledge of NPDES permitting procedures,
EPA provides the NPDES Basic Permit Writers Course,
available through the Permits Division
of the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance.
Contact: Deborah Nagle (202) 260-2656
1-62
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Major
POTW:
Design Flow> 1 MOD
Service Population > 10,000
Significant Impact
Industrial:
Point System
VIEWGRAPH #46: Major Facilities
KEY POINTS
For purposes of prioritizing permit issuance and compliance, NPDES facilities are
classified as one of two types: major or minor.
Major facilities:
POTWs are "majors" if they have a design flow greater than 1 million
gallons per day (MGD), a service population of 10,000 or greater, or a
significant impact on water quality.
Industrial facilities are classified as "majors" through a rating system
which allocates points in various categories such as flow, pollutant
loadings, potential public health impact, and water quality factors.
Minor facilities are those not classified as Major.
1-63
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Essential Permit
Elements
Standard Conditions
Effluent Limits
Compliance Monitoring and
Reporting
Compliance Schedules
VIEWGRAPH #47: Essential Permit Elements
KEY POINTS
EPA regulations (40 CFR 122) require that each permit contain standard "boilerplate"
conditions. These describe the legal effect of the permit and the permittee's duties
and obligations during the effective period of the permit For example, the conditions
require the permittee to report changed conditions at the facility.
Effluent limits required in the permit are of two types.
Technology-based effluent limits (40 CFR 125.3) define a floor or minimum
level of control and are imposed at the point of discharge. For industrial
sources, there are two ways to establish technology-based effluent limits:
National effluent limitation guidelines
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) of the permit writer.
All municipal sources must achieve an effluent quality at least as high as
"secondary treatment."
Technology-based national effluent limitation guidelines are developed by EPA
headquarters. They are developed on an industry-by-industry basis and are
1-64
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
generally expressed as maximum daily and monthly mass loading or
concentration limits.
Water quality-based effluent limits are used when technology-based guidelines
are not sufficient to protect designated uses of receiving waters. As indicated
previously, the TMDL process is used to establish these limits.
Compliance monitoring and reporting (40 CFR 122.41 (1)(4)) is the responsibility of
the NPDES permittees. Permits instruct each permittee on the frequency for collecting
wastewater samples, the location for sample collection, the pollutants to be analyzed,
and the laboratory procedures to be used in conducting the analysis, including whole
effluent toxicity for the third round of permits. Detailed records of these self-
monitoring activities must be retained by the permittee for at least 3 years. Each
permittee is required to submit the results of these analyses in a discharge monitoring
report (DMR) on a periodic basis. The DMRs are entered into PCS.
Compliance Schedules (40 CFR 122.41(1)(5)) are used in permits for compliance
with new standards and for pretreatment program development or implementation.
Compliance schedule milestones may not be longer than statutory deadlines. They
become part of enforceable orders such as consent agreements and administrative
orders.
1-65
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Piuceaa of State Water Quality Management
Stormwater Permits
Phase I
Certain Industrial Activities
Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems
Phase II
Diffuse Sources (New
Focus)
VIEWGRAPH #48: Stormwater Permits
KEY POINTS
Special Permitting Topics
Stormwater.
Stormwater refers to large volumes of water that can result from rain, snow
melt, surface runoff, street washing, or other drainage. CWA § 402(p), added
by the 1987 amendments, requires EPA to establish a NPDES permitting
program for Stormwater discharges. The regulations implementing this
program are in 40 CFR 122.26.
Under Phase I of the Stormwater permitting program, EPA established industrial
and municipal Stormwater discharge requirements. On the industrial side, EPA
requires certain categories of industrial activities to obtain coverage for their
discharges of Stormwater. On the municipal side, EPA requires municipal
separate storm sewer systems that serve populations greater than 100,000 to
apply for a permit for their Stormwater discharges. Under Phase II of the
program, EPA intends to focus its permitting efforts on diffuse sources of water
pollution, such as other urban runoff and smaller municipalities.
1-66
-------
Orientation to State Watei Duality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Stormwater Permit
Coverage
> Individual Permit
> Group Application for
Individual Permit
> General Permit
VIEWGRAPH #49: Stormwater Permit Coverage
KEY POINTS
Stormwater (continued)
Facilities with Stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity may
obtain permit coverage in one of three ways:
They may apply for individual permit coverage by submitting an
individual permit application form.
They may apply for individual permit coverage by participating with a
group of industrial dischargers that is submitting a group application.
They may apply for general permit coverage by submitting a "notice of
intent" (NOI) form for coverage under an appropriate general permit if
one is available.
Individual permit coverage allows facilities to obtain coverage of their process
wastewater discharges as well as their Stormwater discharges under one NPDES
permit. General permits may authorize coverage for a category of discharges
associated with industrial activity that are located within a geographic area.
1-67
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
Municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) located in municipalities with
populations greater than 100,000 must obtain a stormwater discharge permit.
In addition, permitting authorities may require municipal systems serving
populations of fewer than 100,000 to obtain a stormwater discharge permit for
a variety of reasons, such as proximity to other municipal systems. EPA
established a phased implementation of the stormwater program for MS4s
depending on their size. MS4s in large municipalities (those with populations
greater than 250,000) should have submitted Part 1 of the application by
November 18, 1991, and Part 2 by November 16, 1992. MS4s in medium
municipalities (those with populations greater than 100,000) should have
submitted Part 1 by May 18, 1992, and Part 2 by May 17, 1993.
1-68
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Domestic Sewage Sludge
• Sludge Management &
Disposal
• Domestic Sewage Treatment
Works
• Through Existing Permits or
"Sludge Only"
VIEWGRAPH #50:
KEY POINTS
Domestic Sewage Sludge
Special Permitting Topics (Cont.)
Domestic Sewage Sludge
The nation's success in treating its wastewater has given rise to another
challenge—proper management and disposal of sewage sludge (the solids that
are removed from wastewater during treatment) which may contain
concentrations of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
The Technical Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR
503) promulgated in 1993 establish pollutant limitations and requirements for
monitoring, record keeping, and reporting for three types of sewage sludge use
or disposal: land application, surface disposal, and incineration. These
standards apply to treatment works treating domestic sewage, a category which
includes POTWs, privately owned treatment works, composting facilities, surface
disposal site owner/operators, some commercial fertilizer manufacturers, and
sewage sludge incinerator owner/operators.
1-69
-------
Orientation to State Water Qual' ' Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
EPA will implement 40 CFR 503 requirements through NPDES permits for those
facilities with existing permits or through "sludge-only" permits for those
facilities, such as composters, T " -\ are not required to have NPDES permits.
A state may implement a sewage sludge management program in one of two
ways: either as part of an approved NPDES program or as a separate program.
However, state sewage sludge management programs are optional. If a state
does not manage its own program, EPA is the permitting authority. To receive
program approval, a state must demonstrate that its program is at least as
stringent as the requirements in 40 CFR 503.
1-70
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs)
Must have NPDES Permits as
Source Discharges
States Must Develop Data &
Planning
VIEWGRAPH #51:
KEY POINTS
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Special Permitting Topics (Cont.)
Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined sewers collect stormwater as well as wastewater from domestic and
industrial sources. During dry weather, the wastewater flows to the treatment
plant. But during storms, the volume of flow exceeds the capacity of the
treatment plant, so most of it-including the untreated wastewater-discharges
directly into the receiving water. The discharge points are known as combined
sewer overflows. As point source discharges, CSOs must have NPDES
permits.
CSOs present enough distinctive problems that the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance (OWEQ has formulated a special CSO Policy.
(The Policy was issued in draft on January 14, 1993, and will be made final in
late 1993.) Each of the 30 states mat have municipalities with CSOs is
responsible for developing CSO data and plans, including an inventory of all
CSO points, the current permit status of each, and a priority ranking for
permitting its unpermitted or inadequately permitted CSOs.
1-71
-------
Quality Ma
The Process of State Water Qualify Management
CSO Strategy Goals
> No Dry-Weather Overflows
> Compliance With
Requirements
> Minimize Impacts
VKWGRAPH #52:
KEY POINTS
CSO Strategy Goals
EPA's CSO Strategy has three major goals:
To ensure that if CSO discharges occur, they are only a result of wet
weather. This is done by prohibiting dry weather overflows, making
maximum use of the collection systems for storage, and maximizing flows
to POTWs for subsequent treatment.
To bring all wet weather CSO discharge points into compliance with the
technology-based requirements of the CWA and applicable State water-
quality standards—by achieving proper operation and regular
maintenance programs for the sewer system and CSO points, and
reviewing and modifying pretreatment programs to ensure that CSO
impacts are minimized.
To minimize impacts on water quality, aquatic biota, and human health
from wet weather overflows by controlling solids and floatables in
discharges.
1-72
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
Municipalities are responsible for ensuring that CSO discharge points are
permitted, for complying with the permit, and for finding the funding to
develop needed controls.
1-73
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Minimum CSO Controls
Proper O&M
Maximum Use of Collection
Review/Modify PT Programs
Maximize Flow to POTW
Prohibit Dry-Weather
Discharges
VIEWGRAPH #53: Minimum CSO Controls
KEY POINTS
The Draft CSO Control Policy scheduled to be final in late 1993, strongly
suggests to permit writers that the following nine minimum control measures be
included in NPDES CSO permits, as minimum technology controls. For some
systems, one or more of the measures may not be appropriate, while in other
cases, the permit writer may require additional minimum controls.
A proper operation and maintenance (O&M) program
Maximum use of the collection system for storage
Review and modification of pretreatment (PT) programs
Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment
Prohibition of discharges during dry weather
1-74
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Minimum CSO Controls
(Cont.)
• Control Solids/Floatables
• Pollution Prevention
Programs
• Public Notification
• Characterize
Impacts/Effectiveness
VIEWGRAPH #54: Minimum CSO Controls (Cont.)
KEY POINTS
Continued from previous page.
Control of solid and floatable materials in CSO discharges
Pollution prevention programs
Notify public of CSO occurrences and impacts
Monitoring to characterize CSO impacts and the effectiveness of controls
Phase I will also require municipalities to submit a Long-Term CSO Control
Plan (LTCCP) within two years of the effective date of the permit.
1-75
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Phase II CSO
Requirements
Enforceable Requirements
WQ-Based Limits
Post-Const. Monitoring
Sensitive Areas
Evaluate Compliance
Reopen Permit
VIEWGRAPH #55: Phase II CSO Requirements
KEY POINTS
Phase II CSO permit conditions will include, among other requirements:
Enforceable requirements for implementation of die LTCCP
Development of water quality-based effluent limits
Implementation of a post-construction water quality monitoring program
Re-assessment of overflows to sensitive areas where elimination or
relocation of discharges is not possible
Evaluation of compliance with water quality standards
Reopening of the permit if the CSO controls fail to meet water quality
standards or maintain designated uses
1-76
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Pretreatment Objectives
• Prevent Interference w/
POTW Operations
• Prevent Pass Through
• Improve
Recycling/Reclamation
• Prevent Worker Exposure to
Hazards
VIEWGRAPH #56:
KEY POINTS
Pretreatment Objectives
Special Permitting Topics (Cont.)
Pretreatment
The statutory basis for the pretreatment program is CWA § 307(b), as
implemented by the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403.)
Industrial plants are one of many sources of wastewater discharged into
municipal sewers. The discharges by industry, however, often contain toxic or
otherwise harmful substances at concentrations not common to domestic
sources of wastewater. These wastes can pose serious hazards to the municipal
sewer system and treatment plant. These hazards can be prevented if industrial
plants can remove or eliminate pollutants from their wastewaters before
discharging them into a municipal sewage treatment system. This practice is
known as "pretreatment."
The objectives of the pretreatment program are to prevent the introduction of
pollutants into POTWs that will interfere with POTW operations, prevent the
introduction of pollutants into POTWs that will pass through the treatment
works or be incompatible with such works, improve the opportunities to recycle
1-77
-------
(Mentation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
and reclaim wastewaters and sludges, and prevent the exposure of workers to
chemical hazards.
1-78
-------
Orientation to State Wate* Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
POTW Responsibilities
• ID Industrial Users
• Inspect/Monitor
• Local Limits & Response
Plans
• Data Management
• Report Annually
• Public Participation
VIEWGRAPH #57:
KEY POINTS
POTW Responsibilities
To meet the objectives of the pretreatment program, 40 CFR 403.8 requires
POTWs with design flows greater than 5 MGD receiving industrial discharges
that pass through or interfere with POTW operations, or that are otherwise
subject to pretreatment requirements, to establish approved local pretreatment
programs. Smaller POTWs receiving such industrial discharges may also be
required to establish local programs. Requirements for establishing and
implementing a pretreatment program are typically included in the POTWs
NPDES permit.
Management of local pretreatment programs is the responsibility of EPA, or of
NPDES-authorized states that are authorized to administer the pretreatment
program. To obtain authorization for the pretreatment program, NPDES-
authorized states must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 403.10. States with
approved pretreatment programs may elect to assume local responsibilities in
lieu of requiring the POTW to do so.
1-79
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
The responsibilities of POTWs implementing the pretreatment program include:
Identifying and regulating industrial users
Performing inspections and monitoring
Developing and enforcing local limits
Developing and implementing enforcement response plans
Performing data management and record keeping
Reporting annually to the state/EPA
Complying with public participation requirements
1-80
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement
• EPA or State Monitors and
Enforces Compliance With
Permit Limits and
Conditions.
VIEWGRAPH #58:
KEY POINTS
Introduction
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
To make permitting programs effective, EPA or states monitor and enforce
compliance for point sources. The permittee or discharger must meet the
conditions in the NPDES permit and the appropriate regulatory authority. States
and EPA use a variety of methods to determine whether permittees are in
compliance with permit limits and with other permit conditions. These are
described in the following section.
1-81
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality * anagement
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Compliance Assessment
Inspections
• Compliance Sampling
Chemical Analyses Verify
Self-Monitoring
• Compliance Evaluation
Record Reviews Verify
Compliance
VIEWGRAPH #59: Compliance Assessment Inspections
KEY POINTS
Compliance Assessment Inspections (CWA § 308)
Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI). Chemical analyses are performed
and the results are used to verify the accuracy of the permittee's self-monitoring
program and reports, determine the quantity and quality of effluents, develop
permits, and provide evidence for enforcement proceedings where appropriate.
Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI). The CEI is a nonsampling
inspection designed to verify permittee compliance with applicable permit self-
monitoring requirements and compliance schedules. This inspection involves
record reviews, visual observations, and evaluations of the treatment facilities,
effluents, receiving waters, etc.
1-82
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Compliance Assessment
Inspections (Cent.)
• Performance Audit
Observes Self-Monitoring
• Diagnostic
Identify Causes of
Noncompliance
VIEWGRAPH #60: Compliance Assessment Inspections (Com.)
KEY POINTS
Continued from previous page.
Performance Audit Inspections (PAI). The PAI is used to evaluate the
permittee's self-monitoring program. As with a CEI, the PAI is used to verify the
permittee's reported data and compliance through a records check. However,
unlike in a CEI, the inspector actually observes the permittee performing the
self-monitoring process from sample collection and flow measurement through
laboratory analyses, data workup, and reporting.
Diagnostic Inspections (DI). The DI primarily focuses on POTWs that have
not achieved permit compliance and are having difficulty diagnosing their
problems. The purpose of the DI are to identify the causes of noncompliance
and to suggest immediate remedies that will help the POTW achieve compliance.
Once the cause of noncompliance is defined, an administrative order is usually
issued mat requires the permittee to conduct a detailed analysis and develop a
composite correction plan.
1-83
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Compliance Assessment
Inspections (Cont.)
• Compliance Biomonitoring
Tests Effluent Effects on
Organisms
• Toxics Sampling
CSI + Toxics Emphasis
VIEWGRAPH #61: Compliance Assessment Inspections (Cont.)
KEY POINTS
Continued from previous page.
Compliance Biomonitoring Inspection (CBI). The CBI uses acute and
chronic toxicity testing techniques to evaluate the biological effect of a
permittee's effluent discharge(s) on test organisms.
Toxics Sampling Inspection (XSI). While the XSI has the same objectives as a
conventional CSI, it places increased emphasis on toxic substances regulated by
the NPDES permit. The XSI covers priority pollutants other than heavy metals,
phenols, and cyanide, which are typically included in a CSI.
1-84
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Pioceas of State Water Quality Management
Compliance Assessment
Inspections (Cont.)
• Reconnaissance
Visual Inspection
• Pretreatment Compliance
Pretreatment Record
Review
VIEWGRAPH #62: Compliance Assessment Inspections (Cont.)
KEY POINTS
Continued from previous page.
Reconnaissance Inspection (RI). The RI is used to obtain a preliminary
overview of a permittee's compliance program. The inspector conducts a brief
visual inspection of the permittee's treatment facility, effluents, and receiving
waters. The RI uses the inspector's experience and judgement to summarize
quickly any potential compliance problems.
Pretreatment Compliance Inspections (PCI). The PCI evaluates the POTWs
implementation of its approved pretreatment program. It includes a review of
the POTWs records on monitoring, inspections, and enforcement activities for
its industrial users. The PCI is also known as a "pretreatment audit."
1-85
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
QNCRs
Facility Information
Specifics of Noncompliance
State Action
Status
Mitigating Circumstances
VIEWGRAPH #63: QNCRs
KEY POINTS
Quarterly Noncompliance Reports (ONCRs") - 40 CFR 123.45: Authorized states must
submit to EPA quarterly reports of noncompliance by major permittees. These reports
include the name, location and permit number of the facility; the date and a brief
description of each instance of noncompliance; the date and a brief description of
action taken by the State; the status of noncompliance or the date noncompliance was
resolved; and any details that explain or mitigate the noncompliance. PCS produces a
list of QNCRs.
1-86
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Participants in
Enforcement Process
• Regional Staff
• Office of Regional Counsel
• HQ Program & Enforcement
• Department of Justice
• State
• Citizens
VIEWGRAPH #64:
KEY POINTS
Participants in Enforcement Process
The Enforcement Branch in the Regional Water Management Division are the front-
line representatives of the Agency's NPDES program on the enforcement team.
The staff attorney from the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC) is the front-line
attorney on the case.
While routine decisions are made at the regional level, precedent-setting, highly visible
and other novel cases are usually carefully watched by the headquarters program
office representative (The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEQ
for NPDES cases). OWEC is also responsible for reviewing decisions to commence
judicial cases and settlements for national consistency.
The Headquarters Office of Enforcement plays an active role in particularly
interesting or precedent-setting cases. Otherwise, it is responsible for securing
concurrences on work done by the regional team in routine cases.
By law, the Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney is the government's lawyer and
must file suit on behalf of the United States when federal statutes are violated. When
EPA decides that a judicial enforcement action is warranted, it "refers" a request to DOJ
that they file suit on EPA's behalf. DOJ usually retains the greatest interest and control
1-87
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
over the trial. All other steps in the litigation can be, and usually are, split between the
DOJ and ORC attorney as their experience, interest, and time allow.
State agency or attorney general staff often are involved in the case. In some cases,
personnel from the state in which the case arises will be involved in the prosecution of
an EPA enforcement case. EPA might rely on state inspectors or enforcement officers
as witnesses or consultants. In NPDES suits, the state often is a named party to the
litigation because CWA § 309(e) requires that states be joined as parties to suits against
violating municipalities.
Occasionally, citizens or citizens groups initiate suits under the citizen suit provision
of the Act (CWA § 505). A citizen or group also can intervene in an action commenced
by EPA if they can show that they have an interest that will not be adequately
represented by EPA.
1-88
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Origination of Cases
• EPA-Inltiated
• State Agency Referrals
• Citizen Suits
• Whistle-Blowers
VIEWGRAPH #65:
KEY POINTS
Origination of Cases
NPDES enforcement cases originate in several ways, including: cases initiated by EPA;
cases referred to EPA by state agencies; and citizen suits. Occasionally a case is
initiated when EPA receives a letter or telephone call from someone who claims to
have information about a possible violation (whistle-blowers).
1-89
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Pioceaa of State Water Quality Management
Types of Violations
> Discharge w/Out Permit
> Falsification of Application
or DMR
> Permit Effluent Exceedances
> Noneffluent Permit
Violations
VIEWGRAPH #66:
KEY POINTS
Types of Violations
A violation of the NPDES program is the commission of any action or behavior that is
prohibited by the Act, and made actionable under CWA § 309. While the variety of
types of violations is virtually unlimited, NPDES cases tend to fell into one of four
categories: discharge without a NPDES permit, falsification of permit application or
DMR, permit effluent exceedances, or noneffluent permit violations.
1-90
-------
Orientation to State Water ' uallty Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Managing Assistance
Programs
• Construction Grants
• SKF
VIEWGRAPH #67:
KEY POINTS
Managing Assistance Programs
In addition to permitting, compliance monitoring, and enforcement, other major state
activities in this section of the process are the management of assistance programs.
Construction Grants Program
Under the Construction Grants program (Title n of CWA), EPA awarded grants, at
various levels of cost sharing, directly to municipalities for the purpose of planning,
designing, and constructing publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Authorizations
for this program ended in FY 1990 and the program is scheduled for closeout in FY
1997. However, Congress has appropriated additional funds pursuant to Tide H since
FY 1990 for specific projects.
States could apply for and were delegated responsibility for carrying out most program
management activities under the Construction Grants program. Program management
responsibilities are declining as the program winds down. State activities include:
tracking and managing funds, making payments as construction is completed,
deobligating unused funds, managing obligations and outlays, and amending active
grants. Some states are still planning to award a limited number of new grants.
1-91
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
For active local Construction Grant funded projects, state project level responsibilities
may still include construction-related activities, such as construction inspections and
performance certifications. Most activities, however, are administrative and include
deobligation of unused funds, administrative completion of grant files, responses to
audit findings, and resolution of disputes arising from the audit or the grant itself.
State Revolving Funds (SKPs)
Under the SRF program (Tide VI of CWA), EPA gives grants to states to capitalize state
revolving loan funds. States may make loans at below-market interest rates for the
construction of POTWs as well as for projects included in a state's approved Section
319 (nonpoint source management) and Section 320 (estuarine protection) plans.
Four percent of all grant awards under Tide VI can be used to administer die SRF
(CWA § 603(d)(7)). The current reaumorization of the Clean Water Act may further
expand SRF eligibilities.
State activities under program management include: me development of the SRF
program, preparation and maintenance of Intended Use Plans and Project Priority Lists
to set priorities for die use of available funds, provision of die state match, issuance of
bonds (if applicable), management of obligations and oudays, management of die loan
portfolios, and preparation of annual reports to EPA
Project level activities include: assistance to communities during facility planning,
especially small communities, review and approval of facility plans and engineering
designs, assurance of compliance widi federal and state requirements (e.g.,
identification of a dedicated repayment source, conduct of an environmental review,
participation of minority firms in award of construction contracts, fostering die use of
innovative and alternative technology, and preparation of value engineering analyses),
making of binding commitments (i.e., loans), and construction inspections.
The assistance programs have furthered EPA/state efforts to achieve broader water
quality management objectives. As eligibilities expand, me SRF program will be an
increasingly vital tool in such water quality initiatives as pollution prevention, water
conservation, watershed protection, and environmental equity.
1-92
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
VIEWGRAPH #68: Implement Nonpoint Source Controls
KEY POINTS
The fifth activity in the WQM process is to implement nonpoint source (NFS) controls.
The following subjects will be covered in our discussion of mis activity:
An overview of state nonpoint source management programs
Load allocations and BMP effectiveness
History of NFS provisions in the CWA
Each of these will be discussed in the following section of this module.
1-93
-------
Orientation to State Water Qualir Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Nonpoint Source (NFS)
Management
• Control Pollutants Entering
Water Body
• Control Particular Activities
VIEWGRAPH #69:
KEY POINTS
Nonpoint Source (NFS) Management
The second part of establishing source controls is the control of nonpoint sources of
pollution via nonpoint source management programs. Nonpoint source control
programs may be designed in two ways: 1) to control pollutants entering a particular
water body such as a river, wetland, lake or estuary; or 2) to control particular types
of activities such as those associated with agriculture, silviculture, construction, mining,
etc.
1-94
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of Sate Water Quality Management
NFS Management
Programs
Control NFS Pollution
Specify Implementation
Activities
Expanded by CZARA
Expanded by ISTEA
VIEWGRAPH #70:
KEY POINTS
NFS Management Programs
CWA § 319(b) mandates creation of state management programs for control of NPS
pollution. It specifies that each management program proposed for implementation
must include the following: an identification of BMPs needed for impaired waters; an
identification of programs to achieve BMP implementation; schedules for milestones
and implementation; a certification that the state has the authority to implement the
program; an identification of sources of funding and purposes for which money will
be used; and an identification of all federal financial assistance programs and federal
development projects to determine their effects on water quality.
Under the provisions of CWA § 319(b), states were required to submit their NPS
management programs for approval within 18 months of the CWA amendments
enacted in February, 1987. States were to lay out activities for implementation
including issuance and management of 319 grants to local projects for BMP
implementation.
Additional mandates for BMP implementation are contained in the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) of 1990. This act requires a state with
approved coastal zone management programs to establish an approved coastal
nonpoint source pollution control program. The programs are not intended to
supplant existing coastal zone management programs and nonpoint source
1-95
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
management programs. Rather, they are to serve as an update and expansion of
existing programs.
CZARA § 6217 (b) states that each state program must "provide for the implementation,
at a minimum, of management measures in conformity with the guidance published
under subsection (g) to protect coastal waters. . . ." The Act -also specifies that states
must develop and obtain EPA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) approval of their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs within 30
months of EPA's publication of final guidance (published in January, 1993 under the
title, "Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters"). States that fail to submit an approvable program will have their
federal grant dollars under nonpoint source programs reduced beginning in fiscal year
1996 with a 10 percent cut, increasing to 15 percent in FY 1997, 20 percent in FY
1998, and 30 percent in FY 1999 and thereafter.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, is another
example of a nonpoint source consistency requirement. ISTEA reauthorized federal
highway legislation to require, among other things, nonpoint erosion controls
consistent with state nonpoint source programs. ISTEA § 1057 deals with erosion
control during highway construction by requiring the Secretary to develop erosion
control guidelines for states to follow in carrying out construction projects. These
guidelines must be consistent with both nonpoint source management programs under
CWA § 319 and coastal nonpoint pollution control guidance under CZARA § 6217(g).
1-96
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
s for Control
States Impose Controls
States Rely on Voluntary
BMPs
BMPs Vary w/Site
Characteristics
Technical Assistance
VIEWGRAPH #71:
KEY POINTS
Mechanisms for Control
In some cases, slates impose regulatory nonpoint source control programs. However,
in many cases states are forced to rely on the voluntary cooperation of land owners or
operators to implement BMPs. BMPs vary according to site characteristics but are well
established for many land uses. EPA provides technical assistance to some of those
required to implement BMPs in the form of education and training on BMP design and
implementation. An example of a BMP is composting of dead birds and waste at a
chicken farm to avoid runoff from these sources.
1-97
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Manageme
Load Allocations
Target BMP Implementation
NFS Loading Capacity/
Reduction Goals
Many Agencies
Varying Objectives
VIEWGRAPH #72:
KEY POINTS
Load Allocations
Load allocations are often used to target BMP implementation. Load allocations
provide overall NFS loading capacity or redaction goals. However, it is difficult to
translate LAs into BMP implementation programs. One reason for mis difficulty is that
many agencies are involved at federal, state and local levels. There are often
varying objectives among agencies which makes coordination and enforcement
difficult. Also, "assistance type" agencies (e.g., agriculture extension) are reluctant to
associate themselves with regulatory agencies.
1-98
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
BMP Effectiveness
Difficult to Monitor
Difficult to Predict
Emphasis on Biological
Monitoring
VIEWGRAPH #73:
KEY POINTS
BMP Effectiveness
Although necessary, it is difficult to monitor die effectiveness of nonpoint source
measures because of the diffuse nature of pollution sources, the effects of other
activities in the watershed, and the variability in hydrologic conditions. Effectiveness is
also difficult to predict because BMFs vary according to site characteristics, design,
implementation, and level of maintenance.
Increasing emphasis is being placed on biological monitoring (e.g., monitoring die
condition of fish and invertebrate communities in streams) as a means of measuring
BMP effectiveness in restoring and protecting aquatic life uses.
1-99
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
NFS Through Iterative
TMDL Process
• Improved Coordination
• Long-Term Monitoring
• Allows Revision
VIEWGRAPH #74:
KEY POINTS
NFS Through Iterative TMDL Process
Nonpoint source programs can also be incorporated through an iterative TMDL
process. This process provides time for improved multi-agency coordination and
sets up long-term watershed water quality monitoring programs to evaluate
effectiveness of BMP implementation. It also allows the state to revise the BMP
implementation strategy or TMDL, if necessary, as knowledge of BMP implementation
and effectiveness improves.
1-100
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
History of NFS Provisions
of CWA
• 1972 - FWPCA
• 1977 - FWPCA Amendments
• 1987 - CWA
• 1991 - CZARA
• 1992 - ISTEA
VIEWGRAPH #75: History of NFS Provisions of CWA
KEY POINTS
1972
1977
1987
1991
1992
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA): Section 208 planning
addressed point and nonpoint sources of pollution. No implementation
funds were available.
Amendments to FWPCA: Required permits for runoff from industrial
storage areas.
CWA: Requires stormwater permits for urban areas and other NFS
pollution-generating activities (e.g., construction and road building).
Requires states to perform NFS assessments and to develop NFS
management programs. Authorizes funds for implementation.
CZARA: Requires coastal zone states to have a coastal NFS management
program consistent with the state NFS management program and with
enforceable requirements.
ISTEA: Requires Department of Transportation funded construction
projects to control NFS pollution consistent with the state NFS
management program.
1-101
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
VIEWGRAPH #76: Program Management
KEY POINTS
Work Program Development
The state work program for the Section 106 assistance agreements should
define realistic commitments that foster accountability. To achieve this
objective, the state should work closely with the EPA project officer to achieve a
consensus on goals and specific water quality activities to be accomplished
under the work program.
The process of work program development will be discussed in detail in
Module 6 of this course.
Equipment
••*•
Project officers should pay particular attention to state equipment purchases.
Equipment may be purchased with grant monies as long as it is authorized in
the work program. Equipment is defined as tangible, non-expendable personal
property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of
$5,000 or more. It can only be purchased during the budget period and, while
the state holds title to the equipment, EPA can transfer tide to another entity
within 120 days of the end of the "project."
1-102
-------
Orientation to State Water 'uality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
Budget Review
Project officers, working w'r- grants administration staff, need to ensure
adequate state fiscal management capability and integrity. This requires the
following routine tasks:
conducting a budgetary review of the grant to determine if
adequate funds are available to accomplish the commitments in
the work program,
reviewing and tracking carryover funds.
Personnel
The work program should contain job tides for state personnel contributing to
work program outputs. Project officers review the appropriateness of
personnel for tasks in the work program. For example, if the state proposes to
conduct a lake study, the project officer would look to see that a limnologist or
someone with similar qualifications was working on the study.
These issues are discussed in greater detail in Module 4 of this course.
1-103
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
TTie Procea of State Water Quality Management
VIEWGRAPH #77: Planning and Priority Setting
KEY POINTS
The remainder of this module is an explanation of the activities that make up the
perimeter of the water quality management process wheel. These are the continuing
activities that serve as the framework for the rest of the process. They include:
The continuing planning process
Water quality management plans
Priority setting
Public participation
1-104
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Continuing Planning
Process (CPP)
• Establish & Maintain
• Implement Processes
• Review Periodically
VIEWGRAPH #78: Continuing Planning Process (CPP)
KEY POINTS
The objective of the state CPP is to establish a management program and arrive at the
implementation decisions contained in state Water Quality Management (WQM) plans
and other plans prepared pursuant to the CWA.
The purpose of the Continuing Planning Process (CPP) is to document how the state
will make its WQM decisions. The CPP updates the WQM plan.
The Continuing Planning Process (40 CFR 130.5)
"Each state shall establish and maintain a continuing planning process (CPP) as
described under [CWA § 303(e)(3)(A)-(H)]. Each state is responsible for
managing its water quality program to implement the processes specified in the
[CPP]. EPA is responsible for periodically reviewing the adequacy of the state's
CPP."
Situations likely to trigger CPP review include:
• Change in standards.
• Finalized sludge regulations.
1-105
-------
Orientation to State Water Quz' y Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
CPP Contains Processes
For:
• Developing Effluent Limits
• Incorporating Plan Elements
• Prioritizing 303(d) List and
Developing TMDLs &
Effluent Limitations
• Updating WQM Plans
VIEWGRAPH #79:
KEY POINTS
CPP Contains Processes For:
The Continuing Planning Process (40 CFR 130.5) Continued.
The state may determine the format of its CPP as long as the minimum
requirements of the CWA and this regulation are met The following processes
must be described in each state CPP, and the state may include other processes
at its discretion.
The process for developing effluent limitations and schedules of
compliance at least as stringent as those required by the Act and any
requirement contained in applicable water quality standards.
The process for incorporating elements of any applicable areawide
•waste treatment plans and basin plans.
The processes for prioritizing the waterbodies on the 303(d) list and
for developing TMDLs and individual water quality based effluent
limitations for pollutants in accordance with CWA § 305(d).
The process for updating and t«aititaitii«ig Water Quality
Management (WQM) Plans, including schedules for revision.
1-106
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
CPP Contains Processes
For: (Cont.)
• Intergovernmental
Cooperation
• Implementing WQS
• Disposing Residual Waste
• Ranking Construction Needs
• Prioritizing Permit Issuance
VIEWGRAPH #80: CPP Contains Processes For: (Cont.)
KEY POINTS
Continued from previous page.
The process for assuring adequate authority for ratergovernme
cooperation in the implementation of the state WQM program.
The process for establishing and assuring adequate implementation of
new or revised water quality standards, including schedules of
compliance.
The process for assuring adequate controls over the disposition of all
residual waste from any water treatment processing.
The process for developing an inventory and ranking, in order of
priority of needs for construction of waste treatment works.
The process for determining the priority of permit issua
1-107
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Administrator's Review
• Review CPP "From Time to
Time"
• Shall Not Approve Permit
Program for State w/Out
CPP
VIEW-GRAPH #81:
KEY POINTS
Administrator's Review
The Regional Administrator shall review approved state CPPs from time to time to
ensure that the planning processes are consistent with the Act and this regulation. The
Regional Administrator shall not approve any permit program under Tide IV of the Act
for any state which does not have an approved [CPP]." (40 CFR 130.5)
1-108
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
History of WQM Planning
• CWA § 303(e) - Phase I
• CWA § 208 - Phase II
VIEWGRAPH #82: History of WQM Planning
KEY POINTS
The purpose of the water quality management (WQM) program is the
and implementation of state WQM plans so that the goals of the CWA can be rvcL The
CWA calls for a WQM process at the state and local level that ensures continuous
planning for, and implementation of, pollution control measures.
WQM plans should be aimed at two principal mandates of the CWA:
• the determination of effluent limitations needed to meet appropriate WQS
including the requirement to at least maintain the existing quality of
water bodies, as of November 1972 (CWA § 303), and
• the development of state and areawide management programs to
implement abatement measures for all pollution sources (CWA § 208).
Shortly after the Act of 1972, states were asked to develop a continuing planning
process consistent with CWA § 303(e). As part of the process, the states submitted
Phase I WQM plans that were directed toward establishing effluent limitations needed
by point sources to meet existing WQS. These plans were due in 1975. These Phase I
plans were the basis for the first round of NPDES permits.
1-109
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
Section 208 introduced a second phase of WQM planning. Phase n plans were to
consider revisions to WQS to achieve the national water quality goals specified in
Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, i.e., that all waters should be fishable/swimmable, where
attainable. The Phase II plans, due in 1978, were to consider all available means to
meet these WQS, including effluent limitations for point sources and management of
nonpoint sources.
An essential element of Phase II plans was the designation of areawide planning areas
and planning agencies to carry out Phase n planning. These areas were identified, and
agencies were designated (usually a regional council of governments). State Phase II
planning was to be done by the state water quality agency. Areawide agencies were
given special funds to develop WQM plans. State agencies were not. However, the
National Association of Counties (NACO) sued EPA to get some of die 208 funds to the
states. NACO prevailed, and statewide planning was funded.
1-110
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Water Quality
Management Plans
> According to § 303(e) and
§208
> Focus on Priority Issues &
Geographic Areas
VIEWGRAPH #83:
KEY POINTS
Water Quality Management Plans
Definition of the water quality management (WQM) plan
The WQM plan consists of plans initially produced in accordance with CWA
§ 303(e) and § 208. (40 CFR 130.2(k))
Planning should focus annually on priority issues and geographic areas (40 CFR
130.6(a)).
'WQM plans consist of initial plans produced in accordance with [CWA §
303(e) and § 208] and certified and approved updates to those plans.
Continuing water quality planning shall be based upon WQM plans and
water quality problems identified in the latest 305(b) reports. State water
quality planning should focus annually on priority issues and geographic
areas and on the development of water quality controls leading to
implementation measures. Water quality planning directed at the
removal of conditions placed on previously certified and approved WQM
plans should focus on removal of conditions which will lead to control
decisions."
1-111
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
WQM Plans Are Used To;
• Direct Implementation
• Identify Priority Problems
• Consider Alternative
Solutions
• Recommend Control
Measures
VIEWGRAPH #84: WQM Plans Are Used To:
KEY POINTS
Use of WQM plans (40 CFR 130.6(b)):
'WQM plans are used to direct implementation. WQM plans draw upon the
water quality assessments to identify priority point and nonpoint water quality
problems, consider alternative solutions and recommend control measures,
including the financial and institutional measures necessary for implementing
recommended solutions. State annual work programs shall be based upon the
priority issues identified in the state WQM plan."
1-112
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
WQM Plan Elements
• TMDLs
• Effluent Limitations
• Waste Treatment Works
• Nonpoint Source
Management & Control
• Management Agencies
VIEWGRAPH #85: WQM Flan Elements
KEY POINTS
The following elements must be included in die WQM plan or referenced as part of
WQM plan if contained in separate documents (40 CFR 130.6(c)):
TMDLs to support permits.
Effluent limitations including water quality-based effluent limitations and
schedules of compliance.
Anticipated municipal and industrial waste treatment works including facilities
for treatment of stormwater-induced combined sewer overflows; programs to
provide necessary financial arrangements for such works; establishment of
construction priorities and schedules for initiation and completion of such
treatment works including an identification of open space and recreation
opportunities from improved water quality.
Nonpoint source management and control.
The plan shall describe regulatory and non-regulatory programs,
activities, and best management practices (BMFs) selected to control
1-113
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
nonpoint source pollution where necessary to protect or achieve
approved water uses.
Identify regulatory programs necessary to attain or maintain an approved
water use, or where non-regulatory approaches are inappropriate in
accomplishing that objective.
BMFs shall be identified for nonpoint sources.
Management agencies.
The plan must identify management agencies necessary to implement the
plan and provide adequate authority for intergovernmental cooperation.
Agencies must demonstrate legal, institutional, managerial, and financial
capability and specific activities necessary to carry out responsibilities.
1-114
-------
Orientation to State Water ' lallty Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Elements of WQM Plan
(Cont.)
• Implementation Measures
• Dredge and Fill Programs
• Basin Plans
• Ground Water Programs
VIEWGRAPH #86: WQM Plan Elements (Cont)
KEY POINTS
Continued from previous page.
Necessary implementation measures.
Identification of implementation measures necessary to carry out the
plan, including financing, the time needed to carry out the plan, and the
economic, social, and environmental impact of carrying out the plan.
Dredge and fill programs.
Identification and development of programs for the control of dredge or
fill material.
Relationship to any applicable basin plans.
Ground water programs.
States are not required to develop ground-water WQM plan elements
beyond the requirements of the Act, but may develop one if they
determine it is necessary to address a ground-water quality problem. If a
1-115
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
state chooses to develop a ground-water plan element, it should describe
the essentials of the state program and should include at least:
Goals, policies, and legislative authorities for protection of ground
water.
Monitoring and resource assessment programs.
Programs to control sources of ground water contamination.
Procedures for coordinating local, state, and federal ground water
protection programs.
Program management and administration procedures including,
program financing, training and technical assistance, public
participation, and emergency management.
1-116
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
WQM Plans
Updated "As Needed"
Process & Schedule in CPPs
State Certification of
Consistency w/ Area-Wide
WQM Plans
VIEWGRAPH #87:
KEY POINTS
WQM Plans
Updating plans (40 CFR 130.6(e)):
"State and/or areawide agency WQM plans shall be updated as needed to reflect
changing water quality conditions, results of implementation actions, new
requirements or to remove conditions in prior conditional or partial plan
approvals. Regional Administrators may require that state WQM plans be
updated as needed. State Continuing Planning Processes (CPPs) shall specify
the process and schedule used to revise WQM plans. The state shall ensure that
state and areawide WQM plans together include all necessary plan elements and
that such plans are consistent with one another. The Governor or the
Governor's designee shall certify by letter to the Regional Administrator for EPA
approval that WQM plan updates are consistent with all other parts of the plan.
The certification may be contained in the annual state work program.11
1-117
-------
Orientation to State Water QuaU> Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Basinwide /Watershed
Planning
• Focuses Resources
• Helps Prioritization
• Integration & Cooperation
• Long-Range Planning
• Unique Solutions
• Public Participation
VIEWGRAPH #88:
KEY POINTS
Basinwide/Watershed Planning
Some states (e.g., NC, DE, WA) are coordinating all WQ program management activities
around a basin unit A basin is defined as a series of watersheds. This coordination is
advantageous in that it- focuses resource expenditures; helps in prioritization to see
"big picture" within basin; integrates program components within a basin; encourages
interdisciplinary cooperation; provides for longer range program planning; results in
more consistent decision-making; provides more opportunities for unique solutions
(e.g., pollutant trading); and facilitates participation in planning by public and outside
agencies.
EPA is encouraging states to proceed in this manner by providing flexibility in
EPA/state work program agreements; providing support through grants for states to
develop an implementation approach; and working on an information document for
states on integration of basinwide planning into WQ program operational organization.
The Clean Water Act Reauthorization Bill (S. 1114) encourages voluntary state
comprehensive watershed planning programs through a series of financial and other
incentives. It also calls for the establishment of an interagency committee to support
comprehensive watershed management and planning.
1-118
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Section 106 and Other
Planning Activities
VffiWGRAPH #89:
KEY POINTS
Section 106 and Other Planning Activities
Section 106 is historically related to other planning activities, including:
Section 201 facilities plans.
Section 208 areawide plans: Areawide plans were attempts to provide a
comprehensive approach involving all sources and pollutants. The budget for
208 planning was larger than the section 106 budget in the 1970s.
The state-wide water quality management plans and the continuous planning process,
funded as part of the Section 106 state water pollution control program, must
coordinate with all other planning activities.
Section 106 and the following assistance agreements complement and support the
implementation of the water quality management plan:
Section 104(b)(3) - Research and Demonstration, Training
Section 205(j) - Water Quality Management Grant
Section 604(b) - Same as 2050) Using Tide VI Funds
Section 314 - Clean Lakes Program
Section 319 - Nonpoint Source Management Program
1-119
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Priority Setting
States Prioritize Listed
Waters
TMDL-Targeted Waters
All WQ Program Activities
Considered
VIEWGRAPH #90:
KEY POINTS
Priority Setting
States are mandated under CWA § 303(d) to set priorities for addressing the
impaired waters, after they identify waters not expected to meet water quality
standards with technology-based controls alone. According to CWA § 303(d)(l), the
state "shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity
of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters".
The priority ranking process will vary from state to state, but it should enable the state
to make efficient use of its available resources and meet the objectives of the Clean
Water Act Using multi-year approaches, states are encouraged to direct resources to
maximize environmental benefits by dealing with the most serious water quality
problems and the most valuable and threatened resources first.
EPA expects that states will list all waters needing TMDLs in the priority ranking, and
will identify "high" priority waters, i.e., those targeted for TMDL development within
2 years following the listing process.
1-120
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management The Process of State Water Quality Management
States should consider all state water program activities when prioritizing. This
includes, for example:
Competing needs.
Complementary activities that can be coordinated.
The amount of TMDL work that can be accomplished.
1-121
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Priority Setting
Considerations
Risk
Habitat Vulnerability
Public Interest
Importance
VIEWGRAPH #91: Priority Setting Considerations
KEY POINTS
Targeting of high priority waters for TMDL development should reflect an evaluation
of the relative value and benefit of waterbodies and should consider:
Risk to human health and aquatic life.
Vulnerability of aquatic habitat, specifically threatened and endangered species.
Degree of public interest and support
Recreational, economic, and aesthetic importance.
1-122
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Priority Setting
Considerations (Cont.)
• Program Needs
• § 304(1) List
• Court Orders & Decisions
• National Policies & Priorities
VIEWGRAPH #92: Priority Setting Considerations (Cont.)
KEY POINTS
Continued from previous page.
Immediate program needs such as wasteload allocations needed for permits
coming up for revision.
Waters on 304(1) list (a one-time only list of impaired waters not expected to
meet their designated uses after the mandated effluent limits and pretreatment
standards).
Court orders and decisions.
National policies and priorities such as those identified in EPA's Annual
Operating Guidance (e.g., environmental equity).
1-123
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Consider High Priority
Waters When:
• Setting Other Priorities
• Drafting Work Plan & CPP
VIEWGRAPH #93:
KEY POINTS
Consider High Priority Waters When:
Priority setting for impaired waters is mandated under CWA § 303(d), however, states
and EPA continually set priorities in all of the programs discussed in this module.
High priority waters identified under CWA § 303(d) (as well as those waters identified
on the § 304(1) list) should be considered when setting priorities for permitting,
nonpoint source, enforcement, etc. (e.g., states should look at high priority waters
when prioritizing permits or deciding when and where to take enforcement actions).
After the high priority waters have been identified, states may address these priorities
in their work programs and CPPs.
1-124
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Long-Range Scheduling
For Prioritization
• Integration of Activities
• Monitor Effectiveness
• TMDL Consistency
• Prioritization Basis
• Supports Geographic
Targeting
VIEWGRAPH #94: Long-Range Scheduling For Prioritization
KEY POINTS
EPA recommends that states use long-range schedules for establishing the prioritization
required under CWA § 303(d). The advantages of long-range scheduling include that
it:
Encourages integration of the prioritization process with the permitting cycle,
water quality standards revisions, and other required water quality management
activities.
Allows for long-term performance monitoring, which may be needed to assess
the effect of specific controls.
Results in more consistency in TMDL development
Establishes a basis for setting overall WQ management priorities.
Supports a geographic approach for TMDL development for targeted
waterbodies.
1-125
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Managemc
Public Participation
Consider All Views
Improves Public Support
Early Public Involvement
EPA Encourages Combining
Requirements
VIEWGRAPH #95-
KEY POINTS
Public Participation
Public participation is important in that it provides an opportunity for -varying views
and ideas to be expressed and considered in the decision-making process, and it
encourages public involvement in environmental issues. Encouraging public
participation lets concerned citizens know that they can contribute to EPA policy. It
improves public support for EPA initiatives. Therefore, it is important to involve the
public as early in the planning or decision process as is practical.
Many of the components of the water quality management process require public
notification and public participation. For example, states must give public notification
when proposing a new WQS, establishing TMDLs, or issuing a permit Public
participation requirements vary by program but often require the following: public
notification; public hearings; public comment periods; and response to comments.
EPA encourages combining public notice requirements when possible (40 CFR
25.13)- For example, when a new TMDL is being proposed for a basin, public notice
for the proposed TMDL can be combined with that for renewed or updated NPDES
permits in the basin. Combining public participation requirements saves time and
resources, and helps the public to understand the broad spectrum of EPA initiatives.
1-126
-------
Orientation to State Water -uality Management
The Process of State Water Quality Management
Activities Requiring
Public Participation
• Rulemaking
t Permits
* Guidance Memoranda
* Activities Supported by EPA
* As Required by
Administrator
VIEWGRAPH #96: Activities Requiring Public Participation
KEY POINTS
The following are examples of EPA activities that require public participation (4O CFR
25.2(a)):
• EPA Rulemaking, (except non-policy rulemaking) and state rulemaking
under CWA.
• Issuance and modification of permits and enforcement of permits.
nemoranda when a
Development of strategy and policy guida
Deputy Assistant Administrator determines it to be appropriate.
Development and implementation of plans, programs, standards,
construction, and other activities supported with EPA fluatirial
assistance to state, interstate, regional, and local agencies.
Other activities which any EPA regional Administrator deems
appropriate in view of the EPA's responsibility to involve the public in
significant decisions.
1-127
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
I he Process of State Water Quality Management
Manage/n
^.
OnlgnMlng UM*
VIEWGRAPH #97: Water Quality Management Process
KEY POINTS
Again, this wheel represents the water quality management process. The components
of the wheel work together help the state meet water quality standards. The perimeter
of the wheel is made up of continuing activities that serve as the framework for the
process. The project officer must understand how the various activities in the WQM
process inter-relate in order to effectively manage the activities in the assistance
agreement.
1-128
-------
Statutory and Regulatory
References
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Statutory and Regulatory References
A. Criteria Development and Adoption
CWA §303
CWA §304 (a)
CWA §307 (a)
40 CFR 130.3
40 CFR 130.10
40 CFR 131
B. Assessments/WQ Monitoring
CWA §303 (d)
CWA §304 (1)(1)(A-B)
CWA §314 (a)(l)(A),(E)&(F)
CWA §319 (a)
CWA §106 (e)(l)
CWA §305 (b)
40 CFR 30.503 (a-e)
40 CFR 31.45
40 CFR 35.260 (a)
40 CFR 130.4
40 CFR 130.8
C. Total Maximum Daily Loads
CWA §303 (d)(l)(A)
40 CFR 130.7
40 CFR 130.5 and 130.7
D. Implement Point Source Controls
CWA §301
CWA §302
CWA §307 (a)
CWA §313
CWA §401 (a)
CWA §402
CWA §403
CWA §404
CWA §405
Water Quality Standards and Implementation
Plans
Criteria, Guidelines, and Information to be
Published by the Administrator
Toxic Pollutants list
Water Quality Standards
State Submittals to EPA
Water Quality Standards
Water Quality Standards and Implementation
Plans
List of Waters Impaired by Toxics
Establishment and Scope of Clean Lakes
Program
State Nonpoint Source Assessment Reports
Monitoring and Data Analysis Requirements
Water Quality Inventory
Quality Assurance Requirements
Quality Assurance
limitations for Award
Water Quality Monitoring
Water Quality Report (305(b))
Identification and Priority Ranking of Water
Quality Based Waters
Total Maximum Daily Loads and Individual
Water Quality-Based Effluent limitations
Continuing Planning Process
Effluent limitations
Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations
Toxic Pollutants list
Federal Facilities Pollution Control
Certification
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
Ocean Discharge Criteria
Permits for Dredged or Fill Material
Disposal of Sewage Sludge
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Statutory and Regulatory References
CWA §308
CWA §309
CWA §505
40 CFR 130.12
Inspections, Monitoring and Entry
Federal Enforcement
Citizen Suits and Procedures
Coordination With Other Programs
E. Implement Nonpoint Source Controls
CWA §319 (b)
40 CFR 130.6 (c)(4)
F. Program Management
CWA §106
40 CFR 31
40 CFR 35
40 CFR 130
G. Outer Ring
CWA §208
CWA §209
CWA §303 (e)
CWA §104 (b)(3)
CWA §106 (b)
CWA §205 0(1-3)
CWA §314 (b&c)
CWA §319 (h)
CWA §319 (i)
CWA §604 (b)
40 CFR 130.5
40 CFR 130.6
K. Other
CWA §320
CWA §504
CWA §510
CWA §518
Nonpoint Source Management Programs
Nonpoint Source Management and Control
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans
Basin Planning
Continuing Planning Process
Research, Investigations, Demonstrations,
Studies, etc. Grants
State Allotments for Pollution Control
Programs
Water Quality Management Planning Grants
Clean Lakes Grants
Nonpoint Source Management Program
Implementation Grants
Grants for Protecting Ground Water Quality
Reservation of Funds for Planning
Continuing Planning Process
Water Quality Management Plans
National Estuary Program
Emergency Powers
State Authority
Indian Tribes
-------
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
Site Visit Conducted
Permit Application
Filed
Application Review
for Completeness and
Accuracy
Additional
Data Requested
1
Prepare Draft Permit
or Deny Application
§124.6
1
Statement of Basis or
Fact Sheet
§124.7 and §124.8
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
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
-------
CONTENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
A brief explanation follows ot 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 3/31/81.
(2) Consolidated Permit Application Forms No. 1 and 20 received 4/3/82.
(3) ' ™»«;«na Water Quality Criteria, LSCC, 1977.
(4) Lmi'ffiini Water Quality Management Plan, Department of Natural Resources, including Appendix D
(Ponchartrain Basin) and Appendix F 'Mississippi River), Phase U, Vob. L
(5) 40 CFR Pan 415 Subpait F. [47 ER 28260. 6/29/83).
(6) 40 CFR Part 415j65(b) [39 EE 9616. 3/12/74].
(7) Letter White (EPA) to VTacos (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 122.29 (d)(l) (48 EE 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 122j62(a)(3) [48 EE 14146, 4/1/83].
(16) 40 CFR Part 122_44<1)(2)(1) [48 EE 14146, 4/1/83].
(17) 40 CFR Part 415.65(b) [47 EE 28260. 6/29/82].
U8) 40 CFR Part 415.62
-------
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
• 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 which:
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, XL 60123
Location: 1 River Ridge Drive
Morris, XL 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, XL.
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 blowdovn. 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 fDMRi 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.
Chrcnic 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 Sheer
Page 3 of 21
VI. Proposed Technology-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 DHRs. Lead and zinc were detected in
significant concentrations in the discharge as reported in DHRs.
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 Subcateaory
Effluent Limits
Monthly Avg. Daily Max.
Pollutant flb/lOOOft2! flb/lQOOft'l
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 Subcatecrory
Effluent Limits
Monthly Avg. Daily Max.
Pollutant flb/lOOOft*! fib/1000ft2)
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 Average and Daily Maximum)
Oil & Grease = (40,000 ft?/day (tempered) x 0.13 lb/1000 ft2) +
(275,000 ft2/day (laminated) x 0.36 lb/1000 ft2) - 5.2 + 99 - 104.2
Ibs/day
Concentration Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average and Daily
Maximum)
Oil & Grease = (104.2 Ibs/day) (454 g/ 1 Ib) (1000 mg/ 1 g) (1 gal/
3.785 1)(1 day/ 4.563 106 gal) = 2.74 mg/1
TSS
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 ftz/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 10* 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 10* 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)(l gal/3.785 1)(day /4.S63 10*
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 10*
gal) - 11.86 mg/1
Phosphorus
Mass Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average and Daily Maximum)
Phosphorus - 275,000 ft2/day (laminated) x 0.06 Ib/lOOO 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 fmcr/l> fmer/11
pH 6.0-9.0 N/A N/A
16-13
-------
Fact Sheer
Page 6 of 21
Toxic Pollutants
Zinc and lead were detected in the effluent discharge when the
previous permit was issued. At that tine 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 fina/ll 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 10* 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.S63 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/ll (ma/11
Lead (total) 0.43 0.69
16-14
-------
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 mg/1) (4.113 106 gal/day) (1 lb/454,000 ing) (3.785 1/gal)
= 14.74 Ibs/day
Daily Maximum
Lead - (0.69 mg/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 10*
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 (7Q10)
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
-------
Pollutant
Lead
Effluent
Concentration (Cd)*
(ma/1)
0.38
Fact Sheet
Page 9 of 21
Receiving Water
Concentration (Cs)**
f ma/11
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)
Cr (zinc)
[(0.38 mg/l)(7.06 cfs) + (0 mg/1) (23.6 cfs)]/(7.06 cfs
+ 23.6 Cfs)
0.088 mg/1
[(0.21 mg/1) (7.06 cfs)
Cfs + 23.6 Cfs)
0.102 mg/1
(0.07 mg/1) (23. 6 cfs)]/(7.06
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:
Receiving Water
Concentration
Pollutant
Zinc
Chronic
Acute
Lead
Chronic
Acute
State
Standard
fug/11
fua/li
110
120
3.2
82
83
102
34
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 number 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/l)(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 (MDL) and a average monthly limitation (AHL) 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 HDL 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 HDL. The AHL is calculated as follows:
0.04 mg/1
=0.03 mg/1
1.6
line - 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 HDL. The AHL 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 ing)(3.785 1/gal)
=1.14 Ibs/day
Whole Effluent Toxicity
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 m 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)
(Qd + Qs)
Where
Cr = receiving water concentration
Cd = effluent concentration
Qd = effluent flow
Cs = receiving water background concentration
Qs » 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)
LC,0 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 (TUJ . Similarly for acute toxicity, the highest acute
toxicity was measured at an LCjo 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 TU.) (7.06 cfs)/(7.06 cfs + 23.6 Cfs)
- 5.9 TU.
Chronic
Cr = (100 TUe) (7.06 Cfs)/(7.06 Cfs + 70.9 Cfs)
= 9.1 TUe
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 TUe
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 TUe > 1.0 TUe
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 TUe
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 TUe)(7.06 cfs + 70.9 cfs)] - [(0)(70.9 cfs)]
7.06 CfS
- 11.0 TUe
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 MOEC
r* 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 TU.) are converted to TUe using the acute to
chronic ratio (ACR) as follows:
WLA (in TUM) = 1.3 TU. * ACR
- 1.3 TU. * 4.5
- 5.9 TUM
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 technoIgy-based effluent limits for lead.
Since the acute WLA is more limiting than the chronic WLA (i.e.,
5.9 TUM < 11.0 TUe), it will be used as the basis for limitations.
Since the acute WLA can never be exceeded, 5.9 TUM is used as the
MDL. The AML is calculated as follows:
5.9 TUM
- 3.7 TUe
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 Organisms11
(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
O01 (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, 24-hour composite samples are required.
Temperature is to be monitored continuously during discharge.
Whole effluent toxicity testing for chronic toxicity shall be
conducted 2/month on a 24-hour composite sample of the final
effluent.
X. Special Conditions
Luster Glass Inc. will be required to update their existing Best
Management Practices (BMP) plan to address the 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 NPOES 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
TABLE 1
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
LUSTER GLASS INC.
March 1988 through February 1989
Date
03-88
04-88
05-88
O6-88
07-88
08-88
09-88
10-88
11-88
12-88
01-89
02-89
Flow (mgd)
Mon. Avo. 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
flb/dl
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 tdegrees Fl fma/11 fma/11 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. LCy,; chronic toxicity tests
were conducted using fathead minnows and
reported as 7 day NOEC.
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 (ngd)
TSS
Oil & Grease
Phosphorous
PH
Temperature
Total Lead
Total Zinc
Whole' Effluent
Toxic ity (NET)
a/ pH shall be
b/ Not greater
LBS/DAY MG/L
Report —
451.1 11.86
104.2 2.74
16.5 0.43
a/
b/
1.52 0.04
3.75 0.10
£/
within the range of
LBS/DAY
Report
351.3
104.2
16.5
—
—
1.14
3.75
C/
MG/L
—
9.23
2.74
0.43
—
—
O.03
0.10
—
6.0 - 9 . O standard units
than 2.8 degrees Centigrade above
ambient, or
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 TUte 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 co comments received on Che subject draft permit in
accordance with regulations promulgated ac 40 CFR Part 124.17.
Permit No. LA0006181
Applicant: Allied Chemical Corporation
P.O. Box 226
Ceismar, Louisiana 70734
Issuing Office: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. Texas 75202-2733
Prepared By: Edward C. McHam. Engineer
Industrial Permits Section (6V-PI)
Permits Branch
Water 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 Co 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 Caldvell (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 HO. 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
scress 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 toxicicy of various effluents which contain toxic componer.es.
The cast 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 =o
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 Che final permit.
16-32
-------
Cvn>n Chevron Chemical Company
PO Boi 78. Si James [A 70086 • Phone i£Q4| 473 7946
January 12, 1990
0
>
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. IAO029963 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 VTII. Sect ion 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 pern it
limits.
3. We request that you change the pH of the Outfall 002 from 9.O
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
,due .i
these water systems. In the first instance, b *»< simply^ Wash itto;
the paved areas of the plant with firewater, weVntceeded the 9.0
pH limit. In the second instance, a number of clarified vat
JAN 1 8 1330
-------
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 O02 from 9.0 to 10.0 would not endanger people nor
the environment and would eliminate nuisance excursions.
We appreciated receiving, 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 Class 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 CPU Part 426
(Class Manufacturing Point Source Category);
• The effluent limitations for zinc and lead are calculated
incorrectly;
• Luster Class 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 and established policy by
refusing to hold a hearing as requested by Luster Class Inc.
QUESTIONS;
(1) Assuming Luster Glass Inc.'a 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 is subject to:
5. Municipal storm water 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. S12S1 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 Piviaion
Title
16-41
-------
PART Z
Page 2 of 19
PermicNo.: IL0654321
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Sheet—Issuance and Expiration Dates
Z. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
A. Definition*
B. Description of Discharge Pointi
C. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements
(Includes Compliance Schedules as Appropriate)
XZ. 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
Z. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
J. Other Noncompliance Reporting
K. Inspection and Entry
ZZZ. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
0. Duty to Mitigate
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
7. Removed Substances
G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
H. Upset Conditions
Z. Toxic Pollutants
J. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances
ZV. 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
Z. 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 :
Page 3 of 19
Permit No.: ZL0654321
Z. EFFLUENT LZMZTATZONS AND MONZTORZNC REQUIREMENTS
A. Definitions.
1. The "30-day (and monthly) average," other than for fecal colifonn
bacteria and total colifonn 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 colifonn bacteria and total colifonn
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 colifom
bacteria and total colifom 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 colifonn bacteria and total colifonn
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. Zf 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 tianple
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
-------
1 I
Page 4 of 19
Permit No.: ZL0654321
6. An "instantaneous" measurement, for monitoring requirements, is
defined as a single reading, observation, or measurement.
7. "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there ia
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 Hater 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 SO 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{s}
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 tune 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 waatewater treatment
oil/water separator and settling basins, and cooling
tower blowdown to the Illinois River.
-------
PART I
Page 6 of 19
Permit No.: ZL0654321
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 &/ Daily a./
Parameter Average Maximum
Flow, MOD N/A N/A
Total Suspended Solids,
Ib/day 351.3 451.1
mg/1 9.23 11.86
Oil and Grease,
Ib/day 104.2 104.2
mg/1 2.74 2.74
Total Phosphorus,
Ib/day 16.5 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), TUf b./ 3.7 5.9
pO, s.u. cj £/
Temperature d/ d/
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
a./ See Definitions, Part Z.A. for definition of terms.
by The permittee shall demonstrate compliance with WET requirements specified
in Part Z.C.3 of this permit.
c/ 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.: IL06S4321
C. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirement3 (Cent.)
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, MOD b/
Temperature
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Total Phosphorus
Total Zinc
Total Lead
Whole Effluent Toxicity
(WET), Chronic
PH
Frequency
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Weakly
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 ahall be performed at the following locations(a): within
100 feet of Outfall 001 to the Illinois River.
a./ See definitions. Part X.A.
by Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that
the permittee can affirmatively demonstrate that repreaentative values are
being obtained.
16-47
-------
PART I
Page 8 of 19
Permit No.: ZL06S4321
C. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements tCont.l
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. Zf chronic toxicity is detected, the permittee
shall conduct a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation, according to
specifications in Part Z.C.4 of this permit. Test species shall
consist of Pimephales proaeias (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 Haters to
Freshwater Organisms", EPA/600-4-89-001. Zf 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(e) 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.
Zf 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)
Zf 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.
*f 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 IX
Page 9 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
ZZ. MONITORZNG, RECORDZNC AND REPORTZNC REQUIREMENTS
A. Representative Sampling. Samples taken in compliance with the
monitoring requirements established under Part Z 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 Pare 136, unless other teat
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 tee reported. Until further
notice, sludge monitoring reeults may be reported in the testing
laboratory's normal format (there is no EPA standard form at this
time), but should be on letter sice pages. Legible copies of these,
and all other reports required herein, shall be signed and certified
in accordance with the Signatory Requirements (see Part IVl. and
submitted to the Director, Hater 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 bv the Permittee. Zf 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.
<•• 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
5. 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.
!• Twenty—four Hour Notice of Noneomplianee 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 b- 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.);
o. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit (See Part III.H.. Upset Conditions. 1; 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.: IL06S4321
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 11. p..
Reporting of Me---coring Results.
J. other Noncomol ianee Reporting. Instances of noncompliance not
required to be reported within 24 hours shall be reported at the time
that monitoring reports for Part ZZ.D. are submitted. The reports
shall contain the information listed in Part ZZ.Z.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 reeorda 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
ZZZ. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Duty to Comply. The permittee must comply with all conditiona of this
permit. Any permit noncomplianee 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 noncomplianee.
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 leas than $5,000, nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or
by imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. Except as
provided in permit conditions in Part III.C.. Bypass of Treatment
Facilities and Part Ifrl.H... Upset Conditions, nothing in this permit
shall be construed to relieve the permittee of the civil or criminal
penalties for noncompiiance.
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.
O. 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 permitt** 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 Subetanees. 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.
C. 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 XZX
Page 13 of 19
Permit No.: ZL06S4321
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 lose of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypase,
such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during
normal periods of equipment downtime. Thie 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 ZZZ
Page 14 of 19
Permit No.: ZL06S4321
3. Burden of pro- t. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an upeet has the burden of
proof.
Z. 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, evei _f the permit has not yet been
modified to incorporate the requirement.
J. Changes 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 %?< 11 occur which 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 (SOO 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
ZV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Planned Chances. The permittee shall give notice co 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 CPR 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 ZV.A.l.
B. Anticipated Noneompliance. 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. Dutv 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. Dutv 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 exista for modifying, revoking
and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance
with this permit. The permittee shall also furnieh 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.
<•• 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 che 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
XV.C.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.c.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 falee 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 510,000 per violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
X. Availability of Report*. 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 Riohta. 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 ZV
Page 17 of 19
Permit No.: ZZ.0654321
M. Severabilitv. 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. Tranafera. This permit may be automatically traneferred 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. Zf 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
*ny applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by
Section 510 of the Act.
P. Reonener 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:
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 XV
Page 18 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
Q. Toxicitv Limitation—Reooener 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. Toxieity was detected late in the life of the permit near or past
the deadline for compliance.
2. The THE 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 THE results indicate that the toxicant(s) represent
pollutant (s) that may be controlled with specific numerical
limits* and the oermit issuing authority agrees that numerical
controls are the most appropriate course of action.
4. Following the implementation of numerical controls on toxicants,
the permit issuing authority agrees that a modified whole
effluent protocol is necessary to compensate for those toxicants
that are controlled numerically.
S. The TAB 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.: XLO6S4321
V. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Beat Management. Practices (BMP1 Plan
A BMP plan shall be developed within six months of permit reiaauance,
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
reiasuance. An implementation report shall be delivered to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency no later than August 5, 1990.
C. Site-Specific BMPa
The following site-specific BMPa 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
veaael (e.g., tank truck), cleaning the tank, and repairing/
welding, or plugging the hole. To prevent environmental damage
in the future, secondary containment ia required. Monthly visual
inspections and/or preventative maintenance shall be conducted.
2. Drum Storage Area: The drums shall be inventoried to identify
the contents end amounts of chemicals therein. The drums shall
be inapected for deterioration or leaka. 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 nuatly
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
-------
Example Permit
-------
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NPDES PERMIT
The Upjohn Company
410 Sackect Point Road
North Haven, Conn. 06473
Re: DEP/WPC-101-038
City of North Haven
Quinnipiac River Watershed
Attention: Mr. Robert T. Campaigne
This permit is issued in accordance with Section 22a-430 of Chapter 446k,
Connecticut General Statutes, and regulation adopted thereunder, as amended and
Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 USC 1251, et. seq.. and
pursuant to an approval dated September 26, 1973, by the Administrator of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency for the State- of Connecticut to
administer a N.P.D.E.S. permit program.
Your application for permit reissuance submitted by Upjohn Company on
January 31, 1986, has been reviewed by the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection.
The Commissioner, acting under Section 22a-430, hereby pennies Che Upjohn
Company to discharge treated vastewaters from organic chemical manufacturing
and pharmaceutical manufacturing in accordance with the following conditions:
1. The wastewater shall be collected, treated and discharged in accordance
with the above referenced application and all approvals issued by Che
Commissioner or his agent for the discharges and/or activities authorized
by or associated with this permit.
2. The discharges shall not exceed and shall otherwise conform to specific
terms and conditions listed below. The discharges shall be monitored and
results reported to the Water Management Bureau (Attn: DMR Processing) by
the end of the month after the month in which samples are taken according
to the following schedule:
A. Discharge Serial No. 001 MON LOG 1
Description: Treated process & laboratory wastewaters, cooling tower
overflow/backflush, groundwater & rainwater
(Code 1010420)
Receiving Stream: Quinnipiac River (Basin Code 5200)
Present/Future Water Quality Standard: SC/SB
Average Daily Flow: 570,000 gallons per day
Maximum Daily Flow: 750,000 gallons per day
(Printed on Recycled Piper)
165 Capitol Avenue • Hartfori. CT 06106
Ait Equal Opportunity Employer
-------
Parameter
Code
Average
Monthly
Limits
Maximum
Daily
Limits
Minimum
Frequency
of Samelins
Sample
Tvoe
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Suspended
Solids
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthene
Acrylonitrile
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzene
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Carbon
Tecrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichloro-
benzene
1,2.4-Trichloro-
benzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloroethane
1.2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1.1.1 Trichloro-
ethane
1,1.1 Trichloro-
ethane
Chloroethane
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
2-Chlorophenol
1.2-Dichloro-
benzene
1,2-Dichloro-
benzene
81017-019 300.0 mg/1 500.0 mg/1 12 per mo. Daily Composite
81017-001 648.0 kg/d 1080.0 kg/d
00318-019 43.0 mg/1 115.0 mg/1
00318-001 92.8 kg/d 248.0 kg/d
00530-019 50.0 mg/1 175.0 mg/1
00530-001 108.0 kg/d 378.0 kg/d
34205-019
34205-001
34215-019
34215-001
34030-019
34030-001
32102-019
.021 mg/1
0.04 kg/d
.092 mg/1
0.19 kg/d
.035 mg/1
0.07 kg/d
.017 mg/1
.056 mg/1
0.12 kg/d
.232 mg/1
0.50 kg/d
.130 mg/1
0.28 kg/d
.036 mg/1
32102-001 0.04 kg/d 0.07 kg/d
34301-019
34301-001
34551-019
.014 mg/1
0.03 kg/d
.065 mg/1
.020 mg/1
0.04 kg/d
.134 mg/1
34551-001 0.14 kg/d 0.29 kg/d
39700-019
39700-001
34396-019
34396-001
32103-019
32103-001
34506-019
.014 mg/1
0.03 kg/d
.020 mg/1
0.04 kg/d
.065 mg/1
0.14 kg/d
.020 mg/1
.026 mg/1
0.06 kg/d
.051 mg/1
0.11 kg/d
.202 mg/1
0.44 kg/d
.051 mg/1
Annually
Annually
Veekly
Annually
34506-001 0.04 kg/d 0.11 kg/d
34311-019
34311-001
32106-019
32106-001
34586-019
34586-001
34536-019
.099 mg/1
2.14 kg/d
.020 mg/1
0.04 kg/d
.029 mg/1
0.06 kg/d
.010 mg/1
.257 mg/1
0.55 kg/d
.044 mg/1
0.09 kg/d
.094 mg/1
0.20 kg/d
.020 mg/1
12 per mo. Daily Composite
12 per mo. Daily Composite
Annually Daily Composite
Annually Grab Sample Average
Veekly Grab Sample Average
Annually Grab Sample Average
Veekly Grab Sample Average
Annually Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Grab Sample Average
Grab Sample Average
Annually Grab Sample Average
Annually Grab Sample Average
Veekly Grab Sample Average
Veekly Grab Sample Average
34536-001 0.02 kg/d 0.04 kg/d
-------
1,3-Dichloro-
benzene
1.3-Dichloro-
benzene
1,4-Dichloro-
benzene
1,4-Dichloro-
benzene
1.2-Trans -
Dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-
Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloro-
propane
1.2-Dichloro-
propane
1.3-Dichloropro-
pylene
1,3-Dichloropro-
pylene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2 ,4-Dimethylphenol
2 ,4-Dinitrotoluene
2.4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2.6-Dinitrotoluene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Bis(2-Chloroiso-
propyl) ether
Methylene Chloride
Methylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Hexachloro-
butadiene
Hexachloro-
butadiene
Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,A-Dinitrophenol
2 ,4-Dinitrophenol
4,6 Dinltro-o-
cresol
4,6 Dinitro-o-
cresol
34566-019
34566-001
34571-019
34571-001
34546-019
34546-001
34541-019
34541-001
77163-019
77163-001
34696-019
34696-001
34447-019
34447-001
34591-019
34591-001
34646-019
34646-001
34616-019
34616-001
34657-019
.029 mg/1
0.06 kg/d
.014 mg/1
0.03 kg/d
.020 mg/1
0.04 kg/d
.146 mg/1
0.31 kg/d
.027 mg/1
0.06 kg/d
.042 mg/1
0.09 kg/d
.026 mg/1
0.06 kg/d
.051 mg/1
0.11 kg/d
.220 mg/1
0.47 kg/d
.042 mg/1
0.09 kg/d
Weekly
Grab Sample Average
34606-019
34606-001
34611-019
34611-001
34626-019
34626-001
34371-019
34371-001
34376-019
34376-001
34283-019
34423-019
34423-001
34423-019
34423-001
39702-019
.017 mg/1
0.04 kg/d
.108 mg/1
0.23 kg/d
.244 mg/1
0.52 kg/d
.030 mg/1
0.06 kg/d
.024 mg/1
0.05 kg/d
.038 mg/1
0.08 kg/d
.082 mg/1
0.18 kg/d
.019 mg/1
.034 mg/1
0.07 kg/d
.273 mg/1
0.59 kg/d
.615 mg/1
1.33 kg/d
.103 mg/1
0.22 kg/d
.065 mg/1
0.65 kg/d
.085 mg/1
0.18 kg/d
.182 mg/1
0.39 kg/d
.047 mg/1
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Weekly
Annually
Annually
39702-001 0.04 kg/d 0.10 kg/d
.021 mg/1
0.04 kg/d
.025 mg/1
0.05 kg/d
.039 mg/1
0.08 kg/d
.069 mg/1
0.15 kg/d
.068 mg/1
0.15 kg/d
.074 mg/1
.056 mg/1
0.12 kg/d
.065 mg/1
0.14 kg/d
.066 mg/1
0.14 kg/d
.119 mg/1
0.26 kg/d
.118 mg/1
0.25 kg/d
.265 mg/1
Weekly Grab Sample Average
Annually Grab Sample Average
Annually Grab Sample Average
Annually Grab Sample Average
Grab Sample Average
Dally Composite
Daily Composite
Grab Sample Average
Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Grab Sample Average
Grab Sample Average
Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Grab Sample Average
Grab Sample Average
Grab Sample Average
Grab Sample Average
Annually
Annually
Annually
Weekly
Annually
Annually
34657-001 0.16 kg/d 0.57 kg/d
-------
Phenol
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalace
Bis(2-echylhexyl)
phthalate
Di-n-butyl phtha-
lace
Di-n-butyl phtha-
lace
Diethy1 phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
fienzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
3,4-Benzofluoran-
thene
3,4-Benzofluoran-
thene
Benzo(k)fluor-
anthene
Benzo(k)fluor-
anthene
Chrysene
Chrysene
Ace naph thy1ene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Anthracene
Fluorene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Toluene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Vinyl Chloride
Total Chromium
Total Chromium
Total Copper
Total Copper
Total Cyanide
Total Cyanide
C016''-019
C016 -001
39100-019
39100-001
39110-019
39110-001
34336-019
34336-001
34341-019
34341-001
34526-019
34526-001
34247-019
34247-001
34230-019
.014 mg/1
0.03 kg/d
.098 mg/1
.024 mg/1
0.05 kg/d
.267 mg/1
Veekly Grab Sample Average
Annually Daily Composite
34242-019
34242-001
34320-019
34320-001
34200-019
34200-001
34220-019
34220-001
34381-019
34381-001
34461-019
34461-001
34469-019
34469-001
34475-019
0.21 kg/d 0.57 kg/d
.025 mg/1
0.05 kg/d
.077 mg/1
0.17 kg/d
.018 mg/1
0.04 kg/d
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
34230-001 ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
.021 mg/1
.054 mg/1 Annually Daily Composite
0.12 kg/d
.194 mg/1
0.42 kg/d
.045 mg/1
0.10 kg/d
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
ND*
.053 mg/1
34475-001 0.04 kg/d 0.11 kg/d
34010-019
34010-001
39180-019
39180-001
39175-019
39175-001
01034-019
01034-001
01042-019
01042-001
00720-019
00720-001
.024 mg/1
0.05 kg/d
.020 mg/1
0.04 kg/d
.099 mg/1
0.21 kg/d
0.10 mg/1
0.21 kg/d
.20 mg/1
0.43 kg/d
.100 mg/1
0.22 kg/d
.076
0.16
.051
0.11
.257
0.55
0.200
0.43
.400
0.86
.180
0.38
mg/1
kg/d
ng/1
kg/d
mg/1
kg/d
mg/1
kg/d
mg/1
kg/d
mg/1
kg/d
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Daily Composite
Annually Daily Composite
Annually Daily Composite
Annually Daily Composite
Annually Daily Composite
Annually Daily Composite
Annually Daily Composite
Annually Daily Composite
Annually Grab Sample Average
Weekly Grab Sample Average
Annually Grab Sample Average
Annually Grab Sample Average
Annually Daily Composite
Annually Daily Composite
Veekly Daily Composite
-------
C0019-09A
C0020-09A
82388-019
82388-001
00610-019
00610-001
00625-019
Total Lead
Total Lead
Total Nickel
Total Nickel
Total Zinc
Total Zinc
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
1-chloro-2-nitro-
benzene
Acute Toxicicy
Chronic Toxicity
Dioxane
Dioxane
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Benzidine
Benzidine
Dichlorobenz idine
Dichlorobenzidine
Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
2,4,6 Trichloro-
phenol
2,4,6 Trichloro-
phenol
2,4 Dichlorophenol 34601-019
2,4 Dichlorophenol 34601-001
Dichloran 38446-019
Dichloran 38446-001
ND* - NON-DETECTABLE The
detection limit as specified
Daily Composite
Daily Composice
Daily Composite
Weekly Grab
Range During
Composite
Daily Composite
SEE SUBPARAGRAPHS 2(A)(10) AND (11) Daily Composite
SEE SUBPARAGRAPHS 2(A)(12) AND (13) Daily Composite
01051-019
01051-001
01067-019
01067-001
01092-019
01092-001
00300-019
00400-012
rnnns.mo
.200 mg/1
0.43 kg/d
0.500 mg/1
1.08 kg/d
.300 mg/1
0.65 kg/d
.600 mg/1
0.86 kg/d
1.000 mg/1
2.16 kg/d
0.600 mg/1
1.30 kg/d
SEE SUBPARAGRAPH 2(A)(1)
Weekly
Annually
Weekly
Weekly
Uealelv
10.0 mg/1
21.6 kg/d
25.0 mg/1
54.0 kg/d
65.0 mg/1
20.0 mg/1
43.2 kg/d
50.0 mg/1
108.0 kg/d
80.0 mg/1
00625-001 140.4 kg/d 172.8 kg/d
39120-019
39120-001
34631-019
34631-001
39032-019
39032-001
34621-019
0.1 mg/1
0.21 kg/d
0.25 mg/
0.54 kg/d
0.3 mg/1
0.65 kg/d
0.3 mg/1
0.2 mg/1
0.43 kg/d
0.5 mg/1
1.08 kg/d
0.5 mg/1
1.08 kg/d
0.6 mg/1
34621-001 0.64 kg/d 1.29 kg/d
Weekly Daily Composite
Weekly Daily Composite
Weekly Daily Composite
Weekly Daily Composite
Weekly Daily Composite
Weekly Grab Sample Average
Weekly Grab Sample Average
Grab Sample Average
0.039 mg/1 .112 mg/1 Weekly
0.08 kg/d 0.24 kg/d
1.0 mg/1 1.5 mg/1 Weekly
2.16 kg/d 3.24 kg/d
Permittee shall not discharge at or above the
in Table 4, Method 625, 40 CFR Part 136
Daily Composite
(1) The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 6.0 or greater than
9.0 (Code 00400-012)
(2) The discharge shall not contain or cause in the receiving stream a
visible oil sheen or floating solids.
(3) The discharge shall not cause visible discoloration or foaming in
the receiving waters.
(4) The temperature of the discharge shall not increase the
temperature of the receiving stream above 85°F or raise the
normal temperature of the receiving stream more than 4°F beyond
any zone of influence as provided in the "Connecticut Water
Quality Standards & Criteria" as amended.
-------
(5) The maximum daily concentration of each of the parameters
specified above, except for pH, acute toxicity and chronic
toxicity, shall not be exceeded by a factor of 50%, as measured by
a grab sample.
(6) The permittee shall no longer manufacture Dichloran in accordance
with the written certification to the Commissioner dated February
7, 1991. The Average Monthly Concentration limitation for
Dichloran shall be 1.0 mg/1, and the Maximum Daily Concentration
limitation shall be 1.5 mg/1.
(7) The permittee shall record the total flow (Code 74076-007) and the
number of hours of discharge (Code 81381-079) for each day of
sample collection.
(8) The report shall include a detailed explanation of any violations
of the limitations specified above.
(9) All parameters shown above as an annual monitoring requirement
shall be monitored on a quarterly basis (Jan., Apr., Jul., Oct.)
for the first year beginning with the issuance of this permit.
Effluent limitations for these parameters shall be modified after
submission of 4 quarterly sample analyses, if determined to be
necessary by the Commissioner and incorporated into a proposed
modification of this permit.
(10) A daily composite sample of the effluent shall not exhibit acute
toxicity in the receiving waterbody.
(a) Dilution equivalent to 811,750 gallons per hour (gph) is
allocated to a zone of influence for assimilation of acute
toxicity. This allocation shall be used to calculate the
instrearn waste concentration (IWC) according to the formula:
IWC — permitted average daily flow rate X 100
(permitted average daily flow rate + allocated zone of influence flow)
(b) In lieu of the permitted average daily flow rate, the mean
effluent flow rate for the previous 30 consecutive operating
days may be used to calculate the instream waste
concentration provided the flow rate for any operating day
used in calculating the mean does not exceed the mean* flow
rate by more than twenty-five (25) percent.
(11) Monitoring to determine compliance with this acute limit shall be
performed biweekly following the toxicity testing protocol for
static acute toxicity tests in "Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity yf Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms" (EPA
600/4-85/013) with the following specifications as follows:
-------
(a) Juvenile Palaemonetes pupio. (grass shrimp) , adapted at a
salinity of 10 parts per thousand (10 ppt) for at least 24
hours, shall be used as test organism in all biweekly tests.
Juvenile Fundulus heteroclitus . (mummichog. less than 30 days
old) shall also be used as test organism in addition to P.
pugio in one test each month.
(b) Synthetic or uncontaminated natural seawater adjusted to a
salinity of ten parts per thousand (10 ppt) shall be used as
dilution water in the tests.
(e) Test duration shall be 48 hours for tests employing P. pugio
as test organism and 48 hours for tests employing L.
heteroelitus as test organism.
(d) In determining LC50 values a minimum of five (5)
consecutive test concentrations surrounding the expected
limit selected from the series, 100%, 56%. 32%, 18%, 10%,
5.6%. 3.2%, 1.8% effluent by volume, in duplicate, shall be
utilized.
(e) The LCcQ value shall be determined by the computational
method (Binomial Distribution, Probit Analysis, Moving
Average Angle, Spearraan-Karber) which yields the smallest 95%
confidence interval and also yields an LCeO value which is
consistent with the dose-response data.
(f) Any test in which the survival of test organisms is less than
ninety (90) percent in any replicate control test chamber Or
failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited
document, such as maintenance of appropriate environmental
controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require
immediate retesting. Failure to submit suitable valid test
results constitutes a violation of this permit.
(g) Acute toxicity is demonstrated, and this permit violated,
when the LCcQ value for the effluent, calculated in
accordance with this paragraph, is less than or equal to 3 X
I WC. IVC shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph
(h) Results of the toxicity tests required as part of this permit
condition will be entered on the Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR) for the month in which it was performed, using the
appropriate parameter code. Additionally, complete and
accurate test data, including a description of the method of
collection and compositing the effluent sample and all
supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, and dose/response data
shall be entered on the Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring Report
form (ATMR) . The ATMR shall be sent to the following address
within thirty (30) days of the date of sample collection:
-------
Aquatic Toxicity
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Water Management Bureau
122 Washington Street
Hartford. CT 06106
(i) If any two consecutive test results or any three test results
in a single year fail to meet the maximum daily permit limit
for acute toxicity as described above, the permittee shall
submit a report describing proposed steps to eliminate the
toxic impact of the discharge on the receiving waterbody.
Such a report shall include a proposed time schedule -to
accomplish toxicity reduction.
(12) A daily composite sample of the effluent shall not exhibit chronic
toxicity in the receiving waterbody.
(a) Dilution equivalent to 2,041,312 gallons per hour (gph) is
allocated to a zone of influence for assimilation of chronic
toxicity. This allocation shall be used to calculate the
inseream waste concentration (IWC) according to the formula:
IWC - permitted average daily flow rate X 100
(permitted average daily flow rate + allocated zone of influence flow)
(b) In lieu of the permitted average daily flow rate, the mean
effluent flow rate for the previous 30 consecutive operating
days may be used to calculate the instream waste
concentration provided the flow rate for any operating day
used in calculating the mean does not exceed the mean flow
rate by more than twenty-five (25) percent.
(13) Monitoring to determine compliance with this chronic limit shall
be performed biweekly following the toxicity testing protocol for
static acute toxicity tests in "Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms" (EPA
600/4-85/013) with the following specifications as follows:
(a) Juvenile Palaemonetes pugio. (grass shrimp), adapted at a
salinity of 10 parts per thousand(10 ppt) for at least 24
hours, shall be used as test organism in all biweekly .tests.
Juvenile Fundulus heteroclitus.(mummlehog.less than 30 days
old) shall also be used as test organism in addition to P.
pugio in one test each month.
(b) Synthetic or uncontaminated natural seawater adjusted to a
salinity of ten parts per thousand (10 ppt) shall be used as
dilution water in the tests.
(c) Test duration shall be 48 hours for tests employing Pj. pugio
as test organism and 48 hours for tests employing F_,.
heteroclitus as test organism.
-------
(d) In determining LC50 values a minimum of five
consecutive test concentrations surrounding the expected
limit selected from the series, 100%, 56%, 32%, 18%, 10%.
5.6%, 3.2%, 1.8% effluent by volume, in duplicate, shall be
utilized.
(e) The LC__ value shall be determined by the computational
method (Binomial Distribution, Probit Analysis, Moving
Average Angle, Speannan-Karber) which yields the smallest 95%
confidence interval and also yields an LCeQ value which is
consistent with the dose -response data.
(f) Any test in which the survival of test organisms is less than
ninety (90) percent in any replicate control test chamber or
failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited
document, such as maintenance of appropriate environmental
controls, shall constitute an invalid test and will require
immediate retesting. Failure to submit suitable valid test
results constitutes a failure of this permit.
(g) Chronic toxicity is demonstrated, and this permit violated,
when the LC_Q value for the effluent, calculated in
accordance with this paragraph, is less than or equal to 20 x
IWC. IUC shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph
(h) Results of the toxicity tests required as part of this permit
condition will be entered on the Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR) for the month in which it was performed, using the
appropriate parameter code. Additionally, complete and
accurate test data, including a description of the method of
collection and compositing the effluent sample and all
supporting chemical/physical measurements performed in
association with the toxicity tests, and dose/response data
shall be entered on the Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring Report
form (ATMR) . The ATMR shall be sent to the following address
within thirty (30) days of the date of sample collection:
Aquatic Toxicity
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Water Management Bureau
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(i) If any two consecutive test results or any three test results
in a single year fails to meet the maximum daily permit limit
for chronic toxicity as described above, the permittee shall
submit a report describing proposed steps to eliminate the
toxic impact of the discharge on the receiving waterbody.
Such a report shall include a proposed time schedule to
accomplish toxicity reduction.
-------
fi. Discharge Serial No. 002A MON LOG 1
Description: Stormwater - South Side (Zone 2)
(Code 1080000)
Receiving Stream: Quinnipiac River (Basin Code 5200)
Present/Future Water Quality Standard: SC/SB
Maximum Daily Flow: 1,625,000 gallons per day (50 year storm event)
(1) The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 4.0 or greater than
8.5 (Code 00400-012).
(2) The discharge shall not contain or cause in the receiving stream a
visible oil sheen or floating solids.
(3) 'The discharge shall not cause visible discoloration or foaming in
the receiving waters.
(4) The temperature of the discharge shall not increase the
temperature of the receiving stream above 85°F or raise Che
normal temperature of the receiving stream more than 4°F beyond
any zone of influence as provided in the "Connecticut Water
Quality Standards & Criteria" as amended.
(5) The stormwater collection tank pumps shall be automatically
activated to begin pumping accumulated stormwater at the beginning
of each stormwater event to the wastewater treatment system, and
shall continue to transfer stormwater to the treatment system at
the design pump capacity to a maximum volume of 20.000 gallons or
the entire storm event, whichever is smaller. A grab sample from
each storm event shall be collected within the first 10 minutes of
pump activation and be analyzed for Chemical Oxygen Demand. Any
discharge of excess stormwater to the receiving stream shall also
be sampled within the first 10 minutes of discharge and analyzed
for Chemical Oxygen Demand. Results of all tests shall be retained
in accordance with section 22a-430-4(J) of the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies, and made available to the Commissioner
upon request. On a quarterly basis(January, April, July and
October), following a period of no precipitation for at least 72
hours, a grab sample of the stormwater, collected within 10
m nutes of collection tank pump activation, shall be analyzed for
all parameters listed in paragraph 2A above which have a weekly
monitoring frequency.
(6) The permittee shall record the total flow for the day (74076-007)
and the number of hours of discharge (81381-079) for each day of
discharge.
C. Discharge Serial No. 002B MON LOG 1
Description: Stormwater - South Side (Zone 3)
(Code 1080000)
Receiving Stream: Quinnipiac River (Basin Code 5200)
Present/Future Water Quality Standard: SC/SB
Maximum Daily Flow: 1,625,000 gallons per day (50 year storm event)
-------
(1) The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 4.0 or greater than
8.5(Code 00400-012)
(2) The discharge shall not contain or cause in the receiving stream a
visible oil sheen or floating solids.
(3) The discharge shall not cause visible discoloration or foaming in
the receiving waters.
(4) The temperature of the discharge shall not increase the
temperature of the receiving stream above 85°F or raise the
normal temperature of the receiving stream more than 4 F beyond
any zone of influence as provided in the "Connecticut Water
Quality Standards & Criteria" as amended.
(5) The stormwater collection tank pumps shall be automatically
activated to begin pumping accumulated stormwater at the beginning
of each stormwater event to the wastewater treatment system, and
shall continue to transfer stormwater to the treatment system at
the design pump capacity to a maximum volume of 20,000 gallons or
the entire storm event, whichever is smaller. A grab sample from
each storm event shall be collected within the first 10 minutes of
pump activation and be analyzed for Chemical Oxygen Demand. Any
discharge of excess stormwater to the receiving stream shall also
be sampled within the first 10 minutes of discharge and analyzed
for Chemical Oxygen Demand. Results of all tests shall be retained
in accordance with section 22a-430-4(j) of the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies, and made available to the Commissioner
upon request. On a quarterly basis(January, April, July and
October) , following a period of no precipitation for at least 72
hours, a grab sample of the stormwater, collected within 10
minutes of collection tank pump activation, shall be analyzed for
all parameters listed in paragraph 2A above which have a weekly
monitoring frequency.
(6) The permittee shall record the total flow (74076-007) and the
number of hours of discharge (81381-079) for each day of
discharge.
D. Discharge Serial No. 003 MON LOG 1
Description: Stormwaters - North Side(Zone 1) (Code 1080000)
Receiving Stream - Drainage swale to Quinnipiac River
(Basin Code 5200)
Present/Future Water Quality Standard - SC/SB
Maximum Daily Flow - 1,420,000 gallons per day (SO year storm event)
(1) The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 4.0 or greater than
8.5(Code 00400-012).
(2) The discharge shall not contain or cause in the receiving stream a
visible oil sheen or floating solids.
(3) The discharge shall not cause visible discoloration or foaming in
the receiving waters.
-------
(4) The temperature of the discharge shall not increase the
temperature of the receiving stream above 85 F or raise the
normal temperature of the receiving stream more than 4°F beyond
any zone of influence as provided in the "Connecticut Vater
Quality Standards & Criteria" as amended.
(5) The stormwater collection tank pumps shall be automatically
activated to begin pumping accumulated stormwater at the beginning
of each stormwater event to the wastewater treatment system, and
shall continue to transfer stormwater to the treatment system at
the design pump capacity to a maximum volume of 20,000 gallons or
the entire storm event, whichever is smaller. A grab sample from
each storm event shall be collected within the first 10 minutes of
pump activation and be analyzed for Chemical Oxygen Demand. Any
discharge of excess stormwater to the receiving stream shall also
be sampled within the first 10 minutes of discharge and analyzed
for Chemical Oxygen Demand. Results of all tests shall be retained
in accordance with section 22a-430-4(J) of the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies, and made available to the Commissioner
upon request. On a quarterly basis(January, April, July and
October), following a period of no precipitation for at least 72
hours, a grab sample of the stormwater, collected within 10
minutes of collection tank pump activation, shall be analyzed for
all parameters listed in paragraph 2A above which have a weekly
monitoring frequency.
(6) The permittee shall record the total flow (74076-007) and the
number of hours of discharge (81381-079) for each day of
discharge.
E. Discharge Serial No. 004 MON LOG 1
Description: Stormwater - Bubble Area Code(lOSOOOO)
Receiving Stream: Quinnipiac River
(Basin Code 5200)
Present/Future Water Quality Standard: SC/SB
Maximum Daily Flow: 1,019,000 gallons per day (50 year storm event)
(1) The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 4.0 or greater than
8.5(Code 00400-012).
(2) The discharge shall not contain or cause in the receiving stream a
visible oil sheen or floating solids.
(3) The discharge shall not cause visible discoloration or foaming in
the receiving waters.
(4) The temperature of the discharge shall not increase the
temperature of the receiving stream above 85°F or raise the
normal temperature of the receiving stream more than 4°F beyond
any zone of influence as provided in the "Connecticut Water
quality Standards & Criteria" as amended.
-------
(5) A grab sample of Discharge Serial No. 004 shall be collected
within che first 10 minutes of discharge and analyzed on a
quarterly basis (January, April, July, and October) for all
parameters listed in paragraph 2A above which have a weekly
monitoring frequency.
This permit shall be consiccred as the permit required by Section 402 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Section 22a-430 of the Connecticut
General Statutes and shall expire on MARCH 31, 1997.
This permit shall be subject to the following sections of the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies which- are hereby incorporated into this permit:
Section 22a-430-3 General Conditions
(a)Definitions
(b)General
(c)Inspection and Entry
(d)Effect of a Permit
(e)Duty
(f)Proper Operation and Maintenance
(g)Sludge Disposal
(h)Duty to Mitigate
(i)Facility Modifications; Notification
(j)Monitoring, Records and Reporting Requirements
(k)Bypass
(l)Conditions Applicable to POTUs
(m)Effluent Limitation Violations (Upsets)
(n)Enforcement
(o)Resource Conservation
(p)Spill Prevention and Control
(q)Instrumentation, Alarms, Flow Recorders
(r)Equalization
22a-&30-& Procedures and Criteria
(a)Duty to Apply
(b)Duty to Reapply
(c)Application Requirements
(d)Preliminary Review
(e)Tentative Determination
(f)Draft Permits, Fact Sheets
(g)Public Notice, Notice of Hearing
(h)Public Comments
(i)Final Determination
(j)Public Hearings
(k)Submission of Plans and Specifications. Approval.
(1)Establishing Effluent Limitations and Conditions
(m)Case by Case Determinations
(n)Permit issuance or renewal
(o)Permit Transfer
(p)Permit revocation, denial or modification
(q)Variances
-------
(r)Secondary Treatment Requirements
(s)Treatment Requirements for Metals and Cyanide
(t)Discharges to POTUs - Prohibitions
Your attention is especially drawn to the notification requirements of
subsection (i)(2), (i)(3). (j)(6).
-------
WCIS
FACT SHEET
Location Address:
Name The UPJohn Company
Street 410 Sackett Point Rd.
State Connecticut
City North Haven
Zip
Phone 281-2816
Contact Name R. Campaiene
Site Category: Point (X) Non-point ( )
USGS Quad 95
CHECK ALL THAT APPLIES
MUNICIPAL
UIC STATE _X. NPDES
X_ MAJOR SIGNIFICANT MINOR MINOR
Compliance Schedule Included Yes X No _
Ownership Code:
Order No.
Private (X) Federal ( ) State ( )
Municipal (town-owned only) ( ) Other public ( )
For UIC Permits: Total Wells
Well Type 1 2 3.
ENGINEER: DICK MASON
FEE SCHEDULE
TENTATIVE DETERMINATION $
PERMIT ISSUANCE $
ANNUAL FEES $
-------
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Fact Sheet - EXHIBIT
The DpJohn Conpany
RPDES Permit Bo. CT0001314
410 Saekatt Point load
North Ba\ . Connecticut
\0
The NPDES wastewater discharge permit for The Upjohn Company is due for
reissuance for the second time. All NPDES permits for discharges to surface
waters in Connecticut are reissued on a 5 year cycle, providing the public with
the opportunity to comment on the restrictions imposed by the permit.
NPDES permits are issued for point sources of discharge to waters of the
United States under Section 402(b) of the Federal Uater Pollution Control Act
(FVPCA) as amended and Section 22a-430 of the Connecticut General Statutes as
amended. Connecticut received authority to issue permits under the FVPCA from
Che U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1973.
The primary business of North Haven Fine Chemical Division of The Upjohn
Co. is the manufacture of organic chemicals for use as dye and pigment
Pharmaceuticals, photographic intermediates, agricultural treatment chemicals.
UV curing initiators, flavor and fragrance components, and the byproducts
resulting from the manufacture. The Upjohn Company submitted their application
for reissuance of their NPDES permit on January 31, 1986.
Previous Permit Requirements-
The .previous permit issued on July 30. 1981 contained the following
requirements:
1. Elimination of all process discharges to the yard drainage system to
insure that no process waters bypassed the wastewater treatment facilities.
2. Identification through sampling, of all substances and compounds
contained on the Toxic Pollutant and Priority Pollutant Lists, established by
EPA. Sampling of the untreated wastevater and treated effluent was required.
3. An evaluation of all operation and maintenance procedure? for the
wasjcewater treatment facilities, as well as wastewater sampling methods and
flow monitoring.
4. The submission of a proposal for modifications and/or additional
facilities to maximize the efficiency of the wastewater treatment facilities
and in-plant recovery systems.
5. Submission of an evaluation of the aeration lagoon and the feasibility
of alternatives to modify it. At the time, the lagoon was uncovered and was a
source of odors. Acting on the complaints from local citizens, the DEP
required Upjohn to review ways of covering it.
Phone:
OK,If*
-------
6. The submission of an evaluation of Che secondary settling tank and
reeirculation equipment which had been ordered by the DEP to be installed prior
to the permit reissuance hearings (Order No. 2635). This clarifier was
required to be covered to reduce odors.
7. The submission of a proposal for modified wastewater discharge
limitations to reflect the effect of seasonal temperature variations on
pollutant removal efficiencies and to reflect the new treatment facilities.
Modified limitations were later listed in the- March 10. 1983 permit
modification.
8. The submission of an evaluation of odorous emissions from plant
property during summertime conditions and recommendations for additional
measures to control -odors. These studies were performed. Other studies were
also accomplished by EPA. This data is available through the Air Compliance
Unit of the OEP.
9. The submission of plans followed by installation of an automatic
sampler on the wastewater treatment discharge to the Quinnipiac River. The
purpose of this sampler is to hold for possible analysis, a sample of each days
effluent, making it possible for the DEP to check on the previous days
wastewater quality if desired.
10. Submission of plans for modification of the primary settling lagoon to
end its normal use. This lagoon was later eliminated and replaced with a
covered tank known as the primary clarifier. The contents of the lagoon were
excavated. The initial quantity was placed on the sludge pile and the remainder
was transported to an off-site hazardous waste disposal facility.
11. Submission of a report describing the plant operations related to the
production of the chemical dichloran, with recommended additional treatment to
meet an EPA promulgated effluent limit. Upjohn applied for a variance from the
limit. This is the subject of a separate public hearing process with EPA.
12. Submission of a report detailing voluces and characteristics of
wastewater sludge with a feasibility study on alternate disposal methods. At
present, all generated sludge is transported off-site with the approval of the
DEP.
13. Submission of an evaluation of modifications necessary to reduce the
concentration of lead in the discharge. The use of lead in the production of
products at Upjohn has been terminated, and discharge concentrations have been
reduced.
14. Submission of a report defining the extent and degree of sediment
contamination in the Quinnipiac River as the result of Up John's wastewater
effluent prior to the construction of solids removal equipment. This report
was submitted, and the DEP decided to hold off on the requirement to dredge
until the escape of solids from the facility was under better control and'until
the pollutant lead(Fb) was eliminated from use. The requirement to dredge the
sediment near the outfall pipe has been re-instated(0rder No. 4706).
-------
IS. The previous permit allowed Che created vastevater discharge to be
directed to either Che Quinnipiac River or Che North Haven Sewage Treatment
Plant. Ic had been anticipated Chat Che entire effluent would be directed to
the Town Sewage Treatment Plant when Chat Plant was rebuilt and upgraded to an
advanced treatment facility. Following pilot testing with UpJohn's wastewater,
a concern arose Chat their effluent may adversely affect the advanced treatment
•cage of Che new facilities. In addition, due to Che fact chat the Upjohn
treatment system provides a much longer detention time for wastewaters, and
provides a degree of treatment technology which exceeds the technology to be
provided at Che Town's upgraded sewage treatment plant, it was felt chat very
little or no benefic Co the Quinnipiac River would be realized from passing
their effluent through the Town's system. The allowance to discharge
wascewater Co Che municipal facilicies has been left out of Che new permit
draft.
Modification Requirements
Upjohn's permit was modified on March 10, 1983 and included the following
additional requirements:
1. Submission of a final report and plans for the installation of
additional aerators in the aeration lagoon, an inflatable cover over
the aeration lagoon wich Creatment for vented emissions, an additional
final clarifier, and related appurtenances.
2. Submission of ''- discussion and recommendations for protecting the
wascewacer treacaent facilities from a 100-year flood event, for
further removal of clean scormwacer from the treatment system (to
prevent hydraulic overloads), and for further reductions in the
quantities of the chemicals 3,3 dlchlorobenzidlne and benzidine in the
discharge.
3. The construction of a temporary cap (to reduce odors) followed by
excavation of all sludge from the abandoned primary lagoon with
restoration of the area to grade.
4. Submission of an engineering report containing a proposal for a study
of the effect of Upjohn's treated effluent on the North Haven sewage
treatment plant, analysis of the effluent for FCfis. and additional
effluent parameter information.
5. The preparation and submittal of a report by an outside consultant on
the nature and extent of groundwater contamination on Che Upjohn
property.
-------
WastevflEer Treatment Facilities
As a result of all the upgradings and additions perfoned by The Upjohn
Company in confomanee with the requirements of Che previous permit, the
vastevater treatment facilities at present, consist of the following main
components:
1. Several recycle/recovery sytems within the process areas.
2. Two-stage pH adjustment system.
3. Primary settling tank - solids dewatered and disposed of off-site.
4. Decant tank .for separation of any floatable layer in the wastewater.
5. Extended-aeration biological treatment basin, with addition of powdered
activated carbon, and special microorganisms for the breakdown of
organic pollutants.
6. Secondary settling tanks (2) - solids dewatered and disposed of
off-site.
7. Solids dewatering equipment.
Effluent Limitations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencey promulgates effluent limitations
for various industrial categories. The Upjohn Company falls under the category
of Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF), as defined by
EPA. On November 19, 1987, effluent limitations vere finally issued for this
category. Proposed standards had been under review for several years, but were
delayed due to litigation from industry and environmental groups on the
national level. The Upjohn Company also falls under the Pharmaceutical Industry
Category due to the manufacture of one product used as a sunsceen agent. In
addition. Upjohn is proposing to make some products in the future which would
fall under the Pharmaceutical Industry Category. These would take the place of
products presently manufactured.
The recently promulgated effluent limitations from EPA have been placed in
the draft permit and, in accordance with the Federal Vater Pollution Control
Act. Section 301. must be met by March 31. 1989. These new standards will
require extensive modifications and upgradings to the existing treatment system
in a very short period of time. The Upjohn Company has performed studies to
determine what additional treatment technologies will be necessary, and a
separate administrative Order has been issued by the DEP to Upjohn Company to
establish a schedule of submissions of plans and construction of the new
facilities. Initial plans were submitted in May 1988 and approved on October
13, 1988.
-------
The previous NPDES permit issued on November 9, 1981 contained interim
effluent limitations which reflected the quality of the effluent at the time of
reicsuance and indicated chat the limitations would be modified after February
28. 1982 to reflect interim improvements to the wastewater treatment
facilities. It also indicated that the limitations would be modified again
afcer July 31. 1983 to reflect the major treatment system upgrading. The
permit modification issued on March 10. 1983. established revised effluent
limitations for the effluent to the Quinnipiac River. These were established
prior to -completion of construction of the treatment facilities and represented
anticipated effluent quality from the new facilities. In some instances the
effluent limitations for individual pollutant parameters were established with
incomplete data and were merely estimates of the attainable effluent quality.
The wastewater treatment facilities which were 'completed have resulted in a
greatly improved effluent quality to the river. The equipment installed was
determined by Che DEP Co represent Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT). 1C was also anticipated at the tiae. that stone of the
individual effluent limitations would need to be adjusted up or down when
experience with the treatment system showed what it was actually capable of.
For this purpose, the following statement was written into the March 10. 1983
permit modification:
•The effluent quality from the treatment facilities will be evaluated for a
one year operating period beginning on December 1. 1983 after which time
revised effluent limitation* vill be adopt 1 if necessary to reflect the actual
ability of the treatment facilities to remove Che permitted pollutants. Hot
withstanding the above sentence che Commissioner specifically reserves Che
rights co establish more stringent effluent limitations pursuant Co Chapter
474a of che Connecticut General Statutes and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act should it be determined that these limitations will not protect the
water quality of the receiving waters".
To address this issue, the permit required The Upjohn Company to submit a
report by February 28, 1965 which evaluated the effluent quality for the
previous year. Vith this data, the DEP had anticipated adjusting the effluent
limitations, however, at the same time, initial effluent testing had been
performed on Upjohn1 s discharge by the EPA which indicated that Up John's
effluent would probably cause toxicity to aquatic organisms in the Quinnipiac
River during periods of low flow. After review of this information, the DEP
chose not to revise any effluent limitations until a definitive program to
address effluent toxicity was established.
Effluent toxicity is now a critical aspect of the permit reissuance and a
program addressing toxicity has been defined as noted belov.
-------
Draft Permit Requirements
The draft permit presented now for public review contains the following
requirements:
1. The most significant requirement in the permit is to meet the new EPA
effluent standards by March 31. 1989. These standards are technology based for
the entire Organic Chemicals industry and are not reflective of the specific
toxicity of Upjohn1s effluent. The new EPA limitations represent the latest
thinking on a national level of the effluent quality attainable by the
application of BAT technology without detailed consideration of the acute ar
chronic toxicitv of the discharge on the receiving gr7T**?"*!
The majority of products manufactured at this facility, and the majority of
the wastewater flow, falls under the OCPSF category. The OCPSF guidelines
provide effluent limitations for the portion of the wastewater volume which is
generated by
-------
There are some additional wastewaters which are processed by the wastevater
treatment facilities. These consist of 9.500 gallons per day of stormvater.
21,000 gallons per day of boiler room wastewaters. 28,800 gallons per day of
sludge belt press wastewaters from the treatment system, and a proposed flow of
15,000 gallons per day of contaminated groundwaters.
All of these wastewaters. with the exception of the boiler wastewaters can
be contaminated with the sane pollutants as the process wastevaters. The
stormvater is from the manufacturing area, the belt press treats the sludge
from the treatment system, and the groundwaters are contaminated as a result of
the past and present wastewater .treatment and disposal. The OCPSF guidelines
appear to be appropriate to use as limitations for these wastewaters, and have
been allocated to them in accordance with Best Professional Judgement.
With the exception of the boiler wastewaters. all wastewaters processed
through the treatment system have been allocated limitations consistent with
the OCPSF guidelines. With the inclusion of the boiler wastewaters in the
overall flew, this results in linitations on Discharge Serial Ho. 001 that are
•lightly more stringent than the OCPSF guidelines.
2. Water pollution control programs throughout the country are now also
beginning to address effluent toxicity to aquatic life in much greater detail
due to our increased knowledge of the specific effects of various pollutants
and because BAT treatment systems have been installed on the vast majority of
discharges. Elimination of effluent toxicity is the next stage of water
pollution control.
The draft permit contains in paragraph 2a(7) an acute toxicity limitation
which will apply upon completion of • 3 month shakedown period following
construction of the new treatment system. This limitation is based on the
requirement that Dp John's treated effluent cannot cause acute toxicity to
sensitive test organisms in laboratory tests, at a concentration which
represents conditions in the Quinnipiac River at the edge of a chosen mixing
zone. Paragraph 2a(9)(6) of the permit requires Upjohn to submit to the DEP on
or before March 30, 1990, a report for the review and approval of the
Commissioner which summarizes all aquatic toxicity information generated in
accordance with the permit conditions, and which includes additional hydraulic
data on the Quinnipiac River, and a proposal for final limitations which will
protect the Quinnipiac River from chronic toxic effects of the discharge.
-------
Other Comments
1. On June IS, 1988, Order Ho. 4706 was issued to the Upjohn Company to
require the following:
•Installation of new treatment facilities to improve effluent quality
in order to comply with strict new federal discharge standards.
-Removal of l«ad(Pb) contaminated sediments from the Quinnipiac River.
-Reduction of the treatment systeb influent quantities of
dichlorobenzidine and dichloran.
2. In 1982, Upjohn applied for a variance from an effluent limitation for
the chemical dichloran. which is regulated under the Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing category. Such a variance can only be granted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This request has been under review by the EPA,
and has been the subject of a separate public hearing process.
The EPA limitation for dichloran has been placed in paragraph 2 (A) 6 (page
2) of the draft permit along with language which would provide for future
limitations based on the outcome of the variance request. Language has also
been included which would establish BAT limitations for dichloran should Upjohn
verify that they are no longer manufacturing this chemical as a pesticide.
-------
QUALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST
* If time allows, the questions listed below should be answered in
advance 'of the PQR.
Permit f:
Facility name: u?3bV\M C&
Reviewer:
I. PRE-SITE REVIEW: STATE-WIDE PERMITTING PRACTICES
A. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS fWOSl
1. Do the WQS require an anti-degradation review before a permit
limit can be relaxed?
2. Do the WQS allow mixing zones or otherwise provide some
portion of the receiving water for dilution of effluent?
3. How is the mixing zone/available dilution expressed?
a. The actual sizes and stages of the mixing zones?
b. The entire receiving water design flow?
c. Do the mixing zone provisions restrict the application of
the mixing zone for certain water use designations?
d. Do the mixing zone provisions handle acute and chronic
protection differently?
4. Do the WQS establish chronic and acute criteria for
pollutants? If so, how many pollutants have criteria (eg.,
TU(c), TU(a), Pb)?
5. Do the WQs place any minimum toxicity requirements on all
discharges such as an end of the pipe LC50?
6. Do the WQ criteria, based on " Ambient " conditions, specify
the pollutant magnitude and seasonal and critical flows; and
those based on "End of Pipe "conditions, specify the pollutant
magnitude, duration, and frequency?
-------
PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST
* If tine allows, the questions listed below should be answered in
advance of the PQR.
Permit f:
Facility name:
Reviewer:
I. • PRE-SITE REVIEW: STATE-WIDE PERMITTING PRACTICES
B. NPDES PROGRAM REVIEW
1. Does PCS data indicate that permits are being timely re-
evaluated on a five year cycle?
- % of Industrial-Majors awaiting re-issuance
- % of Minors Permits awaiting re-issuance
- % of General permits awaiting re-issuance
2. What is the backlog of expired and not yet reissued permits?
LANGUAGE
Are the following general conditions incorporated into all
permits, either directly or by reference to 40 CFR Part
122.41?
(a) Duty to comply
(b) Duty to reapply
(c) Need to halt or reduce activity
(d) Duty to mitigate
(e) Proper operation and maintenance
(f) Permit actions
(g) Property rights
(h) Duty to provide information
(i) Inspection and entry
(j) Monitoring and records
(k) Signatory requirements
(1) Reporting requirements
(m) Bypass
(n) Upset
-------
to-
PERMIT QUAIiITY REVIEW CHECKLIST
I. PERMJT FIUB REVIEW
A. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS
1. Does the permit file contain each of the following items relating to
the current/most recent permit?
Permit application and supporting data
D.t. received:
Statement of Basis or Fact Sheet
Draft permit
EPA Regional comments/concurrence
Proof of public notice
Date noticed:
intent to issue, reissue, or modify
opportunity for public comment
opportunity to request public hearing
_ All comments received during public comment
summary response to significant comments
Transcripts or submissions from any hearings held
public notice
summary response to significant comments
Explanation of changes fram draft to. final
\
Final permit
Date of final permit:
-------
Permit f:
5. Complete the following chart for each pollutant
parameter with specific limits
Pollutant
Basis of Limit
Water Quality Based
State
EPA
Narrative
Technology Based I Treatment Technology
BPT
BCT
BAT
BPJ
ELG
2 "Treat.
Other
Test
Method
J = Best Professional Judgement
G = Effluent Limitations Guidelines
-------
r.aae:
Reviewer:
PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST
C. -INDUSTRIAL PERMITS LIMITS
fCONTl
b. Have alternate pei-m*»«»« included to address
different production levels? Specify the number of tiers of
2. Is a BPJ analysis used as a basis for permit limitations?
a. Which of the following sources were used in establishing any
BPJ limitations?
Promulgated guidelines ft
Proposed guidelines
Development document
Treatability database
Other (Specify)
D.
1. Were secondary treatment limitations adjusted (for BOD or SS) because
of industrial contributions? Was it appropriate and correctly
computed (Special consideration 40 CFR 133.103(b))?
-------
.
Reviewer:
PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST
F. SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN MUNICIPAL PERMITS fContl
2a. Are sewage sludge requirements (Section 405) included?
2b. Does the permit contain requirements for:
influent analysis
effluent analysis
sludge analysis
If so, list the parameters and frequency of analysis.
2c. Are Pretreatment Program conditions included, where appropriate?
If so, describe the conditions (or attach a copy).
G. WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMITTING
1. Why does this permit have water quality-based toxics control?
effluent toxicity screening
ambient stream monitoring results
inspection
DMR data
304(1) listed receiving water
other (explain)
unclear
-------
. _*•-. y .-.-.
Reviewer:
PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST
G. WATER OUALTTY-BASED PERMITTING fContl
6. Have human health concerns been considered or specifically used in
determining limits?
7. Are whole effluent toxicity (WET) conditions included in the permit?
If not, is justification included in the fact sheet to indicate that
toxicity is not a problem?
a. Is there an actual limit or is WET testing used as a screen only?
b. Where in the permit are the conditions specified? ("Up front," as
a special condition, or as a standard condition?)
c. Identify WET testing methods:
Type
Frequency
Species
Duration
Endpoint
-------
Reviewer:
PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST
G. WATER QUALITY REVIEW PERMITTING fContl
10. For this permit, was wasteload allocation (WIA) modeling performed?
a. What type of model (s) was used to perform the WLA(s) (Steady state,
dynamic, or other)? Describe the type of calculation (s) used.
b. What mechanisms or sources of data were used for HIA modeling?
application form information
DMRs
308 letters
administrative orders
intensive stream survey
other (explain)
c. Are the WLA/TMDLs approved by EPA?
11. What stream design flow is specified?
12. Was non-point source contribution from upstream considered? How?
13. Were the impacts of other major dischargers (multiple discharges)
taken into account in determining any permit limits or other
requirements?
a. How were multiple discharges taken into account?
-------
Fac.il.wy
Reviewer:
PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW CHECKLIST
I. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
1. Does the permit include a compliance schedule for each outfall which
is not in compliance with the limitations specified in the permit? if
not, is an explanation provided?
2. Have any enforcement actions been taken? If yes, briefly describe the
nature and dates of the actions.
NOTES
-------
FACT SHEET
ZONE OF INFLUENCE ALLOCATION
The draft permit for the UpJohn Company includes an allocation of 811.750
gallons per hour of flow in the Quinnipiac River to Upjohn for use as a Zone of
Influence (201). Within this 201, the discharge may cause degraded water
quality including toxic impacts to aquatic organisms. However, this allocation
of flow limits the area of the river encompassed by the ZOI to insure that the
overall quality of the Quinnipiac River vill not be impaired. The magnitude of
the ZOI allocation is important since it establishes the maximum amount of
pollution which can be discharged by UpJohn without violating the permit.
Connecticut's NPDES permit regulations provide the Commissioner of DEP vith
broad discretionary powers to determine whether it is appropriate to allocate a
portion of the receiving water resource to a ZOI and. if so. how large an
allocation can be made without significantly impairing the water quality in the
receiving water. It is the intent of this provision in the Regulations to allow
the Commissioner of DEP some flexibility in establishing permit conditions
based on the unique characteristics of both the vastewater and receiving water
at each discharge site.
What is a Zone of Influence?
A ZOI is defined as the spatial area or volume of flow in the receiving «>
water which is degraded by a discharge of pollutants. The degree of impairment
varies considerably within a ZOI. Near the point of discharge, impairment may
be severe since the pollutants are present in high concentrations. Further
distant from the pollution source, water quality approaches minimally
acceptable levels as pollutants become more dilute. At the boundary of the ZOI
and beyond, water quality is no longer impaired by the pollution source.
The size and shape of a ZOI is determined by the initial concentration of
pollutants in the wastewater. the rate of discharge, the flow in the receiving
stream, the persistence of pollutants in the receiving water after discharge.
and the physical attributes of the discharge site which dictate the mixing
characteristics of the discharge and receiving waterbody. For example, when
flov is high in the river, the ZOI vill shrink in size since the effluent is
rapidly diluted near the outfall site. During low flow conditions, the size of
the area impacted by the discharge will be much larger since the river provides
less dilution for the vastewater under these conditions. Similarly, all other
factors being equal, a smaller ZOI vill result when the discharger decreases
the rate at which wastewater is discharged or removes additional pollutants
from the wastevater by improving treatment or changing the process which
generates the wastewater since less dilution is needed to make the effluent
non-polluting.
-------
Hov IB the ZOI Allocation Determined?
The ZOI allocation represents the DEP's estimate of the maximum ZOI which
can occur at a specific site before unacceptable impacts to the River will
result. Even very infrequent exposure to toxic concentrations of pollutants
which persist for only a short period of time can adversely impact populations
of sensitive aquatic species. These populations may eventually recover if the
impact is not too severe and enough organisms survive to recolonize the
affected area. Therefore, a ZOI allocation is made only after giving careful
consideration to all the site-specific factors which relate to the potential
for a discharge to cause pollution at a specific site. Many of the factors vary
either in a predictable way (such as* tidal influences)., or'in a more random
manner (such as river flow or treatment system efficiency). The variability in
site-specific conditions and the associated uncertainty in making exact
predictions also is taken into account by staff in determining the maximum ZOI
which can exist in the river before impacts are unacceptable.
How Does this Apply to UPJohn7
The proposed ZOI for UpJohn is based on consideration of data provided by
two dye dilution studies performed by UpJohn. effluent monitoring data, and
other relevant data concerning the environmental characteristics at the site
including numerous site visits by DEP staff.
Vastewater from UpJohn is discharged to an area of the Quinnipiac River
which can be characterized as a tidal estuary where fresh and saline waters
mix. These areas provide essential habitat and nursery areas for numerous
important aquatic species, are relatively rare in Connecticut, and have high
ecological value. Several other wastewater discharges, both industrial and
municipal, also utilize this area of the river for waste assimilation. The
presence of other pollution sources in the area is important since sequential
ZOI's could result in a cumulative impact to the river if care was not taken to
insure that these ZOI's do not overlap or encompass too large an area of the
river.
Examination of the effluent monitoring data revealed the presence of
numerous toxic compounds, including several synthetic compounds which may pose
a health risk to human consumers of fish which have incorporated thes**.-
compounds into their tissues. The presence of numerous chemicals at
concentrations which may be toxic or pose a risk of contaminating fish or
sediments is important because there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the
dangers of these compounds. This uncertainty is taken into account in the
assessment since caution regarding limits on the area exposed to them is
warranted.
The dye studies show that tidal dispersion is of ouch greater importance
than freshwater flow for diluting UpJohn's wastewater. Dilution provided by
tidal dispersion results in a more predictable, repeating pattern of daily
exposure than is the case where river flow is the principal source of dilution
for the wastewater. The dye studies also showed that wastewater from the UpJohn
-------
discharge does not always nix rapidly vith the river but frequently forms a
shore hugging plune of partially diluted effluent along the vestern hank of the
river. These factors, taken together, indicate that organisms living in an
extended, narrow hand along the western shore of the river downstream of the
discharge site are exposed to partially diluted effluent on a regular basis.
As a result of a detailed and thorough assessment of all site-specific
factors. DEP staff recommended limiting the ZOI for Up John to a small area near
the discharge outfall as shown on the attached site sketch.
It is the consensus of DEP professional staff that the recommended ZOI
allocation provides adequate protection to the Quinnipiac River estuary, a
highly valuable and environmentally sensitive resource. The recommended
allocation recognizes the presence of other pollution sources in the immediate
area, accounts for the unique hydrologic mixing characteristics at the site,
and was recommended by staff only after giving careful consideration to the
scientific uncertainty associated vith predicting pollution impacts to humans
and aquatic life and the natural statistical variability associated vith
environmental data collected at the site.
How is the Area of the ZOI Related to the ZOI Flow Allocation in the Permit?
In order to limit the ZOI to the area shown on the site sketch, the
effluent must be non-toxic when diluted to the maximum concentration which will
occur at the boundary of the ZOI. The dye studies provide a large number of
measurements of effluent concentrations at the edge of the ZOI. Since these
concentrations are variable, primarily as a result of tidal flows and
dispersion of the effluent, the upper 95th percentile of the data was
determined by DEP staff to be representative of the highest concentration
likely to occur at the boundary of the ZOI. Under most normal conditions (9SZ
of the time) the concentration of effluent at the boundary of the allocated ZOI
would*be less. The maximum concentration, approximately 2.9Z effluent,
represents a 35:1 dilution of UpJohn wastevater by river water at the boundary
of the ZOI. Subsequent calculations employing the actual flow of wastewater
discharged by UpJohn during the dye studies indicates that this dilution is
equivalent to the dilution which would be provided by mixing the effluent with
811,750 gallons per hour of river water.
-------
SITE SKETCH : UPJOHN ZONE OF INFLUENCE / QUINNIPXAC RIVER
The dashed line indicates the maxima area included in the ZOI vithin which
vater qulity nay be impaired by the UpJohn discharge. The NPDES permit
specifies that. 95 percent of the time under normal conditions vhen UpJohn is
in compliance vith all permit limits, toxic concentrations of effluent vill not
occur in the river outside of the shaded area.
-------
Module 2:
Ground Water Protection
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
State Ground Water
Program Elements
Eligible for Funding With
EPA Assistance
VIEWGRAPH #1:
KEY POINTS
State Ground Water Program Elements Eligible for Funding With EPA
Assistance
Within state ground water programs are several categories of activities that can be
funded by Section 106 and other assistance programs. This module will discuss those
program elements, and then focus particular attention on the Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP).
2-1
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
Ground Water Protection
Goal
• Unique to Each State
• Consistent Themes
Throughout Country
VIEWGRAPH #2:
KEY POINTS
Ground Water Protection Goal
EPA's 1990 Ground Water Task Force Report recognized the local nature of ground
water protection and contamination. The report emphasizes giving states and local
governments primary responsibility for protection, and where contamination has
occurred, for assessing and prioritizing risks to public health and the ground water
environment.
States have articulated two long-term ground water protection goals: first, to prevent
pollutants from entering ground water; and second, to remove known contaminants
from ground water. In many states, particularly urban states, these general goals have
been refined to focus on the discharge of certain contaminants, at defined levels.
2-2
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
Priority Setting for
Ground Water Protection
• Comprehensive Assessments
• Inventory & Rank
Contamination Sources
• Delineate Wellhead
Protection Areas
• Establish Quality Standards
VIEWGRAPH #3:
KEY POINTS
Priority Setting for Ground Water Protection
To ensure comprehensive ground water protection in accordance with the state's and
EPA's ground water protection goal, the following "priority setting" steps should be
taken:
• Conduct a comprehensive assessment of aquifer systems. A
comprehensive assessment includes an ongoing program that provides
information on the occurrence, movement, and quality of ground water
within the state's boundaries.
• Inventory and rank potential sources of contamination. Sources of
ground water contamination present varying levels of threat to the
resource. States need to develop an ongoing program to identify the
existence, location, and relative magnitude (risk) of man-made and
natural threats to ground water quality. Contaminant source inventories
typically have three components:
(1) Identifying specific categories of land use activities that
threaten ground water quality.
2-*
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Ground Water Protection
(2) Locating these threats and, if relevant, where they are
concentrated.
(3) Identifying known contaminants that have entered, or will
likely enter, the subsurface and threaten public health
and/or the environment.
• Delineate wellhead protection areas. The delineation of wellhead
protection areas surrounding public drinking supply wells is a critical
component of a ground water protection program. The delineated
area(s) represent the land areas that provide recharge to the well. Once
delineated, pollution sources in these areas can be managed to protect
public health. Wellhead protection focuses on the protection of drinking
water supplies through the control of contaminant sources before they
enter the subsurface. Three broad purposes underlie wellhead
protection programs:
(1) Minimizing the risk from bacteria and virus migration to
drinking water wells.
(2) Allowing lead time to detect and control contaminants that
do not degrade in ground water prior to their reaching the
well.
(3) Allowing the establishment of management controls for
existing and future facilities and land uses with known or
potential discharges to ground water.
• Establish ground water quality standards. Ground water quality
standards (e.g., nitrogen loading standards) are the basis for ground
water quality decisions regarding discharge controls, mitigation of
contaminant activities, and possible variations from statutory
requirements. Ground water quality standards often include the
classification of ground water—recognition of the fact that ground waters
vary in their background quality, quantity, and future use.
2-4
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
Coordinating State
Ground Water Protection
• Identify Lead State Agency
• Coordinate With EPA, Other
Programs, Agencies,
Authorities & Governments
• Develop MOUs & MOAs for
Overlapping Issues
VIEWGRAPH #4:
KEY POINTS
Coordinating State Ground Water Protection
The implementation of a state ground water protection program occurs over several
years and involves numerous state, federal, and local agencies. This requires an
ongoing process of coordination and cooperation among the various players. A key
ingredient of all successful state ground water protection programs is the identification
of a lead state agency to coordinate the various ground water protection activities
found throughout state and regional governments. Elements of the coordinating
program include:
• Coordination with EPA and other federal agencies, state agencies, tribal
authorities, and county and local governments.
• Coordination with international (e.g. Canada and Mexico) and interstate
programs.
• Coordination with other relevant natural resource programs mat cross
agency lines.
• Development of Memoranda of Understanding and Agreements (MOU
and MOA) for issues that overlap corporate boundaries (e.g. tribal and
local governments, state and foreign governments, etc.).
2-5
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
Strategic Implementation
Activities
• Coordinate Programs
• Enforceable Standards
• Management Controls
• Well Standards
VIEWGRAPH #5:
KEY POINTS
Strategic Implementation Activities
Coordinated pollution prevention and source reduction program. Ground water
protection, as articulated by EPA and the states, is a preventive program. While the
prevention of all discharges to the ground waters of a state is unrealistic, the
prevention of contaminant entry to the most sensitive aquifers and wellhead protection
areas is not. To that end, states should consider the relative vulnerability of ground
water in determining prevention measures and source reduction programs. Pollution
prevention and source reduction programs are more successful when they are
coordinated with on-going federal and state programs, including, but not limited to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, and
Underground Storage Tank (UST) program.
In addition to coordination with EPA and with other state agencies, state ground water
protection agencies need to coordinate with county and local governments (where
most land use decisions are made). If states are to develop effective source reduction
and pollution prevention programs, they need to work with local governments to share
data on issues such as aquifer vulnerability and regional withdrawal needs.
2-6
-------
Orientation 10 State Water Quality Management Ground Water Protection
Enforceable ground water quality standards. The protection of ground water often
requires the enforcement of ground water quality standards and regulations. States
can promulgate regulations that are stricter than federal standards for the purposes of
protecting the public health. (In many states, local governments also develop local
regulations more stringent than the states')- In applying standards, state and local
governments should distinguish between prevention (avoiding the contamination from
entering the subsurface) and remediation (removing contamination after it enters the
ground water).
Management controls. States have enabling powers to regulate (and allow local
governments to further regulate) contaminant sources and land uses that will degrade
ground water quality. Management Controls are commonly divided into two
categories: regulatory and non-regulatory. Regulatory controls may involve the use of
land. Controls on the transportation, use, and disposal of known contaminants are
typical regulatory controls. Non-regulatory actions include acquisition of land, public
education programs, citizen monitoring or source identification programs, and
promotion of best management practices. The underlying principle behind
management controls is that the identification of contamination sources alone will not
prevent ground water contamination.
Well construction, installation, and abandonment standards. Wells used for
drinking water purposes, monitoring, and irrigation represent significant threats to
ground water quality if they are not installed and abandoned properly. A well
represents a direct conduit to the subsurface through which contaminants can readily
travel—along the well's casing or via the well itself. As a result, it is critical mat states
have standards for well construction, testing, and driller certification to ensure that
wells are drilled and completed in a manner that will not threaten ground water
quality. These standards should cover public and private drinking water wells,
irrigation wells, and monitoring wells.
2-7
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
Integrated Information
Collection & Management
• Monitoring
• Use Data
• Well Locations
• Pollution Sources & Threats
• Flow, Interaction &
Recharge Data
VIEWGRAPH #6:
KEY POINTS
Integrated Information Collection & Management
The data needs of states range from site-specific information on known contaminant
sources to statewide tabulations on the types of contaminants found within its
boundaries. Data are used for a variety of purposes ranging from enforcement to
planning. States need to cooperate with EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and local and regional agencies that compile and analyze
data on ground water quality and use. There are eight general categories of ground
water data needs by states:
• Monitoring and characterization of ground water quality (often by sub-
region within the state).
Ground water use (withdrawal) data.
Location of drinking water wells.
Estimate of pollution sources
Identification of significant source threats to ground water.
Ground water flow (direction) data.
Ground water and surface water interaction data.
Ground water recharge data.
2-8
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
Public Education and
Participation
• Informational Meetings
• Posters, Brochures, &
Newsletters
• Volunteer Activities
• Citizen Monitoring
• Road Signs
VIEWGRAPH #7: Public Education and Participation
KEY POINTS
Many states have recognized that public education may be the key to comprehensive
ground water protection. Public education encompasses a variety of techniques,
including:
Informational meetings for community residents.
Posters, brochures, and newsletters.
Volunteer activities such as contaminant source investigation teams.
Citizen monitoring of wells.
Citizen monitoring of land use decisions made by local government
boards and agencies.
Road signs indicating the entry into a wellhead or ground water.
protection area.
2-9
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
EPA's Comprehensive
State Ground Water
Protection Program
Guidance
January 19, 1993
VIEWGRAPH #8: EPA's Comprehensive State Ground Waiter Protection Program Guidance
KEY POINTS
On January 19, 1993 the EPA Administrator approved the concept, policy, and
guidance to state environmental agencies on Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs (CSGWPPs).
2-10
-------
Orientation to State Wa- .r Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
History of CSGWPP
> 1984 Ground Water
Protection Strategy
> 1989 EPA Ground Water
Task Force
> 1991 Task Force Final
Report
VIEWGRAPH #9:
KEY POINTS
History of CSGWPP
In 1984 the Agency adopted a Ground Water Protection Strategy to address the lack of
coordination among various federal programs to prevent and control sources of
ground water contamination. The strategy also identified EPA's role in a national
ground water protection program.
In 1989, the EPA Administrator established a Ground Water Task Force to review the
Agency's ground water protection program and to develop concrete principles and
objectives to ensure that all Agency decisions affecting the resource were effective and
consistent.
In May 1991, the EPA Ground Water Task Force revised the strategy in a document
titled "Protecting The Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s." The
document was the first to acknowledge the need for comprehensive ground water
protection at the state and local levels.
2-11
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
EPA's Ground Water
Protection Goal is to
Protect:
• Humans
• Environment
• Integrity of Ground Water
VIEWGRAPH #10:
KEY POINTS
EPA's Ground Water Protection Goal is to Protect:
EPA's ground water goal is to prevent adverse effects to human health and the
environment and to protect the environmental integrity of the nation's ground water
resources. This goal calls for CSGWPPs that ensure protection of drinking water
supplies and maintenance of the environmental integrity of ecosystems associated with
ground water. In addition, EPA will consider the use, value, and vulnerability of the
ground water resource, as well as the resource's social and economic values.
2-12
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
Objectives
Prevention of Contamination
Prevention Based on
Relative Vulnerability, Use,
and Value
Remediation Based on
Relative Use and Value
VIEWGRAPH #11:
KEY POINTS
Objectives
To implement mis goal, EPA is pursuing a three-tiered hierarchy of preferred ground
water protection objectives:
• Prevention of contamination whenever possible. To meet the Agency's goal
of preventing adverse effects to human health and the environment and
protecting environmental integrity, prevention of contamination must be the first
priority of the CSGWPP approach.
• Prevention of contamination based on the relative vulnerability of the
resource and, where necessary, the ground water's use and value. EPA
also recognizes mat basic human activity will affect ground water. The
prevention of all discharges to all ground water is not possible, but some level
of protection should be considered for all ground water resources. The relative
vulnerability of the ground water should help determine the level of controls
necessary to prevent contamination. The relative use, value, and vulnerability of
ground water also can be used in siting any potentially contaminating facilities
and activities.
2-13
-------
Orientation to State Water Quail*" Management Ground Water Protection
Remediation based on relative use and value of ground water.
Remediation must be accomplished as a final option when prevention fails or
where contamination already exists. EPA's goal is to remediate all aquifers to
meet their designated uses. EPA, the states, and other federal agencies must
work together to ensure consistent approaches to determining clean-up
objectives.
2-14
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
EPA's Approach
Resource-Oriented Decision
Making
"State-Centered"
Common Framework
VIEWGRAPH #12:
KEY POINTS
EPA's Approach
The centerpiece of the new ground water strategy is the concept of Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs). Comprehensive programs will
serve as a "hub" for State-Centered, Resource-Oriented Decision Making. This "hub"
will help align the various ground water related programs to ensure more effective
and efficient protection of the nation's ground water resources.
Resource-Oriented Decision Making refers to the use of the characteristics of the
ground water resource itself as the basis for setting geographic or programmatic
priorities for protecting ground water. These decisions can be based on die
characteristics of the resource, such as its vulnerability to contamination. They also
can be based on the effects to human health or the environment if contamination were
to occur. Resource-Oriented Decision Making includes evaluating all actual and
potential sources of contamination and using all available programs (regulatory and
non-regulatory) to address these sources in a coordinated, systematic manner.
"State-Centered" means that the state will have the lead role in making these resource-
oriented decisions. The state will have the primary responsibility for developing and
directing protection efforts to particular ground water resources.
2-15
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Ground Water Protection
Most states' ground water protection efforts remain disjointed. Each state has
developed a unique structure and approach to ground water protection. Flexibility
and variation are necessary as a result of each state's unique environmental and
institutional situation. However the lack of a common framework makes it difficult
to assess state achievements, to understand state capabilities, to identify programmatic
gaps and needs, and to identify funding needs.
Most federal and state ground water protection programs remain focused on single
sources of contamination, which makes it difficult to achieve more comprehensive
protection of the ground water resource.
2-16
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
Six Strategic Activities
• Establish Goal
• Establish Priorities
• Define Roles/Responsibilities
• Implement Necessary Efforts
VIEWGRAPH #13: Six Strategic Activities
KEY POINTS
A state CSGWPP comprises six strategic activities, which foster more efficient and
effective protection of ground water through more cooperative, consistent, and
coordinated operation of all relevant federal, state, and local programs within a state.
The EPA CSGWPP guidance identifies the six strategic activities as:
• Establishing a ground water protection goal to guide all relevant
programs in the state.
• Establishing priorities—based on characterization of the resource,
identification of sources of contamination, and programmatic needs—to
direct all relevant programs and activities in the state toward the most
efficient and effective means of achieving the state's protection goal.
• Defining authorities, roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating
mechanisms across relevant federal, state, tribal, and local programs for
addressing identified ground water protection priorities.
• Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the state's ground water
protection goal consistent with the state's priorities and schedules:
2-17
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
Six Strategic Activities
(Cont.)
• Coordinate Information
Collection/Management
• Improve Public
Education/Participation
VIEWGRAPH #14: Six Strategic Activities (Cont.)
KEY POINTS
Continued from previous page.
• Coordinating information collection and management to measure
progress, re-evaluate priorities, and support all ground water-related
programs.
• Improving public education and participation in all aspects of ground
water protection to achieve support of the state's protection goal,
priorities, and programs.
The comprehensive approach and guidance places considerable emphasis on
resource-based, priority-setting decision-making. It is expected that states will afford
extra management attention and ground water quality protection efforts to delineated
wellhead protection areas, and other areas determined by the state to require
protection and management. In addition, ground water resource characterization and
mapping conducted under wellhead protection programs will aid in priority-setting
under the CSGWPP.
2-18
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Ground Water Protection
The EPA CSGWPP guidance also ensures coordination between state ground water
protection and management programs and other EPA programs. For example,
vulnerability assessments completed under a wellhead protection program will meet
the requirements for vulnerability assessments and sanitary surveys under the Public
Water Supply Supervision Program. This approach will avoid duplicate efforts under
similar drinking water protection programs run by EPA and the states.
2-19
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
Levels of CSGWPPs
> Core: Initial Commitment,
Demonstrate Effectiveness
> Fully Integrating: Efforts
Coordinated and Focused
on All Goals
VIEWGRAPH #15:
KEY POINTS
Levels of CSGWPPs
As stated previously, the six strategic activities are intended to be interactive. This will
result in a state's re-assessment and improvement of its program, which will eventually
lead the state from a base or "core" CSGWPP to a more developed "fully integrating"
CSGWPP. Both levels of CSGWPPs are presented in the January 19, 1993 EPA
headquarters guidance.
A con CSGWPP represents a state's initial commitment to working jointly with EPA. It
enables the state to demonstrate its effectiveness in ground water protection. Having a
fully integrating CSGWPP means that ground water protection efforts are coordinated
and focused on achieving die state's goal across all federal, state, and local ground
water-related programs.
Each CSGWPP has a different set of criteria to be approved by EPA. A core program is
attained when all six strategic activities emerge as a cohesive, clearly identifiable
program. Once a core program is attained, continual improvement and
implementation is expected to eventually lead to a fully integrating CSGWPP.
2-20
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Ground Water Protection
The CSGWPP Goal
Build on What Has Been
Learned About Ground
Water Protection
Provide a National
Consensus
VIEWGRAPH #16:
KEY POINTS
The CSGWPP Goal
CSGWPPs are intended to build on what has been learned about ground water
protection and remediation efforts over the past two decades and to provide a national
consensus on what actually comprises comprehensive ground water protection.
Therefore, CSGWPPs will include the following topics:
Prevention
Remediation
State-Directed, Resource-Based Priority Setting
State Flexibility
Program Coordination
Increased Recognition of the Interrelationship Between Ground Water
Quantity and Quality
Increased Public Participation and Support
More Flexible Funding, and Consensus and Future Direction
2-21
-------
Module 2A:
Program Coordination Through
The Watershed Protection
Approach (WPA)
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
VIEWGRAPH #1:
KEY POINTS
The Emerging Water Quality Program
The surface water and groundwater water quality management programs described in
Modules 1 and 2 need to be integrated with other ecosystem management programs
and projects to more effectively achieve Clean Water Act (CWA) ecosystem protection
and restoration goals. Many agencies and programs at the local, state, and federal
levels have embraced the idea of using the geographic boundaries of a watershed as
an effective basis for coordinating and integrating management efforts. This approach
has come to be known as the Watershed Protection Approach (WPA), and is depicted
in the viewgraph by an additional "rim" around the Water Quality Management (WQM)
program wheel. Exhibit 2A-1 further illustrates how the WPA is a coordinating
framework for achieving CWA objectives.
106 project officers need to have a basic understanding of the WPA. This module
begins with an overview of the WPA. Particular emphasis is placed on the Statewide
Basin Management Approach (BMA), a form of the WPA developed by states that
provides a foundation and methodology for program integration and coordination.
Important elements of the BMA are described, along with factors regarding BMA
development and implementation that 106 project officers can consider in performing
their basic responsibilities. The concepts illustrated for the BMA can also be applied
to states that are using alternative forms of the WPA.
2A-1
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
CWA
Objectives
Criteria / Water Quality Standards
for Protection / and Other Environmental Objectives
Coordination
Framework
Natural Resource
Programs within
State Agencies
• Point source controls
Programs, / • NFS controls
Activities, and / • Restoration
Resources / . TMDLs
Monitoring
Enforcement
Standards development
Grants
Drinking water protection
Ground water protection
Aquatic Eco-
system Integrity:
• Physical
• Chemical
• Biological
Watershed Protection Approach
Natural Resource
Programs within Other
Agencies/Organizations
• Section 404 Program
• CZMA Program
> U.S. Department of
Agriculture Initiatives
1 U.S. Department of the
Interior Initiatives
> Private sector (e.g., the
Nature Conservancy)
Exhibit 2A-1. Emerging Framework for Achieving CWA Goal
2A-2
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Watersheds Are Geographically Based
Ecoregions
(denoted by shading)
EM = Southeastern Plains
CD = Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plains
Small Watershed
(draining small
waterbody system)
Large Watershed
(sub-basin)
River Basin
VIEWGRAPH #2:
KEY POINTS
Watersheds Are Geographically Based
The WPA is based on the premise that water quality protection and restoration are best
addressed through geographic management units (i.e., watersheds, basins) so that all
causes and sources of environmental stress can be managed collectively.
How is the term "Watershed" defined in this context?
A watershed is broadly defined as the geographic delineation of an
entire waterbody system and the land that it drains above a specific
outlet point.
The size of a watershed is relative to the chosen outlet point. For
instance, the watershed size for a point on a headwater tributary will be
considerably smaller than the size of the watershed at the mouth of a
downstream river. The viewgraph illustrates how small waterbody
systems are contained within small watersheds, which in turn are part of
a larger watershed (e.g. sub-basin) for a river basin. The challenge to
programs and agencies is to reach a consensus on how watershed
boundaries will be delineated for purposes of coordinating and
integrating management activities.
2A-3
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
WPA: A Geographically
Based System
• Stakeholder involvement
• Environmental objectives
• Priority concerns
• Integrated solutions
• Resource protection
options
VIEWGRAPH #3:
KEY POINTS
Features of the WPA
The WPA is characterized by the following features:
• Promotes stakeholder involvement
Stakeholders are all agencies, organizations, and individuals that are involved in
or affected by water quality management decisions. The WPA groups
stakeholders by watershed so that they can work together to reach agreement
on priority concerns, goals, and approaches for addressing a particular
watershed's problems; the specific actions for mitigating problems; and how
management activities can be coordinated and evaluated.
• Focuses on environmental objectives
The WPA helps stakeholders focus on the primary goals and objectives of the
CWA. Management success is gauged by the progress made toward protecting
or restoring waters from threats to human health and aquatic life, rather than
on measurement of program activities such as numbers of permits issued or
samples collected. In other words, the WPA is resource-centered rather than
program-centered.
2A-4
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Program Coordination Through The WPA
Targets priority concerns
The WPA pushes monitoring and assessment to the forefront of the management
process to better identify priority concerns within watersheds. Limited
stakeholder resources can men be used efficiently for activities that address the
priority concerns most effectively.
Facilitates integrated solutions
Stakeholder expertise and funds may be more effective when they are pooled to
deal with common concerns. Under the WPA, human and financial resources
can be leveraged in accordance with plans and roles established through
stakeholder agreement to address watershed management goals and objectives.
Broadens the base of resource protection options
The WPA expands the focus of activities to evaluate all interacting sources of
stressors/pollutants in a given watershed at the same time. Broadening the
scale of evaluation also tends to increase the spectrum of stakeholders involved
in management, which increases the management capabilities that can be
brought to bear on the issues. Additionally, the increase in participants and
capabilities creates more opportunities for innovative solutions such as
ecological restoration, wetlands mitigation banking, and market-based
alternatives (e.g., pollutant trading) that may be needed to address complex
problems.
2A-5
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Watershed Protection Approach
Individual Watershed
Protection Projects
WPA concepts are
applied to individual,
targeted watersheds.
Statewide Basin
Management Approach
A method for integrating
and coordinating watershed
protection throughout a State.
VIEWGRAPH #4: The Statewide Basin Management Approach
KEY POINTS
General aspects of the WPA are often refined to more specific frameworks that meet
individual needs of states and regions. These frameworks reflect how agencies and
other stakeholders operate together under a WPA on a daily basis. The Statewide
Basin Management Approach (BMA) has emerged as a leading WPA framework. It is
not, however, the only viable approach for states and regions under the WPA. The
BMA is emphasized here because it was developed by states as a practical approach
to resource management. The BMA is not a new approach, rather it is a logical
extension of basin planning and area-wide waste management efforts performed
during the early years of CWA implementation, and more recent efforts such as the
National Estuarine Program. The BMA has many common sense elements that
provide numerous benefits to state and federal agencies responsible for
implementing CWA provisions. Also, the approach is very flexible in that it can be
adapted to the unique circumstances of a state or federal agency helping to implement
water programs.
The BMA is considered a large-scale WPA because it applies the WPA concepts to WQM
activities statewide. Many individual watershed protection projects across the nation
represent multi-stakeholder efforts on a smaller scale. The BMA, however,
incorporates the WPA into the daily operations of many of the lead regulatory and
2A-6
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Pro**™ Coordinate Through The WPA
nonregulatory agencies responsible for administering WQM program activities rather
than limiting WPA activities to special watershed projects. Although 106 project
officers may encounter both specific project WPAs and Statewide BMAs, this module
emphasizes the latter because of their strong influence on WQM program activities.
2A-7
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
A Comprehensive BMA
Has Nine
Key Elements
VIEWGRAPH #5:
KEY POINTS
Nine Key Elements
A comprehensive BMA has nine key elements:
basin management units
a basin management cycle
stakeholder involvement
strategic monitoring
basin assessments
a priority ranking and resource targeting system
a capability for developing management strategies
basin management plans
an implementation component
As shown in Exhibit 2A-2, the nine elements are interrelated and combine to form the
basic foundation for a statewide WPA operating framework. To facilitate
understanding of the nine elements, we will discuss each one separately.
2A-8
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Element 2: Basin Cycle
Element 3: Stakeholder
Involvement
Element 4: Strategic Monitoring
Element 5: Basin Assessments
Element 6: Priority
Setting and Targeting
Element 7: Development of
Management Strategies
Element 8: Basin Plans
Element 9: Implementation
Element 1: Basin
Management Units
Exhibit 2A-2. Elements of the Basin Management Approach
2A-9
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Element 1. Basin
Management Units
South Carolina Major
River Basin Delineations
01 Savannah-Salkehatchic
07 Saluda-Edisto
03 Catawba-Santec
04 Pee Dee
05 Broad
VIEWGRAPH #6:
KEY POINTS
Element 1. Basin Management Units
Under a statewide BMA, the state is divided into geographic management units drawn
around large river basins. The resultant basin management units are to be used by
each participating stakeholder as the geographic basis for coordinating their WQM
activities. Thus, basin management units must be suitable for coordinating monitoring,
performing assessments, developing TMDLs, implementing point and nonpoint source
controls, and management planning.
The diagram in the viewgraph shows the basins that were delineated by the State of
South Carolina. The state was divided into five basins comprised of major rivers.
WQM program activities for South Carolina are coordinated within each of these basin
management units.
2A-10
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Element 2. Basin Management Cycle
Year
Assessment and
Prioritization
Management Strategy
Development
Basin Plan Review
and Approval
Implementation
VIEWGRAPH #7:
KEY POINTS
Element 2. Basin Management Cycle
Although basin management units provide the geographic focus for coordinating WQM
activities, another mechanism is needed for coordinating those activities over time.
The BMA establishes a long-term and iterative resource protection program through
implementing a basin management cycle that provides the temporal focus for
stakeholders.
The basin management cycle has three features that create an orderly system for
focusing and coordinating resource protection activities on a continuous basis:
A specified time period for completing all elements of die management
cycle.
A sequence for addressing basins to balance workload from year to
year.
A schedule of management activities for each basin for all participating
programs, agencies, public interest groups, and other stakeholders. This
planning component provides a long-term reference and coordinating
tool for BMA participants.
2A-11
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Program Coordination Through The WPA
The illustration in the viewgraph provides an example of how WQM activities can be
sequenced and scheduled using a 5-year cycle. During the first five years, the BMA
schedule is phased in across the state (agreements are reached between the state and
EPA on how WQM program requirements will be handled during this transition
period). The cycle repeats itself for a given basin group every five years. In the
example, the BMA is fully implemented after 5 years, with different WQM activities
ongoing in each of the basin groups in any given year to balance •workloads.
[NOTE: A detailed description of the basin management cycle established by the State
of Nebraska is provided in the appendix to this module.]
2A-12
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Element 3. Stakeholder
Involvement
• Increase awareness of
water-related issues
• Play meaningful roles
VIEWGRAPH #8:
KEY POINTS
Element 3- Stakeholder Involvement
Under a BMA, stakeholders are all agencies, organizations, and individuals that are
involved in or affected by water quality management decisions for a given basin. They
can include
The state water quality agency(s)
State agriculture, forestry, and wildlife agencies
Native American tribes
Local governmental agencies: city, county, regional
Local and regional offices of federal agencies (e.g., EPA, agriculture,
forestry, wildlife)
NPDES dischargers
Nonpoint Source (NPS) contributors
Public and private utilities
Trade associations
Environmental groups
General public
A BMA's success depends on the pooled resources, energy, and regulatory authority of
multiple stakeholders. Therefore, stakeholder involvement in BMA development and
2A-13
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Program Coordination Through The WPA
implementation can be very important A well-designed BMA can create numerous
opportunities for a broad range of stakeholders to increase their awareness of water-
related issues and play meaningful roles.
Stakeholder roles and responsibilities should be defined for each stage of the
management cycle. These roles and responsibilities can include (order of activities
reflects typical chronological order in a basin management cycle):
Data and research sharing
Joint monitoring
Identification of waterbody stressors
- Priority setting
- Goal setting
Management strategy development
Basin plan development, review, and approval
Shared commitment of resources for plan implementation
- Outreach
- Measuring success
A variety of mechanisms can be used to involve stakeholders in these activities
including: public meetings; citizen advisory groups, boards, or committees; technical
planning teams; monitoring consortiums; basin festivals; and agency administrative
agreements. Use of these basinwide public involvement mechanisms is often an
efficient way to meet WQM program public participation requirements because they
can be used to look at TMDL priority waters, NPDES permit requirements, etc.
collectively within the basin.
2A-14
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Element 4. Strategic
Monitoring
• Assigned special priority
• Coordinated by basin
• Activities outlined in plan
• Stakeholder resources
leveraged
VIEWGRAPH #9:
KEY POINTS
Element 4. Strategic Monitoring
Monitoring in the basin approach includes the collection of all relevant environmental
information for the basin.
Monitoring is assigned special priority in the BMA because of the importance of
environmental information to effective management and to the other components of
the BMA, such as identifying stressors, estimating risk, and developing goals and
objectives.
Stakeholder ambient, compliance, and intensive monitoring efforts are
strategically coordinated by basin to address varying WQM program needs
including:
Determining water quality status and trends
Evaluating use attainability
Developing site-specific water quality standards
Identifying environmental stressors and their sources
Targeting priority waterbodies/watersheds for action
Developing models for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development
2A-15
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Program Coordination Through The WPA
Developing management strategies including point and nonpoint source
controls
- Evaluating the effectiveness of management actions and updating the
basin management plan
The balance between these types of activities can be outlined in a strategic
monitoring plan that describes specific monitoring objectives for each basin in a
given year.
The strategic planning process can be used to coordinate and leverage
stakeholder monitoring resources. For example, federal agencies such as EPA,
USGS, NOAA, and SCS that might be collecting water quality data in a state can
compare their objectives with those of the state's CWA §106-mandated monitoring
program, setting up stations which complement one another where possible.
Permittees with ambient monitoring requirements can form basin monitoring
consortiums to pool resources and coordinate with the state's monitoring program in
a given basin. Similarly, volunteer monitoring groups can be integrated with the plan.
The key is for stakeholders to come together and design a monitoring program that
makes the best use of each participant's resources and capabilities to support shared
environmental assessment objectives.
2A-16
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Element 5. Basin
Assessment
ita
ii&i=L
<-7 —^
1. Determine water quality
and ecosystem impairment
2. Quantify problems and
predict water quality
3. Evaluate strategies
VIEWGRAPH #10:
KEY POINTS
Element 5. Basin Assessment
Basin assessment can be divided into three different stages.
Stage 1. Involves determining levels of water quality and ecosystem
impairment and identifying sources and causes of this impairment.
These early assessments are usually made with regard to water quality
standards that reflect existing and designated uses. The results of these
assessments describe resource status and provide essential input to the
process of assigning priorities for management within a basin.
Stage 2. Assessment procedures including problem quantification (e.g.,
establishing pollutant loading and water quality correlation) and
predictive water quality modeling are used in the middle stages of
the basin management cycle to help establish TMDLs and management
goals.
Stage 3. At the end of a basin management cycle, or in the early phases of the
succeeding cycle, assessment can be used to evaluate the effectiveness
of implemented management strategies.
2A-17
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Element 6. Priority
Ranking and Resource
Targeting System
• Rank resource protection
concerns within basin
• Allocate resources
• Update criteria for each
cycle iteration
VIEWGRAPH #11:
KEY POINTS
Element 6. Priority Ranking and Resources Targeting System
A priority ranking and resources targeting system is needed to ensure that WQM
program resources are directed effectively and efficiently at priority concerns within a
basin. Assigning priorities and targeting resources are two separate steps. Assigning
priorities is the process of ranking resource protection concerns •within a basin.
Priority rankings for a basin can be used directly to establish candidates for the state's
303(d) list.
Targeting is the process of deciding how resources should be allocated to
address priority concerns. Thus, the priority ranking and resources targeting system
influences what monitoring will be performed, the type of assessments that will be
needed, which waterbodies will have TMDLs developed over the next basin
management cycle, where public funds should be used for implementation of point
source and nonpoint source controls, and so on.
Criteria for priority setting and targeting resources, targeted watersheds within the
basin, resource protection goals, and ecosystem concerns can be updated and
changed as appropriate with each new iteration of the basin management cycle.
2A-18
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Element 7. Capability for
Developing Management
Strategies
• Extension of priority
setting and targeting
• Stakeholders define goals
• Strategies reflect unique
basin concerns
VIEWGRAPH #12: Element 7. Capability for Developing Management Strategies
KEY POINTS
Each BMA must have a capability for developing management strategies that are
logical extensions of the priority setting and targeting steps. Mechanisms such as
basin technical planning teams and citizens advisory groups are used to bring
stakeholders together for this purpose. Specific goals and objectives are established
for targeted watersheds, and strategies are designed by appropriate stakeholders
to achieve those goals and objectives. Where applicable, strategies will include
controls for point and nonpoint sources that reflect TMDLs for the basin or targeted
smaller watersheds within the basin.
Management strategies should reflect the unique concerns of individual
watersheds, and constraining factors such as resources available for control
measures, legal authority, willingness of stakeholders to proceed, and the likelihood of
success. In addition, strategies should build on existing projects and management
efforts (e.g., point and nonpoint source controls, ecological restoration projects) that
have a demonstrated value.
2A-19
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Element 8. Basin
Management Plans
> Document
- BMA process
- Management strategies
- Stakeholder roles
> Serve as reference point for
future basin cycles
VIEWGRAPH #13: Element 8. Basin Management Plans
KEY POINTS
Basin management plans document the BMA. process, the selected management
strategies, and stakeholder roles. They also serve as reference points for future
basin cycles. Basin management plans are typically documented by state WQM staff
and include useful background information on the basin (e.g., historical information
on management, physical characteristics, and demographic trends), status of water
resources, listing of priority concerns, strategies for how selected goals will be
achieved (including point and nonpoint source controls), measures for evaluating
management effectiveness, and a recommended plan for implementation. The
planning documents are updated with each iteration of the basin management cycle.
Prior to implementation, basin management plans serve as a focus for basin planning
activities (e.g., water quality status assessment, priority setting, TMDL development, and
management strategy development). After implementation the basin management plan
serves as a valuable reference for stakeholders and the general public (e.g., program
management, point and nonpoint source control requirements and recommendations,
how plan performance is being measured).
2A-20
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Element 9- An
Implementation
Component
Stakeholders know basin
plan provisions
Implementation includes
relevant WQM activities
VIEWGRAPH #14: Element 9. An Implementation Component
KEY POINTS
An implementation component is key to the BMA and something that distinguishes it
from past planning efforts (e.g., 208 planning). Implementation of the basin plan is
the culmination of the basin management cycle. All of the activities during the basin
management cycle up to this point should have helped to build a foundation that
facilitates the implementation process. Stakeholders that participated in the process
should be well aware of basin management plan implementation provisions.
Implementation includes relevant WQM activities such as support of ongoing
projects and management efforts aimed at basin management goals, issuance of NPDES
permits with conditions reflecting plan provisions, implementation of voluntary or
mandatory Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control NPS pollutants, habitat
restoration, continued development of phased TMDLs, and a monitoring program to
measure success and guide future basin management plan revisions.
2A-21
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
BMA Development and
Implementation Steps
• Initiate process
• Establish basin focus
• Refine procedures
• Establish administrative
structure
• Implement the BMA
VIEWGRAPH #15: BMA Development and Implementation Steps
KEY POINTS
Our discussion now turns to how the nine elements, or portions thereof, are
developed and implemented for a specific state. Participating stakeholders typically
develop and implement a BMA through a series of distinct steps that have been
categorized as follows (Note: these concepts apply to other types of WPA frameworks
as well):
• Initiating BMA development
• Establishing a Basin Focus
• Refining Procedures to Support a BMA
• Establishing an Administrative Structure
• Implementing the BMA
As is evident by the fact that there are 5 steps, BMA development and implementation
is a fairly complex process. Transition to a BMA, therefore, requires substantial
commitment, planning, and support by participants.
While 106 project officers may not be directly involved in development and
implementation of BMA elements, the project officer's basic responsibilities (i.e.,
coordinating state guidance, negotiating work programs, managing performance,
2A-22
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Program Coordination Through The WPA
resolving differences, applying performance consequences, and maintaining
programmatic project files) can play a critical support role. Project officer basic
responsibilities are covered in detail in a later module. However, the remainder of
this module will provide project officers with an overview of possible state activities
regarding WPA development and implementation that might be included in 106 Work
Programs.
2A-23
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Initiating BMA
Development
BMA Mission Statement
Development Strategy
Identification of barriers
BMA framework document
VIEWGRAPH #16: Initiating BMA Development
KEY POINTS
Initiating the BMA development process involves establishing goals, participant roles,
and methods for development. The following steps are often included in the initial
process.
• Establish a clear BMA Mission Statement
Administrators of agencies participating in the BMA development process can
demonstrate their commitment by developing a mission statement that supports
the concept of basin-centered management. The mission statement reflects a
consensus on the purpose, goals, objectives, and components of the proposed
BMA. Establishing this common direction can help expedite BMA framework
development and implementation.
• Develop a strategy for managing BMA development and implementation
The transition to a BMA must be carefully managed to ensure strong leadership
and participation, adequate resources for development and implementation,
proper education of participants, and communication of progress toward
implementation. A strategy should be developed to address these needs.
2A-24
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Program Coordination Through The WPA
Identify and resolve barriers
Existing and potential barriers for developing and implementing a basin
management approach should be identified early in the process so that
appropriate levels of effort can be devoted to their elimination.
Initiate BMA framework documentation
Documenting the decisions and agreements that make up the basin management
approach provides a guiding reference for participating stakeholders that
promotes consistency in quality across basins and helps the public better
understand how management efforts will be integrated. Documentation should
occur from the beginning and continue through the BMA development process.
2A-25
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Establishing a Basin
Focus
• Delineate basin
management units
• Establish a basin
management schedule
• Develop a basin plan
format
VIEWGRAPH #17: Establishing a Basin Focus
KEY POINTS
The second stage of BMA development involves establishing a basin focus by
delineating basin management units, developing a basin management cycle, and
determining basin plan formats. The exact nature of these tasks are state-specific, with
scope and structure reflective of the goals, objectives, and activities of the stakeholders
that are participating in the process. Although development of these three structural
components is usually performed by a team of technical experts, consensus criteria for
each component may be required from a broader range of stakeholders.
2A-26
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Refining Procedure to
Support DMA
• Synchronize permits
• Priority setting methods
• Monitoring protocol
• Public participation
• Info. mgmt. system
• Modify NPDES procedures
VIEWGRAPH #18: Refining Procedures to Support BMA
KEY POINTS
After establishing the BMA coordinating features (i.e., basin management units, basin
management cycle, and basin plan format), state WQM programs will likely want to
refine their operating procedures to enhance the BMA. Potential refinements include:
Synchronizing permit expiration dates with the basin management cycle
Developing criteria and methods for prioritizing concerns within basins
• Establishing a protocol for strategic monitoring
• Creating opportunities for public participation
• Developing an information management system
• Modifying NPDES procedures to support consolidated public notices and
public meetings by geographic management units
2A-27
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Establishing an
Administrative Structure
• Oversees daily operations
• Involves personnel, budget,
and operational issues
VIEWGRAPH #191 Establishing an Administration Structure
KEY POINTS
Coordinating and integrating the BMA activities of multiple agencies, programs, and
other stakeholders requires an administrative structure. Although development of key
elements (basin management units, basin cycle, etc.) provides the framework for
coordinating efforts, an administrative structure is needed to oversee the day-to-
day operations of the BMA. Some states may simply adapt their existing
administrative structure to operate the BMA, while others may decide that a new
organizational structure is preferable.
Administration involves personnel, budget, and operational issues. States may be
able to administer the BMA using their existing institutional structure. However, some
states have created new opportunities for WQM program personnel and other
stakeholders that enhance the day-to-day administration of operations, including the
position of a BMA Coordinator to administer the BMA; Basin Teams comprised of
technical staff from participating agencies to provide technical input and
documentation for basin plan development and implementation; Citizens Advisory
Committees as a forum for people from outside of the governmental agencies to
provide input to the process on various issues such as monitoring, problem
identification, goal setting, and priority ranking; and, a Basin Plan Authorization Board
2A-28
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Program Coordination Through The WPA
made up of participating agencies or comprised of independent members appointed
by the state government and responsible for approving basin plans.
Budgeting issues must also be addressed in the BMA administrative structure. Funding
of operations must be considered, including sources of funds, timing, expenditure,
reporting, and accounting requirements. Most state Water Quality Programs are
funded by a combination of sources including federal 106, 2050). and 604(b) program
funds, state appropriations, and permit fees. Supplementary grants (e.g., federal
104(b)(3) grants) also may support management efforts. In addition, states use
funding to support implementation activities (e.g., 319 funds for NFS control projects,
314 funds for lake restoration, and SRF for waste treatment). BMAs can benefit,
therefore, from finding a way to efficiently coordinate and consolidate funding sources
and reporting requirements.
Additionally, operational agreements (e.g., cooperative agreement, memorandum of
understanding) may be needed among BMA participants to ensure that roles are clear
and committed to by each party.
2A-29
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Program Coordination Through The WPA
Implementing the BMA
• Activities are carried out
according to the basin
management cycle
• Framework doc. and basin
plans are references for
106 work programs
VIEWGRAPH #20: Implementing the BMA
KEY POINTS
Finally, after the BMA components and administrative structure have been developed
and documented, the BMA is ready for implementation. Activities are carried out
according to the schedule documented for the basin management cycle. Initially,
the BMA framework documentation and corollary operational agreements among
stakeholders may serve as the reference for project officers as they negotiate 1O6
Work Programs. Basin sequences will be known and the general schedule of
activities and milestones will be available for reference. As basin management plans
are developed through the implementation of the BMA, they will provide even more
specific details including basin priority concerns to be addressed through WQM
programs. The BMA framework document and basin management plans should
facilitate the 106 project officer's work by providing consolidated information
on WQM program needs, priorities, planned activities, and accomplishments
(see Exhibit 2A-3). This information will help in negotiating Work Programs and in
monitoring performance under the Work Programs.
2A-30
-------
Exhibit 2A-3. BMA Documents Are
Useful References for 106 Project
Officers
§
3
g.
K.
•3
State Framework
Document
A reference document
that describes how
basin management
will function for a
given State
Basin
Management Plans
Reference documents
that present assess-
ment results, specific
management strategies,
and corresponding
stakeholder roles for
implementation
I
8
I
o
-------
APPENDIX TO MODULE 2A
BMA MANAGEMENT CYCLE FOR
THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
-------
BMA MANAGEMENT CYCLE FOR THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
This appendix summarizes the basin management cycle established for the State of Nebraska. The
information presented illustrates how Nebraska has applied the concepts presented in Viewgraph 7.
Management activities within Nebraska's thirteen delineated basins will be coordinated around a five year
cycle. A series of steps are executed for each basin over the cycle, ending with the promulgation and
implementation of a management plan. These steps are illustrated in Figure 1 and described below in
more detail.
Step 1. Draft Strategic Monitoring Plan
A strategic plan will be drafted that specifies monitoring to support basinwide assessment.
Details shall include monitoring objectives, station locations, parameter coverage, sampling
frequency, and monitoring plan rationale.
Step 2. Initial Public Outreach
As resources allow, NDEQ will hold public meetings at appropriate sites within the basin
to acquaint stakeholders with the overall BMA framework and help identify management
concerns specific to that basin. It is anticipated that the format of the meetings will
generally follow that used for Nebraska Wetlands Conservation Plans, which includes Open
House sessions, large group presentation, and small group discussions. Relevant portions
of the NDEQ strategic monitoring plan will be presented with an explanation of how the
resulting data will be used for assessing water quality and prioritizing management needs.
This initial outreach will provide stakeholders with opportunities early in the basin planning
process to submit relevant information, identify potential gaps in the monitoring strategy,
participate in data collection where appropriate, or provide other feedback.
Step 3. Implement Strategic Monitoring Plan
The strategic monitoring plan for basinwide assessment will be implemented following any
modification resulting from feedback received during initial outreach activities.
Step 4. Canvas for Information
NDEQ will make direct contact with key agencies and other entities to obtain additional
relevant information for use in basin planning. In particular, data will be sought for
characterizing the basin (e.g., hydrology, land-use, population demographics, economic
base, etc.) and for evaluating water quality. Stakeholder information will also be used
where appropriate in the prioritization and management strategy development process.
Step 5. Analyze Information
Initial analyses of basinwide monitoring data and supplemental stakeholder information will
focus on determining use support status, identifying problems and areas of special
Appendix 2A-1
-------
2 Public Outreach
7 Public Outreach
YEAR 1
1 Draft Strategic Monitoring Plan
3 Implement Strategic Monitoring Plan
4 Canvas for Information
5 Analyze Information
6 Prioritize Problems and Critical Issues
8 Implement Updates to Strategic
Monitoring Plan
9 Quantify Problems and Issues
10 Develop Management Strategies
11 Prepare Draft Basin Plan
Public Outreach
12 Perform Agency and Public Review
13 Finalize Basin Plan
Public Outreach
14 Implement Basin Plan
YEARS
Figure 1. Major Steps in NDEQ Basin Management Cycle
-------
ecological value, and assessing information gaps. Limitations in data coverage should be
specified so that initial findings can be appropriately qualified. Some quantification of
problems may occur to clarify causes and sources, estimate loading, and quantify
assimilative capacity. Further analysis and more detailed quantification of problems will
continue for waters that are prioritized in the next step. Known gaps in field data will be
addressed during updates of the strategic monitoring plan.
Step 6. Prioritize Problems and Critical Issues
NDEQ will apply a standardized set of criteria and procedures to prioritize waterbodies in
need of management or additional assessment so that resources can be targeted to address
the concerns in an efficient and effective manner.
Step 7. Continue Public Outreach
NDEQ will present potential stakeholders with a summary of the initial water quality
assessments and recommended management priorities. Areas in need of further problem
quantification will be identified. NDEQ will attempt to match stakeholders to
corresponding priority waterbodies. In some cases, "Focus Groups" may be formed among
stakeholders to help clarify matters. Stakeholder and Focus Groups will form the basis for
stakeholder involvement in the evaluation of management options and development of basin
management plans.
Step 8. Implement Updates to Strategic Monitoring Plan
Based on the results of initial assessment and prioritization, along with feedback from
public outreach activities, NDEQ will update and implement its strategic monitoring plan
to gather data for further problem quantification. This will include data for model
development or other tools necessary to evaluate management options.
Step 9. Problem Quantification
Additional problem quantification will be performed where required to establish the
magnitude of a problem, determine assimilative capacity, calculate loads for contributing
sources of pollutants of concern, or otherwise further assess the problem such that sufficient
information is available for management strategy development. This includes field
calibration of models and development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs).
Step 10. Develop Management Strategies
NDEQ will work with other stakeholders to arrive at a consensus on management goals,
such as specific waterbody segments to be restored or protected. This will include loading
reductions that should be achieved, or the amount of habitat that needs restoring, etc. Input
will also be solicited from stakeholders to establish feasible combinations of point and
nonpoint source control measures and management actions to achieve goals. Management
options will be evaluated via predictive modeling, or by other methods where appropriate,
for their relative effectiveness at achieving environmental objectives. Regulatory
constraints and procedures will be considered, and stakeholder consensus will be sought
where voluntary efforts are needed to meet environmental objectives. Selected management
strategies will outline mechanisms for implementing controls, time frames, anticipated
Appendix 2A-3
-------
costs, sources of funding, monitoring strategies, compliance tracking and enforcement
methods, etc.
Step 11. Prepare Draft Basin Plan
NDEQ will prepare a draft basin plan which documents the results of the basin planning
process including assessment, priorities, goals, selected management alternatives, and the
implementation strategy. (See section 2.3 for more details on the components of a basin
plan).
Step 12. Agency and Public Review
An internal review of the draft basin plan will be performed to ensure that it is ready for
public distribution. Upon agency approval, the plan will be made available for public
review and comment. Outreach will be provided to explain provisions and implications of
the plan.
Step 13. Complete Final Basin Plan
Modifications will be made to the plan, as necessary, based on comments and input
received through the review process, to complete a final basin plan.
Step 14. Basin Plan Implementation
Each cycle ends with a basin plan implementation period. The implementation strategy
outlined in the plan will be followed, taking such steps as necessary to implement pollutant
source controls, best management practices, monitoring programs, enforcement methods,
etc. Activities occurring during this period will include public notice and issuance of
NPDES individual and basin general permits, distribution of state revolving fund (SRF)
loans to prioritized entities, and allocation of 319 funds to prioritized NFS problem areas.
In addition, implementation will include an outreach component to communicate the goals
and selected management strategies of the final plan. Outreach will also be used to educate
stakeholders on implementation schedules, milestones, and where regulatory and voluntary
efforts are required to meet environmental objectives.
The final basin plan contains recommendations for follow-up basinwide assessment to measure the degree
of success from plan implementation and to evaluate areas that were not assessed during the previous
cycle. After a specified period of time for plan implementation, NDEQ will implement the updated
strategic monitoring plan and the basin management cycle will be repeated.
The basin management cycle will not be initiated in all basins at the same time for practical reasons.
Activities within the thirteen basins will be sequenced so that steps are performed incrementally across
the state. This helps to balance program workloads. Focusing on the same steps at one time in a small
segment of the state creates a more efficient and effective operating framework.
Table 1 shows the sequence and scheduling of steps for Nebraska's thirteen river basins. The order in
which river basins will be addressed is shown along the left hand column of the table. Corresponding
schedules for performance of each step of the basin management cycle are shown to the right of the
column of basins. Two lines of symbols are used for each basin to better depict simultaneous activities
(Note: symbols are defined in the legend at the bottom of the table). The table shows how steps are
Appendix 2A-4
-------
TABLE 1 NEBRASKA BASIN PLANNING CYCLE ACTIVITY SCHEDULE
Lower Platte
Nemaha
Elkhorn
Missouri Trlbs
North Platte
South Platte
Middle Platte
Big Blue
Little Blue
Republican
Loup
Nlobrara
White-Hat
1994
JFMAMJJA80ND
aaccccccaa
aaCCCCCCOQ
IMS
A A P Up Mq Mq Mq MO Mq Mq Mq Q
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
aaccccccQQ
1896
QQQQSSDDRRRR
NNNNNN Or Or
aaccccccQQ
aaCCCCCCQQ
aaccccccQQ
1997
R F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Or Of Of
NNNNNN Or Or
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
aaCCCCCCQQ
aaccccocoQ
aaCCCCCCQQ
998
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Or Of Of
QQQQSSDDRRRR
NNNNNN Or Or
QQQQQQQQSSDD
NNNNNNNNNN
QQQQQQQQQQQQ
NNNNNNNNNNNN
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
aaCCCCCCQQ
aaccccccQQ
aaccccccQQ
A B Analysis of data to determine use support status, Identify problems, assess Information gaps, etc.
C B Canvassing for Information to use In assessment. prlorHlzatlon. and management strategy development process.
D • Prepare Draft basin management plan (I.e., put In public document form).
F B Finalize the basin plan, making modifications to the draft, as needed based on reviewer comment
I B Implement the basin plan; ready NPOES permits for public notice and subsequent Issuance, Implement NFS programs, etc.
Ma • Monitoring Is performed for comprehensive basin Assessment.
Mp • Monitoring Plans are updated each year and Include monitoring objectives, sampling locations, parameters, frequencies, etc.
Mq B Monitoring Is performed per priorities for problem Quantification.
N B Negotiations are carried out wtth stakeholders to arrive at consensus on goals and feasible management options.
Of B Outreach for Final basin plan Implementation; explain changes from draft, direct actions or educate where voluntary efforts needed.
Ol B initial Outreach; explanation to stakeholders about process and Initial solicitation for Information and monitoring needs.
On B Outreach to begin Negotiations; explain basis of priorities, quantification needs, and begin negotiations wtth stakeholders as loading targets are established.
Or B Outreach for stakeholder Review of draft basin plan; explain provisions of plan and solicit comments.
P B PriorHlzation of waterbodies to reflect most Important concerns (Includes both protection and restoration needs).
Q • Quantification of problems; clarify causes and sources, estimate loading where appropriate, quantify capacity or loading reductions (e.g., TMOL).
R B The draft plan Is distributed for Review.
S B A Strategy for management of the prioritized waters Is selected based on stakeholder negotiations.
-------
TABLE 1 NEBRASKA BASIN PLANNING CYCLE ACTIVITY SCHEDULE (continued, page 2)
Lower Platte
Nemaha
Elkhorn
Missouri Trlbs
North Platte
South Platte
Middle Platte
Big Blue
Little Blue
Republican
Loup
Nlobrara
White-Hat
1999
JFMAMJJASOND
I Mp Hp Mp Ml Hi Hi Hi Ml Ml A A
OOCCCCCCQQ
MpMpMpMlHiHlHlMlMlA A
OOCCCCCCQQ
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
RFIIIIIIIIII
Or Of Of
RRRRRFI I I I I I
Or Of Or Of Of
SSDDRRRRRFI I
N N Or « Or Of Of
QQQQSSDDRRRR
NNNNNN Or Or
QQQQQQQQSSDD
NNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNN
A A P Hp Hq Hq HO Mq Mq Mq Hq Q
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
A A P Mp Mq Mq Hq Hq Hq Mq Hq Q
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
A A P Up Uq Hq Hq Hq Hq Mq Mq 0
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
A A P Mp Mq Mq Mq Hq Hq Hq Hq Q
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
A A P Hp Mq Hq Mq Hq Hq Mq Mq 0
QQOnOnNNNNNNNN
I Mp Hp Mp Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Hi A A
OIOCCCCCCQQ
I Mp Up Mp Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml A A
OIOCCCCCCQQ
I I I I I I I I I I I I
2000
JFMAMJJASOND
I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
RFIIIIIIIIII
Or Of Of
RRRRRFIIIIII
Or Or Or Of Of
SSDDRRRRRFI I
N N Or Or Or Of Of
QQQQSSDDRRRR
NNNNNN Or Or
aaaaaaaassDO
NNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNN
2001
JF
MAMJJASOND
Q Q
N N
Q Q
N N
A A
Q Q
A A
Q Q
I Mp
I Mp
I Mp
I I
Q Q
N N
Q Q
N N
P Hp
On On
P MP
On On
Mp Mp
a 01
Mp Mp
oi a
Mp Mp
oi a
I I
s s
N N
Q Q
N N
Mq Mq
N N
Mq Mo
N N
Ml Ml
C C
Ml Ml
C C
Ml Ml
C C
I I
DDRRRR
Q a
N N
Mq Mq
N N
Mq Mq
N N
Mi Mi
C C
Ml Ml
C C
Ml Ml
C C
I I
N N
Mq Mq
N N
Mq Mq
N N
Ml Ml
C C
Ml Ml
C C
Ml Ml
C C
I I
Or Or
D 0
I Mq Q
N N
MqO
N N
A A
Q Q
A A
0 0
A A
Q Q
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
RFIIIIIIIIII
Or Of Of
RRRRRFI I I I I I
Or Or Or Of Of
SSDDRRRRRFI I
N N Or Cf Or Of Of
2002
JFM
AMJJASOND
R F I
Or Of Of
R R R
Or
Q Q Q
N N N
Q 0 Q
N N N
A A P
Q Q On
A A P
Q Q On
A A P
Q On
Hp Hp
01
I I
R R
Or Or
Q S
N N
Q Q
N N
HP Mq
On N
Mp Mq
On N
Mp Mq
On N
IIIIII
Fill
or or
S D D R
N
Q Q Q S
N N N N
Mq Hq Hq Hq
N N N N
Mq Mq Mq Mq
N N N N
Mq Mq Mq Mq
N N N N
aCCCCC
I I I
R R R
Or Or
SOD
N
Mq MqO
N N N
Mq MqO
N N N
Mq MqQ
N N N
Mi A A
C Q Q
a a c c c c c«c a Q
OCCCCCCQO
I I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I
2003
JFMAMJJASOND
1 1 1 1 1
I I I
I I
1 1 1 1 1
I I
R F
Or Of
R R
Q Q
N N
Q O
N N
Q Q
N N
A A
Q Q
I I I
or
R R R
Or Or Or
a a s
N N N
Q Q O
N N N
Q o a
N N N
P Mp Mq
On On N
I I I I I I I
F I I
Of or
SOD
N
000
N N N
000
N N N
Mq Hq Hq
N N N
OQOnOnNNNN
Q Q On Oi N
I Mp Mp Mp Ml
0 a c
I Mp Mp Mp Ml
a o) c
a a C
N N N
Ml Ml Ml
C C C
Ml Ml Ml
C C C
ccc
I I I I
R R R R
Or Or
S S D D
N N
Q Q 0 Q
N N N N
Mq Mq Mq Q
N N N N
Mq Mq Mq Q
N N N N
y_ u^ y_ Q
N N N N
Mi Mi A A
C C Q Q
Mi Mi A A
C C Q 0
Mi Mi A A
C C Q Q
A B Analysis of data to determine use support status, Identify problems, assess information gaps, etc.
C B Canvassing for Information to use In assessment, prloritlzatlon, and management strategy development process.
0 B Prepare Draft basin management plan (i.e., put in public document form).
f B Finalize the basin plan, making modifications to the draft as needed based on reviewer comment.
I B Implement the basin plan; ready NPDES permits for public notice and subsequent Issuance, Implement NFS programs, perform follow-up monitoring, etc.
Ma B Monitoring Is performed for comprehensive basin Assessment.
Mp B Monitoring Plans are updated each year and include monitoring objectives, sampling locations, parameters, frequencies, etc.
Mq B Monitoring Is performed per priorities for problem Quantification.
N • Negotiations are carried out with stakeholders to arrive at consensus on goals and feasible management options.
Of B Outreach for Final basin plan Implementation; explain changes from draft, direct actions or educate where voluntary efforts needed.
Ol B Initial Outreach; explanation to stakeholders about process and Initial solicitation for Information and monitoring needs.
On B Outreach to begin Negotiations; explain basis of priorities, quantification needs, and begin negotiations with stakeholders as loading targets are established.
Or B Outreach for stakeholder Review of draft basin plan; explain provisions of plan and solicit comments.
P B PrlorKization of waterfoodles to reflect most important concerns (includes both protection and restoration needs).
Q B Quantification of problems; clarify causes and sources, estimate loading where appropriate, quantify capacity or loading reductions (e.g., TMDL).
R • The draft plan Is distributed for Review.
S B A Strategy for management of the prioritized waters Is selected based on stakeholder negotiations.
-------
phased in across the state over the first five year cycle from 1994 to 1998. Basinwide management
activities will be ongoing in all basins across the state by 1998, and basin management plans will be
implemented for all basins by the end of 2001.
Specific scheduling patterns have been incorporated within the basin cycle. For instance, the vast
majority of field monitoring activities for NDEQ's Water Quality Division are performed between May
and November for scientific reasons. Therefore, strategic monitoring plans will need to be finalized by
the end of April each year so that actual sample collection can begin in May.
Data analysis (A) and problem quantification (Q) are shown in the table under the months of November
through February following the first year of monitoring and information collection. However, this does
not mean that analysis and quantification are restricted to that period. Rather, this is the period where
data are screened and assessed for watershed prioritization purposes. It is recognized that analysis and
quantification for purposes of evaluating management options will continue on in some prioritized
watersheds up until development of management strategies and written plans. This is illustrated in the
table by the series of months with a Q following the Mq period.
Finally, it should be noted that the length of time scheduled for follow-up problem quantification and
management strategy development differs across basins that are grouped in the same year of the cycle.
The times have been staggered so that only one basin plan is being drafted at a time. For example, plan
drafting will occur in July-August of 1996 for the Lower Platte whereas the basin plan for the Nemaha
will be written in November-December, 1996. This same type of pattern is repeated for each year of the
basin cycle.
Appendix 2A-7
-------
Module 3:
Overview of Grants and
Cooperative Agreements
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Overview
Assistance Agreements
Program Elements
EPA Policy
Project Officer Challenges
VIEWGRAPH #1:
KEY POINTS
Overview
The primary purpose of this module is to introduce the project officer to grants and
cooperative agreements. The module explains the differences between contracts,
grants, and cooperative agreements, lists the different program elements to be used in
developing work programs, describes EPA's policy regarding assistance agreements,
and identifies challenges the project officer will face when dealing with states.
3-1
-------
Orientation to Slate Water Quality Management
Overview of Giants and Cooperative Agreements
Agreements
Contracts Are for the Direct
Benefit of the Federal Govt.
Grants and Cooperative
Agreements Are Not
VIEWGRAPH #2:
KEY POINTS
Agreements
Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act (1977) Requirements:
Agencies must use contracts to acquire property or services for the direct
benefit of the federal government.
Agencies must use grants or cooperative agreements to transfer money or
purchase property, services, or anything else of value to support or stimulate an
activity to accomplish a public purpose of assistance authorized by federal
statute.
To further your understanding of assistance agreements
administration, EPA provides the Assistance Project Officer
Training Course, available through the Grants Administration
Division of the Office of Grants and Debarment.
Contact: Corinne Allison (202) 260-5298
or Richard Johnson (202) 260-5296
3-2
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Grants & Cooperative
Agreements
• Grants Do Not Substantially
Involve EPA in the Project
• Cooperative Agreements
Substantially Involve EPA in
the Project
• Projects vs. Cont. Programs
VIEWGRAPH #3:
KEY POINTS
Grants & Cooperative Agreements
Grant Agreements (40 CFR 30.200)
A grant agreement is an assistance agreement where there is no substantial
involvement between EPA and the recipient. A grant agreement is appropriate
when the recipient has the authority and capability to complete ail elements of
the program.
Cooperative Agreements (40 CFR 30.200)
A cooperative agreement is an assistance agreement where substantial EPA
involvement is anticipated. Section 106 assistance agreements are cooperative
agreements because the work program objectives change over time, and it is
understood that change and redirection of funds may be necessary. Level of
EPA involvement will vary by state depending on strength of program. Under a
cooperative agreement, activities demonstrating EPA involvement must be
documented. They can be included in the approved work program or
identified in the assistance agreement.
EPA assistance agreements can fund both short-term projects and long-term programs.
Project Grants typically fund projects with limited scopes which will be completed
3-3
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
within a limited time-period of one to two years, for example the 104(b)(3)
demonstration project grants. EPA continuing program grants typically fund ongoing
environmental activities such as planning, enforcement, monitoring, etc. These
activities arc likely to continue indefinitely as integral components of a continuing
environmental program, such as the state water pollution control program.
3-4
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Program Elements
Outreach/Technical
Assistance
Water Quality Planning
Enforcement & Compliance
Permits
Combined Sewer Overflow
VIEWGRAPH #4:
KEY POINTS
Program Elements
The project officer must ensure that all recipients comply with statutory and regulatory
requirements by providing in their Section 106 assistance applications a program
element budget and a work program that supports it. The following is a
recommended list of program elements to be used in developing work programs and
program element budgets.
Outreach/technical assistance - all costs associated with public participation
and technical assistance.
Water quality planning - all costs of (1) preparing and updating water quality
management plans (including TMDLs), (2) ensuring that permits and
construction grants are consistent with the plans, and (3) meeting other point
and nonpoint source planning requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Enforcement and compliance - all costs of state/tribal enforcement of general
permit and NPDES permit conditions and compliance schedules (including
sludge) and other legislative and regulatory requirements under the Clean
Water Act and directly related legislation.
3-5
-------
Orientation 10 State Water Quality Management Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Permits (other than sludge, pretreatment, CSO, and stormwater) - all costs of
issuing, reissuing, and modifying NPDES permits, including general permits.
Also, costs of reviewing and processing CWA section 402 applications and
section 404 permit programs.
Combined sewer overflow (CSO) - all costs of establishing and operating a
state/tribal NPDES program for CSOs.
3-6
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Program Elements
(Cont.)
Stormwater
Sludge Management
Pretreatment
Ground Water
NFS Implementation
VIEWGRAPH #5:
KEY POINTS
Program Elements (Cont.)
Stormwater - all costs of establishing and operating a state/tribal NPDES
program for Stormwater.
Sludge management - all costs of establishing and operating a state/tribal
program to ensure that sludge from waste water treatment facilities meets
sludge use and disposal requirements.
Pretreatment - all costs of state pretreatment programs and management of
technical assistance of local pretreatment programs.
Ground water - all costs of establishing and operating a Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP) consistent with EPA's national
CSGWPP guidance, including the well head protection program (WHPP).
NFS implementation - ail costs of carrying out state/tribal programs to
implement nonpoint source controls.
3-7
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Program Elements
(Cont.)
Ambient Monitoring
Water Quality Standards
Administration
Other
VIEWGRAPH #6:
KEY POINTS
Program Elements (Cont.)
Ambient monitoring - all costs of developing and implementing monitoring
strategies and programs for assessing water quality conditions and trends in the
state or tribal waters, including event-related, habitat, and biological monitoring.
Water quality standards - all costs of developing and adopting and
administering state/tribal water quality standards, including numeric and
narrative criteria, and anti-degradation policies, including use attainability
analyses.
Administration - all necessary costs of program administration, including
allowable indirect costs not assigned to categorical program elements.
Other - all costs of state/tribal specific priority water quality activities and
outputs included in a •work program, but only if they cannot be assigned to the
categorical program elements.
3-8
-------
Orientation to State Wa< r Quality Management
Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
VIEWGRAPH #7:
KEY POINTS
Consolidated Grant
Applications
> Single Budget & Work
Program
* Identify Each Program's
Funds
i Identify Extent of Support
by Element
Consolidated Grant Applications
Consolidated Grant Applications (40 CFR 35.145)
Applicants eligible to receive and administer funds from more than one Office
of Water assistance program may submit an application for consolidated
assistance. To be eligible for a consolidated grant, the applicant prepares single
budget and work program covering all programs included in the application.
The consolidated budget must identify each assistance program's funds.
3-9
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
EPA Policy
Encourages Delegation
Ties Assistance to
Accomplishment
VIEWGRAPH #8:
KEY POINTS
EPA Policy
EPA policy encourages the delegation of field operations in environmental protection
to the states. EPA has the authority and responsibility to tie assistance to a
recipient's accomplishment of specific activities agreed to in advance by die state and
EPA. (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart A) EPA issued several important policy documents to
clarify the EPA-state relationship in assistance agreements during the 1980s.
3-10
-------
Orientation 10 State Water Quality Management
Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Principles of EPA Policy
• Clear Goals as Basis for
Relationship
• States as Active Participants
• Integrated Priorities
• Realistic Commitments
• Continuous Dialogue
• Recognize Accomplishments
VIEWGRAPH #9: Principles of EPA Policy
KEY POINTS
EPA's policy is based on the following principles:
EPA and each state should articulate a set of clear environmental goals with
measurable environmental results. EPA's goals will establish national priorities.
State goals will establish state-specific priorities. Joint goals define overlapping
priorities. These environmental goals will serve as the core agenda for the
state-EPA relationship. EPA and the states should systematically integrate their
respective strategic plans.
EPA's annual planning process should include the states as active
participants. Each regional administrator should meet with states to articulate
joint priorities.
Section 106 work programs should confirm the integration of state and
federal priorities.
In negotiating Section 106 work programs, EPA and states will seek realistic
commitments and presume good faith in their accomplishment.
3-11
-------
Orientation 10 State Water Quality Management Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
KPA and states should maintain continuous dialogue for rapid identification
and solution of problems, or their forwarding to top managers.
HPA is committed to the success of state programs and will seek opportunities
to acknowledge their accomplishments.
3-12
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Ovenrlew of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
amendment negotiated by the project officer without the approval of the award
official.
Other changes requiring formal amendment and award official approval
include:
• Revising the scope or objectives of the project (regardless of
whether there is an associated budget revision).
• Extending the period of availability of funds.
• Changing key personnel.
Informal amendments and changes that may be made by mutual consent of the
state and the project officer must be consistent with die project objective and
within the scope of the assistance agreement. Examples of minor changes
include:
• Making minor adjustments in methodology, approach, or other
aspects of a project.
• Adjusting budgets, except those adjustments requiring formal
amendment, provided that they use the funds in accordance with
the approved scope of work, EPA regulations, and applicable cost
principles.
• Changes in staff, provided the change will not change the
objectives of the project.
Circumstances that may necessitate renegotiation include: a major change in
national, regional, or state priorities; environmental emergencies; and greatly
overestimated commitments.
State work programs should specify the outputs (environmental results) a state will
produce under its federal assistance award (including state match and level of effort)
and resources and time frames for completing outputs.
3-15
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Supplemental EPA
Support To States
Describe Types of Support
Regions Consult
Headquarters
VIEWGRAFH #12: Supplemental EPA Support To States
KEY POINTS
The assistance agreement should describe the types of support EPA will provide.
This assistance may include:
• research,
• technical advice and assistance,
• contractor assistance, or
• training.
Regions should consult with headquarters about support which will require
headquarters action.
3-16
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Overview of Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Indian Tribes
Treatment as States
Cooperative Agreements
Water Quality Standards
Assessment
VIEWGRAPH #13: Indian Tribes
KEY POINTS
The 1987 CWA amendments added § 518 which authorized EPA to recognize and treat
Indian tribes as a state for the purposes of Title n and § 104 (Research and
Demonstration), § 106 (Water Pollution Control), § 303 (Water Quality Standards and
Implementation Plans), § 305 (Water Quality Inventory), § 308 (Inspections,
Monitoring, and Entry), § 309 (Federal Enforcement), § 314 (Clean Lakes), § 319 (NFS
Management Programs), § 401 (Certification), § 402 (NFDES), and § 404 (Permits for
Dredged or Fill Materials).
To receive an award of CWA § 106 or § 314 funds from EPA, an Indian tribe must be
deemed eligible to be "treated as a state" (TAS) and must submit an application and
work program for federal funding.
To be determined to be eligible, a tribe must be federally recognized and must meet
three broad eligibility criteria. The three eligibility criteria under CWA § 518 include:
• The tribe has a governing body carrying out substantial governmental
duties and powers.
• The tribe has the necessary authority to administer CWA programs within
reservation boundaries. Tribes must define their tribal boundaries.
3-17
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Overview of Crania and Cooperative Agreements
• The Indian tribe is reasonably expected to be capable of carrying out the
function to be exercised.
The initial application for TAS for each program (CWA § 106, §314) must be reviewed
and receive EPA Headquarter's concurrence. Subsequent review and approvals are
then delegated to the regional offices.
EPA is responsible for notifying other government entities (i.e., state and other federal
agencies) and requesting comments on a tribe's request for TAS. A map identifying
the areas over which they are claiming jurisdiction and authority should be provided.
Grants under CWA § 106 are intended to assist Indian tribes in carrying out effective
water pollution control programs. The approaches taken by tribes to address these
initial activities (i.e., development of WQS, water quality assessments, and planning)
will depend, to a large degree, on the extent of the tribe's water quality problem, and
on its previous experience in managing water quality programs.
The following CWA § 106 program requirements do not apply to tribes due to their
relative inexperience:
• The requirement to have an established surface water monitoring
program.
• Preparing a 305(b) report.
• Level of effort requirements.
The special circumstances with regard to state and tribal relationships and the trust
responsibilities of the federal government make these grants unique. There are also
obvious cultural differences that establish communication protocols that a project
officer needs to be sensitive to. Therefore, close coordination with the regional Indian
Coordinator is critical for successful program management.
For Farther Information Contact
Oven Rothstein
(202) 260-5682
3-18
-------
Module 4:
Project Officer Role and
Responsibilities
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Legal Basis for
Project Officer Role
Statute,
Regulations
vAgency Policy
Specific Water Quality
Priorities & Activities
VIEWGRAPH #1:
KEY POINTS
Legal Basis for Project Officer Role
How Statutes and Regulations Affect Your Job
Federal statutes, executive orders, regulations, agency orders, policies, and
guidance define the project officer's responsibilities and authority.
A federal statute is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President that
specifies responsibilities for the federal government, states, and other affected
entities. EPA program and administrative activities must be conducted consis-
tent with the requirements of applicable statutes. Deviation from these statutory
requirements is not allowed.
Not all federal statutes are the same. Appropriations, for example, are
passed annually, and the authority of an appropriation lasts only for one
year. Each appropriations statute may contain Congressional directives
to allocate funds under assistance agreements.
Project officers may be responsible implementing these Congressional
directives. This, in turn, may require project officers to research docu-
ments mat establish Congressional intent—e.g., committee reports, confer-
4-1
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
ence reports, or the Congressional Record. These documents may be
obtained by contacting the Office of Regional Counsel.
Executive orders are requirements signed by the President. They pertain to
the business of federal agencies and hold the force and effect of law.
Federal regulations are rules developed by federal agencies and issued by the
federal government to implement federal statutes or agency policy. They are
legally enforceable. A federal regulation cannot conflict with a statute. Codified
federal regulations may govern the activities of a federal agency, states, or the
general public. EPA regulations are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). In rare cases, deviations from federal regulations are
approved. A state seeking a variation from a federal regulation must submit a
request to the regional office. The regional office then must submit the request
to Harvey Pippen, Jr., the Director of the Office of Grants and Debarment at EPA
Headquarters. Only Mr. Pippen can approve a variation from a federal regula-
tion.
EPA orders and policies are agency requirements issued by EPA headquarters.
In activities covered by both an order and a policy, the order supersedes the
policy. Regions also may issue regional policies.
EPA also may issue guidance that provides detailed descriptions of how to
achieve Agency objectives. Guidance is less binding than an order or a policy.
Multi-year guidance defines the requirements for all program activities over a
long period of time with updates as necessary. Annual Agency operating
guidance (AOG) is issued by headquarters. It defines Agency priorities, objec-
tives, commitments, measures, and reporting requirements. Regional guidance
translates the AOG into priorities and activities that are specific to the states in
the region and developed jointly with mem. It incorporates regional and state
priorities and helps set priorities for individual state programs.
4-2
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
State Water Quality Management
Specific Water
Quality Activities
VIEWGRAPH #2:
KEY POINTS
State Water Quality Management
State statutes, regulations, and policy define the authority and responsibilities of state
program managers.
State statutes are laws enacted by state legislatures. In states where water
quality management programs have been delegated by EPA, authorizing
legislation must be at least as stringent as related federal statutes. In programs
where federal statutes have taken precedence, state statutes must be consistent
with federal law. In many areas of water quality management, there are no
federal statutes. These areas are regulated only by state statute. For example,
water rights, local land use control, water and sewer rates, and service area
boundaries are regulated by state statute. The structure and activities of state
water quality management programs are shaped by state laws.
State regulations are detailed instructions on how a statute is to be
implemented. State policy includes the priorities and objectives of state
programs.
4-3
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
P.O. Needs to Know:
• Basis of Authority
• Strongest Basis = Statute
VIEWGRAPH #3: P.O. Needs to Know:
KEY POINTS
Summary
The project officer (P.O.) needs to know:
Is his or her authority established by federal statute, executive order,
regulation, agency order, policy, or guidance?
The strongest basis for any action is a federal statutory mandate.
State counterparts of 106 project officers are governed by both federal and state
statutes and regulations. They are also governed by internal state program
dynamics and history.
4-4
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Federal, State, and Local
Roles
• Federal: Implement Federal
Statutes & Define Priorities
• State: Implement State
Statutes
• Local: Regulate Land Use &
Planning
VIEWGRAPH #4:
KEY POINTS
Federal, State, and Local Roles
Federal Role. EPA is responsible for implementing Congressional statutes and
achieving the environmental results they specify. EPA must define environmental
priorities and the results expected from federal and state water quality agencies
through regulation, policy, and guidance. In addition, EPA should contribute
leadership and support to water quality programs at the federal and state levels.
State Role. The objectives of state water quality management agencies are defined by
state statutes. However, to the extent states have assumed delegation of federal water
quality programs, or are responsible for carrying out federal mandates, state programs
may be shaped by federal statutes and regulations. States with delegated programs are
responsible for day-to-day operations of the program.
Local Role. Local governments have the authority to regulate land use (e.g., zoning,
building ordinances). Use of this authority may be required to implement water
quality programs, particularly those relating to nonpoint sources. Local governments
also have planning responsibilities, including regional or watershed planning.
4-5
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Unique Characteristics of
State Programs
• Appreciate State Diversity
• Broader Objectives
• Non-Parallel Organization
• Emergencies May Re-Direct
Resources
VIEWGRAPH #5:
KEY POINTS
Unique Characteristics of State Programs
The project officer needs to appreciate the diversity in state programs.
Program approaches vary from state to state. These differences make the
project officer's job complex because there is no analytical template applicable
to all states. For example, increasing numbers of states are adopting watershed
approaches to water quality management. These approaches may result in
work programs that are different from those submitted by other states.
State programs also are unique in other ways. For example, state-specific water
quality objectives (defined by state statutes, regulations, and guidance) may be
broader in scope than federal objectives. Also, project officers may have to
deal with several state departments or agencies because organization of state
water quality agencies may not parallel the federal structure. In addition,
state obligations to deal with day-to-day emergencies may direct resources
away from federal objectives.
4-6
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Achieving Federal
Objectives
State Must Meet Both
Federal & State Objectives
Helps if Federal & State
Objectives are Consistent
VIEWGRAPH #6:
KEY POINTS
Achieving Federal Objectives
Achieving Federal Objectives Through Assistance Agreements
By regulation, the provision of assistance to states (as in a section 106
cooperative agreement) gives EPA authority and responsibility to ensure that
states use funds to achieve agreed-upon goals. In practice, this becomes
increasingly difficult when federal funds account for a decreasing share of the
total state budget for water quality programs. States are more inclined to help
achieve federal objectives if the results are consistent with the state's water
quality management priorities.
The project officer needs to remember that his or her counterpart at the state
level is subject to conflicting demands. On the one hand, EPA program
managers insist that the state program meet certain Agency objectives. At the
same time, however, there are state legislators and administrators who insist
that their objectives be met.
4-7
-------
Orientation to State Water Qualitv Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Project Officer Concerns
• EPA Stresses Program
Delegation But Funding
Has Not Kept Pace With
Increasing State
Responsibilities
VIEWGRAPH #7: Project Officer Concerns
KEY POINTS
EPA continues to emphasize delegation of programs to the states, but EPA/state
funding has not kept pace with the increased responsibilities imposed on the
states by EPA. Chronic funding shortfalls and the declining federal share of
total state budgets have created greater challenges for both the EPA project
officer and states in the negotiation process. The 106 project officer faces a
difficult task of achieving accountability while maintaining the state-EPA
partnership.
4-8
-------
Orientation to State Wau Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
E Jld Trust:
Encourage and Assist in State Programs
VIEWGRAPH #8: Build Trust
KEY POINTS
State/EPA Trust
Trust between EPA and states is essential to foster goodwill in staffing, training,
and building capacity to carry out delegated responsibilities. EPA program
managers may distrust states for several reasons, including:
They may be hesitant to entrust to state managers decisions that might
conflict with their own.
They may feel distrust is justifiable based on direct experience with
programs in particular states.
Regional water quality project officers can help to build trust between EPA and
states by helping weak state programs build their capability.
State program managers may distrust EPA for several reasons:
They may feel that EPA talks about partnership, but really wants to
establish a hierarchical relationship.
4-9
-------
Orientation to Stale Water Quality Management Pro|ect Officer Role and Responsibilities
They may feel that EPA program managers are so concerned about EPA
priorities mat they will ignore state-specific problems and priorities.
A challenge facing the project officer is to build (or restore) trust between EPA
and the state.
4-10
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
States See "Negotiation" As
EPA Imposing Demands
VIEWGRAPH #9:
KEY POINTS
States See "Negotiation" As EPA Imposing Demands
In response to Congressional pressure, EPA headquarters managers tend to exert
continuous pressure on regions which in turn place demands on states. States often
consider these demands excessive or irrelevant to unique state problems. The project
officer's job is to facilitate communication between the region and states and to help
states set and achieve realistic environmental goals.
Frequently, project officers must enter negotiations over work programs with inflexible
targets for state work outputs. These targets often come from EPA headquarters in its
response to Congressional expectations. Expectations become commitments in the
Agency's accountability system.
Because regional program managers tend to transfer headquarters pressures to states,
conditions for genuine negotiation of state work programs may be poor. States may
see "negotiation" as a process by which EPA imposes demands.
4-11
-------
Orientation lo State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Limited Resources
EPA
Priorities
State
Needs
VIEWGRAPH #10: Limited Resources
KEY POINTS
Increasing Demands, Decreasing Resources
States will try to resist EPA's trend to demand more as the federal share of total
resources declines.
EPA argues that states are not fulfilling their responsibility to fund state program
activities.
Federal statutes and delegation agreements require that states undertake a wide
variety of activities. EPA assistance agreements were never intended to fund
fully all activities expected of states.
4-12
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Pro)ect Officer Role and Responsibilities
Inconsistent Budget Cycles
Julyl October 1 January 1 April! June 30
State
Octo!
Federal
I I
>er 1 January 1 April 1
I
_l
July 1 September 30
\
\
VIEWGRAPH #11:
KEY POINTS
Inconsistent Budget Cycles
Inconsistencies Between State and Federal Budget Cycles
State and federal budget cycles are often inconsistent. Many state fiscal years
end on June 30; the federal fiscal year ends on September 30. Some state
legislatures meet only every other year or every three years; these states have
two- or three-year budget cycles, respectively.
The lack of consistency between federal and state budget cycles may contribute
to problems in grant administration. States may be asked to implement state
programs for up to one quarter without a final federal grant award. Although
the states are entitled to reimbursement, this requires the states to spend state
funds during mis period. Also, states may be heid accountable for a work
program that begins before final federal funding commitments are made.
4-13
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Current Problems With
Resource Constraints
• Funding or Staffing Short-
falls
• States Resist Ambitious Com-
mitments
VIEWGRAPH #12:
KEY POINTS
Current Problems With Resource Constraints
Current Problems With Resource Constraints on State Programs
Many state water quality programs are experiencing funding or staffing
shortfalls. Resource constraints often cause problems for state programs.
When state funding for water quality programs does not keep pace with new
federal program requirements, states may resist agreeing to ambitious work
program commitments.
4-14
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibility
Relationship Between
P.O., GMO, & FMO
• P.O. is EPA Program Contact
• GMO Handles Business and
Other Nonprogrammatic
Areas
• FMO Processes & Monitors
VIEWGRAPH #13:
KEY POINTS
Relationship Between P.O., GMO, & FMO
Relationship between the Project Officer (P.O.), the Regional Grants Management
Offices (GMOs), and die Financial Management Offices (FMOs).
The project officer is designated in the assistance agreement as EPA's
program contact with the award recipient. The project officer is responsible
for developing regional guidance and negotiating the work program, including
measures of success. He or she also is responsible for monitoring the
performance of the recipient.
The role of the EPA regional GMOs is to complement the technical knowledge
of the project officer with expertise in the business and other non-
programmatic areas of assistance awards. The GMO functions begin with
review, negotiation, award and administration of assistance agreements and
extend to audit resolution and final closeout. The Grants Specialist in the GMO
evaluates and monitors the business management capability and administrative
performance of recipients, and the internal operating procedures associated
with the business management aspects of the grants process. The GMO also
serves as the liaison between the project officer and the FMO.
4-15
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
The FMO is responsible for processing payment requests, accounting,
monitoring the recipients' cash management practices, and complying with the
reporting requirements of the U.S. Treasury. Along with the GMO, the FMO
must ensure that funds reach the recipient on time and that the payments are
proper.
4-16
-------
Orientation to Sate Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibility
Project Officer Tasks
Coordinates
State Guidance
Maintains Files
Applies Performance
Consequences
Negotiates Work
ProgiHius
Manages Performance
Resolves
Differences
VIEWGRAPH #14:
KEY POINTS
Project Officer Tasks
Project Officer Basic Responsibilities
The project officer acts as the regional office's single point of program contact
with the recipient. Program offices in regions communicate to states through
the project officer. The state obtains information from the project officer
regarding EPA guidance and policy.
The project officer also coordinates state guidance. He or she prepares state-
specific guidance that communicates national and regional priorities, joint EPA-
state priorities, and annual funding targets. To serve in this capacity the project
officer must have in-depth knowledge of each state's water quality problems and
approach to water quality management, as well as headquarter's and the
regional office's priorities. (Some regions do not prepare written guidance.)
The project officer is responsible for negotiating the work program. To do
this, he or she works with state and various regional water quality programs to
identify activities that address national and regional priorities, address state
priorities, and are eligible under the 106 program. The project officer works in
partnership with the state to resolve work program issues. The work program
identifies state activities and sets a schedule for accomplishment. The work
4-17
-------
Orierution to State Water Quality Management Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
program's detail and specificity provide monitoring milestones to track prog-
ress. It becomes the basis for subsequent follow-up activities.
The project officer manages performance and resolves differences. He or
she monitors progress continuously to track activities and identify potential
problems before they become significant. The project officer also identifies
problems and works with the appropriate staff to resolve issues early. He or
she conducts formal mid-year evaluations and documents the findings and
recommendations in writing. The results of mid-year review are used as the
basis for the development of next year's work program. The project officer is
responsible for keeping records of all these activities.
The project officer is responsible for applying performance consequences.
He or she uses the information gained from monitoring state programs to
manage state performance. The project officer has two motivational tools
available: incentives such as letters of recognition for achievement to reward
good performance; and sanctions that address serious problems, used as a last
resort to motivate states to improve performance. The project officer recom-
mends sanctions only after all efforts to resolve problems have been exhausted.
Even under the best of circumstances, problems will arise which cannot be
resolved without further action.
The project officer is responsible for documenting and maintaining the
programmatic project files for all assistance agreements, and GMO is respon-
sible for maintaining grant administration files. The project officer should
coordinate with the GMO in the regions to ensure that documentation is
complete. Also, the project officer is responsible for reviewing final SF269s
(Financial Status Reports) to ensure compliance with program administration
requirements and to check funding levels against project progress. The GMO
grant specialist reconciles Financial Status Reports with applications and checks
maintenance of effort. In some regions, project officers approve SF269s.
4-18
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Project Officer Basic
Skills
• Communication
• Coordination
• Facilitation
• Know When to Escalate a
Decision
VIEWGRAPH #15:
KEY POINTS
Project Officer Basic Skills
Communication is the most critical skill that a project officer can develop. The
project officer must communicate frequently with both regional office program staff
and state personnel. He or she must interpret and translate national and regional
priorities for state program staff and communicate state priorities, needs, and concerns
to regional office program staff.
The project officer must also develop coordination skills. He or she serves as the
focal point for all state activities funded under the 106 assistance agreement. The
project officer coordinates at the regional office level among various programs because
activities are diverse. Ultimately, the project officer leads the process for achieving a
negotiated consensus and agreement on an acceptable state work program.
Facilitation is another important skill for a project officer to possess. The project
officer must be able to define the issues when a conflict arises. He or she identifies
the appropriate contacts and manages a process that provides for involvement by all
parties at the state and regional levels.
The project officer must know -when to escalate a decision. Water Management
Division Directors and Regional Administrators rely on project officers to achieve
4-19
-------
Orientation to State Water Qualitv Management Prolett Officer Role and Responsibilities
compromise and consensus. When compromise is impossible, the project officer must
recognize when it is time to refer decisions to a higher authority.
4-20
-------
Orientation to State Wf .T Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Working with Other
rograms
Assessment
Nonpoint Source
Permits
Project Officer
Ground Water
Enforcement
Other
VIEWGRAPH #16:
KEY POINTS
Working with Other Programs
Working with Other Programs
As the focal point for management of 106 program activities, the project officer
must be in close contact with the managers of various water programs,
including: assessment, permits, enforcement, standards, ground water, non-
point source, TMDLs, wetlands, coastal zone management, clean lakes, SRF,
marine and estuarine, and watersheds.
The project officer also serves as a liaison with managers in other programs,
including: pollution prevention, risk assessment, Resource Conservation
Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, quality assurance, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, local governments, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, soil conservation districts, sanitary districts, etc.
4-21
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Timing of Grant and Budget
Processes
I RO Quittance I I NegotUtlon«|
lo StrtM | I i I
VIEWGRAPH #17: Timing of Grant and Budget Processes
KEY POINTS
Timing of the Budget Process
State funding targets for upcoming fiscal years are based on the President's
budget request and are usually issued by March. These are estimates; they do
not reflect Congressional action on appropriations.
The final Congressional appropriations should be passed by the end of the
fiscal year; in recent years, they have not.
After Congress appropriates, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
30 days to apportion EPA's appropriations, i.e., make resources available for
EPA to obligate on a quarter-by-quarter basis.
EPA then has 30 days to provide an Operating Plan to Congress for its approval.
The Operating Plan uses the Congressional Budget Justification as a baseline
and modifies it according to the Congressional appropriations. The Operating
Plan is loaded into the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) when it
is sent to Congress.
4-22
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Timing Under Continuing Resolutions
At the beginning of the fiscal year, the Agency is covered either by an annual
Appropriations Act for the whole year or a Continuing Resolution (CR) covering
a shorter period. Under a CR, Congress and OMB provide a complex set of
rules that can be modified quarterly or even monthly. Generally, CRs restrict
EPA's budget more than the appropriation.
4-23
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Funds Control
OMB
Apportions Funds
to EPA
EPA OC allocates
funds to HQ and
Regional
allowance holders
HQ and Regional
offices commit,
obligate, and
expend funds
VIEWGRAPH #18: Funds Control
KEY POINTS
Actors in the Budget Process
The President submits a budget request to Congress.
Congress passes appropriations bills.
OMB apportions the funds that Congress appropriates for EPA.
EPA's Office of the Comptroller converts the EPA apportionment into one
allotment and gives it to the EPA's "allotment holder," the Budget Director.
The Budget Director then divides the allotment into allowances and
electronically provides an "Advice of Allowance" (AOA) to each "allowance
holder."
For the 106 program, the allowance holders are the Regional Administrators.
The final Operating Plan contains all AOAs by program element and object class,
with funding levels by fiscal quarter.
4-24
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Fundamentals of Program
Budgeting
• Congress Appropriates by
Purpose, Time & Amount
• OMB Apportions by Quarter
• Advice of Allowance
Authorizes Commitment,
Obligation & Expenditure
VIEWGRAPH #19: Fundamentals of Program Budgeting
KEY POINTS
Congress appropriates funds by purpose, time, and amount. For example, Section 106
funds for cooperative agreements are two-year funds. They may only be spent for
continuing program assistance, and they may not exceed the amount specified in the
law.
Although many EPA assistance agreements are funded with multiple-year money, the
Operating Plan is issued at the beginning of the fiscal year, and the Advice of
Allowance cannot exceed one year.
The Advice of Allowance provides spending authority to each allowance holder,
including the authority to take the following actions:
Commitment - an action to reserve funds in an allowance for a specific purpose
(e.g., a grant or cooperative agreement).
Obligation - a binding agreement to spend a given amount of money for a
specific purpose during a given period.
Expenditure - occurs when payment is made for goods or services received.
4-25
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
There arc two types of allowances. New Obligation Authority is based on
Congressional appropriations that arc funded each year (e.g., funds for Abatement,
Control, and Compliance (AC&C)). Agency Carryover Authority is used to spend
unobligated federal balances remaining in multi-year appropriations. Agency
Carryover Authority should not be confused with "carryover" under a grant or
cooperative agreement award, which refers to funds awarded but not spent by the
recipient during the budget period.
4-26
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
Timely Award of
Assistance Funds
EPA's Policy is to Award
Quickly
Award When Operating Plan
In IFMS
Can Obligate 100% In First
Quarter
VIEWGRAPH #20:
KEY POINTS
Timely Award of Assistance Funds
It is EFA's policy to award assistance funds for Continuing Environmental Programs
(including Section 106 funds) as quickly as possible after funds become available. The
Agency is trying to be responsive to the needs of state programs mat might have to lay
off workers if federal funding is delayed. Also, the Agency recognizes its responsibili-
ties under the Cash Management Improvement Act which provides that die Agency
could be liable for interest penalties if grants or cooperative agreements are awarded
late.
According to the Antideficiency Act, an obligation may be incurred only after Congress
passes an appropriation and after the allowance holder receives an allowance from the
Budget Division. As explained earlier, it is the final Operating Plan that provides the
"advices of allowance" (AOAs) for all allowance holders. During the interim period
prior to approval of the enacted Operating Plan, the Operating Plan based on the
President's request is loaded into the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS).
Project officers should be aware that the Operating Plan based on the President's
request has not been adjusted to reflect Congressional actions or final Administrator
distribution of resources. As soon as the final Operating Plan is submitted to Con-
gress, it is entered into IFMS and funds can be obligated. Therefore, project officers
should be careful in managing resources in the event that modifications reduce the
4-27
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Project Officer Role and Responsibilities
amounts available. Once the Operating Plan has been approved by Congress, the
normal Advice of Allowance letters are issued.
OMB apportions appropriation funds on a quarterly basis for the fiscal year. Grant
and cooperative agreement funds are apportioned 80% in the first quarter, 10% in the
second quarter, and 5% in the third and fourth quarters. Since not all funds for some
project grants or cooperative agreements are obligated until late in the fiscal year,
regions have the flexibility to obligate 100% of the Section 106 program's funding
target in the first quarter without exceeding its quarterly AC&C funds apportionment
4-28
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Protect Officer Role and Responsibilities
Where to Go For Help
• Water Management Division
Administrative Assistant
• Regional Comptroller's
Office
• Headquarters 106
Coordinator
VIEWGRAPH #21: Where to Go For Help
KEY POINTS
Where To Go For Help
1)
The project officer should first check with the Water Management
Division Administrative Assistant.
2) For the Section 106 program, project officers should consult with the
Regional Comptroller's Office (usually in the Assistant Regional
Administrator's office) on funding questions.
3) Questions that cannot be answered by the offices listed above should be
directed to the headquarters 106 coordinator.
Project officers should be able to provide their states with information on the status of
funding.
4-29
-------
Module 5:
Developing Regional Guidance
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Developing Regional Guidance
The Role of Guidance
• Reflect State & EPA Goals
• State-Specific
• Establishes Accountability
• Provides Written Record of
Expectations
VIEWGRAPH #1:
KEY POINTS
The Role of Guidance
Regional guidance for each state should:
• Reflect the goals and objectives of EPA regions and states.
• Provide a clear basis for development of work programs.
• Establish the basis to evaluate state performance.
Regional guidance should be developed for each state. The Section 106 project officer
is primarily responsible for ensuring that each state has regional guidance. Individual
state guidance will be based on EPA national guidance, regional priorities, and
initiatives, the needs and capabilities of each state, and past state performance. The
guidance also will specify detailed outputs in critical program areas that the region
expects to see in the work program. The project officer should work with the Water
Management Division and die state to ensure mat regional guidance reflects the
concerns of both EPA regions and states.
Guidance plays a critical role in establishing accountability. The detailed specification
of outputs that the region expects to see in the work program documents the region's
performance expectations. This, coupled with the final negotiated work program,
5-1
-------
Orientation to State Water Qualltv Management Developing Regional Guidance
provides a written record of regional expectations and the state's agreement to meet
those expectations.
5-2
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Developing Regional Guidance
Regional Guidance is
Based On:
• National Guidance
• State Problems
• Past State Performance
• State Capabilities
VIEWGRAPH #2: Regional Guidance is Based On:
KEY POINTS
Requirements for Regional Guidance (40 CFR 35.125(b))
"Regional guidance is based on Headquarters guidance and the Regional
Administrator's knowledge of environmental problems in each state in his
region and evaluation of each applicant's ability to carry out the program."
Regional guidance is based on national guidance and translates EPA's priorities for
state staff. Regional guidance is the region's interpretation of what is required to fully
implement the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Once the region receives EPA's national guidance, the project officer should let the
state know which activities are most important to EPA and how the state should meet
EPA's requirements. The project officer should base these decisions on the state's
water quality problems, its past performance, and its capabilities for future
performance. By working with the state, the project officer should be able to ensure
that the individual state water quality problems and the national and regional water
program objectives are met.
5-3
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Developing Regional Guidance
Restrictions &
Requirements
Various Requirements
Minimum Conditions
P.O. Must Work With
Various Programs
V1EWGRAPH #3:
KEY POINTS
Restrictions & Requirements
The project officer should be aware of various statutory and regulatory restrictions
and requirements that states must meet in their work programs. Although states
usually are aware of them, these restrictions and requirements may need to be
reiterated in regional guidance.
Examples of these restrictions and requirements in Section 106 include:
CWA § 106(d), which says that no grant shall be made under this section to any
state for any fiscal year when "the expenditure of non-Federal funds by such
State . . . are less than the expenditure of such State or interstate agency non-
Federal funds for such recurrent program expenses during the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1971."
According to 40 CFR 35.305, "To receive funds under section 205(g), a state
agency must expend annually for recurrent section 106 program expenditures
an amount of non-Federal funds at least equal to such expenditures during
fiscal year 1977, unless the Regional Administrator determines that the
reduction is attributable to a non-selective reduction of expenditures in State
executive branch agencies."
5-4
-------
Orientation to State Wati Quality Management Developing Regional Guidance
CWA § 106(e), which provides that grants under this section shall not be made
to states that have not provided "die establishment and operation of appropriate
devices, methods, systems. snd procedures necessary to monitor, and to
compile and analyze data on . . . the quality of navigable waters . . . ."
CWA § 106(0. which states that grants under mis section are made on the
condition that "no federally assumed enforcement as defined in Section
309(a)(2) is in effect with respect to such State or interstate agency."
There are other similar requirements, and not all of them can be listed here. Their
existence, however, underscores the need for project officers to work with various
program offices within the regional office when developing regional guidance.
5-5
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Developing Regional Guidance
Involving Other Regional
Programs
• Consult Other Program
Offices
• Program-Specific Guidance
VIEWGRAPH #4:
KEY POINTS
Involving Other Regional Programs
The project officer is the principal point of contact with the state. It is important that
he or she consult with all relevant EPA regional program offices during the
development of regional guidance. The guidance document should reflect the
priorities of the consolidated regional water program for each state.
In addition to transmitting national and regional priorities, the guidance also should
emphasize particular program issues that the region wants to see addressed—e.g.,
monitoring, pollution prevention, and so forth. These issues may be included in
"program-specific guidance."
5-6
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Developing Regional Guidance
Timely Issuance of Regional
Guidance is Essential
Action
Deadline
HQ issues draft guidance
January 15
HQ issues AOG & funding planning March 1
targets
Senior state meetings March
Regions issue guidance April 1
States submit draft work programs june 1
Work program approval; complete September 30
grant process
VIEWGRAPH #5:
KEY POINTS
Timely Issuance of Regional Guidance is Essential
It is important that regional guidance be developed according to an established
schedule that both the region and the state understand. The project officer should
take every opportunity to facilitate communication between the region and the state.
To do this, the project officer should draft a schedule for guidance development and
discuss it with the state.
The information in the regional guidance is essential for each state's work program
and should be issued in a timely fashion. Therefore, regional guidance should be
issued to the state on or before April 1 of each year. If mis target is not met, it
becomes difficult to require submission of draft work programs by June 1. The timely
submission of work programs by the states is critical to the approval of work programs
by September 30, in time for funding at the beginning of the new fiscal year.
The schedule outlined above assumes that Agency Operating Guidance (AOG) and
funding planning targets from headquarters are available to the regions by March 1. If
the final AOG is not available, men the regions should use the draft AOG or the
previous years guidance in preparing regional guidance. If delays in the President's
Budget delays the issuance of funding planning targets, men the project officer should
use the previous year's targets as a base.
5-7
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Developing Regional Guidance
Guidance Development Process
HQ
HQ prepares National
Guidance and Funding
Planning Targets
RO/PO
State
L
Senior-Level Meetings
with Slate
I
Issues Guidance
Senior-Level Meetings
with Regions
VIEWGRAPH #6:
KEY POINTS
Guidance Development Process
Regional offices play an essential role in interpreting and adapting EPA goals and
requirements to individual state programs. This role involves communicating with
states and Headquarters to solve issues mat arise as states develop annual work
programs.
Guidance for individual states should be based on mutually agreed-upon priorities and
activities (as much as possible). Although the Section 106 project officer develops the
guidance, it should reflect the involvement of all regional water programs and the
states. Guidance is an essential part of the annual state work program development
effort and is an important management tool that will ease the project officer's duties
and improve EPA/state relationships.
The project officer must be communicative and flexible in developing guidance. Well-
organized guidance will give the state a firm basis for work program development,
provide for state contributions, help ensure proper timing, and stabilize the annual
process. To reconcile regional priorities with state needs and capabilities, senior-level
EPA and state personnel should meet well before the April 1 deadline. These
discussions should focus on strategic planning, long-term objectives, and major
program priorities for the coming year. All parties should agree on new initiatives and
priorities for the coming year.
5-8
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Developing Regional Guidance
The project officer should use the results of these senior-level discussions to create
state-specific guidance. The project officer also must use his or her understanding of
national and/or regional priorities and the unique state characteristics and program
priorities while developing the guidance.
5-9
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Developing Regional Guidance
Guidance Should Be
Tailored to Unique State
Conditions
• Senior Level Agreements
• Problem Types & Severity
• Budget Cycles & Resources
• State Organizational Issues
• State Legislative Constraints
VIEWGRAPH #7: Guidance Should Be Tailored to Unique State Conditions
KEY POINTS
Typically, each year more priorities are created than states have the resources to
accomplish. Therefore, the project officer should consider all factors affecting a state's
ability to meet national goals. Before developing state-specific guidance, the project
officer might consider:
• Senior level agreements (state-EPA agreements, clean water strategies,
strategic plans, etc.).
• Differences in types and severity of problems.
• State budget cycles.
• State and federal resources.
• State organizational issues (e.g., the involvement of many state agencies in
one program).
• State legislative constraints (e.g., the need for legislative approval to
spend federal funds).
5-10
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Developing Regional Guidance
Elements of a Guidance
Document
• National & Regional
Priorities
• Review & Issuance Schedule
• Work Program Schedule
• Unresolved Issues
VIEWGRAPH #8:
KEY POINTS
Elements of a Guidance Document
"The guidance contains EPA's objectives and priorities, the applicant's planning target,
the program elements EPA uses for budget justification and management, categories of
outputs which should be part of the applicant's work program, and the special
conditions or limitations relevant to the applicant." (40 CFR 35.125(b))
Effective regional guidance should be a framework for the state work program. In
developing the regional guidance, the project officer should create an atmosphere of
mutual support and communication between the region and the state. This forum can
then set the stage for similar negotiations regarding the state's work program. In
formulating regional guidance, the project officer should:
• List the national priorities, emphasizing the relevant priorities to state
objectives.
• List the regional priorities, including specific outputs and commitments
requested by the region.
• Schedule a state review period and issue final guidance.
• Schedule draft and final work program submissions.
5-11
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Developing Regional Guidance
• Tie up the previous year's loose ends, e.g. specific recommendations on
how the state can complete previous years commitments (as necessary).
5-12
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Developing Regional Guidance
Elements of a Guidance
Document (Cont.)
• Work Program Format
• Additional Guidance Sources
• Funding Targets
• Applications, Regulations &
Referrals
VIEWGRAPH #9: Elements of a Guidance Document (Cont.)
KEY POINTS
• Specify the state's work program format (the format should integrate all
the water quality activities within the grant and specify their respective
funding sources).
• Provide additional sources of guidance that the state can use to design
individual program elements (e.g., special issues like performance based
grants, ground water initiatives, etc.).
• Establish funding targets.
• Provide copies of grant application forms, copies of relevant regulations,
and statements referring state administrative/financial staff to regional
grant administration staff for specific assistance.
In addition to formal letters transmitting guidance, informal discussions, meetings, and
conference calls also are effective means of supplying information on and interpreting
guidance.
5-13
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Developing Regional Guidance
The following is an example of what the table of contents of a regional guidance
document might look like.
I. GENERAL GUIDANCE FOF DEVELOPING WORK PROGRAM PLANS AND
GRANT APPLICATIONS
A. Milestones for FY*94 Program Grants Actions
B. National Guidance and Priorities
C. Regional Guidance and Priorities
D. Grant Work Program Content
E. Progress Reports
II. GRANT SPECIFIC GUIDANCE
A. 106 Guidance
B. 604(b) Guidance
C. The Management Process for Section 319(h) Funds for Nonpoint
Sources
III. PROGRAM SPECIFIC GUIDANCE
A. Water Quality Assessment and Ambient Water Monitoring
Programs
B. Permits and Enforcement
C. Clean Lakes Program
D. Pollution Prevention
E. Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs
F. Wellhead Protection
G. Nonpoint Sources Management (NFS) Program
IV. FUNDING RESERVES AND TARGETS
V. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
APPENDIX A: Headquarters Pollution Prevention Policy Information and
Guidance Memos.
APPENDIX B: Headquarters List of Defined Work Program Program Elements
for 106 and 604(b)
APPENDIX C: Headquarters 106 FY Guidance Memo
See the reference manual of this course for an example of regional guidance.
5-14
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Developing Regional Guidance
Reviewing Past
Performance
Aids in Guidance
Preparation
Encourages Multi-Year
Planning
VIEWGKAPH #10:
KEY POINTS
Reviewing Past Performance
State performance measured against the previous year's commitments is an important
source of information for developing this year's guidance. Project officers and
regional staff also can use the results of reviews of current year commitments to form
effective guidance. The mid-year review is an important source of information about
state performance. The project officer's day-to-day discussions with state and regional
staff also can give an insight into state performance. The results of these discussions,
quarterly progress reports, and end-of-year reviews help the project officer to
formulate effective, state-specific guidance.
Linking guidance to the previous year's performance encourages states to undertake
multi-year planning. By using this approach, EPA demonstrates that it plans to
measure program performance for more than one year and that positive results will
benefit the next year's program.
5-15
-------
Module 6:
Negotiating the Work Program
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
VIEWGRAPH #1:
KEY POINTS
The Work Program
> Defines Outputs, Activities,
and Schedules
> Must Be Realistic
> Contains Objectives of State
&EPA
The Work Program
Overview to Work Program Negotiation
In Section 106 cooperative agreements and other Office of Water (OW) grants,
EPA provides funding and the recipients (states) agree to produce specific
outputs or complete specific activities. The nature of this EPA-state agreement,
the specific outputs or activities, and the schedule for producing these outputs
or activities are defined by the work program (also known as the work plan).
In order for an agreement to be effective, the goals must be realistic. Ideally, a
work program should contain the major objectives of both sides. This requires
diplomacy, compromise, and close attention to detail.
For additional information on the work program, see 40 CFR 35.130, 130.10,
and 130.11(a)-(e).
6-1
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Work Program Objectives
• Develop Realistic Work
Program Commitments
• Define Commitments That
Foster Accountability
• Part of Long-Range Plan
VIEWGRAPH #2:
KEY POINTS
Work Program Objectives
The objective of the work program development process is a workable document
The final work program is the result of negotiations between the EPA regional office
(represented by the project officer) and the state. The objective of the work program
negotiation process is a workable document that has two characteristics.
Realii tic work program commitments. There never are enough funds to achieve all
of the water quality objectives of the state and EPA. Therefore, the project officer and
the state must agree upon those commitments that are most important. A large part of
this module will provide specific techniques that the project officer can use to achieve
consensus on what is most important and to negotiate mutually-agreed-upon
commitments.
Defining commitments that foster accountability. There are no easy ways to
achieve this objective. Relevant regulations should be followed when establishing the
content of the work program.
6-2
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Negotiating the Work Program
For example:
40 CFR 130.11(c) requires that work programs describe geographical and
functional priorities for the use of grant funds in a manner that will facilitate
EPA review of the grant application and subsequent evaluation of work.
Also, 40 CFR 130.8 states that annual work programs should reflect problems
identified in the 305(b) reports.
Part 40 CFR 130.11(d) requires that work programs be structured according to
key program elements.
40 CFR 130.11(c) and 40 CFR 130.11(d) require that the work program specify
program activities, outputs, and funding by program elements.
For consolidated assistance (40 CFR 35.145), the consolidated budget must
identify each assistance program's funds. The consolidated work program must
identify the extent to which each assistance program's funds support each
program element.
Activities in the work program must be consistent with these regulations.
The remainder of this module will present proven management principles that can
enable the project officer to achieve these requirements in a practical work program
document.
Tying Long-Range EPA Planning to Long-Range State Planning. States may want to
adopt a multi-year approach to planning mat reflects EPA's directions and meets their
own program needs. Therefore, work program decision making should be based on a
strategic outlook that goes beyond one year. It is inefficient for states to simply react
to national goals and priorities. State strategies, priority waterbody lists, and water
quality management plans represent long-term approaches to water quality
management. The project officer should discuss die following benefits of long-range
planning with the state water quality managers:
• Helps to improve water quality.
• Brings stability to the state program.
• Makes state programs flexible and less reactive by re-emphasizing and
reconsidering existing components (long-range planning highlights this
and makes national priority shifts less problematical).
• Helps predict and defend resource needs.
6-3
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Important Steps
Set Priorities &
Commitments
Set Schedule
Check Structure
Negotiate
VIEWGRAPH #3: Important Steps
KEY POINTS
There are seven important management principles that should be followed in work
program negotiation:
1) Set priorities and commitments in the context of the overall state water
quality program.
2) Set a realistic schedule.
3) Ensure that the state work program is structured according to key
program elements with specific outputs. For a list of key program
elements, see Module 3: Overview of Grants and Cooperative
Agreements.
4) Negotiate a work program that effectively achieves program goals.
6-4
-------
Orientation 10 State Water Quality Management Negotiating the Work Program
Important Steps (Cont.)
• Involve Other Programs
• Evaluation Plan
• Coordinate With Grants
Administration Staff
VIEWGRAPH #4: Important Steps (Cont.)
KEY POINTS
Continued from previous page.
5) Involve regional water programs in work program development.
6) Plan for evaluation of accomplishments from the outset.
7) Coordinate with grants management offices (GMOs) during work
program development.
6-5
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Setting Priorities
Understand & Consider
Overall Program
Balance EPA & State
Priorities
VIEWGRAPH #5:
KEY POINTS
Setting Priorities
Set priorities and commitments in die context of the overall state water quality
program.
The project officer must understand the state's overall program and budget.
This goes beyond those elements supported by Section 106 or other EPA funds.
It relates to die entire state water quality management program whether funded
by EPA or not. It also refers to aspects of the state program that may be
implemented by local and regional planning organizations. If die project officer
does not understand die whole program and how 106-funded elements relate to
die whole, it is difficult to evaluate die commitments made in die work
program.
The priorities established in die work program should integrate and balance
EPA and state priorities. Project officers must balance die needs of born sides
in a work program where commitments are spread realistically across goals.
6-6
-------
Orientation to State W» ~r Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Setting a Schedule
Should be Realistic
Set Schedule Early
Final Work Program In Place
by October 1
VIEWGRAPH #6:
KEY POINTS
Setting a Schedule
Set a realistic schedule.
The project officer should establish a schedule for:
• Submission of the state work program.
• Review by EPA.
• Negotiation.
• Resubmission.
• Approval of the final work program.
This schedule should be established early in the planning process. A thoughtful
schedule, if adhered to, can facilitate negotiation and the development of
realistic commitments.
The schedule must necessarily focus on having the final work program in place
before October 1. This implies the following range of schedules for events that
are likely to take place before final work program approval. Each region may,
of course, operate on a different schedule. Some regions complete work
program negotiations prior to July to conform to state fiscal years ending June
30.
6-7
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
The following example shows a schedule that works for some regions.
States Submit Draft Vvork Programs to EPA
EPA/States Negotiate Preliminary Work Programs— Elevating
Unresolved Issues
States Submit Final Application to GMO '
Project Officer Submits Decision Memorandum and Final Work
Program to GMO
EPA/States Cooperatively Resolve Final Work Program Issues
States Submit Final Work Programs
EPA Regions Notify States of Status of Assistance Applications and
Work Programs
Awards Made by GMO October 1 (or as soon as funds are available
following congressional appropriation and OMB apportionment)
By June 1
By July 15
By August 1
August
By August 15
By August 31
September 15
October 1
1 States must submit the final application to the GMO 60 days prior to the beginning of the budget
period. (40 CFR 35 140)
6-8
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Work Prc
Structured According to
Key Program Elements:
• Must Have Specific Outputs
• Facilitate EPA Review
• Helps Compile Reporting
Information
VIEWGRAPH #7:
KEY POINTS
Work Programs Structured According to Key Program Elements:
The project officer should ensure that the state work program is structured according
to key program elements with specific outputs.
The water quality management regulations establish the key program elements
(or "functions") for the work program.
"State work programs under Sections 106, (and related programs] shall
be coordinated." (40 CFR 130.11(d)).
"The work program must specify the work years and amount and source
of funding estimated to be needed for each program element, the outputs
committed to under each program element. . . and an identification of
the agency responsible for each of the elements and outputs." (40 CFR
35.130)
A work program structured according to these elements facilitates EPA review of
the work program and subsequent evaluation of work accomplished with funds
from the assistance agreement. Consistent reporting by states within a region
also helps the project officer compile information needed for reporting to
headquarters.
6-9
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Negotiate to Achieve
Program Goals
• P.O. Has Discretion
• Success Depends on
Knowledge and Skill
• Success Often Depends on
Simple Tasks
VIEWGRAPH #8:
KEY POINTS
Negotiate to Achieve Program Goals
As a project officer, you have a unique opportunity to work directly with the state to
negotiate the work program. Although there may appear to be many constraints on
your negotiating positions, both parties actually have significant discretion. How you
finally arrive at an agreement is up to you. The challenge, therefore, is to use the
negotiation process as a way to improve upon the draft work program submitted by
the state.
Success will depend on how well you know your state (e.g., your knowledge of past
state performance and your assessment of what is reasonable for the coming year)
plus your skill as a negotiator.
Successful negotiation often depends on the simple tasks that you have the authority to
perform. For example,
• If states receive EPA guidance in a timely fashion, they will be more likely
to use that guidance in developing their draft work programs.
• If you start the process early and convene early meetings with the state,
you can answer questions and influence the draft work program process.
6-10
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Negotiating the Work Program
• It is important to have accurate data on past program performance. This
will improve your credibility as a negotiator. You may need to get some
of this information from other regional office programs or review end-of-
year and current mid-year performance reports.
• You need to realistically assess the state's ability to make commitments.
This means that you should understand the state's current workload and
its ability to take on projected work.
• Negotiation requires an understanding of the positions of both
parties—their areas of potential consensus, and their areas of
disagreement. The sooner you can identify these positions, the more
helpful you can be as a negotiator.
6-11
-------
Orientation to State Water Qualitv Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Techniques of
Negouation
Focus on Interests
Explore Options to Resolve
Conflict
VIFWGRAPH #9: Techniques of Negotiation
KEY POINTS
We recommend that all project officers take a course in negotiation skills. The
purpose of this course is much broader, and we cannot take the time required to
properly conduct training in negotiation. There are commercial courses available,
however, and your regional office should be able to recommend one.
There are, however, some basic negotiation principles that can be outlined here and
that may be helpful for new project officers. Two principles for successful negotiation
arc:
Focus on interests. Each state water quality management program has
basic interests in achieving certain objectives. Your job, as project
officer, is to understand what these interests are. It is these interests, and
not the positions taken by a state negotiator, that will ultimately decide
the outcome of a negotiation. You should make the interests of EPA
clear to the state, and you should work to identify shared interests. One
of the interests shared by both the state and EPA, for example, is to have
the state continue to implement environmental programs.
6-12
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Negotiating the Work Program
• Seek to invent options that can be used to resolve conflict. Some
negotiations break down because of a lack of creativity. Positions
harden; parties become frustrated. The project officer should be
searching for options that will enable him or her to achieve an acceptable
solution for the Agency. Increasing the options—looking for creative
solutions—is essential.
6-13
-------
Jnentation 10 State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Unique Position of the
Project Officer
• Agency's Lead Negotiator
• Must Negotiate Within
Agency to Define
Objectives & Priorities
VIEWGRAPH #10: Unique Position of the Project Officer
KEY POINTS
The project officer must negotiate in two directions.
• On the one hand, he or she is the lead negotiator for the Agency in its
relationship with the state. This means that the project officer's job is to
work with the state to develop a work program that meets the Agency's
and state's objectives and priorities.
• At the same time, however, the project officer often has to negotiate
internally, in the regional office, to establish the official Agency position
in dealing with the state. Defining the Agency's objectives and priorities
may not be as simple as it seems. Indeed, even though there may be an
official set of priorities, there still may need to be trade-offs between
'program areas—e.g., between standards and permits—when faced with
scarce state resources.
6-14
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Involve Other Regional
Programs in Work
Program Development
• Many Have Interest in
Outcome
• Ask Them to Contribute
• Have Coordination Plan
VIEWGRAPH #11:
KEY POINTS
Involve Other Regional Programs in Work Program Development
Because the state work program will incorporate all water quality management
activities funded by Section 106 and other grant programs, many regional water
program offices will have an interest in the outcome. Staff in permits, for example,
have an interest in the specific commitments made by the state in their area.
Staff throughout the regional water management division should be involved in work
program development. They should be asked to contribute their technical expertise,
their program priorities, their knowledge about previous state performance, their
knowledge of state program capability, and their knowledge of the costs involved in
implementing new program activities.
6-15
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Plan Must Address:
> Comprehensiveness of
Review
* Schedule
> Review Frequency
VIEWGRAFH #12: Plan Must Address:
KEY POINTS
Central to the success of regional office coordination is a plan by the project officer.
This plan must address the following subjects:
• Comprehensiveness of review
What role do you want regional office personnel to play? Should they
review the entire draft work program?
We recommend that some staff should review the draft work program in
its entirety, while others should review only relevant portions.
• Schedule
The schedule for regional office review of the draft work program must
mesh with the overall schedule for negotiation.
The project officer should establish a firm schedule, including deadlines
for comments at each stage of the process.
6-16
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Negotiating the Woric Program
• Frequency of review
How many reviews of the work program will regional office personnel be
involved in? This needs to be established clearly at the outset.
6-17
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Role of the Project
Officer
> Coordination
> Circulation
» Compilation
VIEWGRAPH #13: Role of the Project Officer
KEY POINTS
The role of the project officer in coordinating the review by regional office personnel
includes the following tasks:
• Coordination with program office personnel to ensure that the various
offices within the region communicate their priorities to the state.
• Circulation of the draft state work program to all relevant reviewers and
establishment of a schedule for receipt of reviews.
• Compilation of the comments of all reviewers and communication of
them to the state.
6-18
-------
Orientation to State Water ' jallty Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Planning for Evaluation
From the Outset
• Introduce Subject When
Negotiating Work Program
• Make EPA's Expectations
Clear
VIEWGRAPH #14:
KEY POINTS
Planning for Evaluation From the Outset
Although this seems like a subject from the next module, it is important to start
planning for evaluation at the time that the work program is negotiated. This ensures
that the state understands the importance of evaluation and the need to meet all
reporting requirements that will facilitate evaluation.
EPA's expectations for the evaluation process should be made clear and explained to
the state. Clarification of why certain evaluation measures are important will help to
create a positive atmosphere.
6-19
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Evaluation Strategy
> Method for Evaluating &
Measuring Outputs
> Consequences
> Reporting Plan
> On-Site Visits
VIEWGRAPH #15: Evaluation Strategy
KEY POINTS
Design of evaluation strategies should consider the following management principles:
• States need to understand how their programs will be evaluated. It is
useful to define how outputs will be measured and how their adequacy
will be assessed.
• Possible consequences of inadequate performance need to be defined.
• The evaluation plan should include a reporting plan that will enable the
project officer to assess state progress in a timely manner. Quarterly
reporting may be useful.
• Regularly scheduled on-site visits are extremely useful.
6-20
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
Coordination
Coordinate With GMO
Ensure Fiscal Management
and Grant Integrity
Assist Processing/Review
Pre-Application Assistance
VIEWGRAPH #16:
KEY POINTS
Coordination
Coordinate with GMOs during work program development.
Grant administration and management functions are shared by project officers and
regional GMO personnel. Assignment of responsibilities will vary by region.
Regardless of the specifics of the process in your region, however, the project officer
remains the main point of contact for the state. Therefore, the project officer should
ensure that grant administration functions occur in a manner that is complementary to
work program development To this end, the project officer should:
• Coordinate with grants administration staff from the outset. Before
the draft work program is submitted by the state, the project officer
should meet with grants administration personnel and discuss previous
state performance, anticipated problems, methods for addressing
anticipated problems, and appropriate reporting requirements. The
project officer must follow established file procedures. It is important
for the project officer to coordinate with GMO on the administrative .
aspects of the grant application, budget review, standard conditions, and
any special conditions. GMO should review the application while the
project officer reviews the work program for acceptability. The project
6-21
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Negotiating the Work Program
officer should forward a directive memorandum to GMO on intent of
awards (e.g., full award, partial award, etc.).
• Ensure adequate state fiscal management and grant integrity. The
project officer should review the grant budget to determine if adequate
funds are available to accomplish the commitments specified in the work
program. Also, the project officer should review and track carryover
funds.
• Assist in grant processing and review. The project officer and grants
administration staff should jointly review the draft work program
submitted by the state. The purpose of mis review should be to check
the entire package for administrative completeness and adequacy,
evaluate budgeted costs for eligibility, discuss areas that may need
clarification, and discuss special grant conditions.
• Provide the state with pre-application assistance. The project officer
should work with the grant administration staff to provide pre-application
training or assistance to states. This may include, for example, assistance
in explaining special grant conditions, explaining requirements for state
level-of-effort, or determining allowable costs.
6-22
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Negotiating the Work Program
State Submittals to EPA
• 305 (b) & 2050)
• Work Program
• WQS
• CPP & WQM Plan
• 303(d) Ost
• TMDLs
VIEWGRAPH #17: State Submittals to EPA
KEY POINTS
States must submit the following regularly to EPA (40 CFR 130.10(a)):
• 305(b) report (every 2 years)
• 305(b) update (every 2 years) or 205(j) certification (off years)
• State work programs (annually)
• Revisions or additions to WQS
States must submit the following every two years (40 CFR 130.7(d)(l) and 130.10(b)
[See 57 Federal Register 33040, Friday, July 24, 1992.])
• 303(d) list
• TMDLs
The Clean Water Act also requires that each state initially submit to EPA and revise as
necessary the following (40 CFR 130.10(b)):
• Continuing Planning Process
• WQM plan and certified and approved updates
6-23
-------
Module 7:
Performance Management
-------
Orientation to State Water • uallty Management
Performance Management
Elements of Performance
Management
• Cooperation
• Communication
• Reporting Systems
• Incentives
• Sanctions
VIEWGRAPH #1:
KEY POINTS
Elements of Performance Management
The purposes of performance management are to ensure that work program
commitments are carried out by the state agency, and mat EPA and the state are
working cooperatively to see that work program commitments are achieved.
Central to performance management are communication and reporting systems.
Communication should be both formal and informal. Informal communication should
be sufficiently frequent mat the project officer knows the status of the state's activities
and commitments. The state and region also must agree upon a formal reporting
system that accurately communicates essential information regarding state work
program commitments and activities. This reporting system should be accurate,
timely, but not burdensome on the state.
States sometimes fail to meet previously agreed upon commitments. In such cases, the
project officer may need to turn to incentives and sanctions, where appropriate, to
ensure mat commitments are met However, states may fail to meet commitments for
reasons beyond their control, such as drought or too much rain. This kind of "failure"
does not merit sanctions. EPA should consider reprogramming as soon as these
situations become evident.
7-1
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Performance Management
For further information on performance management, refer to EPA's Performance
Based Assistance Policy in the reference manual of this course.
7-2
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Performance Management
Communication
Communication Is Key
Formal Reporting Tracks
Information & Progress
Informal Communication
Gains Background, Early
Warning & Cooperation
VIEWGRAPH #2:
KEY POINTS
Communication
Open communication is a key component of project officer performance
management. If a project officer can establish a climate of open
communication—where communication is frequent and the state agency is willing to
talk with the project officer—performance management is likely to be successful.
In the rest of this module, we will discuss several types of formal reporting
mechanisms that can be used by the project officer to obtain essential information on
state activities and progress toward commitments.
Informal communication consists of weekly or monthly discussions between die
project officer and the state agency. These discussions allow the project officer to
keep abreast of current events in the state. It also allows the project officer to keep
the state abreast of new policies and priorities at EPA. By maintaining this open
communication, the project officer is better able to understand the background that
affects a state's water quality management program. The project officer, for example,
can learn about emerging budget problems mat might affect commitments. This also
means that the project officer will have an "early warning" about difficulties. Informal
communication also enables the state and EPA to maintain an open, cooperative
attitude that can focus on solving problems rather than judging and assigning blame.
7-3
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Performance Management
Evaluation Strategy
> Establishes Reporting
Requirements
> Comprehensive
> State-Specific
> Quantitative & Qualitative
Measures of Progress
VIEWGRAPH #3:
KEY POINTS
Evaluation Strategy
The evaluation strategy is contained in the assistance agreement. It generally is not a
separate document, but rather is contained in the work program.
The strategy should have qualitative and quantitative performance measures that EPA
will use to judge state progress. It also should identify the formal reporting
requirements to be used by the state to report on its progress according to these
performance measures.
The evaluation strategy should be comprehensive. It should contain measures and
reporting requirements for all commitments contained in the work program. This
includes measures that are part of formal EPA reporting systems such as PCS and
GIGS, but should not be limited to these systems. The measures should be tailored to
the work program and specific circumstances of each state. This may require the
use of measures not found in formal EPA reporting systems.
In addition to quantitative measures, the evaluation strategy should also contain
qualitative measures of the state's progress in maintaining and achieving water
quality. For example, the state might be developing strategies for pollution prevention
or watershed-based planning, and implementation of these strategies should be
established as commitments and monitored by EPA.
7-4
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Performance Management
The Mid-Year Review
• Most Important Formal
Reporting Mechanism
• Requires Substantial
Logistical Preparation
• Collect All Available Data
Prior to State Visit
VIEWGRAPH #4:
KEY POINTS
The Mid-Year Review
For most regions, the mid-year review is the most important formal reporting
mechanism. It provides an opportunity for regional officials to visit the state, assess
progress in meeting commitments, identify areas of concern and develop a plan to
address these concerns for the remainder of the year, and provide mid-point feedback
to state agency personnel.
Effective mid-year reviews require substantial logistics work by the project officer. The
date and time of the review should be established well in advance to ensure that all
relevant participants—from both the state and the region—can attend. The project
officer needs to identify a comprehensive list of all of these personnel, ensuring full
representation from the region. He or she should then work carefully on logistics so
as to encourage maximum participation by both state and regional personnel.
Prior to visiting the state, the project officer should collect all available data that will be
useful for the visit For example, it may be useful for the project officer to review state
expenditures to date, check on cost alienability, and check on whether any level-of-.
effort problems are emerging. This may require coordination with grants
administration personnel to check on problems mat they have identified.
7-5
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Performance Management
Format for the Mid-Year
Review
• Significant
Accomplishments
• Concerns
• Recommendations
VIEWGRAPH #5:
KEY POINTS
Format for the Mid-Year Review
Each region may have a different format for the mid-year review. Several regions
successfully use the following format for each major program area supported by the
106 grant (e.g., NPDES permits, enforcement, standards, monitoring, and so forth).
• Significant accomplishments. Start with a summary of the achievements of
the program during the first half of the program year.
• Concerns. Identify, in order of priority, the deficiencies noted (if any) for each
program area.
• Recommendations. Follow each concern with an action that the state program
can take to remedy deficiencies. Be specific. Add a schedule, if necessary.
These recommendations can be discussed with the state in advance. If they
have been discussed, they can appear in the mid-year review as agreements
between the state and the region. The region may want to schedule a follow-up
meeting to check on the progress issues identified during the review.
7-6
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Performance Management
Results of the Mid-Year
Review
• State Comments
• Differences Resolved
• Problems in Perspective
• Thorough & Constructive
• Address Problems w/'Actions
VIEWGRAPH #6:
KEY POINTS
Results of the Mid-Year Review
The state agency should have an opportunity to review and comment on the EPA mid-
year evaluation report before it becomes final. The purpose of issuing the report is
not only to provide the state with a written assessment of its performance, but also to
enable the state to explain problems and work with EPA to resolve them. Performance
problems, therefore, should be openly and thoroughly discussed in an effort to
understand their causes and resolve both the immediate problems and any underlying
institutional or management issues.
The state may not agree with the project officer's assessment If so, it is important that
differences of opinion be aired and resolved. The objective in evaluation is to solve
problems cooperatively. If that cannot be achieved—if there are unresolved issues that
the project officer cannot settle with the state—then it is appropriate to raise these
issues to a higher management level. Unresolved differences regarding evaluation
findings can only lead to problems in the future.
In preparing the report, the project officer must consider a number of questions. Are
performance problems related to uncontrollable problems, e.g., lack of rainfall? Or is
the problem a management issue that is within the state's authority to resolve? Is the
problem short-term or long-term? Is the problem in a new area, or is it an area where
the state has typically had problems over the last few years? Is this a problem that the
7-7
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Performance Management
state has promised to correct, but never gotten around to? These types of
considerations will enable die project officer to place performance problems in
perspective and be most constructive in offering recommendations for change.
The report should be diorough and constructive. It should offer specific
suggestions—informed by me project officer's understanding of the state—on how the
state can resolve performance problems. It also should praise the state for noteworthy
achievements during the reporting period.
Once the results of me mid-year review have been established and agreed to by the
state and the region, the project officer should work widi the state to identify specific
actions that it can take to address the agreed-upon performance problems. It is
possible, for example, that reporting may be increased (or decreased), or redirected to
assist in improving performance. If commitment levels have not been met, and if it is
unlikely (for good reason) that they will be met during the year, it may be advisable to
amend the assistance agreements and commitments to reflect more realistic
expectations.
7-8
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Performance Management
VIEWGRAPH #7:
KEY POINTS
End-of-Year Review
> Important to Assess
Performance
i Helps Establish/Revise
Commitments
End-of-Year Review
It is important that the project officer assess overall state performance at the end of
each grant period. This should include both a quantitative and a qualitative
assessment of work program commitments and an analysis of the working relationship
between EPA and the state. This type of analysis will be useful in establishing or
revising commitments for the following year and is important to keep on file.
A sample work program tracking system to assist in me end-of-year review is attached
as an appendix to mis module. As you can see, it is organized by program element
and task. It includes task descriptions and outputs from the work program. After
reporting on the status, the "comments" column enables the project officer to address
issues that, if not completed, will be carried forward into the next program year.
7-9
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Performance Management
Assistance Agreement
Documents
• Types of Reports & Products
Grant Admin. Documents
CWA Requirements
Program & Project Outputs
• Maintain Filing System
• Assist in Retrieval
VIEWGRAPH #8: Assistance Agreement Documents
KEY POINTS
The assistance agreement documents received by the project officer can be grouped
into three categories:
• Grant administration documents
• CWA requirements
• Program and project outputs
Grant administration documents include:
Copy of applications/amendments (SF424)
Copy of the work program
Memoranda from the grants management office
Copy of project officer work program approval memo
Copy of commitment notices
Copy of assistance agreement and amendments (EPA Form S700-20A)
Official correspondence to recipients
Quarterly project reports (if applicable)
Project officer close-out memorandum and Financial Status Report
7-10
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Performance Management
CWA requirements include:
CPP revisions.
Identified/ranked priority of water quality limited segments (the 303(d)
list).
305(b) report
Updates of 208 plans.
Copies of 304(1) lists mat have been required.
Revised or added water quality standards.
Updates to the water quality management plan (including TMDLs).
Quality assurance program plan.
Demonstration that public participation requirements are met.
Program and project outputs:
• Reports and products associated with all commitments made in the work
program (including pollution prevention accomplishments).
• Project officer mid-year and end-of-year evaluations.
• Quality assurance project plans for all monitoring projects.
• For NPDES authorized states, Quarterly Noncompliance Reports
(QNCRs), inspection reports, number of permits issued, numbers of
violations, penalties assessed, and so forth.
The project officer is responsible for coordinating with other personnel in the Water
Management Division to determine who should review these documents, who needs to
sign off on documents (e.g., monitoring plans, quality assurance program plans,
quality assurance project plans), when those sign-offs need to occur, and how the
documents need to be filed.
This represents a large volume of paperwork. The project officer must be prepared to
manage the flow and ensure mat essential responsibilities are fulfilled. For example,
CWA § 303(e) requires mat states submit continuing planning processes (CPPs) to EPA.
"Not later than thirty days after the date of submission of such a process the
Administrator shall either approve of disapprove such process." Thus, if a state
submits a revised CPP, the Administrator has only 30 days to respond.
Maintenance of a filing system does not necessarily mean that the project officer must
file all the documents. It simply means that die project officer must be able to retrieve
the paperwork, if necessary, to document that the state met its commitments under the
106 cooperative agreement. Therefore, if the project officer does not maintain the
files, he or she must be able to ensure that some other responsible authority is
maintaining files and that documents can be retrieved.
7-11
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Managemc
Performance Management
The following is an example of the way one region organizes and maintains its
Program Office 106 cooperative agreement files:
The grant document
The work program
Correspondence
Outputs (including a tracking record that shows sign-off by individuals
responsible for the approval of the output)
Quality assurance program plan
Contractual milestone reports
7-12
-------
Orientation to State Water Duality Management
Pciiornuu&cc
Use of Incentives and
Sanctions
• Use to Enhance State
Performance
• Inappropriate Sanctions
Counterproductive
• Sanction Only When All Else
Fails
VffiWGRAPH #9:
KEY POINTS
Use of Incentives and Sanctions
If a state is not meeting die commitments established in its work program, the project
officer may use either incentives or sanctions to try to remedy the situation.
Use of incentives or sanctions should occur only after state performance has been
carefully reviewed against the commitments in me work program and in accordance
with the evaluation plan that is part of the assistance agreement
Sanctions are appropriate only after a state and region have failed to correct serious
and persistent performance problems, and there is clear evidence of missed work
program commitments. Also, sanctions are not to be used immediately after
inadequate performance is documented. Rather, sanctions are appropriate only after a
corrective strategy agreed to by the state and region fails to correct the problem.
Thus, no sanctions should be imposed until the region and state have exhausted every
other remedy.
In general, the project officer should follow these management principles:
• Think of performance consequences as ways of enhancing stale
performance, as recognition for exceptional achievement, or to stimulate
lagging performance.
7-13
-------
Orientation to State Water Quall*v Management Performance Management
• Inappropriate sanctions could be counterproductive in the long run.
When considering a sanction, the affect of the sanction on future state
and regional activities should be evaluated.
• In some cases, when all other remedies have been exhausted, sanctions
are necessary. Use of sanctions should then be part of a clearly defined
strategy for improving state performance. This strategy should be
initiated only after approval by senior officials, including the Regional
Administrator.
7-14
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Perfo
; Management
Informal Incentives
* Send Letter of
Congratulations
» Publicize Program Success
VIEWGRAPH #10:
KEY POINTS
Informal Incentives
There are many ways that a project officer can informally provide incentives for good
performance. One example is a letter of congratulations to a state agency manager
who consistently achieves work program commitments, or who produces an output of
high quality. Letters may go to state agency project officers, divisional managers, or to
cabinet secretaries. These congratulations also could be included in other
communications with states—e.g., mid-year reviews—where they can demonstrate
professional appreciation for the work of state managers.
States also should be encouraged to publicize program success. This is a subject that
is often discussed, and more should be done. The project officer should use die
services of the region's public affairs office and distribute congratulatory messages
through the media, or through appropriate professional association meetings or
conferences.
7-15
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Performance Management
Formal Incentives
Additional Grant Funds
Reduction in Formal
Reporting Requirements
Management Level
Discussed & Negotiated
VIEWGRAPH #11:
KEY POINTS
Formal Incentives
The most direct incentive that the project officer can provide is additional grant funds
to grantees who have demonstrated exceptional achievement In some cases, the only
available mechanism is carryover or unawarded grant funds to create "incentive" grant
pools. In regions that do not now use this mechanism, project officers may wish to
explore this way of making incentive funds available.
Another incentive that project officers can offer to states is a reduction in formal
reporting requirements. If a state has a record of solid performance over a long
period of time, the project officer may substitute telephone progress reports for
written progress reports from time to time. In general, the project officer should
adjust performance management to the level necessary to ensure state fulfillment of
work program commitments, while still maintaining regulatory requirements and
imposing as litde reporting burden as possible on a state.
Changes in the nature and level of performance management should be discussed and
negotiated with the state during the work program negotiation. The level of
performance management should be understood and agreed to by both parties and
should be part of the work program.
7-16
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Performance Management
Sanction After All Else Fails
Identify/Document Problem
Corrective Action Strategy
Discuss Consequences of
Corrective Action Failure
Timing, Severity,
Effectiveness
VIEWGRAPH #12:
KEY POINTS
Sanctions
As indicated earlier in this module, the decision to apply a sanction is not made by the
project officer alone. Sanctions should be initiated only after it is clear that all other
reasonable corrective actions have failed.
The first steps in the decision to use sanctions should be the identification and
documentation of a performance problem. The next step should be the development
of a joint region and state corrective action strategy. That strategy should include
specific corrective actions that the state will take and milestones for achievement It
may also involve renegotiation and revision of the work program. The corrective
action strategy should also discuss the consequences of a state's failure to correct the
deficiencies. All of these steps should be documented.
If the project officer determines that the state is failing to implement the corrective
action strategy, the project officer should recommend a strategy for sanctions to the
Water Management Division Director and the Regional Administrator.
7-17
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Perfbimance Management
The following three factors may be used to select die proper approach to die use of
sanctions.
• Timing. What is die best time to use a, sanction? Will it properly address
correction of an existing problem, or future avoidance of problems?
• Severity. Does die severity of die sanction fit die severity of die problem?
• Effectiveness. Will die sanction have die desired result9 Will it correct,
mitigate, or avoid recurrence?
7-18
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Performance Management
Examples of Sanctions
• Conditional Award
• Audit Request
• Warning Letter
• Withhold Funds
VIEWGRAPH #13: Examples of Sanctions
KEY POINTS
There are many options that could be considered by the project officer if sanctions are
required. Each of these should be discussed with the Water Management Division
Director and the Regional Administrator. The following are examples of sanctions:
• Impose award conditions
• Write a letter to the supervisor of the state program manager
• Postpone the award of the cooperative agreement
• Request an audit of the state program
• Send a warning letter to the governor
Sanctions outlined in 40 CFR 31.43 include:
• Temporarily withholding cash payments pending correction of the
deficiency.
7-19
-------
Orientation 10 Starr Water Quality Management Performance Management
• Disallowing all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in
compliance.
• Wholly or partly suspending or terminating the current award for the
grantee's program.
• Withholding further awards for the program.
Others
• Reducing funding targets
• Redistribution of carry-over funds to other states
7-20
-------
Example of a Work Program
Tracking System
-------
FT 92 106: Texas Water Commission
PROSBAN
ELEMENT
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND
EVALUATION
(9110)
OBJECTIVE 1
$256, 357
OBJECTIVE 2
$74.929
OBJECTIVE 3
$232,295
TEST
NO.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.1
4.1
TJBR 1
DESCRIPTION
Incorporate revised WQS requirement*
Into alt new, renewed, and amended
permit*.
Segment Hap* ft Descriptions (revised
based on changes to WPS)
Unclassified Streams Procedures to
Implement and coordinate new WQS for
unclassified streams
Use-Attainability Analyses
(Oyster Creek Above Tidal - Segment
1245)
Site-Specific Standards Recommendations
(for currently unclasslfed waterbodles)
Ecoreglon-Based Standards
Five Intensive Surveys
•Prairie Dog Tom Fork of Red River
(0207)
•Intracoattal Waterway (0702)
-Big Cypress Creek (0402)
•Rio Grande downstream of Falcon
Reservoir (2301-02)
-Rio Grande near El Paso (2308/2314)
-Coordinate Surface Water Monitoring
irogrsm.
-Integrate dete Into STORET
quarterly
BOW
Report * of permit
actions, by month. In
quarterly report*.
10 copies of revised
segment maps
Copy of new Procedures
UAA for Oyster Creek
Above Tidal
15 anticipated for FY 92
Summary of TWC's
Abstracts
(In addition, progress
will be reported
quarterly.)
-Copy of surface water
quality monitoring
schedule- - Including
sites,, sampling
frequencies, parameters.
-ff STORET updates
reported quarterly.
|~Kfe — I
Due
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
4/30/92
3/1/92
8/31/92
As
Developed
8/31/92
10/1/92
10-1-91
12/31/91
1/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
Ststus
ZZV reported
113 reported
99 reported
113 reported
Haps were Included In '92
305(b) Report, but 10 copies
on hold due to printing
problems.
Under revision based on EPA
comments; public hearing
pending.
Submitted by 2nd quarter and
considered approvable.
No "count" provided In
quarterly reports.
Analysis complete, but no
summary submitted.
•Surveys conducted on 0702
on 9/23-25/91 end 11/5-8/91.
-Surveys conducted on 2308
and 2314 on 4/3-6/92.
-Survey conducted en 0229 on
5/11-14/92.
•Survey conducted on 0604 en
8/3-5/92 and on 0402 on
8/17-20/92.
FT 92' Schedule submitted
9-1-91.
STORET updated 12-4-91.
3-10-92, 6-10-92, and 8-31-92.
CORIKPtt
Complete
Complete •- 10 additional
copies will be submitted In
FT 93.
Complete
Complete
Complete; "counts" should be
provided Ir ' 93.
Carry-forward to FT 93 with
anticipated submit tal date of
2/93.
Complete; substituted Heches
River for Rio Grande
(downstream of Falcon
Reservoir) due to high flow.
Couplets
Complete
Page 1
-------
FT 92 106: Texas Water Conmlsslon
ELEMENT
NO.
DESCRIPTION
-Conduct OA visits to each of TUC's U
field offices.
Review and revise Field Procedures
Manual, as necessary.
-Conduct training seminars for personnel
In monitoring activities.
TOW
•» of field office OA
visits performed each
quarter.
TatT
Due
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
Status
A, 5, I 7 visited
3 and 9 visited
2, and
WQ Procedures and
Supplementary Information
Manuals updated and submitted
to EPA on 9-1-91. First
Quarter and mid-year updates
also provided to users.
Annual Training Workshop for
TWC surface water monitoring
personnel was held In Austin
on October 22-24, 1991.
Cormenti
Complete
Complete
Complete
OBJECTIVE
$82,377
5.1
Prepare 1992 305(b) Report
5 copies of draft report
10 copies of Final
Report to Region 6
5 copies of Final Report
to EPA HO
py of WBS diskettes
Kith assessment data to
EAP HO and EPA Region 6
1/31/92
4-1-92
4-1-92
4-1-92
Submitted 2-1-92
Sent to printing In June, but
not expected to be ready for
distribution until September.
due to backlog there.
Complete
POINT SOURCE
PERMITTING
(9130)
OBJECTIVE 1
$1,055.457
171
repare and submit to EPA Region 6 the
following number and types of permit
peekageai 45 major municipal; 20 major
non-municipal (18 renewals and 2 major
modifications); 5 minor municipal
(located along the Texas-Mexico border);
and 5 minor non-municipal (also located
along the Texas-Mexico border).
Report number of draft
permit packages In
quarterly reports.
(Draft NPDES permit
packages will be
submitted throughout the
year.)
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
Status was reported
quarterly. Final counts: 41
major municipal: 20 major
non-municipal; 18 minor
municipal on Tex-Nexleo
border; 12 minor
non-municipal on Texas-Mexico
border.
Complete
OBJECTIVE 2
76,547
Certify proposed NPOES and 404 permits.
Workload estimate: 175 NPOES proposed
permits and 220 404 permits)
The nuifcer of NPDES and
404 certification
determinations will be
reported, by month, In
the quarterly progress
reports.
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
Status was reported
quarterly. Final counts:
265 NPDES permits; 158 Corps
of Engineers permits.
Complete. (90 more NPOES
permits then estimated; 62
less 404 permits than
estimated.)
Page 2
-------
FT 92 106> Texas Water Connltalon
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
OBJECTIVE I
S267.641
.1.'............
OBJECTIVE 4
$28,931
OBJECTIVE 5
$41.684
ENFORCEMENT
OBJECTIVE 1
S685.821
TASK
NO.
3.2
• ••••
4.1
5.1
.1
.2
TASK
DESCRIPTION
Pretreatment Program Evaluations
Nine audits to be completed In FT 92.
Local Limit Evaluations
Ten modification packages to be
reviewed and evaluated In FT 92.
Assemble all known dloxln sampling Info
and evaluate new effluent, tissue, and
sediment data In order to evaluate the
level of dloxln contaaml nation In the
State and to monitor any control
strategies being Implemented by
permittees.
Develop critical condition flows and
harmonic mean flows by developing and
maintaining a streamf low database.
nforcement coordination
nforcement Activities
Report nuneer of audits
conducted each month In
quarterly reports.
(Copies of audits will
be completed within 45
days.)
Report nurber of
modification evaluations
performed each month In
quarterly reports. (TWC
eonnents en packages to
be forward to EPA as
soon as practicable
after completion.)
Report on presence of
dloxln contamination
will be submitted to EPA
on a semi-annual basis.
In addition, TWC staff
will make
en specific permits
regarding suggested
dloxln monitoring
requirements.
Submit written copies of
the database to the
Municipal end Industrial
Permit program managers
on a monthly basis.
Report number of formal
State water quality
enforcement actions
coordinated.
Tha ranter of
enforcement actions
nltlated each month
will be reported In
quarterly progress
eports.
Dete
DUO
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
3/31/92
9/30/92
monthly
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
Stetus
6 done; 5 reports submitted.
8 done; 7 reports submitted.
9 done; 9 reports submitted.
6 received; 1 review complete.
6 received; 4 reviews complete.
9 received; 9 reviews complete.
Report submitted 5-31-92.
(Delay due to steff vaeacles.)
Report submitted on 8-26-92.
Dsts provided monthly.
Information reported
quarterly. EPA and TWC staff
met formally regarding
activities on 10-24-91,
!• 13-92, 5-21-92, and 9-3-92.
15 new cases
22 new cases
23 new cases
Ho new cases reported for 4th
quarter?
Conner.ts
complete
••••••••••••••••••••••••a »•...
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete.
Complete
PageS
-------
FT 92 106: Texas Water Corral••ton
ELEMENT
i .
COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
OBJECTIVE 1
$1,625,553 i(
NO.
• •
173
1.1
1.2
1.3
1 TAB
DESCRIPTION
Multi-Media Program Development I
Implementation: TWC Mill contlnu*. :j
Incorporate comments and
recommendations from program divisions
within the TWC and other State agencies
into a Multi-Media Program Guidance
document; develop MOU's Kith affected
state agencies for operating
procedures; establish • multi-media
committee and appoint members;
establish the format for committee
meetings and Initiate weekly
multi-media screening meetings by
6-1-92; and Implement program guidance
by considering specific cases from
partlclpalng agencies for possible
multi-media action.
Maintain compliance assurance by
conducting Inspections; Issuing notices
of findings; reviewing responses to
notices: conducting follow-up
Inspections; making non-compliance
referrals; conducting New Permit Site
Assessments; and reviewing and revising
QA procedures.
Document each wastewater treatment
facility Inspection In a Notice of
Finding forwarded to the permittee.
Target for FT 92 la 424.
Response Reviews! Review response from
wrmittees receiving a Notice of
!lndlngs that Indicated non-compliance
with permit requirements.
Estimate for FY 92i 106.
BuTpTJT
Progress In specific
program activities will
be reviewed and
discussed with EPA
during quarterly
enforcement meetings
and suimarlied In the
quarterly reports.
•«« Inspections will be
conducted; reports will
be forwarded on •
semi-annual basis.
•Nunber of compliance
monitoring Inspections
conducted each month
will be reported In
quarterly reports.
-Copy of the Inspection
Schedule will be
provided to EPA no later
than 11-1-91. '
Report number of notices
Issued each month In
quarterly reports.
Report nuifcer of
responses reviewed each
month In quarterly
reports.
bate
Cue
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
9/30/92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
11/1/91
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
Status
EPA and TWC staff met formally
regarding activities on
10-24-91. 2-13-92, S-21-92,
and 9-3-tt.
Copy of "FT 93 Multi-Media
Strategy and Guidance11
submitted at End-of-Tear
Evaluation.
173 reports submitted as of
3-12-92.
424 reports submitted ss of
9-30-92.
121 reported.
141 reported.
121 reported.
41 reported.
Submitted 9- 12-91.
121 reported.
141 reported.
121 reported.
41 reported.
34 reported.
39 reported.
33 reported.
11 reported.
Comments
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete (Nine more reviews
than estimated.)
Page 4
-------
FT 92 106: Texas Water Commission
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
OBJECTIVE 2
$312,771
OBJECTIVE 3
$80,184
JUST
NO.
1.4
1.5
1 A
.7
2.1
3.1
TOR
DESCRIPTION
Noncompliance Follow-up Inspections: To
check on all responses to Notices of
Findings that are Judged to be
Inadequate or Incomplete and when
monitoring It needed to ensure
Implementation of remedial measures.
Estimate for FT 92: 40
District Enforcement Referrals: major
permit violations and chronic minor
violations are referred to Central
office ataff for further technical
review and possible enforcement action.
Estimate for FT 92: IS
New reran a ne Assessments: 10
evaluate where recelvng Mater
assessments (RUA's) are required.
Estimate for FY 92: 15
Quality Assurance: Program and Project
Plans are revised annually at the close
of each FT. A auimary report
concerning the OA Program Is prepared
at the close of each year; evaluations
are conducted throughout the year.
Investigate Complaints Received from the
Public
Estimate for FT 92t 1500
Conduct RMA's for major penal t
amendments: • sit* assessment nil I be
prepared for any major facility
requesting an amendment to their permit
where a RWA Is required.
Estimate for FT 92t 2S
oOtTOT
Report nuTber of
follow-up Inspections
performed each month In
quarterly reports.
Report number of District
enforcement referrals
made each month In
quarterly reports.
Report number of new
permit site assessments
requiring a RWA each
month In quarterly
reports.
FT 91 Summary Report
Revised OAPP and OAPJP
for FY 93
Number of OA evaluations
conducted each month
will be reported In
quarterly reports.
Hunter of complaint
Investigations conducted
each month will be
reported In quarterly
reports.
Nuifcor of RUA's
conducted each month
Hill bo reported In
quarterly reports.
Date
Due
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
V/JO/Vl
8/31/92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
Status
IB reported.
21 reported.
18 reported.
7 reported.
2 reported.
4 reported.
12 reported.
9 reported.
2 reported.
1 reported.
0 reported.
1 reported.
submitted 11-20-91.
Submitted 8-27-92.
2 reported.
6 reported.
5 reported.
19 reported.
493 reported.
447 reported.
997 reported.
691 reported.
2 reported.
2 reported.
3 reported.
3 reported.
Cement •
Complete (Twenty nine more
than estimated.)
Complete (Twelve more than
estimated.)
Complete (Eleven less than
estlmsted.)
Complete
Complete (1128 more than
estimated.)
TWC acquired on-slte sewage
program from TDH effective
3-1-92. Total complaints
Increasing due to new
responsibilities. Districts
within nor* populated areas
continued to receive the east
complaints.
Complete
(Fifteen less than estimate.)
Page 5
-------
FY 92 106: Texas water Cornnlsslon
PROGRAH1
ELEMENT
TASK
NO.
OBJECTIVE*
$28,416
V.T
AMBIENT
MONITORING
(9150)
OBJECTIVE 1
$519,170
OBJECTIVE 2
$99,986
T7T
2.1
TASK
DESCRIPTION
Review and revise Inspector Training
Manuals at necessary and provide a
mintnun of 1 training session for each
Inspector.
Routinely conduct UQ sampling of
streams, reservoirs, and estuaries.
The location, frequency, and Intensity
of the samplng activity la directly
related to M conditions at the site.
Data Hi(I be collected and compiled
from 1,659 events during FY 92.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••a.•••••.,
:onduct 9 special water quality
Investigations at aelected locations In
order to assess toxics, NPS, and
improvements In water treatment. Survey
sites are selected from segments with
recurrent UQ problems.
OUTPUT
Training manuals
provided upon
completion of any
revisions.
Number of training
sessions conducted will
be reported In quarterly
reports.
Number of routine
sampling events
conducted each month
Mill be reported In
quarterly reports.
Copies of abstracts
Number of special
investigations conducted
each month will be
reported In quarterly
reports.
Date
Due
As
completed
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
10-1-92
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
Status
summed in August, 1992.
Training seminar held
6/16-18/92.
zez reported.
319 reported.
342 reported.
692 reported.
Nine abstracts •ubmltted.
Comments
Complete
Complete
complete
Complete
OBJECTIVE 3
$79,303
3.1
Field Operations Division staff will
provide Instruction concerning proper
sampling and observation techniques to
citizen volunteers and coordinate the
activities of established citizen
volunteer groups In tha area of
Incorporating Information received In
'WC records.
Estimate of volunteer workshops In
FY 92: 40
Number of citizen
volunteer workshops each
month will be reported
In quarterly reports.
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
22 reported.
21 reported.
5 reported
13 reported.
Complete (Twenty one more
than estimated.)
SPILL
NVEST IGATIONS
9160)
OBJECTIVE 1
$145,668
171
'articipatton In State's Emergency
lesponse Notification System: Includes
nveatigatlons of significant spills
and dischargee aa well as the
evaluation of remedial actions
undertaken by responsible parties.
-stlmate for FV 92: 250 Investigations
Number of spill ana
discharge investigations
conducted each month
will be reported In
quarterly reports.
12/3T791
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
The pollution Cleanup DfvTson
Is 14 months (as of July 1992)
>ehlnd In deta entry due to
leek of ataff and Increased
workload. Actual counts are
therefore unavailable.
Assuned complete; however,
need to discuss now to
address backlog problem and
how to aasurs that work plan
commitment waa fulfilled.
Page 6
-------
FT 92 106: Texas Water Commission
ELEMENT
NO.
1.1
DESCRIPTION
Provide legal aervicee associated Mith
the review of wattmeter control permit
applications for domestic. Industrial,
and agricultural facilities. These
services Include the expeditious revleM
of Section 205(J) contracts.
Estimate for FT 92: 740 permits
(No estimate possible for contract
review.)
1 OUTWIT
Number of permits
reviewed each month will
be reported In quarterly
reports.
1 bale 1
Due
12/31/91
3/31/92
6/30/92
9/30/92
Status
364 permits reviewed; 3 UQN
contracts reviewed.
206 permits reviewed.
234 permits reviewed.
Cements
complete
Note: Dairy and aqueculture
penal ts were of particular
Importance In FT 92.
Page 7
-------
Module 8:
Special Subjects
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Special Subjects
Quality Assurance
8-1
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Special SubJ
Quality Assurance (QA)
• Ensures Data Quality
• Implemented at
Management Level
• Avoids Wasted Resources
• Current QA Not Sufficient
VIEWGRAPH #1:
KEY POINTS
Quality Assurance (QA)
Quality Assurance Policy
EPA requires that all EPA national program offices, EPA regional offices, EPA
laboratories, and states and intrastate agencies that are supported by EPA
through grants, contracts, or other formalized agreements participate in a
centrally planned, directed, and coordinated Agency-wide Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QQ program.
.¥*
The goal of QA is to ensure that all environmental measurements supported by
EPA produce data of known quality, adequate for their intended use, with all
aspects of their collection thoroughly documented, and such documentation
being verifiable and defensible. All routine or planned projects involving
environmental measurements shall be undertaken with an adequate QA project
plan that is written and approved prior to the start of monitoring. This QA
project plan must specify the data quality goals and assign responsibility for
achieving these goals.
QA should not be confused with Quality Control (QQ. QC is implemented at
the bench/field level and focuses on technical activities such as sampling
designs and calibration. QA is implemented at the management level and
8-3
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Special Subjects
focuses on activities needed to ensure data quality such as systems, policies,
criteria, and procedures. QA includes QC functions and involves a completely
integrated program for ensuring the reliability of monitoring and measurement
data.
QA is important because significant resources are spent collecting
environmental data and, without an adequate assurance of data quality, the data
are virtually useless. Decisions based on inaccurate data are often costly and
ineffective.
According to a General Accounting Office (GAO) Report published March 31,
1993, EPA and state QA programs are not adequate to detect error or fraud in
compliance monitoring data from NPDES permitted dischargers (GAO/RCED-93-
21, "Environmental Enforcement: EPA Cannot Ensure the Accuracy of Self-
Reported Compliance Monitoring Data"). The EPA Administrator identified
environmental data quality as an Agency-wide weakness in a 1992 report to the
President under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA).
Each region has a QA/QC officer. These officers are listed in the reference
manual of this course.
8-4
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Special Subjects
VIEWGRAPH #2:
KEY POINTS
QA Requirements
QA Plan Required When
Using Environmentally
Related Measurements
Monitoring Plans Include QA
QA Requirements
40 CFR 31.45 states the grantee's obligation to have an adequate quality assurance
project plan if a grantee's project involves environmentally related measurements. It
does not assign responsibility to the project officer for sign-off of this plan. However,
this responsibility can be delegated to project officers on the basis of an MOA.
40 CFR 130.4 says that a state's monitoring program shall include quality assurance
and quality control programs to ensure scientifically valid data.
8-5
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Managemc
Special Subjects
Data Quality Objectives
(DQOs)
• Balance Between Data
Quality & Resources
• Data User Specifies Needs
• Establish Performance
Measures
VffiWGRAPH #3:
KEY POINTS
Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
Data quality objectives (DQOs) strike a balance between data quality and resources. In
other words, the QA officer uses DQOs to develop and define the type and quality of
data the decision maker needs before the data are collected. The QA officer's role is
to aid the decision maker and senior staff personnel, such as the project coordinator
and officer, to develop the type and quality of data needed. Development of DQOs
helps to avoid data that are not accurate enough for their intended purpose, or are
more cosdy than they need to be.
DQOs require the data user to specify his or her needs and the supplier to establish
measures of performance for customer evaluation. If the data user is not specific
enough, the data may be insufficient or unnecessarily costly.
8-6
-------
Orientation to State Water "Juallty Management
Special Subjects
Required QA Documents
• Management Plan: General
Policies and Procedures
• Project Plan: Project-Specific
Procedures
VIEWGRAPH #4:
KEY POINTS
Required QA Documents
EPA's QA program requires the development of two QA documents: the Quality
Management Plan (QMP) and the QA Project Plan (QAPP). These plans are required of
all recipients of EPA grants and assistance programs. 40 CFR 31 requires that QMPs
be submitted to EPA before an applicant can receive an EPA grant
QMPs describe general management policies and procedures that establish how data of
known and acceptable quality will be produced, whereas the QAPP describes and
defines specific procedures mat will be applied to a specific project to ensure data
quality.
Regions are responsible for developing QMPs and QAPPs for the activities that they
conduct Regions are also responsible for ensuring that states prepare these plans
according to 40 CFR 31.45.
8-7
-------
Orientation to State Water QuallP- Management
Special Subjects
QA Project Plan Elements
• Project Description
• Organization
• Objectives
• Audit Description
• Procedures
VIEWGRAPH #5: QA Project Plan Elements
KEY POINTS
The following elements must be considered and addressed in each QAPP:
• Tide page with provision for approval signatures, table of contents, and
project description including the experimental design.
• Table or chart of project organization that lists individuals responsible
for the valid measurement of data.
• QA objectives for measurement data in terms of precision, accuracy,
completeness, representativeness and comparability.
• Description and frequency of performance and system audits.
• Procedures including:
Description of sampling procedures and sample handling and
custody procedures for both field sampling operations and
laboratory operations.
8-8
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Special Subjects
Calibration, frequency, and analytical procedures for each major
measurement parameter.
Data reduction scheme, criteria used to validate data integrity,
reporting scheme, and internal quality control methods and
frequency of checks.
Preventive maintenance procedures, schedules, and specific
routine procedures to be used to assess data precision, accuracy,
and completeness of specific measurement parameters involved.
Corrective action procedures including limits of data acceptability,
persons responsible for initiating and approving corrective action,
and a mechanism for quality assurance reports to management
If any of the elements are not relevant to the project under consideration, then an
explanation of why the element is not relevant should be included.
8-9
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Special Subjects
QA Conflict
State Congressional Pressure
QAPP Inadequate
P.O. Lacks Necessary
Technical Knowledge
Designates Technical
Mediator
VIEWGRAPH #6:
KEY POINTS
QA Conflict
Region 5 Example of Conflict Regarding Quality Assurance
A large congressional add-on was designated for a project in the state. Because
of pressure from the state's congressperson to get the money out quickly, the
funds were awarded based on the state's (necessarily) hastily prepared work
program, with the condition that the QAPP be submitted in 90 days.
The materials that the state submitted as a QAPP did not begin to meet the
Environmental Sciences Division (ESD) requirements. Despite lengthy written
comments and several conference calls, the state did not understand and/or
provide what ESD wanted. And although the funds had technically been
awarded, the state could not draw down on them until the QAPP was approved.
It was a difficult situation because neither the project officer nor the supervisor
had the technical expertise to mediate resolution of the scientific issues, but
only could facilitate phone calls and the exchange of comments. While this
suffices for most cases, it was not enough for this project with its unique
complicating circumstances.
8-10
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Special Subjects
After much time had passed, resolution came when the project officer's
supervisor officially designated a highly skilled staff person to serve as technical
contact; he was able to mediate between the state and ESD to resolve the
technical issues. This person was in high demand, was always over-extended,
and could not have assisted without being assigned to the project by his
supervisor. Ideally, it would have been best if this person had been assigned to
the project earlier in the process, but the circumstances did not allow for it
until later.
Conclusion: Normally, it is sufficient for the project officer to facilitate
communication between state and EPA scientific people to resolve QAPP issues.
However, a problem can arise when scientific people cannot understand each
other. It is necessary then to seek an unbiased, highly skilled, and diplomatic
person who can mediate a resolution.
8-11
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Special Subjects
Pollution Prevention
8-13
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Special Subjects
Pollution Prevention (P2)
• Pollution Reduction or
Elimination
• Multimedia View
• Evaluate Impacts
VIEWGRAPH #7:
KEY POINTS
Pollution Prevention (P2)
The goal of pollution prevention (P2) is to reduce or eliminate pollutants at the
source, before they are generated, whenever possible. The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 encourages exploring P2 solutions to environmental problems before resorting
to other techniques. By thinking in terms of P2, EPA and states can take a multimedia
view of the environment and avoid transferring pollutants from one medium to
another. This also allows a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental
impacts of products and activities over meir entire life-cycle.
Examples of P2 measures include: procuring, storing, and using supplies in ways that
minimize waste; making double-sided rather than single-sided copies, and routing
rather than copying when possible; procuring supplies that have less packaging, fewer
toxic constituents, or are less resource-intensive to manufacture; including a P2
condition in an enforcement settlement such that the polluter agrees to implement a
P2 project in exchange for a reduction in fines; and requiring P2 changes as a
condition of permit issuance.
8-15
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Special Subjects
Priorities Under P2
Strategy
> Source Reduction
> Closed-Loop Recycling
> Recycling
> Treatment
> Safe Disposal
VIEWGRAPH #8:
KEY POINTS
Priorities Under P2 Strategy
P2 strategy employs a hierarchy of five means to reducing pollution. When faced with
a real or potential pollution problem, the decision maker should consider mem in the
following order:
• The decision maker should first consider whether source reduction
would be effective. Source reduction avoids creating systems or
situations that could generate pollutants. It also includes reducing or
eliminating pollutants generated by existing sources.
• If source reduction is not an option, then the decision maker should
explore the possibility of closed-loop recycling. This type of recycling
recovers and reuses resources and potential pollutants within the system
or process.
• The decision maker's third choice should be recycling. Recycling
recovers resources and reduces waste through environmentally sound
off-site recycling.
8-16
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management Special Subjects
• If recycling is not an option, the decision maker should consider
treating the wastes to reduce their hazard and volume.
The decision maker's last choice should be to dispose of the residues safely.
8-17
-------
Orientation to State Water Quality Management
Special Subjects
Incorporating P2 Into
Work Program
• Reflect Preference for P2
• P2 Priority
• Encourage Upgrading
• Encourage Coordination
VIEWGRAPH #9: Incorporating P2 Into Work Program
KEY POINTS
Where consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements, EPA and states should
consider P2 principles when negotiating work programs. Proposed work programs
should:
• Reflect an explicit preference for P2 when feasible and identify P2
activities.
• Incorporate P2 as a priority in decision-making.
• Encourage opportunities to modify or develop equipment,
technology, processes, procedures, products, or educational or training
materials to promote P2.
• Encourage institutional and multi-media coordination when
appropriate.
8-18
-------
Orientation to State Wat Quality Management
Special Subjects
Incorporating P2 Into
Work Program (Cont.)
• Measures of P2 Success
• Increase State Flexibility
• Include P2 Activities
• P2 Data Available
VIEWGRAPH #10: Incorporating P2 Into Work Program (Cont)
KEY POINTS
Continued from previous page.
Identify and publicize measures of P2 success (for example, specific
methods of quantifying and documenting quantities and/or toxicity of
pollutants prevented).
Increase the flexibility afforded to slates to incorporate P2 approaches
into their grant-assisted activities when appropriate (e.g., through
numbers or types of required outputs, or timing of EPA deadlines).
Include specific P2 activities or approaches that may serve as innovative
models for other state and national programs, when appropriate, and
encourage the use of innovative activities or approaches already
developed.
Include a mechanism to make P2 data and experience available to
other states and in the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse.
8-19
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1994 - 521-907/81200
------- |