United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Enforcements and Permits
Washington DC 20460
March 1986
&EFK
Training Manual
for NPDES
Permit Writers
-------
TRAINING MANUAL FOR NPDES PERMIT WRITERS
The material in this manual is for instructional
purposes only. It was developed to illustrate
the application of technical principles of the
NPDES regulations and does not necessarily rep-
resent official policy of the U.S. EPA.
NPDES TECHNICAL SUPPORT BRANCH
PERMITS DIVISION
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
MARCH 1986
-------
BASIC COURSE FOR PERMIT WRITERS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overallpurposeofthecourse/manual. ..........l
B.OverviewoftheNPDESprogram.. .........1
C. Evolution of the NPDES program 2
D. Types of NPDES program authority...... ...............4
II. THE APPLICATION FORM AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A. The Application Form 7
l.Whoisrequiredtoobtainapermit..... .....7
2. Explanation of the application forms 7
3. When an application must be filed... .. ... ....... .8
B. Reviewing the Application............................8
1. Completeness. .. .. .... ... .... . .. . .9
2. Accuracy... .... .. . ... 11
C. Additional Information . 13
1. Background information review... ... .. . . .13
2. Facility inspection.............................14
III. DEVELOPING THE DRAFT PERMIT
A. General Considerations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
1. Contents of a permit...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
2. Importance of documentation 15
B. Effluent Limitations ........ . . . .16
1. Overview.. ......... .. ...... ... .16
2. Statistical Significance...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
3. Effluent Limitation Guidelines..... . . . 18
a. Technology—based requirements of CWA........18
b. General Considerations 20
c. Categorization/Subcategorization ....22
d . Production . • • • • • .123
e.AlternateLimits....... 24
f. Multiple Products or Categories..... ..25
g.Massvs.Concentration 26
4. Water quality considerations. ................ . . .28
a. Water quality criteria and standards...... . .28
b. Determination of WO—Based Limits............31
C. WQ—BasedLimitsforToxics 40
5. Best Professional Judgement 44
a. Definition and statutory authority..........44
b . Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
c.EstablishingBPJconditions. 45
d. BPJ Permitting tools.... ....... . .... I. .47
-------
C. Municipal Permitting Issues.... .48
1. Overview . 48
2. Secondary Treatment Definition . 49
3. Construction Grants 54
4. National Municipal Policy. 55
5. Pretreatment...... . . . . . . . 57
D . Monitoring...... . . . 61
1. Overview...... ............ . 61
2. Monitoring Points ........ . ..... .. . . ... ..61
3. Monitoring Frequency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
4. Types of Sampling .... . ..... .. .. . .....63
5. Analytical Methods..............................64
E • Standard Conditions.................................66
1. Overview... •.... ... ... .... . ....... . ..... . . . .....66
2. Types of Standard Conditions...............
F. Special Conditions.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . •.. . . . . . . . . .68
1. Overview........................................ 68
2. Compliance Schedules... . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •.. .68
3. Biomonitoring..... ........ . ...... 68
4. Best Management Practises. . .... . 69
[ V. VARIANCES
A. Definitionandoverview .74
B. Various types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
1. Economic — 301(c) ......... . •.. . •.. •....... •.. .. .74
2.Waterquality—30 1(g).......................... 7 S
3.InnovativeTechnology—301(k)... ........76
4. Fundamentally Different Factors —
V. FACT SHEET
A. Definitionandpurpose .78
1. Legal requirement ...... 78
2. Practical need..... .... .•.. .. ..... . .... •....... .78
B. Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
C. When needed.... ....... ........ . •.. .79
D . Permit rationales
1I. PUBLIC NOTICE
A. Overview...... •... •... . ...... . . ... .•.. •. ... ... • •... .81
B. Type of actions...... . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
C. When required....................................... 81 .
D. How glven..................................... . .....Sl
E • Contents...... ...... .. ....... . ....• ... ........ • .....82
-------
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Overview.... •..... ..... ... ..... . . . . . •1••Ii ••• .. ...83
B. Responsibilitytorespond 83
C. Reopening of public comment period.... .... ...... . .83
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING
A. When held...... .. . .......... .... .. .. . . . ...... . ... .84
B. Public Notice 84
C. Contents...... . . .. . ........... .. . . . . . . . . . 84
IX. FINAL PERMIT 85
X. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
A . Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
B.Componentsoftherecord ..............86
XI. LEGAL CHALLENGES TO A FINAL PERMIT
A • Overview...... . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
B. Role of the permit writer..... .... . ..... .. .. .. ... .88
XII. PERMIT MODIFICATION, REVOCATION, AND TRANSFER
A. PerinitModification ..... 90
a. Major .... ... .. ...•. . . . . ... •.....
b . Minor..... .. . . . . . . . . ..... .....90
B. Revocation.... ... . ..... .•.. . .. . . . . ......
C. Transfer... ... ..•... ........ . . . . .. ... ......92
XIII. PERMIT COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Responsibilities of the Permittee 93
B. Responsibilities of the Regulatory Agency.........95
C . Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
-------
— 1_—
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
I NTRO DUCT ION
Purpose and Format
The purpose of this manual is to provide basic training
in the writing of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. It is designed for new permit writers,
but may also serve as a refresher for experienced permit writers.
It will also be useful for anyone who has an interest in the
NPDES permit program and how it operates.
The format used in presenting this material follows the
actual process of writing an NPDES permit, from the time an
application is received, through the time a permit becomes
final. The significant permit—related issues, such as evidentiary
hearings, which may arise after permit issuance, are also
discussed. Thus, the chapters are presented in the sequence
in which the events would actually take place. Related
topics, such as variances, are discussed briefly at the
point in the process these items would normally be addressed
by the permit writer. A more detailed explanation of these
topics is given later in a separate section.
It is recognized that each EPA Regional office or approved
State will have NPDES permit processing procedures which
have been specially adapted for a specific geographical area
and which incorporate local requirements. Therefore, it is
the purpose of this manual to provide an explanation of
those elements of the program which are common to any State
or Regional office which issues NPDES permits. Particular
emphasis will be given to those areas which historically
have been difficult steps in the permit process. To the
extent possible, practical examples are used to demonstrate
the concepts which are discussed. The overall approach is
designed to make the process clearer and the relevant
information more accessible to the permit writer.
Overview of the NPDES Program
The NPDES permit process is authorized by Section 402(a)(l)
of the Clean Water Act. The permit process begins with the sub-
mittal of a permit application by the owner or operator of a
facility desiring to discharge wastewater. All discharges of
wastewater to waters of the United States from point sources must
have an NPDES permit.
The authority to issue permits may be delegated to States
meeting certain technical, administrative and legal requirements.
The NPDES permit program is administered by 10 EPA Regions and
37 approved NPDES States as of January 1, 1985. Not all of
these states have received delegation for all four categories
of programs — NPDES General (municipal and industrial), NPDES
for Federal Facilities, Pretreatment, and General NPDES Permits.
-------
—2—
Evolution of the NPDES Program
The NPDES program in its current form has evolved from a
number of legislative initiatives dating back to the mid—
1960’s. In 1965, Congress enacted legislation requiring
States to develop, by 1967, water quality standards for all
interstate waters. Despite increasing public concern and
increased federal spending, by 1971, just over half of the
states had fully—approved programs establishing water quality
standards. This lack of success in developing adequate water
quality standards programs, combined with ineffective enforce-
ment of the federal water pollution legislation, and the
effectiveness of the environmental movement, prompted the
federal government in 1970 to advance the Refuse Act Permit
Program (RAPP) as a vehicle to control water pollution.
The RAPP program required each discharger of wastes into
public waterways to obtain a federal permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers that would specify abatement requirements.
William Ruckeishaus, the first Administrator of the new
Environmental Protection Agency, endorsed the joint program
with the Corps of Engineers soon after confirmation, and on
December 23, 1970, the permit program was mandated through
Presidential Order. EPA and the Corps of Engineers rapidly
began to prepare the administrative and technical basis for
the permit program. However, unanticipated problems plagued
the program almost immediately.
In December, 1971, the Refuse Act Permit Program was
struck down by a decision of the Federal District Court in
Ohio ( Kalur vs Resor ) which held that the issuance of permits
constituted a “major environmental act” requiring the
preparation of an environmental impact statement for each
permitted facility under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969. The concept of a permit program survived,
however, and in November 1972, Congress passed new water
pollution control legislation featuring the NPDES permit
program as the centerpiece of a national water pollution
control effort.
The enactment of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act marked a distinct change in
philosophy of water pollutioR control in the United States.
The 1972 amendments shifted the emphasis away from a water
quality—based or ambient control strategy toward a technology—
based or “end—of—pipe” control strategy. This shift in
emphasis from water quality to technology was demonstrated by
a corresponding shift in relative importance of water quality
standards and effluent limitations.
The first round NPDES permits issued between 1972 and
1976 provided for control of a number of “traditional”
pollutants but focused on BOD, TSS, pH, oil and grease and
-------
—3—
some metals by requiring use of “Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available” (BPT) . A majority of all malor
permits issued to industrial facilities in the first round
of NPDES permitting contained effluent limitations based on
“best professionl judgment” (BPJ) because regulations pre-
scribing nationally uniform effluent limitations were generally
unavailable.
The amendments to the 1972 legislation (Clean Water Act
of 1977) shifted emphasis from controlling conventional
pollutants to controlling toxic discharges. This era of toxic
pollutant control is referred to as the “second round” of
permitting. Direct dischargers of toxic pollutants into
navigable waters are controlled by the inclusion of “Best
Available Technology Ecomomically Achievable” (BAT) limitations
in permits. The conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, pH, fecal
coliform and oil and grease) controlled by BPT in the first
round of permitting are subject to a new level of control
termed “Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology” (BCT)
in the second round. At the be’ginning of the second round
many of the permits were issued as “short term” BPT permits
while awaiting the-promulgation of -national effluent limitation
guidelines.
To control pollutants beyond BAT, various technology-
based requirements of the Clean Water Act will need to be
employed in an integrated strategy in order to protect water
quality. The strategy will require both biological and chemical
methods to address the toxic and nonconventional pollutants from
industrial and municipal sources. As a further vehicle to
improve efficiency in permit issuance, the use of general
permits will need to be expanded. The challenge for the
NDPES program in the 80’s is to maintain the momentum
established in the 1970’s in the first round of permit issuance
in the face of increasingly complex permitting issues and
limited permitting resources.
-------
—4—
TYPES OF NPDES PROGRAM AUTHORITY
NPDES program authority can be divided into four elements:
o Municipal and Industrial Permit Program
o Federal Facilities Program
o Pretreatment. Program
o General Permit Program
Each of these program areas is discussed briefly below. In addition,
the first three program areas are discussed in detail in the rele-
vant portions of this document.
Municipal and Industrial NPDES Programs
As stated previously, anyone who wishes to discharge wastewater
into waters of the continental U.S. must obtain an NPDES permit.
There are certain common elements to any JPDES program, regardless
of the type of wastewaters being regulated. However, there are
also some signficant differences. Generally speaking, “municipal”
wastewaters includes the sanitary wastes from residential and
commercial sources, while “industrial” wastewater refers to those
wastes generated as the result of an industrial process.
Municipal wastewaters contain primarily biodegradable organic
matter and thus treatment processes typically combine simple settling
(primary treatment) with biological treatment (secondary treatment).
In biological treatment, microorganisms biochemically oxidize the
wastewaters. Industrial treatment technologies may be similar to
those used in municipal treatment systems or they may be quite
different. Permit limitations would be designed to monitor levels
of the parameters of concern — whether from municipal or industrial
sources.
In the most clear—cut example, an industrial plant discharges
its process wastes to a specially designed treatment facility with a
“direct” discharge of treated wastewater to a receiving stream and
a completely separate treatment facility serves a municipality.
At the municipal wastewater treatment facility, sanitary wastes
would be treated and discharged to a receiving stream. Due to the
fact that the composition of the wastewater is different in each
of these situations, different treatment technologies would be
employed. The final treated wastewaters (effluents) would be
reflective of the type of wastewater being treated, thus a different
set of NPDES conditions would apply in each case.
In general, the information which is presented in the following
Chapters is applicable to both municipal and industrial NPDES
permits. Where specific considerations apply to only one or the
only program area, it will be so stated.
-------
—5—
Pretreatment Program
In actual practice, wastewaters are typically mixtures from
different sources. This is particularly true in a municipal setting,
in which a portion of the wastewater which is discharged to a pub-
licly—owned treatment works (POTWS) may be sanitary—type wastes from
residential or commercial sources, while another portion may be
comprised of industrial process wastes. Since the treatment process
employs a biological process for the treatment of sanitary wastes,
it is susceptible to “upset” from toxic industrial wastes. Thus,
it is often necessary to require pre—treatment of industrial wastes
which are discharged to municipal sewerage systems. These industrial
discharges are called indirect discharges since they go through a
municipal treatment system before being discharged to the receiving
waters. Pretreatment, and other specific issues which are epplicable
only to a municipal NPDES program will be discussed in more detail in
Chapter III.
Federal Facilities
As referred to previously in the discussion of delegation,
the authority to administer the NPDES program to-Federal facilities
is an additional programmatic responsibility for NPDES states.
“Federal” facilities refer to installations which are owned and
operated by the U.S. government. They may generate industrial—type
wastes (such as a U.S. Navy shipyard) or sanitary—type wastes,
(such as from a U.S. Army training facility). The permit writer
who is required to prepare a permit covering a federal facility
should apply the applicable guidance in order to develop limitations
which are adequate to control the wastes which are generated.
For example, a Navy facility which has a direct discharge from a
metal finishing facility would be subject to promulgated effluent
limitation guidelines which apply to metal finishers.
It should be noted, however, that federal facilities which
generate sanitary waste are not considered POTWs and are therefore
subject to industrial effluent limitations. For such facilities,
the permit writer would be required to develop limitations which
reflect BAT. Such determinations would involve the application
of best professional judgernent, if no promulgated guideline was
applicable.
-------
—6—
General Permits
General Permits are a management tool designed to enable
the approved State to issue one permit covering a specified
class of dischargers within a defined geographic area. General
permits apply the same set of limitations to a group of
dischargers that would be imposed through individual permits.
As with pretreatment and federal facilities, a State must either
request modification to an approved NPDES program, or have its
request for general permit authority be a part of a concurrent
request for NPDES authority. However, unlike pretreatment and
federal facilities authority, there is no requirement that an
NPDES State seek general permit authority; it is an optional
program element.
The qeoaraphic areas for which general permits are designed
to cover should correspond to existing geographic or political
boundaries such as:
o Designated planning areas
o Sewer districts
o City, county, or state boundaries-
o State highway systems
o Standard metropolitan statistical areas
o Urbanized areas
The types of sources which the general permit may be
written to cover include:
1) Separate Storm Sewers
2)- A category of minor point sources if the sources have
certain elements in common:
a) Involve similar operations
b) Discharge the same type of wastes
c) Require the same effluent limitations or
operating conditions
d) Require similar monitoring
e) The Director feels they are appropriately
handled through general permits
From an administrative standpoint, general permits are
issued, modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated in
accordance with the procedures followed for individual PDES
permits (see Chapters 9 and 12-). Additional requirements for
general permits may be found in Section 122.28 of the Regulations.
-------
—7—
CHAPTER II : THE APPLICATION FORM AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
THE APPLICATION FORM
Who Needs a Permit ?
Anyone who discharges pollutants or proposes to discharge
pollutants to waters of the United States, needs to obtain
a discharge permit. There are some exceptions. They are those
discharges which are covered under a general permit ( 122.28) or
those types of discharges which are excluded under § 122.3 (e.g.
certain discharges from marine vessels, non—point source runoff,
and indirect discharges to publicly—owned treatment works).
Most direct dischargers have an existing permit but they must
reapply for a permit renewal six months before their current permit
expires. Renewals of existing permits far exceed the number of new
permit applications. New permit applications fall into two classes:
“new sources” and “new discharges”. New Sources are those facil-
ities constructed after New Source Performance Standards have been
promulgated. Other new facilities, which did not begin dischargin
until after August 13, 1979, are considered “new dischargers”. A more
detailed -definition of “new source’ t may-be found in the glossary and
in § 122.29 of the Regulations.
How Does One Apply for a Permit ?
The type of application forms which proposed dischargers
must complete has changed as the NPDES program has evolved.
The older forms will eventually be replaced by revised application
forms. The forms .which are currently in use are as follows:
Form 1 is a general form and is used with all “series 2”
NPDES permit applications (currently, 2B and 2C). It pro-
vides general information such as the name of the facility,
location, contact person, etc. The other five forms are
used depending upon the type or class of discharger.
Standard Form A and Short Form A are used by publicly owned
treatment works (POTW’s). The standard form is used for
major dischargers and the short form is used for minor
dischargers. Definitions of “major” and “minor” may be found
on the application forms. (These two forms will eventually
be replaced by Form 2A and Form 2A—S , respectively).
Form 2B is used by concentrated animal feeding operations or
aquatic animal production facilities.
Form 2C is used by existing industrial dischargers, including
privately owned waste treatment facilities and water treatment
plants whether publicly or privately owned. ( Form 2C—S is a
short version of Form 2C and is proposed for future use by
those discharg’ers which do not discharge process waters, such
-------
—8—
as a discharger of only non—contact cooling waters. This is a
form developed to ease the application burden for facilities
which can use this type of form instead of 20).
Standard Form C is used for new manufacturing and commercial
discharges.
Short Form C is used for new minor manufacturing and mining
dischargers.
Short Form D is used for new minor commercial dischargers.
(The above three application forms will eventually be
replaced by Form 2D for new sources and new dischargers).
The number of existing sources using Form 2C is approximately
48,000 with 15,000 of those expected to be able to utilize Form 2C—S.
Animal feedlot permits (Form 2B) number about 2,900 while new indus-
trial dischargers are expected to stay in the hundreds.
As the number of permits for existing sources far exceeds all
other types discharge permits, the processing of Form 2C will be
the main topic of concern, with respect to industrial discharges.
Many of the comments are also applicable to Standard Form A and
Short Form A for POTW’s.
When is an Application Made ?
Federal regulations ( l22.2l) require that applications for
new discharges must be made 180 days before discharges actually
begin. Applications for permit renewals must be made 180 days
before the expiration of the existing permit. Individual states
however, may have slighty different schedules. Further, the State
Director or the Regional Administrator may allow individual applica-
tions to be submitted at dates later than these, but not later
that the expiration date of the existing permit.
REVIEWING THE APPLICATION
The principle aspects of application review are review for
completeness and for accuracy. As the draft permit is based upon
the information included in the application, the application must
be complete and accurate. This point cannot be stressed strongly
enough. Experience from permit writers across the country has
shown that this can be an especially troublesome part of the process.
Owners of facilities which are required to file an application are
sometimes unfamiliar with the application form. For an existing
facility, it is possible that the forms which must be used for
reissuance are different than the forms which were used at the
time the permit was originally issued.
-------
—9—
A considerable amount of correspondence may be required before
the permit writer obtains an application which can be considered
“complete” and “accurate”. Some offices employ checklists for the
review of application forms. In addition, it is often useful to
use form letters to send to applicants when certain portions of
the application are either missing or inadequate. As the
permit writer gains experience in writing permits, he will
be able to better detect omissions and errors in the permit
application form.
Is the Application Complete ?
As a minimum the application form must have all applicable
spaces filled in. In fact, the form instructions state that all
items must be completed and that NA or “not applicable” should
be used to show that the item had been considered. Blanks on
the form can occur for a number of reasons such as:
o something (NA, a value, a check mark) was inadvertantly left
out
o The applicanthad_difficult.y. determining the correct response,
and rather than provide misleading or incorrect information,
the space was left blank.
A response to the blank items must be obtained. This can be in
writing or in some cases by telephone. Because of the administrative
record (this topic is discussed more fully in Chapter VII) that
must be maintained in the processing of an application, and the
possibility of hearings, ordy minor items should be handled by
telephone, and even these must be documented in writing. Returning
the application to the applicant for completion is the preferred
method. Of course, a new application could be submitted after the
applicant has been advised of the need. This may save some
processing time.
If the changes or corrections to any application are exten—
sive, the applicant may be required to submit a new application.
Supplementary information, such as more detailed production informa-
tion or maintenance and operating data of a treatment system
may also be required to process the permit (sunplementary informa-
tion can also be obtained at a later date, when the permit writer
is actually drafting the permit). An application is said to be
complete when the Director is satisfied with the completeness of
all submitted materials.
Two items which are often overlooked by apolicants are the map
required as an attachment to Form 1 and the process line diagram
required by Part hA of Form 2C. These two items are invaluable
tools for the permit writer. It is also important that the location
and description of the outfalls and the description of processes,
Parts I and IIB, correspond to the map and the process line diagram.
-------
— 10 —
Many of the omissions also typically occur in the sections
of the application which require data submissions. Applicants
may fail to submit data which are necessary to properly character-
ize the facility. Examples of the types of data which the permit
writer will need to obtain before the application can be considered
complete, are given below:
o Are required toxic organic pollutants (GC/MS fractions) listed?
Example : An application from a plastics processor fails
to list any GC/MS fraction.
Discussion : A plastics processor is required to test for
the volatile GC/MS fraction (Table 2C—2 in the application
form instructions and §122.2l(g)(7)(ii)(A) of the NPDES
Regulations).
o Are required heavy metals listed?
Example : A primary felt producer marks thallium and beryllium
as “believed absent in the wastewater .
Discussion : While thallium and beryllium are not expected
to be found in a felt producer’s discharge, page 2C—3 of the
application form instructions and § 122.21(g)(7)(ii)(B)
require testing for these metals. Occaisionally, unexpected
contaminants will be present in a waste stream due to poor
“housekeeping”, unusual production methods, or for other
reasons. The comprehensive testing requirements which
apply to the various categories of industry are designed to
determine whether any unexpected contaminants are present in
significant quantities as well as to determine levels of
pollutants which are known to be present. In the above
example, the submission incomplete, since additional information
is needed, and inaccurate, since “believed absent” is wrongly
indicated.
o Are all expected pollutants listed?
Example : A producer of wood rosin based derivatives does
not indicate the presence of zinc in his wastewater.
Discussion : Zinc is used as a catalyst in the production
of wood rosin bases derivatives. This type of information can
be found in the effluent limitations development documents.
Testing for zinc is also required.
Practical Exercise : Consider the plastics processor, the felt
producer, and the producer of wood rosin based derivatives,
mehtioned above, and answer the following questions:
• o Which toxic organic pollutants are they required to test for?
o Which heavy metals are they required to test for?
-------
— 11 —
o Which metals would you expect to find in their wastewaters
regardless of whether testing is required or not?
Discussion : The application form in Table 2C—2 and
§122.21(g)(7)(ii)(A) of the NPDES regulations require testing
of the volatile GC/MS fraction by the plastics processor, and
testing of all four GC/rIS fractions by the felt producer and
the producer of wood rosin based derivatives. Page 2C—3 of the
application instructions and S122.21(G)(7)(ii)(B) require test-
ing of all of the heavy metals listed in item V part CI of the
application form by all three manufacturers. For the expected
metals, see the effluent limitations development documents for
information.
Is The Application Accurate ?
A permit application should also be accurate. In other
words, not only should all of the necessary information be sub—
rnitted (completeness), it must also be correct. While it may be
difficult to detect certain inaccuracies, a number of common mis-
takes and omissions can be readily detected. When mistakes are
detected, —they must be corrected. The permit writer should fol-
low the same procedures for correcting inaccurate information,
as are used for obtaining missing information. The following are
examples of the type of review which the permit writer must con-
duct:
o Do the concentration, mass, and flow values correspond?
Example : Suppose the maximum daily flow is shown as 1.2 IGD,
maximum daily suspended solids is 23 mg/i, and the maximum
daily mass discharge is reported as 230 pounds per day.
Discussion : In this case, the maximum daily flow and con-
centration purportedly occurred on the same day to give the
maximum daily discharge. While the maximum flow and the
maximum concentration can occur on the same day, it is an
unlikely event. Accordingly, when the data on the applica-
tion form indicate that this has happened, the permit writer
should investigate whether this in fact is the case or it is
an error. The same holds true for the maximum 30 day values,
although it is a somewhat more likely occurrence.
o Do the reported values correctly correspond to the existing
permit and previous application, montoring data, waiver
requests and effluent guidelines development documents?
Example : The previous permit had a limitation of 38 pounds
per day for oils and grease. The application reports an
average of 3.3 pounds per day.
Discussion : There is apparently ‘a problem in calculation
here. It could be simply a shift in the decimal point, or
it could involve some other type of error. It also could
-------
— 12 —
represent a significant change in production technicues or
treatment efficiencies.
o Do concentration values correspond with analytical detection
limits?
Example : The acid GC/MS fraction (phenols) compounds are
all reported as less then 1 rnq/l.
Discussion : The detection limits for the compounds are all
in this fraction are near 10 ugh (ppb). Probably the 4AAP
method for phenols was used, rather than the the required
testing procedure using GC/MS.
-------
— 13 —
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the formal application form, the permit
writer should consider additional sources of information for
development of a draft permit. A review of background infor-
mation and a facility inspection are valuable sources of
information.
Background Information Review
In addition to the permit application, the permit writer
should consider any additional background information on the
facility which may be relevant. Much of this information may
already be available in the permit file or office.
File information includes the current permit, the rationale
for the current permit (if one was prepared), Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRs), compliance inspection reports, and any correspondence
concerning compliance problems, any information on changes in plant
conditions, and communications with other agencies. Much of this
information, particularly DMR data, may be already stored in various
automated data tracking systems (see Chapter XIII)-. -The permit writer
should utilize these sources of information, where available. Other
information present in the office should include effluent guidelines,
related Development Documents, reference textbooks on specific industry
categories, the Treatability Manual, State Water Quality Standards,
and receiving water quality data, such as that available from the
STORET system. The permit writer should also consider reviewing the
other environmental permit information, if appropriate, such as RCRA
permit files.
This information should be reviewed for completeness. As
needed, supplemental data may be requested from various State
Agencies, EPA’s Industrial Technology Division, and the applicant.
Facility Inspection
It is often said that “a picture is worth a thousand words”.
This is certainly true of the various types of facilities the
permit writer is likely to encounter. For the permit writer to
gain an adequate understanding of the more complex facilities,
it is highly desirable that a visit be made to the facility to
personally inspect the site. This would be especially true
if significant pollution control or treatment improvements will
be required, there have been frequent problems in complying with
the present permit, there are known problems with spills or leaks
or with contaminated surface runoff, or there is onsite storage,
treatment, or disposal of hazardous wastes. As discussed above,
the information from other environmental permit programs (i.e.,
CERCLA, RCRA) may be important in this regard.
The inspection should include a detailed rev’iew of production
processes in order to evaluate what toxic or hazardous substances
may be present in raw materials and associated contaminants, as
-------
— 14 —
well as in products and by—products. The water uses, the resulting
wastewater streams, and any in—process pollution controls should be
reviewed. This information is needed to assist in selecting toxic
pollutants to be limited and in evaluating possible in—process control
improvements.
The inspection should also include a review of wastewater treat-
ment facilities, their performance and operation, and maintenance
practices. This is useful in evaluating the adequacy of existing
treatment, in assessing the feasiblity of improvements, and
in evaluating performance data. Effluent monitoring points,
sampling methods, and analytical techniques should be reviewed
to define any needed changes and to evaluate the quality of
DMR data.
Raw material and product storage and loading areas, sludge
storage and disposal areas, hazardous waste management facilities
including onsite disposal areas, and all process areas should
be observed to determine the need for controls on surface runoff
and for specific best management practices.
The time required to conduct an adequate inspection
will vary according to the complexity of the facility. For
facilities with only a few basic processes, one main waste
treatment system, limited in—process controls, few surface
runoff outfalls, and limited onsite management of sludges or
hazardous wastes, an adequate inspection can be completed in I
or 2 days. Complex, larger plants with several treatment systems,
numerous outfalls, and extensive ancillary activities may
require several days to inspect.
Time spent on plant inspections often results in time
savings during permit preparation. However, time and/or travel
resources are generally not adequate to allow inspection of all
facilities that are desirable. In such cases, the permit writer
may be able to obtain much of the desired information from the
next (or previous) compliance monitoring inspection. This requires
advance planning to review the permit application and background
information so the compliance inspector can be alerted to specific
information needs.
Aerial photographs are an excellent aid for conducting a
plant inspection and may provide much of the needed information
on the potential for contamination of surface runoff and on
ancillary activities in the absence of an inspection. Aerial
photographs may be obtained from a variety of sources including
the Environmental Servvices Division in some EPA Regions, the
National Enforcement Investigation Center, EMSL — Las Vegas,
the Environmental Photo Interpretation Lab — Vint Hill, VA,
and private contractors.
-------
— 15 —
III. DEVELOPING THE DRAFT PERMIT
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Contents of a Permit
Once the permit writer is satisfied that a complete and
accurate application has been received, and necessary background
information has been obtained, he may proceed to the next step:
drafting the actual permit conditions. This step is the “heart”
of the process and may require a considerable expenditure of
time and effort on the part of the permit writer. The draft permit,
at a minimum, will consist of the following sections:
o Effluent Limitations
o Monitoring Requirements
o Standard Conditions
o Special Conditions
Each of these sections will be discussed at length in
subsequent chapters. The overall objective is to deve].op a
draft permit which takes into account all available information
on a particular facility and its receiving waters as well as all
applicable NPDES program guidance with respect to that type of
facility, and establishes effluent limits and associated require—
ments for the discharges.
Importance of Documentation
During the course of developing the draft permit, the
permit writer should bear in mind the importance of carefully
documenting each step in the process. There are several reasons
for this. First, it will assist the permit writer in developing
the permit in a thorough and logical fashion. Also, it will
become part of the official record with respect to the facility
and will serve to explain the rationale for the permit limits
and to counter any challenges to the derivation of the permit
terms and conditions. Another reason for careful documentation
is staff turnover. New staff members must be able to clearly
determine the history of various vacuities.
As a general rule, it is better to thoroughly document
every step of the permit drafting process than to rely on one’s
memory or on an abbreviated Administrative Record (this subject
discussed in more detail in Chapter X.
-------
— 16 —
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Overview
Effluent limitations are developed by three methods:
o Effluent Limitations Guidelines
o Water Quality Considerations
o Best Professional Judgment (BPJ)
Each of these methods will be discussed in detail in subsequent
sections, however a brief overview is useful.
In general, derivation of limits using the first method
is usually the most straight forward, since it involves the
application of a guideline which has already been scientifically
derived. Effluent limitations guidelines (ELG’s) should be used
where it has been determined that the water quality standards
will not be contravened by the use of effluent guidelines. Such
discharges are sometimes called “ technology—based, ” and represent
and represent “end—of—the—pipe” technology. In some cases,
particularly for toxic pollutants, technology—based limits may
also be-achieved as --a--result- of-in—process-controls.
Many situations require the development of limitations
according to water quality considerations. In these situations,
site specific limits, more stringent than ELG’s, must be
developed in order to protect the water quality of the
receiving waters (ambient conditions). Such bodies of water
are sometimes called “ water quality—limited” . Usually, water
quality—based limits will only be required for selected parame-
ters; the other limitations will be technology—based.
Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) is used in cases where
effluent limitations guidelines are not available for the
particular pollutant or industrial category under consideration.
There are a number of sources of information and a methodology
which the permit writer may utilize in making a BPJ determination.
Often a permit will have limitations on different parameters
developed by different means, and occasionally, the limitations
on a single parameter will be derived through a combination of
methods. For example, an effluent may have total suspended solids
limited by effluent guidelines, oil and grease limited by BPJ,
ammonia by aquatic toxicity (water quality considerations), and
BOD by effluent guidelines for part of the year and by water
quality considerations (dissolved oxygen) for the remainder
of the year. Theoretically, limits could be established for
each parameter to be limited by both water quality considera-
tions and by technology—based factors. The most stringent of
the two values would normally be applied.
-------
— 17 —
Statistical Considerations
Effluent limitations are probably the most important part
of the permit. The effluent limitations are the primary mech-
anism for the control of discharges of pollutants. tt is therefore
important that the permit writer have a basic understanding of
the principles of effluent variability and permit limit derivation.
The quality of the effluent from a treatment facility will
normally vary over time. If BOD data for a typic’al treatment
plant are plotted against time, the day—to—day concentrations
variations can be seen (See Figure 3—1). Some of this behavior
can be described by constructing a frequency—concentration
plot. From this plot, one can see that for most of the time,
BOD concentrations are near some average value. Any treatment
system can be described using the mean concentration of the
parameter of interest (i.e., the long term average) and the
variance (or coefficient of variation) and by assuming a
particular statistical distribution (usually lognormal).
Permit limits are generally set at the upper bounds of accep-
table performance. Requirements are usually expressed using two
types of permit limits. The daily maximum permit limit is the
maximum allowable value for any single observation. The average
daily or “ monthly ” permit limit is the maximum allowable value
for the average of all observations obtained during one month.
(Average daily limits for weekly periods are also used for POTW’s..)
If permit limits are set too high relative to the long term
average, a discharger not complying with expected performance
will not exceed the limits. If permit limits are set too low, a
discharger that is complying with expected performance may fre-
quently exceed the limits.
Regulatory agencies have settled on an exceedance rate for
deriving permit limits of 1 % to 5 % (typically, 1% exceedence
rates for the daily maximum, 5% exceedence rate for the monthly
average). These exceedence rates correspond to the 99th to
95th percentiles of a cummulative probability distribution.
As can be seen form the graphical representation in Figure 3—2,
the 99th percentile limit is less stringent than the 95th percentile
limit. Thus, a discharger complying with expected performance
has a 95—99% chance of not exceeding their permit limits in any
single monitor ing observation. However, over the long run,
that same plant is statistically expected to discharge in excess
of its permit limits one to five percent of the time. In actual
practise, other factors such as reduced production levels part of
the time may result in exceedences of permit limits. Conversely,
if poor operation and maintenance or producttion increases occur,
permit violations may occur more frequently.
It is important to note that statistical variability is already
“built in” with respect to the effluent limitation guidelines,
and the permit writer need not perform a separate evaluation in
those cases where a permit limitation is derived from a guideline.
-------
— 18 —
EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES
Technology—Based Requirements of the Clean Water Act
The permit writer will find several terms which are frequently
used in the discussion of Effluent Limitation Guidelines (these
terms will also be employed in the discussion of best professional
judgement). The terms are derived from Section 301 (b) of the
Clean Water Act and refer to various levels of treatment which
apply to particular categories of pollutants. Included also are
deadlines for meeting these levels of treatment (these terms
are also summarized in the glossary).
The Act required all industries discharging wastes into
navigable waters to achieve by July 1, 1977, the “best practicable
control technology currently available” (BPT). This control
technology represents the average of the best existing waste
treatment performance within each industry category or subcategory.
By July 1, 1984, the Act required the application of effluent
limitation technology based on the best control and treatment
measures that have been developed or that are capable of
being developed within the industriaL -category or subcategory.
These effluent limitations are as follows:
o Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants — Application of
the “best available technology economically achievable”
(BAT).
o Conventional Pollutants - Application of the “best
conventional pollutant control technology” (BCT).
By way of definition, Conventional pollutants include such
parameters as Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids,
Fecal Coliform, pH and oil and grease. Toxic pollutants are
those defined in Sec. 307(a)(l) of the Act and include heavy
metals, and man—made organic compounds. The “priority pollutant”
list is often mentioned in this regard). Non—conventional pol-
lutants are those which do not fall under either of the above
categories and include parameters such as Chemical Oxygen Demand.
A listing of the toxic pollutants appears in the Appendix.
New source performance standards (NSPS) are also established
for new industrial direct discharqers. The intent of this special
set of guidelines is to set limitations which represent “state
of the art” treatment technology to new sources, since such dis—
chargers have the oppOrtunity to install the latest in treatment
treatment technology at the time of start—up. Established
facilities often have to retrofit existing treatment units to meet
BAT guidelines. This can be a costly and time—consuming process
and thus more lenient requirements are usually applied for exist-
ing facilities. NSPS go into effect at the commencement of a new
facility’s operation, and are described as the “best available
-------
— 19 —
demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods
or other alternatives including, where practicable, a standard
permitting no discharge of pollutants.”
Several important points should be stressed in connection
with these requirements. First, it is important to understand
the overall intent of these regulations. Technology—based limits
(i.e. effluent limitation guidelines) consider the category of indu-
stry which produces the pollutant. Thus, the regulations take into
account the specific factors unique to a particular type of industry
(manufacturing process, type and quantity of pollutants generated,
types of treatment facilities available to treat the pollutants, etc.)
In using this approach, the regulations remove any economic
advantage based upon pollution control for similar categories of
industry. In theory, for example, a pulp and paper mill on the
west coast of the U.S. would be required to meet the same BCT pollu-
tion controls for sulfate as an identical plant located on the east
coast ( unless there were special site—specific water quality
concerns which had to be addressed).
In addition, it is important to note that regulations have
historically incorporated a phased or gradual approach with re-
spect to existing--faci-l-ities. Ini-t-ia-lly, - industries-were- required to
meet BPT by July 1, 1977, with BAT and BCT required by July 1, 1984.
In most cases, for conventional and and nonconventional pollutants,
BCT and BAT levels of treatment were found to be no more stringent
than the old BPT levels and therefore, in many cases, BPT may equal
may equal BCT or BAT. In other words, the best practicable treatment
may also be thebest available treatment. However, BAT levels for
for many toxic pollutants have been added to the guidelines, where no
such requirements previously existc d under the BPT requirements.
In general, additional treatment beyond that required to meet the
old BPT requirements has not been required.
Schematically, the process can be shown as follows:
Pollutant Category Level of Treatment Statutory Deadline
Conventional BPT July 1, 1977
Conventional BCT July 1, 1984
Non—conventional BPT July 1, 1977
Non—conventional BAT *July 1, 1984
Toxic BPT July 1,1977
Toxic BAT July 1, 1984
(kNot later than three years after the date such limitations
are placed in the permit, or July 1, 1984, whichever is later,
but in no case later than July 1, 1987)
-------
— 20 —
General Considerations with respect to the use of
Effluent Limitation Guidelines
The use of effluent limitations guidelines for the
development of effluent limitations appears at first to be
straightforward: determine production and multiply by the
appropriate factor contained in the guidelines. For example,
a bleach kraft tissue plant produces 234,000 lbs. per day,
and the daily maximum guideline for BOD is 13.65 lbs per
1000 lbs of product. The effluent limitation then should
then be 3194 lbs per day (234,000 x 13.65/1000 = 3,194).
How€ver, the process is often more complicated than this simple
example would indicate.
Some of the difficulties associated with the use of guidelines
include:
o Determination of the proper category and subcategory
of the facility.
o Proper use of the guidelines applicable to the
category or subcategory under consideration.
o Classification of plants which fall undet more than
one subcategory and/or have multiple products with mul-
tiple measures of production.
o Determination of the measure of production.
o Use of alternate limits
o Application of mass vs. concentration, limits
The location of applicable effluent guidelines requires a
familiarity with several sources of information, particularly
the Federal Register system. The Federal Register can often
seem overwhelming to anyone who is unfamiliar with this docu-
ment and its companion document, the Code of Federal Regulations.
However, it is very helpful for the permit writer to have a basic
understanding of these documents. Their importance to the permit
writer stems from the fact that all of the effluent guidelines
which are promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency are
published there. In addition, any rulemaking action which affects
the NPDES permit program is published there.
The Federal Register System is the vehicle for disseminating
information about federal regulations or the regulations
themselves. These regulations are the results of a federal
agency action based upon federal legislation enacted by
-------
— 21 —
Congress and have the “full force and effect of law.” In the
case of the NPDES permit program, the EPA proposes regulations
under the authority given to the Administrator of EPA by the
Clean Water Act.
Any actions relative to these regulations (proposed rule-
making, public notice, final rulemaking, etc.) are published
in the Federal Register, which is published every weekday.
All entries which appear in the Federal Register follow
a standard format. This is designed to assist the reader by
summarizing all of the relevant information with respect to
the entry.
All federal regulations are compiled in order in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In the case of EPA and
the NPDES program, all of the applicable regulations, are
shown in Title 40, Part 400 (effluent limitation guidelines)
and Parts 122—124 (program regulations) . Changes in, or additions
to the regulations are published in the Federal Register. These
‘revisions are incorporated in the yearly update of the Code
of Federal Regulations . The Federal Register system also
contains various “finding aids” which w-iil assist -t.-he permit
writer in locating the applicable guidelines.
In addition to the Federal Register System, there are a
number of other documents which will be useful to the permit
writer in the process of locating applicable guidelines and
other background information. These include the Development
Documents for the various industrial categories, which are
produced by EPA’s Industrial Technology Division. These
documents contain the rationale for the development of the
effluent guidelines and include a considerable amount of
background information which may prove useful to the permit
writer. In addition, the Industrial Technology Division
has compiled a document which summarizes and cross—references
all of the currently promulgated guidelines.
-------
— 22 —
Categorization
In order for the permit writer to properly use and apply
effluent guidelines information, he must first determine what
industrial category applies to the facility under consideration.
In determining which category/ies a facility conies
under, the Standard Industrial Code (SIC) is helpful. Item VII
of Application Form 1 requires that the applicant provide the
SIC.code for the activity covered by the permit application.
Permit offices should have a listing of SIC’s corresponding with
effluent guideline categories (see Appendix). Usually, an
SIC will determine the appropriate category, but not necessarily
the subcategory. For example, a turpentine producer, SIC
2861, falls under the Gum and Wood Chemicals Manufacturing
category. En this particular case, SIC 2861 and the Gum and
Wood Chemicals Manufacturing category correspond. Once the
category is established, it is just a matter of determining
which subcategory the facility falls under.
Usually, plants do not fail into a single category and
then a single-subcategory. -In this regard, it is helpful not
to place the plant into a category or subcategory, but rather
find those categories under which the plant falls. This may
require some research and probing on the part of the permit
writer. For example, an integrated washing machine producer
(SIC 3633) would be expected to fall into the Mechanical
Products category. Because of the wide ranging activities
needed for integrated production, this manufacturer also comes
under Porcelain Enameling, Metal Finishing, and Plastic
Molding and Forming categories.
In determining which subcategories are applicable to a
plant is best to determine the categories first and then by
careful analysis of the plant, determine the subcategories.
The determination of applicable categories can be accomplished
by quickly classifying the categories as ‘not applicable’ or
‘possibly applicable’. For example, if a brewery were under
consideration, Iron and Steel Manufacturing would obviously
not be applicable while Organic Chemicals might be, depending
on the extent of recovery and processing of by—products. A
careful analysis of the production of the plant and comparison
to the subcategories under Organic Chemicals would establish
which, if any, of the subcategories are applicable.
-------
— 23 —
Production
Many effluent limitation guidelines are expressed in terms
of allowable pollutant discharge rate per unit of production
rate. To determine permit limits, these standards are multiplied
by the facility’s production rate. Thus it is necessary for the
the permit writer to determine the facility’s actual production,
based upon information supplied by the permittee.
The ideal situation for the app1icatior of effluent limitations
guidelines is where production is constant from day to day and
month to month. Production for the purposes of calculating
the limitations would then be the average production rate. In
practice, production rates are not as constant as the ideal situ-
ation. They vary because of market factors, maintenance, pro-
duct changes, down times, breakdowns, and facility modifications.
The production rate of a facility will vary with time, and thus
determination of production may be problematical.
To apply effluent limitation guidelines to a facility
which has ‘varying production rates, the permit writer should
determine a single estimate of the long term average production
rate that is expected to exist during the next term of the
permit. This single production value is then multiplied by
both the daily maximum and monthly averaae guideline limitations
to obtain permit limits.
The permit writer should avoid the use of a limiterl amount
of production data in estimating the production for a specific
facility. For example, the data from a particular month may be
unusually high arid thus lead to the derivation of an effluent
limitation which is not actually reflective of the normal plant
operations. As previously explained in the Introduction to
this Chapter, effluent limitation guidelines already account
for variations which occur within long term production rates.
Therefore, the use of too short a time frame in the calculation
of production based limitations for a specific industrial
facility may lead to “double accounting” of the variability factors.
The objective in determining a production estimate for a
facility is to develop a single estimate of the long term
average production rate (in terms of mass of product per day)
which can reasonably be expected to prevail during the next
term of the permit. The following example illustrates the
proper application of guidelines:
Example : Company A has produced 331,500 tons, 301,500
tons, 361,500 tons, 301,500 tons, and 361,500 tons per
year for the previous five years. The use of the long term
average production (331,500 tons per year) would be an
appropriate and reasonable measure of production, if this
figure was most representative of the actual production
expected to occur over the next term of the permit and
this number did not represent a temporary increase in pro—
-------
— 24 —
duction. Also, in evaluatincj these gross production figures,
the number of production days must be considered, If the
number of production days per year is not comparable, the
numbers must be converted to production per day before they
may be compared. To convert from the annual production
rate to average daily rate, the annual production rate is
divided by the number of production days per year. To deter-
mine the number of production days, the total number of normally
scheduled non—production days are subtracted from the total
days in a year.
If Company A normally has 255 production days per year,
the annual production rate of 331,500 tons per year would
yield an average daily rate of 1,300 tons per day. If pollutant
X has an effluent limitaiton guideline of 0.1 lbs./1000 lbs.
for the maximum daily average, the effluent limitations would
be calculated as follows:
Monthly Average Limit (Pollutant X)
1,300 tons x 2000 lbs x 0.10 lbs . = 260 lbs./day
day ton - 1000 lbs.
Daily Maximum Limit (Pollutant X)
1,300 tons x 2000 lbs . x 0.15 lbs . = 390 lbs./day
day ton 1000 lbs.
In the example above, the production during the highest
year of the last five years was used as the estimate of production.
This estimate is appropriate when production is not expected to
change significantly during the permit term. However, if
historical trends, market forces, or company plans indicate
that a different level of production will prevail during the
permit term, a different basis for estimating production should
be used.
Alternate Limits
If production rates are expected to change significantly
during the life of the permit, the permit can include alternate
limits. These alternate limits would become effective when
production exceeds a threshold value, such as during seasonal
production variations. Definitive guidance is not available with
respect to the threshold value which should “trigger” alternate
limits. However, it is generally agreed that a 10 to 20 percent
fluctuation in production is within the range of normal varia-
bility, while changes in production substantially higher than
this range (such as 50 percent) could warrant consideration of
alternate limits. The major characteristics of alternate limits
a e best described by illustration and example:
Example : Plant B has produced 334,800 tons,. 260,400 tons,
220,000 tons, 240,800 tons, and 206,500 tons per year for
-------
— 25 —
the previous five years. The hicih year is significantly
higher than the rest and the permittee has made a plausible
argument that production is expected to return to that level.
The guideline for pollutant X is 0.08 lbs./l000 lbs. for
the monthly average and 0.14 lbs./l000 lbs. for the daily
maximum. The alternate effluent limitations could be
calculated as follows:
Primary Limits:
o Basis of calculation: 260,400 tons/yr. = 1,050 tons/day
(248 production days per year)
o Applicable level of production: less than 1,050 tons
per day average production rate for the month
Monthly Average Limit
1,050 tons x 2000 lbs . x 0.08 lbs . = 168 lbs./day
day ton 1000 lbs.
Daily Maximum Limit
1,050 tons x 2000 lbs . x 0.14 lbs . = 294 lbs./day
day ton 1000 lbs.
Alternate Limits:
o Basis of calculation: 334,800 tons/yr. = 1,350 tons/day
o Applicable level of production = more than 1,050 tons/day
average production rate for the month
Monthly Average Limit = 216 lbs./day
Daily Maximum Limit = 378 lbs./day
Alternate limits should be used only after careful
consideration and only when a substantial increase or decrease
in production is likely to occur. In the example above, the
primary limits would be in effect when production was at normal
levels. During periods of significantly higher production, the
alternate limits would be in effect. When production reverted
to normal levels, the primary limits would have tQ be met. In
addition, alternate limits may also be appropriate in the case of
special processes or product lines. The thresholds, measures of
production and special repoting requirements must be detailed in
the permit.
Multiple Products or Multiple Categories
Another complication is the situation of multiple products
or multiple categories and subcategories. Determination of
production and the calculation of the effluent limits will
depend on the specific conditions. A typica 1 case would be the
integrated washing machine producer mentioned earlier. In this
-------
— 26 —
case, the production in each of the categories is determined
and multiplied by the appropriate factor for each category with
the permit limits being the sum of these. Some guidelines also
specifify the terms of production so that nominal production
rates will have to be adjusted to correlate to the terms
specified in the guidelines.
Mass vs. Concentration Limits
Most of the effluent limitations for industrial facilities
are expressed in terms of allowable mass (in units of pounds
or kilogams) of pollutant per day. The permit writer should also
consider the use of concentration limits. The rationale for
including concentration limits is to encourage the proper
operation of the treatment facility at all times. In the
absence of concentration limits, a perniittee could theoretically
reduce treatment efficiency during low flow periods and still
meet the facility’s mass—based effluent limits. For example,
Company A could have an average daily wastewater flow of 0.9 MGD.
On a given day, the wastewater flow might drop to 0.6 MGD. In
this example, pollutant “X” could be 150% of the ‘normal’
average. However, the company wou-id stil-l-be in compliance
with its permit, unless concentration limits were also included.
The following calculation illustrates this matter:
Example : (Note: 8.34 is a conversipn factor for converting
gallons to liters)
For Company A, the mass limits for pollutant “X” have
been set as follows:
Daily Maximum = 260 lbs/day; Monthly Average = 390 lbs/day
o Average Flow Conditions (0.9 MGD):
60 lbs/day = 35 mg/i = monthly average
(8.34)(0.9 MGD) concentration
o Low Plow Conditions (Example: 0.6 MCD)
260 lbs/day = 52.5 rng/l monthly average
(8.34)(0.6 MGD) ( 150% of concentration
during average flow!)
In determining applicable effluent concentration limitations,
the monthly average and daily maximum mass limits divided by the
average flow will provide concentrations which are appropriate:
260 lbs/day = 35 mg/i monthly average
(8.34) (0.9MGD)
390 lb /day = 52 mg/i daily maximum
(8.34) (0.9MGD)
-------
— 27 —
In the example above, it should be noted that the long term
average flow is used to calculate both the monthly average and
daily maximum concentrations. The use of the long term average
flow is appropriate for the calculation of maximum concentration,
in that it will reflect the range of concentrations which could be
expected in a well operated plant. The use of the maximum daily
flow is not appropriate to determine the daily maximum concentra-
tion from the daily maximum mass limitation as it will reduce the
maximum concentration below the value which could be expected in
a well operated plant. In fact, the “maximum concentration” cal-
culated this way could be less than the average concentration. For
example, Company A has a maximum daily flow of 1.6 MCD. Using
this flow, the maximum concentration is calculated to be 29
mg/i, which is less than the average concentration limit of 35
mg/i. Concentration limits derived by these calculations should
be evaluated using historical monitoring data and engineering
judgment to be sure they are reasonable.
In certain instances, t e use of concentration limits may
be counter productive since they may discourage the use of
innovative techniques such as water conservation. As an example,
if-a facility-had-a--hi-s-tory of-providing efficient treatment -of
its wastewater and also wished to practice water conservation,
inclusion of concentration limits would probably not be
appropriate. To summarize, the applicability of concentration
limits should be a case—by—case determination based upon the
professional judgment of the permit writer.
-------
— 28 —
WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
Overview
Water quality-based limitations are used in a permit when
it has been determined that more stringent limits than technology—
based effluent guidelines must be applied to a discharge, in order
to protect the “designed use” of the receiving waters. Water
quality—based limits are generally more difficult to develop
than ELGs since they involve a site—specific evaluation of the
discharge and its effect on the receiving stream. Such an evalu-
ation may include the collection of monitoring data on the receiv-
ing stream, and a mathematical analysis, possibly involving
a computer program. In order to gain a clear picture of this
situation, the permit writer must be familiar with the concepts
of water quality criteria and water quality standards.
Water Quality Criteria
Two terms are frequently used when discussing water quality
considerations: “criteria” and “standards”. Water quality
criteria refer to scient1fica1l ’ derived ambient limits (expressed
in terms of concentration) which are developed by EPA for various
pollutants of concern. These are recommended levels which should
not be exceeded in a body of water in order to protect aquatic
life and human health. For example, the maximum criteria for
chromium are 50 ugh total chromium for domestic water supplies
and 11 ug/l hexavalent chromium for freshwater aquatic life. A
criterion, in some cases, may be a narrative statement instead of
a constituent concentration.
Water quality criteria are published by EPA as guidelines
for use by the states in establishing their own standards.
EPA periodically updates its lists of water quality criteria.
The previous lists of water quality criteria are referred to as
the Green, Blue, and Red Books, published in 1968, 1973 and 1976
respectively. In November 1980, EPA announced the publication
of water quality criteria documents for 64 of the 65 pollutants
designated as toxic under the Clean Water Act. These criteria
update some but not all of the criteria found in the Red Book.
Other amendments to the criteria have recently been proposed.
Where criteria in the Red Book have not been updated, they remain
valid.
Water Quality Standards
Every state is required (Section 303 of the CWA and 48 FR
51400) to develop water quality standards applicable to the
various bodies of water within the state. Water quality stan-
dards are composed of two parts:
o Use classifications
o Narrative and/or Numérica]. Standards
-------
— 29 —
1) Use Classifications
Use classifications describe the uses for which each state
intends its waters to be suitable. The Clean Water Act requires
each state to classify all of the waters within its boundaries
according to intended use. (CWA § 303(c)(2)). In establishing
the classifications, the states are to consider the value of
water for:
o public water supplies
o protection and propagation of fish and wildlife
o recreation
o agriculture arid industrial water supplies
o navigation
Water quality standards, including use classifications, are
to be reviewed by the states arid, where appropriate, modified at
least every three years. EPA’s amended regulations specify that
all classifications that do not provide for protection and
propagation of fish and wildlife and water recreation must be
reexamined to determine whether new developments warrant an
upgrading. Although all water quality standards are subject to
review at least every three years, the state is encouraged to
identify priority water bodies for “in-depth review” under
this schedule.
An important feature of the water quality standards regula-
tion is an anti—degradation requirement. If a designated use is
currently being attained, the water body may not be classified
for a less stringent use. For example, if •a water body is being
used for fishing and potable water supply, the water body must be
classified for those or more stringent uses regardless of the
current classification or development pressures. Also, if water
quality is better than necessary to maintain aquatic and recrea-
tion uses, that level of water quality must be maintained unless
the State meets the conditions discussed in the Water Quality
Standards Regulation.
Classification of the designated uses of water segments is
primarily a state responsiblity. Currently most U.S. waters have
been classified pursuant to the Clean Water Act. Procedures for
reclassification are established under State laws and may require
hearings, state environmental agency reviews and sometimes legis-
lative action. All state reclassifications of water quality uses
are subject to EPA review and approval in accordance with the
provisions of Clean Water Act.
2) Numerical and/or narrative standards
A numerical water qaulity standard may use a national water
quality criterion as a basis for regulation or enforcement, but
the standard may differ from a criterion because of prevailing
local natural conditions, the importance of a particular waterway,
ecomomic considerations, or the degree of safety that may be
desired for a particular ecosystem. For example, the dissolved
-------
— 30 —
oxygen standards which would apply to a trout stream would
undoubtedly be more stringent than those applicable to a shipping
channel. State standards typically include some pollutant levels
which should not be exceeded (e.g., nutrients, heavy metals, bac-
teria. etc.) as well as stream conditions which should be maintained
(e.g. pH ranges, dissolved oxygen levels, etc.)
Where numerical values adequate to protect a designated use
cannot be derived, the state may also establish narrative criteria
Where narrative criteria are adopted, EPA requires the state to
indicate how it will implement the standard, e.g., through peri-
odic field sampling of the habitat or bioassays of the effluent
(acute and chronic toxicity testing).
In some instances, criteria may be used to help interpret a
narrative standard. For example, a state may specify as a narrative
standard that all waters shall not be toxic to aquatic life or
human health. In the absence of any state numerical standards
for toxics, the national criteria may be used to define expected
levels of toxicity.
Standards and criteria usually refer to ambient conditions,
i.e., the conc?ntration of the pollutant in the body of water
itself. However, some state standards may include effluent
standards as an adjunct to ambient standards.
-------
— 31 —
Determination of Water Quality—Based Limits
The permit writer must consider the effect of the discharge
from the facility under consideration upon any applicable state
water quality standards. If, after calculation of BPT, BCT, or
BAT limitations, receiving waters are still not projected to
meet the water quality standards for the applicable use
classifications, dischargers into such waters are subject to
further effluent teduction. In addition, states are required
to identify waters within their boundaries that are in violation
of applicable water quality standards and to establish a priority
ranking for such waters. Those waters are referred to as water
quality—limited segments . States’ identification of water
quality-limited segments must be approved by EPA. Where a
state has identified water quality—limited segments, it must
adopt limitations for dischargers affecting the water quality
of each segment which will ensure that the standards are met.
In states where EPA is the permitting authQrity, NPDES
permits may not be issued until the affected state (or in some
cases an interstate agency) either certifies that the permit
satisfies appropriate -state water q ali yJaws orwaives tts
right to do so. States have wide latitude to impose permit
conditions pursuant to their own laws, including the right to
impose effluent limitations more stringent than those imposed
by federal law.
General Concepts of Water Quality Modeling
The primary tool which is utilized by regulatory agencies
in setting water quality-based limits is the water quality
model. A complete explanation of the process of water quality
modeling is beyond the scope of this document; however, the
important considerations in this process may be described. It
is unlikely that the permit writer will become directly involved
in developing complex water quality models since this is an
area which is usually assigned to a specialized work group
within the regulatory agency. It is very important, however,
that the permit writer have an understanding of the considerations
inherent in this process. The permit writer will use the end
product of this process -— a water quality—based limit -— and
therefore should know, in general terms, how the number was derived.
In addition, the permit writer will often need to conduct a
quick “desk-top” analysis to see if further water quality
analysis is needed.
Water quality modeling studies provide information to
assist in making effective decisions on levels of treatment
required for a source or sources of pollutant load. Models are
directed at establishing a quantitative relationship between a
particular waste load and its impact on water quality. These
relationships make it possible to assess the effect of incremental
changes in the discharge of specific constituents upon the receiving
-------
— 32 —
waters. With this capability, one is able to identify the
maximum wasteload that can be discharged by a permittee without
violating a water quality standard, and to thereby determine a
cost—effective level of treatment. Cost—effectiveness, in this
context, relates to the minimum level of treatment that will
achieve a specified water quality objective, and assumes that
costs are proportional to level of treatment. In some cases,
the results of these studies are used to allocate wasteloads
among a number •of users.
Complications in determining cause—effect relationships
and projecting impacts result from many factors. The primary
one is the rate at which various reactions take place. This is
particularly important in BOD/DO reactions where the resulting
dissolved oxygen concentration is determined by competing
reactions of oxygen consumption from BOD, ammonia, and organic
nitrogen decay, and oxygen replenishment from reaeration.
Because of the array of variable elements (temperature, stream
flow, load level, reaction rat s) that must h considered
to establish rate coefficients and examine alternate conditions,
computerized mathematical models are generally employed to make
the necessary calculatior s.
One of the disadvantages of using mathematical models is
their tendency to prevent the development of an understanding
of the system and its responses by-most involved parties other
than the model analyst. This is because all pertinent interactions
are embodied “within the model,” and often only the final output
is presented for review. However, mathematical models that are
properly utilized can contribute greatly to our understanding
of the system. Proper utilization can be checked by application
of a simpler “desk—top” model in which the analyst conducts all
calculations using simple equations and average inputs.
The level of effort that can be applied to the performance
of a waste load allocation covers a broad spectrum in terms of
resources assigned to collect water quality data and the extent
of analysis efforts to calibrate and verify mathematical models.
At one extreme, simple preliminary analyses would rely on
existing data and estimates of additional information needed to
perform the analysis. At the other extreme, water quality
modeling studies could be quite thorough and comprehensive.
While an effort approaching either 0 F these extremes could be
reasonable and appropriate under a particular set of circumstances,
the general case would entail an intermediate level of effort.
Specific Considerations in the Water Quality Modeling Process
1. Classes of Pollutants
The selection of an appropriate wat r quality model depends
upon the nature of the pollutant(s) of concern. Two classes
-------
— 33 —
of pollutants are generally separated for modeling purposes:
a) Conservative Substances
b) Non—conservative Substances
a. Modeling Conservative Substances
Conservative substances are those which are mitigated
primarily by natural stream dilution after entering receiving
bodies of waters, and include pollutants such as heavy metals.
A “mass balance” or volume—to—volume wat r model is commonly
used to develop effluent limitations for conservative pollutants.
The mass—balance model.allows the analyst to equate the mass
of pollutants upstream of a given point (generally at a pollu-
tant discharge, tributary stream or lateral inflow) to the
mass of pollutants downstream after complete mixing. Using
the simplified diagram below, the general formula for the mass—
balance model is as follows:
QdCd + QsCs = -QrCr
Od, Cd
Discharge
Stream
Reach
Qd = waste discharge flow (mgd or cfs)
Cd = pollutant concentration in waste discharge (mg/i)
Qs = background stream flow (mgd or CFS) above point
of discharge
Cs = background in—stream pollutant concentration (mg/i)
Qr = resultant in—stream flow, after discharge (MCD or cfs)
Cr = resultant in—stream pollutant concentration (mg/i)
in the stream reach (after complete mixing occurs)
The equation can be rearranged as follows to determine th
downstream effect of a particular discharge concentration:
Cr= ( QdxCd) + (QsxCs )
Qr
The equation can be further rearranged to determine the permit
limit necessary to achieve a given in—stream concentration,
such as a water quality standard:
Qs,Cs
Upstream
Qr,Cr
Downstream
-------
— 34 —
Cd = Cr (Od + Os) — (Cs x Os )
Od
As an example, assume a stream has a flow of 1.2 cfs and a back-
ground zinc concentration of 0.80 mg/i. The State standards for
zinc are 1.0 mg/i or less. The allowable zinc discharge with a
flow of 200,000 gpd is:
200,000 gpd = 0.31 cfs
Cd = l.0)(0.31 +1.2) — (0.80)(l.2 ) = 1.51—0.96 = . 55
0.31 0.31 0.31
Cd = 1.75 mg/i
b. Modeling Non—Conservative Substances
Non—conservative substances are those which are mitigated
by natural biodegradation or other environmental decay or
removal processes in the receiving stream after instream mixing
and dilution have occurred. Examples of non—conservative
pollutants are BOD 5 , Ammonia, and Bacteria. Non—conservative
models are-used when--it-becomes-important--to determine- the
expected in—stream impact of a non—conservative pollutant at
some point downstream of a pollutant loading.
In the simplest cases of modeling non—conservative
substances, an assumption is made that the pollutant undergoes
a “first—order” decay and/or removal in the stream. This type
of model (first order decay) assumes that the rate of pollutant
removal is a constant function of the instream concentration of
the pollutant and can be mathematically expressed as:
dC = — [ (C, where:
dt
C = instream pollutant concentration at time = t
K = 1st order decay rate, t 1 or l/t
The above expression can be integrated to the general form
shown below:
C = C 0 e , where:
Ct = downstream concentration at time =
C 0 = initial instream concentration at point of discharge
(i.e. at time, t = 0). C 0 is calculated using the
mass balance equation for conservative substances.
t = time of flow from point of waste discharge to downstream
point of interest
K = instream 1st order decay or removal rate
-------
— 35 —
The instream decay/removal rate is generally assumed to be a
function of a single biological or physical/chemical process.
However, the K rate may actually be a composite of several
individual mechanisms and their associated rates (e g., bio-
degradation, volatilization, etc.). When this is the case, K
is usually considered to be the summation of these individual
rates if the individual decay mechanisms are acting independently
each other and each decay mechanism is a 1st order process.
There are several special purpose models involving non-
conservative substances. Perhaps the most typical situation
in which a model is applied involves a determination of the
downstream dissolved oxygen concentration due to the discharge
of oxygen—consuming substances such as BOD. Various modifica-
tions of a model originally developed by Streeter and Phelps
are used in this situation. These models utilize a seperate
decay rate for both carbonaceous and nitrogenous BOD in per-
forming a time—variable balancing of deoxygenation and reaera—
tion. In using a simple DO model, the user will input a set
of design conditions. If these result in a downstream viola-
tion of the DO criteria, then the input data can be modified
and the process repeated until no violation is calculated.
2. Model Inputs
There are a number of important factors which must be
considered when determining the values to be used in any type
of water quality modeling application.
a. Stream Flow
The stream flow used is normally a low flow, when the
discharge will have the greatest impact. For BOD5, D.O.,
etc., the 7Q10 is the generally acceptGd flow. The term 7010
refers to a 7 consecutive day average flow with a return period
of 10 years. Flows with different return periods have been used
in some cases. Some of the criteria documents for specific pol—
lutants indicate which flows should be used in assessing impacts
for those pollutants. In addition, The Technical Support Document
for Water Qualtiy Based Toxics Control (EPA — July, 1985) pro-
vides guidance in this area.
Generally, the most severe water quality problems occur in
the upper tributaries rather than in the main stem of rivers,
simply on the basis of the lower quantity of stream water
available for dilution. In fact, the 7010 for many tributaries
is zero. In these cases, the effluent limitations would be
equal to the stream standards (sometimes referred to as a ttself_
sustaining effluent) unless State WQS specify otherwise. Also,
such streams may require a use—attainability analysis to see if
the WQS are appropriate.
In some cases, the upstream concentrations exceed the State
standards. In these situations, three factors must be considered.
-------
— 36 —
First, it can be argued that it is not the dischargers’ resnons—
ibility to clean up the waterway, and that the discharger
should not have limitations which are more severe than the
State standards. This effectively puts a floor to the effluent
limitation at the receiving water standard. Second, if the source
of the water discharged is the same body of water as that which
receives the discharge, the provisions of § 122.45(h) Net Limita-
tions may be applicable. Third, the WQS may need to be revised
via a use—att inabi1ity analysis.
b. Waste Flow
The design waste flow, Qd used for water quality modeling
is usually the same flow used in the determination of technology—
based limitations as discussed pr viously. For industrial
dischargers, it should be the expected average flow rate which
corresponds to the representative production rate selected for
determining technology—based mass limitations. Where industrial
discharge rates may vary seasonally due to manufacturing
process schedules, Qd should reflect the discharge rate which
is expected to occur during critical low stream flow conditions.
For sewage discharges, Qd should be-the design.flow for the
treatment facilities.
C. In—stream Concentration
In the simplest case, assuming instream background
concentration (Cs) is zero, the mass balance equation;
Cd Cr(Od + Os) — (CsQs ) becomes Cr(Qd + Qs )
Qd Qd
As Cs increases above zero, the resulting allowable Cd decreases,
thereby making Cs an important factor in deterndning effluent
limitations.
There are various sources of data which the analy’st may consult.
State regulatory agencies may have ambient, water quality moni-
toring data taken at low flow, available for the stream under
consideration. In addition, historical data can be retrieved
from the EPA STORET system. It may be necessary, however, to
perform special stream surveys for a particular modeling effort.
Assumptions would have to be made in order to use this input
for a low flow condition. If Cs is not equal to zero, Cs should
ideally reflect natural background conditions (which would be
present in the absence of man’s activity in the watershed).
Where applicable, background stream quality data may have to be
adjusted to account for known pollutant contributions from
other point sources on the receivinq stream above the discharge
point in question. This normally occurs during the process of
“wasteload allocation” among dischargers on the same stream
segment. (This concept is discussed in more detail in a
following section).
-------
— 37 —
d. Reaction Rates (K rates)
As discussed earlier, most water quality models predict
downstream concentrations from two pieces of information: the
initial instream concentrations of the pollutant and the
rates at which instream reactions occur. The first item, as
described previously, can be calculated in a relatively straight-
forward manner by performing a mass balance of the upstream
concentration with the discharger’s effluent concentration. A
determination of the second item is generally more complex,
since reaction rates may actually describe several simultaneous
processes in a single number.
e. Photosynthesis, Respiration and Nutrient Loading
Under certain conditions, the discharge of nutrients,
phosphorus and nitrogen, can stimulate the excessive growth of
free—floating algae or attached vegetation. This can occur in
impoundments, lakes or ponds, or slow—moving reaches in free—
flowing streams. The result is the production of a diurnal swing
in the dissolved oxygen. This appears as a rise in DO during the
daylight hours and drop during the night. If this condition
becomes excessive, nutrient control becomes an additional issue
in setting effluent limits.
f. Mixing Zones
Most models use essentially an instantaneous model, where
all the discharge and all the receiving waters are instantaneously
mixed. This obviously does not occur in the physical world,
but it is a good approximation in a number of situations where
there is rapid mixing of the entire stream flow and the discharge.
The more common situation involves a mixing zone . Many State
Water Quality Standards allow a zone of mixing in which less
stringent criteria apply than apply to the rest of the water
body.
The criteria that apply to mixing zones vary from State
to State. In some States there are explicit requirements for
for water quality within mixing zones (such as no acute toxicity,
floating materials, or deposit forming solids). In other states,
there are no reqirements or the requirements are ambiguous. The
allowable size of mixing zones also varies by State. Most States
specify that the zone must not be as wide as the stream in order
to allow a zone of passage for fish. Very few States specify the
the allowable length. Usually, the size of the mixing zone is
determined on a case—by-case basis taking into account the
critical resource areas that need to be protected.
It is important to note that mixing zones should be evaluated
and used for regulation in cases where mixing is not complete with—
-------
— 38 —
in a short distance of the outfall. In the majority of cases
involving conventional pollutants, mixing has been assumed to be
complete since the impact of these pollutants occurs downstream.
The regulatory authority has conducted the evaluation of the dis-
charge and calculation of permit limits based on effuent dilution
in the full stream flow. Evaluation and control based on a mixing
zone has usually been limited to situations where mixing is known
to be poor (e.g. shore-hugging plumes and discharges to large
river, lakes, and estuaries). However, if mixing is assumed to
be rapid and complete when it is not , a toxic discharge that
appears to meet water quality standards may actually cause zones
of chronic toxicity that extend for miles. Therefore, regulatory
agencies should carefully evaluate mixing. Further detailed
guidance on this topic is available in Technical Support Document
for Water Quality Based Toxics Control
Model Development
It is important to remember that all models are simplifications
of natural systems. Every kinetic pathway cannot be specifically
rep resented in a model; overall concepts must be used. As a
result, the specific values for reaction rates vary between
waters and even at times within the same water. Model calibration
defines the unique values of these rates; sensitivity analyses
are performed as a part of the calibration process in order to
assess the sensitivity of the model to changes in the various
assumptions made by the model. It is important to verify these
assumptions so that attention may be focused on obtaining the
most accurate values for these factors, thereby allowing the
best possible determination of effluent limitations necessary
to protect water quality.
Sensitivity analyses with respect to models for non-
conservative substances involves re—running the computer pro-
gram (or “desk-top” model) while modifying various modeling
input variables with a reasonable range. This will result
in numerous computer runs producing a range of downstream
conditions which correlate to a range of possible effluent
limitations and treatment processes. The next step in the
sensitivity analysis process is to determine which set of input
and output represents the most valid set. The mass—balance
model is generally a straightforward computation. Although
there is no “sensitivity” to this model in the sense mentioned
above, the model results can and should be tested under certain
circumstances to assure that the effluent limits are appropriate.
The process of model verification consists of a comparison
between-calculated responses and observed phenomena. It involves
actual data collection in order to determine how well the model
-------
— 39 —
actually describes the system being modeled.
Derivation of Permit Limits to Enforce the Water Quality Models
The next step in this process is the direct responsibility
of the permit writer, and involves the derivation of permit
limits to enforce the WLA. At first glance, this may appear to
be a relatively straight—forward process, however, there are a
number of factors which must be taken into consideration. The
model provides a measure of effluent quality that is necessary
to protect water quality in the receiving water. It is very
important to consider how the model addresses variability in
effluent quality. For example, a model output for nutrients or
bioaccumulative pollutants could be expressed as the average
effluent quality, because the total loading of these pollutants
is of concern. On the other hand, an output for toxic pollutants
is normally expressed as a maximum value for the effluent beause
the concentration of these pollutants is of more concern than
the total loading. Therefore, it is important to recognize
that the duration and frequency of occurrence of the required
effluent quality is an important aspect of a water quality model.
There is a significant risk of incorrectly utilizing
the output from a water quality model, if effluent variability
and the basis for both the water quality model and the permit
limits are not considered. The permit writer should be especially
careful to ensure that the limits designed to implement the
recommendations of water quality models are consistent with
the assumptions and requirements associated with water quality
models. A detailed discussion of this topic is provided in
the Technical Support Document for Water Quality Based Toxics
Control .
Wasteload Allocation
The difficulty of setting water-quality—based limitations
is further complicated where water quality in a segment is
affected by more than one discharger, and the burden of effluent
reduction must be allocated among the various dischargers.
A regulatory agency’s first step in establishing a waste
load allocation scheme for a water segment is to determine the
total maximum daily load (TMDL) of discharges a segment can
receive without exceeding the applicable water quality standard.
The TMDL established by the state must be submitted to EPA
for its approval before incorporation into the state’s water
quality management plan. As a rule, TMDLs are established only
for the five conven .ional pollutants —— BOD, pH, total suspended
solids, fecal coliform bacteria, and oil and grease —- and
ammonia and phosphorus.
-------
— 40 —
Once the state has determined the amount of discharge a
segment can assimilate without violating water quality standards,
that amount less the amount of capacity reserved by the state,
if any, is allocated among dischargers. The states are
responsible for the establishment and implementation of the
allowable schemes. Most allocation schemes have divided the
allowable effluent discharges among perrnittees on the basis o1
the proportion of the total effluent a facility has discharged
into the stream in the recent past. Limitations are currently
expressed as total loadings or, much less frequently as
concentrations, or both, arid are incorporated as conditions in
each of the individual facilities’ NPDES permits.
Water—Quality Based Control of Toxic Pollutants
There are a number of special considerations which apply
to the specific area of developing permit limitations and
conditions for toxic pollutants. This is an extremely important
area which is increasingly becoming an integral part of EPA and
state permit programs. It is therefore recommended that all
permit writers have a basic understanding of the subject. For
additional- mE matiorr,:the reader- is- -referred -to the Technicai-
Support Document for Water Quality—Based Toxics Control .
1. National Policy
EPA issued a national policy on water qualit y—based permit
limits for toxic pollutants on March 9, 1984 (49 FR 9016). The
main feature of this policy is the statement that an integrated
strategy, using both biological and chemical methods will be
necessary to control the discharge beyond the application of
the Best Available Technology (BAT). Thus, the policy recognizes
that it is not always possible to set limits on every chemical
of concern (as determined by either a technology—based limit or
as established by a water quality model). There may often be
too many chemicals to limit or there may be unknown toxicants.
In addition, chemical limits do not address the extent to which
a wastewater discharge may impact aquatic organisms (bioavail—
ability). It is therefore necessary, in some instances, to use
toxicity as an assessment tool and effluent control parameter.
2. Toxicity Testing
Toxicity is measured by exposing organisms to wast water
or receiving water samples to determine the effects to the
organisms. Different species exhibit diff rent sensitivity to a
toxicant. It is impossible to generalize about which species are
most sensitive to a particular effluent containing a mixture of
chemicals. Effluent and ambient samples are often are of
unknown composition. Thus, it is impossible to predict which
of several organisms will be most sensitive. The purpose of
toxicity testing is to measure a portion of the range of sensi-
tivity that would be expressed in the natural community
and then use a test organism from tile more sensitive end of
-------
— 41 —
that range to characterize the effect on the community. The
selection of test organisms is not important as long as the
selected organisms represent ecologically diverse taxa. At
least 3 species should be tested to select the most sensitive.
Usually the test is set up to determine the dilution of
sample that causes some effect endpoint. Cominmon endpoints are
50% mortality (LC 50 ) and no observable effects (NOEL). Acute
toxicity is effects that occur from exposures of short duration
relative to an organism’s lifespan. Chronic toxicity is effects
that occur from exposures of long duration (concerned principa’Ily
with growth, reproduction, and latent mortality).
Tox icity is often expressed as the dilution of sample that causes
the test endpoint (or the concentration of chemical that causes
the endpoint). For example, a water sample is diluted in a
serial dilution series and no effects are observed in dilutions
below 25% sample. The NOEL is expressed as 25% sample.
To use criteria, facilitate modeling, and express permit
limits, it is recommended that toxicity be expressed as toxic units .
A toxic unit is merely the inverse of the sample fraction.
Toxicity expressed as percent sample is divided into 100 to
obtain toxic units. The example above can be expressed as 4
chronic toxic units. When using toxic units it is important to
distinguish acute toxic units from chronic toxic uni-ts.
Toxicity testing is often utilized as a screeninci and
assessment tool as a preliminary step in the process of setting
water quality based permit limitations for toxic pollutants.
Preliminary testing may indicate that the effluent is not toxic
and that toxicity—based based limits are not warranted. Toxi-
city testing may also take the form of a monitoring requirement.
Such a requirement could be used in conjunction with toxicity—
based limits or as a separate condition. In the latter case,
results of the testing requirement would serve to indicate
whether the existing limitations were sufficient or whether
more stringent limitations were required.
3. Toxicity as a Water Quality Criteria
EPA has developed the following recommended criteria with
respect to toxicity:
Criteria for acute protection :
o Magnitude: less than 0.3 acute toxic units to the most
sensitive of at least 3 test organisms
o Duration: as a 1—day average
o Frequency: no more frequently than once every 3—5 years
Criteria for chronic protection :
o Magnitude: less than 1.0 chronic toxic units to the most
sensitive of a least 3 test organisms
o Duration: as a 4—day average
o Frequency: no more frequently than once every 3—5 years
-------
— 42 —
Many state water quality standards contain the general requirement
that: “there shall be no discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts.” This general requirement can also be the basis of a
permit limitation, as will be discussed in a following section.
Derivation of Water quality—Based Permit Limits
There are basically two methodologies which may be us d in
setting permit limits:
a. Dilution Method
The first method is relatively simple and involves a minimal
investment of time and resources. It is based upon an assessment
of the basic relationship between criteria, effluent quality,
and assimilative capacity:
(effluent toxicity) x (1/Dilution factor) < criterion
where effluent toxicity and the criterion are expressed in toxic
units and the dilution factor is the factor by which the effluent
is diluted in the receiving water (e.g., 1 MGD effluent into
9 MGD receiving-water y-ields ad-ilution factor of 10).
For multiple sources assume additivity:
( Qe Te ) < criterion Qe = eff1u nt flow
(Qe) + Os Te = effluent toxicity
Qs = stream flow
The assumption oC additivity can be tested by using ambient
(in—stream) toxicity tests. Not that limitations depend on
the dilution and the criteria. Permit limits can be developed
without prior testing of the effluent discharge.
For example: permit limit = criterion x dilution factor
The advantage of this method is that it is easy and relatively
straightforward. The disadvantage is that it is not as accurate
as the more complex methods available which involve data genera-
tion.
b. Detailed Method
The second method is considerably more complex and involves
several parts:
(1) Screening and Assessment
In conjunction with this method an assessment prior to
permit limit development in order to:
o determine or confirm that an impact exists
o develop data on test organism sensitivity to avoid
the lOX species sensitivity factor
-------
— 43 —
o develop data on effluent variability in order to use
dynamic exposure models
o assess the dispersion for mixing zone analysis
The applicant should be required to provide the data necessary
to make the assessment. A tiered assessment approach is
recommended. Uncertainty factors are used to account for
insufficient data. In any tier, if impact is projected the
permit writer can either go to limit development or permit the
applicant to collect more data and eliminate one of the
uncertainty factors.
(2) Modeling
The objective is to model the assimilative capacity
in order to determine the relationship between sources of
pollutants and attainment of the criteria. Three types
of models may be used for this purpose. Each has advantages
and disadvantages.
o Standard steady state
o Dynamic computer models
o Acute and chronic steady state
(3) Setting Permit Limits
Limits must enforce the Wasteload Allocation (WLA)
WLA and limits may have to be different because each may
use a different expression of effluent quality or have incongruent
assumptions about probability of occurrence.
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
One mechanism that can be used in bringing a discharger
into compliance with a difficult water quality—based requirement
is a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE). A TRE is a study
conducted in order to to determine what control options are
effective for complying with either toxicity or chemical
concentration requirements. In most cases the plant manager
should be responsible for conducting a TRE. A TRE can be done
prior to permit issuance, during the permit term in response to
a monitoring trigger, during the permit term in response to
exceedances of limits, or in response to an administrative
order.
-------
— 44 —
BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT
Overview :
The third method of developing effluent limitations is
by means of Best Professional Judgement (BPJ). It is used
in those cases where an effluent limitation guideline has not
been promulgated for the industry or pollutant under consider-
ation and where a water quality standard is not applicable.
BPJ is defined as the highest quality technical opinion deve-
loped by a permit writer after consideration of all reasonably
available and pertinent data or information which forms the
basis for the terms and conditions of an NPDES permit.
The authority for BPJ is contained in Section 402(a)(l) of
the Clean Water Act which authorizes the EPA Administrator (or
the head of an EPA—approved NPDES State Agency) to issue a permit
containing “such conditions as the Administrator determines are
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act” prior to taking
the necessary implementing actions, such as the establishment
of effluent limitations guidelines.
Background :
BPJ has proven to be a valuable authority and tool for NPDES
permit writers over the years. Because it is so broad in scope,
BPJ allows the permit writer considerable flexibility in establishing
permit terms and conditions. Inherent in this flexibility,
however, is the burden on the permit writer to show that his/her
BPJ is based on sound engineering analysis. The determination of
a permit condition (e.g., a limit on a particular pollutant) is
subject to challenge by the permittee and, if unresolved through
negotiation between the parties, may be the subject of an evidentiary
hearing or other legal challenge. Therefore, the need for the
permit condition and the basis for its establishment should be
clearly defined and documented. References used to determine the
BPJ condition should be identified. In short, the rationale for a
BPJ permit must be carefully drafted to withstand the scrutiny of
not only the permittee but also the public and, ultimately, a hear-
ing officer.
During the first round of NPDES Permits in the early—to—mid
1970’s, a majority of permits, perhaps as many as 75%, were based
on the authority of section 402(a)(l). These first round so—
called best engineering judgment (BEJ) permits were drafted
because effluent guidelines were not available for many indus-
tries (BEJ was the forerunner of Best Professional Judgement).
As effluent guidelines began to be promulgated, permit writers
had to rely less on their “BEJ” and could apply the effluent
limitations in permits. Of course, where limits established by
water quality considerations are more stringent than the technology—
based requirements as established by an effluent limitation guideline
or the BPJ of the permit writer, the water quality standard prevails
and forms the basis of the permit condition.
-------
— 45 —
As we enter the “age of toxic pollutant control” in the 1980’s,
we must become more rigorous in our determination of BPJ conditions
in permits. The NPDES Regulations in §125.3 state that permits
developed on a case—by—case basis under Section 402(a)(l) of the
Act must consider: 1) the appropriate technology for the category or
class of point sources of which the applicant is a member, based
upon all available information, and 2) any unique factors relating
to the applicant.
Establishing BPJ Conditions in Permits :
In setting BPJ limitations, the permit writer must
consider several specific factors. The factors which are
enumerated below, are also those required to be considered in
the development of effluent limitations guidelines, and there-
fore, are often referred to as the “304(b)” factors:
1) For BPT requirements:
a) The total cost of application of technology in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from
such application
b) The age of equipment and facilities involved
requirements)
c) the process employed
d) The engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques
e) Process changes
f) Non—water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements)
2) For BCT requirements:
* Items b—f above, plus the following requirements:
a) The resonableness of the relationship between the costs
- of attaining a reduction in effluent and the effluent
reduction benefits derived
b) The comparison of the cost and level of reduction
of such pollutants from the discharge of publicly—owned
treatment works to the cost and level of reduction of
such pollutants from a class or category of industrial
sources
-------
— 46 —
3) For BAT requirements:
* rtems b—f of the BPT requirements, plus the following:
e) The cost of achieving such effluent reduction
A permit writer must consider each of the factors in §125.3
of the NPDES regulations in establishing BPJ—based conditions
in permits. Precisely how this is to be done is not defined and,
in fact, probably would limit the permit writer’s flexibility to
address site—specific conditions at a facility which directly
affect the terms and conditions of the permit. Remember, BPJ
has an element of judgment or “educated opinion” in it. An
engineer with the proper tools should be able to establish BPJ
conditions in permits which are both technically sound and reason-
able.
A technically sound and reasonable permit is not likely to be
successfully challenged by the permittee or a third party. In this
context, technically sound” permit conditions means that the con-
ditions are achievable with existing technology and “reasonable” means
they are achievable-at a cost which is affordable by the facility.
Historically, some of the other factors such as age, process
employed and non—water quality impacts have assumed lesser
importance than the technical and economic feasibility (techni-
cally sound and reasonable) tests.
BPJ Permitting Tools
References (data sources, tools, etc.) for BPJ permit writing
are numerous and voluminous. As one gains experience drafting BPJ
permits, it is common practise to rely on some references more than
others. The following references and brief explanations are intended
to introduce the permit writer to some of the BPJ data sources which
have proven useful over the years and are listed on the following
page.
-------
— 47 —
BPJ Permitting Tools
o Abstracts of Industrial NPDES Permits
o Treatability Manual
o NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Document
o Technical Support Document for the Development of Water Quality—
Based Pemit Limitations for Toxic Pollutnats
o Economic Achievability Protocol (“Workbook for Determining
Economic Achievability for NPDES Permits”, August 1982)
o NEIC Reports on Specific Facilities
o Toxicity Reduction Evaluations for Selected Industries
o Industry Experts within EPA
o Effluent Guidelines Information
o §308 questionnaires
o Screening & verification data
o Development Documents
o Contractors’ Reports
o Proposed Regulations
o Project Officers
o Pollutant Compliance System (PCS) Data
o Permit File
o Previous NPDES application forms
o Discharge Monitoring Reports
o Compliance Inspection Reports
o Other Media Permit Files (RCRA permit applications,
SPCC plans, etc.)
o The Literature (technical journals, books, etc.)
-------
— 48 —
MUNICIPAL PERMIT CONSIDERATIONS
Overv jew
The previous section explained the three basic approaches
used for setting NPDES permit limitations in an industrial
setting. These general approaches are also applicable to
municipal NPDES permits. However, there are some distinct
differences which bear special consideration. There are several
important program areas which apply specifically to municipal
discharges. These are:
o Secondary Treatment Definition
o Construction Grants
o National Municipal Policy
o Pretreatment
Each of these four topics will be discussed in the sections
which follow. A complete explanation of all of the aspects
of these programs is outside the scope of this document.
Rather, the intent is to explain how these programs relate
to the process of writing municipal NPDES permits. The
reader--is referred- to- the- various-documents listed-in-the
bibliography for more detailed discussions of these programs.
1) Technology — Based Requirements
Por purposes of discussion, one may think of municipal
wastewater treatment facilities as being analagous to a single
industrial category. The type of technology—based limit which
is applicable to this category is called “ secondary treatment. t ’
Secondary treatment limits are defined by regulation (Part 133)
and are used for all effluent—limited situations. The use of
conventional secondary treatment limits are analagous to guide-
lines for primary industries and do not involve BPJ decisions by
the permit writer.
Recent changes to the secondary regulation (initiated by
the 1981 Amendments to the CWA) have introduced the BPJ concept
to certain classes of municipal permits that formerly incorporated
conventional secondary treatment. This “equivalent to secondary”
treatment classification is discussed in the following section.
2) Best Professional Judgement
As with industrial permitting considerations, BPJ is
sometimes exercised in setting limits in municipal permits
when water quality considerations are not limiting and when the
use of limits based on the conventional secondary definition
is inappropriate.
The use of BPJ for municipal permits involves the considera-
tion of various site—specific factors which may lead to the develop-
ment of effluent limitations which less stringent than conventional
-------
— 49 —
secondary treatment limits, but which reflect treatment
technologies which are considered to be “equivalent to
secondary”. The various site specific factors which must
be considered in this process include the type of treatment
technology employed and the operating history of the treatment
facility or of similar facilities. This topic is discussed in
detail under Secondary Treatment Definition .
3) Water Quality Considerations
The same general water quality considerations which were
discussed previously apply to municipal discharges. However,
when assessing water quality impacts with respect to municipal
discharges, the driving factor is usually in—stream dissolved
oxygen concentration . The reason for this stems from the fact
that the primary pollutant in muncipal wastewater is oxygen—
demanding matter (of both carbonaceous and nitrogenous origin).
In some cases, “nutrients” (NO 3 & P0 4 ) may also be of concern.
Where a wasteload allocation model or an areawide water quality
plan indicates the need for more stringent limits than techno-
logy—based limits (conventional “secondary” or “equivalent to
secondary”), the permit’s effluent limitations must reflect
these more stringent limits. In these cases, higher levels
of treatment must be applied to achi ve desired effluent
levels. Such treatment may involve some additional treatment
steps to augment a secondary treatment system. These steps
might involve additional aeration or recycle. The resulting
treatment scheme is then called “advanced secondary”, “greater
than secondary , or “tertiary” — depending upon the type of
system. Finally, the permit writer should be aware of the need
to consider water quality—based limitations on toxic pollutants,
in those situations where the contribution from industrial wastes
to a municipal facility may be significant.
Secondary Treatment Definition
The most important aspect of municipal wastewater is that it is
amenable to biological treatment. In this type of treatment, micro-
organisms are brought into contact with the wastewater under a certain
set of conditions and biologically oxidize the organic matter present.
The biological component of a municipal treatment plant is termed
secondary treatment and may be preceded by simple settling (primary
treatment). Just as effluent limitation guidelines applicable to
an industrial category establish effluent limitations based upon
the appropriate treatment technology applicable to the industrial
category, municipal guidelines have been established based upon
the efficiency of secondary treatment systems. This has historically
been defined in terms of: 1) the desired effluent concentrations of
5—Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 ) and Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) —— these levels were defined in the past as 30 mg/i of both
BOD 5 and TSS; 2) the percent removal for B0D 5 (effluent concentra-
tion vs. influent concentration) was specified as 85% for secondary
treatment; and 3) the pH value must be maintained between 6.0 and
9.0 in the effluent.
-------
— 50 —
However, the definition of secondary treatment has recently
been modified. On September 20, 1984 the EPA published the
revised secondary treatment regulations (Part 133). These regu—
lations change the treatment limitations and permitting process
for trickling filters and waste stabilization ponds that qualify
as “ equivalent to secondary ” treatment. Several important concepts
form the basis for this revision of the regulations:
(1) Certain classes of biological treatment facilities that are
capable of achieving significant reductions in BOD and
suspended solids, but cannot consistently achieve secondary
treatment, should be defined as separate and distinct from
secondary treatment facilities.
(2) These facilities (equivalent to secondary) are cheaper
and easier to operate and, therefore, are utilized by
smaller communities. The provisions established by
EPA should provide for continued use of these technologies
where possible.
(3) The technology based effluent limitation approach used
to establish secondary-:treatmentshoirld be retained for
“equivalent to secondary” treatment limits.
(4) Water quality must not be adversely affected by the
application of eguivalent secondary treatment.
(5) Costly treatment plant upgrading or replacement should
be avoided where equivalent facilities are operating
sufficiently (e.g., achieving their original design
performance levels).
(6) Regulations should address variations in facility per-
formance due to geographic, climatic or seasonal conditions.
In recognition of the above factors, the revisions entail
a change in the traditional definition of secondary treatment.
The major change is a shift away from uniform limitations for
all secondary facilities to an individual, case—by—case limits
decision for specific POTWs. The capability arid performance of
an individual plant is assessed, and limits are selected from a
range of possible values. Although this process has been used
for industrial facilities, the concept has generally not been
applied to municipal permits (with the exception of interim
permit limits).
To be eligible for “equivalent to secondary” limitations a
municipal treatment works must meet all of the following criteria:
(1) The principal treatment process is a trickling filter
or lagoon (e.g., the largest percentage of BOD and TSS
removal is provided by the trickling filter or lagoon
system).
-------
— 51 —
(2) The effluent quality consistently achieved, despite
proper operating and maintenance practices, is in
excess of 30 mg/l BOD 5 and suspended solids.
(3) The treatment works as a whole provides significant
biological treatment such that a minimum 65% reduction
of BOD 5 is consistently attained (30—day average).
Obviously, a t eatment works that is operating beyond its
design hydraulic or organic loading limit is not considered an
eligible facility. If overloading or structural failure are caus-
ing poor perforniance, the solution to the problem is construction,
not effluent limitation adjustment. There are several important
implications of the Secondary Treatment Regulation as it applies
to specific municipal permitting issues. These issues are dis-
cussed below.
New Plant Limitations
The permitting authority must set. more stringent limits
for new facilities if an analysis of new plant performance shows
that more stringent limits (than 30/30) can be me (133J05(f)).
Recently, a wide range of designs (solids contacts channels,
covers, etc.) have been used on trickling filters to improve
their performance. This situation creates a performance dichotomy
between old trickling filters annd current state—of—the—art plants.
The regulations recognize this disparity and encourage States to
establish separate limits for new trickling filters based on
current design practices in the State. Where possible, an analysis
of similar plants in other States is the preferrred method for
establishing permit limits, where in—State data on new trickling
filters is not available. Where no performance data is available
for determining new plant capability, literature values may be used.
An upper limit of 35 mg/i BOD and TSS for new trickling
filters is suggested in the regulation. This values recognizes
the improved performance possible with new trickling filter
technology. It also provides some incentive for municipalities
to construct new trickling filters.
Calculating Permit Limits for Equivalent Secondary Facilities
In most cases the permit limits for equivalent facilties
should be selected from the 30—45 mg/i BOD and TSS “range”
established by the regulation. Obviously, not all permits will
be set at the top of range — 45 mg/l. The selection must be
based on current performance data for the last two years of
operation (at a minimum).
Where the plant performance data contains erroneous values
due to plant upsets, or other situations not associated with poor
operation or maintenance, an adjustment to the permit limit
calculation may be made. The data for the month in question may
-------
— 52 —
be adjusted by dropping the erroneous daily level and recalculating
the monthly average based on the remaining daily values. Another
alternative is to analyze monthly average values for a period
greater than 2 years and drop the monthly averages that are
erroneous due to explained upset situations. Discharge Monitoring
Report data should he used for calculations whenever possible.
The available effluent monitoring records must support the permit
limits decision for an equivalent secondary facility. Remember,
the burden of proof for performance data and demonstration of
proper operation and maintenance is the responsibility of the
municipality.
Often a trickling filter or lagoon will be combined with
another biological process (i.e., activated sludge process) in
one treatment plant. In this case, if the t:rickling filter or
lagoon qualifies for equivalent secondary limits, the permit
limits for the treatment plant can be derived by averaging
the equivalent secondary and conventional secondary treatment
limits. To accomplish this, a flow—weighted average of the pro-
cess effluent concentration limits should be calculated. This
value will be the plant outfall limitations for the permit. An
alternative to this approach is the use of internal waste stream
(Section 122.45(h)) limitations for each biological process
effluent line.
The permit writer should encourage the continued use of
existing trickling filters and lagoons, where appropriate, through
the application of appropriate equivalent secondary limits.
However, the permit writer must be sure that these facilities
are capable of meeting the proposed effluent limits without
causing water quality impacts before the permit limits can be
adjusted. If one cannot determine this, equivalent secondary
limits cannot be used in the permit.
Alternative State Requirements (ASRs)
The ASR provision of the regulation allows States the
flexibility to set permit limits above the national range (less
stringent than 45 mg/l BOD and TSS) in certain situations. Where
lagoon suspended solids requirements are already above 45 mg/i
in accordance with §133.103(c); an ASR by the State is not necessary,
unless higher limits are desired. To establish an ASR, the
State must:
1) identify a group of equivalent facilities that warrant
different permit limits (than the values contained in
Part 133) and
2) justify the higher permit limitations for these
facilities.
The group of facilities can be selected because of climatic
or geographic location, the type of technology used or any other
-------
— 53 —
supportable criteria. The analysis of plant data for the group
must be statistically sound and the method presented in Technical
Support Document must be followed. The ASR must be approved by
the EPA Region before permits can be written using the ASR values.
The public notice of a proposed ASR is the responsibility of the
State. EPA will publish approved ASRs in the Federal Register .
Carbonaceous BOD (CBOD) Limits
The EPA recognizes that the CBOD test will provide more
accurate information on treatment plant performance in many cases
However, the use of CBOD in permits should be focused on facilities
with known or suspected nitrification problems such as underloaded
and new facilities with long detention times. These conditions
favor nitrifying bacteria and can lead to erroneous BOO test results.
The final secondary regulations allow optional use of a
carbonaceous BOD 5 (CBOD 5 ) limit and test procedure in municipal
permits as a substitute for the standard 5—day BOD. This substi-
tution is totally at the discretion of the permitting authority.
Td establish a CBOD limit for an equivalent treatment facility, the
permitting authority must-have data to-show that nitrifying bac-
teria in the treatment plant are causing the BOD test results to
be inaccurate. Extensive BOD/COD comparisons should not be neces-
sary because the actual CBOD limit will be established by (1) deter-
mining the BOD limit that can be met through proper operation and
maintenance (the same process for any trickling filter or lagoon)
and (2) if the BOD limit is between 30 and 45 mg/i — the CBOD limit
is set 5 units lower (e.g., between 25 and 40 mg/l).
The EPA approved test procedures in 40 CFR Part 136 now
contain -a CBOD (nitrogen inhibited) test procedure. The CBOD
test is listed as “Parameter no. 14, Table lB t ’ in the October 26,
1984 Federal Register . If a CBOD limit is used in the permit,
the permit must specify the EPA approved CBOD test procedure
which is explained in the 15th edition of Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater .
The CBOD test can be specified for any municipal permit,
however, the BOD/CBOD relationship (5 mg/i difference) may not
apply outside the 20—45 mg/i BOD range. If CBOD limits will be
used for equivalent secondary permits above 45 mg/i (BaD), a
BOD/CBOD relationship should be established during the ASR process.
Where parallel BOD/CBOD test data are available, they must be
submitted to the EPA Regional office with the proposed Alternative
State Requirements for approval. For permit limits below 20 mg/i
(BOD), the corresponding CBOD limit should be developed during an
Advanced Treatment Review or from the wasteload allocation. Note
that use of CBOD in the permit is not a substitute for nitrogen
or ammonia limits if in—stream nit Uication or ammonia toxicity
is creating a problem.
-------
— 54 —
Construction Grants
The previous section examined the technology—based effluent
limitations with respect to municipal dischargers —— both as
originally defined and as recently redefined. In cases where a
discharger cannot meet the effluent limitations established in
their NPDES permit, it is obvious that treatment facility upgrade
or construction of new facilities is required. Where this situ-
ation arises in connection with industrial permits, the industry
is responsible for constructing the necessary treatment facili-
ties with corporate funds in a time frame .acceptable to the per-
mit writer and the permitting authority. However, in the case
of municipal facilities (POTW’s), a different funding mechanism
is available.
Section 201 of the CWA provides for “construction grants”
for municipalities. This program involves a cost—sharing arrange-
ment in which the federal government provides 55% of the cost of
the treatment facility while the local government must provide the
remaining 45% (prior to October 1,1984, the federal “share” was
75% and the local share was 25%) . It is not necessary for the
permit writer to be familiar with al-i of the intricacies of the
construction grants program, but it is important to understand
the impact of this program upon establishing limits on municipal
NPDES permits.
Statutory History
The Clean Water Act orginally established July 1, 1977, as
the statutory deadline for publicly—owned treatment works (POTWs)
to comply with both water quality—based and technology—based permit
requirements. Congress later authorized the EPA (or State) to extend
the compliance deadline for certain municipalities. In order to
receive an extension under §301(i) of the CWA, a municipality had
to apply by June 1978 and to demonstrate in its application that
construction could not be completed by the July 1, 1977 deadline,
or that the Federal government had failed to provide grants in
time to allow the POTW to meet the deadline. EPA or the State
was authorized to extend the compliance date for such POTWS to
the earliest date by which grants would be made available and
construction could be completed, but no later than July 1, 1983.
In 1981, Congress recognized the need to provide additional
time for some POTWs to achieve compliance and amended §301(i) to
allow eligible facilities additional time to comply with their
applicable effluent limits. EPA or the State is authorized to
extend the compliance date for eligible POTWs to the earliest
date by which grants are available, and construction can be
completed, but no later than July 1, 1988.
A POTW is eligible for an extension beyond 1983 only where
reductions in, the amount of financial assistance under the CWA or
changed conditions affecting the rate of construction, beyond the
-------
—55 —
control of the owner or operator, made it impossible to complete
construction by July 1, 1983. Any municipality that is not
currently in compliance with its permit requirements and has not
received a §301(i) extension, is in violation of the July 1,
1977, statutory compliance deadline. There are, however, many
§301(i) applications that have never been acted upon.
In 1981, Congress also amended other sections of the CWA to
provide significant reform and redirection to the Federal
Construction Grants Program. Congress, for example, amended §201
of the CWA to reduce both the number of categories of POTW
construction costs that are eligible for Federal funding after
September 1984, and the federal share of the total eligible costs.
These changes indicate a Congressional intent to reduce local
dependence on Federal funding assistance and to increase local
accountability for achieving compliance with the requirements of
the CWA.
Relationship of Construction Grants Program to Permit Writing
The important aspect of the construction grants program as
it applies to the permi-t, -is-the need-fora determination of the
eligibility of the POTW for federal funding to construct the
necessary treatment facilities. The effluent limitations contained
in the permits for such facilities should reflect the limits
which are required , based upon either water quality or technology.
The attainable , interim effluent limitations should be contained
as part of the compliance schedule , tied to the funding arrangements.
Permittees that are not eligible to receive such funding and
which are not in compliance with required effluent limitations
are in violation of their limits and must take corrective action.
This differentiation is clearly defined in the National Municipal
Policy.
National Municipal Policy
Because of historic and current problems with municipal com-
pliance, the EPA developed the National Municipal Policy in Jan.,
1984. The policy places renewed emphasis on improving municipal
compliance rates in order to protect the Nation’s water quality.
The policy basically reaffirms that municipalities must comply with
the statutory deadlines in the CWA, whether or not they receive
Federal funds. While the deadlines in the CWA apply to all POTWs,
the policy states that the EPA will focus its compliance efforts
on (in order of priority):
1) fully constructed POTWs that previously received
Federal funding assistance and are not currently
meeting their permit limits,
2) on all other major POTWs, and
3) on minor POTWs that are contributing significantly
to an impairment of water quality.
-------
— 56 —
The policy also recognizes that there may be extraordinary
circumstances that make it impossible for some municipalities to
comply even by 1988. In such cases, provided that the municipality
has acted in good faith, the EPA will work with the States and
the affected municipalities to establish enforceable schedules
for achieving compliance as soon as possible thereafter. These
schedules will also require such municipalities to undertake
appropriate, interim abatement measures. Nothing in the Policy
is intended to impede or delay any ongoing or future enforcement
actions. There are several principles which should be used by the
Regions and States as a guide in developing State—specific
strategies and compliance schedules for affected municipalities.
These are as follows:
1) Responsibility for compliance rests with each community
2) Funding decisions should be based on the potential for
water quality improvement
3) Special emphasis should be based on the potential for
water quality improvement
4) Special- emphasis should be placed on compliance by POTW’s
that have completed construction of the necessary treatment
facilities.
* 5) Construc’tion grant agreements must be honored, and
grant and permit schedules must be coordinated.
* 6) EPA and States should provide municipalities with as
much certainty as possible regarding applicable
permit limits prior to requiring commitments to major
capital investments.
* 7) Compliance schedules should be reasonable
* 8) Where compliance cannot be achieved promptly, POTWs
should take appropriate, interim steps toward compliance
with applicable effluent limits.
*(The municipal permit writer should be particularly aware of
items 5 through 8 above, in developing permit 1-imitations and
compliance schedules)
The National Municipal Policy establishes several steps that
non—complying municipalities must follow to reach compliance with
permit limits. The municipality must submit a Municipal Compliance
Plan (MCP) or Composite Correction Plan (CCP) to demonstrate how
and when compliance can be achieved. The compliance schedule from
the MCP or CCP (once approved by the State or EPA) is inserted in a
permit or Administrative Order (S309(a)(5)(A)). The permit writer
may be involved in permit modification to incorporate compliance
schedules as a result o E the Municipal Policy,. In general, compli-
ance schedules should be in place by the end of 1985 to ensure
that compliance can be achieved by 1988.
-------
— 57 —
Pretreatment
Another municipal permitting issue which the municipal permit
writer must be aware of is the pretreatment program. The following
sections provide a brief overview of the program. The concluding
section discusses the relationship of the pretreatment program to
the NPDES progam and the role of the municipal permit writer with
respect to the pretreatment program.
Statutory History
The discharge of industrial pollutants into municipal sewer
systems can result in water pollution and related problems at the
local wastewater treatment plant. Congress decided that the most
feasible solution to this problem is to regulate discharges from
industrial users and, where necessary, require pretreatment by
these users to remove pollutants from their wastewaters prior to
discharge into municipal sewers. The Clean Water Act focuses
pretreatment requirements on the control of toxic pollutants by
establishing pretreatment standards for industrial and commercial
dischargers in specific industrial categories determtned to be
the most significant sources of the 65 classes of toxic pollutants
referenced in Section 307(a) of the Act. In other parts of the
Act, Congress assigned the primary responsibility for enforcing
national pretreatment standards to the local publicly owned
treatment works (POTW5).
To implement this mandate, EPA first issued the General
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution
(40 CFR Part 403) on June 6, 1978. Revised regulations became
effective on March 30, 1981. The Regulations establish procedures,
responsibilities, and requirements for EPA, States, local
governments, and industry.
Objectives of the Pretreatment Regulations
There are four major problems that can be prevented through
implementation of a local pretreatment program:
(1) Interference with POTW operations : Since municipal
wastewater treatment systems are designed primarily to -
treat domestic wastes, the introduction of nondomestic
wastes may affect these systems. For example, the
bacteria in activated sludge treatment systems can be
inhibited by toxic pollutants. The result is inter-
ference with the treatment process, which means that
domestic and industrial wastes may be improperly
treated before being discharged into the receiving
stream.
-------
— 58 —
(2) Pass—through of pollutants : Even if pollutants do not
interfere with the treatment systems, they may pass
through POTW5 without being adequately treated because
the systems are not designed to remove them.
(3) Municipal sludge contamination : The removal of certain
pollutants (particularly metals) by the POTW’s treatment
system can result in contamination of its sludge. Such
contamination can limit the POTW’s sludge management
alternatives and increase the cost of appropriate sludge
disposal methods.
(4) Exposure of workers to chemical hazards : When combined
with domestic wastes, industrial wastes can produce
poisonous gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, which are
hazardous to POTW personnel.
The General Pretreatment Regulations require that any POTW
(or combination of POTWs operated by the same authority) with a
design flow greater than 5 million gallons per day (m d) must
establish a pretreatment program as a condition of its NPDES
permit. POTWswith designflows-less-than 5 mgd may also be
required to establish a pretreatment program if nondomestic wastes
cause upsets, sludge contamination, or violations of the POTW’s
NPDES permit conditions. About 1,500 of the nation’s 15,000—plus
POTWs must develop pretreatthent programs. The remaining municipal
treatment plants are not believed to be receiving industrial
wastes of concern at this time and will probably not be required
to develop pretreatment programs unless local circumstances
regarding their industrial users change.
prohibited Discharges and Categorical Standards
The General Pretreatment Regulations establish “prohibited
discharge standards” and “categorical pretreatment standards” to
control pollutant discharges into POTWs. Prohibited discharge
standards apply to all industrial and commercial establishments
connected to POTWs. Categorical pretreatment standards apply to
users in 25 specific industrial categories determined to be the
most significant sources of toxic pollutants. En addition,
POTWs are required to establish more stringent local limits where
necessary to protect the environment or the municipal sewage system.
Prohibited discharge standards protect the POTW treatment plant
and its operations by prohibiting the discharge of pollutants that:
o Create a fire or explosion hazard in the sewers or
treatment works
o Are corrosive (With a pH lower than 5.0)
o Upset the treatment pr9cesses or cause a violation
of the POTW’s discharge permit.
-------
— 59 —
o Increase the temperature of wastewater entering the
treatment plant to above 104°F (40°C).
Each categorical pretreatment standard is published by EPA
as a separate regulation. The standards contain limitations for
pollutants commonly discharged within each specific industrial
category. All firms requlated by a particular category are
required to comply with these standards, no matter where they are
located in the United States.
Relatiorishipof the Pretreatment Program to the NPDflS Program
States participate in the National Pretreatment Program
because the Federal pretreatment regulations require all States
that administer NPDES programs to develop and administer State
pretreatment programs. States with approved programs have the
responsibility of overseeing and coordinating the development of
local pretreatment programs, and approving or disapprovinq local
pretreatment program submissions. If a S€ate does not administer
a pretreatment or NPDES program, then EPA is the P pproval Authority
for local pretreatment programs. However, many States participate
in pretreatment activities even before their State program is
approved.
POTWs are notified by EPA or their State water pollution con-
trol agencies that they are required to develop local pretreatment
programs. A compliance schedule is attached to the NPDES permit
when the permit is re—issued or revised, which outlines milestones
and dates for program completion. The municipality will generally
be allowed up to a year to prepare a local program submission.
Thus, the development and implementation of a pretreatment program
is an integral and enforceable component of the POTW’s NPDES
permit. The compliance schedule requires each POTW to develop
and document the necessary authorities, information, and procedures
to implement its local program. The typical program elements
specified in the compliance schedule are:
(1) Industrial Waste Survey — the POTW must identify and
evaluate the nondomestic dischargers to its treatment
system.
(2) Legal Authority — the POTW must operate under legal
authority that will enable it to apply and enforce the
requirements of the General Pretreatment Regulations
and any other Federal, State, or local standards and
requirements needed to control nondomestic discharges.
(3) Compliance Monitoring — the POTW must develop procedures
for monitoring its industrial users to determine compliance
and noncompliance with pretreatment standards and require-
ments.
-------
— 60 —
(4) Procedures — the POTW must develop administrative
procedures to implement its pretreatment program.
(5) Resources — the POTW must have sufficient resources
(funds, equipment, and personnel) to operate an effective
and ongoing program.
The loca.l program is developed and carried out be the POTW
with guidance and assistance from EPA or from those States that
have State pretreatment authority delegated to them by EPA.
Role of the permit Writer
An NPDES State or an EPA Region will often designate an
individual or work group to serve as the pretreatment expert(s)
However, in some NPDES authorities, the reponsibility for over-
seeing a particular pretreatment program will be assigned to the
permit writer who develops the permit conditions for a POTW which
must incorporate a pretreatment program. In either case, the
permit writer must be familiar with requirements of the pretreat-
ment program since, as discussed above, they will become an inte-
gral part of the NPDES permit. -
Once the local pretreatment program has been reviewed and
approved by EPA or the State, the NPDES permit must be modified or
reissued to incorporate the approved program as an enforceable part
of the permit. The municipality must operate the local program as
outlined in the approved program document and report to EPA or the
State in accordance with the permit conditions.
-------
— 61 —
MONITORING
The previous section dealt with the selection of permit
limits. The next task of the permit writer is to establish
monitoring requirements for these limits. Monitoring is
truly the cornerstone of the NPDES program. It is the primary
means of ensuring that the permit limitations are met. It
is also the basis for enforcement actions against perniittees
who are in violation of their permit limits.
It is important to understand that monitoring in the context
of an NPDES permit is primarily carried out by the perlnittee, and
is therefore a self—monitoring program. The ideal situation would
be one in which the regulatory agency and/or an independent labora-
tory collected and analyzed samples from the permitte’s waste stream.
However, since this is not logistically or financially possible,
the burden falls to the permittee. Potential problems which can
result from a self—monitoring system include improper sample
collection, poor analytical technique, falsification of records,
and other abuses of the system.
There are- several- tools available- to the regulatory agency
to prevent or minimize these problems. Compliance monitoring
consists of periodic monitoring of a permittee’s discharge and is
conducted by the regulatory agency. If the compliance monitoring
results differ significantly from those the permittee has been
reporting, the reasons for the discrepancy should be discovered
and corrected. Facility inspections should be routinely performed
by regulatory agency personnel and should consist of a thorough
inspection of the treatment facility. This visual observation of
the site will allow the inspector to determine whether the facility
is capable of producing an effluent which will, meet its permit limits.
The facility inspection should also include an inspection of the
laboratory facilities and may involve a detailed review of the
laboratory techniques used (if the perinittee performs the tests
on site). The subject of compliance monitoring is discussed in
more detail under Chapter XIII.
Monitoring Points
An integral part of the monitoring conditions for a particular
facility are the monitoring points. The point at which a sample
is collected, can have a dramatic effect upon the monitoring
results for that facility. For example, a facility may have
several waste streams from different plant processes. The waste
stream from a particular process may contain extremely high
amounts of a particular pollutant which may reflect “poor
housekeeping”, inadequate treatment facilities, or other problems.
When diluted with other waste streams from other parts of the
plant, it may be difficult to detect the problem area. Thus, it
may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in order
to detect these problem areas. Authority to address internal
waste streams is provided in § 122.45(h) of the Regulations.
-------
— 62 —
The permit writer should determine the appropriate points for
monitoring and should specify these in the permit.
Monitoring Frequency
Factors which need to be considered when determining moni—
toring frequency include:
o Design capacity of treatment facility
o Type of treatment method utilized
o significance of the pollutants
o Cost of monitoring relative to discharger’s capabilities
State and EPA Regional offices usually recommend monitoring fre-
quencies based upon the design capacity of the treatment facility.
The following table is typical:
Plant Capacity Flow Other Parameters
0—0.099 MCD - Weekly Quarterly-
0.1—0.99 MGD Daily Monthly
1.0—4.99 MGD Record.continuously Weekly
Report daily flow
over 5.0 MGD Report continuously Daily
Report daily flow
In addition, recommended monitoring frequencies for POTW’s
include a consideration of the type of treatment method employed
(e.g. an activated sludge facility would be required to monitor
more frequently than a stabilization pond). Monitoring frequencies
should be increased if the pollutant is a particularly significant
pollutant for the water body (e.g. BOD 5 for an oxygen—limited
stream) or if it is a significant component of the producer’s waste
stream (e.g. chromium waste for a tannery).
If the cost of monitoring is significant considering the
capability of the discharger, the frequency can be decreased
(the term “significant”, in this context, can be related to the
“BAT Economic Achievablity Analysis Workbook”). This is especially
true if some other parameter will act as an indicator or surrogate
(e.g., BOD 5 acts as an indicator for the priority pollutants in
the Wood and Gum Chemicals category).
In addition to monitoring pollutants which are limited by
the permit, other parameters may be monitored to collect infor-
mation. This may be done when insufficient information exists
to set a limit, but where there is a water quality 1 concern. For
For example, a biomonitoring requirement may be set on a semi-
annual basis, even though there is no effluent limitation for
-------
— 63 —
“toxicity units”. The selection of parameters and monitoring
frequency will require judgement on the part of the permit
writer.
Useful tools for the permit writer in establishing monitoring
requirements include any general State or EPA guidance, Abstracts of
Industrial NPDES permits, information from facility inspections, and
plant performance data (DMR’s).
Types of Sampling
In addition to establishing monitoring frequencies, the
permit writer will need to determine the type of sample required.
There are basically two types of sample: “grab” and “composite”.
Grab samples, as the name implies, involve a single, discrete
sample. Where the quality of the waste stream being sampled is 1
not likely to change significantly over time, a grab sample is an
appropriate type of sample.
When the material being sampled varies significantly over
time as the flow changes, a composite sample is desirable. In this
type of sample, a number of representative samples are taken over
time (time-proportioned composite) or based upon equal volumes of
flow (flow—proportioned composite). After the samples have been
collected, they may be composited together arid analyzed as a
single sample for reporting purposes. However, the perrnittee
may also wish to analyze the individual portions of the composite
for determining trends, etc.
Three situations, and the type of sampling which would be
appropriate in each case, are illustrated below:
BOD Flow
Time Time
Case 1
o Slight daily fluctuation in pollutant concentration
and flow
o Recommendation: Grab samples (frequency dependent
upon permit writer’s judgement)
-------
— 64
BOD Flow
Ti me
Case 2
o Regular fluctuations i pollutant loading over the
course of the day
o Very slight fluctuations in flow
o Recommendation: Time—proportioned composites (e.g.
one sample per hour for 24 hours) and assign “weighting
factor” to high pollutant loadings
I (!\ ‘I
BOD Flow i \ ,,
V
Time Time
Case 3
o Irregular fluctuations in pollutant loadings over
the course of the day
o Erratic 1uctuations in flow
o Recommendation: Flow—proportioned sample (e.g.
sample triggered avery 5,000 galons)
As can be seen in Case 2, samples may be composited by
time or flow and a representative sample will be assured. How-
ever, where both flow and pollutant concentration fluctuate
dramatically, a flow—proportioned sample should be taken since
a greater quantity of pollutant will be discharged during these
periods (concentration x flow = quantity). As an alternative,
time—proportioned samples may be taken with flow records used
for “weighting” the significance of various samples.
Analytical Methods
The analytical methods which are required in conjunction
with monitoring requirements, are usually specified in the
“Standard Conditions” (see next section). It is usually suf—
ficient to require that all analyses be performed in accordance
with the following standard references:
Time
-------
— 65 —
o 40 CFR § 136, 49 FR 43250, October 26, 1980
o Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes;
EPA 600/4—79/020, 1979, Revised March, 1983
o Test Methods: Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of
Municipal arid Industrial Wastewater, EPA 600/4—82/057,
Ju1y 1982
For some parameters (paricularly biomonitoring requirements), it
may be necessary to specify the analytical methods required.
-------
— 66 —
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Overview
As stated earlier, the effluent limitations are the “heart”
of the permit. The Standard Conditions play an important sup-
porting role with respect to the actual limits since these con-
ditions delineate the legal, administrative, and procedural
requirements of the permit.
Types of Standard Conditions
Standard Conditions, sometimes called “boilerplate” conditions,
will consist of preprinted forms containing conditions which are
the same for all permits. They cover the following topics (the
portion of this document which discusses these conditions in
more detail is shown in parenthesis).
o Definitions (see Glossary)
o Testing Procedures (see Chapter III — “Monitoring”)
o Records Retention (see Chapter XIII — “Responsibilities
of the Permitee”)
o Notification Requirements (see Chapter XIII)
o Responsibilities (see Chapter XIII)
o Reopener Clause (see below)
Standard Conditions should also incorporate applicable
Federal and State statutes by reference or by recitation.
Use of the Standard Conditions helps assure uniformity and
consistency of all permits issued by a delegated State or EPA
Regional office. Standard Conditions are usually developed and
updated, as necessary, by the legal staff or upper management of
the permit issuing authority.
The permit writer needs to be aware of the contents of the
Standard Conditions, since it may often be necessary to explain
portions of these conditions to a permittee. The permit writer
should also keep abreast of any changes in the Standard Conditions,
as statutes or regulations are revised. An example set of Standard
Conditions may be found in the Appendix.
Reopener Clause
The reopener condition provides for automatically reopening an
effective NPDES permit during the term of the permit to incorporate
necessary changes to the permit limitations or conditions. The
specific circumstances which would necessitate reopening the permit
should specified in the reopener clause. It may be necessary to
reopen a permit due to external reasons, such as the promulgation
of more stringent federal effluent guidelines for a specific
-------
— 67 —
industrial category. However, it may also be desirable to reopen
a permit to incorporate changes which are applicable to a unique
situation. The latter case typically occurs when a permit writer
does not have access to all of the information which is pertinent
for establishing permit limitations at the time the permit is
drafted. An example is when an area wide wasteload allocation
study is performed due to water quality cosiderations which requires
more stringent limitations than were used in the permit.
In any situation which is “triggered” by a reopener clause,
the permit is modified to incorporate the appropriate change.
There are numerous other causes for modification of a permit.
This topic is discussed in more detail in Chapter XII.
-------
— 68 —
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Overview
Special conditions, as the name implies, are those conditions
which are developed for the specific permit under consideration.
They are not included in the effluent limitations section, since
they do not contain specific limits. Rather, they require that
the permittee undertake particular activities which are usually
designed to reduce the quantity of pollutants being discharged or
reduce the potential for discharge.
They may include additional monitoring activities,
which will alert the permit writer to the need to impose more
stringent limitations at a future date, if warranted. They may
also include a clause to increase or decrease monitoring, depending
upon the monitoring results or certain changes in processes or
products, etc. Three of the most common types of special conditions
are:
o Compliance Schedules
o Biomonitoring
o Best Management Practises
The permit writer should not feel constrained to restrict
Special Conditions to these three categories; however, these
three will be discussed in detail.
Compliance Schedules
Compliance schedules often involve construction of facilities
and are sometimes called construction schedules . These schedules
are usually negotiated with the discharger and assure that he
will come into compliance with the final permit limitations within
a realistic timeframe. Occasionally, the schedule includes
completion of engineering studies. Sometimes the remainder of
the schedule can be completed only after the study is completed.
Sometimes the schedule may entail installation of monitoring
equipment, or may otherwise be integrated with the BMP.
For POTW’s, compliance schedules requiring the construction
of additional pollution control facilities to meet more strin-
gent permit conditions, is often tied to the “constuction grants”
program. This program is authorized by Section 201 of the Act,
and involves federal funding of a proportionate share of the cost
of the new or upgraded facilities in certain cases. Privately—
owned treatment facilities (i.e., industrial facilities) are not
eligible for these funds.
Biomonitoring
The subject of Biomonitoring is discussed in Chapter III —
“Water Quality Considerations t ’.
-------
— 69 —
Best Management Practises
Best Management Practices or BMPs are measures to prevent
or mitigate water pollution from sources ancillary to the
industrial manufacturing or treatment process. BMPs are broad
and may include processes, procedures, human actions or
construction. In essence, they are anything a plant manager,
department foreman, environmental engineer, consultant or
employee may identify as a method to abate water pollution.
They may inexpensive, such as a liquid level alarm in a material
transfer operation, or they may be costly, such as secondary
containment around a tank farm. In short, BMPs can be just
about anything that does the job — the job of preventing toxic
pollutants or hazardous substances from damaging the aquatic
environment.
Experience has shown that three quarters of all spills of
hazardous chemicals can be attributed, in one way or another,
to human error. Improper procedures, lack of training and poor
engineering are among the major causes of spills. BMPs are
aimed at preventing spills and similar environmental incidents
by stressing the importance of management and employee awareness
of potential spill situations.
Traditionally, NPDES Permits have contained chemical—
specific, numerical effluent limits. Effluent guidelines are
not always available to prescribe these limits nor to guarantee
water quality sufficient for the protection of indigenous aquatic
life. To improve water quality, the Clean Water Act (CWA)
provides for water pollution controls supplemental to effluent
limitation guidelines.
Best Management Practices are one such supplemental control.
Pursuant to Sections 304 and 402 of the CWA, BMP5 may be incor-
porated as permit conditions. In the context of the NPDES
program, BMPs are actions or procedures to prevent or minimize
the potential for the release of toxic pollutants or hazardous
substances in significant amounts to surface waters. BMPs,
although normally qualitative, are expected to be most effective
when used in conjunction with numerical effluent limits in
NPDES permits.
BMPs in NPDES Permits
BMPs are placed in permits in two basic ways: BMP plans and
site or pollutant—specific BMPs. Site—specific BMPs may be
imposed as specific conditions of the BMP plan or as independent
provisions of the permit. BMP plans are usually kept on—site
and made available to the permitting authority on request. The
normal compliance schedule is to require preparation of the
plan within six months and implementation within twelve months
of permit issuance. Nine specific requirements have been
identified as a basis for developing BMP plans in the NPDES
program. Site—specific or pollutant—specific BMPs are left to
-------
— 70 —
the discretion of the permit writer and are highly dependent on
a careful review of the circumstances at a particular facility.
The minimum requirements of a BMP plan are presented below.
Minimum Requirements of a BMP Plan
1. General Requirements
o Name and location of facility
o Statement of BMP policy and objective
o Review by plant manager
2. Specific Requirements
o BMP committee
o Risk identification and assessment
o Reporting of BMP incidents
o Materials compatibility
o Good housekeeping
o Preventive maintenance
o Inspections and records
o Security
o Employee training
BMP Committee
The BMP committee is that group of individuals within the
plant organization which is responsible for developing the BMP
plan and assisting the plant management in its implementation,
maintenance and updating. Thus, the committee’s functions are
similar to those of a plant fire prevention or safety committee.
Plant management, not the committee, has overall responsibility
and accountability for the quality of the BMP plan.
The scope of activities and responsibilities of the BMP
committee should include all aspects of the Eacility’s BMP
plan, such as identification of toxic and hazardous materials
addressed in the plan; identification of potential spill sources;
establishment of incident reporting procedures; development of
BNIP inspections and records procedures, review of environmental
incidents to determine and implement necessary changes to the
BMP plan; coordination of incident notification, response, and
dean—up procedures; establishment of BMP training programs
for plant personnel; and aiding interdepartmental coordination
in carrying out the BMP plan.
Risk Identification and Assessment
The areas of the plant subject to EMP requirements should
be identified by the BMP committee, plant engineering group,
environmental engineer or others in the plant. Each such area
should be examined for the potential risks of discharges to
receiving waters of toxic pollutants or hazardous substances
from ancillary sources. Any existing physical means (dikes,
-------
— 71 —
diversion ditches, etc.) of controlling such discharges also
should be identified.
A hazardous substances and toxic chemicals inventory
(materials inventory) should be developed as part of the risk
identification and assessment. The level of detail of the
materials inventory should be proportionate to the quantity of
toxic pollutants and hazardous substances on site and their
potential for reaching the receiving waters.
Reporting of BMP Incidents
A BMP incident reporting system is used to keep records of
incidents such as spills, leaks, runøff and other improper dis-
charges for the purpose of minimizing recurrence, expediting
mitigation or cleanup activities, and complying with legal
requirements. Reporting procedures defined by the BMP committee
should include: notification of a discharge to appropriate
plant personnel to begin immediate action; formal written reports
for review and evaluation by management of the BMP incident and
revisions to the BMP plan; and notification, as required by law,
of government and environmental agencies.
Materials Compatibility
Materials compatibility includes the consideration of:
compatibility of the chemicals being stored with the container
materials; compatibility of different chemicals upon mixing in a
container; and compatability of the container with its environment.
The BMP plan should provide procedures to address these three
aspects in the design and operation of the equipment used for the
storage or transfer of toxic and hazardous materials.
Incompatible materials can cause equipment failure resultinq
from corrosion, fire or explosion. Equipment failure can be
prevented by ensuring that the hazardous substances or toxic
pollutants are compatible with the container contents and the
surrounding environment.
Good Housekeeping
Good housekeeping is the maintenance of a clean, orderly
work environment and contributes to the overall facility pollution
control effort. Periodic training of employees in housekeeping
techniques for those plant areas where the potential exists for
BMP incidents reduces the possibility of mishandling of chemicals
or equipment.
Examples of good housekeeping include neat and orderly
storage of bags, drums and piles of chemicals; prompt cleanup of
spilled liquids to prevent significant runoff to surface waters;
sweeping, vacuuming or other clean—up of accumulations of dry
chemicals as necessary to prevent them from reaching receiving
waters; and provision for storage of containers•or drums to keep
them from protruding into open walkways or pathways.
-------
— 72 —
Preventive Maintenance
An effective preventive maintenance (PM) program is
important to prevent environmental incidents. A PM program
involves inspection and testing of plant equipment and systems
to uncover conditions which could cause breakdowns or failures
with resultant significant discharges of chemicals to surface
waters. The program should prevent breakdowns and failures by
adjustment, repair or replacement of items.
A PM program should include a suitable records system for
scheduling tests and inspections, recording test results and
facilitating corrective action. Most plants have PM programs
which provide a degree of environmental protection. A BMP plan
should not require the development of a redundant PM program.
Instead, the plan should reinforce the objective to have
qualified plant personnel (e.g., BMP committee, maintenance
foreman or environmental engineer) evaluate the existing plant
PM program and recommend to management those changes, if any,
needed to address BMP requirements.
A good PM program includes: identification of equipment
or systems to which the PM program should apply; periodic
inspections or tests of identified eguipment and systems;
appropriate adjustment, repair, or replacement of items; and
maintenance of complete PM records on the applicable equipment
and systems.
Inspections and Records
An inspection and records system detects and documents
actual or potential BMP incidents. The BMP plan should include
written inspection procedures and optimum intervals between
inspections. Records to show the completion date and results
of each inspection should be signed by the appropriate supervisor
and maintained for a period of three years. A tracking or
follow—up procedure should be instituted to assure that adequate
response and corrective action have been taken. The record—
keeping portion of this system can be combined with the existing
spill reporting system in the plant.
The inspection and records system should include those
equipment and plant areas having the potential for significant
discharges. To determine the inspection frequency and inspection
procedures, experienced personnel should evaluate the causes of
previous incidents, the likelihood of future incidents, and assess
the probable risks for incident occurrence or recurrence. Consider-
ation should be given to the nature of chemicals handled, materials
of construction, and site—specific factors including age, inspection
techniques and cost effectiveness of BMPs employed.
Security
A security system prevents accidental or intentional entry
to a plant which might result in vandalism, theft, sabotage or
other improper or illegal use of plant facilities that could
-------
— 73 —
cause a BMP incident. Most plants have security systems to
prevent unauthorized entry.
The BMP plan should describe those portions of the existing
security system and any improvements which are necessary to ensure
that toxic chemicals are not discharged to receiving waters in
significant quantities as a result of unauthorized entry. Docu-
mentation of the security system may require separate filing from
the BMP plan to prevent unauthorized individuals from gaining
access to sensitive or confidential information.
Employee Training
Employee training programs should instill in personnel, at
all levels of responsibility, a complete understanding of the
BMP plan. Training should address the processes and materials on
the plant site, the safety hazards, the practices for preventing
discharges, and the procedures for responding properly and rapidly
to toxic and hazardous materials incidents.
Meetings should be conducted at least annually to assure
adequate understanding of the objectives of the BMP plan and the
individual responsibilities of each employee. Typically, these
could be a part of routine employee meetings for safety or fire
protection. Such meetings should highlight previous spill events
or failures, malfunctioning equipment, and new or modified BMP5.
Training sessions should review the BMP plan and associated
procedures. Just as fire drills are used to improve an employee’s
reaction to a fire emergency, spill or environmental incident
drills may serve to improve the employee’s reactions to BMP—related
incidents. Plants are encouraged to conduct spill drills on a
quarterly or semi—annual basis. Spill or incident drills serve to
evaluate the employee’s knowledge of BMP—related procedures and
are a fundamental part of employee training.
Site—Specific of Pollutant—Specific BMPs
Site—specific and pollutant—specific BMP5 are those designed
to address conditions peculiar to a facility or pollutant. The
need for specific BMPs at a facility often will be discovered
in conjunction with other permit—related activities, such as
compliance inspections. Poor housekeeping or a history of spills,
for example, indicate a need for site—specific BMPs to supplement
the quantitative effluent limits on specific pollutants in the
permit. These “situation—specific” BMPs may be conventional, such
as secondary containment around a storage tank or innovative, such
as siting containers so that a spill caused by a careless forklift
operator will not flow into the river. Other examples of site—
specific BMP5 are contained in recent NPDES permits:
-------
— 74 —
CHAPTER IV: VARIANCES
VARIANCES
Ove rv jew
In addition to specifying national goals for water pollution
control, the Clean Water Act provides a mechanism for modification
of requirements of the Act in exceptional cases. These modifications
are called “ variances” . There are very specific provisions which
must be met by an applicant before a variance may be granted. As
the term implies, a variance is the unusual situation, and thus
the permit writer should not expect to routinely receive variance
requests. Nevertheless, the permit writer should be aware of the
major types of variances and the basic requirements for each,
since he will most likely be the person to conduct the initial
reviews of such requests before submitting them for the review of
the State Director (if applicable), the EPA Regional office, and
EPA headquarters. The permit writer should consult § 124.62 of
the Regulations for the procedures for decisions on the various
types of variances.
A variance request must ordinarily be submitted before the
close of the public comment period. The numbers associated
with the variances described below (except FDF) are the cor-
responding section of the Clean Water Act which provide for
the variance. In each case, a definition of the variance and
the factors which should be considered in a technical review of
the variance request, are provided.
Economic (301(c )
Definitions:
Section 301(c) provides for a variance for non—conventional
pollutants from BAT effluent guidelines due to economic factors.
The variance may also apply to non—guideline limits in accordance
with § 122.21(l)(2)(iii) of the Regulations. The request for
the variance from effluent limitations developed from BAT guide-
lines is normally filed by the discharger during the public notice
period for the draft permit. Other filng time periods may apply
as specified in S 122.21(l)(2). The application must. show that
the modified requirements:
1) represent the maximum use of technology within the
economic capability of the owner of operator; and
2) will result in further progress toward the “no discharge
goal”.
Considerations for Technical Review of Requests:
The methodologies for determining economic capability for
regulated and unregulated industries differ. Regulated industries
are those in which Public Utility Commissions (PtJCs) set the
firm’s rate of return, such as the electric utility industry.
-------
— 75 —
Regulated firms should perform two financial calculations. EPA
generally will grant a variance only if both tests indicate that
the pollution control equipment is not economically achievable
and the applicant can demonstrate reasonable further progress.
Most firms are unregulated. Unregulated firms should
calculate three financial tests to determine if they are eligible
on economic grounds for a Section 301(c) variance. Guidance for
conducting these financial tests is available from EPA’s Office
of Water Enforcement and Permits. EPA generally will grant a
variance only if all three tests indicate that the required
pollution control is not economically achievable and the applicant
makes the requisite demonstration about reasonable further progress.
With respect to the second requirement for a 301(c) modification
(“reasonable further progress toward the no—discharge goal”), the
applicant must at a minimum demonstrate compliance with all
applicable BPT limitations and pertinent water quality standards.
In addition, the proposed alternative must provide for a reasonable
degree of improvement in the applicant’s discharge.
Water Quality (301(9 )
De f i n i t ion:
Section 301(9) provides for a variance for non-conventional
pollutants from BAT effluent guidelines due to localized
environmental factors. They may also apply to non—guideline
limits in accordance with § 122.21(1)(2)(iii) of the Regulations.
The discharger must file a variance application which meets the
following requirements:
1) The modified requirements must result in compliance with: (a)
BPT or pretreatment guidelines; or (b) water quality standards
of the receiving stream;
2) No additional treatment will be required of other point or
non—point source dischargers as a result of the variance
approval; and
3) The modified requirements will not interfere with attainment
or maintenance of water quality to protect public water
supplies, protection and propagation of a balanced population
of shellfish, fish, and wildfowl, and allow recreational
activities in and on the water. Also, the modified requirements
will not result in quantities of pollutants which may resonably
be anticipated to pose an unacceptable risk to human health
or the environment, acute or chronic toxicity, or synergistic
properties.
Consideration for Technical Review of Requests
The permit writer should review the request to ensure that
it complies with-each of the requirements for this type of variance.
-------
— 76 —
This variance request involves a great deal of water quality assess-
ment, including aquatic toxicity, mixing zone and dilution model
analysis, and possible site—specific criterion development. In
addition, many complex human health effects must be assessed in-
cluding carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, mutagenicity, bioaccumu—
lation, and synergistic propensities. All permit writers should
should use the EPA draft 301(g) technical guidance manual to assist
them in assessing a completed variance request.
If the discharger applies for a variance under Section
301(g), the discharger is only eligible to apply for a variance
under 301(c) during the same time period as 301(g). Typical
industries that have appled for 301 (g) variances include: Iron
and Steel, Steam Electric, Inorganic Chemicals. Non—ferrous Metals,
Aluminum’ Forming, and Pesticides.
Innovative Technology (301(k )
Definition:
Section 301(k) provides for an extension of the deadline
for compliance with BAT deadlines until 7/1/87 if a direct dis-
charger of toxic and nonconventional pollutants meets the follow-
ing criteria:
1) Uses an innovative production process that will result in an
effluent reduction greater than required.
2) Installs an innovative control technique that is likely to
reduce the effluent below required levels.
3) Achieves the required BAT effluent limits with an innovative
system which is expected to cost significantly less.
4) This system must also have the potential for industry—wide
application.
Considerations for Technical Review of Requests:
In reviewing 301(k) variance request, the permit writer
should consider whether a treatment technology or production
process is truly innovative. There is no definitive cut—off date
for the length of time a technology might be considered innovative.
However, a technology, would generally cease to be considered
innovative after it had operated at full scale in a commercial
plant for a full cycle of the plant’s operations.
In addition, a review of the variance request should include
an evaluation of whether the innovative technology is likely to
perform significantly better than BAT or at significantly lower
costs. Finally, the request must show that the innovative
technology has the potential for industry—wide application. This
is defined as being applicable to two or more facilities in one
or more industrial category.
-------
— 77 —
Fundamentally Different Factors
Definition:
Part 175, Subpart. D of the Re ulatioris provides for variances
based upon Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF). FDF vari-
ances for direct dischargers are available from effluent guidelines
regulations for BPT, BCT, and BAT for toxic, conventional, and
non—conventional pollutants if the individual facility is found
to be fundamentally different from the factors considered in estab—
lishing the effluent guidelines Approval of an FDF variance can
result in an effluent limitation which is either more or less
stringent for a particular discharger than would result from appli-
cation of national effluent guidelines. The FDF variance may be
requested by the discharger or proposed by the permit writer or
any other interested parties. An FDF variance cannot be approved
if violations of water quality standards will result.
Considerations for Technical Review of Requests:
Factors needed to justify a variance of this type include
factors relating to a discharger’s facilities, equipment, and
processes which differ from those considered in the subctegory
classification in the effluent guidelines. The review/proposal
of an FDF variance is completed on a case—by—case basis. The
burden of proof lies with the entity requesting the variance.
If the variance is requested by a discharger, standard permit
review procedures and variance application procedures (as described
in the “overview” section) should be uti1iz d. If the permit
writer determines that an FDF’ variance is warranted and not
applied for, the rationale should be developed by the permit
writer. The rationale should be discussed with the permit
applicant prior to forwarding of the draft permit to the State
and discharger. Approval by the Regional Administrator and
concurrence by the Director, Office of Wat ’ r Permits and Enforcement
is required.
-------
— 78 —
CHAPTER V: FACT SHEET
FACT SHEET
Overview
A fact sheet is a document which briefly sets forth the
principle facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological
and policy questions considered in preparing the draft permit.
The Fact Sheet requirements are described in § l24.8 and 124.56
of the Regulations.
Components
A fact sheet should contain the following elements:
1. A brief description of the type of facility
2. The type and quantity of wastes discharged
3. For a PSD permit, the degree of increment consumption
expected to result from operation of the facMity
4. A brief summary of the basis for the draft permit
cond it ions
5. Reasons why any requested variances do not appear
justified
6. A description of the procedures for reaching a f 1 nal
decision on the draft permit including:
a) The dates of the public comment period
and the address where comments will be
received
b) Procedures for requesting a hearing
c) Any other public participation procedures
7. Name and telephone number of as person to contact for
additional information
8. Provisions satisfying the requirements of Section 124.56
of the Regulations:
a) Explanation of derivation of effluent
limitations
b) Explanation of any conditions applicable
to toxics, internal waste streams or
indicator pollutants
c) A sketch or detailed description of the
location of the discharge
-------
— 79 —
d) For EPA — issued permits, the requirements
of any State certification
When is a Fact Sheet needed ?
The NPDES regulations ( 124.8(a)) require that a Fact
Sheet be prepared for every major NPDES permit, for every NPDES
permit which incorporates a variance, or requires an explanation
under §124.56(b) (toxic pollutants, internal waste stream, indicator
pollutants and for privately owned waste treatment facilities),
for every NPDES general permit, and for every permit that the
Director finds is the subject of widespread interest or which
raises major issues.
In addition to the legal requirements, there is a second
reason for developing a fact sheet which may be even more important.
When the permit being issued expires in up to 5 years, the entire
permit issuance procedure will have to he repeated. Without a
well documented rationale, much of the work will have to be redone
and/or there will be conjecture arid guessing as to the development
of the permit. This is also true if a modification is initiated
during the life of the permit.
While the Fact Sheet requires a brief summary of the basis,
a more extensive permit rationale usually ought to be developed
for the files (the permit writer is encouraged to include an
extensive permit rationale in the fact sheet “statement of basis”
portion, if challenges to the permit are expected). A permit ration-
ale could be as short as 2—3 pages for a relatively simple permit
or as long as 10—20 pages for an extremely complicated permit
(e.g., several discharge points, BPJ determinations, etc.)
What is included in the “basis” portion of a Fact Sheet ?
In the “basis” portion of the Fact Sheet (Item #4 on the
previous page) or in a permit rationale, each pollutant which is
limited should be included in the Fact Sheet. For each pollu-
tant the following questions should be answered:
o Why the limitations were established at their levels
o What sort of limitations they are (i.e. effluent guidelines
water quality, or BPJ)
o Whether the effluent guidelines used were BPT, BCT, or BAT
o Which water quality standards or criteria were used
o Whether any pollutants were indicators for other pollutants
o Citations to appropriate wasteload allocation studies,
guidance documents, etc.
If a separate rationale is prepared, the above items should
be more extensive than the minimum amount recommended for a Fact
-------
— 80 —
Sheet. Remember, the Fact Sheet only requires a summary of the
principle facts. In addition, a discussion of the rationale and
calculations for the development of the effluent limitations and
permit conditions should be included. If production—based limits
are involved, the production level must be given and calculations
and rationale used in determining the production level should be
presented. It should be noted, at this point, that the permit
writer is advised to consult the regulations with respect to
confidentiality ( 122.7). Occaisionally, additional production
information, beyond that which is normally required in the permit
application, will be required to establish permit limitations for
a particular facility. En addition, production data for a faci-
lity which is not covered by a guideline may be required to draft
permit limits. In such cases, the permittee may claim that such
information is confidential, and therefore that it should not
appear in documents available to the public, such as the fact
sheet. Such claims should be carefully evaluated in cooperation
with the legal staff of the permitting authority in order to
determine whether the provisions under § 122.7 apply.
Often it is as important to keep a record of items which
were not included in the draft permit, such as the following:
o Why was BPJ or effluent guidelines used instead of water
quality—based limitations? (i.e. were the limitations
checked to see that water quality considerations did
not govern the setting of permit limit?)
o Why was biomonitoring not included?
o Why were pollutants, which were reported on Form 2C, not
specifically limited in the permit?
o Why is a previously limited pollutant no longer limited
in the draft permit?
To summarize, the permit writer should be aware of the legal
requirement to prepare a fact sheet for major facilities, those
with widespread interest, and for permits which incorporate
unusual elements (variances etc.). The basis portion of the
fact sheet is the most important part of the fact sheet and
should be expanded for the benefit of the permanent file (permit
rationale). In addition to the minimum legal requirement
to develop fact sheets for certain permits, it is highly
recommended that the State permit writer document the permit
rationale for every permit. (EPA permit writers are required
to prepare a “statement of basis’ t (section 124.) briefly
describing the derivation of permit limits, for every permit
for which a fact sheet is not required).
-------
— 81 —
CHAPTER VI: PUBLIC NOTICE
PUBLIC NOTICE
Overv jew
The public notice is the vehicle for informing all interested
parties and members of the general public of the contents of a
draft NPDES permit or of other significant actions with respect
to an NPDES permit or permit application. The basic intent of
this requirement is to ensure that permitting decisions are
not made in a “vacuum” and that all interested parties have an
opportunity to comment on significant agency actions with respect
to a permit application or a permit. The statutory basis for
the public notice process may be found in Section 124.10 of the
Regulations and describes the various aspects of this requirement.
What type of Actions must receive public notice ?
The following types of actions must receive public notice:
1. Tentative denial of an NPDES permil- application
(not necessarily applicable to State programs)
2. Preparation of a draft NPDES permit
3. Scheduling of a hearing
4. Granting an appeal of an EPA—issued permit under
Section 124.74 of the Regulations
The permit writer should be primarily concerned with Items
1,2, and 3 above. It is important to note that no public notice
is required when a request for a permit modification, revocation,
reissuance, or termination is denied.
When must a public notice be given ?
Public notice of the preparation off the draft permit (including
a notice of intent to deny a permit application) must allow at
least 30 days for public comment. The draft permit is usually
submitted for public notice after it has undergone internal
review by the regulatory agency that is issuing the permit.
State—issued permits will typically undergo public notice after
EPA has reviewed and commented on the draft permit. In the
special case of those EPA—issued permits which require an Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS), public notice is not given until
after a draft ETS is issued.
Methods Applicable to the Public Notice Process
Public notice of the various NPDES-related activites which
require the public notice process is given by several methods:
-------
— 82 —
1) Publication of a notice in daily or weekly newspaper
within the area affected by the facility or activity.
In addition, for permits issued by EPA, publication in
the Federal Register is required.
2) Direct mailing to various interested parties. This mail-
ing list should include the following:
o The applicant
o Any other agency which is required to issue a RCRA, IJIC,
PSD, or AOA permit for the same facility
o All appropriate government authorities (“sister agencies,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, National Marine Fisheries
Service, neighboring states etc.)
o Users identified in the permit application of a privately
owned treatment works
Contents of the Public Notice
A public notice should contain certain basic information
including the following:
1. Name and address of the office processing the permit
action.
2. Name and address of the permittee or applicant and, if
different, of the facility -egulated by the perm i.t.
3. A brief description of the business conducted at the
facility
4. Name, address, and telephone number of a contact from
whom interested persons can obtain additional information.
5. A brief description of the comment procedures required.
6. For EPA—issued permits, the location and availability
of the administrative record.
7. Any additio’rtal information considered necessary.
-------
— 83 —
CHAPTER VII: PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Overv jew
Public notice of a draft permit may elicit coniment from
concerned individuals or agencies. This is especially true if
the draft permit is controversial or of widespread interest.
Frequently, such comments are simply requests for additional
information. However, some comments are of a substantive nature
and suggest modifications to the draft permit or indicate
that the draft permit is inappropriate for various reasons. In
such cases, those parties providing comments must submit all
reasonable arguments and factual material in support of th ir
positions (Note: Coutmenters will only be able to submit reason-
able arguments and factual material if the permit writer’s
approach is clearly stated in the fact sheet).
An interested party may also request a public hearing (see
discussion under “Public Hearing. To the extent possible, it is
desirable to respond to all public comments as quickly as possible.
In some cases it-may be possible to “defuse” a potentially -
controversial situation by providinq furth r explanation of permit
terms and conditions. It is also good public relations to inform
parties who provide public comments that their comments have been
received and are being considered.
The regulatory agency is obliged to respond to all written
comments (in accordance with Section 124.17 of the Regulations)
at the time a final permit decision is reacht d (in the case of
EPA—issued permits) or at the time a final permit is actually issued
(in the case of State—issued permits). The response should incorporate
the following elements:
1) Changes in any of the provisions of the draft
permit and the reasons for the changes
2) Description and response to all significant comments
on the draft permit which were raised during the
public comment period or during any hearing.
Reopening of the Public Comment Period
In the event that any information submitted during the public
comment period raises substantial new questions about the draft
permit, on of the following actions may occur (if any of these
actions are taken, public notice as described earlier must be given):
1) A new draft permit is prepared
2) A revised fact sheet or statement of basis is prepared
3) The comment period is reopened (but is limited only to
new findings)
-------
— 84 —
CHAPTER VIII: PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING
When is a public hearing held ?
A public hearing may be requested in writing by any interested
parties. The request should state the nature of the issues
proposed to be raised during the hearing. However, a request for
a hearing does not automatically necessitate that a hearing be
held. A public hearing should be held when there is a significant
amount of interest expressed during the 30—day public comment
period or when it is necessary to clarify the issues involved in
the permit decision.
Thus, the decision of whether or not to hold a public hearing
is actually a “judgement call”. Such decisions are usually made
by someone other than the permit writer. However, the permit
writer will be responsible for ensuring that all of the factual
information in support of the draft permit is well documented.
Public Notice of Public Hearing
Public notice of a public hearing-must be given at least
30 days prior to the public meeting (Public notice of the hearing
may be given at the same time as public notice of the draft permit
and the two notices may be combined).
The public notice of the hearing should contain the following
information:
1) Reference to the date of the public notice relating to
the permit.
2) Date, time, and place of the hearing.
3) Brief description of the nature and purpose of the
hearing, including the applicable rules and procedures.
Contents of Public Hearing
A Presiding Officer is responsible for the hearing’s scheduling
and orderly conduct. Anyone may submit written or oral comments
concerning the draft permit at the hearing. The Presiding Officer
should set reasonable time linlits for oral statements. The
public comment period may be extended by so stating during the
hearing.
-------
— 85 —
CHAPTER IX: FINAL PERMIT ISSUANCE
FINAL PERMIT ISSUANCE
The final permit may be issued after the close of the public
notice period and after State certification has been received
(for permits issued by EPA). The public notice period includes:
o the 30—day period which gives notice of int nt to issue
or deny the permit
o the 30—day period advertising a public hearing (if
applicable)
o any extensions or reopening of the comment period
Final EPA permit decisions are effective immediately upon
issuance unless comments request changes in the draft permit 1 in
which case the effective date of the permit is 30 days after
issuance (or a later date if specified in the permit). As dis-
cussed earlier under “Public Comments,” any comments that are
received must be answered at the time of final permit issuance
(in the case of delegated States) or after a final decision is
reached in the case of EPA.
Once the final permit has been issued, th issuing authority
should integrate the permit limitations and any special conditions
into the agency’s tracking system. This will ensure that facility’s
performance will be tracked and the agency will be alerted to the
need for corrective action in the event of violations of the
permit limitations or special conditions.
-------
— 86 —
CHAPTER X: ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Importance of the Administrative Record
The administrative record is the foundation upon which the
issuance of a permit rests. If EPA is the issuer, the administrative
record is required by regulation (S124.9 and §124.18). All sup-
porting materials must be made available to the public, whether
a State or EPA issues the permit. The importance of maintaining the
permit records in a neat, orderly, complete and retrievable form can-
not be over emphasized. The record allows personnel from the regu-
latory agency to reconstruct the justification for a given permit.
It also must be made available to the public and may be examined
during the public comment period and any subsequent public hearing.
Developing the Record
The record for a draft permit consists, at a minimum, of certain
specific documents, namely:
1) The application and supporting data
2) The draft permit
3) The statement of basis or fact sheet
4) All items cited in the statement of basis or fact
sheet, including calculations used to derive the
permit limits
5) All other items in the supporting file
The requirement for the inclusion of the fact sheet in the
administrative record is applicable to State NPDES programs. EPA
prepares a statement of basis for every draft permit for which it
is Responsible.
Materials that are readily available in the issuing Rec ional
Office, or published material that is generally available need
not be physically included with the record as long as it is
specifically referred to in the statement of basis or fact sheet.
If a separate, detailed permit rationale has been prepared, it
should be referenced. For new source draft permits only, the
administrative record requires the inclusion of any environmental
impact statement or environmental assessment.
The last listed category above includes such items as meeting
reports and correspondence with the applicant and correspondence
with other regulatory agency personnel. In addition, trip re-
ports and telephone memos are included in the record. These
reports must be complete and clear. Standard report forms should
be used when available. If the reports are fairly short, they can
be handwritten provided they are neat and legible. This applies
also to calculations and sketches.
All correspondence, notes, and calculations must show the
date and the name of the writer as well as all other persons
involved. Since correspondence is subject to public scrutiny,
-------
— 87 —
references or comments that do not serve an objective purpose
should be avoided. Finally, when performing calculations or
documenting decisions, they should be presented in such a way
that they can be reconstructed and the logic behind the decisions
or calculation can easily be seen. It is actually better to be
redundant in these cases. Decisions or calculations which are
used as part of the development of the statement of basis or
fact sheet are very important in that they may be needed to
defend the fact sheet or the statement of basis.
The record for the final permit consists of the record for
the draft permit, all comments received on the draft permit
and any responses, the transcript of any hearing held, and any
written material received at the hearing.
-------
— 88 —
CHAPTER XI: LEGAL CHALLENGES TO A FINAL PERMIT
LEGAL CHALLENGES TO A FINAL PERMIT
Overv jew
In the process of developing a draft permit and during the
public notice period, the permit writer should carefully consider
the legitimate concerns of the permittee as well as the concerns of
any third party who may have an interest in the permit terms and con-
ditions. However, there will inevitably be situations in which a
permit is issued in spite of the objections of the permittee or a
third party. In such instances, the permittee or an interested
party may choose to legally contest the NPDES permit.
There are various mechanisms available to resolve legal
challenges to NPDES permits. In the case of EPA—issued permits,
the administrative procedure involved is called an evidentiary
hearing . Many delegated States also have administrative procedures
designed to resolve challenges to the conditions of a permit.
These procedures involve hearings presided over by an administrative
officer. For the sake of convenience, these hearings will be
referred to as “evidentiary hearings” in the following discussion.
They will naturally be known by different names in different
states. •Uowever, any permit writer who is involved in a legal
challenge to an NPDES permit will need to be concerned with issues
which are similar to those discussed below.
Role of the Permit Writer
Aside from preparation of the Administrative Record and
notices, the permit writer need not concern himself with
procedural matters relating to evidentiary hearings. All
requests for evidentiary hearings are coordinated through the
office of the EPA Regional Counsel or th appropriate State
legal personnel. The permit writer’s first involvement with
the hearing process will come as a result of designation of the
trial staff and his role will be limited to that of a witness
and technical advisor to legal counsel.
The permit writer should not concern himself with the
legal defense of a permit or permit conditions, but should be
familiar with those laws, regulations, and policies which may
affect the permit. He should be thoroughly familiar with the
technical basis for the permit conditions. For example, if the
effluent limits are based on water quality requirements, the permit
writer should thoroughly study any applicable basin plan or water
quality simulation used to develop the effluent limits, and be
prepared to defend any assumptions inherent in the plan or
simulation.
If BPJ limits are based on proposed effluent gu delines,
it will be necessary to carefully review not only the guidelines
themselves, but all applicable data, including the development
document for the specific guidelines.
-------
— 89 —
Technical defense of other BPJ requirements is much more
difficult. The permit writer should be sure that (a) the
information on which BPJ limits are based are unimpeachable;
(b) the limits were derived from the data in a logical manner,
in accordance with established procedures; and (c) the BPJ
limits so derived are technically sound and meet BCT/BAT
standards for economic reasonableness.
As technical advisor to legal counsel, the permit writer’s
most important function is to develop direct testimony in
support of defensible (but contested) permit conditions. No
attempt should be made to support technically indefensible
conditions. If such a condition is based on legal reciuirements
rather than technical concerns, it is the Attorney’s responsibility
to provide support. However, since the legal counsel may not
be thoroughly familiar with particular regulations or sections
of law, it is appropriate for the permit writer to bring such
items to counsel’s attention. Contested permit conditions
which are not technically defensible and are not based on any
legal requirement, should be brought to counsel’s attention,
with advice that EPA- or the state agency should withdraw those
conditions.
The second most important advisory function of the permit
writer is assisting counsel in the development of questions for
cross—examination of the opposing witnesses. Questions should
be restricted to the subject material covered by the witness’
direct testimony, and should be designed to elicit an affirmative
or negative response, rather than an essay—type response. If a
question must be phrased in such a way that the witness could
attempt lengthly explanations, counsel should be forewarned.
Finally, the permit writer should remember that in requesting
an evidentiary hearing the perinittee has declared an adversary
relationship with the regulatory agency, and he must refrain
from discussions about the case without prior consultation with
legal counsel. In the role of witness and/or technical advisor
the permit writer should:
o Cultivate credibility
o Never imply or admit weakness in his area of expertise
o Never attempt to testify about subjects outside his
area of expertise
o Always maintain communication with counsel
-------
— 90 —
CHAPTER XII: PERMIT MODIFICATION, REVOCATION, AND TRANSFER
PERMIT MODIFICATION, REVOCATION AND TRANSFER
Overv jew
After the final permit is issued, there is still a possibility
that the permit will need to be modified or revoked prior to
the expiration date. Modifications differ from revocations or
reissuances (see following sections). In a permit modification,
only the conditions subject to change are opened, while all
other permit conditions remain in effect. A permit modification
may be triggered for several reasons. A representative of the regu-
latory agency may conduct an inspection of the facility which may
indicate a need for the modification. In addition, information sub-
mitted by the permittee as required by the permit may suggest such
a change. The permittee may also request that a modification to
the permit be made.
There are two classifications of modifications: major and
minor . From a procedural standpoint, they differ primarily with
respect to the public notice requirement. Major modifications
require public notice, while minor modifications do not.
Minor Modifications
Minor modifications are generally those changes which are
of a non—substantive nature (e.g., typographical errors) or
those which require more stringent permit conditions. The
conditions for minor modification are described in Section
of the Regulations 122.63 and may be summarized as follows:
(1) To correct typographical errors.
(2) To require more frequent monitoring/reporting.
(3) To change an interim compliance date in the schedule of
compliance, provided the new date is not more than 120 days
after the date specified in the permit and does not interfere
with attainment of the final compliance date requirement.
(4) To allow for a change in ownership when no other change
is necessary.
(5) To allow for a change in the construction schedule for
a new source discharger.
(6) To allow for the deletion of a point source outfall, that
does not result in the discharge of pollutants from other
outfalls except in accordance with permit limits.
Major Modifications
Virtually all modifications that result in less stringent
conditions must be treated as major modification, with provisions
for public notice and comment. Generally speaking, a permit
will not be modified during the term of the permit if the facility
is in compliance with permit conditions. Conditions which would
-------
— 91 —
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in
Section 122.62 of the Regulations and include:
(1) Alterations: When alterations or changes in operations occur,
which justify new conditions that are different from the
existing permit.
(2) Information: When information is received which was not
available at the time of permit issuance.
(3) New Regulations: When standards or regulations on which the
permit was based have been changed by promulgation of amended
standards or regulations or by judicial decision.
(4) Compliance Schedules: When good cause for modification of
compliance schedule exists, such as an Act of God, strike,
flood, etc.
(5) Variance requests: When requests for variances, net effluent
limitations, pretreatment, etc. are filed within the specified
time, but not granted until after permit issuance
(6) 307(a) Toxics: To incorporate applicable 307(a) toxic
guidelines
(7) Reopener: Conditions in the permit which required that
it be “reopened” under certain circumstances.
(8) Net Limits: Upon request of a permittee who qualifies
for effluent limitations on a net basis under Section
122.45(g&h)
(9) Pretreatment: As necessary to adjust the compliance schedule
for the development of the pretreatment program (Section
403.8(e) of the Regulations).
(10) Failure to Notify: Upon failure of an approved State
to notify another State whose waters may be affected by
a discharge from the approved State.
(11) Non—Limited Pollutants: When the level of discharge of any
pollutant which is not limited in the permit exceeds the
level which can be achieved by the technology—based treat—
ment requirements appropriate to the permit.
(12) Use of Toxics: When the permittee begins or expects to
use or manufacture toxic pollutants which were not reported
in the permit application.
(13) Notification Levels: To establish “notification levels”
for toxic pollutants which are not limited in the permit
but must be reported if concer trations in the discharge
exceed these levels.
-------
— 92 —
(14) Commpliance Schedules for Innovative or Alternative
Facilities: To modify the compliance schedule in light
of the additional time that may be required to construct
this type of facility.
Revocation of Permits
There may be situations which arise during the life of the
permit which are cause for revocation (i.e. cancellation) of
the permit. Such circumstances include the following (see
Section 122.62(b) of the Regulations:
(1) Non—compliance by the permittee with any condition
of the permit
(2) Misrepresentation or omission of relevant facts
by the perinittee
(3) A determination that the permitted activity endangers
human health or the environment
(4) A temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of a
discharge (e.g. plant c,losure)
(5) Notification of a proposed transfer of a permit
Once the permit is revoked, it can only be placed into
effect again by the reissuance process, which will require a
new permit application. All of the above situations y also
be addressed through the permit modification process, however,
a case—by—case determination will need to be made.
Transfer of Permits
Regulatory agencies will occasionally receive notification
of a change in ownership of a facility covered by an NPDES
permit. Such changes require that a permit be transferred.
There are two provisions for transfer of permits:
(1) Transfer by Modification or Revocation: The transfer may
be made during the process of modification, either major
or minor. It may also be addressed by revoking and subsequently
reissuing the permit.
(2) Automatic Transfer: A permit may be automatically transferred
to a new permittee if three conditions are met:
(a) The current permittee notifies the Director 30 days in
advance of the transfer date.
(b) The notice includes a written agreement betwen the old
and new owner on the terms of the transfer.
Cc) The Director of the regulatory agency does not indicate
that the subject permit will be modified or revoked.
-------
— 93 —
CHAPTER XIII — PERMIT COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
PERMIT COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Overv jew
It is essential that the limitations and conditions contained
in an NPDES permit be met by the permittee, otherwise the permit
becomes a meaningless document. There are various methods which
may be used by a regulatory agency to determine whether or not a
perinittee is in compliance with the permit limits and th various
other conditions of their NPDES permit. In addition, there are
a host of enforcement actions which may be taken by the regulatory
agency in response to various permit violations.
The permit writer may or may not become actively involved
with the compliance monitoring and enforcement of the terms and
conditions of the NPDES permits which they have written. The
extent of the permit writer’s involvement will usually depend
upon the organizational structure of the regulatory agency.
Larger, centrally organized agencies will typically have specialized
personnel responsible for enforcing the terms of NPDES permits.
In other organizations, the individual who writes the permit will
also be responsible for such enforcement activities as DMR
tracking, facility inspections, and enforcement recommendations.
Regardless of the type of organizational structure within
a regulatory agency, the permit writer should have an appreciation
for the various aspects of a meaningful NPDES compliance enforcement
program. The way in which permit requirements are expressed has a
direct bearing on the permittee’s self—monitoring program and on the
regulatory agency’s compliance monitoring and enforcement activities.
PERMIT COMPLIANCE
Responsibilities of the Perinittee
The permit stipulates the “self—monitoring” requirements
that are the responsibility of the discharger. Typically, this
portion of the permit sets forth the frequency and type of sampling
(grab and/or composite) requirements, as well as the flow
monitoring, analytical, and data reporting requirements. The
required information obtained by the perinittee’s self—monitoring
program is reported to the permitting agency using a Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR). The DMR is submitted to the permitting
agency on a regular schedule delineated in the permit. The
validity or quality of the DMR data is the responsibility of
the perinittee and is a direct result of the adequacy and functioning
of the permittee’s self—monitoring program. For the program to
function properly, it must he organized in a way that provides
the data and the response required by the permit.
-------
— 94 —
Development of Self—Monitoring Program
A self—monitoring program can be vi wed as an organized
system of component parts, typically including sampling, flow
measurement, laboratory analyses, recordkeepinq and reporting.
It consists of both technical and administrative activities,
which are of equal importance to the smooth and proper operation
of the program and to meeting permit requirements. There
are certain general elements common to developing and main-
taining a successful self—monitoring program: These elements
are as follows:
o Reviewing permit requirements and setting program
objectives
o Establishing staff training
o Developing a quality assurance (QA) plan
o Conducting periodic evaluations of the program
Record Keeping and Reporting Requirements
The development of the type of self—monitoring program dis-
cussed above will enable the permittee to fulfill two of its major
responsibilities under an NPDES permit: recordkeeping and reporting .
The NPDES permit system requires permittees to maintain records
and to report periodically on the amount and nature of the waste
components in the effluent. The individual facility permit will
stipulate recorrikeeping and reporting conditions.
The perrnittee’s recordkeeping responsibilities focus on
three areas:
o Knowledge of specific information required by the permit
o Maintenance of accurate records
o Maintenance of records for the required holding period
The type of data required to be kept by the facility will be
determined by and described in the permit. Generally, however,
the following types of information should be maintained by a
facility (if applicable):
o Sampling and Analysis Data
o Monitoring Records
o Laboratory Records
o Facility Operating Records
o Plant Records
o Best Management Practices Plan
o Management Records
o P01W Pretreatment Records
-------
— 95 —
Along with the maintenance of selected records, the perinittee
is required to submit various reports to the permitting agency.
The types of reports and the frequency of submission are specified
in the permit. The following are typical types of reports :
o Compliance Schedule Status Reports : In cases where a
treatment facility cannot meet statutory effluent limitations
immediately, a compliance schedule is included in the permit.
Reports must be submitted to the permitting agency which
provides an update on the status of compliance with that
schedule.
o POTW Pretreatment Requirements : Various reports may be
required when developing or meeting pretreatment requirements.
o Emergency Reports : Emergency reports are required in cases
of noncompliance that are serious in nature, usually relating
to toxic or hazardous substances.
o Discharge Monitoring Reports : The Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR) is a routine compliance report that gives a summary of
the permnittee’s discharge on a monthly or quarterly basis.
The DMR provides dataon flow.meLasurement, sample collection
and laboratory analyses.
Responsibilities of the Regulatory Agency: Compliance Monitoring
As used by EPA, “compliance monitoring” is a generic term which
includes all activities undertaken by Federal or State regulatory
agencies to ascertain a permittee’s adherence to an NPDES permit.
Compliance monitoring data collected as part of the NPDES program
are used in compliance evaluation and in support of enforcement.
A primary function of the compliance monitoring program is
the verification of compliance with permit conditions including
effluent limitations and compliance schedules. Compliance
monitoring may be described as comprising two elements:
o Compliance Review — the review of all written material
relating to the status of a permittee’s compliance
o Compliance Inspection — all field related regulatory
activities conducted to determine compliance
Compliance Review
“Compliance review” is the review of all written material
relating to the status of a permittee’s compliance with an NPDES
permit. These materials include Compliance Schedule Reports (CSR),
DMRs, and Compliance Inspection Reports (CIR). These materials
originate from the permittee or the regulatory authority. Third
parties, including public and private interest groups, may also
submit materials relevant to the compliance review process.
-------
— 96
If a State has riot been delegated the authority to implement
the NPDES program, compliance reviews of all permittees in that
State are the responsibility of the EPA. In a State that has
been delegated NPDES authority EPA retains oversight responsibility
for the State compliance program.
Compliance/enforcement personnel use two primary sources of
information to carry out their compliance review responsibilities:
1. Permittee Files : These files will include CSRs, CIRs, DMRs,
enforcement actions, and any other correspondence (e.g.
summaries of telephone calls, copies of warning letters, etc.).
2. Permit Compliance System (PCS) : PCS is a data management
system used to compile all relevant facts about a facility’s
permit conditions, self—monitoring data, the inspections
performed, and any enforcement actions taken. PCS is the
national data base for the WPDES program. As such, PCS pro-
motes national consistency and uniformity in permit and com-
pliance evaluation . To accomplish this goal, all required
data are to be entered into and maintained regularly in PCS.
NPDES permits must be enforceable and capable of being
tracked by PCS. There may b situations where permit limits
and monitoring conditions are not initially compatible with
PCS entry arid tracking. In these cases, States should ensure
that appropriate steps are taken by the permit writer to
identify difficult permits to the PCS coder (either in the
State or the Region) and to mutually resolve any coding issues.
To assist PCS coders in accurately interpreting and coding the
permit into PCS and to assist enforcement personnel in review-
ing permittee self—monitoring data and reports in a timely
manner, permit writers should apply the following practises:
o Require permittees to submit DMRs monthly . Permittees
complete DMRs on a monthly basis. However, some permit
requirements are written such that only quarterly DMR
submittal is necessary. Thus, monthly DMRs may be held
by the permittee until the end of the quarter. This pro-
longs the evaluation process and delays any enforcement
action that may be necessary if there are significant vio-
lations. By requiring monthly submittal of DMRs, enforce-
ment personnel can review the DMRs and take appropriate
action in a timely manner.
o Require the permittee to report flow . Flow may not need
to be limited, but it needs to be reported. Having flow data
in PCS will enhance PCS’ analytical and management capabili-
ties as requested by Regions and States. Compliance/enforce-
ment personnel will be able to determing compliance trends
and total loadings. Also, the data can be used to help set
water quality—based standards.
-------
— 97 —
o Use discretion in setting alternate limits . Examples of
alternate limits include, but are not limited to, limits
that change based on stream flow or influent flow, pro-
duction type or level, and temperature of the effluent.
Seasonal limits are acceptable; however, changes in limits
based on seasons must begin on the first of the month, not
the middle of the month.
It is essential that permit writers develop limits
that are clear and that cannot be misinterpreted. Alter-
nate limits often contain ambiguities which many cause
problems for the permittee, compliance/enforcement per-
sonnel, and PCS coders. Where a permit contains several
sets of alternate limits, the conditions which “trigger”
each set of alternate limits should be clear, so that
the permittee and the regulatory agency will know which
DMR is required under a particular set of conditions.
Uncertainty about the applicabli],ity of various sets of
alternate limits may also create problems for PCS coders
in accurately interpreting the limits, thereby affecting
the reliability of the data in PCS. Because PCS is used
for compliance review, it is crucial that the data be
reliable.
o Contact the person responsible for coding permits into
PCS . Mutually resolvä any coding issues so that the
permit conditions are accurately transferred into PCS.
Compliance Inspection
“Compliance inspection” refers to all field—related regulatory
activities conducted to determine permit compliance. Such field
activities may include evaluation inspections (non—sampling),
sampling inspections, other specialized inspections, and remote
sensing. Certain inspections, such as Diagnostic Inspections
(DI) and Performance Audit Inspections (PAl), in addition to
providing information to supnort enforcement action, aid the
regulatory agency in evaluating the facility’s problems.
Compliance Biomonitoring Inspections (CBI) are specifically
targeted at facilities whose effluent is suspected or identified
as causing toxicity problems that threaten the ecological
balance of the receiving waters.
Compliance Inspections are undertaken for one or more of
the following purposes:
1. Ensure that permit requirements are being met or
determine if permit conditions are adequate.
2. Check the completeness and accuracy of permittee’s
performance/compliance records.
-------
— 98 —
3. Assess adequacy of the perinittee’s self monitoring
and reporting program.
4. Evaluate the permittee’s operation and maintenance
activities.
5. Observe the status of construction required by the
permit.
6. Address water quality and other specific problems
and follow—up in areas where water quality—based controls
were implemented.
ENFORCEMENT
Once a facility has been identified as having apparent per-
mit violations, EPA or the delegated State proceed to a review
of the facility’s compliance history. Such a review should focus
on the magnitude, freauency, and duration of violations. Signi-
ficant permit violations are identified and a determination of the
appropriate enforcement response is made;
Section 309 of the Act authorizes the Agency to bring civil
or criminal action against facilities which violate their NPDES
permit conditions. The EPA Regions and the delegated States have
specific procedures for reviewing self—monitoring and inspection
data and for deciding what type of enforcement action is warranted.
Typical types of enforcement actions include the following acivi—
ties (listed in increasing order of severity):
o Inspection “debriefing,” calling attention to deficiencies
o Telephone Call
o Letter of Violation
o Notice of Violation
o Administrative Order
o Judicial Action
o Criminal Investigation
When making determinations on the lev l of the enforcement
response, the technical and legal staff of the regulatory agency
should consider the degree of the permit violation, the degree
of economic benefit obtained through the violatjon, previous
enforcement actions taken against the violator, and the deterrent
effect of the response on the similarly situated regulated commu-
nity Equally important, are considerations of fairness and equity,
national consistency, and the integrity of the NPDES program.
In the final analysis, the way in which a permit is written
directly affects the type of enforcement action that can be taken.
Each permit must be written clearly and without ambiguities so
that it can be tracked effectively and used to protect the Clean
Water Act against frequent and significant violations.
-------
— 99 —
INDEX TO APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY
APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF PART 122 REGULATIONS
APPENDIX C - REGULATIONS MATRIX
APPENDIX D - LISTING OF TOXIC AND CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
APPENDIX E - PRIMARY INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES - PROPOSED AND
FINAL RULES
APPENDIX F — NPDES LITIGATION: FINAL RULEMAKING
APPENDIX G - OVERVIEW OF WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL
APPENDIX H — MODEL NPDES PERMIT
-------
APPENDtX A
GLOSSARY
Administrator — the Administrator of the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, or an authorized representative.
Approved program or approved State — a State or interstate pro-
gram which has been approved or authorized by EPA under Part 123.
Average monthly discharge limitations — the highest allowable
average of “daily discharges” over a calendar month, calculated
as the sum of all “daily discharges” measured during a calendar
month divided by the number of “daily discharges” measured during
that month.
Average weekly discharge limitation - the highest allowable
average of “daily discharges” over a calendar week, calculated
as the sum of all “daily discharges” measured during a calendar
week divided by the number of “daily discharges” measured during
that week.
Best Management Practices (“BMPs” ) — schedules of activities,
prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other
management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of
“waters of the United States.” EMPs also include treatment
requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control
plant site runoff, spillage gr leaks, sludge or waste disposal,
or drainage from raw material storage.
Continuous dicharge — a “discharge” which occurs without
interruption throughout the operating hours of the facility,
except for -infrequent shutdowns for maintenance, process changes,
or other similar activities.
CWA — the Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act or Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972) Pub. L. 92—500, as amended by Public Law
96—483 and Public Law 97—117, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.
CWA and regulations — the Clean Water Act (CWA) and applicable
regulations promulgated thereunder. In the case of an approved
State program, it includes State program requirements.
Daily discharge — the “discharge of a pollutant” measured
during a calendar day or any 24—hour period that reasonably
represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For
pollutants with limitation expressed in units of mass, the
“daily dicharge” is calculated as the total mass of the pal—
lutant discharged over the day. For pollutants with limitations
expressed in other units of measurement (e.g. concentration)
“daily discharge” is calculated as the average measurement of
the pollutant over the day.
-------
“daily discharge” is calculated as the average measurement of
the pollutant over the day.
Director — the Regional Administrator or State Director, as
the context requires, or an authorized representative. When
there is no “approved State program,” and there is an EPA
administered program, “Director” means the Regional Administrator.
When there is an approved State program, “Director” normally
means the State Director. In some circumstances, however, EPA
retains the authority to take certain actions even when there
is an approved State program.
Discharge of a pollutant — (a) Any addition of any
“pollutant” or combination of pollutants to “waters of the
United States” from any “point source,” or (b) Any addition
of any pollutant or combination of pollutants to the waters
of the “contiguous zone” or the ocean from any point other
than a vessel or other floating craft which is being used as
a means of transportation.
Discharge Monitoring Report (“DMR” ) — the EPA uniform national
form, including any subsequent additions , rev isi-ons-,- or
modifications for the reporting of self—monitoring results
by permittees. DMRs must be used by “approved States” as
well as by EPA.
Draft permit — a document prepared under §124.6 indicating the
Director’s tentative decision to issue or deny, modify,
revoke and reissue, terminate, or reissue a “permit.” A
notice of intent to terminate a permit, and a notice of
intent to deny a permit, as discussed in §124.5, are types
of “draft permits.” A denial of a request for modification,
revocation and reissuance, or termination, as discussed in
§124.5, is not a “draft permit.” A “proposed permit” is not
a “draft permit.”
Effluent limitation — any restriction imposed by the Director
on quantities, discharge rates, and concentrations or pollutants
which are discharged from point sources into waters of
the United States, the waters of the contiguous zone, or
the ocean.
Effluent limitations guidelines — a regulation published by
the Administrator under section 304(b) of CWA to adopt or
revise “effluent limitations.”
Facility- or activity — any NPDES point source or any other
facility or activity (including land or appurtenances thereto)
that is subject to regulation under the NPDES program.
General permit — an NPDES permit issued under §122.28 authorizing
a category of discharges under the CWA within a geographical
area.
-------
Hazardous substance — any substance designated under 40 CFR
Part 116 pursuant to section 311 of CWA.
Indirect discharger — a nondomestic discharger introducing
pollutants to a publicly owned treatment works.
Major facility — any NPDES facility or activity classified as
such by the Regional Administrator, or, in the case of approved
State programs, the Regional Administrator in conjunction
with the State Director.
Maximum daily discharge limitation — the highest allowable
“daily discharge.”
Municipality — a city, town, borough, county, parish, district,
association, or other public body created by or under State
law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial
wastes, or other wastes, or an Indian tribe or an authorized
Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved
management agency under section 208 of CWA.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES ) —
means the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking
and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits,
and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under
sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of CWA. The term includes an
“approved program.”
New discharger — any building, structure, facility, or installation:
(a) From which there is or may be a “discharge of pollutants”.
(b) That did not commence the discharge of pollutants
at particular site prior to August 13, 1979.
(c) Which is not a “new source.”
(d) Which has never received a finally effective NPDES
“permit” for discharges at that site.
New source — any building, structure, facility, or installation
from which there is or may be a “discharge of pollutants,”
the construction of which commenced:
(a) After promulgation of standards of performance under
section 306 of CWA which are applicable to such source, or
(b) After proposal of standards of performance in accordance
with section 306 of CWA which are applicable to such
source, but only if the standards are promulgated in accord-
ance with section 306 within 120 days of their proposal.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in an applicable new so irce
performance standard, a source is a “new source” if it
-------
meets the definition of “new source” in §122.2, and
Ci) It is constructed at a site at which no other source
is located; or
(ii) It totally replaces the process or production equip-
ment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an
existing source; or
(iii) Its processes are substantially independent of an existing
source at the same site. In determning whether these pro-
cesses are substantially independent, the Director shall
consider such factors as the extent to which the new facility
is integrated with the existing plant; and the extent to
which the new facility is engaged in the same general type
of activity as the existing source.
Owner or operator — the owner or operator of any “facility or
activity” subject to regulation under the NPDES program.
Point Source — any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance,
including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,
condult, well, discrete fixture, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding operation, vessel, or other
floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
Pollutant — dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue,
filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials
(except those regulated under the Atomic Energy Act or 1954,
as amended (42 u.s.c. 2011 et seq.)), heat, wrecked or discarded
equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal,
and agricultural waste discharged into water.
Primary industry category — any industry category listed in
the NRDC settlement agreement (Natural Resources Defense
council et al. v. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120 (D.D.c. 1976), modified
12 E.R.c. 1833 (o.D.c. 1979); also listed in Appendix A of
Part 122.
Privately owned treatment works — any device or system which
is (a) used to treat wastes from any facility whose operator
is not the operator of the treatment works and (b) not a
“POTW.”
Process wastewater — any water which, during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact with or results from
the production or use of any raw material, intermediate
product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product.
Proposed permit — a state NPDES “permit” prepared after the
close of the public comment period (and, when applicable,
any public hearing and administrative appeals) which is sent
to EPA for review before final issuance by the State. A
“proposed permit” is not a “draft permit.”
-------
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (“POTW” ) — any device or system
used in the treatment (including recycling and reclarriation)
of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature
which is owned by a “State” or “municipality. This definition
includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they
convey wastewater to a POTW providing treatment.
Regional Administrator — the Regional Administrator of the
appropriate Regional Office of the Evironmental Protection
Agency of the authorized representative of the Regional
Administrator.
Schedule of compliance — a schedule of remedial measures included
in a “permit”, including an enforceable sequence of interim
requirements (for example, actions, operations, or milestone
events) leading to compliance with the CWA and regulations.
Secondary industry category — any industry category which is
not a “primary industry category.”
State Director — the chief administrative officer of any State
or interstate agency operating an “approved program,” or the
delegated representative of the State Director.
Toxic pollutant — any pollutant listed as toxic under section
307(a)(l) of CWA.
-------
APPENDIX B
Prohibitions (applicable to State NPDES Programs,
see §123.25)
Effect of a permit
Continuation of expiring permits
Confidentiality of information
B — Permit Application and Special NPDES Program Requirements
Application for a permit (applicable to State programs,
see §123.25)
Signatories to permit applications and reports (applicable
to State programs, seeSl23.25)
Concentrated animal feeding operations (applicable
to State NPDES programs, see S123.25)
Concentrated aquatic animal production facilities (applicble
to State NPDES programs, see §123.25)
Aquaculture projects (applicable to State NPDES programs,
see §123.25)
Separate storm sewers (applicable to State NPDES programs,
see §123.25)
Silvicultural activities (applicable to State NPDES programs,
see §123.25)
General permits (applicable to State NPDES programs,
see §123.25)
New sources and new discharges
C — Permit Conditions
Conditions applicable to all permits
(applicable to State programs, see 123.25)
Additional conditions applicable to specified categories
of NPDES permits (applicable to State NPDES programs,
see §123.25)
Establishing permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES
programs, see §123.25)
Establishing limitations, standards and other permit
conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see
§123.25)
Calculating NPDES permit conditions (applicable to
State NPDES programs, see §123.45)
Duration of permits (applicable to State programs,
see §123.25)
Schedules of compliance
PART 122 - NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Subpart A — Definitions and General Program Requirements
Section
122.1 Purpose and Scope
122.2 Definitions
122.3 Exclusions
Section
122.4
122.5
122.6
122.7
Subpart
122.21
122.22
122.23
122.24
122.25
122.26
122.27
122.28
122.29
Subpart
122.41
122.42
122.43
122.44
122.45
122.46
122.47
-------
122.48 Requirements for recording and reporting of monitoring
results (applicable to State programs, see §123.25)
122.49 Considerations under Federal law
122.50 Disposal of pollutants into wells, into publicly owned
treatment works or by land application (applicable to
State programs, see 1123.25)
Subpart D — Transfer, modification, revocation and reissuance,
and termination of permits
122.61 Transfer of permits (applicable to State programs, see
§123.25)
122.62 Modification or revocation and reissuance of permits
(applicable to State programs, see §123.25)
122.63 Minor modifications of permits
122.64 Termination of permits (applicable to State programs,
see §123.25)
Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1251 et. seq.
Appendix A — MPDES Primary Industry Categories
Appendix B — Criteria for Determining a Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operation (S122.230
Appendix C-— Criteria for Determining a ConcentratedAquatic
Animal Production Facility (122.24)
Appendix D — NPDES Permit Application Testing Requirements
(122.21)
-------
APPENDIX C
REGULATIONS MATRIX
TOPIC
Application
General Permit
Backsliding Prohibition
Best Management Practices
BPJ Authority
BPJ Source Materials
Bypasses
Calculating Conditions
Compliance Program Requirements
Compliance Schedules
Conditions Applicable to Specified
Categories
Confidentiality
Continuous Discharge
Continuation of Expiring Permits
Definitions
Duration of Permits
Effective Date
Enforcement Authority
Establishing Limitations, Standards
Establishing Permit Conditions
General Permit
Internal Waste Streams
Metals
Modification, Minor
Modification or revocation
and reissuance
CFR NUMBER
122.21 a through o
122.28
122.44(c) ,(l)
122.44(j)
125.3(c)
125.3(g)) ,(h)
122.41(m)
122.45
123.26
122.47
122. 42
122.7
122.45(d)
122.6
122.2, 123.2
122.46, a,b,c,d,e,f
122.5
123.27
122.44
122.43
122.28
122.45(h)
122.45(c)
122.63
122.62(a)
-------
Monitoring ReQuirements
New Sources and Dischargers
Noncompliance
Net Gross
Operation and Maintenance
POTWs, Land Application & Wells
Primary Industry Categories
Pretreatment
Production
Program Submission, Elements of
Prohbitions
Recording- & Reporting Requirements.
Reissuances
Reopener
Signatories to Permit Applications
Standard Conditons
Storm Water Discharges
Termination of Permits
Toxics — Application & Testing
Toxics — Control Strategy
Toxic Pollutants — Development
of Specific Conditions
Toxics — Toxicity—Based Limits
Transfer of Permits
Upsets
Water Quality Standards and
State Requirements
122.44(i)
122.29
123.45 b,c
122.45(g)
122.41(e)
122.50
Appendix A
122.44(j)
122.45(b)
123.21
122.4
122.48
122 . 44 ( I
122.44(c)
122.22
122.41
122 . 26
122.3
122.28
122.64
122.21(g)(7)
(9) & (10)
122.42(a)
122.62(a) (12)
122.44(e)
125.3(c) (4)
122.61
122. 41(m)
122.44(d)
-------
APPENDIX D
§401.26 Toxic Pollutants
The following comprise the list of toxic pollutants
designated pursuant to section 307(a) of the Act:
1. Acenapththene
2. Acrolein
3. Acrylonitrile
4. Aldrin/Dildrin 1
5. Antimony and compounds 2
6. Arsenic and compounds
7. Asbestos
8. Benzene
9. Benzidine 1
10. Beryllium and compounds
11. Cadmium and compounds
12. Carbon tetrachioride
13. Chiordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
14. Chlorinated benzenes (other than dichlorobenzenes)
15. Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2—di—chlorobenzenes)
16. Chioroalkyl ethers (chioroethyl and mixed ethers)
17. Chlorinated naphthalene
18. Chlorin téd phenols (other than those listed elsewhere;
includes trichloroph.enols and chiorinateed cresols)
19. Chloroform
20. 2—chlorophenol
21. Chromium and compounds
22. Copper and compounds
23. Cyanides
24. DDT and metabolites 1 -
25. Dichlorobenzenes (1,2—, 1,3— and 1,4—dichlorobenzenes)
26. Dichlorobenzjdjne
27. Dichloroethylenes (1,1— and 1,2 dichioroethylene)
28. 2,4—dichlorophenol
29. Dichioropropane and dichioropropene
30. 2,4—dirnethyiphenol
31. Dinitrotoluene
32. Diphenyihydrazine
33. Endosulfan and metabolites
34. Endrin and metabolites’
35. Ethylbenzene
36. Fluoranthene
37. Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere;
includes chiorophenyiphenyl ethers, bromophenylphenyl
ether, bis(dichloroisopropyl) ether, bis—(chloroethoxy)
ether, bis—(chloroethoxy) methane and polyclorinated
diphenyl ethers)
38. Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere; includes
chlorophenylphenyl ethers, bromophenylphenyl ether,
bis(dichloroisopropyl) ether, bis—(chloroethoxy) methane
and polychlorinated diphenyl ethers)
1 Effluent standard promulgated (40 CR Part 129)..
2 The term “compounds” shall include organic and inorganic
compounds.
-------
—2—
39. Heptachior and metabolites
40. Hexachiorobutadiene
41. Hexachiorocyclohexane
42. Hexachiorocyclopentadiene
43. Isophorone
44. Lead and compounds
45. Mercury and compounds
46. Naphthalene
47. ickel and compounds
48. Nitrobenzene
49. Nitrophenols (including 2,3—dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol)
50. Nitrosamines
51. Pentachiorophenol
52. Phenol
53. Phthalate esters
54. Polychiorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 1
55. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzanthracenes,
benzopyrenes, b.enzofluoranthene, chrysenes, dibenz—
anthracenes, and indenopyreries)
56. Selenium and compounds
57. Silver and compounds
58 • 2,3,7, 8—tetrachiorod ibenzo—p—d ioxin
(TCDD)
59. Tetrachioroethylene
60. Thallium and compounds
61. Toluene
62. Toxaphene’
63. Trichioroethylene
64. Vinyl chloride
65. Zinc and compounds
[ 44 FR 44502, July 30, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 2266,
Jan. 8, 1981; 46 FR 10724, Feb. 4, 1981]
S401.16 Conventional pollutants
The following comprise the list of conventional pollutants
designated pursuant to section 304(a)(4) of the Act:
1. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
2. Total suspended solids (nonfilterable) (TSS)
3. pH
4. Fecal coliform
5. Oil and grease
[ 44 FR 44503, july 30, 1979; 44 FR 52685, Sept. 10, 1979]
-------
APPENDIX E
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION
PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES — PRIMARY CATEGORIES
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONS
1979 — Present)
8/31/84
(Revised)
-------
JS l A I) F AL RI’LZS .. IP tARV CATEGORIES 8/31/84
F ERAL REGISTER CiTATIC NS
(1979 — Present)
incJs:rl O CP ‘4RT T PE RULE SI T’ E Ec)ER L REGISTER CITATION
1. — -qum Forming . 467 PROPOSED 11/05/82 47 FR 52 26 11/22/82
PROMULGATION 09/30/33 48 FR 49126 10/24/83
Correction 02/29164 49 FR 11629 03/27/84
3attery Manufacturing 461 PROPOSED 10/29/92 47 FR 51052 11/10/92
PROMULGATION 2/27/84 49 FR 9108 03/09/84
Correction 4/09/84 49 FR 13379 O4/ /84
Correction 7/09134 49 FR 27946 Q7/O /R4
:oal Mining ............ 434 PROPOSED 12/30/80 46 FR 3136 01/13/31
PROMULGATION 09/30/82 47 FR 45382 10/13/82
Correction — 48 FR 58321 11/01/83
Prop. Amend. —— 49 FR 19240 05/04/84
Ext. of Ccinments — 49 FR 24388 06/13/34
:oil Coating
Phase I 465 PROPOSED 12/30/80 46 FR 2934 01/12/81
PROMULGATION 11/05/82 47 FR 54232 12/01/82
A mendment — 4.3 FR 31403 07/08/83
Amendment —— 48 FR 41409 OC/1S/83
Correction —— 49 FR 33648 03/24/84
Phase ii (Canmaking) 463 PROPOSED 01/31/83 48 FR 6268 02/1OI 3
PROMULGATION 11/08/83 48 FR 52330 11/17/83
Correction 03/29/84 49 FR 14104 04/10/mId
:opper Forming 468 PROPOSED 10/29/82 47 FR 51278 11/12/87
PROMULGATION 08/04/83 48 FR 36942 08/15/83
Amendment —— 48 FR 41409 0 0/15/ 93
lectrical /Electronic Ccmponents
Phase I 469 PROPOSED 08/11/82 47 FR 37048 09/24/82
PROMULGATION 03/31/83 48 FR 15382 O4/OR/ 3
Interim Final/ —— 48 FR 45249 10/04/83
Prop. Amend.
Final Amendment —— 49 FR 5921 02/16/84
Phase II 469 PROPOSED 02/28/83 48 FR 10012 03/09/33
PROMULGATION 11/30/83 48 FR 55690 12/14/83
Correction — — 49 FR 1056 01/09/84
ie:troplatlrmg CPretreatmnent — PSES) 413 PROPOSED 01/24/78 43 FR 6560 02114/78
PROMULGATION 08/09/79 44 FR 52590 Oq/07179
Prop. Amend. —— 45 FR 45322 07103/80
Prop. Amend. —. 46 FR 9462 01/28/91
Prop. Amend. — 46 FR 55200 09/02/81
Prop. Amend. —— 46 FR 43972 09/02/81
Prop. Amend. —— 47 FR 38462 08/31/92
Prop. Amend. —— 43 FR 2775 01/21183
Final Amend. — 48 FR 32462 07/15/83
Correction — 48 PR 43682 09/26/83
Final Amend. — 48 FR 41409 09/15/83
ounor es (Metal Molding and CastIng) 464 PROPOSED 10/29/82 47 FR 51512 11/15/82
Notice of —— 40 FR 10280 03/20/84
Additional
Data
PROMULGATION (12/84)
organ1c Chemicals
Phase I 415 PROPOSED 07/10/80 45 FR 49450 07/24/80
PROMULGATION 06/16/32 47 FR 28260 06/29/32
Correction —— 47 FR 55226 12/08/82
Phase TI 415 PROPOSED 09/30/83 48 FR 49408 10 125/83
PROMULGATION 07/26/84 49 FR 33402 08/22/84
Ad inistrator’S s gnature; ( ) is the projected schedule approved by the court on August 25, 1982;
October 26, 1982; August 2, 1983; January 6, 1984 and July 5, 1984.
NOTE: THIS LISTING DOES NOT INCLUDE RULEMAXING ACTIVITIES SLJBSEOUENTLY PUBLISHED BET IEEN PROPOSAL AND PROMULGATION
UP LESS T E SCHEDULED PROMULGATION HAS NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED. THESE, AND PUBLICATIONS ISSUED PRIOR TO 1979,
ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE PREAMBLES TO EACH PROMULGATED REGULATION.
-------
EFFLUENT GUIOELTNES DIVISION
PROPOSED AND FINAC RULES — PRIMARY CATEGORIES 8/31/84
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONS
(1979 — Present) — continued —
lnøustry 40 CFR PART TYPE RULE SIGNATURE* FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION
Steel Manuf 420 PROPOSED 12/24/80 46 FR 1858 01/07/81
PROMULGATION 05/18/82 47 FR 23258 05/27/82
Correction — 47 FR 24554 06/07/82
Correction —— 47 FR 41738 09/22/82
Final Amend.
Correction 48 FR 51773 11/14/83
Prop. Amend. 48 FR 46944 10/14/83
Correction 48 FR 5)647 11/10/83
Final Amend. 49 FR 21024 05/17/84
Correction 49 FR 24726 06/15/84
Correction 49 FR 25634 05/22/84
Leather Tanning & Finishing ... . 425 PROPOSED 06/13/79 44 FR 38745 07/02/79
PROMULGATION 11/07/82 47 FR 52848 11/23/82
Correction/
Notice of
Availability!
Amendment 48 FR 30115 06/30/83
Amendment 48 FR 31404 07/08/83
Correction 48 FR 32346 07/15/83
Correction 48 FR 35649 08/05/83
Correction/
Amendment [ PSES] 48 FR 41409 09/1 5/83
Notice of
AvaIlability 49 FR 17090 04/23/84
Metal Finishing 433 PROPOSED 08/11/82 47 FR 38452 08/31/82
& 413 PROMuLGATION 07/05/83 48 FR 32462 07/15/83
Final Amend. — 48 FR 41409 09/15/83
Correction —— 48 FR 43692 09/26/83
° N ’ ’ rous Metals
ase I 421 PROPOSED 01/31/83 48 FR 7032 02/17183
PROMIILtATION 02/23/84 49 FR 8742 03/08/84
Correction —— 49 FR 26739 06/29/84
Correction — 49 FR 29792 07/24/84
Phase II . 421 PROPOSED 05/15/84 49 FR 26352 05/27/84
Ext. of Comments —— 49 FR 33026 o /’of 4
PROMULGATION (11/84)
4onferrous Metals Forming 471 PROPOSED 02/03/34) 49 FR 8112 03/05/84
PROMULGATION (10/84)
Ore Mining . 440 PROPOSED 05/25/82 47 FR 25682 06/14/82
PROMULGATION 11/05/82 47 FR 54598 12/03/82
Organic Chemicals and Plastics A .... 414 PROPOSED 02/28/83 48 FR 11828 03/21/83
Synthetic Fibers & 416 Notice
(Confidential
Information) —— 49 FR 34295 08/29/84
PROMULGATION (02/85)
pesticides 455 PROPOSED 11/05/82 47 FR 53994 11/30/82
Proposed
(Analytical
Methods) 48 FR 6250 02/10/83
Notice of
Availability 49 FR 24492 06/13/84
Ext. of Comments —— 49 FR 30752 08/01/84
PROMuLGATION (11/84)
Petroleum Refining 419 PROPOSED 11/27/79 44 FR 75926 12/21/79
PROMULGATION 09/30/82 47 FR 46434 10/18/82
Prop. Amend. —— 49 FR 34152 08/28/84
Admi,istrator’s signature; ( ) is the projected schedule approved by the court on August 25, 1982;
3ctoner 26, 1982; August 2, 1983; January 6, 1984; and July 5, 1984.
-------
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES flIVISION
2ROPOSEO ANO F1N L RULES — PRI)kARY CATEGORIES 8/31/44
FEDERAL REGISTER CITATIONS
( 1979 — Present3 — continued —
Jndjstry 40 CFR PART TYPE RULE SIGNATIIRE* FEOtRAL EG’tS’rER CITATfl)N
Frr(rmaceutica ls 439 PROPOSED 11/07/82 47 FR 53584 11f26f8
PROMULGATION 09/30/83 48 FR 49 808 10 127/83
Correction — — 48 FR 53322 1 1/31133
PROPOSED —
LISPS — — 48 FR 49832 10/27/33
BCT Cost —e 49 FR 8967 03/09/84
Extension — . 49 FR 17948 04/26/84
Notice of
Availability —e 49 FR 27145 07/02/44
Plastics Molding & Forming 463 PROPOSED 02/03/84 49 FR 5862 02/15/84
PROMULGATION (09/44)
Porcelain Enameling ...... 4 6 PROPOSED 01/19/81 46 FR 8860 01/27/31
PROMULGATION 11/05/82 47 FR 53172 11/24/32
Final Amend. ce 48 FR 31403 07/04/43
Final Amend. —c 48 FR 41409 09/15/83
Prop. Amend. —e 49 FR 18225 04/27134
Pulp & Paper 430 PROPOSED 12/11/80 46 FR 1430 01/06/81
4 431 PROMULGATION 10/29/82 47 FR 52006 11/18/82
Notice of
Avati ability — — 48 FR 11451 03/18/33
Correction —e 48 FR 131Th 03/30/43
Final Amend. 48 FR 31414 37/08/43
Notice (FOF) — 48 FR 43682 09/16/83
Correction — — 48 FR 45105 10106/83
Public Hearing
(NPOES decision) — . 48 FR 45841 10/07/33
PROPOSED (PCB) — 47 FR 52066 11/14/82
Extension — 48 FR 2804 01/21/83
Steam —Electric 423 PROPOSED 10/03/80 45 FR 64328 10 114/80
PROMULGATION 11/07/82 47 FR 52290 11/19/82
Final Amend. —e 48 FR 31434 07/08/83
Textile Mills 410 PROPOSED 10/16/79 44 FR 6220 10/29179
PROMIJLRATION 08/27/82- 47 FR 38810 09/02/83
Notice of
Availability cc 48 FR 1722 01/14/83
Correction — — 48 FR 39624 09/31/83
Timber . . 429 PROPOSED 10/16/79 44 FR 62813 10/31/79
PROMULr,AflON 01/07/81 46 FR 8260 01/26/41
Final Amend. 46 FR 57287 11/23/41
* Administrator 1 s signature; ( ) is tHè projected schedule approved by the Court on August 25, 1982;
Octcoer 25, 1982; August 2, 1983; January 6, 1984; and Ju ly S. 1984.
-------
APPENDIX F
NPDES LITIGATION - FINAL RULEMAKING
I. BACKGROUND
On June 7, 1979, EPA promulgated revised National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations that
implemented the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act. Almost
immediately, EPA was sued over portions of the new regulations.
On-May 19, 1980, EPA consolidated procedures and regulations for
five individual permit programs, including the NPDES permit
program. Again, EPA was sued. The two challenges to EPA’s
regulations were combined by the Court into one petition. To
resolve the issues under contention, EPA held extensive negotia—
tions with both industry and environmental groups that lasted
nearly two years. The outcome of these negotiations were four
separate settlement agreements signed by EPA and industry repre-
sentatives. Environmental groups were not parties to any of the
settlement agreements.
Two of the settlement agreements affect the NPDES program.
One, the “Common Issues’ settlement agreement, covered issues
common to at least two of the five permit programs a d final
rules substantially--similar to the settlement agreement were
promulgated by EPA on September 1, 1983. Another settlement
agreement covered only the NPDES permit program. Proposed rules
implementing the NPDES Litigation settlement agreement were
published on November 18, 1982.
The final NPDES E.itiqation rulemaking contains over 30
separate issues. The following is a concise summary of the
essential facts or implications of the varied issues grouped by
subject. The final rules represent a balance between the legiti-
mate concerns of the industry litigants and the significant
opposing comments received during the public comment period.
II. CHANGES AFFECTING WHO MUST RAVE A PERMIT
A. Storm Water Discharges — § 122.26, 122.3, 122.28
existing: Regulations exempt only uncontaminated rural discharge
of channeled storm water runoff form coverage as point
sources requiring NPDES permits.
proposed: Storm water discharges defined only as contaminated
storm water runoff.
final: All storm water conveyances located in urbanized
areas or on lands used for industrial or commercial
act ivities are storm water point sources that must
obtain a permit.
-------
—2—
III. CHANGES AFFECTING ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE
A. Construction Ban — §122.29(c)(4)
existing: Construction of a new source for which an EIS is required
cannot begin until EPA issues a permit incorporating
any EIS—related conditions unless the applicant signs
binding written agreement to comply with all EIS—related
conditions or the RA determines construction will not
cause significant impacts.
proposed: Proposal eliminated the construction ban. The owner!
operator of a new source may proceed with construction
at own risk; PA will not consider site restoration or
construction alterations in evaluating NEPA recominenda—
tions and issuing the permit.
final: Retains the existing construction ban.
IV. CHANGES IN APPLICATION PROCESS AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Toxic Control Strategy §S122.21(g)(7),(g)(9) and (g)(10)
existing: Permit applicants must test for all toxic pollutants
known or believed to be discharged , identify pollutants
expected to be discharged during next five years at
twice the levels in original application, and identify
pollutants expected to be used or manufactured during
the next five years.
proposed: Permit applicants must only test for toxic pollutants
expected to be discharged on a routine or frequent basis
in concentrations above 100 ppb; applicants also must
test for conventionals and nonconventionals that are
limited in an applicable effluent limitations guidelines.
Other pollutants need only to be identified. Potential
future discharges need not be identified on the application.
final: Permit applicants must test for all toxic pollutants
known or believed to be discharged in concentrations
above 10 ppb. Proposed testing for conventional and
nonconventionals adopted. Applicants must identify
currently used or manufactured toxic pollutants, but
need not identify future discharges.
B. Storm Water Discharges — §122.26, also §S122.2, 122.28
existing: Regulations impose application requirements on storm
water discharges that are the same as those for non—
process industrial discharges.
-------
—3—
proposed: Regulations will substantially reduce application
requirements imposed on storm water discharges that
must have a permit.
final: All storm water point sources must submit applications
within 6 months. Discharges limited by effluent guide-
lines, located in urban areas or located in plant
associated areas, must submit full applications (Forms
1 and 2c). Other storm water point sources must only
submit Form 1, but must also supply additional narrative
information on discharge.
V. REVISIONS AFFECTING STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS
A. Toxic Control Strategy — S122.42(a), 122.62(a)(12)
e4sting: The regulations require permittees to report when they
begin to use or manufacture a toxic pollutant not reported
in the application. Such information provides a cause
for permit modification. The permittee must notify the
Director as soon as it becomes aware that it is dischargiitg
a toxic pollutant that is not limited in the permit at
levels exceeding five times the maximum- value reported
in its permit application.
proposed: The’ regulations will not require permittees to report
new toxics used or manufactured after application
(and drops the permit modification cause), and notification
requirements for new toxic discharqes will be tied to
discharges occurring on a “routine or frequent” basis,
with notification required at higher concentration levels
for non—routine discharges.
final: Adopts proposal.
B. Notice of Physical Additions or Alterations — §122.41(l)(l)
existing: Permittee must notify Director of any planned physical
alterations to its facility.
proposed: Notice of facility changes are recuired only when they
significantly change the nature or quantity of pollutants
discharged that are neither limited in the permit nor
subject to other notification requirements.
final: Adopts proposal.
-------
—4.-.
C. Bypasses — S122.41(m)
existing: Bypasses of treatment facilities that do not violate
permit limits are allowed only fpr essential maintenance.
Bypass in violation of permit limits is allowed only
if (1) there were no feasible alternatives (such as
the use of back—up equipment); (2) the bypass is neces—
sary to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or
severe property damage and (3) if prior notice is
given to the Director.
proposed: Bypasses not violating permit limits are allowed if
bypass points are adequately monitored. Upon a
sufficient showing by offshore oil rigs, bypasses of
produced water may be allowed without monitoring.
Bypasses violating permit limits are prohibited if
adequate backup equipment should have been installed
in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgement .
final: Retains existing provision prohibiting bypasses that do
not violate permit limits, except where the bypasses
are for essential maintenance. Bypass provision covering
backup equipment is promulgated as proposed.
D. Proper Operation and Maintenance — §122.41(e)
existing: Proper operation and maintenance (O&M) of all treatment
facilities is required at all times. Proper O&M is
defined to include adequate funding, operator staffing
and training, etc. Backup facilities are required
only when necessary to achieve compliance with permit
limits.
proposed: Clarifies that backup treatment systems only have to
be operated when necessary to achieve compliance with
permit limits. Eliminates “management controls” from
the definition of proper O&M.
final: Adopts proposal.
E. Signatories to Reports — S122.22(b)
existing: All reports and any other information required of a
permittee (other than an application) must be signed
by a principal executive ofEic r of a corporation or a
duly authorized representative who can only be a person
or position having overall responsibility for the
facility or activity.
proposed: Principal executive officer would be allowed to authorize
an individual or position having overall responsibility
for environmental matters for the company to sign
reports.
final: Adopts proposal.
-------
—5—
VI. CHANGES AFFECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
A. Toxic Control Strategy — §122.44(e)
existing: The regulations require that Directors control all
toxic pollutants either used or manufactured by the
facility or discharged at levels greater than those
achievable by BAT technology.
proposed: Directors need only control those toxic pollutants
for which there is potential for discharge at levels
greater than those achieveable by BAT technology,
although the Director may limit any pollutant.
final: Adopts proposal.
B. New Source Criteria — §122.29 (b)
existing: Discharger is classified as a new source if it is a new
facility, if it totally replaces an existing source, or
if construction changed the nature or quantity of
pollutants discharged.
proposed: Construction at an existirig source, but less than
total replacement of the facility, would only result
in a new source if the constructed facility functions
substantially independent of the existing source.
final: Adopts the substantially independent test and clarifies
the test by adding additional criteria: the extent to
which 1) the new facility is integrated with the existing
plant, and 2) the new facility is engaged in the same
general type of activity as the existing source.
C. Disposal to Wells — § 122.45(j), 122.50
existing: Mass—based effluent limitations are adjusted in proportion
to the amount of the permittee’s wastewater that is
diverted to wells, POTWs or land application. Thus,
dischargers may not meet technology—based limits by
diverting a portion of their waste discharge.
proposed: Dischargers are allowed to install less extensive
treatment than envisioned by BPT, BCT or BAT when a
part of the wastes go to wells or land; these methods
of disposal would be considered treatment and any
adjustments for disposal to wells or land is eliminated.
final: Retains existing regulation.
-------
—6—
D. BPJ ( 4O2(a)(1)J Authority — §125.3(c)
existing: Director can set limits for particular pollutants on a
case—by—case basis where there is no applicable effluent
guideline or where a guideline has been issued covering
the facility but the guideline does not control the
particular pollutants.
proposed: Specifies those statutory factors that must be considered
in setting case—by—case limits and requires permit writer
to describe the basis for these limits in the fact
sheet, including how each of the factors was applied.
final: Retains the list of statutory factors but has not
adopted the fact sheet portion of the proposal.
E. Draft Development Documents and Treatability Manual — §125.3
existing: Permit writers are required to consider draft development
documents and treatability manual in establishing BPJ
limits.
proposed: Clarifies that permit writers are not bound by draft
development documents or guidance, although all pertinent
information, including_ th8se. documents,- must be considered.
final: Adopts proposal.
F. Net/Gross — §122.45(g) and (h)
existing: Generally, effluent limits shall not be adjusted for
pollutants in the intake waters, unless allowed by the
applicable guidelines or if certain stringent conditions
are met.
proposed: Discharger receives net credit to the extent that the
discharger uses guidelines technology or other equivalent
technology and still cannot meet technology—based
limits because of pollutants in the intake waters.
Dischargers may receive net credit for discharge of
raw water clarifier sludge.
final: Effluent limits may be adjusted to reflect credit.
for intake water pollutants if allowed by a guideline
or if the discharger can demonstrate that the guide-
line technology cannot meet the technology—based
limits due to intake water pollutants. Credit is only
allowed to the extent necessary to meet the applicable
limit and is only authorized for generic pollutants
if the constituents of the generic pollutant in both
intake water and effluent are substantially similar.
Rule does not apply to raw water clarifier sludge.
-------
—7—
G. Total Metals — §122.45(c)
existing: Permit effluent limits must be expressed in terms of
the total metal , not the dissolved form, unless
applicable effluent guidelines provide otherwise.
proposed: Permits limits must be expressed in terms of total
recoverable metals unless a guideline or water
quality standard specifies a different form or a
permit writer determines a different measure is
necessary to carry out the CWA.
final: Adopts proposal.
i. Toxics Control Strategy — Toxicity—Based Effluent Limits —
S125.3(c)(4) -
existing: Permit writers may issue permits that express effluent
limitations in terms of toxicity, either in place of
or in addition to the traditional mass (pounds of
pollutant), or concentration limits.
proposed: Proposed to delete the regulatory provision. Preamble
discouraged permit writer from setting toxicity—based
limits until the Agency adopts a frornal position on
whether and how to use toxicity testing in the permitting
process.
final: Retains existing provision based on Agency issuance
of policy on use of toxicity—based effluent limitations
(February 3, 1984).
t. Actual Production — §122.45(b)
existing: Mass—based permit limits are set on the basis of a
reasonable measure of actual production (five—year
historical production figures).
proposed: Preamble made clear that the appropriate test in setting
limits is what is reasonable, not necessarily five
years. Would allow alternative permit limits for the
automotive industry.
final: Expands proposal to allow other industries other than
automotive industry to be covered by alternative permit
limits.
-------
—8—
J. Imposition of Water Quality Conditions Staved by a Court or Agency
— fl22.44(d)(3)
existing: If a State certification that otherwise would establish
conditions necessary to meet water quality standards
is stayed by a State court or agency the Regional
Administrator must include in the permit conditions
necessary to meet those standards.
proposed: State has an additional 60 days to remove stay and
reinstate certification before certification is deemed
waived and permit is issued.
final: Adopts proposal.
K. Incorporation of NEPA—based Conditions in Permits — §122.44(d)(9)
existing: Permits must incorporate EIS—related conditions or
1 im i t s.
proposed: Allows greater freedom to permittees to challange the
application of NEPA conditions in individual permits.
final: Adopts -proposal; regulations -take no position on
particular circumstances under which NEPA conditions may
be imposed in permits; EPA’S authority to impose ElS—
related conditions is unchanged.
L. Compliance Schedule Prohibition — S122.47(a)
existing: New sources and new dischargers that began discharging
after August 1979 cannot receive compliance schedules,
and therefore, such sources must have their pollution
control equipment in place and operating when they
begin discharging.
proposed: New sources and new dischargers may receive compliance
schedules if necessary to achieve compliance with
requirements established after construction began and
established less than three years before beginning discharge.
final: Adopts proposal.
M. Anti—Backsliding — §122.44(c) and (1)
existing: No permit based upon Best Professional udgxnent (BPJ)
may be reissued with less stringent limitations,
except in limited circumstances.
proposed: Allows backsliding to less stringent permit limitations
where a less stringent guideline is promulgated subsequent
to issuance of a BPJ permit.
-------
—9—
final: Retains existing provision except BPJ permits may be
reissued with less stringent limitations if permittee
can demonstrate wholly disproportionate operation and
maintenance costs compared to similar facility with
permit based on subsequent guidelines.
VII. PROCEDURAL CHANGES
A. Mddification of Permits to Conform to Revised Rules — §S122.62(a);
124.5
existing: No provision.
proposed: Permit modification will be allowed for permits issued
on or after March 9, 1982 to conform to certain
changes resulting from the settlement agreement.
final: Adopts proposal except for those provisions being
retained in existing form and not being changed in
accordance with settlement agreement.
B. Mistake and Failure of Technology to Achieve BPJ Limits — §122.62
existing: The grounds for permit modification do not include
technical mistakes or failure of technology to meet BPJ
limits.
proposed: Permits may be modified to correct mistakes, errors
of law and to take into account the failure of technology
to achieve BPJ limits.
final: Adopts proposal.
C. Deferral of Hearing on New Source Determination — §122.21(k)
existing: The Regional Administrator can defer a hearing on a
new source determination until the evidentiary hearing
on the permit.
proposed: Deferral of hearing on new source determinations will
be authorized only when all parties agree.
final: Adopts proposal.
D. Obligation to Submit Evidence and Raise Issues —SS124.13; 124.76
existing: Interested persons must raise all issues and submit all
factual contentions and supporting material by the
close of the public comment period and prohibits admission
into evidence of other material at art evidentiary
hearing except for “cause.”
-------
— 10 —
proposed: Allows evidence to be submitted after close of public
comment period, if factual contentions had been submitted
during the public conmient period. Regional Administrator
may reopen comment period, at which time all supporting
material must be submitted.
final: Adopts proposal.
E. Scope of Cross—Examination — §124.85(b)(16); 124.121(a)(l)
existing: Regulations governing evidentiary hearings allow no
cross—examination on matters of “policy” except to the
extent necessary to disclose the factual basis for
permit conditions.
proposed: While there may be no cross—examination on matters of
policy, there may be cross-examination on facts that
form the basis for EPA policy, if the cross—examination
relates to the factual basis for permit requirements in
question; same rules are extended to nonadversary panel
hearings.
final! Adopts proposal.
F. Ex Parte Conununicatior s — §124.78
existing: Ex parts contacts between EPA “trial staff” and the
decision—maker are prohibited. Witnesses are not
prohibited from contact with decision—makers unless
they are designated members of trial staff.
proposed: EPA witnesses and permit writers are designated as
members of the “trial staff.”
final: Adopts proposal.
G. Applicability of Panel Hearing Procedures to Initial Permits and
Variances — §124.111
existing: Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides several less
stringent procedural requirements for formal hearings
on the •issuance of “initial licenses” than apply in
other formal adjudications. “Nonadversay panel” (NAP)
hearings for initial permits and for the first decision
on a variance for any perinittee employs these less
strirt ent requirements.
proposed: NAP proceedings can only be held with the consent of
the applicant.
final: Retains existing provision.
-------
—11--
H. Role of Panel Members in Panel Hearings — SS124.120; 124.124;
124.126
existing: EPA employees who prepared draft permits may sit on the
panel at a Non Adversary Panel hearing and may advise
the decision—maker (Administrative Law Judge or the
Adimistrator on appeal).
proposed: Permit writers may not serve on NAP panels.
final: Adopts proposal.
VIII. CHANGES AFFECTING ENFORCEMENT
Upset Defense — §122.41(n)
existing: EPA recognizes an upset defense to temporary noncompliance
with technology—based permit limits when caused by
factors beyond the permittee’s control and when the
permittee can identify the specific cause of the upset.
proposed: An upset defense would also be allowed for violation of
water quality—based permit limits as long as instreain
water quality standards are met throughout the upset.
final: Retains existing provision, except for a minor
clarification to the requirement that permittee’s
identify the cause of the upset (rather than the
specific cause)
-------
APPENDIX C
AN OVERVIEW OF W ER QUALITY-BASED
TOXICS ‘CNt L
Per nits Division
3. S. Environir nta1 Protection ency
February, 1985
-------
A. Water .ia1ity—based Toxics Control in the NPDES Permit Program
1. Why water quality n ?
More and more NPDES industrial and municipal permits are
achieving final treath ent technologies. Water qualit’
controls will be the primary post—BA] mechani for limiting
toxics in NPDES permits.
2. y use toxicity as an asses nent and regulatory parameter?
Permitting authorities are faced with toxic water quality
impacted receiving waters which are very complex and for
which single chemical water quality standards are limited.
Single chemical limits cannot always be used to limit toxic
effects because there will be too many chemicals to limit,
there will be unkn n problem toxicants, and bioavailabiJ.ity
will not be assessed on a site specific basis. -
Toxicity testing will be most effective in ccmplex situations
because:
(1) The ability to measure the presence of a toxic pollutant
is not limited by the ability to chemically analyze for
the pollutant.
(2) The measurement of the toxicity of a water s le
incorporates the site—specific effects of chemical
interactions that effect the bioavailability or toxicity
of the pollutants.
(3) The measur t nt of the toxicity of a water sample
incorporates the site—specific effects of multiple
pollutants on the test organisms.
(4) The measurement of toxicity is a more cost effective
means to determine the toxicity effects of catiplex
wastewater and ambient water samples canpared to
chemical analysis and extrapolation of effects.
-------
B. National Policy
EPA has issued a policy (49 FR 9016, March 9, 1984) on water quality—
based permit limits for toxic pollutants. The major features of the
policy are as follows:
1. To control toxics beyond BAT, an integrated strategy using both
biological and ch nica1 n thods is to be followed.
2. State standards of a narrative nature (“no toxics in toxic
au unts”) can be the basis for control.
3. §308 and §402 of the Clean Water Act allow EPA and the States
to require chemical, toxicity, and instreaxn data to assure canpliance
with standards.
4. Effluent toxicity can and should be used as a parameter for
permit limits.
5 • EPA will assure that each Region has the technical capability
for asses nents .and can provide technical support to the States.
-------
C. Considerations in Using Toxicity
1. What is a toxicity test?
— xicity is measured by exposing organisms to water or
wastewater samples to determine the effects to the organisms.
— Usually the test is set up to determine the dilution of sample
that causes sane effect endpoint. Comnon endpoints are 50%
mortal ity (LC 50 ) and no observable effects (NOEL).
— In addition to testulg a serial dilution of sample, a test
can be conducted using undiluted sample and noting the degree
of mortality, impairment of growth/reproduction, or other
effects. This type of test provides a cheap way to assess
large segments of a river (termed ambient testing).
— Acute toxicity is effects that occur from exposures of short
duration relative to an organism’s lifespan. Chronic toxicity
is effects that occur fran exposures of long duration (concerned
principally with growth, reprodution, and latent mortality).
2. Expressing toxicity
— Toxicity is often expressed as the dilution of sample that
causes the test endpoint (or the concentration of CheIrLiCal
that causes the endpoint). For example, a water sample is
diluted in a serial dilution series and no effects are observed
in dilutions below 25% sample. The NOEL is expressed as 25%
sample.
— To use criteria, facilitate modelling, and express permit limits,
it is recatmended that toxicity be expressed as toxic units.
A toxic unit is merely the inverse of the sample fraction.
Toxicity expressed as percent sample is divided into 100 to
obtain toxic units. The example above can be expressed as 4
chronic toxic units.
— When using toxic units it is important to distinguish acute
toxic units fran chronic toxic units.
3. Species sensitivity —
— Different species exhibit different sensitivity to a toxicant.
It is impossible to generalize which species is most sensitive
to a particular toxicant. Because effluent and ambient samples
are of unknown composition, it is impossible to predict which
of several organisns will be most sensitive.
-------
— The purpose of toxicity testing is to ireasure a portion of the
range of sensitivity that would be expressed th the natural
cat nunity and then use a test organism fran the more sensitive
end of that range to characterize the effect on the ca munity.
— Field catparisons between toxicity and ecological irnp4ct have
shown that using the most sensitive of several organisms
accurately reflects ecological impact.
— The selection of test organisms is not important as long as
the selected organisms represent ecologically diverse taxa.
At least 3 species should be tested to select the most
sensitive.
4. Costs
— Costs for toxicity tests are cariparable to chemical analyses.
— Costs are decreasing as demand increases. Currently acute
tests cost fran $200—400 and recently developed short te
chronic tests cost fran $500—l000. -
-------
D. Water .iality Criteria
1. Criteria have 3 ca ponents:
Magnitude — how much toxicity or chsmical is allowable
Duration — how long can exposure be greater than the allowable
magnitude (limited by specifying a period in which
to average the exposure)
Frequency — how often can violations occur without significantly
affecting the aquatic cat nunity
2. Toxicity criteria are analogus to chemical criteria. Criteria
below apply to ambient water (e.g., beyond the mixing zone).
o Criteria for acute protection:
Magnitude: ] ess than 0.3 acute toxic units to the nost sensitive
of at least 3 test organisms
Duration: as a i—day average
Frequency: no itore frequently than once every 3—5 years
o Criteria for chronic protection:
Magnitude: less than 1.0 chronic toxic units to the nost
sensitive of at least 3 test organisms
Duration: as a 4-day average
Frequency: no nore frequently than once every 3—5 years
3. Frequency may be nodified based on site—specific factors
related to the site& ability to recover fran impact
(recruithient potential, ecosytem sensitivity, size of the
area experiencing impact, etc.)
-------
E. Basic Relation
1. Preventing impacts involves the relationship between criteria,
effluent quality, and assimilative capacity. Toxicity is handled
exactly the seme as chemical concentration.
2. Basic relation:
(effluent toxicity) x (1/Dilution factor) < criterion
3. For multiple sources assun additi iity:
( Os Te ) < criterion Qe = effluent flow
( Qe) + Os Te = effluent toxicity
Os = stream flow
The ass.znption of- additivity can be tested by using rbient
toxicity tests
4. Note that limitations depend on the dilution and the criteria.
Permit limits can be developed without prior testing of the
effluent discharge.
For example: permit limit = criterion x dilution factor
-------
F. Screening and Assessment
I. Reasons for conducting an assessment prior to permit limit
developnent:
a. to detennine or confirm that an impact exists
b. to develop data on test organism sensitivity to avoid the
lox species sensiti flty factor
c. to develop data on effluent variability in order to use dynamic
exposure model a
d. to assess the dispersion for mixing zone analysis
2. The applicant should be required to provide the data necessary to
make the assessment.
3 • A tiered assessment approach is reccnnended. Uncertainty factors
are used to account for insufficient data. In any tier, if impact
is projected, the State can either go to 1 itnit develop nent or
pennit the app]. icant to collect more data and el iitiinate one of the
uncertainty factors.
4. Uncertainty factors
a. Species sensitivity; lOXrdropped if 3—5 species tested and
the most sensitive identified
b. Effluent variability; lO—lOOX; used in assessment only, not in
limit developt ent; dropped if variability is adequately
characterized.
c. Acute—chronic ratio; lOX; not really an uncertainty factor;
used to convert acute toxicity data to chronic toxicity data
5. Recairiendat ions
Persistency — asstzne conservative (well treated effluent should
not change within the relatively snail mixing zone) — can
test using attient toxicity
Multiple sources — assi.zne the toxicity of multiple sources is
additive — can test using ambient toxicity
Dispersion — assess if mixing is riot obviously rapid. Assuming
canpletely mixed conditions may allow a toxic plune to extend
for many miles. A dye or conductivity study is recar!rended.
-------
G. t deuing
The objective is to model the assimilative capacity in order to
determine the relationship between sources of pollutants and
attairuz nt of the criteria.
Type 1 — Standard steady state
a. all inputs assi.m ed constant (stream flow, effluent flow,
effluent quality, etc.)
b. yields a single value for required effluent quality
c. advantage: ease of use
d. disadvantage: variability is not considered • The only
way to address the duration and frequency aspects of the
criteria is in the selection of a river flow rate. Provides
no information for permit develo nent on acceptable effluent
variability. Is generally overprotective.
Type 2 — Dynamic canputer models
a. considers the- variability in -the inputs
b. yields the required effluent quality in terms of a long
term average and coefficient of variation
c. three types of models available: continuous simulation,
lognormal probability analysis, Monte Carlo analysis
d. advantages: provides information on acceptable effluent
variability; more accurate representation of effects (less
overprotective)
e. disadvantage: more effort required. Data requir nts
depend on the type of model used.
Type 3 — Acute and Chronic Steady State
a. an interim approach in which two models are used — one for
acute protection and one for chronic protection — and the
duration criterion is applied to the required effluent
quality
b. yields two effluent requirements — a 1—day requirement and
a 4—7 day average requirement
c. advantages — provides sara information on acceptable effluent
variability. Easy to apply.
d. disadvantage — overprotective canpared to dynamic models
(although not as overprotective as standard steady state)
-------
H. Permit Limits
1. Limits must enforce the Wasteload Allocation (Wr.A)
2. WIA and limits may have to be different because each may use
a different expression of effluent quality or have incongruent
ass unptions about probability of occurrence.
3. Reca inendations:
a. For standard steady state WLA, use value as ironthly average
1 imit for nutrients and bioacci.unulative pollutants and as
daily max for toxic pollutants and toxicity.
b. For dyanamnic ncdel WLA, derive 1 units fran the long term
average and coefficient of variation using standard permit
limit statistical procedures.
c. For acute and chronic steady state WLA, (1) backcalculate
required long term average for each WLA, (2) determine which
requir entis limiting, and (3) calculate limits fran
long term average and CV.
4. When limiting toxicity, use a study called a toxicity reduction
evaluation to impl nent a compliance schedule and ensure
progress toward canpi iance.
5. Any chanical or parameter 1 united as a principal control mechaniEn
should be monitored at least once per month and preferably
once per week.
-------
APPENDIX H
* rmft
MODEL NPDES PERMIT FORMAT
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE.CNDER THE
NATI(’)NAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In coT tDliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq., hereinafter
the Clean Water Act 0 , or “Act”) and attendant regulations
incorporated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under
Title 40 of the Codeof Federal Regulations
( Name of Discharger) (hereinafter “Permittee” )
is au hbrized to discharge from its ( descriptionof facility) ,
located at
(insert Address)
to the receiving waters named ( identifv )
in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring
recuirements and other conditions set forth in Parts I, It,
and 111 herein. The permit consists of this cover sheet,
Part I — 3 page(s), Part II — 21 page(s), and Part III —
page(s)
All references to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are to regulations that are in effect on the effective date oF
this permit. Unless otherwise specified herein, all terms
are defined as provided in the applicable regulations in Title
40 of the Code’of Federal Regulations.
This permit shall heconte effective on (insert date). This
nermit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at
- midniqht (insert date).
=
Date Director
4DO’OOQOOQ99QQQ OOOOQQ QpoQoQQQQoocoQQX
-------
I-
Permit No.
PART I
A. EETLUEI ( LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REO(JIRF7IRNIS (Sample F.ffluent Limitations).
1. fluting the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through expiration, the
Permittee is authorized to discharge frrm outfall serial nunber 001, non—xntact cxolinq water,
sanitary wastewater and stormwater.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the Ilermitlee as specified below:
PARAMRTER DISCHAI 3F LIMITATIONS MONITORING RRJ(JI REMFNFS
asurement Sample
Pa liv Average Daily Max imun Frequency Type
I ’low, 3 /day(NGD) 1/Month Instantaneous
Temperature °c(°F) l/w ek C ab
Other Permits
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be
monitored once per month by qrah sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in crmpllance with monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the
following location(s): at the nearest accessible point hut psior to actual discharge of mixing
with the receiving waters.
The Permittee shall not auiment the use of process wastewater or otherwise dilute the wastewater
as a partial or total substitute for adequate treatment to achieve cx npliance with the above
limitations.
-------
Page I—
Permit
PAR1 I
A. EFI UJENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING RFX)UIRF7IFt’fl’S (Sample F f fluent Liltations).
2. flurincp the period beginning effective date anti lastinq thro h expiration date the Pemittee is
authorized to discharge frait outfall serial nunher 002, treated x ocess wastewater.
Such discharges shall he limited anti monitored by the permittee as specified below:
f f fluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
kg/day (lbs/day) Other Units(Specify) Measurement Sample
Avg. Monthly Max. Daily Avg. Monthly Max. Daily Frequency Type
[ low-m 3 /Pay (MCD) (0.01) Continuous Avg. Max. Mm.
rss 31 urjJl 60 mg/i 2/Month 8—hr Ccmtposite
Oil arid Grease 15 mg/i 2/Month Crab
Aluniniun .5 nq/l 2/Month 8—hr Canposite
Chranium 0.18 mci/i 2.6 inci/l 2/Month 8—hr Ccin x)site
Iron 2.0 n /l 3.0 mg/i 2/Month 8—hr Ccniposlte
Cyanide 0.02 mg/i 0.07 mg/I l/Ouarter Crab
*.rotal Toxic orçjanics 2.13 mg/i i/Quarter Crab
**ro er 1/Month 8-hr Ccutposite
*k?jflC 1/Month A—hr Ccinposite
1/Month 8-hr Canposite
The p1’ shall not. he less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and
shall he monitored daily by a grab sample.
There shal 1 be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in cintpl lance with the monitoring requirements specified abo ,e shall be taken
Fran the following location: at the point of discharge.
‘I’he Permittee shall not aucptent the use of process wastewater or otherwise dilute the wastewate
as a partial or total substitute for adeguate treatment to achieve ccnipliance with the above
limitations.
-------
Page I-3
Permit No.
B. GENERAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
The effluent shall, at all times, be free of substancee
1. in amounts that will settle to form putrescent., or otherwise
oblectionable, sludge deposits, or that will adversely affect
aquatic life or water fowl;
2. Of an oily, greasy, or surface—active nature, and of other
floating debris, in amounts that will form noticeable
accumulations of scum, foam or sheen;
3. In amounts that will alter the natural color or odor of the
receiving water to such degree as to create a rtuissance;
4. In amounts that either sinalv or in combination with other
substances that are toxic to human, animal, or aquatic life
5. In ammonts that are condusive to the growth of aquatic weeds
or al.qea to the amount that such growths hecome ininiical to-
more desireable forms of aquatic life, or create conditions
that are unsightly’, or constitutes a nuissance in any other
fashion.
. In.ariounts that will impair designated instream or downstream
water uses.
C. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The Permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent
limitations specified for discharges in accordance with
the following schedule:
2. o later than 14 calendar day’s following a date identified
in the above schedule of compliance, the perinittee shall
submit either a report of progress •or, in the case of
specific actions being recuired by identified dates, a
written notice of cornpl.iance or noncompliance. In the
latter case, the notice shall include the cause of non-
compliance, any remedial actions taken, and the pro-
bability’ f meeting the next scheduled recuirement.
-------
Page 11—i
Permit No.
Part IT
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
SECTIoN A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
• Duty to Conrnlv
The Permittee must comp]y with all conditions of this permit.
Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean
Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit
termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or
denial. of a permit renewal application.
2. Toxic Pollutants
The Perinittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions
established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for
toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations
that establish those standards or prohibitions, even if the
permit has no.t yet been modified to incorporate the regutrement.
3. Penalities for Violations of-Permit Conditiobs
Any person who violates a permit condition is suhiect to a
civil penalty not to exceed Sl0,000 per day for each violation.
Any person who willfully :or negligently violates permit conditions
is subiect to a fIne of not less than S2,500 nor more than
$25,000 per day for each violation, or by imprisonment for not
more than 1 year, or both.
4. Duty to Reapply
(a) If the Perinittee wishes to continue an activity regulated
by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the
Permittee must apoly for and obtain a renewal permit. The
Permittee shal.l submit a new acplication at least iqo days
before the expiration date of this oermit, unless oermission
for a later date has been granted by the Director.
(b) Where EPA is the Permit Issuing Authority for the renewal
permit, the terms and conditions of this permit continue in
force under 5 U.S.C. §558(c) until the effective date of the
new permit (or permit’denial) only if the Perinittee has submitted
a timely and complete application under 40 CFR l22.2l for a
renewal .permit and the Permit Issuing Authority, through no
fault of the Perinittee, does not issue a new permit (or deny
the permit) beEore the expiration date of this permit. The
nermit continued under 5 U.S.C. 558(c) remains fully effective
and enforceable, including sublect to the actions set forth
in 40 CFR l22.c(c)
-------
Page 11—2
Permit No.
5. Duty to Mitiaa
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.
6. Permit Actions (Modification, Revocation and Reissuance, or
Termination)
(a) This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or term—
in.ated for cause (as described .in 40 CFR 5 l22.62, l22. 3, and
l22. 4), including, but not limited to: (1) Violation of-any
terms or conditions of this permit: (2) Obtaining this permit
by misrepresentation or fai].ure to disclose fu)ly all relevant
facts: or (3) A change in any condition that recuires either a
temporary or permanent reduction or elimination the permitted
discharqe. The filing of a reduest by the Permittee for a
permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination,
or a notification of planned chances or anticipated noncompliance,
däes not stay any permit condition.
(b) Notwithstandina Paragraph I1—A— (a) above, if a toxic
effluent standard -or -prohibition:(includln anyschedule of
compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition)
is established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for
a toxic poflutant which is oresent in the discharge and such
standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation
for such pollutant jn this permit, this permit may’he modified
or revoked and ref.ssued to cortEorm to the toxic effluent
standard or prohibition.
Cc) Notwithstanding Paragraph II—A— Ca) above, this permit may be
modified, or alternatively revoked and reissued, to comply with
any applicable effluent standard or limftation issued or approved
under Sections 3fl1(b)(2)(A), (C), (0), (E) and (F), or 304ft)(2) of
the (‘Jean Water Act, if the effluent standard or limitation so
issued or approved contains different contains different
conditions or is otherwise more stringent than any effluent
limitation in this permit; or controls any pollutant not limited
in this permit.
7. Effect of Permit/Other Laws
(a)- Issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights
of any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize
any iniury to persons or property, or invasion of other private
rights, or any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or
regulations.
(b) Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from
any responsibilities, liabilities, or nenalties established
pursuant to any applicable State law or regulation under autority
nreserved by section 510 off the Clean Water Act.
-------
Page 11—3
Permit No.
Cc) Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the Perinittee from
any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the
Permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.
Cd) xpect as provided in permit conditions on “Upsets”, Para—
graph 11—3—4 below, and pH Excursions, Paragraph II—D—7 below,
nothing in this nermit shall he construed to relieve the
Permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance
with a permit condition.
Ce) Pursuant to Section 5 9(b)(1)(F) of the Clean Water Act,
a chalTenge to the validity of permit conditions, including
the effluent limitations in Part I—A of this permit, shall not
be a defense to an enforcement action under Section 3O or 505
of the Clean Water Act. ach and every violation of a permit
condition is subject to an enforcement action.
(f) Comoliance with the terms of this permit do s not constitute
a defense to any action brought under 5O4 of the C].ean Water
Act, or any other law governing protection of public health •or
welfare, for any imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health or welfare.
R, Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the constructiorr of
any onshore or offshore physical structures or facilities or
the undertaking of any work in any waters of the United States.
g Ins ectjon and Entry
The Permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized
representative, upon. the presentation of credentials and other.
documents as may he reguired by law, to:
a. 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
nermit;
h. Rave access to and cony, at reasoiiable times, any
records that must be kept under th conditions oic
this permit:
c. Inspect at reasonable time any facilities, equipment
(including monitorina and control ecuipment), practices,
or operations regulated or required under this nermit,
and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the
purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise
author ize by’ the Clean Water Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
-------
Page 11-4
Permit No.
10. SeverabilIty
The provisions of this permit are severable, arid if any
provision of this permit, or the application of any provision
of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the appli-
cation of such provision to other circumstances, and the re-
mainder of this permit, shaU. not be affected thereby.
SECTION B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The Perxnittee 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. Ptoper
operation and maintenance also includes effective performance,
adequate funding÷ adequate . . operator ..staffing_anci training,, and..
adequate laboratory and process controls, including appropriate
quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the
operation of back—up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems
which are tnstalled by the Permittee” only when the operation
is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions
of this permit.
2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be 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.
3. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
a. Definitions
Ci) “Bypass” means the intentional diversion of waste
streams from any portion of a treatment facility.
(ii) “Severe property damage” means substantial physical
damage to property, damage to the treatment facili-
ties which causes them td 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.
-------
Page lI—S
Permit No.
b. 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 11—9—3(c) and Cd), below.
c. Notice
(i) Anticipated bypass. If the Perinittee knows in
advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit
prior notice, if possible at least ten days before
the date of the bypass; (including an evaluation
of the anticipated quality and effect of the
bypass.)
(ii) Unanticipated bypass. The Pertnittee shall submit
notice of an unanticipated bypass as required .n
Paragraph II—D—7 (24—Hour Notice).
d. Prohibition of bypass.
Bypass is prohibited and the Director r tay take
enforcement action against the Perinittee for bypass,
unless:
Ci) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage;
(ii) There were no feasible alternatives to the
bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment
facilities, retention of untreated wastes,
or maintenance during normal periods of equip-
ment downtime. This condition is not satisfied
if adequate back—up equipnent should have
been installed in the exercise of reasonable
engineering judgment to prevent a bypass
which occurred during normal periods of
equi nent downtime or preventive maintenance;
and
(iii) The Permittee submitted notices as required
under Paragrpah 1 1— 3—3(c) above.
e. The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, if the Director deter—
mines that it will meet the three conditions listed
above in paragraph II—B—(3)(d).
-------
Page 11—6
Permit No.
(4) Upset
(a) Definition . “Upset” means an exceptional incident in
which there is unintentional and tem rary noncom-
pliance with technology—based permit effluent ].imita—
tions becuase of factors beyond the reasonable con-
trol of the Permittee. An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by operational
error, improperly designed treatment facilities,
inadequate treatment facilities, lack oe preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
(b) Effect of an upset . An upset constitutes an
affirmative defense to- an action brought for non-
compliance with such technology—based permit effluent
limitations if the requirements of Paragraph II—B—4(c),
below, are met. Mo determination made during admini-
strative review of claims that noricomp .iance was
caused b upset, and before an action for noncom-
pliance, is final administrative action subject to-
judicial review.
(c) Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset .
APermittee who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense o upset shall demonstrate, through properly
signed, contem raneous operating logs, or other
relevant evidence that:
(i) An upset occurred and that the Permittee can
identify the specific cause(s) of the upset;
(ii) The Permitte facility was at the time being
properly operated;
(iii) The Permittee submitted notice of the upset
as required in Paragraph II-D—7 below,
(24—hour notice); and
(iv) The Permittee complied with any remedial
measures required under Paragraph 11—A—S above.
(d) Burden of proof . In any enforcement proceeding the
Permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an
upset has the burden of proof.
5. A Schedule of 4aintenance
Any maintenance of facilities, which might necessitate
unavoidable interruption of operation and degradation
of effluent quality, shall be scheduled during non-
critical water quality periods and carried out in a
manner approved by the Director.
-------
Page I —7
Permit No.
6. Power Failures
In order to maintain compliance with the effluent
limitations and prohibitions of this permit, the
Pertnittee shall either:
In accordance with the Schedule of Compliance
contained in Part I, provide an alternative
power source sufficient to operate the waste—
water control facilities;
or, if such alternative power source is not in
existence, and no date for its implementation appears
in Part I,
Halt, reduce or otherwise control production and/or
all discharges upon the reduction, loss, or failure
of the primary source of power to the wastewater
control facilities.
7. Removed Substances
This permit does ot c tzeischarge of solids,
sludge, filter backwa -o th r pollutants removed
in the course of t aX t-or--centro1 or wastewaters
to waters of the United States unless specifically
limited in Part 1—A. All solids, sludges, filter back-
wash, or other pollutants removed from, or resulting
from the treatment or control of discharges must be
disposed of in accordance with all applicable Federal,
State, and Local requirements.
SECTION C. MONITORING AND RECORDS
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken for the purposes of
monitoring shall be representative of the volume and nature
of the monitored activity.
2. Sampling Points
All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points specified
in this permit and, unless otherwise specified, before the
effluent joins or is diluted by any other wastestrearn, body
of water, or substance. Monitoring points shall not be
changed without notification to and the approval of the
Director.
-------
Page II—8
Permit No.
3. Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurements devices and methods consistent
with accepted scientific practices shall be selected and
used to insure the accuracy and reliability of measurements
of the volume of monitored discharges. The devices shall
be installed, calibrated and maintained to insure that the
accuracy of the measurements are consistent with the accepted
capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall
be capable of measuring flows with a maximum deviation of
less than ± 10% from the true discharge rates throughout
the range of expected discharge volumes. Once—through
condenser cooling water flow which is monitored by pump
logs, or pump hour meters as specified in Part I of this
permit and based on the manufacturer’s pump curves shall
not be subject to this requirement. Guidance in
selection, installation, calibration and operation of
acceptable flow measurement devices can be obtained from
the following references:
a. “A Guide of Methods and Standards for the Measurement
of Water Flow”, U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards, NBS.Special Publication 421-,
May 1975, 97 pp. (Available from the U.S. Govern-
ment Prthting Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Order by SD catalog No-. -C13.-10:421.)
b. “Water Measurement a ,:-U -S 4 Department of
Interior, Bureau f am tthfl, Second Edition,
Revised Reprint, 1974, 327 pp. (Available from the
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402. Order by catalog No. 127.19/2:W29/2, Stock
No. S/N 24003—0027.)
c. “Flow Measurement in Open Channels and Closed
Conduits”, U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards, NBS Special Publication 484,
October 1977, 982 pp. (Available in paper copy
or micofiche from National Technical Information
Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22151. Order by
NTIS No. P9—273 535/5ST.)
d. “NPDES Compliance Flow Measurement Manual”, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Enforcement, Publication MCD—77, September 1981,
- 135 pp. (Available from the General Services
Administration (8BRC), Centralized Mailing Lists
Services, Building 41, Dever Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225.
4. Monitorinc Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures
approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test pro-
cedures have been sDecified in this permit.
-------
Page 11—9
Permit No.
5. Calibration
The Permittee shall periodically calibrate and perform
maintenance on a].]. monitoring and analytical equipnent
used to monitor the pollutants discharged under this per-
mit, at intervals which will ensure the accuracy of
measurements.
6. Testing Variability Not a Defense
If the Permittee believes or has reason to believe that
monitoring or sampling results reflect an analytical
variability so as to render the r?sults inaccurate, he may
monitor or sample more frequently than required by this
permit. The validity of the testing results, whether or
not the Permittee has monitored or sampled more frequently,
shall not be a defense to an enforcement action under
§S309 or 505 of the Clean Water Act.
7. pH Effluent Limitations Under Continuous Monitoring
Notwithstanding Paragraphs I of -this permit, where the
Permittee continuously measures •the pH of wastewater p .irsuant
to a requirement or option in this permit, excursions ‘from
the range provided in Paragra hs I—A are permitted, provided:
(a) Th& pH limitation in Par t’ hs I— A of this permit is
based upon a requirement imposed under 40 CFR Subpart N..
(b) The total time during which the pH values are outside
the required range of pH values shall not exceed 446
minutes in any calendar month; and
(c) No individual excursions form the range of pH values
shall exceed 60 minutes.
(d) For pirposes of this section, an “excursion” is an un-
intentional and temporary i ncident in which the pH
value of discharge wastewater exceeds the range set
forth in Paragraphs I—A of this permit. The number
of individual excursions exceeding 60 minutes and the
total accumulated excursion time in minutes occurring
in any calendar month shall be reported in accordance
with Paragraph II—D—5 of this permit.
8. Penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who
falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate
any monitoring device or method required to be main-
tained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be
pinished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per via—
lation, or by imprisonment for not more than 6 months
per violation, or by both.
-------
Page I l —lU
Permit No.
9. Rentention of Records
The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring
information, including all calibration and maintenance
records and all original strip chart recording for
céntinuous 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 3 years from the date of the
sample, measurement, report or application. This
period may be extended by request of the Director at
any time.
10. Monitoring Records
Records of monitoring information shall, include:
a. The date, exact place and time of sampling or
mesurements;
b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or
measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) aho -petformed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniqu&s or methods used; and
f. The results of such analyses.
11. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently
than required by this permit, using test procedures
approved under 40 CP’R 136 or as specified in this
permit, the results of this monitoring shall be in-
cluded in the calculation and reporting of the data
submitted In the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
pursuant to Paragrpah It—D—5. Such increased frequently
shall also be indicated.
12. Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for limitations which require averaging of
measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless
otherwise specified in this permit.
SECTION D. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Planned Changes .
The Pernittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as
cossible of any p1 nned physical alterations or additions
to the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
-------
Page u—u
Permit Nb.
(a) The alteration or addition to a permitted facility
may meet one of the criteria for determining whether
a facility is a new source in 40 CFR 122.29(b); or
(b) The aiteration or addition could significantly change
the rvature or increase the quantity of po].lutants
discharged. This notification applies to llutants
which are subject neither to effluent limitations in
the permit, nor to notification requirements under
Paragraph II—D--9.
2. Change in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with
the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of
any ol1utant identified In this permit more frequently
than or at a level in excess of that authorized shall
constitute a violation of this permit. Any anticipated
facility expansions, production increases, or process
modifications which will result in new, different, or
increased discharges of pollutants must be reported by
submission of- a new NPDES -application at least 180- days
prior to comx encement of such discharges, or if such
changes will not violate the effluent i .imitations speci-
fied in this permit, by notice in wri ting, to the
Director of such changes. Followini 1 ch notice, the
permit may be modified or revoked and re.issued pursuant to
40 CFR §122.62(a) to specify and limit any pollutants not
previously limited.
Until such modification is effective, any new or increased
discharge in excess of permit limits or not specifically
authorized by the permit constitutes a violation.
3. Anticipated Noncompliance
The Permittee shall give advance notice to the Permit Issuing
Authority of any planned change in the permitted facility
or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit
reauirements. Any maintenance of facilities, which might
necessitate unavoidable interruption of operation and
degradation of effluent quality, shall be scheduled during
noncritical water quality periods and carried out in a
manner approved by the Permit Issuing Authority.
4. Transfer
(a) In the event of any change in control or ownership of
facilities from which the authorized discharge emanate,
the ?ermittee shall notify the succeeding owner or
controller of the existence of this permit by letter,
a copy of which shall be forwarded to the Regional
Administrator and the State water pollution control
agency.
-------
Page 11—12
Permit No..____
(b) This permit is nontrartsferable to any person except
after notice to the Director and compliance with
Paragraph II—D—4(c) below.
Ci) Transfers by modification. Except as provided in
paragraph II—D—(4)(c)(ii) below, a permit may be
transferred by the permittee to a new owner or
operator only if the permit has been modified or
revoked and reissued (under 40 CFR §122.62(b)(2) ,
or a minor modification made (under 40 CFR
5122.63(d)), to identify the new perrttittee and
incorporate such other requirements as may be
necessary under the Clean Water Act.
(Ii) Automatic transfers. This permit may be auto-
matically transferred to a new pertnittee if:
(a) The Permittee notifies the Director at least
30 days in advance of the proposed transfer
date;
(b) The notice includes a written agreement
between the existing and new permittees
containing a speqific date for tranafer
of permit responsibility, coverage, and
liability between them; and
Cc) The Director does not notify the existing
Permittee and the proposed new perrnittee
of his or her intent to modify or revoke
and reissue the permit. A modification
under the subparagraph may also be minor
modification under 40 CFR 5122.63. If
this notice is not received, the transfer
is effective on the date specified in the
wtitten agreement.
5. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Monitoring results obtained during the previous calender
(insert frequency, i.e. — month or quarter) shall be sum-
marized for each month (each quarter if monitoring frequency
is quarterly) and must be reported on a Discharge Monitor-
ing Report Form (EPA No. 3320—1), postmarked no later than.
the 28th day of the month following the completed reporting
period. The first report is due (insert date). Duplicate
signed copies of these, and all other reports required by
Section D of Part II, (Reporting Requirements) of this
permit shall be submitted to the Director a id the State at
the, following addresses:
6. Compliance Schedules
Compliance schedule progress reports shall be submitted
in accordance with Paragraph E—C—2.
-------
Page 11—13
Permit No.
7. Twenty—Four Hour Reporting
The Permittee shall orally report any noncompliance which
may endanger health or the environment, within 24 hours
from the time the Permittee becomes aware of the circum-
stances. A written submission shall also be provided
within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of
the circumstances. The written submission shall contain
a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the
period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the
anticipated time it is expected to continue, and steps
taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent re-
occurrence of the noncompliance. The Director may waive
the wrttten report, on a case—by—case basis, when the oral
report is made.
The following violations shall be included in the 24 hour
report when they might endanger health or the environment.
a. An unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent
limitation in this permit.
b. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in
this permit.
c. Violation of arnaximuin daily discharge limitation
for any of the following pollutants (any toxic
pollutant or hazardous substance, or any pollutant
specifically identified as the method to control a
toxic pollutant or hazardous substance.)
8. Other noncompliance .
The Perinittee shall report all instances of noncompliance
not reported under Paragraphs II—D—5, 6, and 7 above at
the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports
shall contain the information listed in Paragraph II—D—7
above.
9. Other information .
Where the Perrnittee becomes aware that it failed to submit
any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted
incorrect information in a permit application or in any
report to the Director, it shall promptly submit such
facts or information.
10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
The Permittee shall notify the Director as soon it knows
or has reason to believe:
-------
Page 11—14
Permit No.____
a. That any activity has occured or will occur which
would result in the dischar.ge, on a routine or
frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant (listed at 40
CFR 122, Appendix D, Table II and III) which is not
limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed
the highest of the following “notification levels”:
(1) One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/1);
(ii) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ug/].)
for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hupdred
micrograms per liter (500 ugh) for 2,4—
dinitrophenol and for 2—methyl—4,6 diriitrophenol;
and one milligram per liter (1 mg/i) for antimony;
(iii) Five (5) times the maximum concentration value
reported for that pollutant in the permit
application;
b. That any activity has occured or will occur .which
would result In any discharge, on a non—routine or
infrequent basis, of a toxic polilutant which is
not limited in the permit, if that discharge will
exceed the highest of the following “notification
level”.
(i) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ugh);
(ii) One milligram per liter (1 mg/i) for antimony;
(iii) Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value
reported for that pollutant in the permit appli-
cation in accordance with 40 CFR §122.21(g)(7).
11. Duty to Provide Information
The Permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a
reasonable time, any information which the Director may
request to determine whether cause exists for modifying,
revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to
deteri iine compliance with this permit. The Permit.tee
shall also furnish to the Director, upon request, copies
of records required to be kept by this permit.
12. Signatory Requirements
a. All applications, reports, or information submitted to
the Director shall be signed and certified.
b. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
-------
Page 11—iS
Permit No.
(i) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate
officer. For the purpose of this section, a
responsible corporate officer means: (A) a
president, secretary, treasurer or vice—president
of the corporation in charge of a principal
business function, or any other person who per-
forms similar policy — or decision—making func-
tions for the corporation, or (B) the manager of
one or more manufacturing production or operating
facilities employing more then 250 persons or
having gross annual sales or expenditures exceed-
ing 25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars),
if authority to sign documents has been assigned
or delegated to the manager in accordance with
corporate procedures.
(ii) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a
general partner or the proprietor, respectively;
or
(iii) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other
public agency: by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected official. For pur-
poses of this section, a principal executive
officer of a Federal agency includes: (A) The
chief executive officer of the agency, or (B) a
senior executive officer having responsibility
for the overall operations of a principal
geographic unit of the agency.
c. All reports required by this permit and other
Information requested by the Director shall be
signed by a person described in paragraph II—D—
(12)(b) above orby a duly authorized representative.
A person is a duly authorized representative only
if:
(i) The authorization is made in writing by a person
described in paragraph II—D—(12(b) above;
(ii) The authorization specifies either an individual
or a position having responsibility for the
overall operation of the regulated facility or
activity, such as the position of plant manager,
operator or a well or a well field, superintendent,
position of equivalent responsibility, or an
individual or position having overall responsi-
bility for environmental matters for the company.
(A duly authorized representative may be either a
named individual or any individual occupying a named
position); and
(iii) The written authorization is submitted to the
Director.
-------
Page 11—16
Permit 4o.
d. Changes is authorization shall be made pursuant to
40 CFR S122.22(c).
e. Certification. Any person signing a docuntent under
Paragraphs II—D—l0 shall make the following certification:
“I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared
under the direction or supervision in accord-
ance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evalu-
ate the inforr ration submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage
the system, or those persons directly respon-
sible for gathering the information, the in-
formation submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and
complete. I am- aware that there are signifi-
cant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprison-
ment for knowing violations.”
13. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR
Part 2, all reports prepared in accàrdance with the terms
of this permit shall be available for public inspection at
the offices of. the Director; A required by the Clean
Water Act, permit applications, permits and effluent data
shall not be considered confidential.
14. Penalties for Falsification or Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly
makes any false statement, representation, or certifi-
cation in any record or other document submitted or
required to be maintained under this permit, including
monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncom-
pliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of
not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment
for not more than 6 months per violation, or by both.
SECTIO 1 E.• DEFINITIONS (Suggested definitions not addressed in
40 CFR Part 122)
1. Average — the arithmetic mean of values taken at the frequency
required for each parameter over the specified period. For
total and/or fecal coliforiri, the average shall be the
geometric mean.
-------
Page 11—17
Permit No.
2. Mass/Day Measurements (The language in paragraph a, b, ahd
c may be included as an alternative to the definitions
of average monthly, average weekly, and daily maximum
discharge limitations in §122.2).
a. The “average monthly discharge” is defined as the
total mass of all daily discharges sampled and/or
measured during a calendar month on which daily
discharges are sampled and measured, divided by
the number of daily discharges sampled and/or
measured during such month. It is, therefore, an
arithmetic mean found by adding the weights of the
pollutant found each day of the month and then divid-
ing this sum by the number of days the tests were
reported. This limitation is identified as “Daily
Average” or “Monthly Average” in Part I of the permit
and the average montly discharge value is reported
in the “Average” column under “Quantity” on the
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR).
b. The “'average weekly discharge” is defined as the total
mass of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured
during the calendar week orv which daily discharges -
are sampled and/or mesured during such week. It is,
therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding the
weights of pollutants found each day of the week and
then dividing this sum by the number of days the
tests wer”e reported. This limitation is identified
as “Weekly Average” in Part I of this permit and the
• average weekly disharge value is reported in the
“Maximum” column under “Quantity” on DtIR.
c. The “maximum daily discharge” is the total mass
(weight) of a pollutant discharged during a calendar
• day. If only one sample is taken during any calendar
day the weight of pollutant calculated from it is the
“maximum daily discharge”. This limitation is identi-
fied as “Daily Maximum”, in• Part I of this permit arid
the highest such value recorded during the reporting
period is reported in the “Maximum” column under
“Quantity” on the DMR.
d. The “a zerage annual discharge” is defined as the total
mass of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured
during the calendar year on which daily discharges
are sampled and/or measured during each week. It is,
therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding the
weights of pollutants found each day of the year and
then dividing this sum by the number of days the
tests were reported. This limitation is defined as
“Annual Average” in Part I of this permit and the
average annual discharge value is reported in the
“Average” column under “Quantity” on the DMR.
-------
Page 1 1—18
Permit No.
3. Concentration Measurements
a. The “average monthly concentration”, other than for
fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of the concentra-
tions of all daily discharges sampled and/or measured
divided by the number of daily discharges sampled!
and/or measured during such month (arithmetic mean
ofthe daily coentratiort values). The daily concentra-
tion value is equal to the concentration of a composite
sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic
mean (weight by flow value) of all the samples collected
during that calendar day. The average monthly count
for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean of
the counts for samples collected during a calendar
month. This limitation is identified as “Monthly
Average” or “Daily Average” under “Other Limits” in
Part I of this permit and the average montly concen-
tration value is reported under the “Average” column
under “Quality” on the DMR.
b. The “average weekly concentration”, other than for
fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of the concert—
trations ofall daily discharges sampled and/or
measured during a calendar week on which daily dis-
charges are sampled and measured divided by the number
of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during
such week (arithmetic mean of the daily, concentration
values). The daily concentratiofi value is equal to
the concentration of a composite sample or in the case
of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by
flow value) of all the samples collected during that
calendar day. The average weekly count for fecal
coliforrn bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts
for samples collected during a calendar week. This
limitations is identified as “Weekly Average” under
“Other Limits” in Part I of this permit a d the average
weekly concentration value is reported under the
“Maximum” column under “Quality” on the DMR.
c. The “maximum daily concentration” is the concentration
of a pollutant discharge during a calendar day. It is
identified as “Daily Maximum” under “Other Limits” in
Part I of this permit and the highest such value recorded
during th reporting period is reported under the
“Maximum” column under “Quality” on the DMR.
d. The “average annual concentration”, other than for
fecal coliform bacteria, is the sum of the concen-
trations of all daily discharges sampled and/or
measured during a calendar year on which daily dis-
charges are sampled and measured divided by the number
of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during
such year (arithmetic mean of the daily concentration
values). The daily concentration value is equal to
-------
Page 11—19
Permit No.
the concentration of a composite sample or in the case
of grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by
flow value) of all the samples collected during the
calendar day. The average yearly count for feca].
coliforin bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts
for samples collected during a calendar year. This
limitation is identified as “,Annual Average” under
‘Other Limits” in Part I of this permit and the average
annual concentration value is reported under the
“Average” column under “Quality” on the DMR.
4. Other Measurements
a. The effluent flqw expressed as M3/day (MCD) is the 24
hour average flow averaged monthly. It is the arithmetic
mean of the total daily flows recorded during the
calendar month. Where monitoring requirements for
flow are specified in Part I of this permit, the flow
rate values are reported in the “Average” column under
‘Quantity’ on the DMR.
b. An ‘instantaneous flow measurement” is a measure of
flow taken at the time of sampling, when both the
sample and flow will be representative of the total
discharge.
c. Where monitoring requirements for pH, dissolved oxygen
or fecal coliform bacteria are specified in Part I of
this permit, the values are generally reported in the
“Quality or Concentration” column on the DMR.
5. Types of Samples
Crab sample: An individual sample of at least 100 milliliters
collected at a randomly—selected time over a period not
exceeding 15 minutes.
Composite sample: A combinatior of at least 8 sample
aliquots of at least 100 milliliters, collected at periodic
intervals during the operating hours of facility over a 24
hour period. The composite must be flow proportional;
either the time interval between .each ali uot or the volume
of each aliquot must -be proportional to either the stream
flow at the time of sampling or the total stream flow since
the collection of the previous aliquot. Aliquotsmay be
collected manually or automatically. For CC/MS Volatile
Organic Analysis (VOA), aliquots must be combined in the
laboratory immediately before analysis. Four (4) (rather
than eight) aliquots or grab samples should be collected
during actual hours of discharge over a 24 hour period and
need not be flow proportioned. Only one analysis is
required.
-------
Page II — 20
Permit No.
6. Calculation of Means
a. Arithmetic Mean: The arithmetic mean of any set
of values is the summation of the individual values
divided by the number of individual values.
b . Geometric’ Mean: The geometric mean of any set of values
is the Nth root of the product of the individual values
where N is ecual to the number of individual values.
The, geometric mean is equivalent to the antilog of the
arithmetic mean of the logarithms Qf the individual
values. For purposes of calculating the g eometric
mean, values of zero (0) shall be considered to be one
(1).
c. Weighted by Flow Value: Weighted by flow value means
the summation of each concentration times its respect-
ive flow divided by the- summation of the respective
flows.’
7. Calendar Day
A calendar day is defined as the period from midnight of
one day until midnight of the next day. However, for
purposes of this’ permit, any consecutive 24—hour period
that reasonably represents the calendar day may be used
for sampling.
8. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations, when used, are defined below.
cu. M/day or M 3 /day cubic meters per day
mg/i milligrams per liter
ugh micrograms per liter
lbs/day pounds per day
kg/day kilograms per day
Temp. °C temperature in degrees Centigrade
Temp. °F temperature in degrees Fahrenheit
Turb. turbidity’ measured by the
Nephelornetric Method (NTU)
TNFR or TSS total nonfilterable residue or total
suspended solids
-------
Page 11—21
Permit No.
DO dissolved oxygen
BOD five—day biochemical oxygen demand
unless otherwise specified
TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen as nitrogen
Total N total nitrogen
t1H 3 —N ammonia nitrogen as nitrogen
Total P total phosphorus
COD chemical oxygen demand
TOC total organic carbon
Surfactant surface—active agent
pH a measure of the hydrogen ion
concentration
PCB polych1orinate biphenyl
CFS cubic feet per second
MCD million gallons per day
Oil.& Grease Freon extractable material
Total Coliform total coliform bacteria
Fecal Coliform total fecal coliform bacteria
ml/1 milliliter(s) per liter
N0 3 -’N nitrate nitrogen as nitrogen
N0 2 —N nitrite nitrogen as nitrogen
N0 3 —N0 2 combined nitrate and nitrite
nitrogen .as nitrogen
Cl 2 total residual chlorine
-------
Page I ll—i
Permit No.
PART Lu
.OTHER REQULR MENTS
SECTION A. GENERAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CONDITIONS
BMP Plan
For purposes of this part, the terms “pollutant” or
“pollutants” refers to any substance listed as toxic under
-Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act, oil, as defined
in Section 311(a)(].) of the Clean Water Act, and any
substance listed as hazardous under Section 311 of the
Clean Water Act. The Permittee shall develop and implement
a Best Management Practices (BMP) plan which prevents, or
minimizes the potential for the release of pollutants
(may want to limit to hazardous or toxic pollutants) from
ancillary activities, including material storage areas;
plant site runoff; in—plant transfer, process and material
handling areas; loading and unloading operations, and
s1ud e and waste disposal areas, to the waters of the
United States through plant site runoff; spillage or leaks;
sludge or waste disposal; or drainage from raw material
storage.
2. Implementation
The. plan shall he developed within six months after the
effective date of this permit and shall be implemented as
soon as practicable but not later than 18 months after the
effective date of this permit.
3. Genera]. Reauirements
The BKP plan shall:
a. Be documented in narrative form, and shall include any
necessary plot plans, drawings or maps.
b. Establish specific objectives for the control of pollutants.
Ci) Each facility component or system shall be examined
for its potential for causing a release of signifi-
cant amounts of pollutants to waters of the United
States due to equi nent failure, improper operation,
natural phenomena such as rain or snowfall, etc.
(ii) Where experience indicates a reasonable potential
for equipnent failure (e.g., a tank overflow or
leakage), natural condition (e.g., precipitation),
orother circumstances to result in significant
amounts of pollutants reaching surface waters,
the plan should include a prediction of the
direction, rate of flow and total quantity of
pollutants which could be discharged from the
-------
Page 111—2
Permit No.
facility as a result of each condition or
circumstance.
c. Establish specific best management .practices to meet
the objectives identified under Paragraph III—A—3(b),
addressing each component or system capable of causing
a release of significant amounts of pollutants to the
waters of the United States, and identifying specific
preventative or remedial measures to be implemented.
d. Include any special conditions established in Paragraph
111—B of this permit.
e. Be reviewed by plant engineering staff and the plant
manager.
4. Specific Requirements
The plan shall be consistent with the general guidance
contained in the publication entitled “NPDES Best Manage-
ment Practices Guidance Document” (June,- 1981) and shall
include the following as a minimum:
a. BMP- Committee
b. Reporting of BMP Incidents
c. Risk Identification and Assessment
d. Employee Training
e. Inspections and Records
f. Preventive Maintenance
g. Good Housekeeping
h.. Materials Compatibility
i. Security
5. SPCC Plans
The B 1P plan may reflect requirements for Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans under section 311
of the Act and 40 CFR Part 151, and may incorporate any
part of such plan into the BMP plan by reference.
6. Hazardous Waste Management
The Permittee shall assure the proper management’of solid
and hazardous waste in accordance with regulations promul-
gated under Solid 1aste Disposal Act, as amended (RCRA)
(40 U.S.C. 6901 et. seq). Management practices required
under RCRA regulations shall be referenced in the BMP
plan.
7. Documentation
The permittee shall maintain a description of the BMP plan
at the faci1it ’ and shall make the plan available to the
Director upon request.
-------
Page 111—3
Permit No. ____________
8. 3MP Plan Modification
The permitteé shall amend the 3M? plan whenever there is a
change in the facility or change in the operation of the
facility which materially increases the potential for
ancillary activities to result ma discharge of significant
amounts of pollutants.
9. Modification for Ineffectiveness
If the BMP plan proves to be ineffective in achieving the
general objective of preventing the release of significant
amounts of pollutants to surface waters and the specific
objectives and requirements under paragraphs III—A—3(b) and
(C), the permit and/or the BMP plan shall be subject to
modification to incorporate revised BMP requirements.
SECTION B. SPECIFIC BMP CONDITIONS (Sample Conditions)
1. All process waste, and surface runoff from process areas
subject to spills or leaks of raw materials or products
containing toxic or hazardous materials, sh all be contain.ed
and directed to the waste treatment plant or polishing
pond.
Z. Storage of wastewater treatment sludges, polishing pond
dr.edgirtgs and chrome treatment sludges shall be managed to
minimize the potential for release of toxic or hazardous
substances to navigable waters. Storage areas shall be
graded to prevent run—on of surface runoff from adjacent
areas and to prevent accumulation or poriding o.f precipitation
in the storage areas. Management practices shall be de-
signed to minimize infiltration of precipitation into sludge
storage piles and to minimize leachate. Surface runoff and
leachate from storage areas shall be conveyed to the final
polishing pond through the existing storm drainage system.
These management conditions are based upon the classifi-
cation of stored sludges and dredgings as non—hazardous
materials under applicable regulations for hazardous
wastes (40 CFR Parts 260—265). Should any changes in the
constituents of the materials being stored or in the de-
finition of hazardous wastes result in the stored wastes
or leachate from the storage piles meeting the definition
of a hazardous waste, the Director shall be notified and
the Perrnittee shall make the necessary changes in management
practices to comply with applicable- State and federal
regulations for storage of hazardous wastes.
3. The existing “land farm” area for land disposal of waste—
water treatment sludges located north of the sludge storage
area shall be managed to minimize the potential for release
of toxic orhazardous substances to navigable waters.
Surface runoff from adjacent areas shall be diverted around
the disposal area. Surface runoff from the disposal area
-------
Page 111—4
Permit No. ___________
shall be conveyed to the storm drainage system tributary
to the final polishing pond. Surface runoff from the
disposal area shall not be allowed to discharge through
Outfall I
4. All drums containing hazardous substances now stored west
of the cooling towers shall either be removed from the
plant site within 120 days or shall be managed in a storage
area meeting the interim status standards of its RCRA permit
requirements for storage of hazardous wastes in containers.
(See 40 CFR 262-.34 and Subpart I of Parts 264 and 265.)
All other containers that have held hazardous wastes shall
either be triple rinsed or otherwise managed so that they
meet requirements for exclusion as a hazardous waste.
SECTION C. BIOMONITORING
1. The Effluent Toxicity limitation contained in Part I is the
allowable acute toxicity and is expressed as the minimum
LC—5O in percent effluent.(the LC—50 is the concentration of
effluent estimated to result in mortality to fifty percent
of the test organisms). The required test organism is the
fathead minnow (PlmephaJ.espromelas )tested over 96 hours
in accordance with Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity
of Effluents to Aquatic Organisms , EPA—6Q0/4—78—012,
Revised .uly 1978.
2. The Permittee shall conduct monitoring of effluent toxicity
once per month. One grab sample shall be collected and
tested within 36 hours of collection. Results shall be
reported as the 96—hr LC—50. Any test that does not meet
quality criteria as described in the above referenced
methods shall be repeated using a freshly collected sample
as soon as practicable.
3. If effluent toxicity exceeds the limitation in Part I, the
Permittee shall submit, if requested by the Director,
within 45 days a plan and schedule for conducting a toxicity
reduction evaluation. The toxi ity reduction evaluation,
when completed, shall determine how the Permittee can
achieve the effluent toxicity limitation including an
implementation schedule. After approval of the plan by
EPA, the Perinittee shall conduct the evaluation within the
speci.fied time frames. Upon completion of the toxicity
reduction evaluation, this permit may be modified, or
alternatively revoked and reissued, in order to incorporate
appropriate permit conditions and compliance schedules.
SECTION D. OTHER CONDITIONS
------- |