Permits Division
Policy and Guidance
Volume II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Washington, D.C.
-------
PERMITS DIVISION POLICY AND GUIDANCE - SUBJECT MATTER OUTLINE
I. State Program Development
A. NPDES Program
B. Pretreatment Program
C. Federal Facilities
D. General Permits
II. Permit Issuance
A. Procedures for and Effect of Issuance
B. Forms/Model Permits
C. Major/Minor Permits
D. General Permits
E. Permit Quality Review
III. Permit Limits and Conditions
A. General
B. Receiving Water Issues
1. Water Quality
2. Type of Receiving Water-body
3. In-Stream Treatment
C. Technology—based Standards (general)
D. Industry-specific Issues and Standards
E. Pollutant—specific Issues
F. Best Management Practices
G. Production-based Limits/Combined Wastestream
IV. Variances
A. Fundamentally Different Factors
B. §301(g) Variances
C. Other Variances -
V. Sampling and Reporting -
VI. Municipal Permits and Pretreatment —
A. General
B. POTW Permit, Limits and Variances
C. Storm water and Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
D. Pretreatment Program Development Requirements
E. Local Limits
F. Categorical Standards
G. Pass Through, Interference and Slug Loads
H. Removal Credits
I. RCRA Requirements
J. Enforcement, Audits, Compliance, etc.
VII. Toxicity Control
VIII. Sludge
IX. Hearings
X. Other Programs
A. Water Quality Management Plan
B. Solid Waste Discharges
C. CERCLA
D. SMCRA
E. LUST
12/31/90
-------
12/31/90 PERNITS DIVISION POLICY & GUIDANCE
SUBJECT MATTER LIST
Date
Description of Memo of Memo
I. State Program Development
A. NPDES Programs
NPDES State Program Guidance 07/29/86
Jurisdiction over discharges into boundary 04/19/78
waters
B. Pretreatment Program
Procedures for review and approval of state 04/30/79
pretreatment programs
C. Federal Facilities
State regulation of federal facilities 03/10/78
Applicability of §301(h) & (i) to federal 09/12/78
facilities
Transfer of authority over federal 11/28/78
facilities to NPDES states
D. General Permits
Development of State general permit program 06/13/89
General Permit Program Guidance Feb. ‘88
Processing approved states’ general 12/31/80
program submissions
Determining whether revision to state 02/12/81
programs to authorize general permits
is substantial
II. Permit Issuance
A. Procedures For and Effect of Issuance
Storm water application deadline 01/31/90
Minor permits issuance strategy 02/20/86
Part 124 procedures 04/12/85
-------
Policy for issuance of second round permits 06/02/82
Statements by agency personnel purporting 05/28/80
to sanction actions inconsistent with the
CWA
Regional review of state permits 01/18/80
Incorporating federal requirements in 12/24/80
permits prior to their adoption as state
law
Permit as authorization to discharge 04/28/76
Confidentiality of applications 04/06/78
B. Forms/Model Permits
Application Forms 1 and 2C 12/10/80
Concentration limits permit language 12/27/73
Feedlot permit format 07/29/74
Modifying NPDES permit to show POTW program 09/22/83
approval; example language
C. Major/Minor Permits
Procedures for Revising the Major Permits 12/28/88
List
Minor permits issuance strategy 02/20/86
Major permits list (procedures for 12/10/81
adding/deleting from list)
D. General Permits
OCS oil and gas permitting process 06/18/85
Federal Register requirements for draft 01/16/84
final general permit
Continuance of General Permits 01/16/84
Under the APA
Procedures for final review 09/27/83
EPA authority to issue in approved states 07/11/83
Fed. Reg. publication checklist 04/04/83
-------
Applicability to new sources 12/21/82
Offshore oil and gas 07/30/81
E. Permit Quality Reviews
Draft Industrial PQR Sept.’87
Municipal PQR Oct. ‘86
III. Permit Limits and Conditions
A. General
Training manual for NPDES writers May 87
Suspension of criteria for new 09/25/80
source determinations
Modifying permits to meet more stringent 05/04/77
state law requirements
Policy regarding including more stringent 10/13/77
state limits in permits
Inclusion of compliance schedules in 12/26/78
second round and new permits
B. Receiving Water Issues
1. Water Quality
Stay of Star-Kist Decision (re 09/21/90
compliance schedules for WQ-based limits)
Implementation of 304(1) — Q&As 01/04/90
Draft 402(0) anti—backsliding rules 09/29/89
for water quality-based permits
Permit writer’s guide to water July ‘87
quality permitting for toxic
pollutants
Development of WQ-based limits 02/03/84
for toxic pollutants
Low flow augmentation by federal 01/16/73
reservoirs
Incorporation of §303(e) basin 08/24/76
plans into permit
-------
Impact of §303(e) basin plans 09/01/76
Use of low flow augmentation to 11/08/76
meet water quality standards
2. Type of Receiving Water Body
Intermittent streams 09/28/73
NPDES permits in wetlands 07/12/77
Implementation of §403
(Ocean dumping) 07/20/77
Impounded waters and wetlands 07/15/80
as “Waters of the United States”
3. In—Stream Treatment
Use of in-stream mechanical aerators 05/02/77
to meet water quality standards
C. Technology-based Standards (general)
BPT:relevance of economic factors 02/04/77
BCT cost test guidance 09/30/80
D. Industry-specific Issues and Standards
Categorical standards summaries 08/20/86
PHDDs and PHDFs from pulp and paper mills 05/21/90
Petroleum refinery dioxin discharges 10/06/89
OCPSF permitting strategy 02/16/89
Bis (2—Chioroisopropyl) Ether, OCPSF 11/30/88
guidelines remand
Sewage Disposal from Trains 11/08/88
Pulp and paper mill dioxin treatability 10/20/88
Organic Chemicals P., & S.F.: Q&As 10/12/88
Pulp and paper mill dioxin discharge 08/09/88
OCPSF Interim Guidance 02/08/88
Steam electric 08/22/85
-------
OCS oil & gas general permits
Water treatment plants (BAT/BCT)
Leather tanning, sulfide waivers
Petroleum marketing terminals & oil
production facilities
Applying electroplating guidelines
API v. EPA (1976)-Informational Memo
Confined animal feeding operations
Breweries-BCT limits guidance
Pulp and paper facilities and other
facilities with BCT limitations
Water treatment plants (sludges)
E. Pollutant-specific Issues
PHDDs and PHDF5 from pulp and paper mills
Petroleum Refinery Dioxin Discharges
Total toxic organics guidance
Supply water treatment sludge
Use of closed cycle cooling systems
to meet §316(b) requirements
Asbestos limits
Fecal coliforin limits
§316(a)&(b) Guidance (cooling water
and thermal discharges)
§307(a) toxic standards implementation
Treatability manual
Phosphorous derived chemicals
F. Best Management Practices
BMP5 in NPDES permits
07/03/8 5
03/06/84
01/13/83
07/18/74
08/28/74
08/2 4/7 6
12/15/76
10/18/79
05/15/81
04/13/7 7
05/21/90
10/06/89
Sept. 85
09/13/7 4
02/26/75
10/15/76
02/14/77
05/01/77
06/01/77
09/25/80
01/18/82
08/19/88
-------
G. Production-based Limits/Combined Wastestream
Calculating production-based limits 12/18/84
Guidance manual for using production-based Sept. 85
standards and the combined wastestream
formula
IV. Variances
A. Fundamentally Different Factors
Procedures for FDF and §301(g) variances 09/25/87
Advance concurrence of A.A. for FDF and 05/19/86
§301(g) variances
Processing procedures 10/11/83
FDF5 for iron and steel 01/07/83
Opinions on variances in second round 06/13/78
B. §301(g) Variances
Procedures for FDF and §301(g) 09/25/87
Advance concurrence of A.A. for FDF and 05/19/86
§301(g) variances
Notice of tentative 301(g) decisions 08/01/85
§301(g) technical guidance 08/22/84
§301(g) variance requests 05/17/83
§ 301(c) and (g) application req.s 12/29/82
C. Other Variances
Review of §301(c) variance requests 08/21/84
§301(i) (1) variance eligibility 04/11/84
Leather tanning sulfide waivers 01/13/83
§ 30l(c) and (g) application req.s 12/29/82
Variances in second round 06/13/78
Innovative technology extensions 09/06/78
Applicability of § 30l(h) and (i) 09/12/78
to federal facilities
-------
V. Sampling and Reporting
Volatile organic fraction sampling proc.
Toxicity testing in municipal permits
Electroplating and metal finishing,
baseline monitoring reports
Baseline monitoring reports
Representative sampling requirements
Use of biomonitoring in NPDES program
Use of BOD5 Carbonaceous test results
C 3 6’c c t ’ \
VI. Municipal Permits and Pretreatment
A. General
Industrial User Permitting Guidance
Privatization (effect of private
ownership on secondary treatment and
pretreatment requirements)
“The National Pretreatment Program”
PIRT Final Report
Deadlines for POTW compliance with
secondary treatment requirement
National municipal policy & strategy
B. POTW Permit, Limits and Variances
Municipal permit quality review
Expediting water quality improvement
by §301(h) applicants
Example permit and MOA language for
pretreatment program approval
Fecal coliforxn limits
Suspended solid limits for POTW ponds
§301(1) variance eligibility
07/31/85
07/2 4/8 5
08/19/83
07/2 1/83
05/06/8 3
01/11/79
04/18/80
Sept. ‘89
04/16/87
July ‘86
Jan. ‘85
03/04/8 3
Oct. ‘79
Oct. ‘86
10/29/84
09/2 2/8 3
02/14/77
09/0 1/7 8
04/11/84
-------
C. Storm water and CSOs
Storm water discharges for immediate 08/08/90
permitting
02/04/90 deadline for storm water 01/31/90
permit applications
Combined Sewer Overflow Control strategy 08/10/89
D. Pretreatment Program Development Requirements
Deletion of local pretreatment program 08/05/85
development requirements
Guidance Manual for Pretreatment Program Oct. ‘83
Development
Procedures Manual for Reviewing a POTW Oct. ‘83
Pretreatment Program Submission
Incorporation of pretreatment program 01/28/80
development compliance schedules into
POTW NPDES permits
Flexibility in State Pretreatment Programs 04/12/79
Coordination between Regions’ Enforcement 11/29/78
and Water Programs re pretreatment program
E. Local Limits
Industrial User Permitting Guidance Sept.’89
Guidance manual on development of local Nov. ‘87
discharge limits
PRELIM User’s Guide (EPA Program for Jan. ‘87
developing local limits)
F. Categorical Standards
Categorical Pretreatment Standards 03/16/87
Reference Manual (3 Vol.s)
Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether, OCPSF 11/30/88
guidelines remand
Organic Chemicals, P. & S.F.: Q&As 10/28/88
OCPSF Interim Guidance 02/08/88
Battery Manufacturing Aug. ‘87
-------
Leather tanning & processing Sept. 86
Production based standards and the Sept. 85
Combined wastestreain formula
Total Toxic Organics Guidance Sept.’85
Iron & Steel Manufacturing Guidance Sept.’85
Applicability of Standards to I.U.s of 06/27/85
non-discharging POTWs
Pulp, paper & paperboard July ‘84
Textile Mills 05/31/84
Electroplating & metal finishing Feb. ‘84
G. Pass through, Interference and Slug Loads
Guidance for Preventing Interference Sept.’87
Guidance Manual for the Prevention Sept.’88
of Slug Loads
H. Removal Credits
Preparation and review of removal July ‘85
credit applications
I. RCRA Requirements
Strategy for implementing RCRA’s permit- 09/21/87
by-rule requirements for POTWs that
accept hazardous wastes
Guidance on the conduct of RCRA facility 10/05/87
assessments at POTWs
Guidance for Implementing RCRA Permit-By- 07/21/87
Rule Requirements at POTWs
G.M. for identification of hazardous June ‘87
waste delivered to POTWs by truck,
rail or dedicated pipe
Model letter to be sent to POTWs re 10/21/86
corrective action requirements
Application of RCRA corrective action 09/11/86
requirements to POTWs
Guidance on POTWs’ solid waste disposal Sept.’85
obligations
-------
J. Enforcement, Audits, Compliance, etc.
Liability of private operators
Guidance on actions against POTWs for
failure to implement
Guidance for reporting and evaluating
POTW noncompliance
Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Guidance
Pretreatment Compliance Inspections
& Audit manual for Approval Authorities
Pretreatment compliance schedules in
NPDES permits
Enforcing the 1977 CWA deadlines for
compliance by POTWs
VII. Toxicity Control
304(1) permitting of pulp and paper mills
Whole effluent toxicity (WET) permitting
and enforcement guidance
WET strategy
Review of biomonitoring regulation (Colo.Springs)
State and regional control strategies
§304(1) implementation guidance
State water quality-based toxics control
program review guidance
Biological toxicity testing survey
Permit writer’s guide to water quality-based
permitting for toxic pollutants
Toxicity testing in municipal permits
Technical support document for water quality-
based toxics control
Development of water quality-based
limits for toxic pollutants
10/28/88
08/ 04/8 8
Sept. ‘87
July ‘86
July ‘86
06/05/80
03/04/8 3
03/15/89
02/02/8 9
01/25/89
08/12/8 8
02/2 2/8 8
03/17/8 8
Dec. ‘87
Aug. ‘87
July ‘87
07/24/85
July ‘85
02/03/8 4
-------
VIII. Sludge
Case-by—case permit requirements for May 1990
municipal sewage sludge
Sewage Sludge Interim Permitting Strategy 10/02/89
Intpleinentation of WQA §406: Sewage sludge 05/21/87
permitting and state programs
Implementation of amendments to §405 04/03/87
Municipal sewage sludge management policy 05/31/84
Use of NPDES to promote sludge management 04/13/77
IX. Hearings
Ex parte contacts in adjudicatory hearings 06/16/78
parte contacts in EPA rulemaking 08/04/77
NPDES evidentiary hearing management 10/03/80
program
X. Other Programs
A. Water Quality Management Plans
Coordination between NPDES program 07/07/76
and W.Q. Management Planning Program
under § 208 and 303
B.Solid Waste Discharges
MOA with Army 02/ /87
NPDES permits in wetlands 07/12/77
C. CERCLA
CERCLPk discharges into POTW5 04/15/86
D. SMCRA
Overview and permit requirements 05/25/78
E. L.U.S.T
Model NPDES permit for discharge of June ‘89
gasoline from underground storage tanks
-------
30
PERMITS DIVISION POLICY BOOK
CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING OF CURRENT POLICIES
Title Date
policy on Storage & Releases for Water Quality 01/16/73
Control in Reservoirs Planned by Federal Agencies ,
Ruckeishaus
Intermittent Streams , Zener 09/28/73
Alternative in Permit Language , Schaffer 12/27/73
(daily maximum and average definitions)
Additional Guidance for Petroleum Marketing 07/18/74
Terminals & Oil Production Facilities , Schaffer
Feedlot Permit Format , Kirk 07/29/74
Application of Electroplating Guidelines to NPDES 08/28/74
Permits , Strier
Disposal of Supply Water Treatment Sludges , Schaffer 09/13/74
se of Closed Cycle Cooling Systems to Meet the 02/26/75
Requirements of Section 316(b) , Schaffer
NPDES Permit Authorization to Discharge , Miller 04/28/76
Coordination Between NPDES Program and Water Quality 07/07/76
Management Planning Program Under Sections 208 and 303 ,
Legro (attachment dated 04/02/76)
American Petroleum Institute v. EPA - Information 08/24/76
Memorandum , Frick
Binding Effect of 303(e) Basin Plans , OGC 08/24/76
Impact of Phase I Basin Plans on NPDES Permits , Miller 09/01/76
Asbestos Limits in NPDES Permits , Strier 10/15/76
Use of Low Flow Augmentation to Meet Water quality 11/08/76
Standards , Legro
Comments on Region VIII’S Approach to Writing Effluent 12/15/76
Limits for Confined Animal Feeding Operations , Miller
= Copy of document available upon request. All other documents are
contained in the Policy Manual.
-------
—2—
clarification of OGC Opinion No. 40 (State Review 02/04/77
Authority) , Frick
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Limits , Miller 02/14/77
Water Treatment Plant Limitations , Legro 04/13/77
Request for Policy Regarding Possible Use of NPDES 04/13/77
Permits to Promote Better Sludae Management , Legro
316(a) & (b) Technical Guidance Documents , OWEP 05/01/77*
Use of Instream Mechanical Aerators to Meet Water 05/02/77
quality Standards , Miller
NPDES Permits and Requirements of State Law , Miller 05/04/77
Implementation of Promulgated Section 307(a) Toxics 06/01/77
Standards , Miller
NPDES Permits in Wetlands Areas , Miller 07/12/77
Implementation of Section 403 , Miller 07/20/77
Lx Parte Contacts in EPA Rulemaking , Administrator 08/04/77
Policy Regarding the Inclusion in Permits of More 10/13/77
Stringent Effluent Parameters , Miller
State Regulation of Federal Facilities Under the CWA , 03/10/78
Bernstein
Confidentiality of NPDES Permit Applications , Miller 04/06/78
Certification and Permitting of Dischargers in 04/19/78
Boundary Waters , Bernstein
Coal Mining Under the Surface Mining Control and 05/25/78
Reclamation Act of 1977 , Miller
Opinions on Variances in Second Round and Other 06/13/78
Issues , OGC
Ex Parte Contacts in Adiudicatory Hearings , Administrator
06/16/78
Suspended Solids Effluent Limitations for POTW Ponds
Followed by Other Treatment Elements , Miller 09/01/78
nnovative Technology Extensions Under 301(k) of the
CWA; Effect of 301(1) and (1) , Rogers 09/06/78
-------
—3-.
pp1icabilitv of 301(h) & (i) to Federal Facilities 09/12/78
Miller
Transfer of Authority over Federal Facilities to 11/28/78
NPDES States , Costle
Coordination between Regional Enforcement and Water 11/29/78
Programs re Pretreatment Program , Miller
Request for Legal Opinion - Inclusion of Compliance 12/26/78
Schedules in Second Round and New Permits , OGC
Use of Biomonitoring in the NPDES Permits Program , OGC 01/11/79
State Pretreatment Proarams (permissible flexibility 04/12/79
in implementing), OWEP-Enforcement
EPA Procedures for Review & Approval of State 04/30/79
Pretreatment Program Submissions , Miller
National Municipal Policy & Strategy , Costle Oct. ‘79
uidance on Setting BCT Permit Limits for Breweries 10/18/79
inder Section 402(a) of CWA , Miller
Regional Review of State-Issued NPDES Permits , Miller 01/18/80
Applicability of Revised NPDES Regulations to Permits 01/18/80
Currently Being Processed , Miller
Incorporation of Pretreatment Proaram Deve1o ment 01/28/80
Compliance Schedules into POTW NPDES Permits , Miller
Use of BOD5 Carbonaceous Test Results , OGC 05/28/80
Statement by Aaencv Personnel Purporting to Sanction 05/28/80
Source Actions Which Are Inconsistent With Statutory
Requirements
Incorporation of Pretreatment Compliance Schedules 06/05/80
Into POTW NPDES Permits , Coinpton
Suspension of Portion of Definition of “Waters of the 07/15/80
U.S.” in Consolidated Permit Regulations
Treatability Manual , U.S.E.P.A. 09/25/80
; CT Cost Test Guidance 09/30/80
-------
—4—
NPDES Evidentiary Hearing Manapement Program , Compton 10/03/80
pp1ication Forms 1 and 2c , Jordan 12/10/80
Review of State NPDES Permits Written Prior to State 12/24/80
Program Revision , Coxnpton
Procedures for Processing Plans of Approved NPDES 12/31/80
States to Implement NPDES General Permit Programs
Outer Continental Shelf Coordination Committee 06/06/80
Determining Whether Revisions to State NPDES Programs 02/12/81
Made to Authorize the Issuance of General Permits
are Substantial , Compton
NPDES Permit Issuance for Pu1 and Paper Facilities 05/15/81
with BCT Limitations to Other Facilities
Application of the NPDES General Permit Program to 07/30/81
Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities , Compton
Status of Ma-br NPDES Industrial Permit List , Prothro 12/10/81
se of “Draft Supplement Development Document for 01/18/82
r f fluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Phosphorous Derived
Chemicals Segment to the Phosphate Manufacturing
Point Source Category” (October 1977) in Writing
NPDES Permits , Hall
Policy for the Second Round Issuance of NPDES 06/02/82
Industrial Permits , Eidsness
Applicability of General Permits to New Sources , 12/21/82
M.G. Prothro
Application Requirements for Modification Under 12/29/82
Sections 301(c) and 301(g) of the Clean Water Act
M.G. Prothro
Fundamentally Different Factors Variances for Iron 01/07/83
and Steel Facilities , (wholly disproportionate costs),
S. Shatzow
Criteria for Reviewing Leather Tanning Sulfide Waiver 01/13/83
Applications
Statutory Deadlines for Compliance by Publicly Owned 03/04/83
“ reatment Works Under the Clean Water Act , R. Perry
-------
—5—
Federal Register (FR) Publication Costs of EPA - 04/04/83
issued General Permits , B. Barrett
Representative Sampling in NPDES Permits , 05/06/83
M.G. Prothro
Section 301(g) Variance Requests , M.G. Prothro 05/17/83
Procedures for Processing Fundamentally Different 06/16/83
Factor Variances , Prothro
EPA Authority to Issue NPDES General Permits in 07/11/83
A Proved NPDES States , M.G. Prothro
Baseline Monitoring Reports , M.G. Prothro 07/21/83
(draft guidance)
Electroplating and Metal Finishing PSES : 08/19/83
Baseline Monitoring Reports and Compliance Dates ,
Gallup
Example Language for Modifying NPDES Permits for 09/22/83
Pretreatment Approval , M.G. Prothro
ma]. Procedures for the Review of Draft and 09/27/83
Final General NPDES Permits , B. Barrett
Review of Memorandum Regarding Draft Procedures 10/11/83
for Processing Fundamentally Different Factors
Variances for Direct and Indirect Discharges , Hanmer
Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment Program Oct. 1983
Development , OWEP
Procedures Manual for Reviewing a POTW Pretreatment Oct. 1983
Program Submission,
Continuance of NPDES General Permits Under the APA , Barrett 01/16/84
Federal Register (FR) Publication Requirements for 01/18/64
Draft Final General Permits (checklist for all
submissions to speed up permit publication and
issuance), M.G. Prothro
Policy for Development of Water quality-based Permit 02/03/84
Limitations for Toxic Pollutants , Ravan
Guidance Manual for Electroplating and Metal Feb. 1984*
‘inishing Pretreatment Standards
Letter to Water Works Operators Association , 03/16/84
Rucke 1 shaus
-------
—6—
Eligibility for Variance Under Section 301(i) (1 ) 04/11/84
of the Clean Water Act , C.T. Cherney
Status of Textile Mills Pretreatment Standards , 05/31/84
Prothro
Policy on Municipal Sludge Management , Ruckeishaus 05/31/84
Guidance Manual for Pulp. Paper and Paperboard July 1984*
Pretreatment Standards
Draft Guidance for Application and Review of 08/21/84*
Section 301(c) Variance Requests , M. G. Prothro
Technical Guidance Manual for the Regulations 08/22/84*
Promulgated Pursuant to Section 301(g) of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 and 40 CFR Part 125 (Subpart F)
Expediting Achievements of Water quality Improve - 10/29/84
inents by 301(h) Applicants , A.L. Alin
Calculation of Production-Based Effluent Limits 12/18/84
PIRT Final Report 01/30/85*
Judicial Officer’s Decision on Part 124 Procedures . 04/12/85
C. T. Cherney, Associate General Counsel
1985 (cont.)
The NPDES Permitting Process for Oil and Gas 06/18/85*
Activities on the Outer Continental Shelf
Applicability of Categorical Pretreatment Standards 06/27/85
to Industrial Users of Non—Discharging POTWs , Diamond
Guidance Manual for Preparation and Review of July ‘85*
Removal Credits Applications
Technical Support Document for Water Quality—based July ‘85*
Toxics Control , OWEP
Toxicity Testing Requirements in Municipal Permits , 07/24/85
Clarification of Sampling Procedures for the Volatile 07/31/85
Organic Toxic Pollutant Fraction , G. H. Grubbs
Public Notice of Tentative Section 301(g) Decisions 08/01/85
and Draft NPDES Permits . N. G. Prothro
‘ )eletion of Local Pretreatment Program Development 08/05/85
equirements , Hanmer
-------
—7—
Guidance for NPDES Permits Issued to Steam Electric
Power Plants , Hanmer
Guidance Manual for Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Pretreatment Standards
Guidance Manual for the Use of Production—Based
Pretreatment Standards and the Combined Wastestream
Formula (Hanmer cover memo 09/19/85)
Guidance Manual for Implementing Total Toxic
Qrganjcs (TTO) Pretreatment Standards
Final Manual in Response to PIRT Recommendation for
Guidance on Notification of Solid Waste Disposal
Obligations
‘C- ?O i
National Minor Permits Issuance Strateg” r , Hanmer
Discharge of Wastewater from CERCLLA Sites into POTWs ,
Longest, Hanmer and Lucero
Guidance on Advance Concurrence of the Assistant
dministrator for Water on Selected Section 30l( )
nd Fundamentally Different Factors Variance
Decisions Under the Clean Water Act , Jensen
The National Pretreatment Program
Pretreatment Compliance Inspections and Audit Manual
For Approval Authorities
Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Guidance
NPDES State Permit Guidance , OW
Guidance Manual for Leather Tanning and Finishing
Pretreatment Standards , lTD
Application of RCRA Corrective Action Reguirements
to POTW5 , Prothro
Municipal Permit Quality Review Procedures Guide ,
Permits Division
Redraft of Model Letter to be Sent to POTW5 , Prothro
PRELIM User’s Guide: EPA Program for the Development
f Local Limits (Version 3) , OWEP
OW’s Consultation of NPDES Permits for Solid Waste
Discharge (MOA with Army), Jenson
08/22/85*
Sept. 85*
Sept. 85*
Sept. 85*
09/11/85*
02/20/86
04/15/86
05/19/86
July ‘86*
July ‘86*
July ‘86*
07/29/86*
Sept. 86*
09/11/8 6
Oct. ‘86*
10/21/86
Jan. ‘87*
02/ /87*
-------
— 8—
ategorical Pretreatment Standards Reference Manual , 03/16/87*
(3 Vol. set) Gallup
Sewage Sludge Programs: Implementation of Amendments 04/03/87
to Section 405 , Prothro
Permit Limitations of Privatization , Prothro 04/16/87
Training Manual for NPDES Permit Writers May ‘87*
Implementation of Section 406 of the Water quality 05/21/87
Act of 1987: Sewage S1ud e Permitting and State
Programs , Prothro
Guidance Manual for Identification of Hazardous June ‘87*
Waste Delivered to POTWs by Truck. Rail or Dedicated
Pipeline , OWEP
Permit Writer’s Guide to Water quality-Based July ‘87*
Permitting for Toxic Pollutants
Guidance for Implementing RCRA Permit-by-Rule Reguirements 07/21/87*
at POTWs , Elder,
uidance Manual for Battery Manufacturing Aug. ‘87*
Pretreatment Standards
Guidance for Preventing Interference at POTWs , OWEP Sept. 87*
Industrial Permit Quality Review Guide , Permits Sept.’87*
Strategy for Implementing RCRA Permit-By-Rule 09/21/87
Requirements at POTWs that Accept Hazardous Waste
By Truck. Rail or Dedicated Pipe , Elder
Plan for Resolution of Fundamentally Different Factors 09/25/87*
and Section 301(p) Variance Requests
Guidance Manual for Reporting and Evaluating POTW 09/30/87*
Noncompliance
Guidance on the Conduct of RCRA Facility 10/05/87*
Assessments at POTW5
Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation Dec. ‘87*
of Local Discharge Limitations Under the General
Pretreatment Regulations
State Water Quality Based Quality Control Program Dec. ‘87*
eview Guidance , OW
-------
— 9—
General Permit Program Guidance , OWEP Feb. ‘88*
(03/01/88 Transmittal Memo)
Effluent Guidelines For the OCPSF 02/08/88
Industrial Category , Elder
Availability of State and Regional Toxic Control 02/22/88
Strategies Document (Noting availability of files),
Diamond and Gallup
Final Section 304(1) Implementation Guidance March 88*
(03/17/88 Transmittal)
Guidance on Bringing Enforcement Actions Against 08/04/88*
POTWs for Failure to Implement Pretreatment Programs ,
Unterberger and Jordan
Interim Strategy for the Regulation of Pulp and Paper 08/09/88
Mill Discharges to the Waters of the U.S. , Hanmer
Colorado Springs’ Proposed Alternative Biomonitoring 08/12/89
Regulation , Elder
Best Management Practices (BMPs) in NPDES Permits — 08/19/88
nformational Memorandum , Gallup
Guidance Manual for the Control of Slug Loadings , OWEP Sept.’88*
Questions and Answers Regarding OCPSF Effluent 10/12/88
Limitations Guidelines , Elder
Release of Dioxin Treatability Study and Interim 10/20/88
Control Measures for Regulating Dioxin Discharges
from Pulp and Paper Mills , Prothro and Elder
POTW Contract Operations , Elder 10/28/88
Sewage Disposal from Trains , Elder 11/08/88
Remand of the OCPSF Effluent Limitations Guidelines 11/30/88
for Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) ether , Dougherty and Bell
Procedures for Revising the Malor Permit List , 12/28/88
Dougherty
Whole Effluent Toxicity Basic Permitting Issues and 01/25/89*
Enforcement Strategy , Hanmer
Whole Effluent Toxicity Sample Permitting and - 02/02/89
Enforcement Strategy , Elder
-------
— 10 —
NPDES Permitting Strategy for OCPSF Industry Direct 02/16/89*
Djschargers , Elder
Final Guidance on Section 304(1) Listing and 03/15/89
permitting of Pulp and Paper Mills , Prothro and Elder
Model NPDES Permit for Discharges from the Cleanup June ‘89*
of Gasoline Released from Underaround Storaae Tanks ,
OWEP and OUST
Development of State General Permit Programs , 06/13/89*
Dougherty
National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy , 08/10/89
Haniner
Industrial User Permitting Guidance , OW Sept.’89
Draft Interim Guidance on Implementation of Section 402(o ) 09/29/89
Antibacksliding Rules for Water Quality-Based Permits , Elder
Sewage Sludae Interim Permitting Strategy , Haniner 10/02/89
Interim Petroleum Refinery Dioxin Discharges Activities and 10/06/89
uidance Update , Elder & Prothro
questions and Answers on Implementation of Section 304(1 ) 01/04/90
of the Clean Water Act , Grubbs and Dougherty
February 4, 1990 Deadline for Storm Water Permit 01/31/90
Applications , Elder
Guidance for Writing Case—by-Case Permit Requirements for May 1990*
Municipal Sewage Sludge, OW
Strategy for the Regulation of Discharges of PHDDs and 05/21/90*
PHDFs from Pulp and Pacer Mills to Waters of the United
States , Wilcher
Designation of Storm Water Discharges for Immediate 08/08/90*
Permitting , Elder
Stay Granted in Star-Kist Caribe , King 09/21/90
-------
CLEAN WATER ACT COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT POLICY COMPENDIUM
1. INTRODUCTION
I. OVERVIEW AND GENERAL REFERENCE DOCUMENTS (1) *
II. NPDES PROGRAM: PRE-ENFORCEMEt4T
A. SOURCES OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS (2)
B. INSPECTIONS (2)
C. MEASURING COMPLIANCE/DATA PROCESSING (3)
III. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
A. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDERS (4)
B. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY ORDERS (5)
IV. CIVIL LITIGATION
A. GENERAL (6)
B. ENFORCEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES (6)
C. PENALTIES AND TERMS OF SETTLEMENT (9)
D. ENFORCING JUDGEMENTS AND DECREES (10)
V. CRIMINAL LITIGATION/ENFORCEMENT (11)
VI. SPECIALIZED TOPICS
A. NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY (12)
B. PRETREATMENT (13)
C. SECTION 311 (15)
D. CITIZEN SUITS (16)
E. SECTION 404 (16)
F. CONTRACTOR LISTING (17)
VII. ANNUAL DOCUMENTS AND SHORT-TERN INITIATIVES (18)
*-Nuinbers adjacent to headings and sub-headings refer to pages in detailed
‘ab1e of Contents which follows.
G. FEDERAL FACILITIES (17)
H. OVERSIGHT & STATE
PROGRAM COORDINATION (17)
I. PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT
INFORMATION TO OUTSIDE
PARTIES (18)
J. TOXICS/TOXICITY CONTROL (18)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Updated 9/1/90 )
(Detailed)
I. OVERVIEW AND GENERAL REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
i.”Permits Division Policy Book”, dated June 23, 1982. Table of
Contents by date and by subject only. Copies of individual documents
may be obtained from Permits Division, OWEP. (EN-336).
2. “Working Principles Underlying EPA’S National
Compliance/Enforcement Programs”, dated November 22, 1983. See GM 24.1
3. “CLEAN WATER ACT COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE MANUAL”, dated May
1985. Table of Contents and Chapter Contents pages only. Copies of
the manual or portions may be obtained from Water Enforcement
Division, Office of Enforcement, OE (LE—134W).
4. “ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM GUIDE”, dated February 27, 1986,
(updates interim document dated September 27, 1985). Table of
Contents and Chapters 1 and 2 only. 2
5. “General Enforcement Policy Compendium”, updated December, 1988.
Table of Contents and Topical Index Only. Contains policies numbered
GM-i thru GM-74. Copies of individual policies may be obtained from
Program Development and Training Branch, Office of Enforcement Policy,
OE (LE—133).
6. Current and Future Fiscal Year Agency and Office of Water
permitting and Enforcement Priorities. (See Section VII of this
table.)
7. “GUIDANCE FOR OVERSIGHT OF NPDES PROGRAMS”, dated May 1987.
8. “Action Plan on Pollution Prevention”, dated April 13, 1989.
For information on obtaining copies of “GM” documents
referenced in this Table of Contents, see General Enforcement
Policy Compendium, Item 1-5 of this Table of Contents.
2 For information on the method of obtaining copies of the
documents noted in or omitted from this Table of Contents, please
contact the Director of the Enforcement Division, Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (EN-338).
“#“ indicates new documents or materials. Copies of
appropriate documents accompany this index.
-------
2
II. NPDES PROGRAM: PRE-ENFORCENENT
A. SOURCES OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND OTHER REOUIREMENTS
1. “NPDES Permit Authorization to Discharge”, dated April 28,
1976.
2. “POTW Compliance with NPDES Permit Effluent Limitations”,
dated January 5, 1977.
3. “Confidentiality of NPDES Permit Applications” dated April 6,
1978 with attached memorandum dated March 22, 1978.
4. “Certification and Permitting of Dischargers Located on
Waters Forming Boundaries Between States”, dated April 19, 1978.
5. “Request for a Legal Opinion—Inclusion of Compliance
Schedules in Second Round Permits and Newly Issued Permits”,
dated January 19, 1979.
6. “Policy for the Second Round Issuance of NPDES Industrial
Permits”, dated June 2, 1982.
7. “Policy for the Development of Water Quality-Based Permit
Limitations for Toxic Pollutants”, dated February 3, 1984. (Sex
also 49 FR 9016, March 9, 1984.)
8. “Continuance of NPDES General Permits under the APA”, dated
January 16, 1984.
9. Summaries of NPDES Permit Decisions by the Administrator and
Officer (Issued irregularly. For copies of summaries, contact
the Permits Division, OWEP, EN-336).
10. “Training Manual for NPDES Permit Writers” dated May, 1987.
Table of Contents only. Available from Permits Division, OWEP,
(EN—336)
B. INSPECTIONS
1. “Visitor’s Releases and Hold Harmless Agreements as a
Condition to Entry to EPA Employees Ofl Industrial
Facilities”,dated November 8, 1972. see GM—i.
2. “Conduct of Inspections after the Barlow Decision dated
April ii, 1979. See GM—5.
3. “NPDES Compliance Sampling Inspection Manual”, dated October
1979. Table of Contents only. -
-------
3
4. “Interim NPDES Biomonitoring Inspection Manual”, dated
October 1979. Table of Contents only.
5. “NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training, with Modules
on Overview, Legal Issues, Sampling Procedures, Biomonitoring,
Laboratory Analyses Modules, dated 1988. Table of Contents of
individual modules only.
6. “NPDES Compliance Evaluation Inspection Manual”, dated
January 1981. Table of Contents only.
7. “Neutral Inspection Plan for the NPDES Program”, dated
February 17, 1981.
8. “NPDES INSPECTION STRATEGY AND GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING
ANNUAL STATE/EPA COMPLIANCE INSPECTION PLANS”, dated April
1985 with transmittal dated April 16, 1985.
9. “NPDES COMPLIANCE INSPECTION MANUAL”, dated 1988. Table
of Contents only.
10. “Use of the New NPDES Compliance Inspection Form”, dated May
14, 1985.
11. Pretreatment Compliance and Audit Manual for Approval
Authorities. See VI.B.24.
12. “NPDES Compliance Flow Measurement Manual”, dated September,
1981. Table of Contents only.
C. MEASURING COMPLIANCE/DATA PROCESSING
1. “PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM DATA ENTRY, EDIT AND UPDATE MANUAL;
INQUIRY USER’S GUIDE; PCS GENERALIZED RETRIEVAL MANUAL;
EDIT/UPDATE ERROR MESSAGES,” updated July, 1990. Table of
Contents only.
2. The “GREAT System” (General Record of Enforcement Actions
Tracked), circa 1980. The GREAT System tracks EPP -issued
Administrative Orders (AOs) and Notices of Violation issued from
the commencement of the system until September 30, 1987. Requests
for retrievals should be addressed to Mary Gair, OWEP, FTS
475—8557. See also II.C.10.
3. “PCS Data Element Dictionary”, updated July 2, 1990 and “PCS
Codes and Descriptions Manual”, updated June 9, 1989. Table of
Contents only.
4. “NPDES Self-Monitoring System User Guide”, dated January
1985. Table of Contents only.
J
-------
4
5. “Release and Description of Significant Violator Lists”,
dated March 8, 1984.
6. “PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM (PCS) POLICY STATEMENT”, dated
October 31, 1985. (appendices updated March 23, 1988)
7. “GUIDANCE FOR PREPARATION OF QUARTERLY AND SEMI-ANNUAL
NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTS”, March 13, 1986. Transmittal letter,
Forward and Table of Contents only.
8. “Managers’ Guide to the Permit Compliance System” June,
1986. Table of Contents only.
9. “Guide to PCS DocumentatiOn” June, 1986. Table of contents
only. (Information only; no longer current).
10. “General Record of Enforcement Actions Tracked (GREAT)
Conversion to Permit Compliance System (PCS)”, dated July 24,
1987. Supplements II.C.2. (Conversion completed prior to January
1, 1988).
11. “GUIDANCE FOR REPORTING AND EVALUATING POTW NONCOMPLIANCE
WITH PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS”, dated September,
1987.
12. “PCS PC PERSONAL ASSISTANCE LINK USERS GUIDE”, updated
December 21, 1988. Table of Contents only.
III. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT
A. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDERS
1. “Effect of Compliance with Administrative Orders”, dated June
29, 1984.
2. “Use of Stipulated Penalties in Administrative Orders on
Consent under the CWA”, dated September 6, 1985.
3. “Remittance of Fines and Civil Penalties” dated April 15,
1985. See GM—38.
4. “Recommended Format for CWA Section 309 AdministratiVe
Orders”, dated July 30, 1985 (Incorporated in III.A.5).
5. “REFERENCE DOCUMENT ON GUIDANCE AND PROCEDURES FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 309 OF THE CLEAN
WATER ACT” dated September 26, 1986, Cover Memorandum, Table of
Contents and Section I only.
6. “RelationshiP of Section 309(a) ComplianCe Orders to
Section 309(g) AdministratiVe penalty Procedures”, distribute
-------
5
August 28, 1987. This document is reproduced at III.B.3, of
this compendium.
B. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY ORDERS
1. “Guidance on Class I Clean Water Act Administrative Penalty
Procedures”, dated July 27, 1987 and noted at 52 FR 30730 (August
17, 1987).
2. “ Final Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative
Assessment of Class II Civil Penalties under the Clean Water
Act,” issued June 12, 1990, effective July 12, 1990. Published
at 55 F.R. 23838 (June 12). Replaces the Interim Final Rules
dated August 10, 1987.
3. “Relationship of Section 309(a) Compliance Orders to Section
309(g) Administrative Penalty Proceedings”, distributed August
28, 1987. Includes transmittal memorandum covering items III.B.3
through 11, this Compendium.
4. “Guidance on Choosing Among Clean Water Act Administrative,
Civil and Criminal Enforcement Remedies”, distributed August 28,
1987.
5. “Guidance on State Action Preemption Civil Penalty Actions
under the Federal Clean Water Act”, distributed August 28, 1987.
6. “Guidance on “Claim-Splitting” in Enforcement Actions under
the Clean Water Act”, distributed August 28, 1987.
7. “Guidance on Retroactive Application of New Penalty
Authorities under the Clean Water Act”, distributed August 28,
1987.
8. “Guidance on Effect of Clean Water Amendment Civil Penalty
Assessment Language”, distributed August 28, 1987.
9. “Addendum to the Clean Water Act Civil Penalty Policy for
Administrative Penalties”, distributed August 28, 1987.
10. “Guidance on Notice to Public and Commenters in Clean Water
Act Class II Administrative Penalty Proceedings”, distributed
August 28, 1987.
11. “Guidance Regarding Regional and headquarters Coordination
on Proposed and Final Administrative Penalty Orders on Consent
under New Enforcement Authorities of the Water Quality Act of
1987”, distributed August 28, 1987.
12. “Use of Administrative Penalty Orders (APO’S) in FY 89”,
dated March 13, 1990. This document is reproduced at VII.18.
this compendium.
-------
6
IV. CIVIL LITIGATION
A. GENERAL
l.”Professional Obligations of Government Attorneys”, dated April
19, 1976. See GM—2.
2.”General Operating Procedures for EPA’s Civil Enforcement
Program”, dated July 6, 1982. See GM—12.
3.”ClearanCe of Significant Enforcement Pleadings”, dated January
25, 1983.
4.”Regional Counsel Reporting Relationship”, dated August 3,
1983. See GM—16.
5.”Implementing Nationally Managed or Coordinated Enforcement
Actions”, dated December 26, 1984. See GM—35.
6.”Guidance on Choosing Among Clean Water Act Administrative,
Civil and Criminal Enforcement Remedies”, distributed August 28,
1987. This document is reproduced at III.B.4., this compendium.
7.”Guidance on State Action Preemption Civil Penalty Actions
under the Federal Clean Water Act”, distributed August 28, l98i.
This document is reproduced at III.B.5., this compendium.
8.”Guidance on “Claim-Splitting” in Enforcement Actions under the
Clean Water Act”, distributed August 28, 1987. This document is
reproduced at III.B.6., this compendium.
9.”Guidance on Retroactive Application of New Penalty Authorities
under the Clean Water Act”, distributed August 28, 1987. This
document is reproduced at 111.3.7., this compendium.
1O.”Guidance on Effect of Clean Water Amendment Civil Penalty
Assessment Language”, distributed August 28, 1987. This document
is reproduced at III.B.8., this compendium.
# 11.”Issuance of Guidance Interpreting ‘Single Operational
upset’”, dated September 27, 1989.
B. ENFORCEMENT CASE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
1. “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY”, dated June 15, 1977.
See GM—3. (Amended by IV.B.29)
2.”Memorandum of understanding Between the U.S. Coast Guard a’
the Environmental Protection Agency” dated August 14, 1979.
outdated (See this index, Section VI.C.5.).
-------
7
3.”Allocation of Litigation Responsibilities Between Regional and
Headquarters Components of Office of General Counsel”, dated
December 14, 1979.
4.”Contacts with Defendants and Potential Defendants in
Enforcement Litigation”, dated October 7, 1981. See GM-6.
5.”Quantico Guidelines for Enforcement Litigation”, dated April
8, 1982. See GM—8.
6.”Section Directives Concerning 60 Day Report and Processing New
Referrals”, dated June 22, 1982.
7.”Request to Department of Justice to Withhold Action in
Referred Cases”, dated September 3, 1982.
8.”Case Referrals for Civil Litigation”, dated September 7, 1982.
See GM—13.
9.”Procedure for Withholding filing of Referred Cases”, dated
September 8, 1982.
10.”Clearance of Briefs and Significant Pleadings”, dated October
27, 1982.
11.”Civil Litigation Referral Packages”, dated December 2, 1982.
12.”Headquarters Review of Pleadings”, dated December 2, 1982.
13.”Responsibility for Handling Judicial Appeals Arising Under
EPA’S Civil Enforcement Program”, dated December 14, 1982.
14.”Deferral in Filing Cases at the Request of EPA Attorneys”,
dated January 31, 1983.
15. “Case Management Procedures for Civil Water Referrals”, dated
March 28, 1983.
16. “Program Concurrence on Civil Referrals”, dated July 20,
1983.
17. “Program Review of Civil Water Cases”, dated July 20, 1983.
18. “DIRECT REFERRAL MEMORANDUM”, dated September 29,
1983.(Amended by IV.B.29)
19. “Implementation of Direct Referrals for Civil Cases”, dated
November 28, 1983. See GM—18.
20. “Guidance on Evidence Audit of case Files”, dated December
30, 1983. See GM—20.
-------
8
21. “Headquarters Review and Tracking of Civil Referrals”, dated
March 8, 1984.
22. “Delegation of Authorities to the Deputy Administrator”,
dated March 19, 1984.
23. “Races to the Courthouse”, dated March 30, 1984.
24. “Guidance for Enforcing Federal District Court Orders”, dated
May 8, 1984. This document is reproduced at Section IV D.l.,
this compendium.
25. “Guidance on Counting and Crediting Civil Judicial
Referrals”, dated June 15, 1984. See GM—29.
26. “Revised Regional Referral Package Cover Letter and Data
Sheet” dated May 30, 1985. See GM-40.
27. “FORM OF SETTLEMENT OF CIVIL JUDICIAL CASES”, dated July 24,
1985. See GM—42.
28. “Direct Referrals Clean Water Act - ‘No Permit’ Cases”, dated
September 11, 1985.
29. “Direct Referrals”, dated August 28, 1986.
30. “Expanded Civil Judicial Referral Procedures”, dated August
28, 1986. See also GM—50.
31. “EPA Policy on the Inclusion of Environmental Auditing
Provisions ifl Enforcement Settlements”, dated November 14, 1986;
See GM—53. Supplements GM-17.
32. “Interim Guidance on Joining States as Plaintiffs,” dated
December 24, 1986, as corrected February 4, 1987.
33. “ExpansiOn of Direct Referral Cases to the Department of
Justice”, dated January 14, 1988. See GM—69.
34. “Delegation of Concurrence and Signature Authority”, dated
January 14, 1988. See GM—70.
35. “Enforcement Docket Maintenance”, dated April 8, 1988.
36. “Process for Conducting Pre-Referral Settlement Negotiations
on Civil Judicial Enforcement Cases”, dated April 13,1988. See
GM-73.
37. “Criteria for Active OECM Attorney Involvement in Cases”
dated May 22, 1988.
-------
9
38. “Withdrawal of Referrals and Issuance of ‘Hold’ Letters”,
dated February 24, 1989.
39. “Agency Judicial Consent Decree Tracking and Follow-up
Directive”, dated January 11, 1990. Attached to IV.D.4. this
compendium.
C. PENALTIES AND TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
1. “Civil Penalty Policy”, dated July 8, 1980 (for reference
only).
2. “GUIDANCE FOR DRAFTING JUDICIAL CONSENT DECREES”, dated
October 19, 1983. See GM-17.
3. “New Civil Penalty Policy”, dated February 16, 1984. See
GM-2 1.
4. “A Framework for Statute Specific Approaches to Penalty
Assessment”, dated February 16, 1984. See GM-22.
5. “GUIDANCE FOR CALCULATING ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF.. NON-COMPLIANCE
FOR A CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSMENT”, dated November 5, 1984. See
GM-33.
6. “Penalty Calculations Compliance Schedule for Pretreatment
Enforcement Initiative”, dated February 19, 1985. (See Also
IV.C. 10)
7. “Enforcement Settlement Negotiations”, dated May 22, 1985. See
GM-39.
8. “Headquarters Approval of Proposed Civil Penalties”, dated May
31, 1985.
9. “Division of Penalties with State and Local Governments”,
dated October 30, 1985.
10. “CLEAN WATER ACT CIVIL PENALTY POLICY”, dated February 11,
1986. Also see Addendum at III.B.9.
11. “Letter of the Administrator to James Borberg, President of
the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies”, (concerning
penalties against municipalities), dated October 21, 1986.
12. “Guidance on Calculating after Tax Net Present Value of
Alternative Payments”, dated October 28, 1986. See also GM-5l.
13. “Guidance on determining Violator’s Ability to Pay a Civil
Penalty”, dated December 16, 1986. See GM-56.
-------
10
14. “Addendum to the Clean Water Act Civil Penalty Policy for
Administrative Penalties”, distributed August, 1987. (This
document is reproduced at III.B.9., this compendium).
15. “November 4, 1987 Congressional Testimony on Proposed
Amendments to the Clean Water Act”, dated November 24, 1987.
Includes DOJ and EPA Testimony on “Environmental Improvement
Projects”.
16. “GUIDANCE ON PENALTY CALCULATIONS FOR POTW FAILURE TO
IMPLEMENT APPROVED LOCAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS”, dated December
22, 1988. Displayed at VI.B.30.
17. “Guidance on the Distinction Among Pleading, Negotiating and
litigating Civil Penalties for Enforcement Cases under the Clean
Water Act”, dated January 19,1989.
# 18. “Use of Stipulated Penalties in EPA Settlement Agreements”,
dated January 11, 1990.
# 19. “Multi-Media Settlements of Enforcement Claims”, dated
February 6, 1990.
20.”Docutnefltiflg Penalty Calculations and Justifications in EPA
Enforcement Actions”, dated August 9, 1990.
D. ENFORCING JUDGEMENTS AND DECREES
1. “Guidelines for Enforcing Federal District Court Orders”,
dated April 18, 1984. See GM-27.
2. “Procedures for Assessing Stipulated Penalties”, dated January
11, 1988. See GM—67.
3. “Guidance on certification of Compliance with Enforcement
Agreements”, dated July 25, 1988, see GM-74.
4. “Manual on Monitoring and Enforcing Administrative and
Judicial Orders”, dated February 6, 1990.
5. “Agency Judicial Consent Decree Tracking and Follow-up
Directive”, dated January 11, 1990. This document reproduced at
IV.D.4. above as an attachment to the Manual.
-------
11
V. CRIMINAL LITIGATION/ENFORCEMENT 4
1. “Agency Guidelines for Participation in Grand Jury Investigations”,
dated April 30, 1982. See GM-9.
2. “Criminal Enforcement Priorities for the EPA”, dated October 12,
1982. See GM—14.
3. “Analysis of Existing Law Enforcement Emergency authorities”,
dated March 6, 1984.
4. “Guidelines on Sampling, Preservation, and Disposal of Technical
Evidence in Criminal Enforcement Matters”, dated April 18, 1984.
5. “Guidance Concerning Compliance with the Jencks Act”, dated
November 21, 1983. See GM-23. superseded and replaced by V.8. below.
6. “Policy and Procedure on Parallel Proceedings at the EPA”, dated
January 23, 1984. See GM-30. superseded.
7. “The Use of Administrative Discovery Devices in the Development of
Cases Assigned to the Office of Criminal Investigations”, dated
February 16, 1984. See GM—36. superseded.
8. “Guidance Concerning Compliance with the Jencks Act” dated March
8, 1984.
9. “Functions and General Operating Procedures f or the Criminal
Enforcement Program”, dated January 7, 1985. See GM—15.
10. “The Role of EPA Supervisors during Parallel Proceedings”, dated
March 12, 1985. See GM—37. superseded.
11. “Environmental Criminal Conduct Coming to the Attention of Agency
Officials and Employees”, dated September 21, 1987.
12. “Procedures for Requesting and Obtaining Approval of Parallel
Proceedings”, dated June 15, 1989. Excludes attachment entitled
“Guidelines on Investigative Procedures for Parallel Proceedings”.
13. “Revised EPA Guidance for Parallel Proceedings”, dated June 21,
1989. This document together with V.12. above, supersedes and
replaces the documents at V.6.,V.7., and V.10. This document is
supplemented by the document at V.14.
Memoranda in this Section are particularly germane to
water enforcement and do not comprise a comprehensive listing of
all criminal enforcement policies.
-------
12
14. “Supplement to Parallel Proceedings Guidance and Procedures for
Requesting and Obtaining Approval of Parallel Proceedings”, dated July
18, 1990.
VI. SPECIALIZED ENFORCEMENT TOPICS
A. NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY
1. “Municipal Enforcement Case Requirements”, dated December 14,
1982.
2. “CWA Municipal Enforcement Cases”, dated January 3, 1983.
3. NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY, 49 FR 3832 (January 30, 1984).
4. “Municipal Enforcement: The Financial Ability Question”, dated
February 17, 1984.
5. “Financial Capability Guidebook”, dated March 1984. (Table of
Contents only)
6. “Eligibility for Variances under Section 301(i) (1) of the
CWA”, dated April 11, 1984.
7. “REGIONAL AND STATE GUIDANCE ON THE NATIONAL MUNICIPAL
POLICY”, undated. (sent 4/84)
8. “Available Techniques for Obtaining Compliance with National
Municipal Policy by Unfunded POTW5 Requiring Construction”, dated
September 13, 1984.
9. “Finance Manual for Wastewater Treatment Systems”, dated April
1985. (Table of Contents only)
10. “NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION”, dated April 1,
1985.
11. “NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY IMPLEMENTATION”, dated April 12,
1985.
12. Letter to House of Representatives from EPA regarding the
liMP with congressional Record materials attached, dated July 22,
1985.
13. “IMPLEMENTATION OF THE liMP”, dated July 24, 1985.
14. “Relationship Between the National Municipal Policy and
Construction Grants Extending Beyond Fl 1988”, dated July 26,
1985. (See also VI.A.12 above for a copy of the letter
referenced in this document)
-------
13
15. Speech by Assistant Administrator, OECM to Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, dated August 8, 1985.
16. “HIGHLIGHTS FROM DECIDED AND SETTLED CASES UNDER THE NNP”,
dated August 27, 1985.
17. “DEADLINES AND THE NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY”, dated January
30, 1986.
18. “Letter of the Administrator to James Borberg, President of
the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies”, (concerning
penalties against municipalities), dated October 21, 1986, (See
No. IV.C.11 this Compendium).
19. “National Municipal Policy Litigation,” dated December 23,
1986.
20. “Interim Guidance on Joining States as Plaintiffs,” dated
December 24, 1986, as corrected February 4, 1987. Reproduced at
IV.B.32., this compendium.
21. “National Municipal Policy Enforcement”, dated September 22,
1987, with attachment.
22. PRESS BRIEFING MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN WATER
ACT”, dated July 27, 1988. Selected portions.
B. PRETREATMENT
1. “Coordination Between Regional Enforcement and Water Programs
Personnel in Implementing the National Pretreatment Program”,
dated November 29, 1978.
2. “Incorporation of Pretreatment Program Development Compliance
Schedules into POTW NPDES Permits”, dated January 28, 1980.
3. “Statutory Deadlines for Compliance by Publicly Owned
Treatment Works Under the CWA”, dated March 4, 1983.
4. “Example Language for Modifying NPDES Permits for Pretreatment
Program Approval”, dated September 22, 1983.
5. “Procedure Manual for Reviewing a POTW Pretreatment Program
Submission”, dated October 1983. Table of Contents only.
6 • “GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR POTW PRETREATMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT”,
dated October 1983. Table of Contents only.
7. “Guidance Manual for Electroplating and Metal Finishing
Pretreatment Standards”, dated February 1984. Table of Contents
only.
-------
14
8. “Implementation of Pretreatment Standards While Litigation
Continues”, dated May 2, 1984.
9• “Guidance Manual for Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard and Builder’s
Paper and Board Mills Pretreatment Standards”, dated July 1984.
Table of Contents only.
10. “Guidance to POTWs for Enforcement of Categorical Standards”,
dated November 5, 1984.
11. “POTW PRETREATMENT MULTI-CASE ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE”, dated
December 31, 1984. Attachments A and B excluded.
12. “EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE REQUIRING POTWS TO IMPLEMENT
PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS”, dated February 22, 1985.
13. “Guidance on Enforcement of Prohibitions Against Interference
and Pass Through”, dated May 3, 1985.
14. “Obtaining Approval of Remaining Local Pretreatment
Programs——Second Round Referrals of the Municipal Pretreatment
Enforcement Initiative”, dated June 12, 1985. (categorization of
POTWs within Regions excluded)
15. “Applicability of Categorical Pretreatment Standards to
Industrial Users of Non-Discharging POTWs”, dated June 27, 198
16. “Guidance Manual for Preparation and Review of Removal credit
Applications”, dated July 1985. Table of Contents only.
17. “Local Limits Requirements for POTW Pretreatment Programs”,
dated August 5, 1985.
18. “Guidance Manual for Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Pretreatment Standards”, dated September 1985. Table of Contents
only.
19. “Guidance Manual for the Use of Production—Based Pretreatment
Standards and the Combined Wastestream Formula”, dated September
1985. Table of Contents only.
20. “Guidance Manual for Implementation of Total Toxic Organics
(TTO) Pretreatment Standards”, dated September 1985. Table of
Contents only.
21. “GUIDANCE ON OBTAINING SUBMITTAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
APPROVABLE PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS”, dated September 20, 1985.
22. “CHOOSING BETWEEN CLEAN WATER ACT § 309(b) and 309(f) AS A
CAUSE OF ACTION IN PRETREATMENT ENFORCEMENT CASES”, dated
September 20, 1985.
-------
15
23. “RCRA Information on Hazardous Wastes for Publicly Owned
Treatment Works”, dated September 1985. Table of Contents only.
24. “Pretreatment Compliance Inspection and Audit Manual for
Approval Authorities”, dated July, 1986. Table of Contents only.
25. “Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance”
(for Publicly Owned Treatment Works) dated July, 1986 (Printed
September, 1986). Table of Contents only.
26. “Interim Guidance on Appropriate Implementation Requirements
in Pretreatment Consent Decrees,” dated December 5, 1986.
Attachments excluded.
27. “Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance
with Pretreatment Implementation Requirements”, dated September,
1987. (This document is reproduced at II.C.11 of this
compendium)
28. “Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of
Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program”,
dated November 1987. Indices and Tables of Content, only.
29. “GUIDANCE ON BRINGING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST POTW’S FOR
FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT APPROVED PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS”, dated
August 4, 1988.
30. “GUIDANCE ON PENALTY CALCULATIONS FOR POTW FAILURE TO
IMPLEMENT APPROVED PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS”, dated December 22,
1988.
31. “ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE FOR FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY IMPLEMENT
APPROVED LOCAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS”, dated February 1, 1989.
32. “Guidance For Developing Control Authority Enforcement
Response Plans”, dated September, 1989. Table of Contents only.
# 33. “FY 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW
Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation Requirements”,
dated September 27, 1989.
C. SECTION 311
1. “Oil Spill Enforcement”, dated January 8, 1974. Outdated.
Recent passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 has
rendered all but one of the documents in this section outdated.
The outdated documents are so marked.
-------
16
2. “Civil Penalties Collected for Violations of 40 C.F.R. Part
112” — Transmittal to USCG Districts of Deposit in Revolving Fund
Account, dated December 24, 1974. Outdated.
3. “Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
Program”, dated April 23, 1975. Outdated.
4. “Penalty Assessment Procedures under Section 311(j) (2)”, dated
March 29, 1976. Outdated.
5. “Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Coast Guard and
the EPA”, dated August 24, 1979. Outdated.
6. “Jurisdiction over Intermittent Streams under § 311 of the
CWA”, dated March 4, 1981.
7. “EPA Authority to Seek Court Imposed Civil Penalties Under
Section 311(b) (6) of the CWA”, dated November 19, 1984.
Outdated.
D. CITIZEN SUITS
1. “EPA Response to Citizen Suits”, dated July 30, 1984.
2. “Clean Water Act Citizen Suit Issues Tracking System”, date
October 4, 1985.
3. “Notes on Section 505 CWA Citizen Suits,” dated February 3,
1986.
4. “Clean Water Act Section 505: Effect of Prior Citizen Suit
Adjudications or Settlement on the United States Ability to Sue
for same violations”, dated June 19, 1987.
5. “Procedures for Agency Responses to Clean Water Act Citizen
Suit Activity dated June 15, 1988.
E. SECTION 404
1. “EPA Enforcement Policy for Noncompliance with Section 404 of
the FWPCA”, dated June 1, 1976.
2. Letter from Attorney General to Secretary of the Army
regarding Section 404 of the CWA dated September 5, 1979.
3. “Enforcement of Section 404 of the CWA”, dated November 25,
1980. -.
4. “Enforcement Authority for Violations of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act”, dated November 7, 1980.
-------
17
5. “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or
Fill Material”, Federal Register Notice, Volume 45, No. 249,
dated December 24, 1980.
6. “CWA Section 404 Administrative Orders for Removal or
Restoration”,dated May 20, 1985.
7. Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of the Army
and the Environmental Protection Agency Concerning Regulation of
Solid Waste Under the Clean Water Act, dated January 23, 1986,
effective date April 23, 1986.
8. “MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
AND THE ENVIRONNENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CONCERNING FEDERAL
ENFORCEMENT OF THE SECTION 404 PROGRAM OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT”,
dated January 19, 1989, with collateral agreements concerning
previously-issued Corps Permits Geographic Jurisdiction and
Section 404 (f) exemption issues.
# 9. “Clean Water Act Section 404 Jurisdiction Over Isolated
Waters in Light of Tabb Lakes v. United States, ” dated January
25, 1990.
F. CONTRACTOR LISTING
1. “Guidance for Implementing EPA’S Contractor Listing
Authority”, dated July 18, 1984. See GM-31. (Superseded by F.4,
below)
2. “Implementation of Mandatory Contractor Listing”, dated August
8, 1984. See GM—32.
3. “Policy on Implementing Contractor Listing Program”, dated
August 27, 1985. (deleted - Draft Policy only)
4. “Guidance on Implementing the Discretionary Contractor Listing
Program”, dated November 26, 1986. See GM—53.
G. FEDERAL FACILITIES
1. “Federal Facilities Compliance”, dated January, 1984.
Superseded by VI.G.2.
2. “FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STRATEGY”, dated November,
1988. See GM—25(revised).
H. OVERSIGHT AND STATE PROGRAM COORDINATION
1. “Implementing State/Federal partnership in Enforcement:
State/Federal Enforcen ent Agreements”, dated June 26, 1984.
Superseded by H.3, below.
-------
18
2. Policy on Performance-Based Assistance, dated May 31, 1985.
3. “Revised Policy Framework for State/EPA Enforcement
Agreements”, dated August 25, 1986 (Supersedes H.1). See also
GM-41, revised.
I. PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION TO OUTSIDE PARTIES
i. “Policy Against No Action Assurances”, dated November 16,
1984. See G.M.—34.
2. “EnforCement Document Release Guideline”, dated September 16,
1985. See G.M.—43.
3. “Policy on Publicizing Enforcement Activities”, dated November
21, 1985. Modified by 1.5, below.
4. “Memorandum to General Counsels” (Concerning FOI requests
pertaining to subjects involved in ongoing or anticipated
litigation), dated March 27, 1986.
5. “Addendum to GM-46: Policy on Publicizing Enforcement
Activities”, dated August 4, 1987. (Contains discussion on
explaining differences between initial penalty demands and fir
penalty)
J. TOXICS/TOXICITY CONTROL
1. “Policy for Development of Water Quality—Based Permit
Limitations for Toxic Pollutants”, dated February, 1984. See
II.A.7.
2. “WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY BASIC PERMITTING PRINCIPLES AND
ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY”, Dated January 25, 1989. Includes
Compliance monitoring and Enforcement Strategy, dated January 19,
1989.
# 3. “Quality Assurance Guidance for Compliance Monitoring in
Effluent Biological Toxicity Testing”, dated March 7, 1990.
VII. ANNUAL DOCUMENTS AND SHORT-TERN INITIATIVES
1. “EPA AGENCY OPERATING GUIDANCE — Fl 1986-1987”, dated February
1985. EXPIRED.
2. “FY86 GUIDANCE FOR OVERSIGHT OF NPDES PROGRAMS”, dated June
28,1985. EXPIRED.
3. “NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE ”, dated Augus’
1985. Attachments excluded.
-------
19
4. “A GUIDE TO THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AND MID-YEAR
EVALUATIONS”, dated September, 1985. EXPIRED.
5. “EPA AGENCY OPERATING GUIDANCE - Fl 1987, dated March 1986”.
EXPIRED.
6. “A GUIDE TO THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AND MID-YEAR
EVALUATIONS-FISCAL YEAR 1987”, dated March 1986. EXPIRED.
7. “FY87 GUIDANCE FOR OVERSIGHT OF NPDES PROGRAMS”, dated April 18,
1986. EXPIRED.
8. “EPA Agency Operating Guidance— Fl 1988” dated March, 1987.
Selected portions only. EXPIRED.
9. “GUIDANCE FOR OVERSIGHT OF NPDES PROGRAMS”, dated May, 1987 (This
document is reproduced at 1.7., This Compendium).
10. “Guidance for the FY 1988 State/EPA Enforcement Agreements
Process”, dated April 31 (sic), 1987. EXPIRED.
11. “A GUIDE TO THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AND MID-YEAR
EVALUATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1988”, dated May, 1987. Selected portions
only. EXPIRED.
12. “Fl 1988 OFFICE OF WATER OPERATING GUIDANCE”, dated June, 1987.
Selected portions only. EXPIRED.
13. “Fl 1989 OFFICE OF WATER OPERATING GUIDANCE”, dated May, 1988.
Selected portions only.
14. “A GUIDE TO THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AND MID-
YEAR EVALUATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1989”, dated March, 1988. Selected
portions only.
15. “Guidance for the FY 1989 State\EPA Enforcement Agreement
Process”, dated June 20, 1988. See GM—57.
16. “Fl 1990 OFFICE OF WATER OPERATING GUIDANCE”, dated March, 1989.
Selected portions only.
17. “A GUIDE TO THE OFFICE OF WATER ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AND MID-
YEAR EVALUATIONS,FISCAL YEAR 1990”, dated March, 1989. Selected
portions only.
18. “ Use of Administrative Penalty Order (APO’s) in Fl 89”, dated
March 13, 1990. Without Attachments.
19. “CWA Civil Judicial and Administrative Penalty Practices Report
for FY89”.
-------
20
20. “Fl 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Nonco pl1anL
with pretreatment Implementation Requirements”, dated September 27,
1989. Reproduced at VI.B.33. this compendium.
-------
tO SJ
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
p, O1 ’
D C 2 1 198 OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of General Permits to New Sources
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I, II, III, IV, VI, IX, X
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director
Permits Division (EN—336)
A question has arisen recently as to the applicability
of general permits to new sources. Specifically, we have been
asked whether general permits should be written to include
new sources, and if so, what procedures should be followed.
We encourage Regions developing general permits to cover new
sources whenever possible. This memorandum briefly sets forth
the procedures to be followed if a general permit is to cover
new sources.
The Consolidated Permit Regulations define a new source as
any facility that began construction after promulgation or
proposal of new source performance standards, if promulgation
occurred within 120 days of proposal. The Clean Water Act
provides that issuing an NPDES permit to a new source may be
considered “a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment” under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). To satisfy NEPA, EPA is required to conduct
an environmental review under 40 CFR Part 6 whenever it issues a
permit to a new source. An environmental review results in
either issuing a “finding of no significant impact “(FNSI) or a
notice of intent to issue an environmental impact statement
(EIS). Until such a review is conducted, a general permit cannot
cover new sources.
To ensure that the public and the perrnittees are ft lly aware
of what kinds of dischargers will be covered, general permits
issued without an environmental review should expressly exclude
new sources. If new sources are so excluded, the Region later
-------
—2—
can either modify the permit to include new sources or issue
a separate general permit to cover new sources. In either
case, the Region must first conduct an environmental review.
When developing a general permit that covers new sources,
we encourage you to plan environmental reviews far enough in
advance to avoid delaying issuance or modifying permits at a
later date to satisfy our NEPA obligations. If we can be of
any assistance or if you have any further questions please
call me at 755—2545 or Robin Conrad of my staff at FTS 755—0750.
-------
sra
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4, .
I L
ri i B3
M 4ORANDUM
SUBJECT: Fundamentally Different Factors Variances for Iron
and Steel Facilities
TO: Steven Schatzow, Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (WH—55l)
Bruce M. Diamond, Acting Associate General Counsel
Water and Solid Waste Divi ) n
FROM: Bruce R. Barrett, Director f ) ”
Off ice of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
Regional permit writers have requested a decision
regarding procedures for determining wholly disproportionate
costs for fundamentally different factors (FDF) variance
requests by iron and steel facilities. Specifically, the
question raised is: Will “wholly disproportionate costs” be
determined and applied on a total plant or subcategory
Das is?
As you know I need this question answered because as
Director, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, I approve
or deny FDE’ variance requests approved by the Regional
Administrator. My initial reaction is that it is appropriate
to deal with the issue of wholly disproportionate costs for
FOF variance requests for iron and steel facilities on a
subcategory basis. Your reaction to this position is
necessary before making the final decision and I believe the
decision should be made now, as opposed to waiting for the
submission of a specific variance request.
Wholly disproportionate costs should be dealt with on a
subcategory basis, as opposed to a total plant basis,
because of the process composition of many iron and steel
facilities and because of the subcategorization of- the
effluent limitations guidelines regulation (guidelines). A
large portion of iron and steel facilities are integrated
steel mills which are comprised of several operations which
are regulated by numerous subcategories under the guidelines.
The cost of complying with the. iron and steel guidelines was
developed based on model wastewater treatment systems for
OFFICE OF
WATER
-------
—2—
each level of treatment for each subcategory. Due to this
procedure for developing costs by subcategory, and the fact
that many iron and steel facilities are regulated under
numerous subcategories, it seems appropriate to deal with
wholly disproportionate costs for FDF variance requests for
iron and steel facilities on a subcategory basis.
It should be noted, however, that EPA’s position in past
cases, which has been upheld in Georgia—pacific Corporation
V. U.S. E.P.A. , 671 F.2d 1235 ( 9th Cir. 1982), has been to
evaluate FDF’ variances based on the facility as a whole
(thus requiring FDF variance requests to be evaluated on a
total plant basis). I believe this previous position can be
distinguished from the situation present in the iron and
steel industry. The typical industrial facility, including
the situation present in Georgia—pacific , involves only one
subcategory. In contrast, the typical integrated steel mill
involves several subcategories at a single plant site.
Further, EPA’s method in dealing with the issue of
alternative effluent limitations for 21 central treatment
facilities seems to support determining wholly dispropor-
tionate costs on a subcategory basis. In this case, EPA is
dealing with some central treatment facilities that treat
wastewater from only portions of facilities, as opposed to
the entire facility.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please
submit your comments by January 21, 1983. Call me (755—9187)
or have your staff call Gary Hudiburgh (755—0750) if there
are any questions.
cc: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I—X
Director, NEIC
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
JA)1 13 I° %3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Criteria for Reviewing Leather Tanning
Sulfide Waiver Applications
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director
Permits Division (EN—336) ‘
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
Section 425.04 of the Leather Tanning and Finishing Effluent
Guidelines allows POTW5 receiving wastewater from leather tanners
to certify that sulfide discharges from these facilities do not
interfere with their operations. Under this section, each Regional
Office must review all sulfide certifications submitted by POTWs.
In making such a certification, POTWs must consider the four
criteria specified in Section 425.04(b).
Region V staff have developed specific guidance for reviewing
sulfide certifications submitted by POTWs under this regulatory
provision. These criteria are very comprehensive. They have
been reviewed by the Office of Water’s Effluent Guidelines Division
and the Office of General Counsel. We believe that Region V’s
criteria provide useful guidelines for evaluating sulfide waiver
applications.
Accordingly, I am forwarding to you a copy of these criteria
which may be used in reviewing sulfide waiver applications. I
believe that these criteria will help provide national consistency
in reviewing these applications.
If you have any questions, please contact Tim Dwyer
(FTS: 426—4793).
Attachment
-------
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR LEATHER TANNING SULFIDE WAIVER APPLICATIONS
Introduction
Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) with industrial users (!Us) regulated
by the 40 CFR 425 Leather Tanning and Finishing Regulations have the option
to request that the categorical pretreatment standard for sulfide be waived
for tanners provided that the user’s sulfide discharge does not interfere with
operations of the treatment works. The POT 4 must provide a statement that
certifies and supports to the Regional Water Division Director the noninter-
ference claim.
As part- of the waiver review process, the Region ,ill determine whether the
applicant has complied with the public noticing and certification requirements
of Sections 425.04(b) and (c). The adequacy of the certification will be
determined by comparing the information in the applicant’s submittal to the
criteria as listed below. Section 425.04(b) lists four general factors on
which the POTW must report. Since these factors are general in nature and
tannery sulfide discharges may have significant environmental impact, the
Region will be using more specific criteria to assess whether this discharge
would have a deleterious effect on the treatment works’ operations. If
submittals for the waiver requests do not contain sufficient information as
specified by the criteria, the POTWs will be required to provide the Region
with further data for review before a formal determination is issued on the
request.
Criteria
A. Provide the following information for each of the tannery facilities for
which the sulfide waiver is proposed to be granted.
1. Description of tanning operations. (NOTE: If the user engages in
unhairing operations, specify if beamhouse (hair pulp or hair save) and
tanyard (pickling) processes are performed.)
2. The applicable subpart that would apply to the user’s operations
according to the Leather Tanning Subcategories.
3. The present, past, and maximum process capacity (hides/day) of the
user.
4. Diagram of tanning and finishing processes and waste%later flows,
especially for unhairing and pickling operations.
5. Specify whether spent liquors are discharged or recycled.
6. Characteristics of waste discharge including
a. Analytical data on sulfide and other sulfur compounds such as
sulfates, etc.
b. pH (average and range) of wastestreams.
c. Volume of discharge (average and maximum, GPO).
-------
2
7. Specify whether the plant’s discharge schedule is continuous, batch,
etc.
8. What, if any, pretreatment is employed at the plant especially in
regards to sulfide and pH?
9. Are the facilities regulated by any local limitations or prohibited
discharges?
- Specify the mechanism (i.e. permits, contract, order, ordinance, etc.).
10. If the above does apply, have there been any instances where the
discharger did not meet these limitations?
11. Provide a map of the treatment service area illustrating the points of
discharge of the tanners.
B. The following items will be considered under factors (1)-(4) of
Section 425.04(b).
425.04(b)(l)
“The presence and characteristics, of other industrial wastewaters which
can increase of decrease sulfide concentrations, pH or both.”
a. When reporting other industries that have the potential to contribute
to the sulfide or low pH problem specify:
1. The operations of the facility that generate these wastes.
2. Wastewater discharge volume.
3. Wastewater characteristics such as pH and sulfide/sulfur
content.
4. Discharge schedule (batch, continuous, etc.).
b. If there are other tanning facilities in the treatment system that
are not requesting the sulfide waiver, indicate whether they have the
potential to contribute to the sulfide or low pH problem. If they do
have this potential, submit information as required in “a” above about
the facilities.
c. On a map of the treatment service area, indicate the location of
industries that do have the potential to contribute to sulfide and pH
problems.
425.04(b) (2)
“The characteristics of the sewer/interceptor collection system which
either minimize or enhance opportunities for release of hydrogen sulfide
gas.”
a. Is the sewage system free—flowing?
1. Are there stagnant or dead spots in the system after points of
contribution from tanners?
2. Are these areas aerobic or anaerobic?
-------
3
b. Are personnel that would enter these areas for sampling purposes,
etc., using confined space entry procedures and three—way gas monitors
as precautionary measures?
c. Have there been any reports (not necessarily confirmed) of worker’s
health problems that could be related to hydrogen sulfide-exposure?
Symptoms could include eye irritation, pulmonary distress, headaches
and dizziness.
d. Have there been complaints of odor problems (“rotten eggs”) along
the treatment lines?
e. •Provide recent survey information on the sewer lines to illustrate
whether damage has occurred from the conversion of hydrogen sulfide to
sulfuric acid.
425.04(b) (3)
“The characteristics of the receiving P01W headworks, preliminary and
primary treatment systems, and, sludge holding and dewatering facilities
which either minimize or enhance opportunities for release of hydrogen
sulfide gas.”
a. Are the treatment facilities enclosed or well ventilated?
b. Does the system have a long hydraulic detention time?
c. Does the municipality have an influent/effluent discharge standard
for sulfide or pH? If so, what are they? If not, are any being proposed?
d. Are any of the tanners requesting a waiver for facilities located
within another township or municipality outside your legal jurisdiction
but discharging to your system?
e. What levels of sulfide are entering and being discharged from the
POTW (average and maximum)?
f. Provide a 5-year historical review of sulfide related interference
problems. This should address corrosion, hydrogen sulfide toxicity to
the system, problems with sludge disposal because of odor, permit
violations and any other P01W interference.
g. Have there been complaints of odor problems (“rotten eggs”) at the
treatment plant?
h. Have there been any reports of worker’s health problems or deaths
that could be related to hydrogen sulfide exposure at the treatment works?
i. Has OSHA established ambient air limits for hydrogen sulfide at the
treatment plant?
-------
4
425.04(b) (4)
“The occurrence of any prior sulfide related interference as defined by
425.02(j).”
Section 425.02(j) defines “Interference” as “the discharge of sulfides in
quantities which can result in human health standards and/or risks to
human life, and an inhibition or disruption of P01W as defined in 40 CFR
403.3(j).
This definition of interference should be noted when formulating responses
to the above inquiries.
-------
IJNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
1?4 pRO1t ’
4 MAR 1983
M EMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Statutory Deadlfnes for Compliance by Publicly
Owned Treatment Works under the Clean Water Act
FROM: Robert M. Perry
Associate Administrator
and General Counsel
TO: Frederic A. Eidsness, Jr.
Assistant Administrator for Water
ISSUE
Section 21 of the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction
Grant Amendments of 1981, amended §301(i) of the Clean Water Act
by substituting “July 1, 1988,” for “July 1, 1983.” What effect,
if any, does this amendment have on the statutory compliance dead-
lines for publicly owned treatment works contained in S301(b)(1)(B)
and §30l(b)(l)(C), and on the authority of EPA and States to
establish compliance schedules by the exercise of enforcement
discretion?
ANSWER
Section 21 of the 1981 Amendments does not amend the July 1,
1977, compliance deadlines for POTW5 contained in §30l(b)(l)(B)
and §301(b)(1)(C). However, under §301(i) as amended, EPA and
States with approved NPDES programs may extend this deadline in
NPDES permits up to, but not beyond, July 1, 1988, for POTWs which
satisfy the criteria in S301(i) and implementing regulations.
Although permits for POTWs which do not qualify for §301(i) exten-
sions must require immediate compliance, EPA and States may use
their enforcement discretion to establish ccrnpliance schedules in
the context of enforcement actions, such as administrative orders
and judicial deci ees.
DISCUSSION
In 1972, Congress established July 1, 1977, as a statutory
deadline by which publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) were
required to comply with effluent limitations based on secondary
treatment (S301(b)(1)(B)) and any more stringent limitations,
including those necessary to meet water quality standards (S301(b)
(1)(C)). Numerous administrative and judicial decisions held that
the Agency lacked authority to extend the date for compliance in
NPDES permits beyond the statutory deadline.
-------
Bethlehem steel Corp. v. Train , 544’F.2d 657 (3d Cir. 1976);
United States Steel Corp. v. Train , 556 F.2d 822 (7th Cir. 1977);
Republic Steel Corp. v. Costle , 581 F.2d 1228 (6th Cir. 1978).
With respect to POTWs in particular, the Fourth Circuit held
that EPA lacked authority to extend the 1977 deadline in an NPDES
permit issued to a POTW, notwithstanding that the Federal Govern-
ment had illegally impounded Federal construction grant money.
State Water Control Board v. Train , 559 F.2d 921 (4th Cir. 1977).
However, the court also noted that the Agency had discretion in
enforcing the deadline, and that it expected the Agency to exercisE
its discretion in a responsible manner:
p
Our holding in this case does not mean that, absent
Congressional action, severe sanctions hill inevitably be
imposed on municipalities who, despite aood faith efforts,
are economically or physically unable tc comply with the
1977 deadline. We fully expect that, in the exercise of
its prosecutorial discretion, EPA will decline to bring
enforcement proceedings against such municipalities.
Furthermore, in cases where enforcement proceedings are
brought, whether by EPA or by private citizens, the courts
retain equitable discretion to determine whether and to what
extent fines and injunctive sanctions should be imposed
for violations brought about by good faith inability to
comply with the deadline. In exercising such discretion,
EPA and the district courts should, of course, consider the
extent to which a community’s inability to comply results
from municipal profligacy. 559 F.2d at 927—28.
Realizing that many dischargers would fail to meet the 1977
deadline despite good faith efforts, EPA formalized a system by
which to establish realistic compliance schedules through the
exercise of enforcement discretion. Under this policy, EPA and
NPDES States issued “enforcement compliance schedule letters”
(ECSLs) to POTWs and industrial dischargers which were unable to
meet the July 1, 1977, deadline despite all good faith efforts.
An ECSL contained: 1) an expeditious but realistic compliance
schedule; 2) the discharger’s commitment to abide by the schedule
and acknowledgement that the schedule was achievable; and 3) the
Agency’s commitment not to take further enforcement action if the
discharger complied with the schedule.
The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 addressed the issue of
noncompliance with the 1977 deadline in different ways for munici-
pal dischargers and industrial dischargers. For direct industrial
dischargers, Congress chose not to allow any extensions of the 1977
deadline to be contained in NPDES permits. Rather, Congress
directed the Agency to use its enforcement discretion in such
cases, and authorized EPA to issue “extension orders” under the.
authority of §309(a)(5)(B). Thus, for industrial dischargers,
Congress clearly defined the terms upon which it authorized the
-------
—3—
Agency to use -its enforcement authotity to address noncompliance
with the 1977 deadline.
Congress took a different approach for POTWs. Section 301(i) -.
(1) authorized EPA and NPDES States to extend, in NPDES permits,
the July 1, 1977, deadline up to July 1, 1983, for POTWs which met
certain criteria. EPA was .able to establish compliance schedules
f or most POTWS in S301(i) permits, and stopped issuing ECSLs. - As
1983 approached, it became clear that many POTWs could not comply
by July 1, 1983, and EPA again needed a device to establish
realistic compliance schedules. Rather than resurrect the ECSL
po1ic , EPA decided to use its enforcement authority under S309(a)
(5)(A). This subsection, added by the 1977 CWA Amendments,
authorizes EPA to issue administrative orders which “specify a time
for compliance . . . not to exceed a time the Administrator deter-
mines to be reasonable in the case of a violation of a final dead-
line, taking into account the seriousness of the violation and any
good faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements.” The
October 1979 National Municipal Policy and Strategy directed EPA
Regions to issue §309(a)(5)(A) orders to POTWs, establishing
compliance schedules which could exceed the 1977 deadline, for
secondary treatment, but which were not to exceed the 1983 deadline
for the more stringent “best practicable waste treatment technology
over the life of the works” (“BPWTT”) required by §30l(b)(2)(B).
In the 1981 CWA Amendments, Congress chose not to supercede
the Agency’s practice of using §309(a)(5)(A) orders as a means of
establishing compliance schedules for POTWs through the use of
enforcement discretion. However, Congress repealed §301(b)(2)(B),
thereby eliminating the major reason for requiring that such orders
not extend beyond July 1, 1983. Congress also amended §301(i) by
substituting “July 1, 1988” for “July 1, 1983,” wherever the latter -
appeared, thus allowing NPDES permits for qualifying POTW’s to
contain compliance schedules up to July 1, 1988.
However, Congress did not modify the 1977 statutory deadline
contained in Section 301(b). In fact, §21(a) of the 1981 amend-
ments explicitly states that the Amendments are not intended to
extend schedules of compliance then in effect, except where
reductions in financial assistance or changed conditions affecting
construction beyond the control of the operaor made it impossible
to complete construction by July 1, 1983.
There is even stronger support for the authority of the
Agency (acting through the Department of Justice) and the district
courts to establish compliance schedules in judgments entered in
civil enforcement actions, includin9 compliance schedules that
extend beyond a statutory deadline.’ (Indeed, if the compliance
- - As you are aware, the Administrator has issued a policy on
enforcement of the December 31, 1982 deadline for attainment of
primary ambient standards under the Clean Air Act. This policy
assumes that equitable relief may be obtained in judicial enforce-
ment proceedings.
-------
sChedule did not extend beyond the statutory deadline, there
would probably not be a need to resort to an enforcement action.)
The quotation from the State Water Control Board case cited above
supports this position. Moreover, the recent Supreme Court -
decision in Weinberger v. Romero—Barcello , 50 LW. 4434 (April 27,
1982) provides strong confirmation of this view.
It is important to emphasize the limited purpose and effect
of an administrative order, or a judicial decree, that establishes
a compliance schedule extending beyond a statutory deadline.
Such an order or decree does not “extend the deadline,” in a legal
sense, for neither the Agency nor the judiciary has authority to
amend or disregard a statute. 2 Rather, such orders and decrees are
a means of enforcing the statute, and achieving compliance.
Neither administrative orders nor judicial decrees “allow” or
“permit” continued violations of the law, but rather require
compliance with it, as expeditiously as possible.
In summary, the 1977 deadlines in §S301(b)(l)CB) and
301(b)(1)(C) remain in effect for any POTW which does not qualify
for an extension under §301(i). However, both judicial
interpretation and Congressional acquiesence support EPA’S view
that the Agency may, and should, use enforcement discretion in a
responsible manner to establish expeditious but realistic compli-
ance schedules for POTWs. Use of judicial enforcement and
S309(a)(5)(A) orders for this purpose, in appropriate cases, are
responsible methods by which to exercise that discretion.
Therefore, courts have held that issuance of an administrative
order — even if the discharger complies with it — does not absolve
the discharger from liability for the violation, or preclude the
Agency from commencing a judicial enforcement action based on the
same violation. United States v. Earth Sciences, Inc. , 599 F. 2d
368 (10th Cir. 1979). United States v. Outboard Marine Corp. , 12
ERC 1346 (N.D. Ill. 1978). United States v. Detrex Chemical Indus-
tries, Inc. , 393 F. Supp 735 (N.D. Ohio 1975) Nor does issuance
of an administrative order preclude citizens’ suits against the
discharger under §505 of the Act.
-------
l OS14,
‘ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.c. 20460
c
4( ppØ(t
OFFICE OF
APR 4 1983 WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Federal Register Publication Costs of
EPA—Issued General NPDES Permits
FROM: Bruce R. Barrett,
Off ice of Water Enforcement Permits (EN—335)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Many of you have encountered difficulties in providing
funds for Federal Register (F.R.) publication of draft and
final general NPDES permits. The consolidated permit
regulations are not detailed as to what is required for
publication.
In most cases the Agency has published with the public
notice of a draft or final general permit a complete fact
sheet and permit. Publication of the complete permit package
may be an ideal mechanism to inform the public of the Agency’s
permit decisions, but in many cases it is prohibitively
expensive. Other less costly mechanisms are available to
ensure that the public is adequately informed and satisfy
the statutory and regulatory requirements of public notice.
For example, a public notice may provide a description of the
regulated activity and a general summary of the terms of the
permit. Copies of the complete fact sheet and permit can be
provided on request to reduce publication costs.
Below we have outlined the minimum statutory and
regulatory public notice requirements for issuing draft
and final general permits. In every case, the public
notice and/or fact sheet summary must provide sufficient
information to the public to support the Agency’s conclusion
that the covered facilities are more appropriately controlled
under a single general permit than under individual permits.
-------
—2—
Draft General NPDES Permit
Under the NPDES regulations, a public notice of draft
general permits must be published in a daily or weekly
newspaper in the area affected by the permit and for an
EPA issued general permit, the public notice must be published
in the F.R. Publication of the complete fact sheet or the
draft permit is not required. The Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) additionally requires a general explanation of
the terms and substance of the draft permit.
Final General NPDES Permit
Although publication requirements for final, general
permits are not detailed in the regulations, reference
to “publication by EPA of the general permit in the F.R.”
is contained in §l22.59(h)(2)(iij). Publication is required
because it is generally the only mechanism available to notify
dischargers covered by a general permit of the terms and
conditions in the permit since general permits are not issued
to named parties.
In summary, the minimal requirements for the publication
of a draft or final general permit are as follows:
Draft General NPDES Permit
1. Public notice in the F.R . including a statement of
availability of the complete fact sheet, permit,
and for marine dischargers, 403(c) documents,
2. Summary of the fact sheet and terms of the permit,
and
3. 0MB requirements under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, Executive Order 12291, and Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Final General NPDES Permit
1. Public notice including availability of the
complete fact sheet and where appropriate
403(c) documents, and
2. Final general NPDES permit.
-------
—3—
These minimal requirements for F.R. publication are
consistent with the NPDES regulations and the APA; and
they meet the Agency’s obligation to inform the public of
permit decisions. They are not intended to preclude the
publication of additional information or replace the
requirements of public notice in 8124.1O(c)(2) and (d),
or the requirements of 8124.6 and 8124.8 governing
draft permits and fact sheets.
The general NPDES permit program is an important
approach to our responsibilities under the Clean Water
Act, and we intend to continue our efforts to ensure its
success. If you have further questions concerning these
or other general permit problems, please contact Martha G.
Prothro, Director, Permits Division (FTS 755—2545).
-------
Attachment II
Primary Industries Eligible for 301(g) Variances
Initial
Industry Pollutant/s Final Req Req. Date* * of Majors**
Aluninuin Forming Aluminum 7/83 4/84 3.02
Coil Coating Iron/Aluminum 11/82 8/83 19
Electrical Canponents Fluoride 3/83 12/83 17
Foundries 4AAP(total phenols) 8/83 5/84 25
Inorganic Chemicals Chlorine 6/82 3/83 45
Fluoride
Iron and Steel Anl monia 5/82 2/83 149
4AAP C total phenols)
Nonferrous metals Fluoride 1/84 10/84 130
Aluminum
Anuonia
Pesticides a D/rnany pesticides 12/83 9/84 125
Steam Electric chlorine 11/82 8/83 662
Thtal: 1274
*Initial request must be sutxnitted 270 days after pranulgation of guideline.
40 CFR 122.21(n)(2) authorizes a 6 month extension to sutinit a canpieted
301(g) request.
**The Agency received 2400 initial requests for variances in 1978 which
includes both major arid minor permits.
-------
STq
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
( PRO
OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM WATER
SUBJECT: Representative Sampling in NPDES Permits
TO: Water Management Division Directors
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director \ \
Permits Division (EN—336) \ -O- ...
I wish to call your attention to the importance of
specifying proper sampling locations in NPDES permits to
assure that the toxic pollutants, especially the organic
pollutants, are accurately detected and reported. Priority
pollutants may not be detected when a permittee or applicant
comingles or blends wastestreams prior to monitoring for
the purposes of determining compliance or applying or
reapplying for a permit using Form 2c “Application for Permit
to Discharge Wastewater from Existing Manufacturing, Commercial,
Mining and Silvicultural Operations”. It is essential that
the Form 2c contain analytical results truly representative
of the process wastewater before dilution so that the permit
may include limits on all appropriate pollutants. Careful
consideration of what constitutes representative sampling
for the priority pollutants is particularly important for
facilities with large process and cooling water flows and
for facilities that are especially complex.
For your convenience, the attachment contains an example
of a standard permit condition, clarification of the phrase
“representative sample” in the Form 2c Instructions, and an
excerpt from the NPDES regulations authorizing internal
was test ream monitoring.
Please assure that your NPDES permit writers are reminded
of the importance of requiring representative sampling in
both the application Form 2c and the permit. It would also be
appropriate to consider this issue carefully in review of
State NPDES permits. Please contact me, Bill Jordan, Chief,
NPDES Technical Support Branch, or Hap Thron of his staff
(426—7010) if you or your staff have questions, comments, or
suggestions on how we can better assure that sampling locations
are properly selected.
Attachment
cc: Bruce Barrett
Steve Schatzow
Bob Zeller
-------
• Attachment
Example Standard Permit Condition
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall
be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored
discharae. 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
approval by, the Director.
Form 2c — Instructions
page 2c-2 bottom
B. SAMPLING. The collection
permit, or at any site adequate for the collection
of a representative sample (emphasis added).
The phrase “representative sample” in the Form 2c
instructions is defined as “after treatment and
before dilution with non—process wastewater”.
Environmental Permit Regulations
Final Rule—April 1,1983
l 22 •d5
[ 1) k:e , J ‘cs:e L-eans (1) When
E .1 E er t cns Or sazde,rds
L posed at the 7c t of scba - e are
rrEc.c! or eas: e. e uent
or standards fo discharges
of po! tan .s ay be i. posed on
i te:- aI v.aste s ea s before m xL-tg
— w o e wa ste c ea .s or cool ,ri
water s a ,s lr those ,nsta ces the
on, to-.. reçuized by 122 44(i) shall
aJso be app!iec to the .nter ia1 waste
s ’eam.s.
(2) L its on L-te a) waste strearns
will be i csed o Jv when the fact
sheet t äs: § 124.56 sets forth the
exc o aj c c s ances which make
St necessa.r ’. such as
whez the 5.r a &scharge point is
inac:ess b e fic; exa p e. u ,nder 10
meters of water), the wastes a the point
of discharge are so dih ted as to make
ac cahie . or the
terfe e’.ces poih3tarts El the
n: of disthare “. cu , make etecton
tr :s c..can e.
-------
S7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
j
)cjJ 3
M’ IT OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Section 301(g) Variance Requests
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
FROM: tG;zt o
The Permits Division has recently been notified by several
Regions of receipt of Section 301(g) (Clean Water Act) water
quality variance requests for facilities in the iron and steel
and inorganic chemicals industrial categories. Questions have
also been raised concerning the use of the draft 301(g) application
form and technical guidance manual which I distributed to you
for comment on October 25, 1982 (Attachment I - Transmittal Memo).
Before addressing these questions, the procedures for 301(g)
requests are briefly discussed as well as industries likely to
request 301(g) variances.
As you know, according to the Clean Water Act (CWA), Section
30l(j)(l)(B), an initial request for a 301(g) variance must be
submitted to EPA by the applicant no later than 270 days after
promulgation of the applicable best available technology economi-
cally achieveable (BIT) guideline. Initial requests that were
received by the Regions in September 1978, in response to those
guidelines promulgated before December 1977 are also valid, in
accordance with section 30l( )(1)(A) of the CWA. The procedures
for processing these requests can be found in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, sections 122.21(1) and (n) of the
April 1, 1983 Environmental Permit Regulations (48 FR 14146).
With these deadlines for 301(g) requests there could be a
significant number of such requests in the immediate future.
Attachment II provides a listing of the type of industry most
likely to request a variance and when to expect the initial
request. The list also gives the number of major facilities in
each category, but we expect only a fraction of these to request
301(g) variances.
-------
—2—
In terms of the application form and guidance that should
be used for 301(g) requests, we recommend using the draft appli-
cation form and guidance mentioned above. However, yvu should
assure the applicant that there is no obligation to use the
draft application form and guidance, and that until final
regulations and guidance are published, decisions on 301(g)
variances will be conducted on a best professional judgment
(BPJ) basis.
You should note that, based on Regional and Headquarters
comments received from last year’s request, we are in the process
of revising the 301(g) regulation and technical guidance manual.
The major changes are: 1) developing procedural and technical
consistency with Section 301(h), where applicable; 2) eliminating
the Cancer Assessment Group (CAG) list and the bioconcentration
factor (BCF) as two criteria in the human health assessment;
and 3) eliminating a proposed EPA mixing zone policy. We do
not anticipate many changes to the 301(g) application form.
The revised technical guidance manual which will be
available this summer will address impact to public water supplies,
recreational activities, and point and nonpoint sources in much
the same manner as the 301(h) regulation. For the human health
assessment, we will delete the BCF and CAG list review and ask
the applicant to generally follow the criteria outlined by EPA
in the methodology for deriving human health criteria (45 FR
79347) while EPA headquarters (ORD) will review each 301(g)
human health assessment. With regard to mixing zones, EPA
recommends using mixing zones designated in the State water
quality standards or in certain situations, site—specific,
State—determined mixing zones.
The target date for publishing the proposed regulation is
October, 1983. The current plan is to keep the technical
guidance manual and application form in draft, and separate from
the regulation which will cover the procedural aspects of the
301(g) process.
If you have any questions please have someone on your
staff call me 8/755—2545 or Bob Cantij.li at 8/426—7035.
Attachments
-------
Attachn rit I
.r 0 S14
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
q( PR0 ’
OFFICE OF
WATER
OCT 2 5 1982
M 4 ORANDLJM
SUBJECT: Review of Draft 301(g) Regulation, Preamble, Application
Form and Technical Guidance Manual
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director r o
Permits Division (EN—336) ‘ “‘
Attached for your review and comment are drafts of the
Section 301(g) regulation and preamble, application form and
technical guidance manual. These materials are early drafts
developed by staff that we hope to have prepared by December 31,
1982, for internal Office of Water review. We are soliciting
Regional Office input at this time to assure that Regional
concerns regarding the 301(g) regulation are considered early in
the development process and to provide a document for interim use
on 301(g) considerations. Section 301(g) of the Clean Water Act
provides a variance from Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT) requirements for nonconventiona ]. pollutants if
- an applicant can prove that treatment less stringent than BAT
will not result in water quality that interferes with the main-
tenance of a balanced population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
or impacts recreation, public drinking water supplies, other
point and nonpoint source treatment controls or human health.
Section 301(g) requires consideration of a number of complex
factors in order to qualify for variance consideration. To
address these factors the draft regulation emphasizes the use of
EPA water quality criteria numbers and the EPA methodology for
deriving criteria numbers. The draft regulation provides, in
large part, that a 301(g) variance request is evaluated by making
a comparison between the most stringent water quality criterion
number for the nonconventiona]. pollutant(s) and the concentration
of the nonconventiona]. pollutant(s) attained at the edge of a
State or EPA—approved mixing zone. If the concentration of the
-------
—2—
nonconventional pollutant exceeds the EPA water quality criterion
number at the edge of the mixing zone, the variance will be
denied. The regulation also requires consideration of the
potential for bioaccuxnulation of the nonconventional pollutant
and whether the pollutant is a carcinogen. Other factors such as
recreation, public drinking sources and point and nonpoint source
treatment impacts must also be weighed before a variance is
granted.
Please canment not only on the specifics of this draft but
also on whether additional or different factors should be considered
for 301(g) regulation. Provide caninents to Permits Division by
no later than November 19, 1982. If you have any questions
concerning the draft regulation, application form or technical
guidance manual, please call Bill Jordan, Chief, NPDES Technical
Support Branch, (8/426—7010) or Bob Cantilli of his staff at
(8/426—7035).
cc: Regional Permit Branch Chief
301(g) Work Group Members
-------
fE S7 1
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
lL ,ipcØ
Jt4 16 83
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT . Procedures for Processing Fundamentally Different
Factors Variances
TO: . Regional Water Management Division Directors
FROM:: Martha G. Prothro, Directorc
Permits Division (EN—336) ‘
Questions have recently been raised concerning the pro-
cedures for processing fundamentally different factors (FDF)
variances. Additionally, there have been indications that
these procedures are not being followed in some instances
where deviations from national effluent guidelines are being
considered or allowed by National Pollut nt Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) States.
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR SS124.62—124.63 contain
the procedures for processing variances. A copy of these
provisions is attached. Permits, or portions of permits,
containing provisions incorporating variances may not be
effective until the regulatory provisions have been satisfied.
In the case of FDF variances, the Regions may deny FDF variances
without the approval of EPA Headquarters (40 CFR §124.62(c)).
However, approvals of FDF variances and alternative limitations
must be made by the Director, Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits (OWEP) (40 CFR §124.62(d)).
If you have any questions on this matter, please call me
(FTS 755—2545), or have your staff call Bill Jordan, Chief,
NPDES Technical Support Branch (FTS 426—7010) or Gary Hudiburgh
of his staff (FTS 755—0750).
Attachment
cc: Bruce R. Barrett (EN—335)
Steven Schatzow (WH-551)
Colburn T. Cherney (LE—132W)
Jeffery D. Denit (WH—552)
-------
.nd by a sta y under this sectiàzi
,ided that no such extension shall be
ted which wouldi -
(1) R.esu.lt in the violation of an -
- ‘‘ .able statutoty deadline: or
‘ause the permit to e lre more
years after issuance under...
Note. .—Ext zious ol o’ mpIi a schedules
coder 22A.60(f)(2) will not v.41 !1 bceI3y be
granted for a per od.eqpa1 to the period the
stay ii in effect for an e usnt limfta es. For
ezampk. If both the Agency and the
c istharer apee that. min ea ieut
technology is requiz by the CWA where
g’ idelines do not app!y. but a bearing is
granted to consider the eF uent limitations
which the technology will achieve.
requirement.s regarding installation of the
underlying technology will not be stayed
during the hearing. Thus, unless the bearing
extends beyond the final compliance dale in
the permit. It wifl not ordinarily be necessarj
to extend thecompliance .thedule. However.
ea applica on of an dnderiying technology
u challenged. the stay far installation
requireer.ts relating to thai technology
would extend for the th bon of the heanng.
{E) For purposes of.judicial review
under CWA section 509(b). anal agency
•action on a permit does not occur unless
anduilaparyhasexhaustedit.s
administt ative remedies under Subparts
E and F and § 124.91. Any party which
neglects or fails In seek review under
§ 124.91 thereby waives its opportunity
-heust available agency remedies.
I Fir al enb4a’anmen l Impact
.nent.
No final NPDES permit for a new
sotn’oe shall be issued until at least 30
cays after the date of issuance of a final
environmental impact statement if one
is requned under 40 CFR § 6.805.
§ 124.62 DecIsion on variances.
(Appli bIe wStotepivgrams see
§ 123.25 (NPDCS) . -
(a) The Director may grant or deny
requests for the following variances
(subject 10 EPA objection under § 123.44
for State permits):
-(1) Extensions under CWA section
301(i) based on delay in completion of a
publicly owned tieatinent worlcs
(2) After consultaban with the
Regional Ar4r, i&stietor. extensions
under CWA section 301(k) based on the
use of in ovabve technology: or
(3) Variances under CWA section
316(a) for thermal pollution.
[ b) The State Director may deny. or
forward to the Regional Ad,,tintsb ator
with a written concurrence. or submit to
EPA without recommendation a
cople ted request for
‘A variance based on the presence
nd.-’ t.aUy different factors ’s
those on which art effluent
limitations guideline was based.
(2) A variance based on the economic
capability of the applicant under CWA
section 301(c):
(3) A variance based upon certain-
water quality Lactors under CWA
section 3 1(g): or ..- - .
(4) A variance based on water quality
‘hiated effluent limitations under CWA
section 302(b)(2)...-
(c) The Regional Mviin 4 efrator may
deny, forward, or submit to the EPA
.Depu±y Assistant A_mii ctrator for
Water Enforcement with a
recommendation for approval, a request
fofaVarian e listea in paragraph (b) of
this section that is forwarded by the
State Director, or that is submitted to
the Regional Ad nii efrator by the
requester where EPA is the permitting
authority.
(d) The EPA Deputy Assistant
A iriisb ator for Water Enforcement
may approve or deny any variance
request submitted under paragraph (c)
of this section. If the Deputy Assistant
Administrator approves the variance.
the Director may prepare a draft permit
incorporating the variance. Arty public
notice of a draft permit for which a
variance or modification has been
approved or denied shall identify the
applicable procedures for appealing that
decision under § 124.54.
§ 124.63 Procedures for variances when
EPA is the permithng .uthortty.
(a) in States where EPA is the permit
issuing authority and a request for a
variance is filed as required by §122.21.
the request shall be processed as
ioUow
(1) If at the time that a request for a
variance is submitted the Regional
A’ ”ini’bator has received an
application under § 124.3 for issuance or
renewal of that permit but has not yet
prepared a draft permit under § 124.5
covering the discharge in question. the
Regional Mvnlnictzator. after obtaining
any necessary concurrence of the EPA
Deputy Assistant Ar mi ietathr for
Water Enforcement under § 124.52, shall
give notice of a tentabve decision on the
request at the time the notice of the draft
permit is prepared as specified in. —
§124.10. unless this would significantly
delay the processing of the permit In
that case the processing of the variance
request may be separated from the
permit in accordance with paragraph
a)(3) of this section. and the processing
of the permit shall proceed without
delay.
(2) If at the time that a request for a
variance is filed the Regional
A, 4 ministrator has given notice under
§ 12.4.10 of a draft permit covering the
discharge in question. but that permit
has not yet become final, administrative
proL..’ ings concerning that permit may
be stayed and the Regional
Afl,, inistrator shall prepare a new draft
permit including a tentative deciston ou.
the request. and the fact r.1 t required
by*t&Howe .lf s U ... . - -
r rfficantIy delay the • of
eiosting draft permit or the Regional:
M ,ii, ctratoc. for.other reasons , . -
considers combining the
request and the eiastlng éafl pérudr’?
Inadvisable. the request may be
separated from the permit in accordance
with paragraph (a)(3) of this section. and
the administrative dispositon of the,
erosbng draft permit shall proceed -
without delay.
(3) 11 the permit has become final and
no application under §124.3 concerning
it is pending or U the variance request
has been separated from a draft permit
as described in paragraphs (a) (1) and
(2) of this section. the Regional
Ai 4 ninistrator may prepare a new draft
permit and give notice of It under
§ 124.10. This draft permit shall be
accompanied by the fact sheet required
by § 124.8 except that the only matters
considered shall relate to the requested
variance.
§ 124.64 Appeals of variances.
(a) When a State issues a permit on
which EPA has made a variance
decision, separate appeals of the State -
permit and of the EPA variance decision
are possible. if the owner or operator is
challenging the same issues in both
procee hng; the Regional Aa4Tt .!nlstrator
- will decide, in consultation with State
oEciais, which case will be heard first.
(b) Variance decisions made by EPA
may be appealed under either Subparts
E or F. provided the requirements of the
applicable Subpart are met. However.
whenever the basic permit decision is
eligible only for an evidentiary bearing
under Subpart E while the variance
decision is eligible only for a panel
bearing under Subpart F. the issues
relating to both the basic permit
decision and the variance decision shall
be considered in the Subpart E
proceeding. No Subpart F hearing msy
be held if a Subpart E hearing would be
held in addition. See § 124111(b).
(c) Stays for section 302(g) varrances.
11 a request-for an evidentiary hearing is
grezi’.ed on a variance requested under
CWA section 301(g). or lie petition for
review of the denial of a request for the
hearing is filed under § 124.91, any
otherwise applicable standards and
limitations under CWA section 301 shall
not be stayed unless:
(1) In the judgment oithe Regional
Mr’iinistrator, the stay or the variance
sought will norresuit in the discharge of
-------
S?
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 L PRO1 C
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA’S Authority to Issue NPDES General Permits
in Approved NPDES States
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Direct
Permits Division (EN—336)
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
It has recently come to my attention that there may be a
misunderstanding regarding EPA’s authority to issue general
permits in States which are approved to administer the NPDES
program, but have not been specifically approved to issue
general permits. Please be advised that EPA has no authority
to issue general permits in these NPDES States. The Clean
Water Act, section 402(c), requires EPA to suspend issuance
of NPDES permits (including issuance of any general permits)
upon approval of a State NPDES program.
However, EPA’s inability to issue general permits in
certain NPDES States does not affect its authority to issue
permits, whether individual or general permits, to federal
facilities. EPA remains responsible for issuing permits to
federal facilities even if a State has been approved to
administer the NPDES program, if the State program has not
been modified to cover federal facilities. (States seeking
full program approval after 1977 have been required to cover
federal facilities, but some States approved prior to that
time have not yet made the required program modification.)
In contrast to the federal facilities program, the general
permit program does not expand the scope of discharges
covered by the permit program but merely authorizes the
State to issue NPDES permits through a different procedure.
In addition, State general permits authority is not required
by statute, but merely authorized and encouraged by EPA as a
procedural reform in the NPDES program.
-------
—2—
Please bring this general permits issue to the attention
of your Permits staff. If you have any questions, please
call me at FTS 755—2545 or Bill Diamond, Acting Chief,
Consolidated Permits Branch, at FTS 426—4793.
-------
UNITED STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20450
4 L Pu .ø1#
DRAFT OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Baseline Monitoring Reports
TO: Water Management Division Directors
FROM: Bruce R. Barrett, Director
Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits (EN—335)
Baseline Monitoring Reports (BMR) are required from all
industrial users (IU) of a POTW 180 days after the effective date
of an applicable categorical pretreatment standard. Attachment I
presents the strategy for implementation of the BMR. Please note
that contractor assistance from JRB Associates will be available
to Regions and States for this activity. fter the i-ndirect
dischargers who are affected by categorical standards are identi-
fied, the most difficult and time consuming activity will be the
detailed technical review of the BMR. Where the POTW is the
Control Authority or where the POTW is making satisfactory
progress in developing a program, this activity will be conducted
by the POTW. Where EPA or approved State is the Control Authority
(including where the industry is not located in a city required
to develop a Federal pretreatment program), then the Region or
approved State will review the report as soon as possible in
accordance with priorities established for the program.
There are several methods for establishing priorities for
BMR review. Some are based on the POTW, others on the IU. One
possible method is a numerical POTW scale similar to the majors
list for direct discharging industries. POTWs would receive a
numerical rating based on the type and amount of pollutants in
their discharge and possibly in their sludge. BMRs in POTW with
the highest score would be reviewed first. Another possibility
is based on POTWS discharging to waters with identified or
suspected water quality problems associated with discharges from
categorical industry users. A third method is based on the lu.
Iris would receive a numerical rating based on the type and amount
of pollutants in their discharge. BMR5 would be reviewed first
for Iris with the highest score. We recommend the following
priority for BMR review:
-------
—2—
1. lUs with higher than average numerical scores that
discharge to POTWs with identified water quality problems
associated with categorical industries,
2. lUs with higher than average numerical scores that
discharge to POTWS suspected to contributing to water
quality impairment associated with categorical industries,
and
3. IrJs with higher than average numerical scores that
discharge to POTW with interference, pass—through or
sludge contamination associated with categorical
industries.
Attachment II lists the categorical industries, the number
of indirect dischargers in each industry category and the date
when the BMR under each regulation is due, We recommend the
following priority for proceeding with the notification of the
categorical industries:
1. Initiate notification for the Timber Products, Iron and
Steel, Inorganic Chemicals, Petroleum Refining, Pulp and
Paper, Steam Electric, Leather Tanning, Porcelain
Enameling, Coil Coating, and Electrical Components
industries with final numerical citegorical-pretreatment
standards,
2. Notify facilities in the Electroplating and Metal
Finishing industry categories, and
3. Notify facilities in the following industry groups:
Battery Manufacturing, Alurniuin Forming, Copper Forming,
Foundries, Phararnaceuticals, Canrnaking, Adhesive/Sealants,
Electrical Components (Phase II), and Pesticides.
These priorities initially address industry categories for
which standards have already been finalized. Electroplaters
and/or metal finishers are equally important but the number of
such facilities makes their notification a significantly larger
task.
Under these priorities and the strategy presented in
Attachment I, notification of industries listed in 1 above should
be completed by ________ , 1983 and industries in number 2 above
completed by _______
cc: Pretreatment Coordinators, Regions I—X
-------
ATTACHMENT I DHAF’F’
NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
CATEGORICAL INDUSTRY BASELINE
MONITORING REPORT (BMR) RESPONSIBILITIES
Introduction
The Control Authority is responsible for administering the
requirements of the General Pretreatment Regulations directly
against affected industries. The Control Authority is defined
as: 1) the POTW if the POTW’s pretreatment program su nission
has been approved, or 2) the Approval Authority (EPA Regional
office or State if EPA has delegated pretreatment authority to
the State) if the POTW program has not been approved. Accordingly,
the approximately 1700 POTWs nationwide required to develop
pretreatment programs must establish BMR procedures in their
program and implement their responsibilities as soon as their
program is approved. However, the Approval Authority is also the
Control Authority for all industries located in areas that will
not be regulated by a local pretreatment program. While this may
involve a small number of industries ccxnpared to the total number
controlled by the 1700 POTW5, there are a significant enough
number to require advanced planning to assure the EPA Regions and
delegated States are regulating these dischargers in accordance
with applicable requirements. -
Because EPA Regions and delegated States must assume Control
Authority responsibilities for industries in areas not covered by
a local program, EPA and States generally will not routinely deal
with Industrial Users (His) located in POTW5 developing programs.
However, in situations where a POTW is not making satisfactory
progress in developing a program or an approved POTW is experiencing
problems in dealing with an Hi of its system, EPA or State assistance
may be necessary.
Figure 1 shows a schematic of the implementation strategy
for Control Authority responsibilities. The basic approach is
that EPA and approved States deal directly with categorical
industry indirect dischargers only where no local program is (or
will be) required. In areas where a local program is required,
EPA and States should issue guidance to the POTWs and exercise
oversight responsibilities to ensure that POTWs carry out their
local programs. The success of this approach depends largely on
the quality of the overview of the local pretreatment program.
I. Summary of BMR Requirements
A. Control Authority Requirements.
The relevant requirements applicable to the Control
Authority are as follows:’
-------
FIGU 1
I} L ZNTATION OF BMR CONTROL AUTHORITY R.ESPONSIBILITIES
CONTROL
AUTHORITY
CONTROL
AUTHORITY
BMR INFORMATION
PACKAGE
?OTW REQUIRED
TO HAVE
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
CONTROL
AUTHORITY
BMR INFORMATION
PACKAGE
4
APPROVED
STATE
1 CATEGORICAL INDIRECT
j DISCHARGER
CON1
AUTHOR
‘pp
CATEGORI CAL
INDIRECT
ISCE.ARGER
LOCATED IN
?OTW NOT
REQUIRED TO
HAVE PRETREAT-
MENT PROGRAM
BMR INFORMATION
PACKAGE
CATEGORICAL
INDIRECT
DISCHARGER
LOCATED IN
NON -APPROVED
STATE AND IN
AREA NOT
REQUIRED TO
HAVE LOCAL
PRETREATMENT
PROGRAM
POTW REQUIRED TO
RAVE PRETREATMENT
PROGRAM LOCATED
IN NON-APPROVED
STATE
CATEGORICAL INDIRECT
DISCHARGER
2
-------
—3—
1. Notify Industrial Users (lUs) subject to a categorical
pretreatment standard that they must submit a report
containing information listed in 40 CFR 403.12(b)(l—7).
a. This is a requirement for POTWs with an approved
local program and for States approved by EPA to
implement a State program in accordance with
403.8(f) and 403.10(e). However, such notification
should be given by EPA as well where it is the
Control Authority.
b. In order to notify lUs subject to a standard, it
is necessary to first have a canprehensive list
of lUs identifying the category (or categories)
to which each industry belongs. This is accanplished
for the 1700 POTWs and 403.10(e) State programs
through the required industrial waste survey.
For lUs located in areas not regulated by a local
program, lists must be developed fran EPA and
State information with cooperation fran POTWs.
(For more information on identification of indirect
dischargers, see Section IIB.)
c. The BMR report must be submitted by the IU within
180 days after the effective date of a categorical
standard. Therefore, notification should be given
by the Control Authority as soon as possible after
pranulgation of a standard. The Control Authority
must maintain an up—to—date knowledge of the status
of categorical standards. (Attachment II lists the
effective dates of the categorical standards and
the due date for BMR5.)
2. Review of Baseline Monitoring Reports.
a. The Control Authority must insure that each
BMR meets the provisions of 403.l2(b)(l—7). This
will require the reviewer to have the training
and technical expertise to adequately evaluate
the technical information presented in the BMR.
b. The Control Authority should respond to inadequate
BMR submissions by describing the inadequacy and
explaining what must be done by the IU to correct
the submission.
c. The Control Authority should initiate follow—up
actions for nonresponding lUs to obtain a cauplete
BMR. POTW and State programs must have the
authority to require lUs to submit a report.
d. If the BMR indicates the IU is not in canpliance,
a canpliance schedule for actions the tu must
take to achieve canpliance must be submitted in
the BMR. Caupliance schedules must meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 403.12(c) and must also
be reviewed and approved by the Control Authority.
-------
—4—
e. Industries subject to categorical standards must
su nit semi—annual self—monitoring reports to the
Control Authority. POTWs and States are required
to establish procedures to receive and analyze
these reports as well as maintain the information.
f. All reports collected by the Control Authority
fran lOs and all information generated by the
Control Authority in relation to categorical
industry discharges must be kept on file, avail-
able to the Approval Authority for inspection
and copying, for a minimum of three years.
B. Industrial User Requirements.
Categorical industries are required to su nit BMRs which
contain the following basic information (additional detail
can be found in the regulations):
1. Name and address, including name of operator(s) and
owner.
2. List of all environmental permits held by or for the
facility.
3. Brief description of nature, average production rates
and SIC code of the operation(s) conducted.
4. Flow measurement information for discharges to the
municipal system.
5. Measurements of pollutant concentrations and/or mass.
6. Statement of certification concerning compliance or
noncompliance with appropriate standards.
7. If not in caupliance, a compliance schedule describing
the actions the 10 will take and a schedule for
completing those actions.
Attachment III shows one possible BMR (including instruc-
tions) that could be included in the notification provided
by the Control Authority to the 10 for reporting the
required information.
II. Implementation of BMR Strategy
A. JRB will prepare a BMR Information Package for use by a
Control Authority (whether POTW, State or Region).
Package will include:
1. A s nnmary and background of Control Authority’s BMR
responsibilities.
-------
—5—
2. Example Notification Package — the following infor-
mation would be sent to lUs subject to standards:
a. A cover letter for their category.
b. BMR Information Requirements (with instructions).
c. A summary sheet of the standards for their industry.
3. Example Notification Enforcement Letter for non—responders.
4. Review Checklist/Comment List — guide to reviewer in
assuring the necessary information has been submitted.
Also provides a mechanism to respond to lOs with
inadequate BMR submissions (checklist would be same
for all 10 categories).
5. Example Cover Letter for Inadequate BMRs (to be
returned with checklist identifying deficiencies).
6. A summary information package on each category would
be available to the Control Authority to assist
reviewers in conducting technical reviews of submis-
sions from the various categories.
7. Summary Report Form — a format for summarizing the
results of the Control Authority’s BMR activities.
This can be used for program management and maintaining
records at the Control Authority and for reporting to
the Approval Authority. Summary report instructions
would be included.
B. Identification of Indirect Dischargers Subject to
Categorical Standards.
1. JRB will contact each Region or State to obtain
available lists of indirect dischargers, including:
a. State manufacturing index (or comparable
document). There is usually a fee for these
indexes of $20 to $60.
b. 10 list(s) that may currently be available.
c. Other information on lUs.
2. JRB will compile a list of all POTWs in each Region
required to develop a pretreatment program. Names
of jurisdictions contributing to each POTW will
be determined as accurately as possible. Where
necessary, the Regional Coordinator will be asked
to provide a list of all jurisdictions contributing
waste to each POTW system.
-------
—6—
3. JRB will prepare two separate lists of categorical
industries who are indirect dischargers.
a. List 1 is for those categorical industries
located in an area required to develop a
local program (lUs grouped by POTW and IU
category).
b. List 2 is for categorical industries located in
an area not required to have a local program
(grouped by IU category).
These two lists will be generated from the information
collected in steps 1 and 2 above and is therefore
only as accurate and complete as steps 1 and 2 will
provide.
C. Strategy Where the POTW is the Control Authority or Where
the POTW is Making Satisfactory Progress in Developing a
Program.
1. IJRB will prepare a mailing list, including mailing
labels, of all 1700 POTWs required to develop a
local program.
2. JRB will provide a BMR information package, including
discussion of the Control Authorities BMR responsi-
bilities, notification packages and corresponding
List 1 lOs to the 1700 POTWs through EPA Regions and
States.
0. Strategy Where EPA or Approved State is the Control
Authority.
1. JRB will provide List 2 to each EPA Region. The
appropriate type and number of IU notification packages
will also be provided to the Regions (corresponding
to the IUS on List 2).
2. The Region (or approved State) will be responsible
for the following (JRB assistance may be made avail-
able to the Regions and States for these activities,
if necessary):
a. Mailing appropriate notification packages to all
lUs on List 2.
b. Identifying and mailing follow—up enforcement
letters to 10 non—responders.
c. Reviewing BMR subMissions for completeness.
-------
—7
d. Responding to lUs when the BMR submission is
incomplete, providing comments on what must be
done by the IU to complete the submission.
(If appropriate, the BMR could be referred for
an enforcement action.)
e. Conducting a technical review of the BMRs (and
compliance schedule, when necessary). The Regional
technical review of the BMR will be conducted as
soon as possible in accordance with priorities
established for the program.
f. Additional follow—up to any case-specific problem
noted during the technical review.
3. The Regions and approved States must have the procedures
to receive, track, analyze and respond to both semi-
annual self—monitoring reports and compliance schedules
submitted by lUs. Regions (and approved States) will
be requested through OWOGAS to send a BMR status
report to EPA HQ containing the following information
for lUs where EPA (or an approved State) is the
Control Authority.
a. Number of POTWs that notify categorical industries
of BMR pretreatment requirements.
b. For lUs required to submit BMRs for which EPA (or
approved State) is the Control Authority, percent
of BMRs received and percent approved.
c. Number of lUs inspected to verify BMR submission.
d. Percent of lUs in compliance with categorical
standards.
e. Number of lu enforcement actions resulting from
BMR submissions.
f. Special problems or comments regarding evaluation
or approval of BMRs.
-------
Attaclinent It
Suwnary Table National Categorical Pretreatment Standards: Milestone Dates
* of Indirect Pronulgation Effective Conpliance
Industry Category Dischargers Date Date BMR Date Date
Timber 47 1—26—81 3—11—81 9—7—81 3 yrs. fran eff.
date
Electroplating 10,200 9—7—79 3—30—81 Non—Integ. 9—26—81 Non—Integ. 4—27—84
Integrated 6—2 5—83 Integrated 6—30—84
Iron and Steel 96 5—27—82 7—10—82 4—6—83 7— 10—85
Inorganic Ch nicals I 44 6—29—82 8—1.2—82 5—9—83 8—12—85
Petroleun Refining 53 10—18—82 12—1—82 5—30—83 12—1—85
Pulp, Paper, Paperboard 250 11— 18—82 1—3—83 7—2—83 7—1—84
Steam Electric 93 11—19—82 1—2—83 7—1—83 7—1—84
Leather Tanning 140 11—23—82 1—6—83 7—5—83 11—25—85
celain Enameling 89 11—24—82 1—7—83 7—6—83 11—25—85
L1 Coating I 32 12—1—82 1—17—83 7—16—83 12—1—85
Electrical Canponents 1 240 4—8—83 5—19—83 11—15—83 See note 1 below
Metal Finishing 10,2001 7—29—83 8—29—83 2—25—84 See note 2 below
Battery Manufacturing 190 6/83 8/83 2/84 8/86
Aluninun Forming 59 7/83 9/83 3/83 9/86
Copper Forming 32 7/83 9/83 3/83 9/86
Foundries 360 8/83 10/83 4/84 10/86
Pharmaceuticals 270 9/83 11/83 5/84 11/86
Coil Coating 322 10/83 12/83 6/84 12/86
(Camiaking)
Adhesives/Sealants ? 11/83 1/84 7/84 1/87
Electrical 240 11/83 1/84 7/84 1/87
Canponents II
:icides 38 12/83 2/84 8/84 2/87
-------
—2—
* of Indirect Pra ulgation Effective Canpliarice
Industry Category Dischargers Date Date BMR Date Date
Nonferrous Metals I 63 1/84 3/84 9/84 3/87
Organic chemicals 470 3/84 5/84 11/84 5/87
Inorganic Chemicals r 444 6/84 8/84 2/85 8/87
Nonferrous Metals II 63 6/84 8/84 2/85 8/87
Nonferrous Metals 6/84 8/84 2/85 8/87
Forming
Fcotnotes: Indirect dischargers in metal finishing industry category are the same sources
in electroplating category.
2 The 32 indirect dischargers are the same indirect sources in the coil coating
category.
3 The 240 indirect dischargers in electric/electronic canponent II category are
the same sources in the electric/electronic canponent I category.
4 The 44 direct dischargers in inorganic chemicals II are the same sources in
the inorganic Chemicals I category.
Note: 1. The caupliance date for the arsenic PSES in the electronic crystal subcateg .
is November 8, 1985. If EPA cannot modify the Consent Decree in NRDC v. Train ,
12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C. 1979), the conpliance date for the arsenic PSES will becane
June 30, 1984. The canpliance date for rio PSES in both subcategories is
July 1, 1984.
2. The ccxnpliance date for Metal Finishing PSES is February 15, 1986 for metals
and cyanide. Metal Finishing PSES establishes two levels of toxic organic
control; the less stringent must be met by June 30, 1984 for most plants and
by July 10, 1985 at plants also subject to Part 420 (Iron and Steel); the most
stringent must be met by February 15, 1986.
-------
INFORNATION REQUIRI NTS FOR.
BASELINE MONITORING RZPORT
Facility Name _________________________________________ Owner/Operator
Adcress ____________________________________________ Andress
I. l for .at .on Already Subn tted
1) Eas a basel ,ne report con :a n :g nfo r .on L .scen below already been sub cted for this fac lLty?
ES 1/ NO If ‘yes, prev de date of subnissLon and the agency suoirted to ___________
2) as your f suppl ed the fornat on presented below to your local se ge agency U.n resnonse to the
sewage agency ’s reout:enent :o cnnduc: art .nduscr al ‘..asce survey as par of :he .r prerreatnen: orogran)’
II S _/ NO If “yes,” scare care of your subn sz on and the agency requesttng the nfo ar on
If the answer .s “yes to e ther or both quesc.ons above, men do not answer the following quest.ons. In-
stead, ac:acn a copy of your rev ously suboitted ater al to th s for and return.
1. 3asel ne ‘1on tor .ng Report Inforn.acjon
1) 5r .efly descr .be the procuc:s produced and nanufacturtng process used in your operation ________________
2) ?rocuc:ton Race: ______________________________ 3) SIC Code: ________________________________________
4) Fac l ty Diag:an: Ac:ach a ccoy of your facil :y flow scnat ,c ciagr of all regulated process, in—
lud .ng oo nts of c.scnarge :o the san :ary sewer syscen.
3) as:ewater Flow Measurenent:
Rag’ laced Process Oa .ly Average gaily Maximum Esti ted (I) or Measured
( Tv,e) ( tal/dav) ( al/dav) ( )
Non—Regulated Process Daily Average Da _Max .nu Es:.nated CE) or Measured
( Tv,e) ( gal/day) ( gal/day) CM )
6) easurenen: of Pollutants: Attach the nest recent results fron the sapl ng and analys a during nornal
work.ng nours of all regularec process screans .ncluc.n; the foLlow .ng .n ornar2.on:
a. $annle Type (i.e., flow preperr enal, conposice, grao)
b. Frequency of Sanpies
c. Lne, care, and locac on of sanpling event
d. Method of analysis
a. Conoarison of results with applicable precreatner.t standards
f. If alternate l,n ts (i.e., comb .ned ascesrrea fornu.La) are calculated, .nclude he lz.ni.: and all
sunDor : ng cata
7) Car: fication Are prerreatnent standards for your ndust be ng net on a cnrts scent basis by mis
facU :y’ L 1 YES ri NO If “yes,” go on ro Dues: on 9.
3) ! answer to nunber 7 is “no,” will additional rec:eat ent and/or operat .ons ano na ccenance be recuired
for :n s facility to neec pretreatnent scanda:cs II YES _/ If “no,” expla.n reason for non—
connl.ance
If “yes,” ac:acn a descr pt:on of the requi.reo prec:ea::ent and/or operat ons and na ntanance to gain
conpl ance, and .nclude scnenule of dates for co nence ent and conolet on of events Lead ng to the con—
s: uc: on and operation of this add ciona.L precrearnent.
9) List any other environnencal control pernlts held by :h s fac licy:
* If using conbiced vascestrean fornu.La
I have personally exained and an fanLliar with the infornacion subnitted on t ns jam and attacnnenrs. Rased
upon ny incui y of those ndivtduals ediately resportsthle for ooca ning tne nfomnat on reoorred herein, I
belLeve that the subnitted info c on ts true, accurate anc conolece. an aware :rtat t ere are significant
penal: es for s bni:: ng false nfo tLon, as dictated by O CFR O3.l2 ‘n).
S gnat re of Official Dare
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR BASELINE MONITORING REPORT
General
Both the facility name and address and the owner or operator name and
address should be given.
Specific Questions
1.1. If yes is answered to this question, be sure to attach a copy of the
material you submitted.
1.2. See instructions for Question 1.
11.1. Briefly describe the nature of business or service performed at this
facility. This description should include all manufacturing processes,
including those not related to the categorical industry (use additional
sheets if necessary).
11.2. Give the production rate of this facility (usually given as an annual
average production or monthly average).
11.3. Provide the appropriate Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
for this facility.
11.4. Self-explanatory.
11.5. Provide average and maximum waste flows from all regulated process
streams. If process wastes reams are combined either with other
process wastestreams or non-process (sanitary, cooling water, etc.)
wastestreams, these individual flowrates should be given.
11.6. Each industrial user will sample, analyze and report on all regulated
pollutants specific to each process (refer to appropriate subcategory
in regulations for specific pollutants). An attachment should be
provided indicating the types of samples (i.e., grab, composite, flow
proportioned) the frequency and number of samples, time date and
locations of the sampling events, and certification that the method
of analysis meets the regulatory requirements. The facility must
ascertain whether it can meet the 30-day average, calculated average,
daily maximum or calculated maximum limit.
All pretreatment standards are process related and a facility must
comply with the standard at the end of each regulated process. However,
EPA recognizes that many facilities combine their wastewater process
lines, cooling water, and sanitary wastes prior to treatment or dis-
charge to municipal sewers. Hence, a facility can sample at a combined
point, but will need to adjust the categorical limit by employing the
Combined Wastestream Formula which is contained in Section 4 03.6(e) of
the General Pretreatment Regulations (Federal Register January 28, 1981)
If this is the case with your facility, you must employ the formula and
provide all additional data used for calculations. For further explana-
tion, please refer to 40 CFR 403.6(e).
-------
11.7. If answer was yes, skip Question 8, and go on to Question 9.
11.8. An explanation is needed describing how the facility intends to meet
Categorical Standards. If additional precreatment and/or operations
and maintenance are required, then an attachment must be provided
describing the proposed system and a schedule of dates for coence-
ment and completion of events leading to the construction and operation
of the system.
11.9. Any other environmental control permits (i.e., NPDES, hazardous material,
etc.) held by this facility must be listed.
-------
c S
JNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
L pqoi P
OFFICE OF
WATER
LJ6 I 9 983
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Electroplating and Metal Finishing PSES:
Baseline Monitoring Reports and Canpliance Dates
TO: Regional Pretreatment Coordinators
FROM: James D. Gallup, Chief
NPDES Programs Branch (
On July 15, 1983, EPA pranulgated the Metal Finishing effluent
limitations, including categorical pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES). There have been questions on the Baseline
Monitoring Report sampling requirements for Total Toxic Organics
(TTO) and on the canpliance dates in the Electroplating and Metal
Finishing regulations.
I. Baseline Monitoring Reports (BMR )
Baseline Monitoring Reports (BMR) under this regulation are due
on February 25, 1984. BMR sampling requirements clearly apply to
all regulated metals. However, because frequent monitoring for
toxic organics could be expensive, BMR sampling and analysis for
TTO is only required for those toxic organics which are reasonably
expected to be present in the industrial user’s (IU) effluent.].
It is not always necessary for the IU to sample and analyze its
effluent for all 129 toxic pollutants. An industrial user should
determine which toxic pollutants are reasonably expected to be
present and then sample and analyze for those toxics even if the
industrial user plans to use the certification procedure to
canply with the TTO limitation.
1 Section 413.03(c) provides that “if monitoring is necessary
to measure canpliance with the TTO standard the industrial user
need analyze only for those pollutants which would reasonably be
expected to be present.”
-------
—2—
II. : roplating and Metal Finishing Compliance Dates
An IU Ject to both regulations must first comply with
Electr lating PSES by the applicable date specified in 40 CFR
Part 41 ’. The specified compliance date for non-integrated
electroplaters is April 27, 1984. June 30, 1984 is the compliance
date for integrated facilities. The TTO limit recently promulgated
has a compliance date of July 15, 1986 for all facilities. The
IU must continue to comply with the Electroplating PSES until it
must comply with the Metal Finishing PSES. The applicable Metal
Finishing compliance dates are as follows:
1. June 1984 for facilities subject to PSES for TTO
(B iy), except those also subject to 40 CFR Part 420
(Iron & Steel Manufacturing). Iron & Steel facilities
must comply by July 10, 1985.
2. February 15, 1986 for facilities subject to PSES for
metals, cyanide, and TTO (BMP followed by precipitation!
clarification).
After the applicable Metal Finishing PSES compliance date, an IU
subject to both regulations wil no longer be required to comply
with the Electroplating PSES. He must only comply with the Metal
Finishing PSES.
I have attached a copy of Table 4, Compliance Dates from
the preamble of the July 15, 1983 Federal Register . This table
lists the applicable compliance dates for Electroplating and
Metal Finishing PSES.
If you have any questions, please contact me (FTS: 755—0750)
or Tim Dwyer (FTS: 426—4793).
Attachment
-------
Fec
I Vol. 48. 13 / Frida ’. July 15. 1983 / Rules
Regulations
.e co’pliance d.. ie two
ategorles are preser rable 4 BPT.
aAT. PSNS. arid NSP ,iance dates
spectfied by the C . ater Act. . -
- cori ’.pilance dates:. —- ctroplating
. S were set in the Fece il Register on
September 28. 1982. See 4 .R 42698.
Today’s regulation allows facilities 3 - .
- years to comply with the Electroplating -.
PSES for toxic organics consistent with-
the Settlement Agreement with NAMP.
For metal finishing, the Agency is
allowing 31 months for compliance with
all parameters. In addition an interim
TTO limit has been established for
compliance by June 30. 1984: except for
metal flntshing wastewaters from plants
which are also subject to Part 420 (iron
arid steel). which must comply by July
10. 1985 This last exception is pursuant
to a settlement agreement with the steel
industry in which EPA agreed that.
pretreatment requirements would apply
to steel discharges in July 1985. It is-
possible that control of TTO in metal
finishing waste streams could. in some —
cases. lead steel facilities to install
treatmer.t technology on the discharge
from their steel processes. Therefore. -
EPA has decided to allow plants -.
covered by Part 420 until June. 1985 to-s.
comply with the 170 limit. -.
D. E .nfor emenf
A final topic of concern is the
operation of EPAs enforcement
program. This was an important
consideration in developing this -
regulation. EPA deliberately sought to
avoid standards which would be . -
exceeded by-routine fluctuations of..
well-designed and operated treatment.
systems. These standards were -‘ -
developed so as to represent limits - -
which such a plant would meet
approximately 99% of the time......
T’ne CleanWater Act is a strict
liability statute. EPA emphasizes.
however, that it can exercise discretion
in deciding to initiate enforcement
proceedings (Sierra Club v. Train. 557 F.
2d 485. 5th Cir... 1977). EPA has
exercised, and intends to exercise, that
discretion in a manner that recognizes
and promotel good,-faith compliance.
- XIX. Summary of Public
At the time of publication of thi
proposed metal finishing regulation
(August 31. 1982). EPA solicited
comments on the proposed rules and, l.a
particular. on six specific issues. Ninety-
one cornmenters responded to these and
other issues relating to the electroplating
and metal finishing standards. The
following parties submrtted comments’
Air Transport’Association of Aix erica
Alpha Industries Inc..
The Aluminum Association Incorporated
Aniencan Aithnes: -.- - . -
- American Foundryinen’s Society
American Hot Dip Galvanizers
American Metal Stamping Aisoctanon
Anerock Corporation - —
Anaconda Aiuminuza Company
Ansul Fire Protection —
- Apollo Metals. Inc. . -
American Telephone and Telegrapb
Company -
Atwood - - . -
Babcock and Wilcox
-Bausch andLo tnb.:
- California Metal Enameling Co
Caterpillar Tractor Company
Charles A. Frawley
Chrysler Corp.
Control Data Corporation
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County
Curnberiand Corporation
D.A.B industries. Inc. -
Deere and Company
— Delta Airlines. inc.
Department of the Air Force
Eaton Corporation
- E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.
Eltech Systems Corp.
EMP Laboratories, Incorporated
EPA Repon V - -
ERC-Ldncy
Federdi-Mogul Corporation -.
-. Ferro Corporation
ord Molor Ce. .. ,‘
General Electric Compiny
Genera] Motors Corporation.
Coodyear Aerospace Corpirnition’
Goodyear Tire end Rubber Go.’—
Gould Electronics and Electrical Produce
GTE Services Corporation -
GWSledinology. Lnc.
Harris Corporation
Harvey Hubbell Incorporated
Hofmaxxn Industries Incorpora t ed
Honeywell - ._. -—
Halogenated Solvent industry Alliance
- Huntington Alloys -
Imperial Clevite. Inc. -
Institute for Interconziectine and Padcaging’.
Electronic Circuits
IT!’ Telecommunications torporauor.
icon-Air Corporation.
Jayto Corporation
Kaiser Aluminum and.cira ical Corporation
Mason Corporation,..... . . .,.
Manufaciuring Association of Central New
York -
Maytag’ . - . . —.
Metal Fbissh ing Association -of Southern
Californ
Metro Municpality of Metrnnnhtan Seattla
Midland Ross Corporation:
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.--
3MCoinp iy
Mobay ChemicaT Corporation
Mo&neManufactunng Company - -.
Natioital Association olMetal Finishers.
National ectrtcal Manufacturers’
Asaod.toñ
New Y k State D pamnsui. w
— . Envb’cnsnental Conservation -
Northern Telecom; - -
Ozaik Airlines “
PCK Tedmology Division
PEC1nd x ines .-
Pioneer .1eial Finishing. Ins.
Porcelain Enamel Institute
Porcelain Metals Corporation
Praegitzer Industries 1nc.’:-
Raytheon Company -
Republic..Airlines -
Rexnord
Reynolds Alumxnum.
Rocklord Area Chambers of Commerce
R R. Doniellev and Sons
Sarioers Associates Inc. -
Sar.i arv District of Rockford
Sperr) Corporaiion
Square D Company — -
State of Connecticut Depannient of -
Envirorjnental Protection
State of,Vermoni Agency of Environmental
- Conse-vetion
State Oisconsin Department of Natural
Resources -
United Airlines
TriaLE 4.—COIIPUANCE DATES -
-i Concw,csoii, -
OØI PSZSIa_
a C s vo. (Puil
4131. -
Becvorl.un PSES Pal
£13p S Tic’
m:., ,ah.. aPT ipan
-
M Bal’ ——
v PSES I
no. -
M .rWvnç SSES I
MeiS ’s C a ’-.o . • ‘ r1
t. t Fv .sn. ç N$PS mo
PS,,ls
Aol 27. 1954 (ta
JunS 30, 1904 ito u sgra1sd
1 5 tees - -.
Al IOO 51 sousa.
1l 9 54 -
,Mil 30, 1904 Ist to
o’ann w rsd 9! Put
420? Aip 10. 1905 (to’
o’v’a .as0 Op Put
• 420)
c.ouarp IS 1995
fOii . ,w1Ircr ’Irs 95-
• o ’ l”e,. 15’?i95 e.. Ira T’VO Will Is Oiled o’
1C 5S OVY
I fl , 5 .i •s bused Oil I!liflS 9 IIViSnt 0555 ‘
0- 50 Di DWD ’JI I O 5* IIOiI
-------
.
s
S UNITED STATL..I ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOi.. AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
oi ’
OFFICE OF
WATER
JL 21
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Baseline Monitoring Reports
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I—X
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director,
Permits Division (EN—336)
Baseline Monitoring Reports (BMR) are required from all
industrial users of a POTW 180 days after the effective date of
an applicable categorical pretreatment standard. These reports,
which are analogous to NPDES permit applications, are required
by 40 CFR Section 403.12(b) of the General Pretreatment Regul,a—
tions. In the reports, industrial users must provide information
on their production processes, water usage, discharge and
compliance status. Compliance schedules are also required from
all industrial users not in compliance. This information will
assist the Control Authority in determining whether the indus-
trial user is meeting applicable pretreatment standards on a
consistent basis and, if not, whether additional operation and
maintenance, additional treatment by the industrial user, or both
is required for consistent compliance.
A number of categorical standards have been promulgated.
BMRs are already due for 9 industries. EPA has a responsibility
especially in the early stages of implementation of the pretreat-
ment program, to provide leadership in ensuring that BMR5 are
submitted by the industrial users to their appropriate Control
Authority.
I request that you and your pretreatment staff review the
attached draft strategy paper on BMRs and submit comments to
Dr. Gallup of my staff by August 19. If you believe that this
strategy is inappropriate for any State in your Region, please
give the name of the State and any alternate approach that might
be suitable.
-------
—2—
• I would appreciate your help in expediting review and comment
on this strategy. Please call me or Jim Gallup at FTS 755—0750
if you have any questions.
Attachments
cc: Pretreatment Coordinators
-------
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
qo 1 tc,
OFFICE OF
WATER
SEP 22 1983
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Example Language for Modifying NPDES Permits
for Pretreatment Program Approval
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director
Permits Division (EN—336)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
There are over 1700 POTWs that must develop local pretreatment
programs. To date, over 100 POTW programs have been approved and
many of the remaining POTWs have submitted or are very close to
submitting a final program. Therefore, many programs will be
approved in the next several months.
After an industrial pretreatment program is approved, the
POTW’s discharge permit must be modified or reissued to incor-
porate the program as an enforceable component as required in 40
CFR §403.8(c). The modification of permits is authorized under
40 CFR §122.62(a)(7) where reopener conditions have been used
in the permits. In 40 CFR §122.44(j)(2), permits must include
conditions such that, “. . . The local program shall be incor-
porated into the permit as described in 40 CFR Part 403. The
program shall require all indirect dischargers to the POTW to
comply with the reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 403.”
Reporting requirements for the POTW that are inserted in the
modified permit are covered under 40 CFR §122.48(c) which
references §122.44.
There have been several requests from Regional and State
agency personnel for help with appropriate permit language. We
have reviewed example language for modifying permits from several
Regions and States (attached) and have developed example language
ourselves. While there are a number of differences among the
examples, you will notice that a common element among the examples
is the requirement that the POTW submit an annual report on
pretreatment activities. Such reports usually require information
on the POTW pretreatment activities during the past year, a
summary of its effectiveness arid proposed program modifications.
-------
—2—
The reports summarize industrial user monitoring, compliance and
enforcement activities conducted over the past year. Regardless
of which example modification language your staff chooses to
adopt or modify, we strongly recommend and advise you to include
an annual reporting element in the modified permit.
I request that you and your pretreatment staff review the
attached draft permit modification materials and submit comments
to Dr. Gallup of my staff by October 14. Please call me or Jim
Gallup at FTS 755—0750 if you have any questions.
Attachments
cc: Pretreatment Coordinators
-------
STANDARDIZED LANGUAGE FOR MODIFYING
NPDES PERMITS FOR PRETREATMENT PROGRAM APPROVAL
The goals of the National Pretreatment Program are to improve
opportunities to recycle arid reclaim wastewaters and sludges, to
prevent pass through of pollutants into receiving waters, and to
prevent interference with the operation of the publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) when hazardous or toxic industrial wastes
are discharged into the sewage system. The primary responsibility
for developing pretreatment programs and for enforcing national
pretreatment standards for industries rests wit i the local POTW
authorities. EPA estimates that more than 1,700 POTW Authorities
must develop programs which will protect over 2,000 permitted
municipal treatment facilities.
EPA and State regulatory agencies participate in the
pretreatment program by overseeing the development, implementa-
tion, arid continued effectiveness of local pretreatment programs.
In non—NPDES States, EPA issues or modifies permits and retains
authority for the pretreatment program, although the States may
participate in some activities. In NPDES States without pretreat-
ment authority, EPA reviews arid approves POTW submissions, but
the State is responsible for permit modification and permit
compliance. In these cases, it is important for EPA to develop
an agreement with the State to ensure that permits are modified
to reflect pretreatment program approval. Program approval and
permit modifications are equally important in NPDES States with
Pretreatment authority. EPA can obtain some consistency and ease
the States’ workload by providing standard permit modification
language to them.
-------
—2—
POTWs have been notified by EPA and State agencies of the
requirement to develop a local program. Program development
compliance schedules have been inserted into the POTWs’ NPDES, or
State—issued permits, making development and submission of local
pretreatment programs an integral and enforceable component of
the permits. Compliance schedules usually require POTWs to
develop and document the authorities, information, and procedures
necessary to implement the General Pretreatment Regulations.
Municipalities develop the local program with technical and
financial assistance from EPA and the States.
Generally, a POTW prepares a plan describing how it will
implement the pretreatment program in its service area and submits
the plan to the EPA or the delegated State regulatory agency for
review and approval. EPA or the delegated State must then review
the submission to ensure that:
o All necessary legal authorities are in place.
o The technical information presented demonstrates the
POTW’s understanding of the industrial community that
will be controlled (type, size, pollutants, necessary
pollutants limits, problems to be addressed, etc.).
o Administrative, technical and legal procedures for
implementing the program are consistent with the complexity
of the industrial community served.
o The estimated cost of implementing the program (including
manpower and equipment), based on the procedures established,
is reasonable and revenue sources are available to ensure
continued, adequate funding.
o The objectives and requirements of the General Pretreatment
Regulations are fulfilled by the planned program.
-------
—3—
It should be reiterated that the PCTW’s submission at this
point represents only a plan for operating a program to comply
with the regulatory requirements. To date, more than 100 POTW
pretreatment programs have been approved nationwide. Most of the
remaining POTWs have already submitted portions of their programs
for interim comment or review. Accordingly, a large number of
programs should soon be ready for approval without substantial
additional effort.
After approval, the POTW begins implementing the pretreatment
program plan subject to oversight by EPA or the State regulatory
agency. At this time, the Approval Authority turns from
considering program development problems to considering
implementation, verification and compliance issues, such as:
o Documentation of POTWs’ Compliance with Approved Programs.
For the individual case this means that each POTW must
demonstrate, through reporting requirements, that the
elements of its pretreatment program are actually being
carried out. In the general case, the Approval Authority
will have to plan oversight and surveillance activities
that regularly cover all POTWs within its jurisdiction.
o Documentation of the Effectiveness of POTW Programs.
A POTW complying with provisions of its approved pretreatment
program may still not be adequately protecting site—specific
receiving water quality and sludge disposal options,
especially as new requirements are developed. Appropriate
measures must be developed to ensure that local environmental
goals are being met by the POTW and that improvements can
be evaluated.
-------
—4—
In addition to considering these issues, Section 403.8(c) of
the General Pretreatment Regulations specifies that the NPDES
permit must be modified or reissued to incorporate the conditions
of the approved program as an enforceable component. The language
placed in the permit must take into account the issues mentioned
above and must ensure that:
o The general requirements of the National Pretreatment
Program and the specific requirements of the local program
will be implemented in a manner that achieves the objec-
tives of preventing pass through, interference and sludge
contamination.
o The Approval Authority will be able to bring about POTW
compliance with the responsibilities established in the
regulations and the approved local program submission.
o The POTW understands its obligations and the standards
and benchmarks against which its performance will be
judged.
Permit modification, then, is a very important part of the
overall process of implementing the National Pretreatment Program.
Because there are so many important issues to be addressed in
local programs, and because so many agencies will be responsible
for permit modification and oversight activities, we have
developed the attached model permit language that can be adapted
to most POTWs across the country. The attachment includes standard
permit modification language (adapted from actual permit language
from ___ Regions and — States) that can be used to incorporate
into the permit a POTW’s approved pretreatment program and other
conditions and requirements with which the POTW must comply.
-------
—5—
This package also includes examples of special condition
clauses. In certain circumstances, additional substantive or
notification permit requirements may be appropriate for a partic-
ular POTW. Some examples of situations that might indicate the
need for special pretreatment permit conditions are listed below.
o Where the industrial flow represents a very large
percentage of the total flow of the POTW.
o Where only one or two major industrial user(s) discharge
to the POTW.
o Where industrial users have the potential to discharge
highly toxic, hazardous, or unusual wastes.
o Where there are a large number or variety or industrial
users.
o Where a POTW has a history of NPDES permit violations.
o Where the receiving waters have unusual water quality
needs because of sensitive species or intolerance to high
or varying pollutants loads.
o Where a POTW’s wastewater or sludge is reused on agricul-
tural or recreational land or where treated sludge is
sold commercially.
o Where a POTW receives wastes from septage haulers, or
other waste haulers that could be handling hazardous
wastes that have a potential for adverse impacts on the
treatment plant.
o Where the POTW service area is large or made up of
numerous political jurisdictions requiring cooperation
and coordination between several local agencies.
For these more difficult situations, we have developed five special
conditions as part of the following standard permit language.
These may be useful when tailored to a POTW with special problems
or circumstances that cannot be covered by the more general,
standardized language.
-------
SUGGESTED PRETREATMENT LANGUAGE
FOR NPDES PERMITS
The following language should be inserted into the “Other
Requirements” section of the POTW’s NPDES permit after the local
pretreatment program is approved.
Industrial Pretreatment Pr gram
I. The permittee is responsible for enforcing any National
Pretreatment Standards [ 40 CFR 403.5] (e.g., prohibited
discharges, Categorical Standards, locally developed effluent
limits) in accordance with Section 307(b) and (c) of the Act.
The permittee shall establish and enforce specific limits to
implement the provisions of 40 CFR 403.5(a) and (b) as
required by 40 CFR 403.5(c). These locally established
effluent limitations shall be defined as National Pretreat-
ment Standards.
2. The permittee shall implement the Industrial Pretreatment
Program in accordance with the legal authorities, policies,
procedures, and financial provisions described in the permit—
tee’s Pretreatment Program submission (and related documents)
entitled, - and
dated, - , and the General Pretreatment Regulations
(40 CFR 403). The permittee shall also maintain adequate
funding levels to accomplish the objectives of the pretreatment
program.
-------
p
—2—
3. The permittee shall provide the EPA or State with an annual
report that briefly describes the perrnittee’s program activi-
ties over the previous twelve months. The permittee must
also report on the pretreatment program activities of all
participating agencies (name them], if more than one juris-
diction is involved in the local program. This report shall
be submitted no later than ________________ of each year and
shall include:
(a) An updated list of the permittee’s industrial users,
or a list of deletions and additions keyed to a
previously submitted list. A summary of the number of
industrial user permits (or equivalent) issued this past
year and the total (cumulative) issued;
(b) A summary of the compliance/enforcement activities during
the past year including total number of enforcement actions
any discharge restrictions or denials against industrial
users and the amount of any penalties collected. In
addition the summary shall contain the number & percent
of industrial users in compliance with:
(1) Baseline Monitoring Report requirements;
(2) Categorical Standards; or
(3) Local limits
(c) A summary of the monitoring activities conducted during the
past year to gather data about the industrial users, including
inspections to verify baseline monitoring reports;
(d) A narrative description of program activities during the past
year including a general summary of the effectiveness of
the program in controlling industrial waste. A descrip-
tion and explanation of all proposed substantive changes
to the permittee’s pretreatment program. Substantive
changes include, but are not limited to, any major
modification in the program’s administrative structure
or legal authority, a significant alteration of the scope
of the monitoring program, or a change in the level
of funding for the program, a major change in the staffing
or equipment used to administer the program, change in
the sewer use ordinance, regulations, or rules, a proposed
change or addition to locally established effluent
limits (pursuant to 40 CFR 403.5(c));
-------
—3—
(e) A summary of analytical results from flow proportioned,
composite sampling for [ list priority pollutants] at the
POTW influent, effluent, and sludge for the same [ number
of days] period and bioassay data for (list pollutants)
for a (number of days) period; and
(f) For Baseline Monitoring Reports (where applicable), a
summary of the industrial users notified during the past
year, the total cumulative notifications, the number of
reports received/approved during the year and total
cumulative.
(g) If EPA (or State) does not object to any proposed
modifications described in the annual report within 90
days, the changes shall be considered approved.
4. The EPA (or State) has the right to inspect or copy records or
to initiate enforcement actions against an industrial user or
the permittee as provided in Sections 308 and 309 of the Act.
5. EPA (or State) retains the right to require the POTW to
institute changes to its local pretreatment program:
(a) If the program is not implemented in a way that satisfies
the requirements of 40 CFR 403;
(b) If problems such as interference, pass through, or sludge
contamination develop or continue;
(C) If other Federal, State, or local requirements (e.g.,
water quality standards) change.
Special Conditions (Case—by—Case )
The following types of requirements should be inserted into
a POTW’s NPDES permit when special circumstances, such as
continuing noncompliance or significant or unusual industrial
discharges, which could cause interference, pass through, or
sludge contamination, are encountered.
-------
—4—
1. The permittee shall notify EPA (or State) 60 days prior to
any major proposed change in sludge disposal method. EPA (or
State) may require additional pretreatment measures or controls
to prevent or abate an interference incident relating to
sludge use or disposal.
2. The permittee shall establish and enforce regulations to
control the introduction of septage waste from commercial
septage haulers into the POTW. These local regulations shall
be subject to approval by EPA (or State).
3. The permittee shall monitor the following major industrial
users for the pollutants of concern on a ( frequency, e.g.,
monthly, quarterly ] basis and forward a copy of the results
to EPA (or State).
List Industrial Users List Pollutants of Concern
a. i.
b. ii.
C. iii.
4. The permittee shall sample and analyze its influent, effluent,
and sludge for [ list toxic pollutants ] on a ( frequency ] basis
and forward a copy of the results to EPA (or State).
5. The permittee shall monitor the receiving waters for [ list
toxic pollutants ] on a [ frequency ] at [ describe monitoring
site location ] and forward a copy of the results to EPA
(or State).
-------
Implementation of G—J Town Pretreatment Program
After the POTW pretreatment program meets all requirements under
S403.9(b) and is approved by the Approval Authority, the C--J town
Joint Sewer Board’s NPDES permits must be modified to include
permit conditions for Industrial pretreatment program implemen-
tation.
A set of the special permit requirements has been drafted as follows:
a. The perxnittee has been delegated primary responsibility
for enforcing against discharges prohibited by 40 CFR
403.56 and applying and enforcing any National Pretreat-
ment Standards established by the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency in accordance with section
307(b) and (C) of the Act.
b. The permittee shall implement the G—J town Industrial
Pretreatment Program in accordance with the legal
authorities, policies, and procedures described in the
permittee’s Pretreatment Program document entitled,
“Industrial Pretreatment Program, G—J town” (Date to be
inserted).
c. The permittee shall provide the State of Department of
Envirorimenta]. Conservation and EPA with a semi—annual
report describing the permittee’s pretreatment program
activities over the previous calendar months in accordance
with 40 CFR 403.L2.
d. Pretreatment standards (40 CFR 403.5) prohibit the
introduction of the following pollutants into the waste
treatment system:
o Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in
the POTW,
o Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural
damage to the POTW, but in no case, discharge with a
pH lower than 5.0,
o Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will
cause destruction to the flow in sewers, or other
interference with operation of the POTWs.
o Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants
(BOD 5 , etc.), released in a discharge at such a volume
or strength as to cause interference in the POTW, and,
o Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity
in the POT J, but in no case, heat in such quantities
that the influent to the sewage treatment works exceeds
104°F (40°C).
-------
—2—
e. In addition to the general limitations expressed in
paragraph d above, applicable National Categorical
Pretreatment Standards must be met by all industrial
users of the POTW.
f. USEPA and the permit issuing authority (DEC) retains the
right to take legal action against the industrial user
and/or the permittee for those cases where a permit
violation has occurred because of the failure of an
industrial user to meet an applicable pretreatment
standard.
-------
2’ LE 2
NATIONAL PRErREATMENT PROGRAM
MEMORAND OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE
CITY OF WESTMINSTER, COLORADO
AND THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION VIII
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII (hereinafter,
the “EPA”) hereby approves the City of Westminster’s (hereinafter, the “City”)
Pretreatment Program described in the City’s November 15, 1982 submittal
doc ’nent entitled “Industria l Pretreatment Program”, as meeting the requirements
of Section 307(b) and Cc) of the Clean Water Act (hereinafter, the “Act”) and
regulations promulgated thereunder. Further, to define the responsibilities for
the establishment and enforcement of National Pretreatment Standards for
existing and new sources under Section 307 (b) and (c) of the Act, the City and
EPA hereby enter into the following agreement:
1. The City has primary responsibility for enforcing against discharges
prohibited by 40 CFR 403.5, and applying and enforcing any National
Pretreatment Standards established by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency in accordance with Section 307(b) and (c) of the Act.
2. The City shall implement the Industrial Pretreatment Program in
accordance with the legal authorities, policies, and procedures
described in the permittee’s Pretreatment Program dociinent entitled,
“Industrial Pretreatment Program”, November 1982. Such program commits
the City to do the following:
a. Carry out inspection, surveillance, and monitoring procedures that
will determine, independent of information supplied by the indus-
trial user, whether the industrial user is in compliance with the
pretreatment standards;
b. Require development, as necessary, of compliance schedules by each
industrial user for the installation of control technologies to
meet applicable pretreatment standards;
c. Maintain and update, as necessary, records identifying the nature
and character of industrial user inputs;
d. Obtain appropriate remedies for noncompliance by any industrial
user with any pretreatment standard and/or requirement; and,
e. Maintain an adequate revenue structure f or continued
implementation of the pretreatment program.
3. The City shall provide the United States Environmental Protection
Agency and the State of Colorado with an annual report briefly
describing the City’s pretreatment program activities over the previous
calendar year. Such report shall be submitted nc later than Marcn 2Etn
of each year and shall include:
-------
a. An updated listing of the City’s industrial users.
b. A descriptive suninary of the compliance activities including
number of major enforcement actions, (i.e., administrative orders,
penalties, civil actions, etc.).
C. An assessment of the compliance status of the City’s industrial
users and the effectiveness of the City’s pretreatnent program in
meeting its needs and objectives.
d. A description of all substantive changes made to the perrnittee’s
pretreatment program description referenced in Daragraph 2.
Substantive changes include, but are not limited to, any change in
any ordinance, major modification in the program’s administrative
structure or operating agreement(s), a significant reduction in
monitoring, or a change in the method of funding the program.
4. Pretreatnent standards (40 CFR 403.5) prohibit the introduction of the
following pollutants into the waste treatment system from source of
nondomestic discharge:
a. Pollutants which create a fire or explosion hazard in the publicly
owned treabnent works (POT l);
b. Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to the
P0114, but in no case, discharges with a pH lower than 5.0;
C. Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause
destruction to the flow in sewers, or other interference with
operation of the P0l’ ;
d. Any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (3OD ,
et:.), released in a discharge at such a voliffne or strength as to
cause interference in the P0T 1 4; and,
e. Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activity in the
POTW, but in no case, heat in such quantities that the influent to
the sewage treatment works exceeds 1040 F (400 C).-
5. In addition to the general limitations expressed in paragraph 4. above,
applicable National Categorical Pretreatment Standards must be met by
all industrial users of the P0114. These standards are published in the
Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 405 et. seq.
6. The Agreement contained herein shall be incorporated, as soon as possible,
in the City’s NPDES permit. Noncompliance with any of these requirements
shall be subject to the same enforcement procedures as any permit violation.
-------
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to affect any Pretreatment requirement
including any standards or prohibitions, established by state or local law as
long as the state and local requirements are not less stringent than any set
forth in the National Pretreatnent Program Standards, or other requirenents or
prohibitions established under the Act or regulations promulgated thereunder.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the authority of the
U. S. A to take action pursuant to Sections 204, 208, 301,304, 306, 307, 308,
309, 311, 402, 404, 405, 501, or other Sections of the Clean Water Act of 1977
(33 USC 1251
This Agreement will become effective upon the final date of signature.
City of Westminster, Colorado u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
By________________________________ By
Date_________________________________ Date
State of Colorado Departnent of Health
Water Quality Control Division
By_
Oat a
-------
• DRAFT COPY
ATTACHMENT SUBJECT TO REVISIO 1
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
APPROVED PRETREATMENT PROGRAM CONDITIONS
Under the authority of (Section 307(b) and (c) and 402(b)(8) of the Clean
Water Act or applicable State law) and implementing regulations (40 CFR
Part 403), the permittee’s final pretreatment program application as submitted
on ___________________________ is hereby approved. The permittee, hereinafter
referred to as the “Control Authority”, shall apply and enforce against
violations of categorical pretreatment standards promulgated under
Section 307(b) and (c) of the Act and prohibitive discharge standards as set
forth in 40 CFR Part 403.5. The Control Authority shall implement the condi-
tions of the Approved Pretreatment Program in the following order:
A. APPROVED PRETREATMENT PROGRAM CONDITIONS
1. Apply and enforce the legal authorities and procedures as approved on
_________________ which shall Include, but not be limited to, those
specific local effluent limitations established pursuant to 40 CFR
4 O 3 .5(c) and enforceable on industrial users of the system for the
parameters listed in Part III, Section D of this prmit in accordance
with the approved program plan industrial allocation scheme.
2. Maintain and update, as necessary, records indentifying the nature,
character, and volume of pollutants contributed by industrial users
to the publicly owned treatment works (P01W).
3. Enforce and obtain appropriate remedies for non-compliance by any
industrial user with any applicable pretreatment standard and require-
ment as defined by Section 307(b) and (c) of the Act, Section 403.5,
and any State or local requirement, whichever is more stringent.
4. Issue (wastewater discharge permits, orders, contracts, agreements,
etc.) to all affected industrial users In accordance with the approved
pretreatment program procedures and require the development of
compliance schedules, as necessary, by each Industrial user for the
installation of control technologies to meet applicable pretreatment
standards and requirements as required by Section ___________ of
Sewer Use Ordinance —.
-------
0
2
5. Carry out inspection, surveillance, and monitoring requirements
which will determine, independent of information supplied by the
industrial user, whether the industrial user is in compliance with
the applicable pretreatment standards.
6. Comply with all confidentiality requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part
403.14 as well as the procedures established in the approved pretreat-
ment program.
7. Maintain and adjust, as necessary, revenue sources to ensure adequate
equitable and continued pretreatment program implementation costs.
B. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Control Authority shall prepare and submit to the (USEPA, Region V,
Permits Section or the State) a report on the _________________th
of________________________ and the _______________th of ______________
which describes the pretreatment program activities for the (previous
calendar year or 6—month period or more frequently as required by the
Approval Authority). Such report(s) shall include:
1. An updated listing of the Control Authority’s industrial users which
identifies additions and deletions of any industrial users from the
____________________ 19 industrial waste inventory. Reasons shall be
provided for the aforementioned additions and removals.
2. A descriptive summary of the compliance activities initiated, ongoing
and completed against industrial users which shall include the number of
major enforcement actions (i.e. administrative orders, show cause hearings,
penalties, civil actions, fines, etc.) for the reporting period.
3. A description of all substantive changes proposed for the Control
Authority’s program as described In Part III, Section A of this permit.
All substantive changes must first be approved by (Agency Name) before
formal adoption by the Control Authority. Hereinafter, substantive
changes shall include, but not be limited to, any change in the enabling
legal authority to administer and enforce pretreatment program conditions
and requirements, major modification In the program’s administrative
procedures or operating agreements(s), a significant reduction in monitoring
procedures, a significant change in the financial/revenue system, or a
significant change in the local limitations for toxicants enforced and
applied to all affected industrial users of the sewage treatment works.
4. A listing of the industrial users who significantly violated applicable
pretreatment standards and requirements, as defined by section 403.8(f)(2)
(vii) of the General Pretreatment Regulations, for the reporting period.
(
-------
3
5. The sampl ing and analytical results for the specified parameters as
contained in Part III, Section C of this permit.
6. (optional) The Control Authority shall submit to the (USEPA, Region V,
Permits Section and/or State) by December 31 of each year, the names and
address of the tanneries receiving the sulfide waiver pursuant to the
procedures and conditions established by 40 CFR 425.04(b) and (c). This
report must identify any problems resulting from granting the sulfide
waiver as well as any new tanneries tributary to the sewerage system for
which the sulfide standards may apply or any tannery receiving the sulfide
waiver which no longer is applicable.
7. (optional) The Control Authority shall submit to the (USEPA, Region V 1
Permits Section or State Permit Section) by December 31 of each year, the
name and address of each industrial user that has received a revised
discharge limit in accordance with Section 403.7 (Removal Allowance
Authority). This report must comply with the signatory and certification
requirements of Section 403.12 (1) and Cm).
C. SAPLING AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. The Control Authority shall sample, analyze and monitor its influent,
effluent and sludge in accordance with the techniques prescribed in 40 CFR
Part 136 and amendments thereto, in accordance with the specified moni-
toring frequency and schedule for the following parameters:
(1) Parameters Units Frequency Sarr le Type (2) Permittee’s
Total Arsenic (As)
Total Cadmium (Cd)
Total Chromium (Cr,)
Total Chromium (Cr)
Total Copper (Cu)
Total Cyanide (CN)
Total Iron (Fe)
Total Lead (Pb)
Total Mercury (Hg)
Total Nickel (Ni)
-------
4
(1) fararr ters Units Frequency Sample Type (2) Permitted
Total Phenols
Total Silver (Ag)
Total Zinc (Zn)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
(1) Approval Authority should include other parameters as needed.
(2) Note whether sampling apply to permitte’s influent, effluent and sludge.
D. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
1. At no time shall the following daily influent values be exceeded by
the Control Authority for the specified parameters:
Parameters Mg/i Pounds / Day
Total Cyanide (Cn)
Total Cadmium (Cd)
Total Chromium (Cr, 1)
Total Copper (Cu)
Total Iron (Fe)
Total Lead (Pb)
Total Mercury (Hg)
Total Nickel (Ni)
Total Silver (Ag)
Total Zinc (Zn)
(Others)
2. If the sampling data results from Part Ill, Section C of this permit meet
the criteria of 40 CFR 4 O3.5(c), then this permit will be modified to include
influent values for these parameters,
3. (optional) The Control Authority shall notify (USEPA, Region V 1 Permits
Section or the State) 60 days prior to any major proposed change in existing
sludge disposal practices.
4. (optional) The Control Authority shall monitor the following industrial
users discharge for the specified parameters in accordance with the following
frequency and schedule and submit the results to (Region V or the State) on
the — th of _______________ and the — the of
____________________________________ S
-------
List Users
Parameter
5
Units Frequency
Sample
Type Notes
C.
(Others)
E. RETAINER
The USEPA, Region V and the State retains the right to take legal action
against the industrial user and/or the Control Authority for those cases
where a permit violation has occurred because of the failure of an industrial
user’s compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements.
a.
b.
-------
PART III
Page 14
A. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
1. Contributing Industries and Pretreatment Requirements
a. The permittee shall operate an Industrial pretreatment program In
accordance with section 402(b)(8) of the Clean Water Act and the General
Pretreatment RegulatIons (40 CFR Part 403). The program shall also be
implemented In accordance with the approved P01W pretreatment program submitted
by the permittee which Is hereby Incorporated by reference.
b. The permittee shall establish and enforce specific limits to
implement the provisions of 40 CFR §403.5(a) and (b), as required by 40 CFR
§403.5(c). All specific prohibitions or limits developed under this requirement
are deemed to be conditions of this permit. The specific prohibitions set out
in 40 CFR §403.5(b) shall be enforced by the permittee unless modified under
this provision.
c. The permittee shall, prepare annually a list of Industrial Users
which, during the past twelve months, have significantly violated pretreatment
requirements. This list is to be published annually, In the largest newspaper
in the municipality, during the month of _____________________, with the firs’
publication due __________________
d. In addition, at least 14 days prior to publication, the following
information Is to be submitted to the EPA and the State for each significantly
violating Industrial User:
1. Condition(s) violated and reason(s) for violations(s),
2. Compliance action taken by the City, and
3. Current compliance status.
-------
STATE OF GEORGIA PART III
DE?ART\iENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISiON Page of u
Permit No. GA0024449
A. APPROVED INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM FOR PUBLICLY.
OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTw)
The terms and conditions of the permittee’s approved pretreatment
program, approved by the Environmental Protection Division (EPD)
on rj1 8, 1983 , (as provided for in
Chapter 3 i-3-6-.O,s 6oi oL.me Rules ana Regulations for Water
Quality Control), shall be enforceable through this permit.
2. Based on the information regarding industrial inputs reported by the
permittee pursuant to Part ill paragraph B(2), the permittee will be
notified by EFD of the availability of industrial effluent guidelines
on which to calculate allowable inputs of incompatible pollutants
based on best practicable technology for each industry group. Copies
of guidelines will be provided as appropriate. Not later than 120 days
following receipt of this information, the permittee shall submit to
the EPD calculations reflecting allowable inputs from each major
contributing industry. The permittee shall also require all such major
contributing industries to implement neceszary pretreatment require-
ments, providing EPD with notification of specific actions taken in
this regard. At that time, the permit may be amended to reflect the
municipal facility’s effluent limitations f or incompatible pollutants.
3. Starting on ri1 15, 1984 the permittee shall
submt annually to c. t) a report to mcluc .e tfle Ióllowing information:
a. A narrative summary of actions taken by the permittee to insure
that all major contributing industries comply witn the requirements
of the approved pretreatment program.
b. A list of major contributing industries using the treatment works,
divided into SIC categories, which have been issued permits, orders,
contracts, or other enforceable documents, and a status of compli-
ance for each Industrial User.
c. The name and address of each Industrial User that has received a
conditionally or provisionally revised discharge limit.
4. The permittee to which reports are submitted by an Industrial User
shall retain such reports for a minimum of 3 years and shall make
such reports available for inspection and copying by the EPD. This
period of retention shall be extended during the course of any un-
resolved litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by the
lndustriai User or the operation of the approved pretreatment program
or when requested by the Director.
-------
3TATE OF GEORGIA PART III
DEPARTME.\T OF NATURAL RESOURCCS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Page 3.3 of 13
Permit No. GA0024449
B. INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS -
I. The permittee shall require all industrial dischargers into the permitted
system to meet State and Federal Pretreatment Regulations promulgated
in response to Section 307(b) of the Federal Act. Other information may
be needed regarding new industrial discharges and will be requested from
-. the permittèé if t 7 er E.PD has received notice of the new industrial discnarge.
2. A major contributing industry is one that: (1) has a flow of 50,000 gallons
or more per average work day; (2) has a flow greater than five percent of
the flow carried by the municipal system receiving the waste; (3) has in
its waste a toxic pollutant in toxic amounts as defined in standards issued
under Section 307(a) of the Federal Act; or (4) has significant impact,
either singly or in combination with other contributing industries, on the
treatment works or the quality of its effluent, or interferes with disposal
of its sewage sludge.
3. Any change in the definition of a major contributing industry as a result
of promulgations in response to Section 307 of the Federal Act shall
beccme a part of this permit.
C. REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ON POLLUTANTS ATTRIBUTABLE
TO INDUSTRIAL USERS
1. Effluent limitations for the permittee’s discharge are listed in Part I of
this permit. Other pollutants at:ributable to inputs from major contributing
industries using the municipal system may also be present in the permittee’s
discharge. At such time as sufficient information becomes available to establish
limita:ions for such pollutants, this permit may be revised to specify effluent
limitations for any or all of such other pollutants in accordance with best practi-
cable technology or water quality standards. Once the specific nature of indus-
trial contributions has been identified, data collection and reporting requirements
may be levied for other parameters in addition to those specified in Part I of this
permit.
2. With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this permit, it may
be necessary for the permittee to supplement the requirements of the State
and Federal Pretreatment Regulations to ensure compliance by the permittee
with all applicable effluent limitations. Such actions by the permittee may be
- necessary regarding some or all of the major contributing industries discharging
to the municipal system.
-------
ilO S1 q
4ITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
SEP 2 7 1983
M EM OR.ANDrJM
SUBJECT: Fin 1 Procedures for the Review of Draft and Final
General NPDES Permits
FROM: Bruce R. Barrett, Dir
Off ice of Water Enforcement and Permits
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regional Counsels
Rebecca W. Hanmer, Acting Assistant Administrator
for Water
Colburn Cherney, Acting Associate General Counsel
Water Division
Louise Jacobs, Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Water
C. Ronald Smith, Director
Office of Standards and Regulations
Richard D. Morgenstern, Director
Office of Policy Analysis
Steven Schatzow, Director
- of Water Regulations and Standards
This memorandum describes the final review procedures
for draft and final general NPDES permits. These procedures
have been reviewed and accepted by the affected program offices
in Headquarters and the Water Management Division Directors.
The new procedures outlined below should significantly reduce
the problems that have occurred in developing, reviewing, and
processing general permits.
-------
—2—
o - ittached general permits status report prepared by
Permits Division, OWEP represents a list of all
ç ’ ral permits currently in development. Copies of
t. status report will be sent to the Water Management
C..’:sion Directors and Headquarters program offices on
a rr.onthly basis. Headquarters program offices are
requested to identify those permits which they consider
important to review each month.
o Regional offices must submit all draft and final
general permits to the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits, to the attention of the Permits Division
Director. The Water Management Division Director and
the Regional Counsel must review and sign all draft and
final general permits submitted for Headquarters
review. By so signing, these officials are certifying
the programmatic, technical, and legal sufficiency
of the general permit. General permits not duly signed
will be returned to the Region.
o Headquarters review of general permits for concurrence
will be limited to issues of national significance and
consistency with regulations, national guidance, and
relevant case law. Any other comments regarding
provisions generally within the discretion of the
permit writer (such as technical adequacy, identified
water quality standards, or general clarity, quality or
enforceability) will be suggestions only.
o Formal communications on general permit issues and
Headquarters! concurrence will occur between the
Director of the Permits Division and the Water Management
Division Director. However, we continue to encourage
staff level discussions concerning permit development
so that issues can be resolved, to the maximum extent
possible, before review for headquarters concurrence.
o The Permits Division Director is to receive all comments
from ot. r Headquarters offices on draft general permits
in ten working days . In the review of draft general
permits, the Permits Division will identify to the Regional
Office any issues which could lead to non-concurrence
on the final. C-enerally, further processing of the draft
permit will not be delayed while Headquarters comments are
being addressed by the Region prior to final promulgation.
However, there may be occasions involving an issue signif i—
cant enough to require modification of the fact sheet or
draft permit before publication. If Headquarters review
identifies a need for a change in the draft permit, the
Perz its Division Director will notify the Water Management
Di;:3ion Director by phone within the next two working days
-------
—3—
e:-- r the deadline for submittal of all Headquarters
c - - nts to the Permits Division. Written comments will be
from the Permits Division Director to the Water Manage-
me- Division Director within five working days after the
de. c1ine for submittal of all Headquarters comments to the
Per- its Division. If the Water Management Division Director
does not hear from the Permits Division Director within five
days of the end of the Headquarters review period, he may
assume that the Permits Division is processing the permit.
o The procedures for the review of final general permits
will be the same as those for draft permits except that
Headquar- review time will be shorter. The July
1982 st:.. uiined review process provides that the
review period is five working days unless the final
permit differs significantly from the araft. (In such
cases the review period is specified as ten days. )
On August 8, 1983, the Office of Policy and Resource
Management and the Office of Water requested an exemption
for general NPDES permits from the review requirements of
the Executive Order l229i from the Office of Management and
Budget COMB). We understand that staff recommendations have
been prepared for Robert Bedell, Deputy Administrator, and
we expect a written response soon. We will make every
effort to keep you informed on the request and OMB’s response.
Thank you for your positive comments on these procedures,
your efforts to follow them in the interim, and your continued
support for the general permit program. Until an exemption is
granted, both draft and final general permits must be submitted
to 0MB for review prior to publication in the Federal Register .
Regardless, progress has been made. There was a time when
a general permit status report included only permits for
offshore oil and gas and animal feedlots.
Attachment
-------
IO ST 4 , 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 L pRO1.
OFFICE OF
OCT 1 t 1983 WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review of Memorandum Regarding Draft Procedures for
Processing Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
for Direct and Indirect Dischargers
TO: Steven Schatzow, Director -
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (WH—551)
Colburn T. Cherney
Acting Associate General Counsel or 1 Water (LE—132W)
FROM: Bruce R. Barrett, Director N
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
Attached is a draft memorandum for Rebecca W. Hanmer’s
signature to the Regional Administrators regarding proposed
procedures for processing fundamentally different factors
(FDF) variances for direct and indirect dischargers for review
and comment. (We have not deleted the material relating to
FDF variances for indirect dischargers as the Third Circuit
decision in National Association of Metal Finishers v. EPA
did not disallow FDF variance requests for conventional and
non—conventional pollutants from pretreatn ent standards for
existing sources.) This draft has been developed by my staff
as a result of our meeting with Rebecca on procedures for
handling FDF variances for indirect dischargers on July 28,
1983.
I would like your comments on this draft by October 21,
1983. Please call me (755—9187) if you have any questions or
comments on this matter.
Attachment
cc: Jeffery D. Denit (WH—552)
Susan G. Lepow (LE—132W)
-------
Sl qp
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I
o1 ’
DRAFT OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORAN DUM
SUBJECT: Draft Procedures for Processing Fundamentally
Different Factors Variances for Direct and Indirect
Dischargers
TO: Regional Administrators
FROM: Rebecca W. Hanmer
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water (WH—556)
Due to the increased emphasis on National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issuance and
imposition of categorical pretreatment standards on indirect
dischargers by the Regions and States, there is an increased
interest in the variances and time extensions available under
the Clean Water Act. The NPDES and pretreatment regulations
contain procedures for processing fundamentally different
factors (FDF) variances for direct and indirect dischargers.
(Copies of the procedural regulations appear as Attachments
A and B.) There is a need to take steps to assure that infor-
mation is exchanged regularly among Regions and States on
precedents being set and that some acceptable degree of
consistency in approach is provided. In addition, it is
important to integrate EPA’S review of variance requests to
avoid the duplication of effort that currently occurs with
separate Regional and Headquarters review. The procedures
detailed in this memorandum are designed to achieve these
goals. If you agree that such procedures are workable, we
would expect to make the appropriate regulatory changes to
reflect this new approach. These procedures focus on FDF
variances but if successful, may be used for addressing other
variances and time extensions under the Clean Water Act.
All FDF variance requests, in an important sense, involve
issues of national significance since they all require inter-
pretation of national effluent guidelines and the supporting
technical records for the guidelines. In addition, each FDF
decision sets a precedent for other requests to the extent
that issues are not strictly case specific. Finally, past
EPA practice has resulted in a duplication of the evaluation
and decision—making by both the Region and Headquarters on
each variance request. For these reasons, there must be an
integrated EPA involvement in the resolution of these requests.
I propose to establish a Headquarters/Regional Variance Review
-------
DRAFT
—2—
Panel (Variance Panel or Panel) to review and recommend
responses on each variance request. The Variance Panel would
consist of staff from OW (the Permits Division (PD) and
Effluent Guidelines Division (EGD)), the Office of General
Counsel (OGC), and the affected Region. It is envisioned
that PD will provide advice on the procedural aspects, prece-
dents and application of the appropriate regulations. EGD
will provide expertise in the guidelines development process,
interpretation of the guidelines and review of the guidelines
record. OGC will provide legal interpretations and advice.
The Regional office will provide knowledge and information on
the facts and circumstances for the individual request, as
well as participating in the decision—making process. The
Headquarters staff from PD, EGD and OGC will be those individ-
uals assigned to the specific industry or pretreatment
program for which the FDF variance has been requested. The
affected Region would also designate at least one staff member
for each FDF variance. Each member of the Variance Panel, in
addition to providing expertise on the issues involved in the
FDF request, would be responsible for keeping his or her
management informed of the progress of the Panel’s work and
keeping the Panel informed of any issues or directions manage-
ment has given. The Permits Division will provide coordination
services for each Variance Panel, such as distribution of
materials, preparation of schedules and briefing materials,
etc. Generally, the Panel members would communicate by tele-
phone and correspondence, but in some cases a Panel may need
to meet either in the Region or at Headquarters, as appropri-
ate.
The function of the Variance Panel will be to review the
submitted FDF variance requests (from the dischargers or State),
identify significant issues and develop a proposed EPA position
within four weeks of receipt of the materials. A flow chart
of the operation of the Variance Panel is contained in Attach-
ment C. Permits Division will be responsible for assuring
preparation of the draft decision (this would be either the
draft tentative decision or draft final decision for NPDES
variances or draft determination for pretreatment variances)
and its distribution. The Variance Panel will submit a draft
decision to the Regional Water Management Division (WMD)
Director, Directors of Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
(OWEP) and Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS),
and the Associate General Counsel for Water for a two week
review period. After this two week review period, these mana-
gers will meet with the Variance Panel, if necessary, to dis-
cuss the draft decision and resolve any disagreements. (EPA’s
teleconferencing facilities would be used to avoid unnecessary
travel.) The Variance Panel will then prepare a decision
(this would be either the tentative decision or final decision
for NPDES variances or determination for pretreatment variances)
within one week of the receipt of concurrence by affected mana-
gers or within one week after the meeting of managers to resolve
issues. The decision would then be submitted to the Assistant
-------
DRAFT
—3—
Administrator (AA) for Water. Upon completion of the AA’s
review the decision will be transmitted to the Regional
Administrator (RA). If there is disagreement between Head-
quarters and the Region, the RA and AA will resolve the matter.
Specific Procedures — Requests from Direct Dischargers
Regions would send copies of the request to Headquarters
upon receipt from the State or the discharger. The Variance
Panel will first develop the tentative decision of the RA.
The Regional Office will provide for public notice and
opportunity to comment on the tentative decision of the RA.
After public comment, the Variance Panel will confer, under
the same schedule and procedures as described above, to
develop the draft final decision for management review. If
the final decision is to approve the FDF variance request,
the Director, OWEP will provide concurrence in the final
decision as required by 40 CFR §124.62(d). A flow chart of
the operation of the Variance Panel for FDF variance requests
from direct dischargers is contained in Attachment D.
Specific Procedures — Requests from Indirect Dischargers
Upon receipt from the discharger of FDF variance requests
from PSES, the general pretreatment regulations require that
a determination of completeness be made and that public notice
and comment on the complete variance request be provided by
the (State or WMD] Director. If the State has made the deter-
mination of completeness and provided for public notice and
comment, the request should be submitted to Headquarters after
receipt from the State. I believe the Variance Panel and
management review should also be implemented before the deter-
mination of completeness is made and public notice of receipt
of the variance request is given, if the action is the respon-
sibility of the Region. After submission of the request to
Headquarters, following the determination of completeness,
public notice and the opportunity for comment, the Variance
Panel will develop the draft determination of the WMD Director,
which will then be subject to management review. The AA for
Water will transmit the determination to the RA, who may con—
suit with the WMD Director before the determination is issued.
A flow chart of the operation of the Variance Panel for FDF
variance requests from indirect dischargers is contained in
Attachment E.
We are very interested in your comments on this proposal
and would be happy to discuss it with you. I am requesting
your written comments by ______________________. If Regional
comments indicate agreement with this integrated approach, we
would initiate steps to change the regulations to provide for
a single Agency decision to be made by the AA for Water, along
with implementation of this approach, in the interim, as out-
lined in these draft procedures.
-------
DRAFT
—4—
If you or your staff have any questions on the procedures,
please feel free to call Bruce Barrett at FTS 755—9187 or
Martha Prothro at FTS 755-2545.
Attachments
cc: Regional Water Management Division Directors
Director, NEIC
Colburn T. Cherney (LE—132w)
bcc: Bruce R. Barrett (EN-335)
Steven Schatzow (WH—551)
-------
ichedules
under * i.24.60U ’)(21 will not automatically be
granted for a period equal to the period the
stay is in effect for an effluent limitation. For
example. if both the Agency and the
discharger agree that a in treatment
technolcgy is required by the CWA where
guidelines do not apply, but a hearing is
granted to consider the effluent limitations
which the technology will achieve.
reqinreiiients regarding installation of the
underlying technology will not be stayed
during the hearing. Thus, unless the hearing
extends beyond the final compliance date in
the permit, it will not ordinarily be necessary
to extend the compliance schedule. However.
when application of an underlying technology
is chaUenged. the stay for instailation
requirements relating to that technology
would extend for the duration of the hearing.
(g) For purposes of judicial review
under CWA section 509(b). final agency
action on a permit does not occur unless
and until a party has exhausted its
administrative remedies under Subparts
E and F and § 124.91. Any party }uch
neglects or fails to seek review under
§ 124.91 thereby waives its opportunity
to exhaust available agency remedies.
‘4.61 Final environmental Impact
.ement.
No final NPDES permit for a new
source shall be issued until at least 30
days after the date of issuance of a final
envirvnmental impact statement if one
is required under 40 CFR § 6.805.
§ 124.62 DecIsion on variances.
(Applicable to SLate pmgrarns. see
§ 123.25 (NPDES)).
(a) The Director may grant or deny
requests for the following variances
(subject to EPA objection under § 123.44
for State permits):
(1) Extensions under CWA section
301(i) based on delay in completion of a
publicly owned treatment works;
(2) After consultation with the
Regional Administrator, extensions
under CWA section 301(k) based on the
use of innovative technology; or
(3) Variances under CWA section
316(a) for thermal pollution.
(b) The State Director may deny, or
forward to the Regional Administrator
with a written concurrence. or submit to
EPA without recommendation a
completed request for
(1) A variance based on the presence
of “fundamentally different factors”
from those on which an effluent
nitations guideline was based
(2) A variance based on the economic
capability of the applicant under CWA
section 301(c);
(3) A variance based upon certain
water quality factors under CWA
more section 301(g); or
r. . . (4) A variance based on water quality
related effluent limitations under CWA
section 302(b)(2).
(c) The Regional AiIrninisb ’ator may
deny, forward, or submit to the EPA
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Enforcement with a
recommendation for approval, a request
for a variance listed in paragraph (b) of
this section that is forwarded by the
State Director. or that is submitted to
the Regional Administrator by the
requester where EPA is the permitting
authority.
(d) The EPA Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Water Enforcement
may approve or deny any variance
request submitted under paragraph (c)
of this section. If the Deputy Assistant
Administrator approves the variance,
the Director may prepare a draft permit
incorporating the variance. Any public
notice of a draft permit for which a
variance or modification has been
approved or denied shall identify the
applicable procedures for appealing that
decision under § 124.54.
§ 124.63 ProcedureS for variances when
EPA Is the permithng authority.
(a) In States where EPA is the permit
issuing authority and a request for a
variance is filed as required by § 12221.
the request shall be processed as
foUowm
(1) if at the time that a request for a
variance is submitted the Regional
Administrator has received an
application under § 124.3 for issuance or
renewal of that permit but has not yet
prepared a draft permit under § 124.6
covering the discharge in question. the
Regional Administrator, after obtaining
any necessary concurrence of the EPA
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Enforcement under § 124.62. shall
give notice of a tentative decision on the
request at the time the notice of the draft
permit is prepared as specified in
§ 124.10. unless this would significantly
delay the processing of the permit. In
that case the processing of the variance
request may be separated from the
permit in accordance with paragraph
(a)(3) of this section. and the processing
of the permit shall proceed without
delay.
(2) 11 at the time that a request for a
variance is filed the Regional
Administrator has given notice under
§ 1Z4.10 of a draft permit covering the
discharge in question, but that permit
has not yet become final. administrative
proceedings concerning that permit may
be stayed and the Regional
Administrator shall prepare a new draft
permit including a tentative deciston on
the request. arid the fact sheet required
by § 124.8. However, if this will
significantly delay the process of the -
existing draft permit or the Regional
Administrator, for other reasons.
considers combining the variance
request and the existing draft permit
inadvisable, the request may be
separated from the permit in accordance
with paragraph (a)(3) of this section. and
the administrative dispositon of the
existing draft permit shall proceed
without delay.
(3) If the permit has become final and
no application under § 124.3 concerning
it is pending or IL the variance request
has been separated from a draft permit
as described-in paragraphs (a) (1) and
(2) of this section. the Regional
Administrator may prepare a new draft
permit and give notice of it under
§ 124.10. This draft permit shall be
accompanied by the fact sheet required
by § 124.8 except that the only matters
considered shall relate to the requested
variance.
§ 124.64 Appeals of variances-
(a) When a State issues a permit on
which EPA has made a variance
decision, separate appeals of the State
permit and of the EPA variance decision
are possible. If the owner or operator is
challenging the same issues in both
proceedings. the Regional Administrator
will decide, in consultation with State
officials, which case will be heard first.
(b) Variance decisions made by EPA
may be appealed under either Subparts
E or F. provided the requirements of the
applicable Subpart are met. However,
whenever the basic permit decision is
eligible only for an evidentiary hearing
under Subpart E while the variance
decision is eligible only for a panel
hearing under Subpart F. the issues
relating to both the basic permit
decision and the variance decision shall
be considered in the Subpart E
proceeding. No Subpart F hearing may
be held if a Subpart E hearing would be
held in addition. See § 124.111(b).
(c) Stays for section 301(g) variances.
if a request for an evidentiary hearing is
granted on a variance requested under
CWA section 301(g), or if a petition for
review of the denial of a request for the
hearing is filed under § 124.91. any
otherwise applicable standards and
limitations under CWA section 301 shall
not be stayed unless:
(1) in the judgment of the Regional
Administrator, the stay or the variance
sought will not result in the discharge of
required by a stay under this sectiàn -
;hall be
1
Federal Register I VoL’ No. 64 I Friday. April 1. 19bJ z’ ui s e auu
Attachn flt A
§
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 46. No 18 I Wednesday. January 28. 1981 I Rules and Regulations
9455
S
e
F,.
years any records of monitoring
activities and results (whether or not
such monitoring activities are required
by this section) and shall make such
records available for inspection and
copying by the Director and the
Regional Administrator (and POTW in
the case of an Industrial User). This
period of retention shall be extended
during the course of any unresolved
litigation regarding the Industrial User
or POTW or when requested by the
Director or the Regional Administrator.
(3) Any POTW to which reports are
submitted by an Industrial User
pursuant to paragraphs (b), (d), and (e)
of this section shall retain such reports
for a minimum of 3 years and shall make
such reports available for inspection
and copying by the Director and the
Regional Administrator. This period of
retention shall be extended during the
course of any unresolved litigation
regarding the discharge of pollutants by
the Industrial User or the operation of
the POTW Pretreatment Program or
when requested by the Director or the
Regional Administrator.
§ 403.13 VarIances from categorical
pretreatment standards for fundamentally
different factors.
(a) Definition. The term “Requester”
means an Industrial User or a POTW or
other interested person seeking a
variance from the limits specified in a
categorical Pretreatment Standard.
(b) Purpose and scope. In establishing
categorical Pretreatment Standards for
existing sources, the EPA will take into
account all the information it can
collect, develop and solicit regarding the
factors relevant to pretreatment
standards under section 307(b). In some
cases, information which may affect
these Pretreatment Standards will not
be available or, for other reasons will
not be considered during their
development. As a res.ilt, it may be
necessary on a case-by-case basis to
adjust the limits in categorical
Pretreatment Standards, making them
either more or less stringent, as they
apply to a certain industrial User within
an industrial category or subcatego”y.
This will only be done if data specific to
that Industrial User indicates it presents
factors fundamentally different from
those ronsidered by EPA in developing
the limit at issue. Any interested person
believing that factors relating to an
es. Industrial User are fundamentally
different from the factors censiclered
during development of a categorical
S. Pretreatment Standard applicable to
that User and further, that the existence
ents of those factors justifies a differer,t
discharge limit from that specified in the
applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standard. may request a fundamentally
different factors variance under this
section or such a variance request may
be initiated by the EPA.
(c) Critena.—(1) General criteria. A
request for a variance based upon
fundamentally different factors shall be
approved only if:
( I) There is an applicable categorical
Pretreatment Standard which
specifically controls the pollutant for
which alternative limits have been
requested; and
(ii) Factors relating to the discharge
controlled by the categorical
Pretreatment Standard are
fundamentally different from the factors
considered by EPA in establishing the
Standards; and
(iii) The request for a variance is
made in accordance with the procedural
requirements in paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this section.
(2) Criteria applicable to less
stringent hnuts. A variance request for
the establishment of limits less stringent
than required by the Standard shall be
approved only if:
(i) The alternative limit requested is
no less stringent than justified by the
fundamental difference;
(ii) The alternative limit will not result
in a violation of prohibitive discharge
standards prescribed by or established
under § 403.5;
(iii) The alternative limit will not
result in a non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy
requirements) fundamentally more
adverse than the impact considered
during development of the Pretreatment
Standards: and
(iv) Compliance with the Standards
(either by using the technologies upon
which the Standards are based or by
using other control alternatives) would
result in either:
(A) A removal cost (adjusted for
inflation) wholly out of proportion to the
removal cost considered during
development of the Standards; or
(C) A non-water quality
cit ironmental impact (including energy
requirenients) fundamentally more
adverse than the impact considered
during development of the Standards.
(3) Criteria applicable to more
stringent hnzits. A variance request for
the establishment of limits more
stringent than required b the Standards
shall be approved only if.
(i) The alternative limit request is no
more stringent than justified by the
fundamental difference: and
(i.) Conpli nce with the alternative
limit would not result in either:
(A) A removal cost (aijusted for
inflation) wholly out of proportion to the
removal cost considered during
development of the Standards: or
(B) A non-water quality
environmental impact (including energy
requirements) fundamentally more
adverse than the impact considered
during development of the Standards.
(d) Factors considered fundamentally
different. Factors which may be
considered fundamentally different are:
(1) The nature or quality of pollutants
contained in the raw waste load of the
User’s process wastewater:
(2) The volume of the User’s process
wastewater and effluent discharged;
(3) Non-water quality environmental
impact of control and treatment of the
User’s raw waste load;
(4) Energy requirements of the
application of control and treatment
technology;
(5) Age, size, land availability, and
configuration as they relate to the User’s
equipment or facilities; processes
employed; process changes; and
engineering aspects of the application of
control technology;
(6) Cost of compliance with required
control technology. -
[ e) Factors which will not be
considered fundamentally d:’ffer’eni. A
variance request or portion of such a
request under this section may not be
granted on any of the following grounds:
(1) The feasibility of installing the
required waste treatment equipment
within the time the Act allows;
(2) The assertion that the Standards
cannot be achieved with the appropriate
waste treatment facilities installed, if
such assertion is not based on factors
listed in paragraph (d) of this section;
(3) The User’s ability to pay for the
required waste treatment: or
(4) The impact of a Discharge on the
quality of the POTW’s receiving waters.
(I’) State or local laiv Nothing in this
section shall be construed to impair the
right of any state or locality under
sect:on 510 of the Act to impose more
stringent limitations than required by
Federal law.
(g) Application deadline.
(1) Requests for a variance and
supporting information must be
submitted in writing to the Dii actor or to
the Enforcement Dit iston Director, as
appropriate.
(2) In order to be considered, request
for variances must be submitted within
n
(ii) The dates analyses itcre
Attachment B
-------
9456 Federal Register / Vol.
No. 18 I Wednesday. J inuary 28. 1981 Rules and Regulations
180 days after the effective date of the
categorical Pretreatment Standard
unless the User has requested a
categorical determination pursuant to
§ 403.6(a).
(3) Where the User has requested a
catergorical determination pursuant to
§ 403.6(a), the User may elect to await
the results of the category determination
before submitting a variance request
under this section. Where the User so
elects, he or she must submit the
variance request within 30 days after a
final decision has been made on the
categorical determination pursuant to
§ 403.6(a)(4).
(h) Contents of submission. Written
Submissions for variance request,
whether made to the Enforcement
Di ision Director or to the Director must
include:
(1) The name and address of the
person making the request:
(2) Identification of the interest of the
Requester which is affected by the
categorical Pretreatment Standard for
which the variance is requested;
(3) Identification of the PO1’W
currently receiving the waste from the
Industrial User for which alternative
discharge limits are requested:
(4) Identification of the categorical
Pretreatment Standards which are
applicable to the Industrial User
(5) A list of each pollutant or pollutant
parameter for which an alternative
discharge limit is sought;
(6) The alternative discharge limits
proposed by the Requester for each
pollutant or pollutant parameter
identified in item (5) of this paragraph;
(7) A description of the Industrial
User’s existing water pollution control
facilities;
(8) A schematic flow representation of
the Industrial User’s water system
including water supply, process
wastewater systems, and points of
Discharge; and
(9) A Statement of facts clearly
establishing why the variance request
should be approved, including detailed
support data, documentation, and
evidence necessary to fully evaluate the
merits of the request. e.g.. technical and
economic data collected by the EPA and’
used in developing each pollutant
discharge limit in the Pretreatment
Standard.
(i) Deficient requests. The
Enforcement Division Director or
Director will only act on written
requests for variances that contain all of
the information required. Persons who
have made incomplete Submissions will
be notified by the Enforcement Di .’sion
Dire’tor or Director that their requests
are dcficient and unless the time period
is e ter’1ed. will be given up to 30 days
to correct the deficiency. If the
deficiency is not corrected within the
time period allowed by the Enforcement
Division Director or the Director, the
request for a variance shall be denied.
(j) Pub/ic notice. Upon receipt of a
complete request. the Director or
Enforc€rnent Division Director will
provide notice of receipt, opportunity to
review the submission, and opportunity
to comment.
(1) The public notice shall be
circulated in a manner designed to
inform interested and potentially
interested persons of the request.
Procedures for the circulation of public
notice shall include mailing notices to:
(1) The POTW into which the
Industrial User requesting the variance
discharges:
(ii) Adjoining States whose waters
may be affected; and
(iii) Designated 208 planning agencies.
Federal and State fish, shellfish and
wildlife resource agencies: and to any
other person or group who has
requested individual notice, including
those on appropriate mailing lists.
(2) The public notice shall provide for
a period not less than 30 days following
the date of the public notice during
which time interested persons may
review the request and submit their
written views on the request.
(3) Following the comment period. the
Director or Enforcement Division
Director will make a determination on
the request taking into consideration
any comments received. Notice of this
final decision shall be provided to the
requestor (and the Industrial User for
which the variance is requested if
different), the POTW into which the
Industrial User discharges and all
persons who submitted comments on the
request.
(k) Review of requests by state. (I)
Where the Director finds that
fundamentally different factors do not
exist, he may deny the request and
notify the requester (and Industrial User
where they are not the same) and the
POTW of the denial.
(2) Where the director finds that
fundamentally different factors do exist.
he shall forward the request, and a
recommendation that the request be
approved, to the Enforcement Division
Director.
(1) Review of requests by EPA. (1)
Where the Enforcement Division
Director finds that fundamentally
different factors do not exist, he shall
deny the request for a variance and
send a copy of his determination to the
Director. to the POTW. and to the
Requester (and to the Industrial User.
where tiny are not the same).
(2) Where the Enforcement Division
Director finds that fundamentally
different factors do exist, and that a
partial or full variance is justified, he
will approve the variance. In approving
the variance, the Enforcement Division
Director will:
(i) Prepare recommended alternative
discharge limits for the Industrial User
either more or less stringent than those
prescribed by the applicable categorical
Pretreatment Standard to the extent
warranted by the demonstrated
fundamentally different factors:
(ii) Provide the following information
in his written determination:
(A) the recommended alternative
discharge limits for the Industrial User
concerned;
(B) the rationale for the adjustment of
the Pretreatment Standard (including the
Enforcement Division Director’s reasons
for recommending that a fundamentally
different factor variance be granted) and
an explanation, of how the Enforcement
Division Director’s recommended
alternative discharge limits were
derived;
(C) the supporting evidence submitted
to the Enforcement Division Director
and
(D) other Information considered by
the Enforcement Division Director in
developing the recommended
alternative discharge limits:
(iii) Notify the Director and the POTW
of his or her determination: and
(iv) Send the information described in
paragraphs (1)(2) (i) and (ii) above to the
Requestor (and to the Industrial User
where they are not the same).
(m) Request for hearing. (1) Within 30
days following the date of receipt of
notice of the Enforcement Division
Director’s decision on a variance
request, the Requester or any other
interested person may submit a petition
to the Regional Administrator for a
hearing to reconsider or contest the
decision. If such a request is submitted
by a person other than the Industrial
User the person shall simultaneously
serve a copy of the request on the
Industrial User.
(2) If the Regional Administrator
declines to hold a hearing and the
Regional Administrator affirms the
Enforcement Division Director’s
findings, the Requester may submit a
petition for a hearing to the
Administrator within 30 days of the
Regional Administrator’s decision.
§ 403.14 ConfidentialIty.
(a) EI’.1 authorities. In accordance
with 40 CFR Part 2, any information
submitted to EPA pursuant to uicse
regulations may be claimed as
confidential by the submitter An such
-------
Attachment C
Fl ri Chart of Operation of Headquarters/Regional Variance Review
Panel for FDF Variance Requests
Variance Panel Managenent 1 Variance Panel Tariance Panel
Receipt Develops Draft Review of IMeets with )evelops
fran State - , Decision(*) Draft Decision IManagenent on ____ )ecision
or Discharg Draft Decision
4 weeks 2 weeks (if necessary) 1 week
A1 /R - RA Review of M Review of
Resolution of Decision Decision
DisagreEnent
(if necessary)
*: Draft tentative decision or draft final decision for NPDES variances
Draft determination for pretreathient variances
-------
Attachment D
Flow chart of Operation of Variance Panel for FDF Variance R uests
fran Direct Dischargers
Variance Panel Tentative Public Cament Variance Panel
ffraii state\ Develops Decision of PA Develops Final
(or Discharg r Tentative Decision of PA
Decision of PA Public Notice (Attachment C)
(Attachment C)
Notice of Concurrence Final Decision
Decision arx3 of Director, of PA
Appeal Proc&u p GJEP
(if necessary)
Issue Permit
( if necessary ) ______________
-------
Attachn nt E
Flow chart of Operation of Variance Panel for FDF Variance Bequests
fran Ir iirect Dischargers
State is Authority —
Receip Determination Public ublic
fran f Notice iment _________
Discharger anDleteness
Region Authority
Variance Pane Determination Public Public
Receipt Develops of Notice . , CcmTc nt 4
fran ‘ Determination Canpieteness
Discharger t nFC )
Notice of Determination Variance Panel
Determination of ‘JMD Develops
and Appeal Director Determination
Procedures; of Directoi.
Impl nent (Attaclnnent C)
Determination
-------
(A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST)
Unvted States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Water Enforcement
and Permita
oEPA
Guidance Manual
for POTW Pretreatment
Program Development
October 19
______ • •
-------
— ,. .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
:
rr .
MEMORAN DUM
SUB.JECT:( ’Pretreatment Progran Guidance
/
FROM: ebecca W. Hanmer
ACt1IC ;ssistant Administrator for water ‘—556
TO: Users of the Guidance Manual for POTW
Pretreatment Program Develooment
This manual provides information needed by a local POTW to
develop an approvable pretreatment program. It also delLneates
what data and information the POTW must include in its submittal
package so that the appropriate Approval Authority (either an
approved State or an EPA Regional Office) can review and approve
the program. The information is based on the requirements
specified in the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part
403) for an approvable pretreatment.program. If changes to t’ese
requirernenLs are needed, EP will issue timely supplemental
guidance.
The manual does not discuss in detail certain provisions of
the national pretreatment program including the Combined Waste—
stream Formula and Removal Credits. The Agency will provide
separate guidance on these aspects of the pretreatment program
in the future.
EPA developed this manual for two reasons. First, POTWs
need guidance on developing pretreatment programs which satisfy
the regulatory requirements of the General Pretreatment Regula—
tions. This manual includes instructions and guidance for
conducting an industrial waste survey, developing a compliance
sampling program, producing resource and funding estimates, and
developing local effluent limitations for industrial users of
the POTW’s treatment facility. The manual’s appendices contain
very useful information, not only for program development, but
also for program implementation. It contains worksheets for
assisting the POTW in developing each element of the program.
-------
—2—
S. cond, E? recognized that there are diEferences n POT”
and that POTW pretreatment programs should consider such bce
conditions as the size OF tne POTW’s service area, the number
industrial users, and the soecific poUutar’ts and the amoun S of
these poLlutants which the industrial users re d scharg ng to
the POTW’s treatment aciUt es.
The regulatory requ:rement which must e met are set cor
i the General Pretreatment Reculations, 40 CFR ar 403. Tb’s
guidance manual does not establish any new recu rementS. Wher
the term “must” is used, refer to a regulatory requirement. The
term “should” denotec recommended good practice 1 but you do ‘ot
have to ahLcie by this practice in order to meet regulatory
requremeflts t you have an acc ptahLe alter at .
believe that you, the POTW personnel responsihie for
deve]oping a pretreatment program, will Fjnd this manual usecul.
As this guidance may be• revised periodically to reelect rogr
experience or changes in program regulations, please ¶eel fr e
to write to the O€cice of Water n€orcement and ?ermlts ( ‘1—33 ’
2.f you have suggestions on how the guadance may he mprove r
areas which should be addressed. Thank you.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P AGE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE NATIONAL PRETREATME’JT PROGRAM
.2 ELEMENTS OF A PRETREATME. T ?RGGRAM
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF T US
2. INDUSTRIAL WASTE SURVEY 2—1
2.1 COMPILE MASTER LIST OF INDUSTRIAL L’SERS
!. SURVEY NDUST tAL :sE s
2.3 CONDUCT FOLLOW—UP A TP/tTIES ‘—5
2.4 SL’ 1ARIZE SURVEY RESULTS 2—5
2.4.1 t dustria1 Classification Scheme 2—9
2.4.2 Industri.al Waste Survey Data Mana ernent........ 2—10
2.5 IWS INFORMATION FOR THE PROGRAM SUBMISSION
3. LEGAL AUTHORITY 3— i
3.1 REQUIRED LEGAL AUTHORITIES 3—1
3.1.1 Deny or Condition 3—2
3.1.2 Compliance with Pretreatment Standards
3.1.3 Control. Mechanism 3—4
3.1.4 Compliance Schedules/Reporting Requirements.... 3—5
3.1.5 Inspection, Sampling, and Monitoring
3.1.6 Legal Remedies 3—7
3.1.7 Emergency Relief 3—8
3.1.8 Confidentiality 3—8
3.1.9 Multijurisdictional Issues 3—9
3.2 ATTPRNEY’S STATEMENT 3—10
3.3 LEGAL AUTHORITY I ORMAT [ ON REQUIRED FOR THE PROGRAM
SUBMISSION 3—12
4. TECHNICAL INFOR.MATI ‘!
4.1 BACKGROUND INFCE ATtIN 4—1
4.2 PLANT PERFORMANCE AND LNDI t S’RIAL DATA 4—2
4.3 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS TO D T RM Nr FATE AND EFFECT.... 4—3
4.4 LIMIT TIOMS ON POTW EFFLUENT AND SLUDGE 4—5
4.4.1 Water Quality Limitations 4—5
4.4.2 Sludge Limitation 4—6
1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
4.5 METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING LOCAL DISCHARGE
LIMITATIONS 47
4.5.1 Types of Standards 49
4.5.2 General Procedure for Setting Local Limits 4—1 ’)
6.o TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR THE PROGRAM
SUB1’IISSLON
5. DESIGN OF MONITORING PROGRAM 5_i
5.1 TYPES OF MONITORING
5.1.1 Scheduled Monitoring s—i
5.1.2 Unscheduled Monitoring 5—2
5.1.3 Demand Monitoring or Investigative
Monitoring 5—2
5.1.3 Industrial Self—Monitoring 5—3
5.2 DETERMINATION OF MONITORING FREQUENCY 5—3
5.3 FIELDMONITORING STRATEGY 5—5
5.3.1 Industrial Inspections 5—5
5.3.2 Sample CoLlection and Handling 5—7
5.4 LABORATORY CONSIDERATIONS IN MONITORING 5—9
5.5 CHAIN—OF—CUSTODY PROCEDURES 5—10
5.6 ADMINISTRATION 5—11
5.7 COMPLIANCE MONITORING INFORMATION FOR THE
PROGRAM SUBMISSION 5—14
6. PROGR.AMIMPLEMENTATIONPROCEDURES 6—1
6. UPDATE INDUSTRIAL WASTESURVEY . 6—1
6.2 NOTIFY LNDUSRIAL USERS OF APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND
REQUI. MENTS. 6—2
6.3 REVIEW SELF—MONITORINGREPORTS 6—3
6.4 I V STIGATE NONCOMPLIANCE INCIDENTS 6—6
6.5 CON .ecT PJBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES 6—8
6.6 IMP’. • ENT. TtoN PROCEDURES FOR THE PROGRAM
SUBMISSION 6—9
ii
-------
7. PROGRAM ORGANIZATION, COSTS, AND REVENUE SOURCES .
7.1 ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING
7.1.1
7.1.2
Organization Char-.
Considerations i Staffing and Organizing the
Pretreatment Progra’n
7.2 PROGRAM COSTS AND FUNDING MECHANISMS
7.2.1 Estimating Program Costs
7.2. Financing Sources and Cost Recovery Svstens....
7.3 INFORMATION ON RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR THE PROGRAM
SUBMISSION
8. APPROVAL AND IMPLE NTATION
8.1 APPROVAL
8.1.1 Approval Procedures a Final Pretreatment
Program
8.1.2 Special Cases
8.2 IMPLEMENTATION
8.2.1 Ongoing Activit]
8.2.2 Program Effecti’. -. -s
8.2.3 Oversight
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
- APPENDICES
Pretreatment Infort’ ation Contac
Bibliography of Pre reatment Re rences
General Pretreatment R- ulations for Existing and New Sources
and Amendments
Priority Pollutants and Categorical Industry Information
Sample Pretreatment Compliance Schedule
Blank Worksheets
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
7—1
7—1
0
—29
3—1
8—1
8—2
8—3
8-4
5—5
8—5
3—7
-------
APPENDIX C Checklist for ?retreacment Program Submission
APPENDIX H Sample tndustr .a1 Jaste Survey Questionnaire
APPENDIX I EPA Model Ordinance
APPENDIX J Sample Sewer Use Permit
APPENDIX K Sample Attorney’s Statement
APPENDIX L Development of Discharge Limits to Control lncompatib.e
Pollutants
APPENDIX M Sample Coilec ion and Preservation Procedures
iv
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Water Enforcement
and Permits
October 1983
( A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST) .
Procedures Manual
for Reviewing a POTW
Pretreatment Program
Submission
J
—
—
“I
I
Iii
INCINERATION
III
StramlOcean
-------
( UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
-
OCT 5 1983 0PFICE0F
WATER
M EMORAN DUM
SUBJECT: Pretreatment Program Guidance
TO: Users of the Procedures Manual for Reviewing a
POTW Pretreatment Program Submission
j J.
FROM: ebecca W. Hanmer
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water (WH—556)
This manual presents the procedures for EPA Regions and
approved States to review local POTW pretreatment program submis-
sions. It facilitates the determination whether the submittal
contains the data and information required by the General Pretreat-
ment Regulations ( 40 CFR Part 403), and whether the program is
approvab].e. It provides the reviewers with a suggested separate
checklist for reviewing each program element.
EPA Regional offices and States with approved programs must
continue their efforts to review and approve local POTW pretreat-
ment programs in their respective geographical areas. The approval
of local POTW pretreatment programs is the cornerstone of the
Agency’s national pretreatment program.
While this approval is critical to the success of the national
pretreatment program, Approval Authorities must ensure that all
substantive. parts of the local pretreatment program are present
when the p ram is approved. Prematurely approving incomplete
programs m cause major probleme ‘in the future. In Instances
where a se snt of the program is not fully developed when the
program is approved. tbenrthe Approval Authority and the POTW
should publicly document (preferably in writing) that a segment
of the program is not fully established and that it will be
developed after approval in accordance with an agreed upon time
table.
-------
- ‘ ‘WA .J 3P# OiflV!ty2rr1? -
‘
Approval Authorities can use this manual to review and
approve any local POTW pretreatment program. However, when usj
the manual and its checklists, these Authorities must understand
that the manual is for guidance and its use must be tailored to
the complexity and size Of the program under review. A program
developed by a small POTW with relatively few industrial users
Should not be reviewed in the Same manner as a program developed
by a large POTW with many industrial users. The level of detail
and Sophistication in the former program will naturally be less
than in the latter program. Approval Authorities must bear this
f act in mind when using this manual.
I believe that Approval Authority personnel will find this
manual to be a useful tool in reviewing local POTW pretreatment
program submissions on a consistent basis. As this guidance may
be revised Periodically to reflect program experience or changes
in program regulations, please feel free to write to the Office
of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—338) if you have suggestjo 5
on how the guidance may be improved or areas which should be
addressed. Thank you.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS -
3. TECHNIC L INFORMATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . 3—1
3.1 INDUSTR j., WASTE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . 3—1
3.1.1 Adequacy of the Survey Master List . . . . . . • • • . 3—2
3.1.2- of Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 3—3
3.1.3 Reeponee to Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—5
3.1.4 .Co pleten sg of Su mary Information. . . . . .. . . . 3—5
3.2 LO EFFLUENT LIMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—6
3.W Identification of Past POTW Operating Problem. . • . . 3—7
3.2.2 Sa ftag Malysia. to Deter ins F at an Zfta t . • 3-8
3.2.3 Developsent. of Local EffluentIAI.ilts . . 3—10
.r . . . ‘. uj rl rc L q • I
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL. . . .
1.2 ROW TO USE THIS MANUAL. . . .
1.3 COMMENTING ON PROGRAM SUBMISSIONS
2. LEGAL AUTHORITY. . . . . . . . . . .
2.1 SUBMISSION COMPLETENESS . . .
2.1.1 Relevant Regulations .
2.1.2 Evaluation of Completeness
2.2 EVALUATION OF ATTORNEY’S STATEMENT.
2.2.1 Relevant Regulations .
2.2.2 Evaluation of Statement.
2.3 LEGAL ADEQUACY. . . . . . . .
2.3.1 Relevant Regulations . .
2.3.2 Evaluation of Adequacy
2.4 MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SUBMISSIONS
2.5 LEGAL AUTHORITY CHECKLIST . .
1—1
1—1
• . . . . . • . . . • • . 1—2
. . . . . . . . . • . . . 1—3
• . . 2—1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—2
• . . . . . . . . . . • . 2—2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—3
• . . . . . . . . • . . . 2—3
. . . . . . . . . • . . . 2—4
. . . • . . . . . . . . . 2—5
• . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—5
• . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—13
2—14
i.
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS (cont)
4—4
4—5
4—i
4—9
4—12
s—i
5—1
5—2
5—3
5—4
5—5
5—5
5—6
5—6
5—11
5—12
5—15
5—18
4—1
4—1
4—2
4—3
4. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES. . - . . . . . . . . . . . •
4.1 UPDATE THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE SURVEY. . . . . . . . . . . . •
4.2 NOTIFY INDUSTRIAL USERS OF APPLICABLE STANDARDS
AND REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 UNDERTAKE COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROCEDURES. . . . . . . . .
4.3.1 Receive and Analyze Self—Monitoring Reports
and Other Notices. . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • •
4.3.2 Conduct Compliance Sampling and Analysis . . . .
4.3.3 Investigate Noncompliance. . . . . . - . . . . .
4.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . .
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES CHECKLIST . . . . . . -
5. ORGANIZATION, STAFFING, EQUIPMENT, AND FUNDING . . . . . . .
5 • 1 RELEVANT REGULATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 EVALUATION OF ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Clear and Appropriate Lines of Authority . . . .
5.2.2 Identification of Staff Responsibilities - . . .
5.2.3 Staff Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.4 Staffing Levels. . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . .
5.2.5 Coordination with Other Departments. . . . . . . - .
5.3 EVALUATION OF EQUIPMENT . . - . . . . . . . . . . . - .
5.4 EVALUATION OF FUNDING . • . . . . . • . . - . . . . . .
5.4.1 ImplementationCoats. . •....• . . . .
5..Ie.2 Financing Sources and Cost Recovery Systems. . .
RESOURCES CHECKLIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDI BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PRETREATMENT REFERENCES. . . .
-
I • 1%
APPENDII I ELONt4ENT OP DISCHARGE LIMItATIONS TO CONTRC
•INCO)Wk2’IBLE POLLUTA Soi.:. .‘ . • • • 4jQid .E. .. ;
APPENDIX C . PRIO*IT POLLUTANTS. AND. CLTEGORICALINDgSIfl INFelitAflow
• • . A—i
.8-1
c-i
ii.
-------
LIST OF tABLES AND’ VORXSHEETS
Page
WORKSHEET 1. LEGALAUTHORITYCHECKLIST. • • • • • • • • • • e • • • 2—15
WORKSHEET 2 TECHNICAL INFORMATION CHECKLIST. . . . . . . . . . . . 3—12
WORKSHEET 3 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES CHECKLIST. . . . . . 4—12
WORKSHEET4 RESOURCESCEECKLIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—18
TABLE 5-1 POTW PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PERSONNEL
REQUIREMENT RANGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—7
TABLE 5—2 ESTIMATED POTW PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR A POTW
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM BY PERSONNEL CATEGORIES . . . . . 5—8
TABLE 5—3 ESTIMATED POTW PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR A POTW
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM BY PROGRAM ACTIVITY . . . . . . . 5—9
TABLE 5—4 TYPICAL EQUIPMENT FOR A TWO—MAN FIELD SAMPLING CREW. . 5—13
TABLE 5—5 TYPICAL COMMERCIAL LABORATORY COSTS. . . . . . . . . . 5—14
TABLE 5—6 FACTORS AFFECTING POTW LEVELS OF EFFORT FOR
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM OPERATING TASKS . . . . . . . . . 5—16
TABLE 5-7 HYPOTHETICAL PON PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
OPERATIONALCOSTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—17
iii
-------
S? 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
pqO1 ’
L 29 Ifl D’)
WATER
14 ENORANDUM
SUBJECT: Application Requirements for Modifications Under
Sections .s01(c) and 301(g) of the Clean Water Act
TO: Regional Administrators
State NPDES Directors
Director, NEIC
FROM: Bruce R. Barrett, Director
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
An attorney representing electrical generating facilities
has called to our attention a possible problem in the requirements
for timing of submittal of requests for modifications under
sections 301(c) and 301(g) of the Clean Water Act. The deadline
established by the Clean Water Act for requesting a 301(c) or
301(g) modification may conflict in some cases with deadlines
established by existing NPDES regulations at 40 CFR §122.53(i)(2).
The regulation requires a “completed request” for a modification
to be submitted by the close of the public comment period on the
permit. This could, depending on the date of promulgation of the
guideline, be much earlier than 270 days after promulgation of
the guideline as provided by section 301(J) of the Act.
It may not always be possible for an applicant to complete
his request fora 301(c) or 301(g) modification by the end of
the public comment period as required by 40 CFR §122.53(i)(2)(ii).
This problem can especially arise when the permitting authority
provides public notice of a draft permit containing best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) limitations from recently
promulgated effluent limitations guidelines.
In the preamble to the June 7, 1979 NPDES regulations, the
Agency addressed the timing issue as follows:
-------
—2—
In some cases, draft permits will contain
effluent limits that are not based on effluent
guidelines but may still be eligible for
variances. In those cases, it would be
impossible to submit supporting evidence that
a variance should be granted during the
30-day period of public comment. Therefore,
in those cases, and in other cases the Agency
believes appropriate, the Regional Administrator
may grant an extension for up to six months to
allow the applicant to complete his or her
submission .
44 FR 32882 (June 7, 1979) (Emphasis Added).
We bring this language to your attention now to ensure that you
consider its use in situations where 301(c) or (g) requests
address limitations based on recently promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines.
Effluent Limitations Guidelines Limitations
Strict application of the NPDES regulations (40 CFR §122.53(i)
(2)(ii)) may preclude an applicant from submitting a completed
request for modification under section 301(c) or 301(g) related
to effluent limitations based on recently promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines. The statutory 270 day period for applica-
tions tor modifications necessarily supercedes any shorter period
required for a “completed request” required by 40 CFR §122.53(i)
(2)(ii). In addition, even if the applicant has had 270 days for
filing an initial request for modification, 40 CFR §l22.53(k)(2)
would allow the Regional Administrator, where appropriate, to
grant an extension of up to six additional months.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact
Martha Prothro, Director, Permits Division (FTS or (202) 755—2545).
Attachme nts
cc: Regional Water Management Division Directors
Scott Slaughter
Hunton and Williams
-------
Attachment I
40 CFR §122.53(i)(2) provides that
§122.53 Application for a permit.
Ci) Variance requests by non—POTWs.
.. .
(2) Non—conventional pollutants.
A request for a variance from the BAT require-
ments for CWA section 301(b)(2)(F) pollutants
(commonly called “non—conventional” pollutants)
pursuant to section 301(c) of CWA because of
the economic capability of the owner or
operator, or pursuant to section 301(g) of
CWA because of certain environmental consider-
ations, when those requirements were based on
effluent limitations guidelines, must be made
by:
(i) Submitting an initial request to
the Regional Administrator, as well as
to the State Director if applicable,
stating the name of discharger, the permit
number, the outfall number(s), the appli-
cable effluent guideline, and whether the
discharger is requesting a section 301(c)
or section 301(g) modification or both.
This request must have been filed not
later than:
(A) September 25, 1978, for a pollutant
which is controlled by a BAT effluent
limitation guideline promulgated before
December 27, 1977; or
(B) 270 days after promulgation of an
applicable effluent limitation guideline
for guidelines promulgated after
December 27, 1977; and
(ii) Submitting a completed request no
later than the close of the public comment
period under §124.10 demonstrating that
the requirements of §124.13 and the
applicable requirements of Part 125
have been met.
(iii) Requests for variances from
effluent limitations not based on effluent
limitations guidelines, need only comply
with paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section
and need not be preceded by an initial
request under paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this
section.
45 FR 33444—33445 (May 19, 1980).
-------
32882 Federal Register I Vol .
Attachment II
44. No. 111 / Lrsay. J.Lrie 7. 197g
I Rules and Regulations
under the Clean Water Act and are
therefore subject to the same procedures
that apply to permits generally.
In response to comments. affected
States are now included in 124.44(c).
This revision clarifies the right of such
States under sections 402(b)(5) and
401(a)(2) of the Act to require more
stringent requirements so that a
discharge of another State does not
violate its water quality standards.
§ 124.45 Reopening of comment period.
Proposed § 124.44 (now § 124 45)
allowed for reopening of a comment
period (or reproposal of a permit) at the
discretion of the RegP nal
Administrator.
Several comments suggested an
automatic “reply comment” period in
which the discharger and others could
respond to points made during the main
comment period. EPA agrees that this
may be a good idea in some specific
cases. but it could be unnecessarily
burdensome if required by regulation in
all cases. Therefore, the proposal has
not been changed.
Subpart F.—Spec:al Provisions for
Variances and Statutory Modifications
In response to sevcral suggestions, the
procedures for variances have all been
placed in a single Subpart. This revision
is done to present the public with an
organized view of how variances will be
handled within the normal permit
procedures.
Under the Clean Water Act and the
former regulations, there are more than
a do:en different statutory or regulatory
provisions on which permit
requirements could be based, and seven
provisions under which a variance from
those provisions could be granted. Many
of these provisions are not covered in
the existing regulations, and where they
are, the references are scattered through
various parts of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Subpart F deals with the problems in
two ways. First, it consolidates into one
Federal Register Subpart the formes
procedures for making decisions on
permit terms contained in 40 CFR Parts
122 and 402 (relating to thermal
discharge requirements) and the former
Part 124.
Second. it specifies where in the
sequence. “application—draft permit—
comment—final permit”. permit actions
other than the simple one of deciding on
permit applications should fit.
In particular. it provides that
whenever possible. a variance must be
appLed for before the close of comment
on a draft permit. This will ensure that
there is an opportunx y to consider all
the relevant issues before deciding the
terms of a final permit and that issues
are not raised at a later date for
pu.”poses of delay. The regulations also
provide that where a variance is
properly requested after this stage but
before a permit has become final under
§ 124 101. the decision on the variance
will still be maie through the same
permit procedures that apply to other
permits. This will be done in appropriate
cases by issuing a new supplementary
draft permit embodying the Agency’s
response to the variance request, and-
holding action on the original permit
until the supplementary permit has
reached the same procedural stage and
the two permits can proceed together.
§ 724.51 Time deadlines for
applications for variance from and
modifications of effluent limitations.
(1) A number of comments argued that
the time limits for variance applications
set forth in proposed § 124.14 were too
strict. These comments have been
accepted in a number of particulars.
(a) The statute requires applications
for variances under section 301(c) and
under section 301(g) to be submitted 270
days after promulgation of the relevant
effluent guidelines or by September 25.
1978. whichever is later. However, since
EPA has not yet issued crieteria for such
applications, it clearly would have been
unreascnable to have required a
complete applicat on by last September.
Accordingly. these regulations
incorporate the requirements of previous
interim final regulations stating that
applicants need only have submitted a
very brief notice by September 25. 1978,
(or within 270 days of the promulgation
of an applicable effluent g’.iideline) to
qualify onder that deadline. See 43 FR
40859 (Sept 13. 1978).
Similarly, in the case of section 301(h).
§ 124.51(c)(1) revises proposed 40 CFR
§ 233.32 to indicate that a preliminary
application must have been submitted to
EPA by the statutory deadline, but the
final application should not be filed until
the section 301(h) criteria are
promulgated in final form in Part 125,
Subpart C. The criteria, when
promulgated, will also specify the
method of. and timing for, making a final
application. This revision to the timing
requirement is necessary because the
statutory deadline has passed and EPA
has not yet issued section 301(h) criteria.
(b) Dischargers who wish to be
considered for a section 301(c) or
section 301(g) variance will be required
to comply with the substantive
requirements of § 124.43 and Part 125
(once they are promulgated) by the close
of the public commer.t period of their
draft permits.
In some cases. draft perm ts wiLl
contain effluent limits that are not based
on effluent guidelines but may sc ll be
eligible for variances In those cases. it
would be impossible to submit
supporting ev dence that a ‘.anance
should be granted during the 30.day
period of public comment Therefore. in
those cases. and in other cases the
Agency believes appropr:ate. the
Regional Administrator may grant an
extension for up to six months to allow
the applicant to complete his or her
submission.
However, there w ll be many times
when waiting until the last minute of the
comment period would not be in the
interest of the permitting process, the
applicant, or the public. Therefore, in
those cases where it is clear that a
discharger will be submitting an
application for a variance, the Director
may require the applicant to submit that
application in full before the draft
permit is formulated. This requirement is
intended to reduce the time for permit
issuance, especially in those cases
where it is clear that a variance or
modification will be applied for, such as
where the discharger has submitted the
270 day application for a sect Ion 301(c)
or 301(g) variance ( 124 51(bJ(2)(i)) or
where a fundamentaEy different factors
variance is still pending on the first
permit. This will lower the permit
processing costs for the permitting
agencies. the applicant and the public
because there will no longer be a draft
permit subject to a public notice that is
irrelevant to the issues in the final
permit.
§ 12452 Decisions on variances and
modifications which EP.4 or the State
can granL
Section 124 52 explains how decisions
will be made on variances. There i s a
distinction between the vanances and
modifications EPA and the States may
grant and those the Act requires that
only EPA may grant.
(1) Many comxnenters obLected to EPA
and not approved N’PDES States making
variance determinations for
fundamentally different factors
variances, economic variances.
environmental variances, and section
301(h) secondary treatment waivers.
These commenters thought the States
with NPDES authority have the
authority to rule on these particular
variances.
The 1972 Amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act carefully
spell out the relationship between the
Federal Government and the States in
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 0011 C
OFFICE OF
WATER
JAN 16 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Continuance of NPDES General Permit Under the APA
FROM: Bruce R. Barrett,
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
Regional Counsels
We have received a number of inquiries as to whether
continuation of expired general permits is allowed under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the NPDES regulations;
A recent Office of General Counsel (0CC) Opinion (attached)
indicates that such continuance is legally permissible. However,
there are important reasons for EPA not to rely on APA Continu-
ance except in extreme cases wh re permit reissuance is delayed
for unexpected or unavoidable reasons. This memorandum addresses
the general permit reissuance process in light of OGC’s recent
review of the Continuance issue.
SUMMARY
NPDES general permits may be continued under the APA
where the Agency has failed to reissue the permit prior to
expiration. Although continuance is legally permissible,
permits should be continued only as a last resort and Continuance
should be avoided by timely reissuarice of general permits
wherever possible.
Because of the geographic scope of general permits and the
number of facilities covered, continuance could raise questions
as to whether EPA has adequately considered long—term cumulative
environmental impacts, exacerbate the permit issuance backlog,
and create new issues or workload problems associated with new
facility permits since new facilities cannot be covered by a
continued permit. Continuance is generally avoidable given
adequate planning. Where continuance is unavoidable, it should
be for the shortest possible time. Upon determining that a
general permit will not be reissued prior to expiration, the
-------
—2—
Regional Water Management Division Director should inform the
Permits Division Director and provide a specific schedule for
completing reissuance.
IMPLEMENTATION -
The following requirements govern the continuance of
general permits:
o. Only those facilities authorized to discharge under
the expiring general permit are covered by the
continued permit. I
o Where the notification requirements of a general
permit provide permit coverage prior to the actual
coI iencement of operations at a site (e.g., mobile
seafood processors and oji and gas drilling vessels)
facilities providing such notice prior to expiration
are covered by the conttnued permit.
o At least six months prior to the expiration date of a
general permit, the Regional Water Management Division
Director should submit a draft general permit and a
schedule for permit issuance or reissuance to the
Permits Division Director. If a draft general permit
is not ready at that time, an explanation of the reasons
for delay and a schedule for permit development and
reissuance, should be submitted instead. The Permits
Division Director will expedite permit issuance and
reissuance processes at headquarters as much as possible
and will inform upper management in the Office of
Water of any significant delays.
DISCUSSION
As with individual NPDES permits, it may become necessary
to administratively continue a general NPDES permit when re—
issuance of the permit or issuance of a new permit is impossible
before permit- expiration. The APA allows for continuance of a
Federal license or permit when a permittee has made a timely
and complete application for a new permit. Until OGC’s recent
review of the issue, OWEP had advised the R gional Offices
that general permits could not be continued under the APA
because the NPDES regulations do not require applications for
general permits. OWEP requested that OGC review and provide a
written opinion on this issue since a number of parties had
questioned our legal position. On November 17, 1983, OGC informed
OWEP that general permits can legally be continued under the
APA.
-------
—3—
There are a number of strong policy and program reasons to
ssure timely reissuance rather than relying on APA continuance.
zany general permits cover several dozens or even hundreds of
individual facilities. The large number of facilities covered
and the broad geographic coverage tend to focus industry and
public attention on Agency inaction when the permit is allowed
to expire, especially in the early stages of implementation of
the general permit program.
Many general permits are controversial at the time of
initial permit issuance. Similar controversies can be antici-
pated during reissuance. EPA cannqt allow the public to
perceive that we are avoiding these issues through administrative
continuance of expired permits. For example, cumulative en-
vironmental impact assessments hinge on the number and volume
of discharges. Information gathered during the term of the
original permit may justify new permit limitations, ter ns and
conditions at the time of reissuance. For marine dischargers,
determinations pursuant to §403(;) of the Clean Water Act are
usually dependent on the estimates of the number of facilities
that will discharge during the term of the permit. Delay in
updating these determinations raises questions about potential
environmental impacts and the efficacy of permit conditions.
Similar issues arise where there have been new standards or
effluent limitation guidelines promulgated during the course
‘f the permit or changes in the CWA or applicable requirements
der other applicable statutes (e.g., Coastal Zone Management
act, Endangered Species Act).
Finally, a major goal of the general permit program is to
reduce the Agency’s NPDES permit issuance backlog. Allowing
general permits to expire aggravates the backlog problems. In
addition, new dischargers would not be covered until EPA re-
issued the general permit. Since these facilities would be
liable for discharge without a permit, they would likely request
an individual permit and be required to submit a full application
and do appropriate testing. This creates a permit issuance
workload demand that would be avoided by timely reissuance of
the general permit, as well as putting burdens on permit appli-
cants that would be removed by reissuance of the general permit.
Given the drawbacks and problems, administrative continuance
of general permits should be the exception rather than the rule.
Adequate planning and timely permit preparation will allow us
to avoid the necessity to use administrative continuance except
as a stop gap, short term measure. The Office of Water Enforce-
ment and Permits will work with the Regions to avoid continuance
wherever possible.
c: Colburn T. Cherney 1 0CC
c t achment
-------
s ST41a . ss
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
‘ L pqØ1 5 ’
.jrI -‘L.. OFFICEOF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Federal Register (FR) Publication Requirements for
Draft and Final General NPDES Permits
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I, II, III, IV, VI, VIII, IX and X
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Directorç.
Permits Division (EN—336) \V\
Until the Office of Management and Budget COMB) waived
review of EPA issued general permits on November 3, 1983, the
Permits Division used OMB’s review period to correct FR format
problems in any pending permits. We can no longer provide that
service without delaying permit publication and issuance.
The Office of Standards and Regulations has prepared a
checklist for all FR submissions and has advised us that documents
will be returned to our office if they are not properly prepared
and submitted. Therefore, we are requesting that your staff
ensure that each notice is complete and correct before it is
submitted to us.
Executive Order 12291
With the waiver of Executive Order review, all general permit fact
sheets and/or FR notices should contain the following statement:
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action
from the review requirements of Executive Order 12291 pursuant
to Section 8Eb] of that order.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
All notices and/or permit fact sheets should contain the
following statement:
-------
—2—
After review of the facts presented in the notice printed
above, I hereby certify pursuant to the provisions of 5
U.s.c. 605(b) that this (these) general NPDES permit(s) do
(will) not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Moreover, the permit(s) reduce(s) a
significant administrative burden on regulated sources.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
In most cases, all of the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in a general permit are covered under existing generic
information collection clearance requests (ICR5).* Where the
requirements are already covered by our generic IcRs, the general
permitshould contain the following statement:
EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated
facilities in this (these) draft (final) general permit(s)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq . The information collection requirements of this
(these) permit(s) have already been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget in submissions made for the NPDES
permit program under the provisions of the Clean Water
Act.
Should the Region be aware of or should Headquarters identify a
permit requirement(s) that is not covered by an existing ICR, an
estimate of the burden hours associated with the provision(s)
must be prepared by the Region arid submitted with each general
permit. The Permits Division will prepare the required material
for 0MB review under the PRA at the time of publication of the
draft permit in the FR. 0MB is required to comment on paperwork
issues during the public comment period. In such cases the
required language is:
For draft permits:
EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed in regulated
facilities in this (these) draft general NPDES permit(s)
* Generally, information collection requirements provided for
specifically in the NPDES regulations have been covered by the
Permits Division in its generic ICR submitted to 0MB. However,
these clearances basically cover only routine information
collection. Activities such as underwater diving inspections,
monitoring required pursuant to section 403(c) guidelines, etc.
would not be covered. (Please feel free to consult with us on
any specific requirements for which the status of a clearance
request is unclear.)
-------
—3—
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.s.c. 3501
.et seq . The information collection requirements of the
permit(s), with the exception of Part(s) ( insert section
number and titles from permit) , have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (0MB) in submissions made
for the NPDES permit program under the provisions of the
Clean Water Act. Estimates of the burden hours associated
with these excepted provisions have been prepared and
submitted to 0MB for review at the time of publication of
this notice.
For final permits:
No comments from 0MB or the public were received on the in-
formation collection requirements in this (these) permit(s).
or
Any comments to EPA from 0MB or the public on the infor-
mation collection requirements in the (these) permit(s)
appear in the public comment, section of this notice at
.
Please be advised that clearance of new requirements not covered
by the generic requests could delay permit issuance due to 0MB
review. However, where such requirements are necessary or appro-
priate, they should be imposed and the anticipated small increase
in overall burdens of the program should be defensible. Major
delays for this reason are unlikely in my judgment.
General Administrative Requirements
1. The document should be correctly classified as a proposed or
final permit in the title.
2. The document should contain each of the preamble elements.
AGENCY, ACTION, SUMMARY, DATES, ADDRESSES, FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
3. The SUMMARY should state in a sentence or two what you’re
doing, why you’re doing it, and the intended effect of the
action.
4. The pages should be numbered at the top.
5. The document should be double spaced and printed in 12 pitch.
6. All signatures should be followed by a signature block. (If
someone signs for the Regional Administrator or the Water
-------
—4—
Management Division Director, include both names in the
signature block (e.g., L. Edwin Coate Acting for, Ernesta
Barnes, Regional Administrator).
7. The submission should contain an S.F. 2340—15 Federal Register
Typesetting Form with the required signatures in place.
8. The cost of publishing the document should be estimated
as follows:
2 pages = 1 FR column = $136.00
photocopied pages = $350.00 (i.e., maps or reprinted
effluent limitations pages)
If you or your staff have further questions on these matters
please contact Michelle Hiller of my staff (426—4793). Your
efforts to ensure that these documents are properly prepared will
eliminate unnecessary delays in Federal Register submissions.
cc: Water Management Division Directors
Regions V and VIII
Director, Enforcement Division, OWEP
-------
Sr 4
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 j 1I
/3/ / OFF ICE OF
WATER
Policy for the Development of Water Quality—Based
Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants
STATEMENT OF POLICY
To control pollutants beyond Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT), secondary treatment, and other
Clean Water Act technology—based requirements in order to
meet water quality standards, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) will use an integrated strategy consisting of
both biological and chemical methods to address toxic and
nonconventiona]. pollutants from industrial and municipal
sources. Where State standards contain numerical criteria for
toxic pollutants, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits will contain limits as necessary to
assure compliance with these standards. In addition to en-
forcing specific numerical criteria, EPA and the States will
use biological techniques and available data on chemical
effects to assess toxicity 4.mpacts and human health hazards
based on the general standard of “no toxic materials in toxic
amounts.”
EPA, in its oversight role, will work with States to
ensure that these techniques are used wherever appropriate.
Under section 308 and section 402 of the Clean Water Act (the
Act), EPA or the State may require NPDES permit applicants to
provide chemical, toxicity, and instream biological data neces-
sary to assure compliance with standards. Data requirements
may be determined on a case—by—case basis in consultation
with the State and the discharger.
Where violations of water quality standards are identified
or projected, the State will be expected to develop water
quality—based effluent limits for inclusion in any issued
permit. Where necessary, EPA will develop these limits in
consultation with the State. Where there is a sign -ificant
likelihood of toxic effects to biota in the receiving water,
EPA and the States may impose permit limits on effluent tox-
icity and may require an NPDES perinittee to conduct a toxicity
reduction evaluation. Where toxic effects are present but
‘-here is a significant likelihood that compliance with tech—
ology—based requirements will sufficiently mitigate the effects,
-------
—2—
EPA and the States may require chemical and toxicity testing
after installation of treatment and may reopen the permit to
incorporate additional limitations if needed to meet water
quality standards. (Toxicity data, which are considered “new
information” in accordance with 40 CFR 122.62(a)(2), could
constitute cause for permit modification where necessary.)
To carry out this policy, EPA Regional Administrators will
assure that each Region has the capability to conduct water
quality assessments using both biological and chemical methods
and provide technical assistance to the States.
BACKGROU ND
The Clean Water Act establishes two principal bases for
effluent limitations. Pirst, existing dischargers are required
to meet technology—based effluent limitations that reflect the
best controls available considering economic impacts. New source
dischargers must meet the best demonstrated technology—based
controls. Second, where necessary, additional requirements are
imposed to assure attainment and maintenance of water quality
standards established by the States and approved by EPA. In
establishing or reviewing NPDES permit limits, EPA must ensure
that the limits will result in the attainment of water quality
standards and protect designated water uses, including an adequate
margin of safety.
For., toxic and nonconventional pollutants it may be difficult
in some situations to determine attainment or nonattainment
of water quality standards and set appropriate limits because of
complex chemical interactions which affect the fate and ultimate
impact of toxic substances in the receiving water. In many
cases, all potentially toxic pollutants cannot be identified
by chemical methods. In such situations, it is more feasible to
examine the whole effluent toxicity and instream impacts using
biological methods rather than attempt to identify all toxic
pollutants, determine the effects of each pollutant individually,
and then attempt to assess their collective effect.
The scientific basis for using biological techniques has
advanced significantly in recent years. There is now a general
consensus that an evaluation of effluent toxicity, when
adequately related to instrearn conditions, can provide a valid
indication of receiving system impacts. This information can
be useful in developing regulatory requirements to protect
aquatic life, especially when data from toxicity testing are
analyzed in conjunction with chemical and ecological data.
Generic human health effects methods, such as the Ames mutegen—
icity test, and structure—activity relationship techniques are
showing promise and should be used to identify potential hazards.
However, pollutant—specific techniques are the best way to
evaluate and control human health hazards at this time.
-------
—3—
Biological testing of effluents is an important aspect of
the water quality—based approach for controlling toxic pol-
lutants. Effluent toxicity data in conjunction with other data
can be used to establish control priorities, assess compliance
with State water quality standards, and set permit limitations
to achieve those standards.’ All States have water quality
standards which include narrative statements prohibiting the
discharge of toxic materials in toxic amounts. A few State stan-
dards have criteria more specific than narrative criteria (for
example, numerical criteria for specific toxic pollutants or a
toxicity criterion to achieve designated uses). In States where
numerical criteria are not specified, a judgment by the regula-
tory authority is required to set quantitative water quality—
based limits on chemicals and effluent toxicity to assure cornpli-
ance with water quality standards.
APPL ICAT ION
This policy applies to EPA and the States. The policy
addresses the use of chemical and biological methods for assuring
that effluent discharges are regulated in accordance with Federal
and State requirements. This policy was prepared, in part, in
response to concerns raised by litigants to the Consolidated
Permit Regulations (see 47 Federal Register 52079, November 18,
1982). Use of these methods for developing water quality
standards and trend monitoring are discussed elsewhere (see
48 Federal Register 51400, November 8, 1983 and Basic Water
Monitoring Program EPA—440/9—76—025). This policy is part of
EPA’S water quality—based control program and does not supercede
other regulations, policy, and guidance regarding use attain-
ability, site—specific criteria modification, waste]oad allocation,
and water quality management.
IMPLEMENTATION
State role—
The control of toxic substances to protect water quality
must be done in the context of the Federal—State partnership.
EPA will work cooperatively with the States in identifying
potential water quality standards violations, assembling relevant
1 Section 308 of the Act and corresponding State statutes
authorize EPA and the States to require of the owner/operator
any information reasonably required to determine permit limits
and to determine compliance with standards or permit limits.
Biological methods are specifically mentioned. Toxicity permit
limits are authorized under Section 301 and 402 and supported by
Section 101.
-------
—4—
data, developing appropriate testing requirements, determining
whether standards are being violated, and defining appropriate
permit limits. 2
Integration of approaches—
The type of testing that is most appropriate for assessing
water quality impacts depends on the type of effluent and dis-
charge situation. EPA recommends that an integrated approach,
including both biological, and chemical techniques, be used to
assess and control water quality. The principal advantages of
chemical—specific techniques are that (1) chemical analyses
are usually less expensive than biological measurements in
simple cases; (2) treatment systems are more easily designed to
meet chemical requirements than toxicity requirements; and (3)
human health hazards and bioaccumulatjve pollutants can best be
addressed at this time by chemical—specific analysis. The prin-
cipal advantages of biological techniques are that (1) the
effects of complex discharges of many known and unknown con-
stituents can be measured only by biological analyses; (2) bio—
availability of pollutants after discharge is best measured
by toxicity testing; and (3) pollutants for which there are
inadequate chemical analytical methods or criteria can be -
addressed.
Pollutant—specific chemical analysis techniques should be
used where discharges contain a few, well—quantified pollutants
and the interactions and effects of the pollutants are known.
In addition, pollutant—specific techniques should be used where
health hazards are a concern or bioaccumu].atjon is suspected.
Biological techniques should be used where effluents are complex
or where the combined effects of multiple discharges are of
concern. EPA recognizes that in many cases both types of
analysis must be used.
Testing requirements—
Requirements for discharger’s to collect information to
assess attainment or nonattairunent of State water quality stan-
dards will, be imposed only in selected cases where the potential
for nonattainment of water quality standards exists. Where
water quality problems are suspected but there is a strong in-
dication that complying with BCT/BAT will sufficiently mitigate
the impacts, EPA recommends that applicable permits include
testing requirements effective after BCT/BAT compliance and
reopener clauses allowing reevaluation of the discharge.
2 Under section 303 and 401 of the Act, States are given primary
responsibility for developing water quality standards and limits
to meet those standards. EPA’s role is to review the State
standards and limits and develop revised or additional standards
or limits as needed to meet the requirements of the Act.
-------
—5—
The chemical, physical, and biological testing to be con-
ducted by individual dischargers should be determined on a case—
by—case basis. In making this determination, many factors ‘nust
be considered, including the degree of impact, the complexity
and variability of the discharge, the water body type and hydro-
logy, the potential for human health impact, the amount of existing
data, the level of certainty desired in the water quality assessment,
other sources of pollutants, and the ecology of the receiving
water. The specific data needed to measure the effect that a
discharger has on the receiving water will vary according to
these and other factors.
An assessment of water quality should, to the extent prac-
ticable, include other point and nonpoint sources of pollutants
if the sources may be contrP-uting to the impacts. Special
attention should be focused on Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTW’s) with a significant contribution of industrial wastewater.
Recent studies have indicated that such POTW’s are often signi-
ficant sources of toxic materials. When developing monitoring
requirements, interpreting data, and determining limitations,
permit engineers should work closely with water quality staff at
both the State and Federal levels.
A discharger may be required to provide data upon request
under section 30R of the Act, or such a requirement may be
included in its NPDES permit. The development of a final assess-
ment may require several iterations of data collection. Where
potential problems are identified, EPA or the State may require
monitoring to determine whether more information is needed con-
cerning water quality effects.
Use of data—
Chemical, physical, and biological data will be used to
determine whether, after compliance with BCT/BAT requirements,
there will be violations of State water quality standards result-
ing from the discharge(s). The narrative prohibition of toxic
materials in toxic amounts contained in all State standards is
the basis for this determination taking into account the desig-
nated use for the receiving water. For example, discharges to
waters classified for propagation of cold water fish should be
evaluated in relation to acute and chronic effects on cold water
organisms, potential spawning areas, and effluent dispersion.
Setting permit limitations—
Where violations of water quality standards exist or are
projected, the State and EPA will determine pollution control
requirements that will attain the receiving water designated
use. Where effluent toxicity is an appropriate control para-
meter, permit limits on effluent toxicity should be developed.
In such cases, EPA may also require a perinittee to conduct a
toxicity reduction evaluation. A toxicity reduction evaluation
is an investigation conducted within a plant or municipal system
-------
—6—
to isolate the sources of effluent toxicity, determine specific
causative pollutants if possible, and determine the effec-
tiveness of pollution control options in reducing the effluent
toxicity. If specific chemicals are identified as the cause of
the water quality standards violation, these individual pol-
lutants should be limited. If a toxicity reduction evaluation
demonstrates that limiting an indicator parameter will ensure
attainment of the water quality—based effluent toxicity require-
ment, limits on the indicator parameter should be considered in
lieu of limits on effluent toxicity. Such indicator limits are
not limits on causative pollutants but limits demonstrated to
result in a specific toxicity reduction.
Monitoring—
Where pollution control requirements are expressed in terms
of a chemical or toxicological parameter, compliance monitoring
must include monitoring for that parameter, If an indicator
parameter is used based on the results of a toxicity reduction
evaluation, periodic toxicity testing may be required to confirm
the adequacy of the indicator. Where biological data were used
to develop a water quality assessment or where the potential
for water quality standards violations exist, biological
monitoring (including Lnstream monitoring) may be required to
ensure continuing compliance with water quality standards.
EPA believes that the intelligent application of an
integrated strategy using both biological and chemical techniques
for water quality assessment will facilitate the development of
appropriate controls and the attainment of water quality
standards. EPA looks forward to working with the States in a
spirit of cooperation to further refine these techniques.
— February 3, 1.984
Date Jack E. Ravan
Assistant Administrator
for Water
-------
BEPA
United States Effluent Guidelines Division February 1984
Environmental Protection and Permits Division
Agency Washington. DC 20460
Water (A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILA J UPOI\ J w br) .
Guidance Manual
for Electroplating
and Metal Finishing
Pretreatment Standards
- --- — —.—.---—.— — — ___ ___
-------
—tDe
t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
•P4(
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance Manual for Electroplating and
Metal Finishing Pretreatment Standards
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Direct
Permits Division (EN—336)
Jeffery D. Denit, Direc
Effluent Guidelines Divis
TO: Users of the Guidance Manual
This manual provides information to assist Control Authorities
and Approval Authorities in implementing the National Categorical
Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating and Metal Finishing
Point Source Categories (40 CFR Parts 413 and 433, respectively).
It is designed to supplement the more detailed documents listed
as references in the manual; it is not designed to replace them.
If you need more complete information on a specific item, you
should refer to the appropriate reference.
EPA developed this manual to fill several needs. First, it
should be useful to Control Authorities in responding to most
routine inquiries from regulated manufacturers. More complex
inquiries may require the use of the listed references.
Second, Approval Authorities should find this manual useful
in responding to specific category determination requests sub-
mitted by industries under the Electroplating and Metal Finishing
regulations. In addition, many integrated facilities have raised
questions regarding the relationship between the Electroplating
regulation and the Metal Finishing regulation and between the
Metal Finishing regulation and other regulations listed in Section
433.10 of the Metal Finishing regulation. The manual will provide
information on responding to category determination requests and
questions from Integrated facilities.
-------
—2—
Finally, the manual addresses application of the combined
wastestream formula to integrated facilities with regulated and
unregulated wastestreams. It also provides current information
on removal credits and the status of the fundamentally different
factors variance provision in light of the recent court decision.
It further explains how facilities subject to these regulations
may use the certification procedure to minimize their sampling
and analysis for total toxic organic pollutants.
We hope that POTWS will find this manual to be a useful
tool in implementing the Electroplating and Metal Finishing
Categorical Pretreatment Standards. It may also be useful in
implementing other categorical pretreatment standards. Please
feel free to write to either the Office of Water Regulations
and Standards (WH—551) or the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits (EN—336) with suggestions, additions, or improvements.
-------
TABLE OF ‘CONTENTS
PAGE
1 . INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1—1
1.1 HISTORY OF THE ELECTROPLATING AND METAL FINISHING
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS.................. ...••• 1—2
2. ELECTROPLATING CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS. ....... ...... 2-1
2 • I AFFECTED INDUSTRY. . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—1
2.2 EXCEPTIONSFROMREGULATIONCOVERAGE.................• 2—3
2.3 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR THE ELECTROPLATING CATEGORY.... 2—4
2.4 POLLUTANTSEXCLUDEDFROMREGULATION....... ...... .. ..• 2—7
2 • 5 COMPLIANCE DATES • • • • • . • . . • . . . • • • . • • • . . . • . . • • • . . . • • . • . . . • . • 2—7
3. METAL FINISHING CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS............. 3—1
3.1 AFFECTED INDUSTRY......................................... 3—1
3.2 EXCEPTIONS FROM REGULATION COVERAGE....................... 3—1
3.3 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR METAL FINISHING CATEGORY....... 3—14
3.4 POLLUTANTS EXCLUDEDFROMREGULATION............ ...... . .... 3—16
3.5 COMPLIANCE DATES....... ••...... ••.• .... •..••. . ............ 3—19
3.6 ALTERNATIVECYAJ1IDELtMITATIotj.............,... . .. ... .. . . 3—19
4 • TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES. . • . . • . • . • . • . . . • . • . • . . . . . • . • • . • . . . . . . . . . . 4—1
4.1 TREATMENTOFCOMMONMETALSWASTES......................... 4—1
4.2 TREATMENTOFCOMPLEXEDMETALWABTES...................... 4—3
4.3 TREATMENTOFPRECIOUSMETALSWABTES....................... 4—3
4.4 TREATMENTOFHEXAVALENTCHROMIUM.......................... 4—4
4 • 5 TREATMENT OF CYANIDE WASTES. • . •. . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . • . 4—4
4.6 TREATMENT OF OILY WASTES...... . . . • . . • • . . . . . . • • . •.•....• . . . 4—5
4.7 IN—PLANTCONTROLOFTOXICORGMICS........................ 4—5
4.8 TREATMENT OF SLLJDGES...................................... 4—6
4.9 IN—PROCESS CONTROLTECHNOLOGIES................. .... . ... 4—6
5. REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS........... 5—1
5 • 1 INTRODUCTION. . • . • . . . . • . . • . . • . . . • . . • ...• . . . • . . . . . • . • . • . . . • . 5—1
5.2 CATEGORYDETERMINATIONREQUEST..........................,• 5—2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
5 • 3 MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF TUE GENERAL
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS. , • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . 5—2
5.3.1 BaselineMonitoringReports.................. .... •. 5—2
5.3.2 Report on Compliance. . . . . . • . . . • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 55
5.3.3 Periodic Reports on Continued Compliance........... 5—6
5.3.4 NoticeofSlugtoading............................. 5—6
5.3.5 Monitoring and Analysis to Demonstrate
Continued Compliance. • . . • . . . • • • . . . • • • • • . . . . . . • • . • . • 5—6
5.3.6 Signatory Requirements for Industrial
User Reports....................... .•••......•..... 5_.7
5.3.7 Recordkeeping Requirements........ . ........ .......• 5—7
5.4 SPECIAL INDUSTRIAL SELF—MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS......... 5—7
5.4.1 Toxic Organics Certification....................... 5—7
5.4.2 Self—MonitoringforCyanide.................... .... 5—9
5.5 APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED WASTESTREAM FORMULA........... 5-9
5.6 REMOVAL CREDITS.... ••••.................. .....• .....• .. .. . 5—12
5.7 FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS VARIANCE.................. 5—21
5.8 LOCAL LIMITS...... .... ••.••............. . ................. 5—22
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • R—J
-------
MAR 61984
Joseph A. Dinkel
President
rh. Water Works Operators’ Association
of Pennsylvania
1: st View Water Authority
Pnville Island Treatment Plant
P4 vtlle Island, PennsylvanIa 15225
T ar ‘r. ! in le
Thank you for your l tters of FeP’ruary I, l9 4.
conc.rning tne policy ot th Pennsylvania Department of
Fnviri,nment 1 sources (Pennsylvania fl! R) on the discharge
ot wastewater tram water treatment plant..
T!m Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that dtschargers o
ltutants to navigabl, waters obtain Mational Pollutant
t)ischarge Flii ination Sy te (P4PD S) permits containing, at
a iinimum, technology—based effluent limitation, reflecting
various levels of wastewater treatment and, where necessary,
“ore tr1nqent limitations necessary to assure attainment and
uaintenance of State water quality standards. The concept of
t ’chnology—based requirc menta a. a basi, for water pollution
control was mandated by Congress in the ?.d.ral Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of l 72 and reaffirmed In
the t 77 amendments to the CWA. This concept requires that
all diachargers of pollutants meet ainit standards based
on what can be achieved, regardless of water quality impact.
Only after determination of the minimum technology-based
requirements can th effect of th. discharg. on the receiving
water be considered in d.t.rainirg if more stringent
limitations are mecessary to prot.ct th• receiving wst•r
quality.
The Invtrei .ntal Protection Ag.ricy (IPA) baa not
promulgated any role establi.hiaq tschaology -basd .tflmeat
limitations qsidlinos applicabl. g.a.rally to meter trsata.nt
plants. Due to eats fact, our regulations require that Cbs
t.chaology..ba..d of I luont limitations for Cbs d lnshar..
from a maCor trea .t plant be establish.d by Cbs DU
-------
permitting authority on a ea.e—by—casø basis using best
professional judgment (BPJ) under Section 402(a)(l) of the
CWA. The NPDSS permitting authority must consider the
apçropriate factors contained in Sect Ion 304 of the CWA to
establish the technology—based effluent limitations for the
tiischarge from the water treatment plant. In the case of
water treatment ,lants, the discharge of total suspended
solids (TSS) would be subject to two levels of technology-
based requirements belt practicable control technology
currently available ( PT) and best conventional pollutant
control technology (ACT). In determining the technoloqy—bas.d
requirements, cost factors are considered. For example, in
determining RPT the total cost of application of technology
is considered in relation to the effluent reduction benefits
to be achieved from such application.
On June 30. I9,q, PA transferred the authority to issue
NPDF S permits in Pennsylvania to the Pennsylvania DSP. The
qtate thereby s u ed responsibility for implementing the
CWA, including the minimum techncilogy—ha ed requirements
described above, The (‘WA also provides that gtat.a may
estaollsh limitations more stringent than any minimum federal
requirements.
If you have any further qeneral siueetion. or enmeents
on this matter, please contact (;reene A. Jones. Director of
the Region III Water Program Division at 2L5—S97—94 11 or
Martha C. Prothro, Director of the Headquarters Permits
fltvtsion at 202—755—2545. If you have further questions on
the application of the Pennsylvania DSP policy on discharges
from water treatment plants, I sugqest that you contact
Louis W. Sercheni, Director, ureau of Wat.’r Quality
Management, Pennsylvania DSP in Harrisburg at 7L1—7*7—2 .
Sincerely,
/S/ WILLIAM D. RUCICELSHAUS
William D. Wuck•lshsvs
beat Gresas &. James. Director
i.qios III Water Program Divislo.
iarthsS. Prst re . Director. Permit. Dtvisios
Levis V. i.rchesi, Director
i .r .s . of Water Quality ian.ga.nt
Pesesylvamis DU
-------
—S
; .f :
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL ?ROTECTCN AGENCY
5/ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 L
r I I
..t-r i i
OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL
1Ei’ 1O RAN DUM
SUBJECT: Eligibility for Variances under Section
301(i)(l) of the Cleah Water Act
FRO i: Colburn T. Cherney ’( -
Associate General CoL1fis êi
Water Division (LE 132W)
TO: Rebecca Hanmer
Director
Office of 4acer Enforcement ano
Permits (EN—335)
Bruce Barrett requested my legal ooi iori on a set of
five issues relating to the eligibility of publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) for compliance extensions under
Section 301(i)(l) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This
memorandum responds to that request.
QUESTION 1
(1) Can EPA (or an approved NPDES State) issue a Section
301(i)(l) compliance extension to a municipal perrnittee that
will not be receiving Federal funds to construct its treatment
facility?
ANSWER
Yes, if the permittee is otherwise eligible. In order
to be eligible a POTW would have to establish that it applied
by June 26, 1978 and meets a variety of substantive criteria
discussed below.
Discussion
Under Section 301(b)(l)(B) and (C) of the CWA, enacted
in 1972, all POTWs were required to comply with secondary
/
-------
—
tr ent, . is eLi ds variety o th r re;uir mencs, 1/ by
July 1, 1.977. To assist POTWs Co meet the 1977 comp1ia ce
deadline, Congress also enacted in 1972 Title II of the C ’A,
which provided Federal grant assistance for POTW construction.
Congress did nat, however, condition the applicability of
the compliance deadline upon the timely receipt of Federal
funds. See Stare Water Concrol. Board v. Train , 559 i .2d
921 (4th Cir. 1977).
Many POTWs failed to meet the 1977 deadline, in part
because of delays in Federal funding. Therefore, in the
1977 Araen’dmenrs to the CWA, Congress enacted a new Section
301(i)(l) granting EPA the authority to extend the complidnce
deadline for particular POTWs in appropriate circui stances. 2/
Section 30].(i)(l) as originally enacted read as follows: —
Where construction is reouired in
order for a planned or existing publicly
owned :reat ent works to achieve 1i icacions
under su sec:ion (b)(l)(B) or (b)(l)(C) of
this section, but (A) construction cannot be
conpieted within the tir e required in such
subsection, or (3) t ie United States has
failed to make financial assisrance under this
Act available in time to achieve such limitations
by the time specified in such subsection, the
owner or operator of such trear ent works may
request the Administrator (or if appropriate the
State) to issue a permit pursuant to section 402
of this Act or to modify a permit issued pursuant
to that section to extend such time for compliance.
Any such request shall be filed with the Administrator
(or if appropriate the State) within 180 days
after the date of enactment of this subsection.
The Administrator (or if appropriate the State)
1/ These consist of “any more stringent limitation, including
those necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment
standards, or schedule of compliance, established pursuant
to any State law or regulations (under authority preserved
by section 510) , or any other Federal law or regulation, or
required to implement any applicable water quality standard
established pursuant to this Act.” Section 301(b) (1) (C).
2/ Congress also granted EPA authority to extend compliance
deadlines for direct dischar3ers that hac lanned to
discharge into P0T s that were not yet full 1 constructed and
were granted Section 301( i)(1) extensions. See Section 301(i)(2).
-------
-
r av r nc such r quesc and issue or od :y such a
permi.t, which shall conc ain a schedule of compl.ance
for the publicly owned treatment works based on
the earliest date by which such fin ncia1 assistance
will be available from the UnLted States ana
construction can be completed, but in no event
later than July 1, 1983, and shall contain such
other teris and conditions, including those necassary
to carry out subsection (b) through (g) of section
201 of this Act, section 307 of this Act, and sucn
interim effluent limitations applicable Co that
treatment works as the Aaminjstrator determines
are necessary to carry out the provisions of this
Act.
On December 29, 1981, Congress again amended the Clean
water Act by enacting cne “ 1unicipal Wastewater Treat ent
Construction Grant Amendr ents of 1981,” P.L. 97-117 (“1981
Amencments”). The 19 1 a .endments reauced Federal funding
of POL4s, both in ag re a:e cer s anc in the maxi,u 1
percentage o consLruc on costs chat r av be borne by EPA.
The 19S1 Amend encs also extended the cor p1ianc deadline
for recipients of Sectaon 301(i) extensions to July 1,
1938. The remainder of the Section was unchanged. Thus,
the criteria that previously applied to obtaining and grancin3
extensions have remained in effect. Congress did, however,
restrict the availability of extensions beyond July 1, 1983:
The amendment shall not be interpreted or
applied to extend the date for compliance
with section 3O1(b)(].)(B) or (C) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
beyond schedules for compliance in effect
as of the date of enactment of this Act,
except in cases where reauccions in the
amount of financial assistance under
this Act or changed conditions affecting
the rate of construction beyond the
control of the owner or operator will make
t impossible to complete construction
by July 1, 1983.
1981 Amendments, Section 21(a).
The criteria set forth in Section 30l(i)(1.) and in
Section 21(a) of the 1981 Aciendr,ents are designed to assess
-------
-4-
wh cher a POTW has jusci:iabl’i faileJ to achieve com lidnc2
with the relevanc compliance deadline. 3/ These include the
OTW’s ability to physically construct by the deadline; the
impact of Federal failure to provide funding in a ci e1y
manner upon the POTW’s schedule; and chanaed conditions chat
have affected the rate of construccon beyond the ?OTW’s
control. None of these statutory criteria makes a POTW’
eligibility for an excension contingent upon the likelihood
that the POTW will receive Federal funds in the future.
Likewise, nothing in the legislative history prevents
EPA from granting a Section 301(i) extension to an otherwise
eligible POTW that will not receive Federal funds. The
relevant legislative history Consists of the following brief
discussion in the Senate Report;
The 1972 Act originally required mun cioal plants
to comply with effluent limitations based on secondary
treatment by 1977. This deadline proved to be difficul:,
and in many cases imposs ble to meet, largei; because of
insufficient Federal funding. The 1977 amenomerlts,
therefore, per’nLt :ed extension of the deacline to
1 unici aljcies acting in good fdich which were unable
to meet this recuiremenc. Such extensions were to be
in no case later than July 1, 1983.
With the projected shortfaLl in Federal expenditures,
and the reduced Federal share for the construction grant
program, it is once more apparent that many communities
will be unable to meet the 1983 deadline. The legislation
thus extends the deadline to 1988 for communities wnicn
cannot meet earlier ceadlines because Feaerai funds
are not available . The Committee emphasizes that the
same gooc faitn recuirements now in existing law are
also extended to facilities seeking the new extension.
* *** *
The Committee is aware that a number of communities
are under court orders to comply with certain pollution
control deadlines. These communities will not be
helped by the further program limitations and reduced
funding imposed by this legislation. This provision
3/ The relevant compliance deadline at present is either no
later than July 1, 1977, or, for POTWs th3c were ranced
Section 301(i)(1) extensions, no later than July 1, 19S3.
-------
— D-.
ex resses Chc sense r : e Congress that courts in
supervision of court orders for such non-co ’.plying
municipalities cake cognizance of the amend encs
contained in this legislation in their consideration
of modifications to such deadlines.
Senate Report No. 97-204, 97th Cong. , 1st Sess. (1981), at 17
(emphasis added).
Under no circumstances, however, may a POT delay
co o1iance beyond July 1, 1988. Section 301(i) provides that
any extension “shall contain a schecule of compliance for the
publicly owned treatment works based on the earliest date by
which such financial assistance will be available from the
United States and construction can be comnoleced, but in no
event later than JULV 1, 1988 ” (emphasis addea) and mUSt —
con:a n interim i micatfbns or other necessary recuire ents.
Thus, even if the ?OT coes not antLclpate receiving any Federal
funcs, it is required to construct and achieve compliance. I
The quocea iangua e coes inaicate, however, that the scheduThc
availacilicy of Federal funding is a relevant factor in
escaclisning a scnecule of cc ?liance for ?0T s chat are
granted extensions unaer Section 301(i).
yUESTION 2
- Can a Section 301(i)(1) comciliance extension beyond
July 1, 1983 be issued to a permittee that applied for an
extension by June 26, 1978, if EPA (or an approveci PDES
State) never acted on the request?
ANSWER
Yes.
DISCUSSION
The 1977 Amendments to the CWA provide that EPA may
grant an extension to any eligible POTW that applied in a
tirneiy manner. There is no deadline by which EPA is
required to rau or deny the extension. The 1981 Amendments
and legislative history dici riot alter this Conclusion.
4/ Moreover, we note that the 1981 amendments cut back on the
Federal rancs orogram without providino, a waiver for
unfunded ?QT :s. Therefore, ?OT s do not have a reasonable
bas s Co exoect that Congress will provicie further relief f:o-
co ljance deadlines in the future.
-------
-0-
QUESTION 3
- Is a pérmittee that requested a Section 30l(i)(l)
compliance extension upon which EPA (or the approved State)
did not act in violation of the Act or NPDES regulations?
AN S WER
Yes, if the permictee has not achieved compliance with
the requirements of Section 301(b)(l)(3) and (C) by the deadline
set forth in its permit.
DISCUSSION
Initially, all POTWs should have been issued permits
requiring compliance with Section 301(b)(1)(3) and (C) noc
later than July 1, 1977. This permit deadline remains in
effect unless the per i: is modified by EPA (or the approved
State) under Section 301(i)(l). If EPA (or the approved
State) has not modified the permit to extend the deadline
and the permittee has not acnieved compliance by the deadline,
cnen the permitcee is in violation of its permit. 5/
QUESTION 4
Can EPA bring an enforcement action against a POTW
where EPA has not vet acted upon the POTW’s timely Section
301(i)(1) request?
AN SWER
Yes.
DISCUSSION
EPA may bring an enforcement action under Section 309 of
the Act against any permittee that is violating its permit.
If a POTW has not complied with the compliance deadline in
its permit, it is subject to an enforcement action.
The statute does not provide any defense against
enforcement based upon the penoency of a request for an
extension, variance, or other permit modification. While the
5/ The Senate Report described the reported bill as extending
the 1983 deaaljne. However, like the enaccec amendc,ent,
the bill itself did not extend the deadline. Rather, it
auchorize EPA to do so on a case-by-case basis, thereby
assuring, as noted in the Senate Report, that only good-faith
actors receive such extensions.
-------
issue cias yet to arise in nv Cl . dn .‘ater Act case, it has
been heici that enforcement dCClOn5 ; ay proceed, and Compliance
•orders may •be issued, under the Clean Air Act against violators
of State tTnplementacion ?lans (SIPs), despite the pendency
of variance requests. Train v. Natural Resources Defense
Council , 421 U.S. 60,92 (1975); Qhio Environmental Council
v. U.S. District Court , 565 F.2d 393, 397 (6cn Cir. 1977);
Geccv Oil Co . v. Ruckelshaus , 467 F.2d 349 (3rd Cir. 1972).
None of the Clean Air Act cases cited above involved
delays as lengthy as EPA’s Six-year delay in deciding many
301(i) extension requests. However, the principle that valid
existing requirements are enforceable remains true in any
case. If a POTW believes chat the Agency is unduly delaying
its Section 301(i) decision to the POT’ i’s oetriment, the
POTW can challenge the Agency delay, as discussed below.
Such delay is not, however, a defense against enforce:ent of
the existing requ1re: en .
This does not rnean chat a court would ignore a pendin
var ance request. If EPA were to bring an enf rc enc action
aga ns: ..i POTW without hav n ac:ed upon the ?OTi ’s 3 0 i(i)
request, the P0T nay seek (by assercjn a counterclaim or
iniz1ac ng a separate Lawsuit) Co co el EPA to act upon the
request. Unaer the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) , 5
U.S.C. §706(1), a reviewing court 6/ may “compel agency
action unlawfully withheld or unr aso a ly delayed.”
Further:nore, the APA generally requires agencies to conclude
maccers “ [ w]ith due regard for the convenience and necessity
of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable
time.” 5 U.S.C. §555(b).
A claim to compel agency action might also be asserted
under Section 505(a)(2) of the CWA, which provides for an
action in district court against the Administrator “where
there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform
any act or duty under this Act which is not discretionary
with tne Administrator.” A court might accept a POTW’s
argument that the duty to act upon a 301(i) request within a
reasonable time is not discretionary. See, e.g., Rite-Research
Improves the Environment v. Costle , 650 F.2d 1312 , 1322
( 5th Cir. 1931). See also FTC v. Anderson 631 F.2d 741
(D.C. Cir. 1979); Nader v. 52 F.2dI32 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
6/ “Reviewing court” is undefined. However, Section 702 of
the APA provides that unl :ss prior, adeauate and exclusive
“r)or: n L, _or jud:c:al review is provided y law, acenc’,’
action s su iect to j .- c1di revie’j n ci a1 r criminal
proceedin s or judicial enfOrcth,JL _.
-------
I cne POT .iss rcs a cl i:n. court ; av well s av the
enforcement procceding penoing an clgencv decision on tne
Section 301(-i) request. In an xcre e case where agency
delay has prejudiced the ?OTW’s bi1icy to derend itself
(e.g., if POTW employees with pertinent knowledge have left
its employ and are un ’ailaDle) , the court mignc even disz iss
the lawsuit. See, e.e . , EEOC v. Libertv Loan Corfl . , 584
F.2d 653 (8th Cir. 197.3) and cases ci.ceo therein at 855.
Finally, even if the court allows the case to proceed to
judgment in EPA’s favor, either before or after a final agency
action on the 301(i) request, the court maintains a great
deal of equitable discretion to fashion appropriate remecies
for violations of Clean Water Act requirements. Weinberger
v. Romero-Barcelo . 456 U.S. 305 (1982). Moreover, a court
would liKely be minaful. of the admonition in the Senate Report,
supra at 17, that courts take cognizance of the 1981 amenc encs
to Section 301(L) in addressing instances of unicipal non-
co ?l1ance and fashioning new court-orcered deadlines. If a
POTW submitted a Section 301(i) :e ues: in good faicri, and
PA has finally denied the recues: only after :lears of oelav,
a Court ay well exerc se its iscrecion by declining to
i ose substantial pena1t es or a buroensone conpliance
schedule upon tt e P0T .
QUESTION 5
Can EPA use the Administrative Order process (Section
309(a)(5)) to issue compliance schedules in lieu of modifying
or reissuing permits for municipal t es that are eligible
for Section 301(i)(l) compliance extensions?
ANSWER
Administrative orders can be used, but not “in lieu” of
Section 301(i)(l) compliance extensions.
DISCUSS ION
Administrative orders unaer Section 309(a)(3) and (5)(A) 7/
cannot be used “in lieu” of Section 3O1(i)(1) extensions
7/ Section 309(a)(3) provides:
Whenever on the basis of any infonnation available to him
the Administrator finds that any person is in violation of
(FOOT::OTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PACE)
-------
-‘i-
because the two Pr c sses ir functionally jiscin .
Section 30.L(j)(1) CXtCflSiO is set toruh Lfl a er ic, which
thereby establishes a new complian’ce deaaline for the POT .
An administrative order is an enforcement action. Cor.ipliance
with the order does not relieve he POT fron its legal
obli&atjon to comply with the permit deadline. See iontgomery
Environmental Coalition v. EPA , 19 E.R.C. 1169, 1171 (D.C.
Cir. 1983). The orcier merely assures the POTW that EPA will
exercise its discretion not to enforce against the permit
violation if the POTW complies with a specified set of
requirements.
The distinction between Section 301(i) extensions and
administrative orøers may be important from the POTW’s point
of view. If the POTW is issued a per ic containing a Section
301(i) extension and complies with that permit, the POTW has
a good defense to ci:izens’ suits. If the ?OTW ooes not
receive sucn an extension, it will be sub ect to citizens’
suits alleging a permit violaclon; co ]oliance with an
ad injstrative orcier is no defense to sucn lawsuit. See
‘!Or. Omery Environ enta1 Coalition v. EPA supra, at n. 6.
Therefore, if PA would accer ?t :o use ac LnjsErac ve orders
on a broad scale “in lieu of” 301(i) extensions, it would e
(FOOTNOTE 7 CONTINUED)
sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 313, or 405 of this Act, or
is in violation of any permit condition or limitation
implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of this Act . . ., he shall issue an order
requiring such person to comply with such section or requirement,
or he shall bring a civil action in accordance with subsection
(b) of this section.
Section 309(a)(5)(A) provides:
Any order issued under this subsection shall be by personal
service, shall state with reasonable specificity the nature
of the violation, and shall specify a time for compliance not
to exceed thirty days in the case of a violation of an interim
coi -ipliance schedule or operation and maintenance requirement
and not to exceeu a time the Administrator determines to be
reasonable in the case or violation of a final deadline,
taking into account the seriousness or the violation and any
good faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements.
-------
-10-
picicing those POT Js at risk despite Congress’ c1 ar LrlCeflc
tO dfford them reliet. 8/
Nonetheless, the use of adiinistratjve orders under
Section 309(a) (5) is a permissible means of issuing enforceable
compliance schedules to POTWs chat are not complying with their
permits. While an administrative order does not shield a POTU
from citizens suits, it does provide governmental assurances
of non-enforcement if the order is complied with. Furtherz,ore,
if a citizen suit is brought, the Administrative order is
likely to be assigned significant weight by a reviewing court. 9/
8/ As noted above, the failure to act upon requests for
— Section 301(i) extensions gives rise to potential actions
by POTWs or others to compel Agency action. Moreover, in a
recent case decided under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the Court helo that a general agency
policy not to issue RCRA permits to certain types of facilities
jeopardized the rights and interests of parties and was
therefore a rule reviewable in the U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals. Environmental Defense Fund v. Gorsuc , 713 r.2d 802
(D.C. Cir. 1983). Extending this uric o reasoning, a petitioner
might argue that an EPA “decision” not to act upon Section
30l(i)(l) applications is a rule and challenge this “rule”
in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the rule
is arbitrary and capricious or is other . ise without legal
basis.
9/ The issuance of A.0.s with reasonable compliance schedules
also might help EPA defend against a Section 505 action
seeking to compel Agency action on the Section 301(i) application.
CC: Louise Jacobs
-------
MAY 3 :‘—. OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Status of Textile Mills Pretreatment Standards
FRQ! 1: Martha G. Prothro, Director- i
Permits Division (Ex—336) \“
T:a -a, D reczo:
water e.nacement Division, Recjon I\’
Al Herndon, Region IV Pretreatment Coordinator, recently
requested our response to questions regarding the requirements
of the textile industry under the 40 CFR 403 General Pretreatment
Regulations. Our responses are provided below.
Question 1
What are the current Federal requirements governing the
textile mills that discharge to POTWs?
Answer :
The final rule for the PSES and PSNS for the textile industry
was promulgated September 2, 1982 (47 FR 38810). This regulation
supersedes all existing categorical regulations for the textile
industry except the BPT standards promulgated July 5, 1974 (39 FR
24739). Although no categorical pretreatment standards were
included in the September 2, 1982 rule, the textile industry must
comply with the general and specific prohibitions of the 40 CFR
403 General Pretreatment Regulations (GPR), including any State
or local limits designed to protect against pass through, inter-
ference, or sludge contamination. There are no further Federal
pretreatment requirements on this industry. The Federal regulation
does not require textile mills that are indirect dischargers to
comply with the baseline monitoring report requirements or an ’ of
the other 40 CFR 403.12 reporting requirements.
Since t: e local 1 mits reQuirements of tne GPR are : pcr:a--
for this :r ustrv, .t should be noted that :her. E A ;rciç :
: - S :ze -:-er 2, 1 2 rule, it recccn:: tnat t-.er’ :_j ::
‘ r ore s:r:nc .rt re ::c- of c rz :- —
: rea:1e ‘47 FR 3 :E: sz tes: CxD c:
Cf FOT S .:i1i be able :c cc z: Cj t .e Ec. ’ a:ce of ;. cf::
-------
- 2._ i required, o a Case—b —c and could Ta•:
us of the informatior. contained in the deve oprnent document that
EPA will publish.... The Agency recognizes that the quantity
of toxic pollvtants discharged from individual mills may, in
some cases, b e higher than the industry average and may not be
significant when viewed as a single point source discharge....
Permit—issuing authorities may find it necessary to require
representatives of individual mills to provide information on
toxic pollutant usage, to analyze for specific toxic pollutants,
and/or to conduct bioassay testing prior to issuing an NPDES
permit.u The final rule clearly envisions that where necessary
a local pretreatment program should establish local controls,
including industrial user discharge limitations, for the textile
industry. This is, of course, specifically required by the local
limits requirements of 40 CFR §403.5(c) and (d).
Question 2
:hat are ne State and iocal res.or.sioiljtjes and author:t:es
governing the textile industry?
Answer :
Except for the local limits requirements of 40 CFR §403.5(c)
and (d) (discussed above), this is basically a question of State or
local law. We understand that you were particularly concerned
about State and local authority to require reports like that
described in §403.12(b) of the GPR. States and POTWs can require
textile mills to submit reports like those described in §40 CFR
403.12(b) where the State or POTW deems it necessary and has the
legal authority to do so. The State or POTW could specify the
same or some other reporting deadlines as described in §403.12;
for example, 180 days after promulgation of a categorical standard.
I hope the above responses have answered your questions
regarding the Federal regulation of the textile industry. If
however, there should be any additional concerns, please contact
me or David Lee at (202) 426—4793.
cc: Water Division Directors, Regions I—X
Dick Williams, Effluent Guidelines Division
Dov Weitman, Office of General Counsel
Maggie Dean, American Textile Manufacturers Institute
-------
IIo
itO Sr 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
THE AOMUI4ISTRATOR
POLICY ON MUNICIPAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF POLICY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will, actively
promote those municipal sludge management practices that provide
for the beneficial use of sludge while maintaining or improving
environmental quality and protecting public health. To implement
this policy, EPA will continue to issue regulations that protect
public health and other environmental values. The Agency will use
all, available authorities to ensure that States establish and
maintain programs to ensure that local governments utilize sludge
management techniques that are consistent with Federal and State
regulations and guidelines. Local communities will remain
responsible for choosing among alternative programs, for planning,
constructing, and operating facilities to meet their needs, and for
ensuring the continuing availability of adequate and acceptable
disposal or use capacity.
RATIONALE
Municipal sludge is generated as a consequence of treating
municipal wastewater. Nearly 7 million dry tons per year of
residual sludge solids are currently produced by publicly owned
treatment works. Sludge management is an essential component of
wastewater treatment operations and a major element in treatment
costs. All options for sludge use and disposal have costs,
benefits, and risks. EPA believes that guidance and regulations
are the best way to promote good practices for sludge use and
disposal that minimize the potential adverse impacts on public
health and the environment and maximize the potential benefits.
The benefits potentially gained through sludge use include energy
and nutrient recovery, soil improvement, and the conservation of
valuable natural resources.
-------
—2—
Many Federal laws require environmentally Sound management of
municipal sludge and several of these laws stress the need for
sludge utilization and reuse. These include the Clean Water Act;
Clean Air Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act; Toxic Substances Control
Act; and the National Environmental Policy Act. Because there is
no single legislative approach, a framework for integrating the
various Federal laws and regulations is needed to ensure that
sludges are used or disposed of in a consistent, environmentally
acceptable, and economically feasible manner, EPA recognizes the
need to control the potential impacts of sludge use and disposal
practices, and in the past has attempted to guide and control
sludge management without such an integrating framework through
individual regulations, technical guidance, and research. These
efforts have not provided sufficient certainty to the regulatory
process, nor have they always guided local governments toward
adequate sludge management planning. Accordingly, EPA is issuing
this policy statement and taking other steps to help establish a
more integrated approach to municipal sludge management at the
Federal, State and local level.
PRINCIPLES GUIDING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
1. EPA believes that the risks, benefits, and costs of
all sludge use and disposal practices should be
considered on an intermedia basis when formulating
and implementing sludge regulations and management
programs. Potential short—term and long—term impacts
to public health and environment should be addressed
to ensure that the options chosen protect human health
and the environment.
2. EPA believes that minimization of potential widespread
or irreversible impacts, as well as involuntary
hazards, should receive primary emphasis in both
regulations and sludge management decisions. Where
the risks are uncertain but potentially significant,
additional safeguards may be needed.
3. EPA believes that the planning and operation of
wastewater and sludge treatment processes should be
closely integrated to control both sludge volume and
sludge quality.
4. EPA believes that contaminant levels in municipal
sludge which interfere with its management should,
whenever possible, be controlled at the source through
changes in waste generating activities or through
local pretreatment requirements beyond the minimum
requirements specified by Federal categorical
standards.
-------
—3—
5. EPA believes that beneficial sludge use should be
the intent of major sludge management technologies of
the future and has devoted research in support of
them. Regulations and guidelines that establish the
requirements for these systems are essential to the
wider use of these technologies.
6. EPA believes that in most cases States should have the
primary responsibility for implementing regulatory
programs for sludge use and disposal which provide for
clear and expeditious decision—making, and the States
should help local governments and others to develop,
implement, and maintain proper sludge management
systems.
7. EPA encourages public and private sector development
of improved sludge management and pretreatment
technologies and practices that increase the number of
cost effective and environmentally acceptable sludge
management methods available.
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Responsibility for Establishing Basic Regulatory
Requirements for Sludge Management Rests with EPA.
EPA will maintain an oversight role and will:
o Integrate and interpret the requirements of the
several applicable Federal laws and issue
regulations and guidance to ensure that they are
applied consistently toward municipal sludge
management;
o Establish regulatory requirements that promote
beneficial sludge use;
o Provide standards that establish contaminant
levels and management practices for acceptable
municipal sludge use and disposal;
o Establish minimum requirements for State sludge
management programs providing sufficient
discretionary authority for States to tailor their
programs and actions to local variation;
o Enforce adherence to Federal requirements where not
enforced by States;
o Provide guidance and information on sludge treatment
technologies and practices and direct technical
assistance to States and local governments;
-------
—4—
o Support research and development, and encourage
the demonstration of projects to facilitate the
advancement and use of new or improved technologies;
2. Responsibility for Ensuring Effective Sludge
Management by Local Governments Rests Primarily with
Each State.
o Each State shall establish and maintain a regulatory
and oversight program adequate to implement State and
Federal requirements;
o Each State should provide active assistance to local
governments in planning their sludge management
systems.
3. Responsibility to Operate and Maintain Appropriate
Sludge Management Systems Rests with Each Municipality.
o Municipalities are responsible for operating and
maintaining sludge management systems which comply with
applicable Federal and State regulatory requirements.
o Municipalities are responsible for maintaining sludge
use and disposal capacity sufficient to meet the needs
of their wastewater treatment systems.
o Municipalities are responsible for controlling the
discharge of contaminants into their sewerage systems
so that sludge quality is suitable for meeting
regulatory requirements and local management
objectives.
May 31, 1984
William D. Ruckeishaus,
Admini strator
-------
U,utld Stats, Etflusnt Guidslin , Division July 1984 —
Env,ronmsn I Prot.ctson WH.%2
A9ICY Ws iington DC 2O4 O
Wat.r(A COPY OF THIS GUIDAM IS AVAIIJA J. UPON RI .QU STJ
EPA Guidance Manual
for Pulp, Paper,
and Paperboard and
Builders’ Paper and
Board Mills Pretreatment
Standards
-------
dO
‘p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP21 1984
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance Manual for Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
and Builders’ Paper and Board Mills Pretreatment
Standards
FROM: Martha C. Prothro,
Permits Division (EN—336)
fr’.’Jeffery D. Denit, Director
Effluent Guidelines Division (WH—552)
TO: Users of the Guidance Manual
This manual provides information to assist Control Authorities
and Approval Authorities in implementing the National Categorical
Pretreatment Standards for Pulp, Paper and Paperboard and Builders’
Paper and Board Mills (Pulp and Paper) Point Source Categories
(40 CFR Part 43O) It is designed to supplement the more detailed
documents listed as references in the manual; it is not designed
to replace them. If you need more complete information on a
specific item, you should refer to the appropriate reference.
EPA developed this manual to fill several needs. First, it
should be useful to Control Authorities in responding to most
routine inquiries from regulated mills. More complex inquiries
may require the use of the listed references.
Second; the manual addresses application of the combined
wastestream formula to integrated facilities with regulated and
unregulated wastestreams. It also provides current information
on removal credits, variances and reporting requirements. It
further explains how facilities subject to these regulations
may use the certification procedure to minimize their sampling
and analysis for zinc, trichiorophenol, and pentachlorophenol.
This manual is the second in a series of industry—specific
guidance manuals for implementing categorical pretreatment
standards. The first manual for the electroplating and metal
finishing industry was published in February 1984 and several
others will be published soon. We also plan to issue manuals
covering removal credits, the combined wastestream formula and
the conversion of production—based categorical standards to
equivale concentrationbased standards.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 1—I
1.1 HISTORY OF THE PULP, PAPER AND PAPERSOARD AND BUILDERS’
PAPER AND BOARD MILLS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND
STANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—2
2. PULP, PAPER AND PAPERBOARD CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—1
2.1 AFFECTED INDUSTRY.................. .... . ... ..... .......... 2—1
2.2 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PULP, PAPER,
AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY .................................. 2—5
2.3 EXCEPTIONS FROM REGULATION COVERAGE: PCP/TCP/ZINC
CERTIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—10
2.4 POLLUTANTS EXCLUDED FROMREGULATION....................... 2—11
2.5 COMPLIANCE DATES.......................................... 2—11
3. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.... ...... .... .......... ................. 3—1
3.1 LIME PRECIPITATION .......... .. .. ... ... .. . ................ 3—1
3.2 CHEMICAL SUBSTITUTION..................................... 3—1
4. REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS........... 4—1
4 • 1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—1
4.2 CATEGORY DETERMINATION R.EQUEST............................ 4—2
4.3 MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL
PRETREAT! NT REGULATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—2
4.3.1 BaselineMonitoringReports........................ 4—2
4.3.2 B) ReportingofPCP/TCP/Zinc..................... 43
4.3.3 B) Due Dates..................................... 4—3
4.3.4 - B) Content............... .... ......... ........ ... 43
4. i. 5 Report on Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—4
4.3.6 Periodic Reports on Continued Compliance.......... 4—5
4.3.7 Notice of Slug Loading............................ 4—5
4.3.8 Monitoring and Analysis to Demonstrate
Continued Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—5
4.3.9 Signatory Requirements for Industrial
User Reports............................ . .... ..... 4—6
4.3.10 Recordkeeping Requirements..... .. .. ....... ........ 4—6
4.4 APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED WASTESTREAM FORNULA........... 4—6
4 • 5 REMOVAL CREDITS. . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 4—8
4.6 FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS VARIANCE.................. 4—16
4.7 LOCAL LIMITS.............................................. 4—16
REFERENCES. . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R—1
-------
(A COPY OF THIS GUID?INcE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUST).
itO S?4
T UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
L
AUG 2 1 i 84 OFFICE OF
WATER
M EMORANDUM
SUBJECT Draft Guidance for Application and Review
of Section 301(c) Variance Requests
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director
Permits Division, Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits (EN—336)
(I’ /
Stuart Sessions, Acting Director .(
Regulatory Policy Division, Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation (PM—221)
TO: Regional Water Management
Division Directors
The Permits Division (OWEP) and the Regulatory Policy
Division (OPPE) have developed a draft technical guidance manual
to assist with the preparation and review of section 301(c)
variance requests. As you know, section 301(c) of the Clean
Water Act provides a method whereby a discharger may obtain a
modification of the requirements of section 301(b)(2)(A), which
r quires the application of best available technology economically
achievable (BAT). An applicant may be granted a section 301(c)
variance for nonconventional pollutants, if the proposed modified
requirements:
(1) will represent the maximum use of technology within its
economic capability; and,
(2) will result in reasonable further progress toward the
elimination of the discharge of pollutants.
The purpose of the attached draft guiaance is to assist
applicants in. completing requests for 301(c) variances and EPA
Regions and States in reviewing the requests. For the purpose of
financial evaluation, we have divided applicants into two groups,
regulated and unregulated industries. Regulated industries are
those whose rates of return are set by public utility commissions.
Most firms are unregulated.
-------
•1
—2—
Unregula firms Should perform three financial calculations
to determine if they are eligible on economic grounds for a section
3 Ol(c) variance. Similarly, regula firms Should perform two
calculations to determine their economic eligibi1i EPA will
grant a variance only if the financial tests (or comDarable demon-
strations by the applicant) indicate that the required POllution
control technology is not economically achievable and if the
applicant can demonstrate reasonable further progress toward
elimination of the discharge of pOllutants. We have provided
worksheets for Performing the various financial calculations
The tests are designed to be understood by those with minimal
training in financial managem or accounting. If the results
are unrepresentative or inconclusive, additional review or
assistance is available from financial analysts at OPPE for the
benefit of both permit writers and applicants.
We are eager to receive your comments and suggesti 5 on
the draft guidance• We also suggest that you provide copies of
the guidan to the NPDES States in your Region. We are partic-
ularly concerned about your views on ease of use by both
applicants and permit writers and on the appropriateness of the
financial screening tests which we have developed. Please send
your comments and any comments from your States by September 18 to
Tom Laverty or Marilyn Goode of the Permits Division. If you
have any questio 5 about the draft guidance, please have your
staff contact them at FTS 426—7010. Thank you for your help in
Putting the guidance in final form.
cc: Regiona’ Permits Branch Chiefs
Attachment
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Outline of Steps for Completing a Section 301(c) Variance
Request. •.s.. .. . •..... •.... . .... . •••••. . . . .. . . .page i
I. Introduction. 5 ..... • •.s• . .. I •s... . . • • • • SI..... page 1
A • Purpose 0 f t h 1 S Ma ri u a 1 . . . . . . . • • . . • • • • . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . p ag e
B • S t a t u tory B a c kg round . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p ag e 1
II. Applicat lonandRevlewprocedure page2
A. Summary of Section 301(c) Variance .page 2
B. Procedure Governing Section 301(c) Variance Requests. .page 2
C. Demonstration of Reasonable Further Progress..........page 2
III. Economic Capability Test. .5. . . . . ... . . . ... • . . . . . .. . •1 . .page 4
A. Summary of Section 301(c) Economic Capability Tests...page 4
B. Financial Data Requirements
C. Allocating Costs to Nonconventional Pollutants... . .page 6
IV. Financial Tests for Unregulated Industries.... .. 15 .page 6
A. The Revenue Test. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .page 6
B. The Earnings Test..... •. •SS•• ., .. . .page 9
C. Beaver’s Ratio... • ..... 5••........ ••... page 9
V. Determining Economic Capability.... . ..... . ... .... .. . . ... .page 10
v i. How to Use the Financial Tests to Determine ‘Reasonable...page 11
Further Progress’
VII. Summary of Regulated Industry Financial Tests.............page 11
A. Calculation of the Interest Coverage Ratio............page 12
B. Calculatlonofthecash lflcomeTest .page l2
-------
(A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST)
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL
FOR THE REGULATIONS PROMULGATED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 301(g)
OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977
40 CF PART 125 (SUBPAR’I F)
/
/ /
/
E L p jj
I L
\
7 \ ‘
I
V
/
\\ / j
.4
AUG 1984
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
I. Introduction
A. Purpose of Manual 1
B. Statutory Background 1
C. Summary of Variance Process 3
D. Applicant Responsibilities 5
E. State Role
F. Regional Role 7
G. Early Consultation 8
II. Determining Factors in a Section
301(g) Variance
A. Pollutant Check 9
B. Minimum of BPT 10
C. Minimum of Water Quality Standards 10
D. Other Point and Non—Point Sources 11
E. Maintenance of Water Quality to Protect:
1. Public Water Supply 13
2. Recreational Activities 13
3. Balanced Population of Shellfish, 14
Fish, and Wildlife
4. Human Health 17
III. EPA Water Quality Criteria
A. Existing EPA Water Quality Criteria 20
B. Application of Criteria in Section 301(g) 22
Determination
C. Procedures Where No Criteria Exist or 23
Applicant Wishes To Modify Criteria
IV. Special Considerations
A. Pollutant Parameters (COD, TOC, etc.) 24
B. Mixing Zones/Dilution and Fate Models 28
C. Synergistic Propensities/Joint Effects 32
D. Persistency 34
E. Indicator Pollutants 35
F. Total Phenols 35
G. Design Conditions/Low Flow 36
V. EPA Section 301(g) Checklist 37
-------
S ? .,
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
¶ 1.4
OY,ICC OF
OCT 2 9 1984 TP4 ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Expediting Achievement of Water Quality Improvements
by 301(h) Applicants
FROM: Alvin I .. Aim
Deputy Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I, II, III, IV, IX, X
I am deeply concerned that the opportunity to obtain secondary
treatment modifications under section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act
not be allowed to result in unnecessary delays by publicly owned
treatment works in achieving compliance with the Clean Water Act.
This memorandum establishes required actions to expedite compliance
with the Clean Water Act, including achievement of necessary water
quality improvements.
The actions to be taken address: 1) timely construction of
facility improvements, 2) prompt issuance of permits following
301(h) decisions, 3) close coordination with the States, 4) timely
completion of 301(h) applications. These actions are discussed in
the attachment to this memorandum.
These requirements are for immediate implementation, with
priority attention to be given to large 301(h) applicants needing
construction to meet water quality objectives. Please be sure
your staff is aware of the importance of these actions and the
need for their prompt implementation. I would like to receive
within the next 30 days your plans and schedules for implementing
these actions. If your Region is already acting in accordance
with the attached guidance, a simple statement to that effect will
suffice.
Attachment
JLISHMAN/db/w .i—546/755—932 /p . 2417/9/11/84
-------
REQUIRED ACTIONS TO EXPEDITE 301(h) PROGRAM
1) CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS: Applicants are to
expeditiously proceed with proposed 301(h) facility improvementsT
Many section 301(h) applicants, even if a 301(h) modification
is approved, will need to complete planning, design, or construction
activities for treatment works which are less than secondary. Where
such activities are compatible with full secondary treatment systems,
the applicant can continue planning, design, and construction without
having to make a full commitment to secondary treatment. We must
require applicants to proceed with all such activities pending the
301(h) decision. This is essential to assure that applicants con-
tinue to move ahead pending a 301(h) decision and will be able to
promptly implement the facility improvements proposed in their 301(h)
applications should a 301(h) variance be approved. This requirement
will also assure ongoing progress towards secondary treatment, thus
speeding compliance if the variance is denied.
In order to achieve this result, the compliance schedules for
301(h) applicants proposing facility improvements must be carefully
reviewed and revisions made where necessary to establish appropriate
milestones for construction of facility improvements proposed in
their 301(h) applications. This review should be conducted with
close coordination between your staff responsible for permits
and construction grants as well as in cooperation with the relevant
State. The objective is to identify construction related activities
which should proceed pending the 301(h) decision and establish
dates for their implementation. Once such a schedule has been
established it should be embodied in an administrative order issued
under section 309(a)(5)(A). Applicant compliance with the schedule
should be closely monitored and enforcement actions brought where
necessary to assure that construction activities common to the
301(h) facility improvements and secondary treatment are being
implemented in a timely manner. Of course, applicants not needing
construction will be expected to properly operate and maintain
their facilities.
2) PROMPT ISSUANCE OF PERMITS: Final permits must be issued
following final 301(h) approval. An enforceable compliance
schedule should be promptly imposed folloviing a final 301(h) denial .
a) 301(h) Approvals :
The need for prompt notice of draft 301(h) permits has been
previously addressed in a memorandum of December 23, 1983, to the
Water Management Division Directors from the Directors of Water
Program Operations and Water Enforcement and Permits. As stated in
that memorandum, in order to expedite administrative processing of
tentative 301(h) approvals, the draft 301(h) modified permit must
contain all the terms and conditions necessary to implement the
tentative decision, including monitoring and toxics control program
-------
—2—
requirements. The public notice of a draft permit Containing the
terms and conditions necessary in the final permit will speed up
the process by: (1) potentially addressing all issues so as to
avoid renoticing permits and, (2) help to identify potential issues
which can facilitate public comments.
When the applicant will not be revising its 301(h) application
following a tentative approval, the draft permit generally should
incorporate terms and conditions implementing the tentative approval,
including a compliance schedule. The tentative approval should be
noticed along with the draft permit. During the review process
Regional 301(h) personnel should Coordinate with Regional permitting
personnel in order to keep them apprised of the review status and
identify and resolve issues which might hamper preparation and
issuance of permits. it is critical that 301(h) decisions are
promptly translated into specific and enforceable permit require-
ments. However, up to 60 days may be taken if essential to allow
time to coordinate permit details with the States for large 301(h)
applicants.
b) 301(h) Denials :
For 301(h) applicants which are not currently in compliance
with secondary treatment requirements, it will be necessary to take
the actions set forth below following a 301(h) denial. Once a
decision has been made to tentatively deny a 301(h) application,
and the applicant will not be revising its 301(h) application, the
applicant’s existing permit and compliance schedule, if any, should
be reviewed to determine if it is necessary to reissue the permit or
change the compliance schedule. Following a final 301(h) denial,
any new or amended compliance schedule requirements must be embodied
in an administrative order. In additiort, any pending 301(i)
request should be promptly acted upon.
Unless a 301(i) extension has been granted, permits for 301(h)
applicants are assumed to already embody requirements for secondary
treatment (or better based upon water quality standards) and to
require compliance by July 1, 1977. Based upon this assumption,
following a final 301(h) denial for facilities which are not in
compliance with existing secondary treatment permits, an admini-
strative order should be issued establishing a new compliance
schedule or amending a previous compliance schedule as necessary
to establish art expeditious schedule for compliance with secondary
treatment.
If the secondary treatment permit has already expired but
continues under the Administrative Procedure Act or State law,
whichever is applicable, reissuance of a secondary treatment permit
should be undertaken as consistent with permitting priorities.
However, an administrative order as described above should be
promptly issued.
Where an existing permit which requires secondary has expired,
and for some reason is not continued under applicable law, then
a draft secondary treatment permit should be promptly noticed.
1
-------
—3—
As described above, a compliance schedule should be embodied in an
administrative order accompanying the final secondary treatment
permit. If the Region is responsible for issuing the secondary
permit (i.e., non—NPDES State) and the applicant will not be revising
its 301(h) application after a tentative 301(h) denial, processing
of the draft secondary treatment permit and tentative 301(h) denial
should be consolidated if possible to reduce the time period from
a 301(h) decision to an effective permit.
Where the State is responsible for the secondary treatment
permit, the Region should encourage the State to take any necessary
action following the 301(h) denial. This means encouraging the
State to issue an administrative order incorporating an updated
compliance schedule and to issue a permit should an expired permit
not continue.
3) CLOSE COORDINATION WITH STATES: State determinations should
be promptly obtained and tentative denials issued if the State
determination is unfavorable .
301(h) approvals are subject to State concurrence, and the
301(h) regulations provide that prior to EPA review of the applica-
tion the States are to provide determinations as to compliance
with State law (including water quality standards) and impacts on
other sources. Where the State determination is unfavorable, the
application is to be tentatively denied without further EPA review.
As stated in a memorandum of March 14, 1984, from the Director of
the Office of Water Program Operations to Region II (cc to 301(h)
Regions), the Regions should work closely with the States to obtain
these determinations as rapidly as possible and immediately issue
a tentative denial if the State determination is unfavorable. In
those instances where the State determination unequivocally provides
that secondary treatment is required, the tentative denial should
advise the applicant that it will not be allowed to revise its
application since such a State denial precludes any level of treat-
ment below secondary. This will avoid fruitless revisions by appli-
cants which are obviously unsuited for a 301(h) waiver.
In order to facilitate obtaining State determinations, the
Regions should work closely with the State when reviewing appli-
cant plans of study to assure that data necessary to allow the
State to make its determination is provided. When establishing
schedules for data submission, information necessary for the State
determination should generally be scheduled for earliest submis-
sion. The data from such submissions should be promptly sent to
the State in order to expedite the State’s review.
4) TIMELY COMPLETION OF APPLICATIONS: Applicants which do not
timely complete their applications in accordance with the requirements
in data requests should be tentatively denied .
The need to require prompt completion of 301(h) applications
has been previously addressed in the December 23, 1983, memorandum
referred to above. That memorandum requested the Regions tO write
applicants with deficient applications and require their completion
-------
—4—
in accordance with a schedule established by the Region. The Regions
must follow up on these requests by reviewing the status of appli
compliance and promptly issuing tentative denials for applicants
which failed to comply with the terms of the request. Because suc.
tentative denials are based on lack of sufficient information to
review the applicant’s 301(h) proposal, these applicants are not
to be afforded an opportunity to revise their application following
such a denial.
1
-------
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
i u
DEC 18 1984
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
S EJECT: Calcelaticn of ?roduczion—Based Effluent Lirnits
FROM: 3. William Jordan, Chief
NPDES Technical Support Bra h (EN—336)
Regional Permits Branch Chiefs
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the procedure
for calculating production—based effluent limitations and to pro-
vide guidance on the use of alternate limitations. Many effluent
guidelines are expressed in terms of allowable pollutant dis-
charge rate per unit of production. To determine permit limits,
these standards are multiplied by an estimate of the facility’s
actual average production.
5ection 122.45(b) of the NPDES permit program regulations
sets forth the requirements for calculating production—based
effluent limitations. The central feature of this section is the
requirement that limitations be based upon a “reasonable measure
of the actual production of the facilityr, rather than upon design
capacity. Interpretation of this requirement has proven confusing
in the past. This memorandum provides recommendations for devel—
opinc production—based limitations and alternate limitations. The
Agency is also planning to revise this portion of the regulations,
and has revised Part III of Application Form 2C, in order to clarify
language which might lead to the use of inappropriate production—
based limitations.
Background
The proper application of production—based effluent limita-
tion guidelines is dependent upon the methodology that is used to
develop the guidelines. When most guidelines are developed, a
single long term average daily production value and its relation-
ship to flow are determined. This is combined with effluent
concentration data collected from plants to form the basis of
the guideline standards, Variability factors are developed on
concentration data obtained from samples taken during periods
of varying production. The variability factors and performance
data are then used to derive the guideline szandar s.
Calculation cf Lirr .tazion
‘c 2 .” : es c :ãe. .r es, er i: wte-s sho id óezr-:r
-------
a single estimate of the expected production over the life of
the permit using the long term average production from the plant’s
historical records. Usually, a five year production history
would be used to derive this value. This single production value
is then multiplied by both the daily maximum and monthly average
guidelines limitations to obtain permit limits. In determining
this single estimate, the permit writer should take into account
the distribution of production b analyzing data taken as fre-
quently as possible. For most cases, monthly data compiled from
daily data would be sufficient.
The permit writer should avoid the use of a limited amount
of production data in estimating the production for a specific
facility. For example, the data from a particular month may
be unusually high and thus lead to the derivation of effluent
limitations which are not actually reflective of normal plant
operations. As previously explained, effluent limitations
guidelines already account for some of the 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.
In some cases, the historical data may show large random
or cyclic fluctuations in production rates, of either a short
or long term nature. In those situations, it may be appropriate
to have alternate limits which are applicable at some increased
production rate (see discussion of Alternate Limits) or setting
the limit based upon a level of production higher than the
average (e.g. 10—20 percent or higher).
However, the primary objective is to determine a production
estimate for a facility which approximates the long term aver-
age 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 appli-
cation of guidelines:
Example : Company A has produced 331,500 tons, 292,000
tons, 304,000 tons, 284,000 tons, and 312 ,O0 tons per year
for the previous five years. The use of the highest year of
production (331,500 tons per year) might be an appropriate
and reasonable measure of expected production. One check
on this could be to determine if maximum yearly values are
within a certain percent of the average, such as 20 percent.
lOne of several methods may be appropriate to convert
from the annual production rate to average daily production.
One method takes the annual production raze and divides it
by the num er of production days per year. Th deterTrine the
number of production days, tne total number of normally sche—
‘ le r.on—pr uctio days are s b:racte fro : e total avs
: a year.
ire: o± :s a rc:::aze cases z a :.anz
-------
discharges intermittently as a direct result of production
flows. In cases where the plant discharges continuously,
even on days when there are no production activities, other
methods may be appropriate.
If Company A normally has 255 production days per year,
which are approximately equal to the number of discharge days,
the annual production rate of 331,500 tons per year would
yield an average daily rate of 1,300 tons per day. if pollu-
tant X has an effluent limitation guideline of 0.10 lbs ./1000
lbs. for the monthly average and 0.15 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 pro-
duction. This estimate is appropriate when production is not
expected to change significantly during the permit term. How-
ever, if historical trends, market forces, or company plans
indicate that a different level of production will prevail dur-
ing the permit term, a different basis for estimating produc-
tion 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 variability, while changes in production substantially
higher than this range (such as 50 percent) could warrant con-
sideration of alternate limitations. The major characteristics
of alternate limits are best described by illustration and example:
Example : Plant B has produced 486,000 tons, 260,400 tons,
220,000 tons, 240,800 tons, and 206,500 tons per year fo:
tne previous five years. The h gn year is s an f ca .tly
h che: than the rest and the Derm ttee has made a p! s: le
ar;ument tnat prOCt t1Or IS expected to retLr to z .at :evei
Tr.e cuidel r e for : l tar.t X :s 0.8 l s./1CO0 lbs. or :ne
rn r.z lv averace a d C.i4 — - -
-------
mum. 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 Applicable threshold level of production = more than 1,260
tons/day average production rate for the month (20 percent
above normal production levels)
o Basis of calculation: 486,000 tons/yr. = 1,350 tons/day
(based upon historical data and to be applicable beyond
a 20 percent increase in production)
Monthly Average Limit = 216 lbs./day
Daily Maximum Limit = 378 lbs./day
Alternate limits should be used only after careful consider-
ation and only when a substantial increase or decrease in produc-
tion 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 to be met. The thresholds, measures of
production, and special reporting requirements must be detailed in
the permit.
If you have any questions concerning the calculation of pro-
duction—based limitations or the use of alternate limitations,
please call me or have your staff contact James Taft at (202/FTS-
426—70 10)
-------
I.. .‘
— I
I•#. . C 0
. ‘,
Sr
_____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY —
, / WASHINGTON 0 C 20460
4
orr,c or
GENERAL COUNSEL
‘) ‘OQ
Mrr . LaL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Regional Counsels
FROM: Colburn T. Cherney
Associate General Counsel L
for Water (LE-132W)
SUBJECT: Judicial Officer’s Decision on
Part 124 Proceedings
The Part 124 procedures on adjudicatory hearings do not
clearly specify whether the Administrator or the administrative
law judge decides issues of law when both issues of fact and
law are raised in a request for an evidentiary hearing. When
presented with this situation, Region 10 granted a hearing on
material issues of fact but denied the request for a hearing
on issues of law. On appeal the Judicial Officer decided that
the administrative law judge should initially decide all issues
of fact and law when both types of issues have been timely raised
in the manner prescribed in EPA’s regulations. The Judicial
Officer found that it was error to exclude legal questions from
consideration at the evidentiary hearing on the sole grounds
that they are legal in nature, not factual.
Accordingly, when either issues of fact or issues of fact
and law are raised, the hearing request should be granted for
all material issues of fact or fact and law. The Regional
Administrator may, however, exclude legal questions if they are
not relevant or material to the permit decision. If the recuest
raises only legal issues, it should be denied and referred to
the Administrator.
At t a c hm en t
CC: Rebecca Hanmer
Glen tint erberger
-------
I - ‘/ - - -
/ 5—// )7 /
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
u:s. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of: )
S )
446 Alaska Placer Mines ) NPDES Appeal No. 84—13
cre or less
NPD S Permit No. AK0029467 et al.)
DECISION ON PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
On October 31, 1984, the Regional Administrator, Region X,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), granted in part arid
denied in part the requests of Trustees for Alaska and G.M.
Zemansky for an evidentiary hearing on the issuance in 1984 of
several hundred N?DES permits for placer mining in Alaska. On
November 30, 1984, the Regional Administrator also granted in
part and denied in part the evidentiary hearing requests filed
by some of the miners: Edward J. Armstrong, on behalf of Tn-Con
Mining, Inc. and Silverado Mines (U.S.), Inc., and Ann R.hjan, on
behalf of 55 placer miners. Each of these part:es is now ap-
pealing the Regional Administrator’s decision insofar as it
partially denies h s own hearing request.
The hearing requests raised issues of fact and law. They
were de. ied to the extent they raised issues of law; they were
crantedtc the extent they raised issues of fact. In accordance
..:t.-. the Rec:cr.a.. Ad . :stra::r’s read:n: cf :ne : les çcver :nc
/
-------
—2—
evidentiary hearings, 40 CFR Part 124 (Subpart E)(1984), legal
issues are not eligible for consideration in an evidentia,.
hearing but would have to be appealed to. the Administrator
The parties objected to the resulting bifurcation of the permit
proceedings —— with factual issues being referred to an Admin-
istrat ve Law Judge for a hearing, and, simultaneously, legal
issues being referred to the Adm nist:atcr for Cons derat on cn
appeal —— and argued that it is inconsistent with applicable
regulations. I agree.
The pertinent provisions of the regulations governing re-
quests for evidentiary hearings are as follows:
S124.74 Requests for evidentiary hearing .
* * * *
(b) (1) In accordance with Sl24.76, such requests
shall state each legal or factual question alleged to
be at issue, and their relevance to the permit decision,
together with a designation of tne specific factual areas
to be adjudicated and the hearing time estimated to be
necessary for adjudica jo Information Supporting the
recuests or other written documents relied upon to suPport
the request shall be submitted as required by S124.73
unless they are already part of the administrative record
required by S124.18.
NOTE : This paragraph allows the submission of requests
for evidentiary hearings even though botn lecal and fac-
tual :ssues may be raIsed, or only lecal issues may be
raised. In the latter case, because no factual Issues
were raised, the Regional Administrator would be re u1red
to deny the recues t. owever, on rev:ew of the den a 1 tne
Admin:stra:or is authorized by 5 1 24.91(a)(i) to review
policy or legal Conclusions of the Regional .;dm n:st:ator
?A ts recu1r ng an appeal to the Admir&:strator even of
purely legal issues involved n a permit dec sicn to
ensure tnat the Adm nistra:or will have an op crtuni:y to
rev ew any permit before it will e f nal and su jec: to
Jud:c:al review.
p
-------
—3—
* * * *
S124.75 Decision on request for a hearing .
(a)(l) Within 30 days following the expiration of
the time al.lowed by S124.74 for submitting an evidentiary
hearing request, the Regional Administrator shall decide
the extent to which, if at all, thereguest shall be
granted, provided that the request conforms to the re-
quirements of £124.74, and sets forth material issues of
fact relevant to the issuance of the permit.
Contrary to Region x, I can find ncthing in this language
which compels the Conclusion that evide ia y hearjncs are only
to be granted for factual issues if the hearing request raises
both legal and factual issues. Several years ago the rules
governing evidentiary hearings for NPDES permits separated legal
issues from factual issues by requiring the presiding officer to
refer issues of law to the General Counsel for a decision; issues
1/
of law were expressly excluded from the adjudicatory hearing. —
These rules were superseded, however, by the current rules, whicri
do. not contain the provision for referral to the General Counsel
or an express prohibition against considering legal issues in
an evidentiary hearing. ComDare 40 CFR Part 124 (Subpart H)
(1979) with 40 CFR Part 124 (Subpart E)(1984). The absence of
such a prohibition weighs heavily against reading the rules in
the mar 1 ner advocated by Region X, for bifurcation of legal and
factual issues is clearly the exception rather tnan the rule.
1/ 40 CFR Sl 2 5.36(rn)(l978) ccntajned the relevant of
ne former rules:
Un) Decision of . . . General Counsel on Questions
of Law. (1) Issues of law, including quest cns relating
to zne interpretation of prov sions of tne ACt, and the
lega1 ty and 1nterpretat on of regulat ns r: ui;ated
to the Act, snaIl oe dec ded (by tne General
Counsel] n accordance w:th this suosect on and snaIl
ct be cc s:dered at the adjud catorv hearin .
-------
—4—
Except for the superseded NPDES rules, I know of no similar
procedures at EPA. See, e.g. , 40 CFR Part 22 (1984)(con—
s3lidated civil penalty hearing rules); 40 CFR Part 164 (1984)
(pesticide cancellation/suspension hearing rules); 40 CFR
Part 85 (Subpart S)(1984)(autornobile recall hearing rules).
Region X claims that its position is supported by general
p:.ncj;les of ad ir. strative law as set forth in the case iaw:
It has been held repeatedly that adjudicative
administrative hearings such as NPDES evidentiary
hearings are for the determinstion of facts and not
the determination of legal or policy issues. See Bi-
Metallic mv. Co. v. State Board of Ecualization , 239
U.S. 441 (1915); Mothers’ and Children’s Rights Organ-
ization v. Sterrett , 467 F.2d 797, 800 (7th Cir. 1972);
Connecticut State Department of Public Welfare v. De—
partrnent of HEW , 448 F.2d 209, 212 (2d Cir. 1971); See
also , K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 409, S12.2
(2d ed. 1979). For legal issues, due process requires
only an opportunity to submit some written argument, not
a full hearing. Id. These general rules of administra-
tive law are reflected generally in the regulations
governing NPDES evidentiary hearings, 40 CFR Part 124
Subpart E, and specifically in the standard for granting
a hearing found at 40 CFR Sl24.75. Agency review of legal
issues is governed by §124.91 which gives a requestor the
opportunity to appeal to the Administrator after denial of
a hearing on legal issues. (Region X Response to Petition
for Review at 5.)
The problem with this characterization of the case law is that
it leaves the impression that legal questions should never be
decided in an evidentiary hearing. t ct. ing could be furt er
from the truth. An examination of tne cited cases discloses
that they stand ccr a narower princi le and simply do not ad—
dress the concerns raised here, that is, should legal ssues be
considered in an ev dent ary hearing along with factual issues?
e c:ted authcrities on tne other hand deal th the constltu—
-------
tional issue of whether due process requires a formal (evi—
dentiary’) hearing jf legal but not factual issues are raised.
The answer appears t.o be that a full evidentiary hearing need
not be held when there are no disputed facts; “tim such cir—
cumsta es due process does not require a full evideflti Y
eariflg but only adequate oppOrt tY for argWflent
s’.ipra at 212.
But if legal or poliCY issues are intertW with fact ques-
tions, a formal eariflg is required
supra at 800. nd of course a formal
hearing is required if factual issues alone are taised. Id.
In other words, according to the authorities cited by Region X,
the circumstances where a formal eariflg should not be held
are limited to those where questions of law only are raised.
That, of courses is not the case here where factual jssueS have
been ra .sed as well.
p s a final matter, RegiOfl X also claims that its position
is supported by policY considerations HaviflQ the dminist tor
decide the legal issueSi according to RegiOfl x 1 w ll ensure na-
tionwide consiSt and will avoid unneceS5 Y delay at the
hea i level. This argument is not very comPell Q Con—
s steflcY is alreadY assUr becaUSe dec S :endered in an
hearing are subject to rev y tne
40 CF §124.91 (1984) Theref0 r rejectiOfl c ReciO X ’S
pcSit 0 c0eS not pcse any problems as far as legal consi
I
-------
—6—
.is concerned. Also, in my opinion, rejection does not fore-
shadow any significant concern about delay at the hearing
level, as Region X alleges. Region x does not give reasons
to support this claim, and I am in no position to speculate
what they are, for, if anything, I would assume that some
cases might be delayed while others might be expedited; in
other words, it would probeoly depend on the unique circum-
stances of each case. Therefore, I conclude that legal
consistency and delay are not valid policy considerations.
Based on the foregoing, i conclude that Region X erred
when it excluded legal questions from consideration at the evi—
dentiary hearing. The issues to be considered at the hearing
include all legal and factual questions that are relevant to
the permit decision, provided they are raised in a timely
fashion and in the manner prescribed in the regulations; it is
error to exclude legal questions from consideration at such a
hearing on the sole grounds that they are legal in nature, not
factual. The Regional Administrator may, however, exclude legal
questions if they are not relevant or material to the permit
decision, just as irrelevant and immaterial factual cuestjons
2/
may be excluded. — And, of course, rega diess of whetner or
2/ An examole of an irrelevant legal question would be one which
Secomes moot by reason of a modification to the permit dec s on
after the question is first raised. In its res onse to tne Trus-
tees of laska’s petition, the Rec on po nts to two such exarn jes
wnere the permit dec sicn has been modified In response to a re-
cent court decision, ‘rustees for Alaska v. EPA, ______
C:v. Nc. 83—7764 (9tn C r., Decer .oer 10, 19e4).
-------
— I—
•not the legal questions are relevant to the permit decision,
the Regional Adm .niStratOr must deny a hearing request if only
legal questions are raised. -
Conclus ion
The matters raised by the Petitioners on appeal to
the Administrator are hereby remanded to Region X for action
cons .steflt w:th th:s decision.
So ordered.
Ronald L. McCallum
Chief Judicial Officer (A—lOl)
Dated: .PR 2 - 1985
1
-------
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Merrilee Caidwell
Assistant Regional Counsel
EPA Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Hon. Thomas B. Yost
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Eric Smith, Esq.
Trustees of Alaska
833 Gambe].j. St., Suite B
Anchorage, AK 99501
Ann Rhian, Esq.
P.O. Box 74490
Fairbanks, AK 99501
B. Richard Edwards, Esq.
550 West 7th Ave. , Suite
Anchorage, AK 99501
P.O. Box 2702 (Nov. thru
Fairbanks, AK 99707
ames M. Rosel,
The Territorial
Box 6217
Albucuerque, NM
Edward 3. Armstrong
Tn—Con Mining, Inc.
Silverado Mines, Inc.
P.O. Box 2357
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Kenneth H. Manning
Yukon Man ng Co. of Alaska, Inc.
P.O. Box 80325
* Fairbanks, AK 99708
Robert Mark Anthony
2020 Lake Otis Parkway
Anchorage, AK 99508
Ronald Rosander
Rosander Mining Co.
Box 129
McGrath AK
Richard Busk
P.O. Box 100971
Anchorage, AK 99510
1230 C. M. Zemansky
Box 40 (Summer)
Katovik, AK 99747
do Friends of the Earth
4512 University Way, N.E.
(Winter)
Mar.) Seattle, WA 98105
Valerie Badon
Recional Hearinc Clerk
EPA Region x
1200 Sixth Avenue, MS—613
Seattle, WA 98101
M. Ga l W rico
Secretary to the Ch:ef Judicial
Of f:cer
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Decision on
Petitions for Review in the matter of: 446 Alaska Placer Mines,
NPDES Appeal No. 84—13, were sent to the following by 1st Class
Mail, postage prepaid:
William R. Satterberg, Jr., Esq.
709 Fourth Ave.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Fred D. Wilkinson
P.O. Box 1 (April thru Oct.)
Central, AK 99730
Esq.
Corp.
87197
: tec: , ..r 2
-------
PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW TASK FORCE
FINAL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PIRT Recommendations
A. PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION 3
1. Suspension of the Definition of Interference 3
2. Determining Interference 4
3. Local Limits 5
4. State Water Quality Standards 6
S. Local Limits Based on Effluent Toxicity Criteria 7
6. Sludge Disposal Criteria 8
1. Notification of Solid Waste Disposal Obligations 9
8. Categorical Standards 9
9. Categorical standard Updating 12
10. Regulation of Small Industrial Users 13
11. Research and Development Facilities and Federal 14
Facilities
12. Combined Wastestream Formula 14
13. Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities 17
14. POTW Implementation Guidance 18
15. Industdal Monitoring Frequency 18
16. Industrial Wastewater Inspection Training 19
17. Monitoring for Toxic Organica 19
18. Toxicartt Controls 20
19. Pretreatment Newsletter 21
20. Removal Credits 22
21. Uniform and Simplified Program Data Handling 27
22. Uniform and Simplified Program Data Reporting 28
23. Industrial Users — Enforceable Limits 29
-------
—2—
B. ENFORCEMENT 30
1. Enforcement Policy Statement 30
2. Enforcement against POTWs without Program
Applications 30
3. Guidance 31
4. Guidance on Enforcement 31
5. Develornnent and Submission of NPDES State
Pretreatment Program 32
6. Submission of Baseline Reports 34
7. Compliance Reports 34
8. Enforcement of Program Requirements 35
9. Change of Ownership 35
10. Submittal of Testing Data for Periodic
Compliance Reports 35
C. RESOURCES 37
1. EP Regional Offices 37
2. Processing Removal Credit Applications 38
3. State Programs 38
4. POTW Programs 39
5. EPA Headquarters 41
D. ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS 42
1. EPA Oversight of State nd POTW
Pretreatment Programs 42
2. Levels of Authority 45
3. Delegations Issues 52
E. REGULATORY CHANGES 56
1. 5403.3(i) Definition of Interference 56
2. S403.3(n) Definition of Pass—Through 57
-------
—3—
3. §403.5 pH Variability 58
4. Use of Spent Pickle Liquors for Phosphorus
Removal at Publicly Owned Treatment Works 59
5. §403.6 Criteria for New Source Determinations 62
6. §413 Electroplating Categorical Standards 65
7. State Rule Making Process Completed Prior
to Program 66
8. §403.9 POTW Pretreatment Programs and/or
Authorization to Revise Pretreatment
Standards; Submission for Approval 67
9. §403.11 Approval Procedures for POTW
Pretreatment Programs and POTW Revision
of Categorical Pretreatment Standards 68
10. §403.12 Approved Sampling Techniques 68
11. §403.12 Self—Monitoring vs. POTW Monitoring 69
12. Annual. POTW Reports 7Q
13. §403.15 Net/Gross 70
14. §403.15 Net/Gross Determinations 72
15. §403 Appendices B, C and D Must Be Updated 72
Minority Statement 75
I .
I,
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
M l 21
MEMOPAP7D 1M
S(1RJF CT: Applicability of Cateciorical Pretreatment Standards to
Industrial risers of on—Discharolng POTWs
FROM: William P. fli mond, Chief 7,7
Proaram r evelopment Rranch
TO: Permit Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
At the recent National Pranch Chiefs Meeting, a question was
raised reciardina the applicability of categorical pretreatment
standards promulgated by FPA pursuant to section 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act (‘CWA’) to industrial facilities scndin their
wastewaters to POTWa that do not discharge to waters of the
United States (hereafter referred to as ‘non—discharging POTWs”).
( ecause there is no ‘djscherc e of pollutants’ (as defined in
section 502(12) of the CWA) from these POTWs, they are not
require i to obtain NPDES permits; nor are they subject to the
requirement, in section 402(h)(8) of the CWA, to develop a
local pretreatment program, since this requirement is tied to
the existence of an NPDES nermit. As explained below, however,
industrial users discharqina into these POTWs must nonetheless
comply with applicable categorical pretreati’ient standards.
This memorandum also discusses how these industrial users can be
reaulated in the absence of a federally required local pretreatment
nrociram.
Unde. the CWA, categorical pretreatment standards apoJy to
industrial users ofall POTWs, including those that do not discharcie
to waters of the United States. Section 307(b) of the Act directs
FPA to pro.ulgatö pretreatment standards ‘to prevent the discharge
of any pollutant throucib treatment works (as defined in section
212 of this Act) which are publicly owned, which pollutant inter-
feres with, passes tt rough, or otherwise is incompatib1 with such
works.’ The definition of ‘treatment works’ in section 212 of the
CWA is not limited to facilities that discharge into waters of the
-------
—2—
United States and in fact rakes exolicit reference to land—based
systeaa ( a. . g212(2)(A)). Moreover, the statutory coal of
nrev.nting interferince with the treatment works, which incluc es
orotection of th. resulting s udqe from contamination that would
limit disnosal alternatives, / is applicable to all POTWs,
regardless of whether there is any discharge to waters of the
United States.
Because non—dischatqina POTWs are not JPDES permittees and
therefore are not required to develop pretreatment programs, the
primary responsibility for enforcing pretreatment requirements
in these cases falls upon those States with approved pretreatment
programs and EPA. Since these POTWs do not hold NPDES permits,
EPA enforcement is limited to direct enforcement of categorical
standards against the industrial users. / Of course, the fact
that federal law does not require non—discharging POTW5 to develop
pretreatment nroqrams does not prevent States from r uirina these
‘ecilitles to develop such nrograms under State law. / Moreover,
even where State law does not require them to do so, Individual
non—discharriing POTWs may agree to develop pretreatment prograss.
In any of these cases, the developed programs may provide for
enforcement of categorical standards by the POTW. **** / Howevs ,
it rust be noted that because these POTWe are not NPDFS permittess,
PPA cannot enforce any requirements of their programs. Thus, if
a non—discPtarciinrT POTW whose pretreatment nrooram involves enforce—
rent of categorical standards does a poor job of enforcino
these standards, EPA’S only recourse is to $ake direct action
against the vioJatinçi industrial user(s).
/ See the discussion of sludge contamination as Ihinterferenceu
under the CWA in the preamble to the General Pretreatment
Regulations at 46 Fed. Reg . 9408 (January 28, 1981).
/ Althouc7h PA r ay not issue permits to indirect discharaers,
the Agency may require them to comply with additional reporting.
monitorina, sampling, and other information reauiremefltS beyond
those contained in the General Pretreatment Regulations, under
sectioi 308 of the CWA. See Conf. Pep. No. 92—1236, 92d Cong.,
2d Sass. 130 (September 28, 1972), reorinted in A Legislative
History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
volume 1 at 313.
For example, California has a rejulatory provision that
requires non—discharging POTW5 with a design flow of 5 mgd or
more to develop pretreatment pronrams. Facilities with a design
flow of less than 5 mgd may be required to ceveloo procrams as
deemed appropriate. 23 CA( §2233.
**** , In California. for instance, these proarams are reviewed
for consistency with S4fl3.A( ) of the General Pretreatment
Regulations, which includes a requirement regardina enforcement
of categorical standards.
-------
I hope this memorandum answers your questions on this subject.
If you have any further questions or comments, Dlease call me at
(FTS) 426—4793 or have your staff contact Hans jornson at (FTS)
4 2 —7O33.
cc: Rebecca llai er
Martha Prothro
Colburn Cherney
bcc: Jim Gallup
Geoff Grubbs
Program Development Branch
HBJORNSON/Disk l/EN—336/67035
Document 36/lrm/06—26—85
-------
(A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST)
June 18, 1985
The WPDES Permitting Process
for Oil and Gas Activities on the
Outer Continental Shelf
Prepared by the Permits Division
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
United States Environmental Protection Agency
under the
Memorandum of Understanding between EPA
and the Minerals Management Service
of the Department of the Interior
-------
Table of Contents
TOPIC PAGE
A. Introduction .. ... . .. .. •........ .. . . •. 1
B. Covered Facilities and PerinitAreas •...............•.• 1
C. Provisions for Permit Modifications and Revocation .... 3
D. ProvisionsforIndivjdualpe jts... 3
E. Existing Sources, New Dischargers, and New Sources .... 4
F. Effective Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •I......... . ••.... 4
G . State Certification . .. . .. . . . . .•...... . . . . .. . . .. 4
H. Fact Sheet . ... . ,, . .. . .. 1 .1.••• • . . . . . . ....... .. .. .. .. 5
I. Technology Based Effluent Limitations ................. 6
J. 7
K. Oil Spill Requirements .. . . . .. . . . ... . . .. . . . . ... .. . 8
L. Other Legal Requirements 9
1 . E n d a ng e red S pe c i e s Ac t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2 .CoastalZoneManagementAct.................... 9
3. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act .... 11
4. Econo nic Impact (Executive Order 12291) .. .......... 12
S. PaperworkReductlonAct ..... .......... 12
6 .Regula.toryFlexibllityAct.. ... .. 12
APPENDICES:
A. Decision Logic for 403(c) Determinations
B. States with Approved Coastal Zone Management Programs
-------
Unftsd S1t Pmr Div on EN-336 July 1 5
Envlronn i.l Protection hungton. DC )4 O
Ai.Icy
Wstsr (A COPY OF GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST )
Guidance Manual for
Preparation and Revi
of Removal
Credit Applications
LI __________________
I __
-------
Table of Contents
1 • INTRODUC’rION. • . . . . . . • • . • . . . . • . . . . • • . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . • 1—1
2 • BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . • •.. . . . 2—1
PART I: GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPING A REMOVAL CREDITS APPLICATION
3. REMOVALCREDITAPPLICATIONREQUIREMENTS 3—1
3.1 LIST OF POLLUTANTS... •..•••S•.•....••.. ••••••.,..••••, •..• 3—5
3.1.1 Total Meta].s......... •••...... I•..•.....•.. ••••• ••• 35
3.1.2 Total Toxic Organics..... ••••.........,.. .... •.... . 3—6
3.1.3 Surrogate or Indicator 3—7
3 • 2 CONS ISTEt,rr REMOVAL DATA. . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • . . . • . . • . . . . . . • . 3—7
3.2.1 Limits of Detection,............... 3—8
3.2.2 Alternatives to Pollutant Concentrations Below
Detectable Limitg............,........ 3—10
3.2.3 Lowering of the Consistent Removal Rate
After Approval. ••..... ••••••.•......• •••••......... 3—11
3.3 CALCULATION OF REVISED DISCHARGE LIMITS...S......... .,•••• 3—12
3.3.1 Evaluation of Removal Credit Effects on the
Treatment Plant Influent Pollutant Load
(i.e., Local Limits). ••........... •....... s.... •• 3—12
3.3.1.1 Calculation of Maximum Allowable Plant
Influent Load......................,. 3—13
3.3.1.2 Comparison of Maximum Allowable Loading
to Projected Loading with Removal Credits. 3—14
3.3.2 3—15
3.4 LOCAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM CERTIFICATION......... .., ..•••• 3—23
3.5 SLUDGEMJNAGEMENrCERTIFI TION 3—23
3.6 NPDESPERMITL.IMITCERTIFICATION 3—28
3.6.1 NPDESComp].jance Demonetration........., . .. . 3—30
4. ALTERNATIvE PROCEDURES AVAILABLE TO SATISFY APPLICATION
REQUIREMENTS. •. • . . . • . . • • • • • • . • • • •. • . • . . . . • . • . . . • . . • . . . . . • • . •. • • 4—1
4.1 USE OF HISTORICAL DATA FOR POTW 4—1
4.2 USEOFALTERNATIVESAMPLINGDESIGNS 4—3
4.3 USE OF TREATABILITY STUDIES OR REMOVAL DATA FROM
SIMILAR TREATMENT PLANTS TO DEMONSTRATE REMOVAL........,,. 4—4
4 • 3.1 Treatability Studies...... . . . • .•ssI.S . • •SS• ,.. • . . • 44
4.3.2 Transfer of Data From Similar 45
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
5. SANPLINGANDANALYTICALREQUIREMENTS...................I....... 5—1
5.1 SAI LING METHODS.. ............ ...... ... •.................. 5—1
5.2 ANALYTICAL METHODS.. ............. .•...... •1• •SSsS s• .. .. .. 5—3
PART II: GUIDANCE FOR THE APPROVAL AUTHORITY
6. REVIEWOFRE11OVALCREDITAPPLICATIONS.S........................ 6—1
6 • 1 GENERAL. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 6—1
6 • 2 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •1 • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . 6—2
6 • 3 CONSISTENT REMOVAL RATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6—2
6.4 SLUDCEMANAGEMENTCERTIFICATION........................... 6—6
6.5 NPDES PERMIT CERTIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6—8
6.6 NPDESPERMITMODIFICATIONS................................ 6—9
6a 7 REVIEW OF POTW PROPOSALS TO USE ALTERNATE METHODS OF
DEMONSTRATING CONSISTENT REMOVAL.......................... 6—10
6.7.1 Proposals to Vary the Sampling and Analysis Plan
AndUseofHistoricalData......................... 6—11
6.7.2 Proposals to Demonstrate Consistent Removal by
Methods other than Influent and Effluent Sampling.. 6—12
6.8 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR REVIEWING APPLICATIONS
OFPOTWsWITH3O1(h)WAIVERS.............................. 6—13
7. MODIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF REMOVAL CREDITS.................. 7—1
7.1 POTWMONITORINGANDREPORTINGFREQUENCY................... 7—2
7.2 CRITERIA........................ ....••.............•... ... 7—3
7 • 3 PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 7—4
APPENDICES
A — REMOVAL CREDIT PROVISION FINAL RULE
B — DETECTION LEVELS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
C — MODEL REMOVAL CREDIT APPLICATION
D — SAMPLE MPDES PERMIT MODIFICATION LANGUAGE FOR
REMOVAL CREDITS
-------
Téchnièal
Support Document
for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control -
-------
TECI 1ICAL SUPPORT DOCUM T FOR
WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL
July, 1985
Office of ter forcement and Permits
Office of I ter Regulations and Standards
U.S. vironmental Protection Agency
1 shington, D. C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State pollution
control agencies have been charged with enforcing the laws regarding pollution
of the natural environment. Environmental pollution is considered an urgent
and continuing problem and consequently, the laws grant considerable discretion
to the control authorities to define environmental goals and develop the means
to attain them. Establishing environmental tolerance levels and incorporating
them in a decision making process entails a considerable a unt of scientific
knowledge and judgment. One area where scientific knowledge is rapidly
changing concerns the discharge of toxic pollutants to the Nation’s surface
waters.
This document provides technical guidance for assessing and regulating
the discharge of toxic substances to the waters of the United States. It
was issued in support of a recent EPA policy initiative involving the application
of biological and chemical assessment techniques to control toxic pollution.
The recommendations contained in this document are not mandatory and are
intended to be suggestions for approaching problems which tend to be complex
and site—specific.
This document is expected to be revised periodically to reflect advances
in this rapidly evolving area. Comments from users will be welcomed.
.
7ames M. Conlon, Acting Director Rebecca W. Hanmer, Director
/Off ice of Water Regulations Office of Water Enforcement
and Standards and Permits
i
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Acknowledgement
Executive Summary
Glossary
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Development of Water Quality—k sed Permit
Limitations for Toxic Pollutants; t tional
Policy (49 FR 9016, I rch 9, 1984)
Sampling
Ambient Toxicity Testing and Data Interpretation
Duration and Frequency Criteria
Lognormal Distribation and Permit Limit Derivation
3.
iii
iv
vii
SNT2(UIJUL2’IUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . • • I
SECTION 1 APPROACHES TO WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL . . . . 4
SECTION2 WATERQUALITYSTANDARDS 19
SECTION 3 EFFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
SECTION 4 HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
SECTION 5 CPOSURE AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
SECTION6 PERMITREQUIREMENTS
SECTION7 COMPLIANCEMONITORING •••••............123
SECTION8 CASEEXAMPLE 126
APPENDICES
-------
S?i,
S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 L pp 0 lt
JUL 2 41985
OFFICE OF
WATER
ME MORANDUM
SUBJECT: Toxicity Testing Requirements in Municipal Permits
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director
Permits Division (EN—336)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I — X
NPDES State Directors
EPA has conducted effluent toxicity testing case studies
at several industrial and municipal discharge sites nationwide,
including both large and small publicly owned treatment works
(POTW5). On—site sampling has ranged from a few days to a
month. The preliminary results of these studies have revealed
both acute and chronic toxicity problems at some POTWs, even
those that are discharging very low concentrations of BOD and
suspended solids. The toxicity results are surprising because
of the high frequency of POTWs with toxic effluents and the
magnitude of their toxicity. Because of these preliminary
results, we urge you to include toxicity testing requirements
in reissued and modified permits for municipal dischargers.
Water Quality—Based Toxics Control
The Agency procedures and rationale for toxics control are
contained in the Office of Water Policy for the Development of
Water Quality—Based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants that
was published in the Federal Register on March 9, 1984. The
policy covers toxic discharges from both municipal and industrial
point sources. The policy encourages toxicity tests and develop-
ment of permit limits on effluent toxicity (where appropriate)
to address violations or projected violations of water quality
standards.
All States currently have narrative watGr quality language
which prohibit the discharge of “toxic substances in toxic amounts.”
Effluent toxicity testing (biomonitoring) can be used to implement
these narrative standards by requiring toxicity testing and permit
limits on biological toxicity as a complement to chemical specific
pollutant limits. Detailed procedures for developing water quality-
based requirements for both whole effluent toxicity and specific
-------
—2—
•toxic pollutants are presented in the draft Technical Support
Document for Water Quality—Based Toxics Control , which is expected
to be published in final form shortly. Detailed procedures for
acute toxicity tests are presented in Methods for Measuring the
Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Aquatic Organisms (EPA-600/4—85—
013) and for chronic tests in Methods for Measuring the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater Organisms (EPA-600/4—85—014).
Expanded Use of Toxicity Testing in Municipal Permits
In accordance with EPA’S policy for water quality-based
toxics control, Regions and States should begin to establish
toxicity testing requirements in municipal permits and to
establish toxicity—based permit limitations, as appropriate.
Suggested candidates are POTWs with limited instream dilution at
critical low flow periods, areas of known water quality impact
problems due to toxicity, and POTWs that receive significant
industrial flow.
Toxicity testing requirements should be based on the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control . This manual recommends a series of monthly toxicity
screening tests based on a minimum of three test species and
affirms the usefulness of the 7—day Ceriodaphnia sp. as one of
these test organisms. Additional testing requirements, toxicity
reduction plans, local pretreatment limits, and/or toxicity
limits in the permit should be established if toxicity is
observed in the screening tests.
The principal toxics control mechanism for municipal
dischargers has been the control of toxic pollutants from
industrial indirect dischargers through the national pretreat-
ment program. Requirements for control of toxic discharges to
POTWs have been implemented in the form of uniform national
categorical pretreatment standards set by EPA and local limits
set by individual POTW5 or States. Toxicity testing is an
important tool for assessing the overall effectiveness of the
pretreatment program. It may also be used as a basis to establish
pretreatment local limits requirements where national categorical
standards do not adequately address local toxics problems.
Toxics control from municipal point sources requires
immediate attention by Regional, State and Headquarters personnel.
We will be providing additional technical information, workshops
or other materials to Regions and States during FY 86. Future
permit writer workshops will also address toxics control through
permits.
-------
—3—
Please contact me (755—2545) or Jim Gallup (755—0750) if you
have any questions or suggestions on the use of toxicity testing
requirements in POTW permits.
cc: Rebecca Hanmer (EN—335)
J. William Jordan (EN—338)
Patrick Tobin (WH—585)
Thomas O’Farrell (WH—551)
-------
% IO ST 4 , _ .
‘p
11 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
L O1
JL31
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Sampling Procedures for the
VOA Fraction
FROM: Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Chief
Technical Support Branch (EN—336)Y( _J
TO: Regional Water Permits Branch Chiefs
The Permits Division has received several inquiries
about sampling procedures when data on volatile organic (VOA)
toxic pollutants are required. Specifically, we have been
asked: 1) is a composite sample appropriate for VOAs, and
2) what is the procedure for collecting a composite sample
for VOAs?
Regarding the first question, we have frequently been
told that it is inappropriate to take a composite sample for
VOAs. Apparently, people have misinterpreted the term VOA
composite sample to mean that the VOA sample is collected by
adding aliquots to a large open container. The NPDES regu—
lations require the collection and analysis of samples in
accordance with procedures established under 40 CFR Part 136,
304(h) test procedures. Method 624, section 9, specifies
that VOA samples must be sealed (without air bubbles) grab
samples. This requirement must be followed. Once four sealed
grab samples are collected, then they should be composited
as described below.
In the instructions to Form 2c, Item V, the general
instructions require the collection of 4 separate grab samples
for VOA5. These grab samples must be combined in the laboratory
immediately before analysis. To composite these 4 grab samples
see the instructions in Method 624, section 11.4. Each sample
is poured into a syringe. The plunger is added and the volume
adjusted to 1 1/4 ml. Each sample (1 1/4 ml) is injected into
the GC (total 5 ml). After four injections the sample is
purged. Thus, only one analysis, rather than four, would be
possible.
-------
—2—
S-uch a procedure is required in order to strike a balance
between the need for the most representative sample and the
cost of multiple analyses. This memorandum updates a similar
question which we answered in a memorandum,(attached) to the
Regional Enforcement Division Directors oneecember iG, 1980.
r’- po-1V
If you have any questions on this subject, please call Gail
Goldberg at FTS 426—7010.
Attachment
-------
S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4( pç Ø C
Al I •
ML I OJ
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Public Notice of Tentative Section 301(9)
Decisions and Draft NPDES Permits
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director \J 1 Th
Permits Division (EN—336) ‘ d’4 .
TO: Water Management Division Directors,
Regions I-X
It has recently come to my attention that we need to remind
States and Regional Offices of the proper procedures for public
notice of draft NPDES permits while section 301(g) variance
decisions are pending. Section 301(g) requests are not handled
the same way as other variances because the Clean Water Act has
special provisions governing the decision process.
Section 301(g) variance requests pose a number of special
difficulties. The findings are difficult to make and to justify,
the administrative requirements are burdensome, and perhaps
most importantly, the installation of necessary pollution
control equipment is often delayed. We are sensitive to these
problems and have even sought amendments to the Clean Water
Act to help solve them. In the meantime, the issuance of
permits remains a top priority, but they must be permits which
meet the requirements of the law.
EPA or an NPDES State may reissue an NPDES permit to a
§301(g) applicant prior to issuing a tentative decision on a
section 301(g) variance, provided the permit conforms with 40
CFR §122.44 and other apolicable regulations. The permit may
contain both the applicable BAT limitations and Proposed Modified
Effluent Limitations (PMEL5) that may apply if a §301(g) variance
is ultimately approved for the non-conventional pollutant(s).
However, unless a stay is granted under section 301(j)(2)
of the Clean Water Act, the permit must require that the discharger
comply with the BAT limitations until a final decision to
grant the variance is made. (Currently, all §301(g) variance
approvals must be issued by EPA headquarters.) Although section
301(j)(2) requires that, in order to issue a stay of the BAT
limits in question, there must be a strong showing that the
1
-------
—2—
§301(g) variance will be granted, Regions have the authority to
grant such stays and should do so formally in appropriate cases.
Should an NPDES State propose to issue a permit that is
inconsistent with the above, EPA should comment accordingly.
If the JPDES State proceeds to issue the permit, then you should
exercise your veto powers under 40 CFR §123.44. The presumption
that national BAT effluent guidelines limitations apply must be
preserved.
For your information, I have attached a copy of the public
notice for EPA’S tentative decision to grant a Section 301(g)
variance to Weirton Steel Corporation. Public notice of permits
involving section 301(g) variances should normally include a
brief description of the section 301(g) process. The draft
permit and accompanying fact sheet should contain a detailed
description of the variance request including a comparison of
BPT, BAT, and PMELS for the non—conventional pollutant(s) limited
in the permit.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter please
call me at FTS 755—2545 or have your staff call Steve Bugbee at
FTS 382—5596.
Attachment
-------
Public Notice
Environmental Protection A cnCy West Virginia Dept. nf
Region tii Natural Resources
Water Management Division 1201 Greenbrier Str et
841 Chestnut Street Charleston, WV 25306
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Public Notice No. PN WV-008-cM
Public Notice Date: March 15, 1985
ACTION : Notice of t ntative decision to grant, pursuant
to Section 301(g) of the Clean Water Act, a variance from
BAT for the non—conventional pollutants arrmcri (N) and
phenol (4AAP) for
Weirton Steel Corporation
WeirtOn, West Virginia
NPDES Permit No. Wv0003336
SUMMARY : WeirtOn Steel CorpOratiOfl pursuant o Sections
301(g) and 301( 3 )(l)(B) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requested a variance from the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) treatment requirements
for the non—conventional pollutants amnionia(N) and phenol
(4AAP) discharged from its sinter and blast furnace operat .oflS
throuc3h outfall 002 (monitored internally at r utfal1 102)
tc the Ohio River. We irton Steel Corporation 15 a semi—
titegrated facility producing iron and steel products. The
discharge at outfalL 002 consistS of the wastewaterS from
t e sinter and blast furnace operatL0n which is
and limited internally at outfall 102; wastewaterS from
miscellaneous sources; and non—contact cooliric water, whiCh
accounts for about 90% of the total disr - ;d volume of 120
milLion gallons per day.
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) tO modify the BAT requirements for
non—conventional pollutants provided a satisfactory
demonstration is made that, among other factors, such
modification will not interfere with the attainment of
water quality which shall assure the protection of publi
water supplies anc aquatic life, and will not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health or the env irOnmert .
-------
2
The West Virgin a Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
reviewed Weirton Steel Corporation’s applicatlon and
recommended to EPA that the variance be approved. The
proposed modified effluent limitations (PMEL5), which would
be in effect should the variance be granted, compare with
the best practicable technology currently available (BPT)
and BAT limitations as follows (in lbs/day):
BPr BAT - PMEL
Ammonia (N), 30—day Average 1109 118 1109
Daily Maximum 3325 354 3325
Phenol (4AAP), 30—day Average 43 1.2 5 .5
Daily Maxmium 129 2.4 11.0
The PMELs are reflective of existing discharge conditions
and will meet the applicable West Virginia water quality
standards at the edge of the mixing zone. EPA’s review of
the available information indicates that the water quality
standards are protective of aquatic life and human health.
EPA has analyzed the merits of Weirton Steel CorporatLor ’s
variance request and believes th3t it satisfies all o the
statutory criteria. Therefore, EPA, in conformance with
the tentative decision of the Director of the Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits, is today proposing to grant
Weirton Steel Corporations’s request for a Section 301(g)
variances for ammonia(N) and pheiol(4AAP).
The DNR proposed a draft NPDES permit for Wei.rton Steel
Corporation on August 13, 1984 (P”hlic r otice No. C—105—
d4). The associated fact sheet d scussei tne v3riance
request and presented both RAT limitations and PMELs. DNR
ir eends to issue a final permLt before EPA issues a final
decision on the variance. The periut i11 contain both RAT
limitations and PMELs. Weirtort Steel Cor;oration is required
to comply with the RAT limitations, • ‘less EPA issues a
final decision to grant its va’iance request.
Procedures for Final Determination
Interested persons may submit written comments on the
Tentative Decision to grant the Section 301(g) variance to
the EPA Regional Administrator within (30) days of the date
of this public notice at the address cited below. Comments
should be specific and include the basis and re .-ant
facts upon which they are based. Anyone who is interested
in commenting on this tentative decision should be aware of
the obligation to raise issues and to provide supporting
informatio for consideration during this public comment
period in order to raise those issues in a subseru 1t appeal
(40 CFR §124.76). All comments will be considered in the
formulation of a final decision on this variance.
p
-------
3
A publiC hearing on thIS tentative decision will be held
if significant public interest in a public hearing is
expressed. interested personS should submit their requests
for a publiC hearing along with their issues of cor’cern.
Following the close of publiC comment, EPA will make a
final decision on WeirtOn Steel Corporation’s Section
301(g) variance request. Within 30 days following t e
issuance of EPA’S final decision any interested person may
request a hearing with respect to issues raised for
consideration during the public comment period (40 CFR
124.7f). An appeal of the final decision on the variance
may be made under 40 CFR Part 124 SubpartS F or F.
The appLiCatIons Tentative Decision, Tentative Decision
Support Document and administrative record are available
for review at EPA’S Region iii office at the address below.
A copying service is available at a reasonable fee.
AddreSse!. : All comments regarding the Tentative Decision
submitted Ofl or before 30 days after publicatiOn of this
notice will he considered by EP and should be se’t to
Alvin R. Morris (3WM00), Director, Water ManagerT P t Division,
rJ .S. F.nviroflrtlental Protection Agency 841 Che5tr’ut Street,
Philadelphia PA 19107.
For further information reg rdir ’g this variance decision
and requests for copies of he Tentative Dec stOfl and
Tentative Decision Support Document, contact Mr. Terry r% •
Oda, u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Water Management
Divisor’, 841 Chestnut Street, Phila( e1Phla , PA 19107
(Telephone No. 215/5978911).
1
-------
• • t S1 j•
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASRINGTON. 0 C. 20460
\, f
AUS 5
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SU8J CF: letions of Local Pretreat,neflt Program Deve1 cnent
R uiremefltS
. -pt
FROM: Rebecca W. Hanrner, Director
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Region I - X
Background
Over the past several months, the base number of local
pretreatment programs required nationwide has declined by over
200. In the first quarter of Ff 1985 alone, this base number
was reduced from 1530 to 1455. We recognize that as Regions
and approved States acquire new information on industrial water
usage, influent quality, L OTW operating characteristics, sludge
disposal options, and other criteria, the need to require a
POTW to develop a pretreatment program may change. When POTWs
do not meet the regulatory criteria set forth in §403.8(a) for
the development of a pretreatment program, deletion of such
programs is appropriate.
My concern is that the credibi1it ’ of our program develop-
ment re uirernefltS depends in part on adequate documentation and
tracKing. My April 1, 1985 memorandum to you outlined a pro-
cedure tO assure proper documentation and tracking. After dis-
cussing these procedures with Regional personnel, I agreed that
some aspects of the April 1 memorandum should be modified. This
memorandum supersedes the April 1, 1985 memorandum. In addition,
this ine norandum summarizes the regulatory criteria for requiring
establishnent.Of a local pretreatment program and the cir um—
stances in which such a requirement may be dropped.
Regulatory Criteria
In all cases here a Region or State has deleted the re—
quirernent to develop a local pretreatment program, the reasons
for such a change must be documented. The nature of the justi-
fication for deletion of a program requirement may vary depending
on whether the POTW’S total design flow is greater or less than
5 rngd.
-------
For POTWs wit t flows greater than 5 myd, Section 403.8(a)
of the General Pretreatment Regulations states:
“Any POTW (or combination of P )TW’s operated by tue sa ne
authority) with a total design flow greater than S iullion
gallons per day (mgd) and receiving from Industrial Users
pollutants which Pass Through or Interfere with the opera-
tion of the POTW or are otherwise subject to Pretreatment
:5tandards will be required to estar)lish a POT J Pretreatment
Program unless the NPDES State exercises its option to
assume local responsibilities as provided for in §403.10(e).”
The Approval Authority (Region or State) must obtain an
Industrial survey from all such POTWs. In order to delete the
pretreatment program requirement, the Approval Authority must
determine that 1) the POTW is not having problems with Pass
Through or Interference and 2) there are no Industrial Users
subject to Pretreatment Standards, including both categorical
standards and local limits developed pursuant to S403.5(a) and
(b). Both or these determinations should be documented.
Regions should obtain copies of State determinations so that EPA
has a complete record of changes to program development require-
rnents. (Of course, this requirement is not applicable where
the 4PL’t S State has assumed responsibility for running the
local program in lieu of the POT J.
For POTWs with flows less than 5 mgd, Section 403.8(a) of
eneral Pretreatment Regulations states:
“The Regional Administrator or Director may require that a
POTW with a design flow of 5 rngd or less develop a POTW
Pretreatment Program if he or she finds that the nature or
volume of the industrial influent, treatment process upsets,
violations of POT J effluent limitations, contamination of
municipal sludge, or other circumstances warrant in order t-.
prevent Interference with the POTW or Pass rhrough.”
Where the POT J’s design flow is 5 mgd or less and the Approval
Authority deletes the local program development requirement,
there must be a record of the Approval Authority’s determination
that the POflJ is not experiencing treatment process upsets,
violations of POTW effluent limitations, or contamination of
-njni.cipal sludge due to industrial users. Information on the
Por J’s total design tlow, and the nature and amount of industrial
wastes received should also be documented.
Conclus ion
At the request of the Region, OWEP will rnodifj its list of
required local programs, and adjust the end of year SPMS report
to ref 1 ect program deletions.
With regard to delttions already nade, we ask that you
personally assure that an explanation which addresses the
403.8(a) regulatory criteria is or has been put into the files,
and that the sa.n’ is done for future deletions. I wish to call
-------
to your attention that some e ions have already deleted trom
our list some POT IS witn design tiow greater 5 ngi. ;Ie
ask that you review your justification for these deletions very
carefully and request that you send us a summary of your find-
ings to determine it we need to revise the list a iair . I a n
asking for this because we have reason to believe th.it so ne
POT Js witr design flows of greater tnan 5 mgd have been deleted
based upon a misinterpretation of the General Pretreatment
Regulations. (Some Regional staff were apparently inaware that
“Pretreatment Standards” include Local limits.)
Please refer any questions concerning this memorandum t
Martha Prothro, (202) 755—2545, or Chuck Prorok (202) 426—4793.
cc: egional ?retreatrnent Coordinators
-------
-t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ I WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
/
4 .. #
(A COPY OF THIS GUT -DANcEIS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST).
O ic OF
ATIm
AUG 22 R5
ME MORAN DUN
SUBJECT: Guidance for NPDES Permits Issued to Steam Electric
wer Plants
LM. H
PROM: Rebecca W. Ranmer, Director
Office of Water Enforc.ment and Permits (EN—335)
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
State NPDES Directors
The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) has
received several inquiries about the proper implementation of the
effluent limitations guideline for the steam electric power gene-
rating industrial category that was promulgated on November 19,
1982 (47 FR 52290). Specifically, we have been asked for guidance
regarding the establishment of limitations when regulated process
wastewater is commingled in a treatment facility such as an ash
pond with uncontaminated dry weather flows or rainfall runoff.
The attached guidance addresses the establishment of concentration
or mass—based limits for such discharges.
We have also been asked to prepare guidance regarding the
establishment of limitations for once—through cooling water when
sequential chlorination is practiced. We are now preparing
guidance on this subject. Until guidance is transmitted, please
direct your specific questions to Charles Kaplan, National Expert
for Thermal Pollution and Steam Electric, Water Management Division,
Region IV, at FTS 257—3012. If you have any questions about the
attached guidance please call Charles Kaplan or Gail Goldberg
of the Permits Division at PTS 426—7010.
Attachment
cc: Ed Johnson (OWRS)
Jeff Denit (ITD/OWRS)
Coke Cherney (OGC)
-------
ri tri
September t 985
United States InaUStTiai TeChnology Divislon
Environmental Protection WH552
Agency Washington. DC 20460
Watet (A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPUIN REQUEST) —
Guidance Manual
for
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Pretreatment Standards
a
-------
TABLE OF .NrS
2.1
2—1
2—1
2—21
2—21
2—21
3—1
3—1
3.1 T AT?ENT OF 3—2
3.2 T AT!ENr OF 3—2
3.3 T ATT’ENT OF 3—3
3.4 T A1 € OF
3.5 T M’ EN OF
3.6 T a €Nr OF 3.5
3.7 3.6
3.8 T JcLT E 0 ?
3.9 T1€A1’TEHr OF
3.10 T A1 ’E 1r OF 3.8
3.11 r AT ENT OF •
3.12 TWAT!€I r OF
4.1
4—1
___ 4—2
4—2
4—2
4—4
4—4
4—5
4—5
4—5
___ 4—5
P e
1—1
1.2
1. x ir cUCrIOt1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
l•i HISEO OF T E I t AND SI’EEL MANUFAC1’URING CAIEGORICAL
FI LJ€AT?E&I
2. I 4 AND STh EL CA LEGORICAL P TIEAT!I€t 7 STAN RDS (40 CFR
PAM’ 420)................... ... ..
2.1 A.FFECI’ED ..... ....••• ... . . •..•....s••••
2.2 Wt€rI€ATPENr SAN RIS FOR TIE I AND STEEL MANUFAC-
TUR.ING CA1EGO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 LPITIONSHIP TO ELETIIDPLATING AND t€TAL FINISHING......
2 • 4 LILL71’ANTS E)(a.IU D F 4 GUL I 1. . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 LIAN
3. T 7 ENI’ ‘ iOLCG S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MAKING S1’ES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .
S IN1’ERING WASIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . .
I t U4AKING S’WiS1 S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S’L’EELZIAI(ING WASIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
V JUM
t irI J .E CASIING WAS S. . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . .
HOr FO IING WASIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SAL.T B ’H SCAL ING WASTE S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACID PIcKLING 51’ES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L.D LLING WASTES..........................
AI,KALItE CLEANING ,JASL S. . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
H I’ ATING WASIES...........................
4. QUI IEtffS OF TIE (EtERAL F IEAT!€NT i XJLATIC S.. . . .
4 • 1 tNr C( TICt1. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 • 2 C ’EGORY O(ESr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 IIVNfl’ORING AND IE RrING IEQUI E TS OF TIE (E?ERAL
PT ATIeErsTr ( JLATICNS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .
4 • 3.1 Baseline 4onitori r Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.2 Report on Ca plianC . . . . . •.•..••• . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.3 PeriodiC Reports and Contirued Canpliance.........
4.3.4 Notice of Slug Loading...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.5 4onitorirç and Analysis tO Daivnstrate
Contlr ied Caip]iance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.6 Signatory Requir’ 1 fltS for tnduatrial Users
Reports... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3.7 Re rcJet ir RequiL 1uefltS. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . •.
1
-------
TABLE OF N1E S (Contir ied)
.0,
thapter
4 • 4 APPLICATIC S C T 1BDED S1ES AM FORf4JLA
4 • 4 • 1 O F Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • , 4.7
4.4.2 Monitoring Requiruti nts for Industrial Users
Using the CWF................................... 4.7
4.4.3 Application of the CWF.......................... 4—7
4.5 M /AIL. DrrS........................................ 4—11
4.6 FUN t€NrALLY DIFEE Nr FACTO1 VARIAN ............... 4—12
4.7 LOCAL LIMrrs......... ....... ...............•.• .•...••• . 4—12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . .. . . . . . . . • . . . . . . .
a
•11
-------
United States Pernuts Div s,on and September 1985
Environmental Protsct,on I ndwtr ial Teduiology Division
Agency Washington. DC 20460
Water(A cDPY OF UID N E IS AV IL BLE uP 1 P f t1 T
EPA Guidance Manual
for the Use of
Production- Based
Pretreatment Standards
and the Combined
Wastestream Formula
‘-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
SEP 19 OFFICEOF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Pretreatment Program Guidance
i1Lr c j j.
PROM: RebeccaW. Hanmer, Director
f ate En 5 6rcement and Permits (EN—335)
nf’n, ting Director
ice of Water Regulations and Standards (WH—551)
TO: Users of the Guidance Manual for the Use of Production—
Based Categorical Pretreatment Standards and the
Combined Wastestreajn Formula
This guidance manual has been developed by EPA to explain
how to implement two important elements of the national
pretreatment program: categorical standards and the combined
wastestream formula. The manual is divided into two sections.
The first section explains how to apply production-based
categorical standards in a permit, contract, or similar
mechanism. The second part explains how to use the combined
wastestream formula, providing definitions and examples.
The manual is one of a series of guidance documents intended
to simplify and improve understanding of various aspects of the
pretreatment program. Other documents in this series which have
either been recently issued or will be issued in the near future
will provide.guidance on:
1) Removal Credits
2) Total Toxic Organics (TTO) Monitoring
3) RCRA Notification Requirements
4) Local Limits
5) POTW Interference
The need for guidance on the use of categorical standards
and the combined wastegtreaa formula was recognized by the
Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force (PIRT). PIRT was
set up by the EPA Administrator to make recommendations concerning
the problema faced by Portia, states, and industry in implementing
the national pretreatment program. This guidance manual is part
of the Agency’s response to the P!RT recommendations. It encourages
-------
—2—
active involvement of both the Control Authority and the industi
user in developing appropriate limits using categorical standard.
and the combined wastestream formula. Because the industrial
users are generally the ones most familiar with their processes
and production and flow rates, their participation is needed for
proper development of limits.
There are a few items covered in this document which deserve
special comment because they are related to Agency policy or
anticipated changes in the federal regulations. These are
discussed below.
Production—Based Standards
PIRT asked for guidance on, “the ways in which permits,
contracts, or other enforceable mechanisms may be used legally
to convert production—based standards to equivalent mass or
concentration limits.” PIRT asked whether the procedures that
have been developed for direct dischargers under the NPDES*
permit program also apply to indirect dischargers which are not
required to be permitted under the federal regulations. The
approach taken in this guidance manual is to provide a high
degree of consistency between the NPDES program and the pretreat-
ment program regarding application of production—based standards.
The manual emphasizes the usefulness of converting a production—
based standard to an equivalent mass per day limit, as is normal
done when developing NPDES permits. The option of using equival
concentration limits is also discussed. The discussion of how
to determine an appropriate production rate is based on section
40 CFR 122.45(b) of the NPDES regulations.
The manual stresses the importance of applying the equivalent
limits using a permit, contract, order, or other official document
that is transmitted to the industrial user. As with NPDES permits,
this document should clearly spell out 1) the equivalent limit,
2) the production and flow rates upon which the limit is based,
and 3) the requirement to notify the Control Authority of changes
in flow and/or production rates which would require the limit to
be revised. Unless there is such a document, it may be difficult
to determine compliance with production—based limits.
Equivalent limits provide a useful tool for determining
compliance with applicable categorical standards. Under the
current provisions of the Clean Water Act and the General
Pretreatment Regulations, however, an industrial user’s
compliance with an equivalent limit does not relieve the legal
requirement to be in compliance with the production-based stan-
dard itself. Equivalent limits are enforceable as local limits,
but they do not take the place of the categorical standard.
* National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
-------
—3—
A permit containing an equivalent limit does not shield the
industry from direct enforcement of the production—based standard.
However, EPA will support the proper use of equivalent mass or
concentration limits and will generally defer to the Control
Authority’s interpretation of how to apply them provided:
(1) the equivalent limits are correctly calculated using the
guidance provided in this manual and the calculations
are documented;
(2) each individual industrial user’s limit is specified in
a permit, contract, order or other official document that
is issued by the Control Authority to the user; and
(3) the permit—type mechanism specifies the production and
flow rates on which the equivalent limits were based and
requires that the user notify the Control Authority if
there is a change in the rates which would require the
limit to be revised.
If EPA finds through its oversight activities that the
three criteria listed above have not been met, we will generally
inform the Control Authority and allow time to correct the problem
before taking an enforcement action. However, the Agency may
choose to take direct enforcement action in any given situation.
The Agency is planning to propose changes to the General
Pretreatment Regulations to provide that equivalent mass per day
or concentration limits contained in a permit, contract, order,
or other official document shall be deemed Pretreatment Standards
for purposes of section 307(d) of the Clean Water Act and shall
be enforceable as such. If this regulation is promulgated,
compliance with the equivalent limits would be deemed compliance
with the production—based standard.
Combined Wastestream Formula
PIRT asked for clarification of the terms regulated,
unregulated,’ and dilution used in the combined wastestream
formula and recommended publication of corrections to Appendix D
of the 1981 General Pretreatment Regulations. At present,
Appendix D incorrectly labels certain wastestreams as dilution
streams. Proposed revisions to Appendix D were published in the
Federal Register on May 9, 1985. The reader should refer to
this revised version of Appendix D instead of the 1981 list
which has significant errors.
-------
—4—
This guidance manual also clarifies how the combined
wastestream formula should be applied when unregulated and
dilution streams are combined with regulated wastestreams after
treatment. The combined wastestream formula was developed to be
used when wastestreams are combined before treatment. Control
Authorities may also use the combined wastestream formula when
these streams are combined after treatment but they are not
required to do so. The manual provides guidance on how to proceed
when Control Authorities do not use the combined wastestream
formula when regulated and unregulated wastestreamg are combined
after treatment. It includes examples showing how a formula
should be used to account for the streams added after treatment.
If the streams added after treatment are all acting as dilution
(as shown by actual analysis), the results may be the same as if
the CWF were used. However, if unregulated streams are added
after treatment, the results will depend on the mass of pollutants
actually present in those streams and will probably differ from
a combined wastestream formula calculation.
-------
TABLE OF C VT N.rS
1 • iiii aicrzai. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—1
1.1 PU SE OF JI N E MANUAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—1
1.2 1—1
1 • 2 • 1 Purpose of Categorical Pretreatn nt Standards...... 1—2
1 • 2 • 2 I velcp ient of Categorical Pretrea nt
Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—2
2 • USE OF P WCflCV-BASED CATEGORICAL PRE’rREAThENr STANDARDS..... 2—1
2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 2—1
2.2 C E OF E JIVALF2lT MASS LIMITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—1
2.3 USE OF E JIVALEN QJNCE2 1TRATIQ LIMITS.................... 2—3
2 • 4 OBrAINING AND VERIFYING P1 WCTICV AND FLC ’J INFORMATICV... 2—5
2.5 P 1IBITICN NAI T DILUTICt TO AQ IEVE LIANCE........ 2-6
2.6 USE OF P WCrI -BASD) STANDARDS WITS A PEIIIIT SYSTEIbI.... 2-7
2 • 7 C E 4INING AN APPR)PRIATE PR)CUCrIC RATE FOR USE IN
CEV . DG LIMITS.............................. 2—8
2.7.1 Backgr ind.................... ..................... 2—8
2.7.2 t e of Historical ta. . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . 2—10
2.7.3 t terminir a Production Basis Without Historical
ta. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 2—13
2.8 I izt 4INflG AN APP )PRIATE FLa 1 RATE FOR USE IN
DEVEL ING E JIVALE2 ’r LIMrrs. . . . • • . • • . . . . • • . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . 2—14
2.8.1 Flow Measur nt and Flc rj Estlination............... 2—15
2 • 9 IN P WC I 1 AND FL.C RATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 2—17
2.9.1 thar es in Production Bate. . . . . . . . . . . • •1 • • • • • • . . . 2—18
2.9.2 a’ anges in Flow Rate............................... 2—19
2.9.3 Tiered rznits. . . . . • . • . . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . 2—19
i
-------
.3 • USE OF THE INED ‘ Sr ’rREAM FO ’1UL .A . . . . . • . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . 3—1
3.1 PU SE OF THE INED SrEsTREAM EO 4U!A............... 3—1
3.2 DEFINITIGI OF CWF T 4S..... ••... •s•s... ..... . • ......... .. 3—2
3.3 APP!LPICABILITY OF ‘1’ CWF......,........................... 3—4
3.4 D LE7’ Tr rIaJ OF 3—6
3.4. 1 nbined stestream Fot ’m.ilas. • • • • • • • • • , • , , . . . 3—6
3.4.1.1 Alternative Concentration Limit
For!nula. . . • . • . . . . • . • . . • . . 3—6
3.4.1.2 Alternative Mass Lnnit Fbrmula............ 3—7
3.4.1.3 Consistency en Canbining Categorical
Stat .ards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . 3.8
3.4.2 CondltlonsforUslngtheCWF......,............... 3—9
3.4.3 hnp].a ntaticn of the CèJF. . . . . • . . . . . . • . •... . . . . • . . 3—11
3.4.3.1 IU Responsibilities... •1•••• • •••• . ...... 3—13
3.4.4 E canple Use of the CWF. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—14
3.4.4.1 Example 1 — Simple Example of Canbined
stestream Formula Calculations With
Concentration Limits..................... 3—14
3.4.4.2 Example 2 — ?‘bre Canplex Ccinbined
stestream Formula Example Calculations
with Concentration and Mass Limits....... 3—15
3.4.4.3 Example 3 — Above Canbined Wastestream
Formula Calculations with Concentration
Limits for Cyanide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—16
3.4.4.4 Example 4 — Canbined Wastestrean Formula
Example Calculations Using Concentration
ar’xl Mass Limits.............. •........... 3—17
3.4.4.5 Example 5 — Canbined Wastestream Formula
for an Integrated Facility............... 3—20
3.4.5 Canparison of Local Limits and Categorical
Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—28
3.4.5.1 Example — Integrated Facility Calculations
Canparing Categorical Standards and Local
Limits. . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . 3—29
4 • REF I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—].
APPENDIX A PUBLICATICt AVAILJBLE E 4 THE GOVER 4EN PRINTING OFFICE
(GPO) AND/OR THE N TI AL TEQiNICAL INO1 TIC 4 SERVICE (N TIS)
APPENDIX B STATUS OF CATE(X)RICAL PR REA1T4ENT STAN S
APPENDIX C FL( 1J MEASURENENT REFERENCES
APPENDIX D C PPER EO WJG CNL’EX ORICAL PR REAThE IT Sr AN RDE - 9JBPAR I’S
t7 ILIZED IN DCAMPLES
APPENDIX E PORTION OF NPDES PE1 4IT APPLIC TICV REQUESTING p u.icrice AND
FL J INFO iATIQ4
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Thb le Page
1-1 EPA ESTIMATES OF POLUT ANT DIS iA E RATES AQ!IEVABLE
WI1 1 AND WIThCXJT FLGJ REDUCTION AS PARE OF TREA’IT4FNr
TEQ NDLCGY 1—4
2-1 CCIWARISCN OF TYPES OF PRE”IREAITIFNr STANDARDS FOR
CATEGORICAL INDUSTRIES 2—2
2-2 APPLICATION OF PFOwcrICtJ-BASED SrANDARLE 2-4
2-3 C WARISON OF P )DUCTION QUANTITIES SPECIFIED IN PFOcUc’rIa4-
BASED CATEGORICAL PRE’rREATMENr STANDARDS 2—9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 TIERED APPI )AQ 10 USING EQUIVALENT MASS LIMIIS 2-22
3.1 APPLICABILITY OF ThE INED WASTESTREAM FORIUIA 3-5
3 • 2 TYPICAL PO ELAIN F2 AMELING ON STEEL OPERATION 3-12
3 • 3 PFOCFSS FLC%’I SOIEZ4ATIC FOR EXAMPLE IU 3-21
3 • 4 DCAMPLE IU WASTEWATER FL 1 DIAGRAM 3—22
3.5 EXAMPLE FLON SCHF74ATIC OF EXAMPLE INTEGRATED
FACILITY CATFOORICAL lu 3—30
iii
-------
a
Urntsd S ea Perns QIya,on EN -f l 5._,,.... Sv 11
Ennon......,aa Pnei’aLa dnon. DC 46O
s” (A COPY IS THIS GUIANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON IthUUtST 1 .
Guidance Manual
for Implementing
Total Toxic Organics (TTO)
Pretreatment Standards
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
pter Page
1. INTRODUCTION
1.]. • DEFI.NITION OF TTO •1I • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . •1 • • • •• • • • . . . . . . 1—2
1.2. GE 4ERAL. ORGANIZATION . •SS • • • • • • • . . . •1 • • • • • • ••• •1 • • • • 1—2
1.3.LIMITATIONSOFTHISMANUAL......................... 1—3
2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
2.1. BASEL.INEMONITORINGREPORT ......................... 2—1.
212 • PROGRESS REPORTS . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . 2—3
2.3.90—DAYCOMPLIANCEREPORT......,..................... 2—3
2.4. INDUSTRIAL USER SEMI-ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT ...... 2—3
3. INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITH TTO REQUIREMENTS
3.1. ELECTROPLATING AND METAL FINISHING
311 Si • TTO Limits • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . 3—1
3.1.2. Alternative toTTO Monitoring ............... 3—2
3.1.3. Sources of ToxicOrganics •..•...•.••••....•. 3—3
32. ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS
(PHASES I AND II)
3.2.1. TTO Limits •ISISS•SSSSSSSSSSSSS.SS.••S•• 3—4
3.2.2. Alternative toTTO Monitoring ...•..•........ 3—5
3.2.3. Sources of Toxic Organics ................... 3—6
3.3. COPPER FORMING
3.3111 TTO Limits •. • S SI SIS S S S S S ISI S 5 S S S S S SI S S S S S S SI 3—6
3.3.2. Alternative toTTO Monitoring ............... 3—8
3.3.3. Sources of Toxic Organics •.................. 3—8
3.4. ALUMINUM FORMING
3.4.1. TTO Limits •.....................• .. .• .e ••• 3—8
3.4.2. Alternative toTTO Monitoring ............... 3—13
3.4.3. Sources of Toxic Organics ................... 3—13
3.5. COIL COATING
3.5.1. TTO Limit 1 S 1S1SS1SS 1 ISIS 5555555555115551 3—14
3.5.2. Alternative toTTO Monitoring •.............. 3—16
3.5.3.SourcesofToxiCOrganiCS ................... 3—16
4. GUIDANCE FOR THE PREPARATION OF A TOXIC ORGANIC
MANAGEMENT PLAN .555.SISSSISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 5S5S5• 4—1
5. USE OF THE COMBINED WASTESTREAM FORMULA
5.1 DEFINITIONS ..S•SS ..........SSSSSSISSSSSSSSS ....... 5—1
5.2 CWF CONDITIONS • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . 55 . . . . . . . 5—1
5.3 CALCULATION OF ALTERNATIVE TTO LIMITS
USING THE CWF . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . 5—2
1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Chapter PaQ
6. REMOVAL CREDITS
6.1 REMOVALCREDITSFORTTO •.....................e...•. 6—i
6.2 REMOVAL CREDITS FOR TTO SURROGATE OR
I NDICATOR POLILILJTANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6—2
7 • TTO MONITORING GUIDANCE
7.1. SAMPLING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1.1. Sampling Location . . . ••.... . . • . . .•••• • • . . • •IS 7—1
7.1.2. sample Collection Techniques •............... 7—2
7.1.3. Sample Volumes . . . . . . .. . .•••• • . ••...••• . . . . •1 7 3
7.1.4. Sample Equipment and Containers •............ 7—12
7.1.5. Sample PreservatLon and HoldLng Tunes ....... 7—13
7.1.6. Sample Type and Frequency for TTO
Monitoring •,••••• . ..• .... ..e. .sssss•.s••••• 7—13
7.2. LABORATORY CONSIDERATIONS
7.2.i.Ana1ytiCa1PrOCedUres.....e........ . 7—20
7.2.2. LaboratoryQua1LtyCOfltr l •................. 7—21
7.3. OIL AND GREASE MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS
7.3.1. Oil and Grease Sampling Considerations •..... 7—21
7.3.2. Analytical Considerations for
Oil and Grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7—21
APPENDIX A: 40 CFR Section 403.12: Reporting Requirements
for POTW5 and Industrial (Jserc •.. ..............
APPENDIX B: Electroplating and Metal Finishing Category:
List of Toxic Organic Compounds Regulated as
Components of Total Toxic Organics . . . • . ........ B—i
APPENDIX C: Electrical and Electronic Components Category:
List of Toxic Organic Compounds Regulated as
- Components of Total Toxic Organics
C By Subcategory) . ..••.•. ••.• . •••••• ••••••s•ss C—i
APPENDIX D: Example Toxic Organic Management Plan •......... 0—i
APPENDIX E: 40 CFR Section 465.03: Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements . . • . . . . . • . • . • . . . . • . • . . • . . • • • . . • . . • Ei
Li
-------
(A COPY OF .TBIS MAIWAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST)
SEP I I 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Manual in Response to PTRT Recoiim’endatton for
Guidance on Notification of Solid Waste Disposal
Obligations
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director
Permits Division (EN—336)
TO: Rebecca W. Hanr er, Director
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
Attached for your review is a final guidance manual written
in resoonse to recommendation A7 (Notification of Solid Waste
r’isrosal Obligations) in tha Pretreatment Imolementation Task Force
(PERT) final report. The manual is titled RCRA Inforiaatton on
Hazardous Waste for Publicly Owned Treatment Works .
This manual is desianed to assist POTW personnel, and local
industries served by a POTW, in understanding their respective
responsibilities under RCRA. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(iii) requires
‘)T’ Is to notify industrial users of any applicable requirements
under section 204(b) and 405 of the Clean Water Act and Subtitles
C and P of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Included
in this manual is a notification brochure (Appendix B) that
can t’e conied and mailed out to industrial users by the POTW.
This document covers a broad area of RCRA requirements and
we t ierefore, souaht review by the Office of Solid Waste.
SDecifically, we worked closely with the Studies and Methods
ranch (Man Corson), Waste Identification Branch (Matt Strauss
and staff), Iriplementation Branch (Steven Levy and staff), and
paste Treatment Branch (Linda Galor). In addition, the manual
was sent to the Reqi’rns (both Water Management Divisions and
PCPA Divisions) for their review and comment. The final rtanual
r’ flects this review.
I have sent the final manual to OW, OPPE, OWRS, 0CC, and
the Enforcement Division for any additional comments. I am
exnecting responses by September 18. We must have the manual
to the printer by Sentember 20 in order to meet our work plan
schedule. September 20 is the last day FY 85 orinting requests
wifl he accented.
-------
—2-
Please let me know if you would like to arranqe a meeting
to discuss the manual in more detail.
Attachments
Guidance Manual
Comments from the Regions with HOe Response
Publication/Printing Form
DLEE :gj : EN—336 :50750:9—10—85
Lex. Disk #3
-------
United States Office of September 1985
Environmental Protection Water Enforcement Permits
Agency Washington. DC 20460
Water
EPA RCRA Information
on Hazardous Wastes
for Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 Purpose of This Manual 1.1
1.2 Relationship of RCRA to Pretreatment 1-1
1.3 Organization of the Manual 14
2. RCRA Obligations for Generators and Transporters of
Hazardous Waste 21
2.1 Hazardous Waste Determination 2-2
2.2 RCRA Requirements for Hazardous Waste Generators 2.10
2.3 RCRA Requirements for Transporters of Hazardous Waste 2-18
3. POTW Authority to Regulate Toxic Waste Dischargers Under
the General Pretreatment Regulations 3-1
3.1 The National Pretreatment Program 3-1
3.2 Elements of a Local Pretreatment Program 3-3
3.3 Notification of Toxic Waste Dischargeis by POTWs 3-3
3.4 Practical Guidelines for POTWs 3-5
4. RCRA Requirements for POTWs 4-1
4.1 Overview of P01W Requirements 4-1
4.2 Basic Requirements for POTWs with RCRA Permits by Rule 4-2
4.3 Corrective Action Requirements for POTWs with RCRA
Permits by Rule
4.4 Alternatives to Current Permits by Rule 4-5
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Regional and State Contacts
Appendix B: RCRA Information Brochure
Appendix C: EPA Listed Hazardous Waste
Appendix D: Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity (EPA Form 8700-12)
Appendix E: Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (EPA Forms 8700-fl and 8700-22A)
Appendix F: Generator Annual Report (EPA Form 8700-13)
Appendix G: Draft Latter to lUs
Appendix H: EPA Pamphlets on Small Quantity Generators
Appendix I: Biennial Hazardous Waste Report (EPA Form 8700-13B)
-------
o
11 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
/
‘ L p Ø1
OCT31 1985
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Permit Compliance System (PCS) Policy Statement
FROM: Lawrence J. Jensen
Assistant Administrator for Water (WH-556)
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
Regions I — X
I am pleased to issue the attached policy statement on the
Permit Compliance System (PCS). This policy statement represents
an important step in the continuing effort to support a reliable
and effective automated information system for the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
PCS is the national data base for the NPDES program. It
serves as the primary source of NPDES information for EPA, NPDES
States, Congress, and the public. The use and suoport of PCS by
EPA Regions and NPDES States are crucial to the effectiveness and
proper oversight of the NPDES program. This policy statement
establishes for EPA and NPDES States the key management practices
arid resoonsibilities central to PCS’ ability to contribute to the
overall integrity of the NPDES program and the achievement of our
long—term environmental goals. One of the requirements is to have
Regions and States enter all required data into PCS by September 30,
1986 (see Attachment 1 of the PCS Policy Statement). While the aim
of the policy is a consistent approach across Regional and State
NPDES programs, it retains flexibility for Regions and States to
tailor agreements to the unique conditions of each State.
The PCS Policy Statement is effective immediately. The Office
of Water Enforcement and Permits will monitor implementation of the
policy statement and issue special instructions as necessary.
Regional Water Management Division Directors and their State coun-
terparts are responsible for ensuring that their staffs receive suf-
ficient support to apply the principles of the policy to their PCS
activities.
I look forward to a strong commitment to this policy statement
by EPA and State NPDES programs. You can be assured of my full
support as EPA and the States move forwarci with its implementation.
Attachments
cc: dministrator
Deputy Administrator
State Directors
PCS Steering Committee
PCS Users Group
-------
PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM POLICY STATEMENT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF POLICY
It is EPA policy that the Permit Compliance System (PCS) shall
be the national data base for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. All EPA Regions must use PCS
directly, and all NPDES States must either use PCS directly or
develop and maintain an interface.
As our primary data source, PCS will promote national consis-
tency and uniformity in permit and compliance evaluation. To
achieve national consistency and uniformity in the NPDES program,
the required data in PCS must be complete and accurate. Facility,
permits (i.e., events and limits), measurement, inspection, com-
pliance schedule, and enforcement action data are required. These
required data elements are further defined in Attachments 1 and 2.
They comprise the Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB)
which has been redefined as the core of information necessary to
enable PCS to function as a useful operational and management tool
and so that PCS can be used to conduct oversight of the effective-
ness of the NPDES program.
All required data for NPDES and non—NPDES States must be
entered into PCS by September 30, 1986 and maintained regularly
thereafter. This will require Regions and States to start entering
data as early as possible, and not wait until late FY 1986.
By the end of FY 1986, direct users of PCS shall establish,
with Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) assistance,
a Quality Assurance program for data in PCS. The program shall
define:
O monthly measurement of the level of data entered;
0 appropriate time frames to ensure that data are entered
in PCS in a timely manner; and
0 nationally consistent standards of known data quality
based on proven statistical methods of quality assurance.
PCS Quality Assurance shall address the completeness (for
assurance of full data entry) and accuracy of the data
entered into PCS.
Adoption of PCS by States should be formalized in each
State’s Sl06 Program Plan, State/EPA Agreement, or in a separate
agreement. Each plan should clearly define EPA’s and the NPDES
State’s responsibilities regarding PCS. The Key Management
Practices in this Policy Statement should be incorporated into
the §106 Program Plan.
-------
—2—
BAC KGROUND
When the PCS Steering Committee met in March 1985, EPA
Regional representatives stressed the essential need for a positive
statement from EPA Headquarters management to Regional and State
management specifically requiring the support and use of PCS.
Lack of such support may result in an incomplete and unreliable
data base. With sufficient EPA Headquarters, Regional, and State
support, however, PCS will come to serve several major purposes
for the NPDES program:
o PCS will provide the overall inventory for the NPDES program.
o will provide data for responding to Congress and the
public on the overall status of the NPDES program. As
such, it will serve as a valuable tool for evaluating the
effectiveness of the program and the need for any major
policy changes.
o PCS will encourage a proper EPA/State oversight role by iden-
tifying all major permittee violators.
o PCS will offer all levels of government an operational and
management tool for tracking permit issuance, compliance,
and enforcement actions.
This PCS Policy Statement is a result of the Steering Committee
meeting. It is a clear message to Regional and State management
that PCS is the primary source of NPDES information, and as
such, it is to be supported wholeheartedly by all users of PCS.
The PCS Steering Committee meeting also resulted in a
redefinition of WENDB and ratification thereof. WENDB is the
minimum standard of data entry which will allow PCS to function
as a useful operational and management tool (see Attachments 1
and 2). EPA Regions agreed that all WENDB elements will be
entered into PCS by September 30, 1986, and maintained regularly
thereafter.
Once the required data are entered into and regularly main-
tained in PCS, PCS will assist permits and compliance personnel
in many of their operational and management responsibilities.
PCS will greatly reduce reporting burdens for such activities
as the Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS), and it
will reduce efforts needed for effective compliance tracking at
both Regional and State levels. Also, substantial automation of
the Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR) will save time and
resources.
-------
—3—
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Key Management Practices
To effectively implement and uphold this PCS Policy Statement
and enhance PCS’ capabilities, there are certain key management
practices that must be implemented:
The following milestones have been established to facilitate
the entry of all recuired data by the end of FY 1986:
— All required National Municipal Policy (NMP) data must be
entered into PCS by October 31, 1985 (See Attachment 1).
— All required data for non—NPDES States must be entered
into PCS by March 31, 1986.
o NPDES permits shall be enforceable and tracked for compli-
ance using PCS. The Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits (OWE?) recognizes there may be situations where
permit limits and monitoring conditions are not initially
compatible with PCS data entry and tracking. In these
cases, Regions should ensure that appropriate steps are
taken by the permit writer to identify difficult permits
to the PCS coder, and to mutually resolve any coding
issues. The Regions should work closely with their NPDES
States using PCS, to address similar data entry problems
with State—issued NPDES permits.
o WENDB is the minimum standard of data entry for PCS (see
the attached lists of data reauirements). If States and
Regions wish to enter NPDES data beyond what has been required,
they may do so. For example, if States want to enter
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data for minor facilities,
the option is available in PCS and the States’ may use it
as their resources allow. EPA will ensure that sufficient
computer space is available for the currently projected
use of PCS.
S
o All DMRs submitted to EPA Regional Offices (including DMRs
submitted by NPDES States for EPA entry into PCS) must be
preprinted using the Office of Management and Budget (0MB)
approved DMR form. NPDES States directly using PCS are
not required to use the 0MB-approved form; however, its
use is strongly encouraged. With the continuing demand
for more complete information and with stable, if not
diminishing, data entry resources, it is to EPA’S and
NPDES States’ benefit to preprint DMRs. The use of pre-
printed DMRs will greatly reduce PCS’ data entry burden,
making available resources to be used in other areas
(e.g., PCS quality assurance, data entry for other PCS
records, etc.).
-------
—4—
o The frequency with which DMRs are submitted to the EPA or
NPDES State is important for ensuring timely entry of
data into PCS and timely review of permittee’s compliance
status. Quarterly, semi—annual, or annual submission of
DM Rs creates a major data entry burden and impedes the
compliance evaluation process. As a result, the useful-
ness of DMR data for compliance evaluation decreases
substantially. Monthly submittal of DMRS alleviates this
problem and enhances PCS’ effectiveness significantly. It
is recommended that monthly submittal of DMRs be incorpo-
rated into major permits as they are reissued. With approx-
imately 20 percent of the permits reissued each year, it
will take five years to complete the transition to monthly
submittal for all major permittees.
o EPA Regions should coordinate with their respective States
to develop strategies that describe each State’s plans to
either use PCS directly or develop an interface. These
strategies should include the rationale for selecting one
of these methods of data entry into PCS, an outline of all
- requirements necessary for implementing the selected
method, the mechanisms to be used to supply sufficient
resources, and a schedule for attainment not to exceed
September 30, 1986. If a State is a current user of PCS
via one of these methods, the strategy should describe its
needs for enhancing its PCS usage or improving its PCS
interface, the mechanisms to be used to supply sufficient
resources, and a schedule for attainment not to exceed
September 30, 1986.
O When writing or revising a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),
the Region and State should specify the State’s intent to
use or interface with PCS. The MOA should address the
rationale for selecting one of these selected methods of
data entry into PCS, an outline of all requirements neces-
sary for implementing the selected method, the mechanisms
to be used to supply sufficient resources, and a schedule
for attainment.
Responsibilities
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits : It is OWEP’s full
responsibility to maintain the structure (i.e., the computer
software) of PCS and to operate the system. OWEP will continue
to support time—sharing funds needs, training, and the necessary
resources to continue the operation of PCS. OWEP will work with
the EPA Regions and NPDES States to continually evaluate and
improve, where feasible, the system’s software, time—share funding,
operation, and maintenance. OWEP will maintain a Steering Commit-
tee and User Group, organize the national meetings, and work
closely with the Regional and State representatives on major
decisions related to PCS.
OWEP will oversee the Regions’ and States’ progress in
fulfilling this policy statement by assessing the quantity of
data entered each quarter.
-------
—5—
EPA Regions and NPDES States : It is the EPA Regions’ and
NPDES States’ full responsibility to maintain the infrastructure
of PCS by accurately enterinq data in a timely manner. Also, EPA
Regions and NPDES States are responsible for participating in PCS
Workgroups and contributing to improvements to PCS.
Three National PCS meetings are held each year, one for the
Steering Committee and two for the PCS Users Group. EPA Regions
are expected to attend all three meetings. NPDES States directly
using PCS are invited to attend the State portions of these
meetings. More meetings may be scheduled during the year if
necessary.
Since consistent and objective compliance tracking is a
central component of an effective and credible enforcement program,
NPDES States are strongly urged to use PCS directly. We realize,
however, that there may be some cases where NPDES States cannot
use PCS directly. In these instances, in accordance with S123.4l
of the regulations, EPA requests from the States all required
information (as indicated in the attachments) for entry into PCS.
This can be achieved one of two ways:
° A State Automated Data Processing (ADP) interface can be
developed. It is the EPA Region’s responsibility to work
with the NPDES State to develop an effective State ADP
interface. The State, however, should take the lead in
developing the interface and work closely with the Region
to ensure the interface is effective. It should be realized
that system interfaces are often troublesome and unwieldy;
• they are often ineffective and limit the States’ flexibility
to change their systems quickly to meet management needs.
In the event a State ADP interface is developed, there
must be formal agreement that the State will operate the
interface, maintain the interface software, and be fully
responsible for making any changes to the interface based
on changes made to its automated data base. This will
ensure that the NPDES State will be held responsible for
system compatibility. If the State does not accept full
responsibility with system compatibility, then changes
must not be made to the State system without the prior
knowledge of EPA. The State is responsible for ensuring
that the data are transferred to PCS in a timely manner,
accurately, and completely. Interfaces must be developed
and maintained so that they operate with maximum efficiency
all of the time.
o OWEP recognizes that FY 1986 will be a transition year for
PCS. NPDES States will begin using PCS or will develop
interfaces. In the event that neither of these alternatives
is accomplished by the end of FY 1986, in accordance with
the F! 1986 Guidance for the Oversight of NPDES Programs ,
the State will be responsible for submitting all required
information (as indicated in the attachments) in hard
copy format. The data must be submitted either already
-------
—6—
coded onto PCS coding sheets or in a format that can be
readily transferred onto PCS coding sheets. Also, the data
must be submitted at regular intervals to ensure timely
entry into PCS. Once the data are received by EPA, it is the
EPA Region’s responsibility to enter the data into PCS in a
timely manner.
Funding
o §106 grant funds may be used for interface software develop-
ment. However, they cannot be used for maintenance of the
interface software for State—initiated changes to a State
ADP system or for the operation and maintenance of a separate
State AD? system.
o §106 grant funds may be used for State data entry if and
only if the State uses PCS directly or the State provides
data to PCS via an interface that meets the standards of
this policy.
o If requested by a State, EPA will agree to pay for its
time—sharing costs to implement this policy, within given
resources.
O Headquarters will continue to pursue alternative methods of
reducing the data entry burden on Regions and States.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
REQUIRED DATA TO BE ENTERED INTO PCS
Information Type 1 Majors Minor 92—500s Other Minors
Permit Facility Data X X X
Permit Event Data X X X
Inspection Data X X X
Parameter Limits and X
Pipe Schedule Data
Compliance Schedule X X
Data
DMR Measurement Data X
Significant Noncompliance X
F 1 ag
Enforcement Action Data X
(Enforcement Action Data,
Compliance Schedule Data,
and Interim Limits Data
from all active formal
enforcement actions)
Enforcement Action Data X
(Type Action, ENAC;
Issue Date, ENDT; and
Date Compliance Required,
ERDT; from all active
formal enforcement
actions)
Pretreatment Approval 2 X X X
National Municipal Policy X X X
Data 3
1 For each of the categories listed in this chart, the Information
Type is the set of core data elements listed in Attachment 2.
2 Pretreatment Program Required Indicator, PRET; one data element.
3 A1]. required data as described in May 16, 1985 memorandum on
National Municipal Policy Tracking in PCS. This includes
Facility User Data Element 6 (RDF6), Compliance Schedule and
Enforcement Action information.
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
WATER ENFORCEMENT NATIONAL DATA BASE (WENDB) ELEMENTS
Data Element Name
Acronym
COMMON KEY
NPDES Number
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE RECORD
Compliance Schedule Number
Data Source Code
Compliance Actual Date
Compliance Report Received Date
Compliance Schedule Date
Compliance Schedule Event Code
COMPLIANCE VIOLATION RECORD
*Compljance Violation Date
*violation Compliance Event Code
*Compljance Violation Code
*significant Non—Compliance Code
(Compliance)
*significant Non—Compliance Date
(Compliance)
*violation Compliance Schedule
Number
*Vjolation Data Source Code
ENFORCEMENT ACTION RECORD
CSCH
DS CD
DT AC
DT RC
DT SC
EVNT
CVDT
CVEV
CVIO
S NC C
SN DC
VCSN
VDC D
Enforcement Action
Achieved Date
Enforcement Action
Enforcement Action
Enforcement Action
Enforcement Action
Enforcement Action
Enforcement Action
Violation Code
Enforcement Action
Violation Date
Enforcement Action
Number
Enforcement
En forcement
Enforcement
En forcement
Due Date
Enforcement
Enfo rcement
Enforcement
En forcement
Number
Response
Comment Line
Comment Line
Comment Line
Comment Line
Comment Line
Compliance
Compliance
Modification
Date
Status Code
Response
Status Date
Season Number
Source Code
Discharge
EADR
EC Ml
ECM2
ECM3
ECM4
ECM 5
ECVC
ECVD
EMOD
ENAC
EN DT
ENST
ERDT
ES DT
ES EA
EVC D
EVDS
NPID
1
2
3
4
5
Action Code
Action
Ac t ion
Act ion
Action
Action
Action
Act ion
Usually generated by PCS; can be manually entered.
-------
WENDB ELEMENTS
(Continued)
Data Element Name Acronym
Enforcement Action Event Code EVEV
Enforcement Action Limit Type— EVLM
Alphabetic
Enforcement Action Monitoring Date EVMD
Enforcement Action Monitoring Location EVML
Enforcement Action STORET Parameter EVPR
Code
Enforcement Action Discharge Designator EVRD
Enforcement Action Compliance Schedule EVSN
Enforcement Action Violation Type EVTP
EVIDENTIARY HEARING RECORD
Evidentiary Hearing Event Date EHDT
Evidentiary Hearing Event Code EHEV
INSPECTION RECORD
Inspection Date DTIN
Inspector Code INSP
Inspection Type TYPI
MEASUREMENT VIOLATION RECORD
Measurement Concentration Average MCAV
Measurement Concentration Minimum MCMN
Measurement Concentration Maximum MCMX
Measurement Quantity Average MQAV
Measurement Quantity Maximum MQMX
Violation Date (Measurement) MVDT
No Discharge Indicator NODI
*significant Non—Compliance Code SNCE
(Measurement)
*significant Non—Compliance Date SNDE
(Measurement)
Violation Measurement Designator VDRD
Measurement Discharge Number VDSC
Violation Monitoring Location VMLO
Violation STORET Parameter VPRM
PARAMETER LIMITS RECORD
Change of Limit Status COLS
Contested Parameter Indicator CONP
Modification Period End Date ELED
Modification Period Start Date ELSD
Concentration Average Limit LCAV
Concentration Minimum Limit LCMN
Concentration Maximum Limit LCMX
Concentration Unit Code LCUC
Quantity Average Limit LQAV
-------
WENDB ELEMENTS
(Continued)
Data Element Name Acronym
Quantity Maximum Limit LQMX
Quantity Unit Code LQUC
Limit Type — Alphabetic LTYP
Monitoring Location MLOC
Modification Number MODN
Limit Discharge Number PLDS
Limit Report Designator PLRD
STORET Parameter Code PRAM
Season Number SEAN
Statistical Base Code STAT
PERMIT EVENT RECORD
Permit Tracking Actual Date PTAC
Permit Tracking Event Code PTEV
PERMIT FACILITY RECORD
River Basin BAS6
City Code CITY
County Code CNTY
Type Permit Issued — EPA/State EPST
Federal Grant Indicator FDGR
Final Limits Indicator FLIM
Average Design Flow FLOW
Facility Name Long FNML
Facility Inactive Code IACC
Major Discharge Indicator (Entered MADI
by EPA Headquarters)
Pretreatment Program Required PRET
Indicator
SIC Code SIC2
Type Ownership TYPO
National Municipal Policy RDF6
Tracking Indicator
Significant Noncc npliance Flag for (To Be Created)
P.L. 92—500 Minor Facilities
PIPE SCHEDULE RECORD
Report Designator DRID
Discharge Number DSCH
Final Limits End Date FLED
Final Limits Start Date FLSD
Interim Limits End Date MLED
Interim Limits Start Date MLSD
Initial Limits End Date ILED
Initial Limits Start Date ILSD
Number of Units in Report Period NRPU
Number of Units in Submission Period — NSUN
EPA
Number of Units in Submission Period — NSUS
State
-------
WENDB ELEMENTS
(Continued)
Data Element Name Acronym
Pipe Inactive Code PIAC
Report Units REUN
Initial Report Date STRP
Initial Submission Date — State STSS
Initial Submission Date — EPA STSU
Submission Unit — EPA S JUN
Submission Unit — State SUUS
NOTE: Additional data elements subject to approval:
Frequency of Analysis FRAN
Sample Type SAMP
Compliance Schedule File Number CSFN
Enforcement Action File Number ERFN
Permit Limits File Number LSFN
Inspection Comments (First ICOM
Three Characters for the
Number of Industrial Users
Inspected)
Facility Inactive Date IADD
Reissuance Control Indicator RCIN
Pipe Inactive Date PIDT
Total: 111 WENDB elements
plus additional data elements: + 9 data elements
New total: 120 WENDB elements
-------
2O I
ME!4ORANDUT4
SUBJECT : National Minor Permit Issuance Strategy
FROM: Rebecca W. Hanner, Director bW f5Y
Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
Attached is th . final Minor Permit Issuanc. Strategy. Th.
strategy is the culmination of the efforts of a joint Raqianal,
State and Headquarters workgroup which first met in Jume 1985.
end which helped fashion the first draft dated August 1985. You
were invited to co’ ent on a later version of the strategy dated
October 31. 1985. This final strategy reflects the ca imed
cosmients of the Regions. numerous WPD States and ..v.ral
Headquarters Offices.
The minor permits of highest priority fox issuance or. these
where watar quality probleme ar• known or suspected due to the
presence of toxic pollutants. You are reminded that witbin tb
existing Major Permit Classification Syotea. you ha .. tb. ability
to re—evaluate a facility’s major/minor classification rating
at any tins based on nor i*formatiou and submit the x..s t.t
your re-evaluation semisanually to thi. office. Should b data
indicate a toxic effluent. the rating criterion Water Oua3.i*
Factors • should be res..e.s.d bss.d on a violation of th. c --n
State water quality standard of no discharge of toxics in tonic
amounts. A1t.rnatively, you may consider classifying minor
facilitie• a. discretionary majors when, on the basi. of toxicity
data they have been identified as significant sources of toxic
pollutants.
One of the purposes of the Strategy is to identify and
rr vtde or develop tools for regulatory agencies to use to
faci1it te minor perriits issuance. We ow plan to distrthute
the ex ating tooI5 by February 29, together with a schedule for
the eve1op ent of future tools.
-------
—2—
Pleas, begin to implement the Strategy immediately by diecuasin
its rrlricjp le 3 with the States and beginning to develop individual
Stat,? strategies. OWAS requires a minor permits issuance strategy
tc h developed for each State by July 1, 1986. These strat.gje ,
ire to be used to identify slgnific , minor permits to be is .u
in FY87.
Any que.tjo 3 you may have about the strategy may be directed
to Martha Prothro, Director of the Permit. Divj ,j 0 (rrs 475 9545)
or Harry Thron of the Technjc 5 i Suppo Branch (F’?S 47S 9535)
Attac) ent
cc, Director,, NPD $ Stat. Progr , ,
EN—336:flap:Lorretta: REV:Bz]—29—86: $6
REV: adg: 2/18/86: R.EV:Lisa: 2—19—86
£
I
-------
EB 23 .?
N T I ON AL
!JPDES MINOR PERMIT ISSUANCE STRATEGY
US EPA
Office of Water
Office of Water Enforcement and Peri”its
Permits Divi jon
Technical Support Branch
January, 198
-------
• t. urtose of the ‘ inor Permit Issuance Strateqy
ackaround
The Clean ater Act provides that no pollutants nay be
discharqed fror point sources to the waters of the United States
without a iational Pollutant Discharae Elinination Syster (JPDEs)
perrit. This includes all point sources, whether previously
permitted under the IPDES perrits prograr or not. The Act does
not differentiate between najor and minor point sources and,
theretore, rec uires the Environmental Protection Paency and the
NPDCS States to issue and maintain current NPDES permits for all
sources.
EPA developed a major/minor classification systen for
industrial and municipal rJPDES permits to provide an initial
framework for setting permit issuance priorities during the
first and second rounds of NPDES permit issuance. Historically,
najor permits have been considered more significant sources and,
therefore, have been accorded more regulatory attention than
minor permits. Major permits almost always have the capability
to ir’pact receiving waters if not controlled. Minor permits may,
or ay not, adversely ii pact receivinçp waters if not controlled.
There are approximately 65,000 discharqers in the United
States which have been issued NPDES permits. Currently, 7,500
of these, due to size or composition of wastevater or both, are
termed major permits. The remainder are termed ‘minor permits.
According to the national Permit Compliance System (PCS) data
oase, the national minor permit backlog is about 23,500 (see
Appendix A).
EPA’S Office of Water announced its strategy for issuance
of major permits on June 2, 1982. Thi. strategy directed EPA
Reqione to focus permitting resources on the issuance of major
peri iits, As a result, th. backlog of expired major permits ha.
been laraely eliminated. However, this approach has also contri-
buted to a larae and continuing backlog of expired minor permits
in both ! PDES States and EPA Regions. The minor permit issuance
strateqy is aimed at reducing the minor permit backlog while
EPA arid States eliminate backlogs of major permits or reduce
thern to an absolute r’iniwum.
Uurr ose of Strategy
T -is strater7y has three purposes,
1. To prorncte issuance and reissuance of n’inor iPDES permits
by e t ilistijnc mara able expiration schedules and
t:eret v ralr.tainipç u ranaqeable pervittinq worklca .
,. , 3t t.i1s ’ national ;rioritiee for rinor permit is5 taT’Ce
r.& ’ rir t on onvironrental significance and seconc
• t— Ll..Itcr’,’ efficie’ c ’
-------
—2—
3. To identify and alan for devejopy’ent and distribution
of perr t issuance tools to all reculatory agencies
to enhanc. exiscjnc, Capabilities for issuinc minor
perr Its.
rdIrework for Stratecy Development and Implementation
Two EPA tracking and accountability systems, the StrateQjc
Planning and Management System (SPMS) and the Office of Water
Accountability System (OhAs), address minor permit issuance.
The Administrator’s agency—wide tracking system, sP s,
includes a requirement that Regions and NPDES States submit
numerical commitments for the issuance of signifjcant’ minor
permits for F! 1986. The minor permit issuance strategies
developed by the EPA Reqions and UPDES States as required by
OhAS should reflect these nuz .ricaJ, c imitm.nts.
The tracking system for the Assistant Administrator for
Water, OWAS, for F! 1986 includes requirement, for two commit-
ments and two corresponding tracking elem.nt, for them. Pint,
like SPMS, it includes a nu erjca ]. ccmmitm.nt requirem.n for
issuance of aignificant’ minor permit,. This commitment is
identical to the sppis numerical commitment except that OWAS
requires the total commitment to be broken down into municipal
ana non—municipal components. Second, OWAS includei a require-
ment for the developrient of State—by—State minor permit
issuance strategies, by July 1986, to provide for a thought-
ful planning and prioritizing process for the issuanc, of
n;inor permits,
For F! 1986, OWAS do.. not specifically requirs that
States or Regions list th. names of minor permitt.es they
plan to address in PT 1986. However, the implementation
of State strategies must culminate in identifying specific
individual minor permits, which will be used for tracking
performanc, against SPMS targets in F? 1987. Prior to the
beginning of PT 1987, lists of specific permits must, there-
fore, be developed ba.sd on the priorities of the Stat.
minor permit issuance strategies. These lists should be
i aintajn ,d through PCS, but may be revised periodically
by the permitting authority.
Both accountability Systems require the issuance of
z,i s permits to significan • minors, The identification of
significant r inors will depend art the issuance strategy for
tach State, but sicnifjcant ninor discharaers should be
clistinrTuished by their clearly definable environmental impact
‘hen compared to other minor discharqers. each State strategy
sI’o’Ald identify sicrnificant rinor pernits as those permits to
be issuea that riscal year based on the priority ranking
-------
—3—
factors listed in each strategy. Those perr its of highest
priority in that tiscdl year for which an issuance commitment
las been rade will be significant ninors.
The OWAS quiclance docuz ent provides the following
sur rary definition of a State minor permit issuance strategy:
A strategy for minor peruit issuance is to be prepared
for eacti State by the pernitting authority based on the
national minor permit issuance strategy currently scheduled
for release on October 31, 1985. The strategy should
consist of two specific elements. First, it should list
individual priority ranking factors (such as the presence
of toxics, water quality considerations, and geographical
distributions) which will be used to divide each State’s
universe of minor permits into priority groups. The
strategies should distinguish industrial and municipal
permits since there may be som. differences in priority
associated with these di.charg.rs. Second, th. strategy
should contain details of implementation including
methods used for issuance such as general p.ratis, model
permits, etc. and the resources assigned to this activity.
These strategies are to be used in preparing a list of
significant minor permits which will be required as a
part of the FY 87 commitment proc.ss.
In addition, each strategy should embody the following
principles:
o Each minor permit issuance strategy should have a. its
ultimate goal the elimination of the backlog of all
expired NPDES permits by the end of FT 1990.
o Each permit issuance strategy should result in a permit
issuanc. process that eliminates or reduces surge. in
permit expirations and concomitant fluctuations in
permit issuance workload. Since most NPDES permits
expire every five years, the regulatory authority should
try to achieve a permit issuance process that results
in the reissuance each year of about 20% of th. total
universe of permits issued.
o Whenever possible, permit issuance priorities should be
established to avoid or minirize the need for reopener
provisions and reissued permits should contain final,
enforceable effluent limits. To the extent practicable,
peririt issuance should be planned to coincide with
the expected availability of all necessary information,
including wasteload allocations, variance decisions,
etc.
c States nd Pecions should have progrars in place for
inentifyin nd addressinq unpermitted sources. t on—
tiler ischart:es identified under these procrar’s should
be issued pernit accordirtq to a specitied rriority.
tcrr-c. ater aischarces are candidates for such proçrans.
-------
—4—
o F’ach strateoy should emphasize the use of all ivaila ’le
tools for the efficient issuance of rinor permits ,
especially the use of general peri its. Where an NPDES
State has not been authorized to issue general perr lts,
the strategy should include a discussion of the steps
needed for the State to obtain such authority. Although
States are not required to adopt a general perrit
prograr’, they are encouraged to do so where minor permit
backlogs are otherwise uru’ anageable.
Example strategies
A pasin—wide issuance strategy is useful when water
cuality is of concern, since water quality problems ar. often
caused by the combined effects of a number of discharger..
The basin—wide approach focuses attention on all discharges
on a qiven waterbody. Each basin in a State is catalogued,
the discharger. are identified, and all permits in the basin
are issued. The State establishes priorities for each basin
and schedules permit issuance according to thos. priorities
assuring that all pern’its in the State are addressed in a
five year period. 1/
An AdninistratiVe or Workload Manageweflt issuance
strategy is another approach. The principle of this approach
is to identify diachargers according to priority over the five
year peri it cycle, and to issue 20 percent of th each fiscal
year.
II. stablishirlc7 priorities For Minor Permit Issuance
Limited resources and the sheer number of minor permits
rec,uire that EPA Regions and NPD S States set sensible priorities
to facilitate the issuance or reissuance of minor permits.
The following priority ranking factors are separated
Into industrial and municipal categories becaus. priorities
are somewhat different for these two types of dischargere.
Further, existing policies for municipal perI!lit issuance
(including the National Municipal Policy) have already
established priorities for certain municipal diachargerl.
States and Regions have the flexibility to structure a
strategy based on other priority ranking factors as well.
Iowever, each minor perriits etratecW should reflect the
fcllowina factors.
1/ This arproaCh involves rajor perrits as well as ninor
perrits. Basir—wide issuance strategies rust be consistent
with the June 2, 1982 strateGy for issuance of riajor perr’lts.
and riust ensure that back1oc s of expired rajor perrits are
elirin ed or kept to an ab clute rinir ur. Short—terr ?err
‘-ay e cne aorroach to synchroniziflC the issuance ot rerrit
(or a nur! er of dischdrC ’r5 within a basin, wt ilt qirrultar eOU5l
‘‘ rtir( ‘-arklocs ct exnired r’ajor nerrits.
-------
—5—
Priorities for Minor Industrial Permits Issuance
1. .ater Cuality Ir p ct
Nscharqes known or suspected to impact water quality
should be considered the highest priority for per jt
issuance. The followinc, elements should be useo to
determine whether the permittee is included in this
category:
i) the penrittee discharges to a known water quality
limited waterbody (or waterbodi.. if a basin—wide
approach is used) where the designated use is
not being achieved because of point source
discharge;
ii) the permitt.e discharges pollutants at levels
which exceed existing water quality standards or
EPA criteria;
iii) the permittee discharges to a veterbody into which
numerous other point sources also discharge and
the cot’binatjon of these loads exceeds the standards
and/or exceeds 1% of the total flow;
iv) the permittee is included in a vasteload allocation
designed to achieve water quality standards; and/or
v) the permittee’s effluent has been tested and found
to be acutely or chronically toxic; and/or
vi) the perleittee’s Sf fluent has been analys.d
and found to contain significant levels of
toxic pollutants not now regulated in the
current permit.
Discharge, of toxic pollutants which inpact water quality
should generally be accorded higher priority than discharges
of conventional pollutant,. Unpermitted sources and
stormwater discharger, are generally expected to be
the lowest priority within the water quality impact
priority ranking factor.
2. special Priority’ Waterbodie ,
Due to a high level of public interest or through desig-
nation as a high priority waterbody by Congress, EPA or a
State, certain waterbodies have been elevated to a special
priority. An exa p1e would be the Chesapeake Bay, considered
by surrounding States and the EPA to be a high priority
waterhody recuirjn increased reQulatory attention, Dis—
charcierg to such water bodies, whether known to affect water
t’uality or not, should norr-.ally be accorded priority in
an issuance strategy. Since such waterhodie , usually cross
-------
—6—
State hounlarjes, local basin plannirm organizatjong or
comrjssjo q, as w lI as r,uhlic interest nroups, should he
included in the priority setting process.
3. Industrial Cate ory
Certain incustrial cateqorieg can be considered high priority
candidates for permit issuance because of two characteristics:
tne typical composition of their wastewaters and their
potential coverage by efficient permitting mechanisms such
as effluent guidelines or general permits. The guiding
principle in this priority factor is the need to c bine
rraxiinuvn efficiency with type and amount (and thug impact)
of pollutants controlled. The level of assigned priority
will be based on consideration of both of these concerns.
Cr phasis on toxica control in the upcoming rounds of NPD S
permit issuance suggests that th. primary industrial
categories, with their high potential for toxics discharge,
are higher priority than the secondary industrial cateaories.
Industries are often concentrated in different regions
of the country. Therefore different categories are of
higher or lower significance depending on the Stat• or
e ion. No attempt is made to list the most important
industrial categories. Regions and States must make
these specific determinations.
Peririts that can be issued using efficient permitting
mechani mg generally should receiv, higher priority than
those which require regulatory resources out of proportion
to their environmental significance. Permit issuance
mechanisms which are more efficient include permits
based on effluent guidelines, model permits, general
permits, and computer—a$sjst permits. Certain industrial
categories have more uniform discharge characteristic.
than others and are usually candidates for efficient
perrilt issuance mechanisms.
The secondary industries have considerably less potential
for toxica discharges and frequently discharge only con-
ventional pollutants. Accordingly, these types of oermita
receive the lowest priority within this priority ranking
factor.
4. U I Cther Per,”itg
Permits which do not fit the above categories generally
should be considered lowest priority for permit issuance.
Priorities for t’inor Municipal Permits Issuance
Tt-ie issuance 3nd todif cation of r inor r unicipal perrits
r u t re f1ert tf.e establi t 1 cc rriority sy terl in the Fatlona],
: unici al PoUc 1 (t .P) ruhlished in the r’edcral Pegister on
J nu rv 3 , 1 4 (4 3q32) . To the extent pOSsible,perrjt
ct1on Iiec s je r” to sucrort t e P activities should be
•.iVCn Z.i t r r1r-L ty.
-------
—7—
1. Perrits ctions to Support National Municipal Policy
Ir ple entation. 2/
t,t.ere perrits rrust he issued or modified to provide enforce—
aole co npliance schedules under section 301(i)(l) or to
establish applicable effluent limits, they should be given
hiqh priority, because r ajor capital investments may be
necessary to u eot final permit limits, the municipality
should be given final permit limits as quickly as poseible
to pror ote corplianco at the earliest possible date. In
descending oroer of priority, examples of permit actions
in this category include (a) modifications to include
compliance schedules for construction based on an approved
Municipal Compliance Plan (MCP) document; (b) permit
issuance following a S301(h) marine waiver decision; Cc)
secondary redefinition (40 CFR 133.105) permit. where
POTWS are eligible for such limitations; (d) other permit
actions to implement composite correction plans (CCP.),
such as conditions which require improved 0 a 14 procedures
or EMPa which are necessary to achieve compliance.
2. Water Quality Impact
Permits impacting water quality should be considered high
priority candidates for permit issuance. Th. discussion
of water quality considerations presented on page 5 above
(priority ranking factor for industrial permits) should be
used to determine whether a municipal permit is includsd
in this category.
3. Special Priority Waterbodies
Municipalities which discharge to thes, receiving waters
should be treated in th. same manner described on page 5
above for industrial a irces.
4. Pretreatment
POTWS which ar. required to develop and implement local
pretreatment programs are of special importance due to
the potential for toxic. discharge.
5. Minor Permit Issuance to Expedite Grant Funding Decisions
If permit limit decisions are causing delays in grant
funding decisions (such as AT review comments which
indicate permit changes are appropriate or a pending
secondary redefinition decision) the peri it should
receive priority attention.
2/ These P(’T !s should already be identified in State Strateni s
cr Section lOb ork ’1ans as discussed in the t arc 19R4 cjulciance
oct r.crt er the tional Uljnicj al Policy .
-------
—8—
6. All Other 1jnOr PCT :s
(‘unicir’al perr its which do not fit the above categories
should DO considered lower priority canc]lates for perT it
icsuance. privately—owned r lnors are included in this
cateqory.
lable 1 suruiari e. tt ese priority ranking factors for both
industrial and c uriicipal permits.
III. Tirdncj
As required by C’ ’AS, strategies rust be coi pleteci for
eact State by July 1, 1986. These strategies should be based
on the principles and priorities presented in this document.
Further, these strategies should form the basis for the identi-
fication of specific minor permits to be issued in accordance
with SPMS and OWAS corr itmenta for F? 1987. These lists of
specific rtinor permits should be developed prior to the end
of F? 1986.
Strategies develooed under this guidance should be re—
flectea In the priorities established under the Section 106
workplans neqotiated for F? 1937 by the States and EPA Regions.
Each State—by—State ninor issuance strategy should b.
irplemented ir med1ately upon comoletion.
IV. Minor Permit Issuance Tools
One of the purposes of this etrate y is to identify and
provide or develop tools for the regulatory agencies to use to
facilitate riinor permit issuance. Nuiterous documents exist
which will immediately assist permitting authorities to issue
r-inor permits. Existing tools are listed in Appendix B.
Sor e of the more useful tools are the General Permit Program
Guidance and Abstracts of Industrial NPDES Permits. Other
tools are being developed or planned for developm•nt for
developnent in FT 86. A packaqe containing copies of the
existing tools and a schedule for the developrent of future
tools will be distributed to peririttlnq authorities in February 198 .
V. Summary
The national peri it compliance system (PCS) indicates
that rproxir ate1y 23,000 mInor permits, or about 40% of the
total n rber of r inor permits are currently expired and hav.
not L.een reissued. Minor perrr.it Issuance strategies are
c er fore needed on a State—by—State basis to reduce this
‘.- cklo of exnirecl ripor perrits and to ensure that the post
v1ron; r 1 tal1 irnificant perrits are issued in a tirely
arner. rp ’ , :pr.c trackinc and accountability syste ’ rec:uires
rljrt.rjc .1 corritr unt!3 Vur t .e issuance ot si’-niflCant rinor
-“r—it . InciviLual : tate r-inor rr.it issuance strateQies
‘r€ rp,.’ c j ct urtar iljty 3vster in FY G.
-------
— ,—
This syste i requires coi i’dtinenes frori SPt ES peri iit issuance
autherities on total significant r,inors to be issued in FY86
together with develoç,z ent of State—by—state strategies by
July 1, 1986. These State atrateqies are to be used in
preraring lists of significant rinor permits to be issued in
FY 7.
This rinor perrift issuance strategy is intended to help
EPA regional and State permit programs significantly reduce
or e1ii ’inate backlogs of expired minor permits by FY 1990,
while eliminating or achieving an absolute minimup backlog of
expired major per -rita, maintaining relatively constant
expiration and reissuance levels, and corresponding uniform
workload. and resource demands.
EN —336:Hap:Be:2 _3_86: #6(doc 17)
REV: adg:2/12/86 :REV: adg: 2/13/86
-------
.110 SV4J p
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
• 4 p01
AF I I5i
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Discharge of Wastewater from CER 9 sA ) es into POTWS
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director lie
Office of Emergency and Remediy /*Yi nse
Rebecca Hanmer, Director
Office of Water Enforcemep.t and Permits
Gene A. Lucero, Director L i LUcIZIO
Off ice of Waste Programs Enforcement
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I — X
Water Management Division Directors
Regions I — X
A number of emergency removals and remedial cleanup actions
under CERCLA will involve consideration of publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTWs) for discharge of wastewater. The current
off—site policy (issued on May 6, 1985) does not address the set
of concerns and issues unique to POTWs that must be evaluated
during the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
for discharge of CERCLA wastewater to POTWs.
Recently, we have had meetings with representatives of the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities (AMSA) to discuss
technical and policy concerns related to the POTW/CERCLA issue.
This memorandum is to highlight some of the major points under
consideration which were shared with AMSA at their recent Winter
Technical Conference. The Agency intends to develop policy on
tne use and selection of POTWs for CERCLA wastewater. Your
comments are sought on the proposed criteria set forth herein.
These cr±teria may be useful in evaluation of DOTWs fur response
actions (fund tinanced or responsible party financed; to be taken
in the interim.
Our position is that no CERCLA discharges to a POTW should
occur unless handled in a manner demonstrated to be protective
of human health and the environment. Full compliance with all
applicable requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and any other
relevant or appropriate environmental statutes will be necessary
-------
—2—
The national pretreatment program, under the Clean Water Act,
requires an analysis to determine whether the discharge of an
industrial user of a POTW may pass through the POTW to cause
receiving water quality problems or may interfere with POTW
operations (including sludge disposal). If the analysis suggests
that limits on the industrial user’s discharge are needed to pre-
vent pass through or interference, local limits or other safe-
guards, as necessary, must be established by the POTW and/or the
NPDES permitting authority. The national pretreatment program
requirements apply to the introduction of all non—domestic
wastewater into any POTW, and include, among other things, the
following elements:
o Prohibited discharge standards — prohibit the intro-
duction of pollutants to the POTW which are ignitable,
corrosive, excessively high in temperature, or which
may cause interference or pass through at the POTW.
o Categorical discharge standards — include specific pre-
treatment standards which are established by EPA for the
purpose of regulating industrial discharges in specific
industrial categories.
o Local limits — where no categorical standards have been
promulgated or where more stringent controls are necessary
POTWs under consideration as potential receptors of CERCLA
wastewaters may include those POTWs either with or without an
approved pretreatment program. POTWs with an approved pretreat-
ment program are required to have the mechanisms necessary to
ensure compliance by industrial users with applicable pretreatment
standards and requirements.* POTWs without an approved pretreat-
ment program must be evaluated to determine whether sufficient
mechanisms exist to allow the POTW to meet the requirements of
the national pretreatment program in accepting CERCLA. wastewaters.
As noted above, pass through dnd interference are always prohibited,
regardless of whether a POTW has an approved pretreatment program.
POTWs without an approved pretreatment program must therefore
have mechanisms which are adequate to apply the requirements of
the national pretreat.nent program to specific situations.
*pOTWs with approved pretreatment programs must, among other
things, establish procedures to notify industrial users (lUs) of
applicable pretreatment standards and requirements, receive and
analyze self—monitoring reports from ITJs, sample and analyze
industrjal effluents, investigate noncompliance, and comply with
public participation requirements.
-------
—3—
Determination of a POTW’s ability to accept CERCLA wastewater
as an alternative to on—site treatment and direct discharge to
receiving waters must be made during the Remedial Investigation!
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process. During the remedial alternatives
analysis, the appropriateness of using a POTW must be carefully
evaluated. Water Division officials and their state counterparts
should participate in the evaluation of any remedial alternatives
recommending the use of a POTW, and should concur on the selection
of the POTW.
If an alternative considers the discharge of wastewater from
a CERCLA site into a POTW, the following points should be evaluated
in the RI/FS prior to the selection of the remedy for the site:
o The quantity and quality of the CERCLA wastewater and its
compatibility with the POTW (The constituents in the
CERCL.A wastewater must not cause pass through or inter-
ference, including unacceptable sludge contamination or
a hazard to employees at the POTW; in some cases, control
equipment at the CERCLA site may be appropriate in order
to pretreat the CERCLA discharge prior to introduction to
the POTW).
o The ability (i.e., legal authority, enforceable mechanisms,
etc.) of the POTW to ensure compliance with applicable
pretreatment standards and requirements, including monitor-
ing and reporting requirements.
o The POTW’s record of compliance with its NPDES permit
and pretreatment program requirements to determine if
the POTW is a suitable disposal site for the CERCLA waste—
water.
o The potential for volatilization of the wastewater at the
CERCLA site and POTW and its impact upon air quality.
o The potential for groundwater contamination from trans-
port of CERCL.A wastewater or impoundment at the POTW, and
the need for groundwater monitoring.
o The potential effect of the CERCLA wastewaters upon the
POTW’s discharge as evaluated by maintenance of water
quality standards in the POTW’s receiving waters,
including the narrative standard of N 0 toxics in toxic
amounts.
-------
—4—
o The POTW’s knowledge of and compliance with any applicablt
RCRA requirements or requirements of other environmental
statutes (RCRA permit—by—rule requirements may be trig-
gered if the POTW receives CERCLA wastewaters that are
classified as “hazardous wastes” without prior mixing
with domestic sewage, i.e., direct delivery to the POTW
by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe; CERCLA wastewaters are
not all necessarily considered hazardous wastes; case by
case determinations have to be made).
o The various costs of managing CERCLA wastewater, including
all risks, liabilities, permit fees, etc. (It may be
appropriate to reflect these costs in the POTW’s connection
fees and user charge system).
Based upon consideration of the above elements, the discharge
of CERCLA wastewater to aPOTW should be deemed inappropriate if
the evaluation indicates that:
o The constituents in the CERCLA discharge are not com-
patible with the POTW and will cause pass through, inter-
ference, toxic pollutants in toxic amounts in the POTW’s
receiving waters, unacceptable sludge contamination, or a
hazard to employees of the POTW.
o The impact of the transport mechanism and/or discharging o
CERCLA wastewater into a POTW would result in unacceptable
impacts upon any environmental media.
o The POTW is determined to be an unacceptable receptor
of CERCLA wastewaters based upon a review of the POTW’s
compliance history.
o The use of the POTW is not cost—effective.
If consideration of the various elements indicates that the
discharge of CERCLA wastewater to a POTW is deemed appropriate:
o There should be early publLc involvement, including
contact with POTW officials and users, in accordance
with the CERCLA community relations plan and public
participation requirements.
o The NPDES permit and fact sheet may need to be modified
to reflect the conditions of acceptance of CERCLA waste—
waters; permit modification may be necessitated by the
need to incorporate specific pretreatment requirements,
local limits, monitoring requirements and/or limitations
on additional pollutants of concern in the POTW’s dis-
charge or other factors.
-------
—5—
Policy to be developed in the future will apply to all
removal, remedial, and enforcement actions taken pursuant to
CERCLA and Section 7003 of RCRA. We would appreciate your feed-
back on this memorandum and any experience in the use of POTWs
for CERCLA removal or remedial actions that you have to offer.
If you have any comments or questions on this issue, please
submit written comments to the workgroup co—chairs: Shirley Ross
(FTS—382—5755) from the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
or Victoria Price (FTS—382—5681) from the Office of Water.
cc: Ed Johnson
Russ Wyer
Tim Fields
Steve Lingle
-------
•O SJ
f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY ‘J
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 I
4(
MAY 1 9 I 6 OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Advance Concurrence of the Assistant
Administrator for Water on Selected Section 301(g)
and Fundamentally Different Factors Variance Decisions
Under the Clean Water Act
FROM: Lawrence J. Jensen lQrf.. P}’Wvt
Assistant Administrator €br Water (WH—556)
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I — X
On April 30, 1986 (51 FR 16028), EPA promulgated a final rule
reserving to the Administrator or his delegate the decisionmaking
authority for section 301(g) and fundamentally different factors
(FDF) variances under the Clean Water Act. The Administrator
delegated the aut iority to grant or deny these variances to the
Regional Administrators, but required the advance concurrence of
the Assistant Administrator for Water or his delegate in certain
cases. The rule and delegation are effective on May 30, 1986.
The delegation provided that the deter’ ination of whether a
request requires advance concurrence would be established in guid-
ance issued by the Office of Water (OW). The guidance for these
determinations is attached. It is my intention to modify this
guidance in the future as both the Regions and Headquarters gain
more experience in dea1in with these variances, so that advance
concurrence will eventually be required in fewer instances.
I solicit any comments you may have on the guidance. If you
have any questions or comments on this matter, please contact me
(FTS 382—5700) or James R. Elder, Director, Jffice of Water
Enforcement and Permits (FTS 475—8488). In addition, your staff
may contact Martha G. Prothro, Director, Perr,its Division (FTS
475—9545) or Gary Hudiburgh of her staff (FTS 475—9531).
Attachment
cc: Water Management Division Directors, Reiions I — X
James R. Eld: r (EN—335)
William A. Whittington (WH-551)
Susan G. Lepow (LE-l32W)
-------
Guidance on Advance Concurrence of the Assistant Administrator
for Water on Selected Section 301(g) and Fundamentally Different
Factors Variance Decisions Under the Clean Water Act
On April 30, 1986 (51 FR 16028), EPA promulgated a final rule
reserving to the Administrator or his delegate the decisionrnaking
authority for section 301(g) and fundamentally different factors
(FDF) variances under the Clean Water Act (copy attached). The
Administrator delegated the authority to grant or deny these vari-
ances to the Regional Administrators, but required the advance
concurrence of the Assistant Administrator for Water or his dele-
gate in certain cases (copy attached). The rule and delegation
are effective on May 30, 1986.
The delegation provides that the determination of whether a
request requires advance concurrence of the Assistant Administra-
tor for Water or his delegate would be established in guidance
issued by the Office of Water (OW). The guidance for these deter-
minations follows.
FDF VARIANCE REQUESTS —— NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The advance concurrence of the Assistant Administrator for
Water or his delegate is required only on FDF variance requests
that raise issues of national significance.
I. Issues of National Significance .
It is not possible to establish a static list of nationally
significant issues since FDF variances by their nature involve
case—by—case determinations based upon the circumstances prevail-
ing at an individual facility. However, based upon OW’s previous
experience with FDF variances, the following factors (and examples)
indicate those which OW may consider nationally significant.
o First decision of significant precedential value in category!
subcategory (e.g., the first central waste treatment decision
in the iron and steel industry).
o First decision of significant precedential. value on specific
issue (e.g., cost, the first decision dealing with a specific
toxic pollutant).
o Similar or identical applications in more than one State, cate—
gory/subcategory and/or Region (e.g., the several leather tan-
ning FDFs in Regions I, II and V).
o Issue/guideline involved in litigation/rulemaking (e.g., the
variance requests from the Louisiana phosphate fertilizer
facilities.)
o Federal legislative issues (e.g., the proposed relief for the
Alaska pulp mills).
-------
—2—
OW expects that Headquarter’s (HO) concurrence would be
required on approximately 15 to 20 percent of all FDF variance
requests.
II. Submission of Materials .
The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) will es-
tablish a formal docket for all FOFs. The Regions will submit
a copy of all FDF variance requests to Permits Division ((EN—336),
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460] upon receipt from the
applicant or the State. It is also necessary for the Regions to
submit copies of all pending FDF variance requests at this time.
When the Region submits a copy of the FDF variance request to HO,
the Region should also submit a copy of any applicable NPDES per-
mit or pretreatment mechanism and permit application or baseline
monitoring report. In addition, the Region may make a recommenda-
tion on the issue of national significance. Staff in other in-
volved HO offices (Offices of Water Regulations and Standards
(OWRS) and General Counsel (OGC)J will be notified of the receipt
of an application. Tentative and final decisions for NPDES re-
quests and determinations for pretreatment requests (either ap-
proval or denial) and supporting documents will also be included
in the docket.
III. Timing and Extent of HO Participation .
OW will have 30 calendar days after receipt of an application
to determine if the variance raises issues of national signifi-
cance. OWEP will consult with other involved HO offices (OWRS
and OGC) before making this determination. I am designating the
Director, Permits Division as the authority to notify the Region
on whether HO concurrence is required. If the Region is not
notified in writing that HO believes the variance request raises
issues of national significance within this 30 day period, HO
concurrence will be presumed to be waived. If HO indicates that
concurrence will be required but later determines that concurrence
is unnecessary, the concurrence can also be waived at a later
date.
If the Director, Permits Division indicates that OW concur-
rence is required, HO and Regional staff will, establish a schedule
for deciding the variance request. The concurrence of the Assis-
tant Administrator for Water, or his delegate, will be required
before the Regional Administrator issues a tentative or final
decision (NPDES) or determination (pretreatment). (At this time,
I am not delegating my concurrence authority.) OW intends to
concur or nonconcur within 45 days of receipt of a tentative or
final decision (NPDES) or determination (pretreatment); however,
concurrence will not be presumed if OW does not act within this
45 day period. (In cases where the concurrence action cannot be
completed before the 45 day period ends, OW will have agreed with
the Region on an alternative timetable.) In all cases, the Region
will retain the primary responsibility for processing the FDF and
the final decisionmaking authority will remain with the Regional
-------
—3—
Administrator. OWEP will be responsible for processing of HO
concurrence, including early identification of issues and follow—
up to ensure agreement among OWEP, OWRS and OGC. All three HO
offices will sign the recommendation to the Assistant Admin-
istrator for Water or his delegate to concur or nonconcur.
We expect that after this system becomes operational, OW will
periodically be able to identify specific types of FDFs that do
not raise issues of national significance. In those cases, the
Region will not have to submit an application for review; however,
copies of the application and decision will still be submitted to
HO for tracking and dissemination of information. At this time,
OW has not identified any categories of FDFs that do not raise
issues of national significance and will not require HQ concur-
rence.
Permits Division will provide summaries of all pending and
decided FDF5 twice yearly along with continuation of the existing
quarterly status report.
IV. HO Technical and Legal Assistance .
HO staff are available to provide assistance to the Regions
in processing FDF variance requests. If OW determines that a
variance does not raise issues of national significance, Regional
staff will still be provided any consultation or support necessary
from staff in OWRS on guidelines issues, including questions on
consideration of the factors at issue in guidelines development
and access to guidelines records. Regional staff would also be
urged to consult with staff in OWEP on policy and precedence is-
sues, and with OGC staff on legal issues. In addition, HO staff
may take the initiative in providinc technical and legal assis-
tance to Regional staff even if concurrence is not reauired.
SECTION 301(g) VARIANCE REQUESTS -— FIRST REQUEST DEALING WITH A
SPECIFIC POLLUTANT IN A SPECIFIC INDUSTRY DISCHARGING TO SPECIFIC
TYPES OF WATERS
The advance concurrence of the Assistant Administrator for
Water or his delegate is required on the first request dealing
with a specific pollutant in a specific industry discharging to
specific types of waters (inland or freshwater, estuarine, marine).
I. First Request .
As of the date of this guidance, the advance concurrence of
the Assistant Administrator or his delegate is required on all
section 301(g) requests except for the following for which model
decisions have been issued. Model decisions are issued for the
first request dealing with the specific pollutant, industry and
type of water. It is expected that the Regions will closely
follow the model decisions when issuing decisions which do not
require HO concurrence. A model decision has been developed to
date for the following situation.
-------
—4—
OW will notify the Regions upon the issuance of the model
decisions for other specific pollutants, industries and types of
waters as they are issued. OWEP has also issued pollutant specific
guidance documents for ammonia and phenols (4AAP) that are useful
in decisionmaking on section 301(g) requests.
II. Submission of Materials; Timing and Extent of HO
Participation .
The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) will
establish a formal docket for all requests. The Regions will
submit a copy of a draft tentative and final decision to Permits
Division [ (EN—336), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 204601
if advance concurrence is required. Previous model decisions and
pollutant specific guidance documents should be helpful in draft-
ing these materials. Staff in other involved HQ offices (Offices
of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) and General Counsel
(OGC)] will be notified of the receipt of an application. OWEP
will maintain copies of tentative and final decisions on all model
decisions and transmit the materials to the Regions when they are
issued.
The advance concurrence oE the Assistant Administrator for
Water or his delegate is required on the first request dealing
with a specific pollutant discharging to specific types of waters
(inland or freshwater, estuarine, marine) for a specific industry;
concurrence is required before the Regional Administrator issues
a tentative or final decision. At this time, I am delegating my
concurrence authority to the Director of OWEP. OWEP intends to
concur or nonconcur within 45 days of receipt of a tentative or
final decision; however, concurrence will not be presumed if OWEP
does not act within this 45 day period. (In cases where the con-
currence action cannot he completed before the 45 day period ends,
OWEP will have agreed with the Region on an alternative timetable.)
The Region will retain the primary responsibility for processing
the section 301(g) requests and the decisionmaking authority will
remain with the Regional Administrator. OWEP will be responsible
for processing of HO concurrence, including early identification
of issues and follow—up to ensure agreement among OWEP, OWRS and
0CC. All three HO offices (including OWEP staff) would sign the
recommendation to the flirector of OWEP to concur or nonconcur.
Circumstances may arise when HQ concurrence will still be
required for a first request, but may be similar to other model
decisions. This situation may occur when a decision has been
issued for a specific pollutant to a specific type of water in a
similar industry (i.e., the various metals industries).
Weirton Steel
Weirton, WV
-------
—5—
We expect that after this system becomes operational, OW will
be able to further identify specific types of section 301(g) re-
quests that will not require HO concurrence. In those cases, the
Region will not have to submit materials for concurrence. How-
ever, copies of all tentative and final decisions should still be
submitted to HO for tracking and dissemination of information.
Permits Division will provide summaries of all pending and
decided section 301(g) reauests twice yearly along with continua-
tion of the existing quarterly status report.
III. HO Technical and Legal Assistance .
HO staff are available to provide assistance to the Regions
in processing section 301(g) recuests. Even when concurrence is
not required, Regional staff are urged to consult with staff in
the various HO offices on issues. Regional staff are urged to
consult with staff in OWRS on criteria and standards issues, OWEP
on policy and precedence issues, and OGC on legal issues. In
addition, HQ staff may take the initiative in providing technical
and legal assistance to Regional staff even if concurrence is not
required.
IV. Delegation of Stays Under Section 301(j)(2 )
On June 28, 1985, the Administrator delegated the authority
to grant or deny stays of limitations under section 301(j)(2) to
the Regional Administrators (copy attached). HQ consultation is
required before the Regional Administrator issues this decision.
HO staff are available to provide assistance to the Regions in
drafting and issuing decisions under section 301(j)(2). OWEP
staff will maintain a docket of stay decisions.
Attachments
-------
16028 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 83 / Wednesday. April 30. 1986 I Rules and Regulations
16mm film to .ideotape (broadcdst
quality tape format per hour) +
raw stock
Minimum charge for film to videotape
transfer + raw stock
Aerial photographic print processing
prices will be determined by the local
DoD-operated lab due to limited
availability.
35mm film processing for motion
pictures is not done in.house by the
DoD. Charges for this type of processing
will be at prevailing contract rates on a
case.by-case basis.
(e) Construction and Engineering
Information. Copies of aerial photograph
maps. specifications. permits. charts.
blueprints, and other technical
engineering documents.
(1) Searching per hour or fraction
thereof (including overhead
costs) $1325
(21 First print . 2.50
(:ij Each additional print of same
document.. .. 085
(1) Copies of Medical Articles and
Illustrations. Standards contained in the
basic Instruction will be utilized in
computing costs.
(g) Claims, Litigation. Copies of
documents required for other than
official purposes. (Includes court-martial
records furnishing information from
Report of Claims Investigations; e g..
automobile collision investigations and
sdfety reports.) Requests pertaining to
private litigation and to cases in which
the United States is a party and where
court rules provide for reproduction of
records without cost to the Government
(if not covered in 2. or 3.. above)
(1) Searching and processing (per
hour) $13 25
Minimum charge 8.30
Note—Charges for professional search or
research will be made in accordance with
lob, below.
(2) Office copy reproduction (minimum
for six pages or less) $3.50
(3) Each additional image 0.10
(4) Certification and validation with
seal, each 5.20
(h) Publications and Forms. A search
and/or processing fees. as described in
10.a.. below, will be made for requests
requiring extensive time (one hour or
more).
(1) Shelf Stock. (Requesters may be
furnished more than one copy of
publication or form if it does not deplete
stock levels below projected planned
usage.)
(i) Minimum fee per request (six pages
or less) $3.50
Plus:
(A) Form, per copy $10
(B) Publications, per printed page 02
(C) Microfiche. per fiche 10
(i) Minimum fee per request (six pages
or less) . . 5350
(ii) Each additional page . 10
(iii) Minimum charge first fiche 870
(iv) Each additional fiche 20
(i) Engineering Data (fvlicrofi/ni) —(1)
Aperture Cards.
(i) Silver duplicate negative per card S075
When keypunched and verified, per
card . 85
(ill Diazo duplic.it€ nugdIIve per card 65
When keypunched and verified, per
card . 75
(2) 35mm roll film, per frame. .. . 050
(3) 16mm roll film, per frame . 045
(4) Paper prints (engineering drawings)
each. . 1 50
(5) Paper reprints of microfilm indices.
each . . 010
(jJ General Charges for any
additional services not specifically
provided above, consistent with the
provisions of the basic instruction, will
be made by the respective DoD
Components at the following rates’
(1) Clerical search and pr.cessing per
hour $1325
Minimum charge 830
(2) Professional search or researching
(To be established at actual hourl}
raie prior to search A minimum
charge will be established at ½’
hourly rates)
(31 Minimum charge for office copy
reproduction (up to six images) 3 50
(4) Each additional image.. . . 0 10
(5) Each typewritten page. .. . 3 50
(6) Certification and validation with
seal. each 5 20
(7) Hand-drabsn plots and sketches.
each hour or fraction thereof... 1200
Linda M. Lawson.
Alternate OSO Federal Register Liaison
Officer. Deportment of Defense
April 24. 1986.
IFR Doc. 86-9577 Filed 4—29-86. 845am)
WNS COOl 3515.4 1-N
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This document amends
certain portions of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) regulations in order to deleg t
authority to EPA Regional
Administrators for deciding varidnc.e
requests bdsed on section 301(g) of the
CWA and based on the presence of
fundamentally different factors (FDF) In
addition, this document amends the
General Pretreatment regulations in
order to delegate authority to EPA
Regional Administrators for deciding
variance requests based on the presenc’.’
of fundamentally different factors (l’DFI
These amendments will ch.inge
present procedures to require
headquarters involvement only where
the variance request raise nationally
significant or precedent-setting issues
DATES: For judicial review purposes in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 23 (50 FR
7268) the time and date of the
Administrator’s action in issuing this
rule shall be 1 00 P.M. Eastern Time on
May 14. 1986.
These regulations shall become
effective on May 30. 1986.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Ms Marilyn Goode. Permits Division
(EN—336). U S. Environmental Proteuion
Agency. 401 M Si.. SW. Washington DC
20460: (202) 475—9521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A Section 301(g) Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA provides
that variances from effluent limitations
based on best available technology
‘economically achievable (BAT) may be
granted to certain direct dischargers of
nonconventional pollutants. In order to
obtain a variance under section 301(g).
an applicant must demonstrate that his
proposed modified effluent limitations
(1) will meet water quality standards or
best practicable control technology
currently available, whichever is
applicable: (2) will not result in any
additional requirements on other point
or nonpoint sources: (3) will riot
interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of that water quality which
shall assure protection of public water
supplies, the protection and propagation
of a balanced population of shellfish.
fish and wildlife, and recreational
activities in and on the water and (4)
cannot reasonably be anticipated to
pose an unacceptable risk to human
health and the environment.
The existing NPDES regulations
( 124.62) allow the Regional
Administrator or NPDES State Director
(ii) (Examples. Cost of 20 forms. $5 50.
cost of a publication with 100 pages.
275 $5.50: cost of microfiche publication
consisting of 10 fiches, $4.50)
14000 (2) Office Copy Reproduction (when
shelf stock is not available).
40 CFR Parts 124 and 403
(EN-FRL-295 6- 5l
Tha National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System and Ginerai
Pretreatment Regulations; Authority
for Deciding Vartancs Requests Based
on Fundamentally Different Factors
and on Water Quality Factors
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 83 I Wednesday. April 30, 1986 I Rules and Regulations
16029
to deny all requests for section 301(g)
variances for direct diechargers (these
variances are not available to indirect
dischargers). However, only the Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Water
Enforcement (now the Director of the
Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits (OWEP)) may approve such
variances.
B FOP Vorzances
The fundamentally different factors
(FDF) variance is an administrative
mechanism designed to allow
alternative case-specific limitations in
lieu of national effluent limitations
guidelines and categorical pretreatment
standards for existing direct or indirect
dischargers of toxic, conventional, or
noncon’.,entional pollutants In order to
obtain an FDF variance, an applicant
must demun trate that the factors
prevailing at his plant or facility are
fundamentally different from the factors
considered in establishing the national
discharge limitalions and standards, as
specified in existing regulations (40 CFR
125 30—125.32 and 403.13).
En the case of direct dischargers. the
existmg NPOES regulations (* 124.62)
allow the Regional Administrator and
the NPDES State Director to deny all
requests for FDF variances. However,
only the Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Enforcement (now the
Director of the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (OWEPI) may
approve such variances. In the case of
indirect dischargers. the existing
General Pretreatment regulations
( 403 13) allow the State Director and
the EPA Enforcement Division Director
(now the Regional Water Management
Division Director) to deny afl requests
for FDF varvancee. However, only the
EPA Enforcement Division Director
(now the Regional Water Management
Division Director) may approve such
requests.
C Delegation Plan
In the case of section 301(g) and FDF
.ariance requests from direct
dischargers. the above procedure. have
brought about considerable duplication
of effort between Headquarters and
Regional offices, since they require the
Regional Administrator to review and.
where approval is recommended. submit
the request to EPA Headquarters for
further review. These reviews may also
be in addition to a review by the State
Director. Such multiple review has often
made the issuance of timely decisions
difficult. This is compounded by the fact
that EPA Headquarters receive a
relatively large number of these types of
variance requests.
In light of the above. EPA has
reexamined the need for routine
Headquarters involvement in the
approval of such variance requests. The
Agency has concluded that
Headquarters involvement should only
be required where the variance request
involves nationally significant or
precedent-setting issues. Accordingly.
EPA has decided to delegate to Regional
Administrators the authority to grant as
well as deny all requests for section
301(g) or FDF variances, with advance
concurrence required from the Assistant
Administrator for Water or his delegate
only under certain circumstances. Such
advance concurrence would be required
only for FDF requests that raise
nationally significant issues, or for the
first 301(g) variance request dealing with
a specific pollutant in a particular
industry discharging to specific waters
Requests for which advance
concurrence is required will be
identified in guidance issued to EPA
Regions. This delegation will not alter
the authority of the State Director to
deny such variance requests.
Because of the relatively small
number of sections 301(c) and 302(b)(2)
variance requests which have been
received, the Agency is not currently
amending the procedures applicable to
variance requests under these
provisions. The State Director and
Regional Administrator will still retain
authority to deny section 301(c) and
302(b)(2) variance requests while final
approval authority will remain with the
Director of the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits.
As noted above, in the case of FDF
variances for indirect dischargers.
decisions to grant requests are already
made at the Regional level by the Water
Management Division Director.
However, to avoid confusion and for the
sake of program consistency we are
providing the Regional Administrator
with the same authority to grant as well
as deny these requests as for direct
dischargers. As with direct discharges.
this delegation will not alter the
authority of the State Director to deny
these variance requests.
EPA believes that the delegation
accomplished today will simplify the
present cumbersome process, result in
speedier resolution of the relevant
issues, and provide consistency in the
treatment of direct and indirect
dischargers.
In order to allow for the delegation
discussed above, the Agency is today
amending 40 CFR 124.62. 124.63. and
403.13 to provide that the Administrator.
or his delegate, may grant or deny
section 301(g) and FDF variance
requests. Concurrently with this
rulemaking. the Administrator is
implementing the actual delegation of
this authority through the EPA
delegations manual. This procedure is
more appropriate than delegating
authority to the Regional Administrators
through the rulemaking process. since
the regulations as amended to day will
allow the Administrator to redelegate
his authority in the future directly
through the delegations manual as
needed instead of through a new
rulemaking procedure. EPA anticipstes
revising other regulations in the future to
specify the Administrator as the
decisionmaking authority in order to
allow for delegations through the
manual
In the case of appeals from decisions
on variance requests from indirect
dischargers (see § 403 13(m)) the Agency
wishes to point out that the petition for a
hearing to reconsider or contest the
Regional Administrator’s decision
would be submitted to the Regional
Administrator, even though the Regional
Administrator (as the Administrator’s
delegate) will also be responsible for
making the initial decision on the
b ariance.
The Agency is promulgating today’s
amendments in final form pursuant to
section 553(b)(A) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). The rule change
issued today merely changes the
procedures for processing variance
requests within the Agency. The
substantive standards for review of the
requests remain the same. Accordingly.
the rule does not “alter the rights or
interests of parties.” Batterton v.
Marshall. 648 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cit. 1980).
As such, it fits squarely within the
exemption from notice and comment
requirements of the APA.
II. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
“Major” and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This regulation is not major
because it affects only internal Agency
procedures. The requirements applicable
to the regulated public are not affected.
III. Regulatory flexibility Act
EPA has determined, pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). that this regulation will not
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
since it affects only internal Agency
operating procedures.
-------
16030 FederaL Register / Vol. 51. No. 83 I Wednesday. April 30, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 124
Administrative practice and
procedure. air pollution control.
hazardous materials, waste treatment
and disposal. water pollution control.
water supply. Indian lands.
40 CFR Part 403
Confidential business information.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Waste treatment and
disposal. Water pollution control.
Dated March 31. 1986.
Lao M. Thomas.
Adm,n,strotor.
PART 124—PROCEDURES FOR
DECISIONMAKING
Subpart 0—Specific Procedures
Applicable to NPDES Permits
1. The authority citation for Part 124
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act. 42 U S.C 6901 et seq. Safe
Drinking Water Act. 42 U.S C 300(f) et seq.:
Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.. and
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.
2. Section 124.62 is amended by
removing paragraphs (b) (1) and (3).
redesignating paragraphs (b) (2) and (4)
as paragraphs (b) (1) and (2)
respectively, and adding new
paragraphs (e) and (I) to read as follows:
§124.62 Decision on Variances.
• • • • I
(e) The State Director may deny or
forward to the Administrator (or his
delegate) with a written concurrence. or
submit to the Administrator (or his
delegate) without recommendation. a
completed request for
(1) A variance based on the presence
of fundamentally different factors”
from those on which an effluent
limitations guideline was based;
(2) A variance based upon certain
water quality factors under CWA
section 301(g).
(I) The Administrator (or his delegate)
may grant or deny a request for a
vanance listed in paragraph (e) of this
section that is forwarded by the State
Director, or that is submitted to EPA by
the requester where EPA is the
permitting authority. If the
Administrator (or his delegate) approves
the variance, the State Director or
Regional Administrator may prepare a
draft permit incorporating the variance.
Any public notice of a draft permit for
which a v 0 riance or modification has
been approved or denied shall Identify
the applicable procedures for appealing
that decision under § 124.64.
3. Section 124.63 is amended by
revising paragraph (a)(l) to read as
follows:
§ 124.63 Procedures for Variances When
EPA Is the Permitting Authority.
(a)
(l)(i) If, at the time, that a request for
a variance based on the presence of
fundamentally different factors or on
section 301(g) of the CWA is submitted.
the Regional Administrator has received
an application under § 124.3 for issuance
or renewal of that permit. but has not
yet prepared a draft permit under § 124.6
covering the discharge in question. the
Administrator (or his delegate) shall
give notice of a tentative decision on the
request at the time the notice of the draft
permit is prepared as specified in
§ 124.10. unless this would significantly
delay the processing of the permit. In
that case the processing of the variance
request may be separated from the
permit in accordance with paragraph
(a)(3) of this section. and the processing
of the permit shall proceed without
delay.
(ii) If. at the time. that a reqeust for a
variance under sections 301(c) or
302(b)(2) of the CWA is submitted, the
Regional Administrator has received an
application under § 124.3 for issuance or
renewal of that permit. but has not yet
prepared a draft permit under § 124.8
covering the discharge in question, the
Regional Administrator, after obtaining
any necessary concurrence of the EPA
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Enforcement under § 124.62. shall
give notice of a tentative decision on the
request at the time the notice of the draft
permit is prepared as specified in
§ 124.10. unless this would significantly
delay the processing of the permit. In
that case the processing of the variance
request may be separated from the
permit in accordance with paragraph
(a)(3) of this section. and the processing
of the permit shall proceed without
delay.
• S S S I
PART 403—GENERAL
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR
EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES OF
POLLUTION
1. The authority citation for Part 403
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U S.C. 1311.
1314(b). (C). (e). and (g). 1316(b) and (C): 1317:
1318: and 1381.
2. In 403.13. paragraph (g)(1). the
introductory text of paragraph (h).
paragraph (I). the introductory text of (j).
(j)(3). (k)(2). (l)(1). the introductory text
of (l)(2). (l)(2)(ii)(B), (l)(2)(ii)(C).
(l)(2)(ii)(D). and paragraph (m) are
revised to read as follows:
§ 403.13 Variances from categorical
pretrestm.nt standards for fundamentally
different factors.
(g) Application deadline (1) Requests
for a variance and supporting
information must be submitted in
writing to the Director or to the
Administrator (or his delegate), as
appropriate.
(h) Contents submission Written
submissions for variance requests.
whether made to the Administrator (or
his delegate) or the Director, must
include:
(i) Deficient requests. The
Administrator (or his delegate) or the
Director will only act on written
requests for variances that contain all of
the information required. Persons who
have made incomplete submissions will
be notified by the Administrator (or his
delegate) or the Director that their
requests are deficient and unless the
time period is extended, will be given up
to thirty days to remedy the deficiency.
If the deficiency is not corrected within
the time period allowed by the
Administrator (or his delegate) or the
Director, the request for a variance shall
be denied.
(j) Public notice. Upon receipt of a
complete request. the Administrator (or
his delegate) or the Director will provide
notice of receipt, opportunity to review
the submission, and opportunity to
comment.
(3) Following the comment period, the
Administrator (or his delegate) or the
Director will make a determination on
the request taking into consideration
any comments received. Notice of this
final decision shall be provided to the
requester (and the Industrial User for
which the variance is requested if
different), the POTW into which the
Industrial User discharges and all
persons who submitted comments on the
request.
(kJ
(2) Where the Director finds that
fundamentally different factors do exlbt.
he shall forward the request. with a
recommendation that the request be
approved, to the Administrator (or his
delegate).
(I) Review of requests by EPA.
(1) Where the Administrator (or his
delegate) finds that fundamentally
different factors do not exist, he shall
deny the request for a variance and
send a copy of his determination to the
-------
Federal Register / VoL 51. No. 83 / Wednesday. April 30. 1986 I Rules and Regulations
16O t
Director, to the P01W. and to the
requester (and to the Industrial User.
where they are not the same).
(2) Where the Administrator (or his
delegate) finds that fundamentally
different factors do exist. and that a
partial or full variance is justified. he
will approve the variance. In approving
the variance, the Administrator (or h;s
delegate) will:
(ii)
(B) The rationale for the adjustment of
the Pretreatment Standard (including the
reasons for recommending that the
variance be granted) and an explanation
of how the recommended alternative
discharge limits were derived.
(C) The supporting evidence
submitted to the Administrator (or his
delegate). and
(D) Other information considered by
the Administrator (or his delegate) in
dcveloping the recommended
alternative discharge limits;
(m) Request for hearing (1) Within 30
days following the date of receipt of the
notice of the decision of the
Administrator’s delegate on a variance
request. the requester or any other
interested person may submit a petition
to the Regional Administrator for a
hearing to reconsider or contest the
dccision. If such a request is submitted
by a person other than the Industrial
U er the person shall simultaneously
serve a copy of the request on the
Industrial User
(2) If the Regional Administrator
dc’cl nes to hold a hearing and the
Regional Administrator affirms the
findings of the Administrators delegate
the requester may submit a petition for a
hearing to the Administrator within 30
days of the Regional Administrator’s
iccision.
IFR Doc 8&.-9522 F.Ied 4—29—88 845 am)
BILLING COOE e5eo-sO-M
40 CFR Part 180
(PP4F2986 R777; FRL-3010-2J
Cypervnethrln; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmentul Protection
Agency (EPA).
actioN: Final rule
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a
tolerance for residues of the insecticide
c permethrin in or on the raw
agricultural commodity pecans. This
regulation to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of the
insecticide in or on the commodity was
requested pursuant to a petition by IC)
Americas. Inc.
EFFECTIVE OAT!: Effective on April 30.
1986.
ADDRESS: Written objections. identified
by the document control number
(PP4F. 986/R777I. may be submitted to
the: Hearing Clerk (A—ho).
En’.ironmental Protection Agency. Rm.
3’08. 401 M St.. SW.. Washington. DC
20480.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
By mail: George LaRocca. Product
Manager (PM) 15. Registration Division
(TS—767C). Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M St.. SW.. Washington. DC
20460. Office location and telephone
number’ Rm. 204, CM =2. 1921 Jefferson
Davis Highway. Arlington, VA 22202.
703—557—2400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON: EPA
issued a notice. published in the Federal
Register of December 21. 1983 (48 FR
56435). which announced that ICI
Americas. Inc.. Concord Pike and New
Murphy Rd.. Wilmington. DE 19897. had
submitted a pesticide petition
(PP4F2986) to EPA proposing to amend
40 CFR 180.418 by establishing a
tolerance for residues of the insecticide
cypermethrin ((± )alpha.cyano-(3-
phenoxyphenyl)-methyl( ± )-czs.trons.3.
(2 2.dichloroethenyl).2.2 -dimethylcyclo-
propanecarboxylatel and its metabolites
C’s’ trans-3.(2.2-dichloroethenyl)-2.2-
dimethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid
(DCVA) and 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3.
PB Acid) (sum of cypermethrin plus
metabolites) in or on the raw
agricultrual commodity pecans at 0.05
part per million (ppm).
There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
The data submitted in the petition and
other relevant material have been
evaluated. The toxicological data
considered in support of the tolerance as
well as the risk of cypermethrin for
previously established tolerances are
discussed in a document on
cypermethrin that appeared in the
Federal Register of June 15. 1984 (49 FR
24885).
A full review of the data indicates
that although cypermethrin increases
the frequency of spontaneously
occurnng tumors in the lungs of female
mice at high dose levels, the increased
dietary risk would be extremely small
from the proposed use of cypermethrin
on pecans. The increased dietary risk
associated with this tolerance. based on
the highly conservative assumption that
all units of the commodity would bear
residues at the proposed tolerance level.
is estimated to be iO ’—l0 This value
was calculated based on the proposed
tolerance level.
The acceptable daily intake (ADI) is
calculated to be 0.01 mg/kg/day based
on a 1.year dog feeding study with a
NOEL of 1.0 mg/kg/day and using a 100-
fold safety factor. The maximum
permissible intake (MPI) is calculated to
be 0.60 mg/day for a 60-kg person.
Published and pending tolerances result
in a theoretical maximum residue
contribution (TMRC) of 0.0408 mg/day
b ised on a 1.5-kg diet and utilize 6.80
percent of the ADI. The establishment of
this tolerance will add only 0.00002 mgi
day (1-5 kg diet) to the TMRC. resultir.g
in a total use of 6.81 percent of the AD!.
There are no regulatory actions
pending against the registration of
cypermethrin. The metabolism of
cypermethrin in plants and animals is
adequately understood for the purposes
of the tolerances set forth below. An
analytical method using electron capture
gas.liquid chromatography is available
for enforcement purposes.
Because of the long lead time from
establishing this tolerance to publication
of the enforcement methodology in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual II, an
intenm analytical methods package is
being made available to the State
pesticide enforcement chemists when
requested by mail:
By mail: Information Service Section
(TS—757C), Program Management
Support Division. Office of Pesticides
Programs. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M St.. SW.. Washington, DC
20460 Office location and telephone
number: Rm. 238, CM 2. 1921 Jefferson
Davis Highway. Arlington, VA 222 )2
(703—557—3262).
Based on the above information, the
Agency has determined that establish!1g
the tolerance for residues of the
pesticide in or on the commodity will
protect the public health. Therefore, as
set forth below, the tolerance is
established for a period extending to
December 31, 1989, to cover residues
exisiing from this conditional
registration of cypermethrin, and the
tolerance may be made permanent if
registration is continued based on
information received in 1988 (see
Federal Register notice on conditional
registration of cypermethrin for use on
cotton, published January 9. 1985 (50 FR
1112)).
Any person adversely affected by this
regulation may. within 30 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register, file written oh ections
with the Hearing Clerk. at the address
given above. Such objections should
specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds
for the objections. If a hearing is
requested. the objections must state the
-------
1200 TN 139
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 5/30/86
CLEAN W TER ACT
2—25. Section 301(g) Permit Variances
1. ? LJThORITf . Th prc,,e or deny permit variance requests, pursuant to Section
301(g) of the Clean Water Act, claiming as their bases specified water quality
factors.
2. io CM DELEGATED . 1 gional Administrators.
3. LIMITATIONS . The advance concurrence of the Assistant Administrator for
Water or his delegatee is required on the first request dealing with a specific
pollutant in a specific industry discharging to specific waters (inland/fresh,
estuarine, or marine). The determination of whether a request is a first
request will be made according to procedures established in guidance issued by
the Office of Water.
4 • I LEGATION ALYrHORITY . This aut rity may not be redelegated.
-------
- 1200 TN 139
DELEGATIONS MANUAL 5/30/86
CLEAN TER ACT
2—26. FDF Permit Variances
1. ALm!0RITY . To appro ,e or deny variance requests, pursuant to Sections
301, 304 and 307(b) of the Clean ter Act, claiming as their bases fundamentally
different factors (FDF) from tt se cor idered in the develcpment of the dischar je
limits in the effluent limitations guidelines or from pretreatrrent standards
for existing sources.
2 • 10 OM DELEX ATED . Regional Administrators.
3. LIMITATIONS . The advance concurrence of the Assistant ministrator for
Water or his delegatee is required on requests that raise issues of national
significance. The determination of whether a request raises nationally
significant issues will be made according to procedures established in guidance
issued by the Office of Water.
4 • REDELEGATION ALTflfORITY • This authority may not be redelegated.
-------
1200 Th 124
DEG TIOt MANUAL 6/28/8 5
CLEAN WATER ACI ’
2—49. Section 301(j)(2) Stays for National Pollutant
Discharqe Elimination Systsn (NPDES) Permits
1. AUTHORITY . To grant or deny stays under Section 301(j) (2) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) for certain requirenents of NPDES pel:mits. This stay provision
is restricted to permit requirenents for non-convantiona]. pollutants under
Section 301(g) of the Clean Water Act, and, where the requirenents of Section
301(j) (2) are net, allows permit issuance to proceed for pollutants not
covered by the variance where edditiona]. time is needed to act upon the
variance request.
2 • 10 W}O4 DELEGATED . Regional Administrators.
3. LIMITATIO . Regional Administrators nust consult with the Director,
Office of Water Enforcenent ar Pe inits prior to the approval or denial
of a stay.
4. REDELEGATION AUTHORITY . This autPority may not be redelegated.
5. ADDITIO L REFERENCES . Section 301(g) of the Clean Water Act;
40 CFR Parts 122.21(1), 122.21(n), l 2 2.62(a)(5), and 124.64(c) of the 1 Wl S
Regulations.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
TECHNOLOGYTRANSFEB (A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS
U
AVAILABLE
&EPA
Environmental
Regulations and
Technology
The National
Pretreatment Program
- r
. - .,.-
- .---- . - -P-.
-------
contents
1. Introduction: What Is Pretreatment? 1
2. The Need for Pretreatment 3
Problems of Industrial Discharges into Sewage
Systems 3
“Pass-Through” of Toxic Pollutants 4
Interference with POTW Operations 5
Sludge Contamination 6
Corrosion 7
Explosions 8
Worker Hazards 9
3. Overview of the National Pretreatment Program 10
National Standards 10
Local Programs 10
Delegation to the Local Level 10
Approval of Pretreatment Programs 11
Industry’s Role and Responsibilities 14
4. National Pretreatment Standards 15
Rationale for National Standards 15
Prohibited Discharge Standards 15
Categorical Pretreatment Standards 15
Local Pretreatment Programs 20
Program Components 20
POTW Pretreatment Program Building Blocks 20
Effluent Limits 21
Implementation Activities 21
Information Handling and Public Access 22
6. The Future of the Pretreatment Program 24
The Pretreatment Program Today 24
Future Issues 24
Looking Ahead 26
7. References 27
-------
United States Office of Water July 1986
Environmental Protection Enforcement and Permits
Agency Washington DC 20460
Water(A DPY UJ I1tLS t’ RLNU LI IS AVA Ij’ tAULN J Ut L
EPA Pretreatment Compliance
Inspection and Audit Manual
for Approval Authorities
1_
-------
_ID I7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20480
l9 b OFFICEOP
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Pretreatment Complance Inspections and Audits
FROM: Ja!’R . Elder, Director
9ffice of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN-335)
TO: Users of the Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI)
and Audit Manual for Approval Authorities
This manual provides Approval Authorities with information
and material on audits and inspections of approved local POTW
pretreatment programs. The manual should assist Approval Authorities
in providing effective oversight of approved pretreatment programs
under their jurisdiction.
The PCI and audit procedures are consolidated in this manual
because the preparation and follow-up steps for the two activities
are similar. Separate checklists for conducting PCIs and audits
are included in the manual. The audit checklist addresses all
materials contained in the PCI checklist, although some audit
questions seek more detailed information.
Audits and PCIs are complementary means of achieving effective
pretreatment program oversight. Audits, which are more comprehensive
and resource—intensive than PCIs, are most useful when conducted
approximately one year after program approval and again during the
POTW’s five-year permit term, preferably close to the time of
permit reissuance for the approved POTW. Initial audits allow
for identification of any problems the POTW may have in implementing
its program.. Where appropriate, follow—up guidance or assistance
(including contractor assistance in some cases) may be provided
by the Approval Authority to the POTW. In cases where the POTW
has failed to implement important aspects of its program, the
audit may also provide an opportunity to determine whether enforce-
ment action against the POTW is needed. Audits performed just
prior to permit reissuance provide the Approval Authority with a
good opportunity to determine whether any modifications need to
be made to the pretreatment conditions in the POTW’s NPDES permit
to address any deficiencies in the local program (e.g., to provide
greater detail on performance expectations for local permit
issuance or compliance inspections for lUs, to prescribe
methodologies for developing or assessing the need for local
limits, etc.)
-------
—2—
PCI are less resource jntensjve than audits. The PCI focuses
on the POTW’s compliance monitoring and enforcement activities.
Optimally, PCIs should be performed annually during the interim
years between audits as pare of routine NPDES municipal inspections.
PCIs should be included in the compliance inspection plans developed
between Regions and States.
I hope that you will find this manual to be a useful tool
for ensuring that your approved local pretreatment programs are
being implemented in accordance with the requirements of the
General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403).
-------
‘LADLE OF ITEN1 S
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . , • • • • , • • , • • • • • , • , • • • • • , • • • • • 1—1
1.1 PRETREA1’MENTcc 4PLIANCEINSPECTION( I)S..........S....V 1—1
1.2 AJ.JDtT..... .. .. .. . .........s.. ..• .s...sss.s . ... .ss.ss...j. 1—1
1.3 O ANIZA1IONOFTHEGUI NCEMANUAL...................... 1—2
1.4 KI AND AUDIT SCHE XJLING AND ORDINAXION................ 1—3
1.5 RESOU E 1—3
1 • 6 STRAT IC PLANNING AND MAN 4FNF SYSTE74 (SIMS)
.,1ITr. rrs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—3
1. • 7 £QU ES OF ADDI’rIONAL INFORIAIION. • . . . . • . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . 1—4
2 • OVERVI ’J AND BACK UND. . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—1
2 • 1 PRETREA IT P AM AUTHORITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . 2—1
2.2 FED AL REQUIRU1 lTS..................................... 2—1
2.2.1 Federal Categorical Pretreatnent Standards........ 2—2
2.2.2 Prthibited Discharge Standards and Local Limits.. • 2—2
2.2.3 O ierviewofStateRegu1ations..................... 2—6
2.3 ALTI’HORITY RnQUIR JrS AND RESP SIBILITIES...... 2—7
2.3.1 Inó.istria]. Waste Survey........................... 2—7
2.3.2 Industrial User Monitoring and EflfOxC nt........ 2—8
2.3.3 Pecordkeeping and Reporting Requir nts.......... 2—9
3. I AND AUDIT 3—1
3.1 3—1
3.2 PREPARATIGN.............................................. 3—1
3.2.1 Review of the Control Authority’s P m Status. • 34
3.2.2 vel i nt of an Audit or Inspection Plan........ 3—2
3.2.3 Notification to the Control h.athority............. 3—2
3.2.4 uip nt Preparation. Is...... ISIS ISS SSSSsssssl • . 3—3
3.2.5 CoordinationwithRegionandState................ 3—3
3.3 i1RY 3—3
3.3.1 Arrival. I5SSISSSSIl SI..... S SIIISSS II55S5 5555155 3 3
3.3.2 Presentation of Credentials. SSIIIS 15S SS.5 5 5 1 1 11 15 33
3.3.3 Cor ent. ............ 555 55S I 51555155555 555511511 33
3.3.4 Prcble withEntryorConsent.................... 3—3
i
-------
3.4 OPENING ( FERENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , • . • . • • • , • • • • • • • • , • • • • , • • , • 3—4
3.5 DOOJ4 lTA ION. . . — . . s—s . • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • , • • . . . . 3—4
3.6 TOUR OF THE PO’I ’J (C tiona]) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—4
3.7 3—5
3.8 CLOSING FERENCE........................e...sssss.s1 ...... 3—6
3.9 REPO PREPAR TION........................ 5.......1 .. ... .... 3—6
3.9.1 Schedu]eforRpOrtSUtXfliSSiOfl......... 3—8
3.10 DA A ENTRY IL 110 S....................s. ..••••.... 3—8
3.11 FOLLCX’J—UP RESPONSE TO THE NT )L AUTHORITY................. 3—8
3.11.1 38
3.11.2 Audit.... ... .. ...... ... .... ....... . . .......... . . ... . 3—8
4. PRETREA1 IT cQ LIANCE INSPECrION (XI) CHEQCLIST............... 4—1
4. 1 NT L AL7rI RITY M JND INE 1ATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—2
4.1.1 GeneralContrlUthOritYIflfO ti0fl.... 5.. ..w 4—2
4 • 2 COMPLIANCE M X4I1ORING AND PPOCEWRES -
coN’r L ALrrI RrrY PE CNNEL RESPONSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—4
4.2.1 Control Authority Pretreatn nt Program Overview... . .. 4—4
4.2 • 2 Control Authority Pretreath nt Program
Modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—4
4.2.3 Control Authority Inspection and Monitoring of
Industrial Users (IUs)................s.. .. 4—6
4.2.4 ControlMedlaniamEVa].UatiOn........... .... 4—8
4.2.5 Enforce! nt Procedures...... . . . . . . . ••...... . . . . . . . . . . 410
4.2.6 Cc tp].iance Trading... .........• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 4—12
4 • 3 - COMPLIANCE PUIITORING AND E2 FO IT — Iii FILE
EVALUATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 4—14
4.3.1 Pile Contents................................... 4—16
4.3.2 Contro lMethaniamEvaluatiCfl.............. •... 416
4.3.3 IU CQ p1iance Evaluation...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 4—18
4.3.4 IUSelf —Monitori!gEVa1UatiOn.............’ 4—18
4 3.5 Control Authority Enforc nt Lnitiatives............ 4—18
4.3.6 Narrative Czni nts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 4—21
4 • 4 StWAR! EVALUATION OF CXZi1 L AI7fl RIT? PRErREA1T4 Nr
PPO AM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 4—22
4.5 4—22
ii
-------
TABLE OF CCNTEWFS
(CONTINUED)
Page
5. PRETRE MEN’r P GRAM AUDIT CHECKLIST 5—1
5. 1 IN’r D.JCTIOt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—].
5.2 OVERVIEWOFTHEAUDITCHECKLIST 5—1
5.2.1 Checklist Cover Page.. . . . . . . . . •. 5—1
5.2.2 Section I: Control Authority Background
Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—1
5.2.3 Section II: IW Pretreatu nt Program Fact
Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s—i
5.2.4 Section III: Legal Authority and Control
Mechanism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—2
5.2.5 Section IV: Application of Pretreatment
Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—2
5.2.6 SectionV: CatplianceMonitoring................... 5—2
5.2.7 Section VI: Enforcenent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—2
5.2.8 Section VII: Data Managenent and Public
Participation....... •••••....................,.. ... 5—2
5.2.9 SectionVl l l: ProgramResources............... .... 5—2
5.2.10 Section IX: IWFi]eRevjew.......,............... 5—3
5.2.11 SectionXz Evaluationandsunriary.................. 5—3
5.2.12 Supporting Doctmientation...... . . .... ... ..... 5—4
5.3 AUDIT CHECKLIST
TABLE
2.1 INWSTR.IES SUBJECT W CATE RICAL PRE’rRE.AITIENT STANüR1 ..... 2—3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - EPA MRIORAN F 1 J. WILLIAM JOR N AND MAR1’HA PF )TH )
Instructions For Ca p1eting Form 3560—3
APPENDIX B - SAMPLE FOLLON-UP LE ER 10 ThE CONTRDL AUTHORITY
APPENDD C - I1PJ PRETREA1TIENT P GRAM FACT SHEET
APPENDIX D - NPDES 4PLIANCE INSPECTION REPO FORM 3 560-3
iii
-------
Eviror r’entai r:tector’ E
Agency ‘-g cr DC 2O &i
A COPY OF THIS M NU2 L IS AVML BLE UPON PEQU T
lEPA Pretreatment Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement
Guidance
o ___ . .—. a __
— .___ . — ____._ __.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMtNTAI.. PROTECTION AGENCY
OPPICU OF
JUL 2 5 1986 WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Guidance
PROM: Jaj ?ti I
ice of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
TO: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I—X
State Pretreatment Program Directors
Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force
The Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force (PIRT) in
its Final Report to the Administrator recommended that the Agency
develop an implementation guidance for Publicly—Owned Treatment
Works (POTWs) with approved pretreatment programs. In response to
that recommendation, the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
has developed the attached final, “Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement Guidance”. Draft Guidance was distributed in
January 1986 for review. This final guidance document responds to
extensive comments received from EPA Regional Offices, States,
several POTWs and PIRT.
POTWs must undertake a variety of new activities to successfully
operate their approved pretreatment programs. This document is
intended to be a comprehensive guide to pretreatment implementation,
particularly on—going compliance monitoring and enforcement
activities. This Guidance provides a detailed discussion of:
1) establishing monitoring requirements for industrial users,
2) sampling and inspecting industrial users,
3) reviewing industrial user reports,
4) determining industrial user compliance status,
5) setting priorities for enforcement actions, and
6) reporting progress to Approval Authorities.
It establishes a definition of Significant Industrial User (SIU)
for use by Control Authorities in targeting primary implementation
activities and recommends a definition of Significant Noncompliance
(SNC) to be applied in evaluating industrial user performance in
complying with effluent and reporting requirements as well as
compliance schedules.
-------
—2—
To evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the pretreatment
programs reporting at all levels——industrial user, POTW and States——
will be an on—going and significant activity. These reports will
be a necessary component towards determining national compliance
with pretreatment standards. As indicated, the Guidance establishes
common definitions which can be used as the basis for consistent
reporting and provides a recommended format for collection of data
from Control Authorities on at least an annual basis.
The reporting system and the definitions of significant
noncompliance and significant industrial user are issued as guidance.
However, Approval Authorities and Control Authorities should under-
stand that it is the goal of the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits to establish a national reporting system based on the
concepts in this document. A Pretreatment Enforcement Tracking
System is now under development which will be based on the Pretreat-
ment Performance Summary found in the Guidance. Approval Authorities
should anticipate such requirements and strongly consider requiring
Control Authorities to begin full implementation of this reporting
system and associated definitions.
To assist Control Authorities in gaining proficiency with
compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, the Regional
Offices and delegated States are encouraged to conduct training
workshops providing practical examples of these activities. The
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) is prepared to
jointly develop and conduct such workshops with Regional Offices.
After issuing this Guidance, OWEP plans to work with several
Control Authorities (and their States and Regional Offices) to
implement the concepts identified in the Guidance. We will care-
fully review the results of these efforts along with the experiences
of other Control Authorities, States and Regions to determine
whether future revisions and/or additions are needed in the Guidance.
This Guidance is intended to assist the Control Authority in
translating regulatory requirements into a workable, effective
pretreatment program. Control Authorities may be unable to implement
all aspects of the Guidance initially, but may adopt the recommended
approaches on a phased basis. EPA may periodically issue additional
guidance which defines annual priorities for pretreatment
implementation.
If you have questions about this Guidance, please call
J. William Jordan, Director, Enforcement Division, at (202) 475—8304
or Anne Lassiter, Chief, Policy Development Branch, at (202) 475—8307.
Attachment
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.1 INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••••••••••.••.••............. 1—1
2.1 INDUSTRIAL USER PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS ........... 2—1
2.1.1 Pretreatment Standards ....................... 2—1
2.1.2 Industrial User Reporting Requirements........ 2—6
2.1.3 Definition of Significant Industrial
User •••.•...................,......,..,.... 2—8
2.1.4 Periodic Reports . . . . . . . •....... ....... . . . . . . 2—10
2.2 INDUSTRIAL USER SELF—MONITORING FREQUENCIES ......... 2—12
2.2.1 Establishing Industrial User Self—
monitoring Frequencies ..................... 2—12
3.1 GENERAL CONTROL AUTHORITY IMPLEMENTATION
RESPONSIBILITIES .... .. ....... .... .. ........ ....... 3—1
3.1.1 Control of Industrial Dischargers Through
Use of Permits, Contracts, etc. ............ 3—1
3.1.2 Procedures to Implement Responsibilities
Cited in the General Pretreatment
Regulations ••.•••••••••.................... 3—3
3.1.2.1 Maintaining the Industrial User
Inventory ••...... . ......... . .. .. .. 3—3
3.1.2.2 Notification (to Industrial Users) of
Applicable Pretreatment Standards
and Requirements .................. 3—4
3.1.3 Providing Sufficient Resources to
Implement the Program ...................... 3—6
3.1.4 Developing and Enforcing Local Limits ........ 3—7
3.1.5 Additional Implementation Responsibilities ... 3—8
3.2 COMPLIANCE MONITORING BY A CONTROL AUTHORITY ........ 3-10
3.2.1 Regulatory Basis for Pretreatment Compliance
Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—10
3.2.2 Compliance Monitoring of Regulated Industrial
Facilities .. ............. . ... •.......... • .. 3—12
3.2.3 Types of Inspection and Sampling Activities... 3—14
3.2.3.1 Scheduled Inspection and Sampling
Activities .•................ ... . .. 3—14
3.2.3.2 Unscheduled Inspection and Sampling
Activities ••••,•••,•••••........ . . 3—15
3.2.3.3 Demand Inspection and Sampling
Activities ............... •,•• ... . 3—16
i
-------
3.2.4 Frequency of Compliance Monitoring
Activities ..................••••••••••••••••
3.2.5 Inspection Procedures . ........... .. . .........•
3.2.6 Control Authority Sampling of Industrial
Facilities ................•••••••••••••••••
3.2.6.1 Considerations in Preparing for
Sampling Activities . . ... .
3.2.6.2 Guidelines for Approved Analytical
Procedures
3.2.6.3 Considerations in Sample Collection
and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.7 Followup Actions in Response to Inspections
and/or Sampling of Industrial Users
3.3 ENFORCEMENT PRINCIPLES AND MECHANISMS ................ 3—28
3—28
3—29
3.3.1.2 3—30
3.3.1.3 3—31
3.3.1.4
3—33
3—34
3.3.1.6 3—35
3.3.1.7 3—37
3.3.2 Informal 3—38
3.3.2.1 3—40
3.3.2.2 3—40
3.3.2.3 3—41
3.3.2.4 3—41
3.3.2.5
3—42
3.3.2.6 3—42
3.3.2.7 3—43
3.3.2.8
3—44
3.3.3.9 3—45
3 .3 .2. 10
3—46
3.3.2.11 3—48
3.4 RESPONDING TO INDUSTRIAL USER NONCOMPLIANCE .......... 3—49
3.4.1 Definition of Significant Noncompliance (SNC)
3.4.2 Publishing Lists of Industrial Users with
Significant Violations ..... ... .. ... ......
3.4.3 Enforcement Response Guide ....................
3 • 4 • 4 Levels of Response . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . .
3.4.5 Factors in Selecting the Appropriate Response
3.4.5.1 Duration of the Violation and Compli-
ance History of the Industrial User
Page
3—17
3—19
3—20
3—21
3—22
3—23
3—26
3.3.1 Principles of an Enforcement Management
System .......................s .sss••s•s•Ie••
3.3.1.1 Responsibilities, Procedures, and
T imeframes •.•.........•.•••••••••••
Industrial User Inventory Data
Collect and Dispense Information
Conduct Sampling and Inspection
of lUs ..................•.ss•• . .•• .
3.3.1.5 Comp lianceScreening......... . . .•••••
Enforcement Evaluation . •. . • • • ••.
Formal Enforcement and Followup
and Formal Enforcement Mechanisms
Informal Notice to Industrial User
Informal Meetings • • •..... . • •. .. •.
Warning Letter .............. ..•••••••
Notices or Meetings to Show Cause
Administrative Orders and Compliance
Schedules ................••••••••••
Penalties ....•s.•.•s..e••••••••••ss••
Termination of Service •..............
Civil Suit for Injunctive Relief
and/or Civil Penalties
Criminal Suit . . . . • . . . • . . . . • . . • • . . • .
Approval Authority and Public
Intervention • . . . . • • . . . • • . . • . . • . . .
Resources to Enforce the Program
3—49
3—52
3—55
3—62
3—63
3—64
ii
-------
Page
3.4.5.2 Apparent Good Faith of Responsible
Industrial User Personnel ......... 3—65
3.4.5.3 Noncompliance That Causes Interference
or Pass—Through ................... 3—66
3.5 CONTROL AUTHORITY RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING TO
APPROVAL AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—67
3.5.1 Recordkeeping Requirements ................... 3—67
3.5.2 Reporting Requirements ....................... 3—67
3.5.3 Data for an Annual Pretreatment Program
Report •••.•................................ 3—68
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2—1 Industries Subject to Categorical Pretreatment
Standards •s•••see.......ssss.s.s.. ........... 2—3
2—2 Recommended Industrial Self—Monitoring Frequencies
During Initial Compliance Period ............. 2—13
3—1 Comparison: Significant Violation to
Significant Noncompliance . . ...... .. ... . . . . ... 3—52
3—2 EnforcementResponseGuide................,.... 3—57
4—1 AnnualReport Elements ......................... 3—68
4—2 Pretreatment Performance Summary ............... 3—70
APPENDICES
A. Example Reporting Procedures
B. Procedures for Inspections at Industrial Facilities
C. Average Limitations
D. Reporting Requirements Currently Approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (7/86)
iii
-------
A COPY OF THIS GUIDN IS AVML1 BLE UPON REQtJ T
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
STATE PROGRAM GUIDANCE
for
Deve1op ent and Review of State Program Applications
and
Evaluation of State Legal Authorities
(40 C.F.R. Parts 122 — 125 and 403)
VOLUME ONE
July 29, 1986
Office of Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington D.C.
-------
—2—
COt TENTS Page
Chapter Five — The Program Description and Memorandum
of Agreement
A. Background 5-1
B. Purpose and Contents of the Program Description
and MOA 55
1. NPDES Programs 5—6
2. Pretreatment Programs 5—24
3. Federal Facilities Authority 5—33
4. General Permits Program 5—34
Chapter Six — EPA’S State Program Oversight
A. Background on Oversight Process 6—1
B. Statutory Basis for State Oversight 6—5
C. EPA and State Roles 6-7
D. Identification and Resolution of State Program
Deficiencies 6—10
Vol mte II
4
Part I — Program Submission/Approval Documents - Models and
Examples
Part II — Policies on State Program Approval and Review Procedures
Part III — Policies on State Program Requirements
Part IV — Policies on EPA Oversight of State Programs
Part V — Policies on State Program Withdrawal Process
Part VI — Policies on State Programs and Enforcement
Part VII — Miscellaneous State Program Information
Part VIII — Summary of Significant State Program Case Law
Part IX - State Program Approval/Oversight Checklist
Part X — Model NPDES Permit
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NPDES STATE PROGRAM GUIDANCE
Contents Page
VOLUME I
Introduction j
Chapter One — Synopsis of the Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements of the NPDES Program
A. Statutory Scheme 1-1
B. Regulatory Scheme 1-3
C. History of State NPDES Program Approvals 1-7
D. Oversight 1—8
Chapter Two — Procedures for State Program Approval,
Modification, Review, and Withdrawal
A. Approval of New State Programs 2-1
B. Program Modification Process 2-10
C. Legal Review of Existing Programs 2—12
D. Withdrawal of State Programs 2—14
Chapter Three — Statutory Authority and The Attorney
General Statement
A. Background 3—1
B. Statutory Requirements and the Attorney General’s 3—5
Statement
(1) NPDES Requirements 3—6
(2) Pretreatment Requirements 3—24
(3) Authority Over Federal Facilities 3—33
(4) General Permit Requirements 3—34
Chapter Four — Regulatory Authorities
A. Background 4—1
B. Required State Program Regulations 4—4
(1) NPDES 4-4
(2) Pretreatment Regulations 4—41
(3) Federal Facilities 4—54
(4) General Permits 4—55
-------
Unitea States inausz’ai Tecnnoeogy Division Seotemr’er 1986
Environmental Protection WH 552
Agency Washington, DC 20460
Water A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON 1( . Uk S1 ’
‘
.
Guidance Manual for
Leather Tanning and
Finishing Pretreatment
Standards
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION......................,........,.....,,,.. 1—1
1.1 HISTORY OF THE LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING CATEGORICAL
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS.................................... 1—2
2. LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT
STANDARDS.................. ••.••..••••••••••••••••• ••••• ••• 2—1
2.1 AFFECTED INDUSTRY..................................... 2—1
2.2 PROCESS OPERATIONS................................. 2—1
2.3 SUBCATEGORIZATION..,................. 2—5
2.4 EXCEPTIONSFROMREGULATION ...... 2—10
2.5 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR THE LEATHER TANNING AND
F INISHING CATEGORY.......................S 2—10
2.6 POLLUTANTS EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION................. ...... 2—11
2.7 COMPLIANCE DATES..............S............S........... 2—11
2.8 SULFIDE EXEMPTION............... . 2—11
2.8.1 General Sulfide Criteria......... ... 5 . 5 . 5 55 • 2—17
2.8.2 Specific Sulfide Criteria.. 5 ... 5 . 5 2—17
2.8.3 Effective Dates for Sulfide Applicability....... ... 2—18
2.8.4 New Sources. . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—18
2.9 TOTAL CHROMIUM EXEMPTION. . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 2—18
3. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES.. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 3—1
3.1 IN—PLANT CONTROLS.....................SSSS........ 3—1
3.2 TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR SEGREGATED WASTESTREAMS...S.S..... 3-4
3.3 END—OF—PIPE TREATMENT PROCESSES...........S.. 3—5
3.4 SOLIDS HANDLINGAND DISPOSAL...........S.... 3—6
4. REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS.......... 4—1
4.1 INTRODUCTION..........................S 4—1
4.2 CATEGORY DETERMINATION REQUEST........SS..S..•.••,••••.•.• 4—1
4.3 MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL
PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—2
4.3.1 BaselineMonitoringReports....... ., ..... 5 • 555 • 5 5 5 54 _ 2
4.3.2 Report on Compliance.....,......,.........,... 4—4
4.3.3 Periodic Reports on Continued Compliance 15 . 5 ..... 5 4-4
4.3,4 Noticeof Slug Loading.......,. , ...,. .. • 4—5
4.3.5 Monitoring and Analysis to Demonstrate Continued
Compliance..... .... .. .. ...... •.SS•S.SSs .. .. . . •,.... 4—5
4.3.6 Compliance Monitoring with Multiple Outfalls.....,. 4-7
4.3.7 Signatory Requirements for Industrial
User Reports....,......,....,....,...... .•......,. 4—7
4.3.8 Recordkeeping Requirements..... ,...., , ,, 55 ,• 5 • • 4—7
1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.4 THE COMBINED WASTESTREAM FORMULA 4-7
4.4.1 Monitoring Requirements for Industrial Users Using
the CWF 4-9
4.4.2 Application of the CWF 4-9
4.5 REMOVAL CREDITS 4-9
4.6 FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS VARIANCE 4-14
4.7 LOCAL LIMITS 4-15
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDIX A: EXPANDED REVIEW CRITERIA FOR LEATHER TANNING SULFIDE
WAIVER APPLICATIONS
APPENDIX B: SULFIDE ANALYTICAL METHOD
-------
—“-
MEMORANDUM
SUBJ!CTs App ication of RCRA Correct v. Act on R.quiren.nts
to POTWe
FROM: Martha G • Prothro, Director ORIWNAL S%GNEDB’I
Permits Divi jo (n —336) MARTHAG.P
TO: Water nagenent Division Directors
Regions I — X
The Resource Cons.rvaticn and Recovery Act (P.Cu) imposes
z .quir.ments upon faci. iti.s which treat, star. or dispo.. of
hazardous vast.. Certain P s which receive such waste y
be sub j.ct to RCRA require nts. This randua cutLtnes h.
appLcability of RC*A to POTWs and contains a lettsr to
be sent to POTWs, requiring th.. to notify EPA whether BA
Thazardous vaste is received by the . Ths aai in to
POTWs is intended to identify those POlils for which th. Off ice
of Water Enforc.asnt and Permits and the Isgicna.L Water N ag..sni.
Divisions will sebosqment y impl.nt 3A r.quir...nte. V.
ask all Regional OUi .i to conduct the asi.tinq October 1986.
following an opportunity fox discussion and c- u.nt on this
memorandum and atta nts • Conference calls to diacune this
memorandum and atta uta with Regional hazardous vast. coordinators
are being arranged tsr Icuday. Sept sr 22, 1986.
Applicability of RCRA To P s Receiving RCRA Hazardous Wastes
Generally, sewer line anfluents to POTWs will. fall under
the domestic sewage exclusion of CPR 261.4(a)(1) and therefore
are not considered to be hazardous wasts under RC*A. However,
waste received at.a POlW by truck, rai or by a dedicated pipe
(i.e., where the vast, does not mix with domestic waste in the
pipe before entering the POTV) s not, covered by he doa.stic
sewage exemption. If that waste a a listed hazardous waste
or exh bite a hazardous waste characteristic the POTW is required
to obtain a RCRA permit for the treatment, storage, and disposal
of such waste.
-------
-2—
For example, vastewater treatment sludge from the chemical
conversion coating of alim inum is a listed hazardous waste in the
RCRA reau]at ions. If this waste is sent to a PO’rW via a sewer
where the waste mixes with domestic sewage prior to reaching the
POTW’s treatment plant, then the waste would be covered by the
domestic sewage exemption, and therefore u1d not subject the
POTW to a RCRA permit. If, however, the same waste is trucked
directly to the POTW, then the waste uld still be considered
“hazardous waste’ and the POTW uld be required to have a RCRA
permit to accept such waste.
Generally, POTWi which receive hazardous waste by truck,
rail or dedicated pip. are eligible for a simplified permitting
process under RCRA, which is similar to the L PDES general permits
program under the Clean Water Act. Individually-issued RCRA
permits are not required of such P01W.; rather, the RCRA regu-
lations provide that a POTW is deemed to have a RCRA ‘psrmit by
rule” if it complie, with certain conditions, including compliance
with its NPDES permit, compliance with certain reporting and
record—keeping RCRA Part 264 requirement., and compliance with
all Federal, State, and local pretreatment requirements (i.e.,
the waste received by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe meets all
pretreatment limits).
Among the changes to RCRA made by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 is a requirement for permitted PCRA
facilities to address continuing releases. This requirement,
known a. the “corrective action’ provision, applies to POTW.
subject to the PCRA permit by rule. Implementation of the
corrective action provision will involvs the RCRA permitting
authority in determining whether ther. was a release of
hazardous waste from the facility and prescribing necessary
clean—up actions to protect h an health and the environment.
Since there ar. currently no Stats. approved under RCRA for
implementation of this requirement, EPA has the responsibility
to implement corrective action for all RC*A faciliti.., including
Po’rws under th. permit by rule.
FT ‘87 Activities
In FT ‘87, EPA will focus on high priority P01W., which ar.
POTWs that either receive RCRA hazardous waste accompanied by a
RCRA manifest, or receive RCRA hazardous waste without a RCRA
manifest and are known by the Regional Office to have releases
which threaten public health and the •nvironmsnt (for example,
PO’!Ws with known significant groundwater leachate, volatilization,
or other environmental problems). In accordance with th. Agencys
F’? ‘87 operating guidance (see item II.D.3..), the Office of
Water and the Regional Water Management Division. ar. responsible
for implementing RCRA permit by rule requirements (including
corrective action). Thus, the first RCRA corrective action
activity in FT ‘87 for !PA Regions is to identify high priority
-------
—3—
PO”WS in their States that should be covered by the PCRA permit
by rule requirements. The second PCRA corrective action activity
in FY “ 7 is to irtplement the initial staqeg of corrective
action for these facilities.
On or about October 1, 1986, Regional Offices should
begin to identify high—priority POTWa in their States. Letters
s iould be sent by the Regions to all major and minor
informing them of their obligation, under RCRA and requiring
them to notify EPA whether they receive hazardous waste by
truck, rail or dedicated pipe. An example letter for this purpose
is enclosed. The mailing, at a minimum, is intended to identify
those high priority PCYrW, which receive hazardous waste accompanied
by a P.CRA manifest. EPA Regions are also encouraged to use
any other approach, including examination of RCRA manifest
reports and consultation with States, to identify high—priority
PO’ W. that should be covered by the RCRA permit by rule.
Headquarters will be asking Regional Offices for the results of
this facility identification effort by no later than the end
of the second quarter of FY ‘87. so that we can •.timat. the
national workload and to provide the most effective guidance and
assistance possible in light of the size and type of universe
identified.
The second RCRA corrective action activity for EPA Regions,
to occur in the second half of PY ‘87, is to begin to implement
the initial stage(s) of corrective action requirements for
identified high-priority POiWs. Implementation of corrsctive
action is a step—by—step process which will entail th. collctiøn
of information from POI’We, and, as necessary subsequent site
investigations, sampling visit., remedial investigations, and
corrective measures. Dstail.d guidanc. is now being prepared
to assist the Region. in implementing the initial stages of
the correctiv, action process. Contractor assistance will
also be available upon request to help Region. and POI’IIs conduct
these initial activities.
The Permits Division is currently working on s.v.ral front.
intended to assist you in implementatjon of RCRA requirements
for POTWs. Proposed r.gulations intended to clarify the current
corrective action regulatory requirements are being prepared,
and a technical guidance docum.nt is being developed to assist
POTWe in identifying PCRA hazardous wastes and in developing
nonitoring and sampling programs to help keep hazardous waste
c ut of POTWs that choose not to receive it. Attached to this
menorandum for your information is a copy of the RCRA Orientation
Manual , a document prepared by the Office of Solid Waste, which
provides an overview of the RCRA program.
I expect you and your staff to have many c ents and
questions on the attached draft letter, the RCRA permit by rule
and the Regional activities to be undertaken in FY ‘87. For this
reason, we will be scheduling conference calls with the Regional
Water Piviajort haz rdoug waste coordinators on September 22, 1986.
-------
We wjU. soon b centact3nq your coord ajor to arrang. the t ns
of the conferenc. ca.U. for your Reg on. B.cau , he conference
cai. .. wiU, necessar y focus oniy on major .asu., f you have
any pre. iminazy quest on. or a nor ssu. to rais•, p •as. csk
me at FTS 475—9545, or have your staff contact. Gary Cohen of my
staff at. rrs 475—7j5o, prior to he conference cafl,.
In add3t.jo , in November or December 1986, we expect to
have a nationa , st nq w th tb. coordjnato to discus, our
draft progzaa cper.t3nq guidance and fe —u p activ t es.
Further information on these aOtivjt ee wi. be for CQflq.
cc , Jia I. der — — 335
Bi1 . Jordan ia 338
Bruce W.dd.t - lB 983
Mark Gre.nwood - LI 3328
Pan 8avaq. — L X 1321
NPDEB Permit. Branch
Rqio”a . Water Division Banardoss Vast. COoNdit .’
John Hea y — Req. I
Bob Olson — Req. II
Terry Oda — Req. III
Al. Rerndou, - Req. IV
Ken F .n.r — Req. V
Bill, Luthans — Req. VI
Mike ?ure.y — Req. VII
Marshal, , Fischer - Req. VIII
Andy L neoff - Req. IX
Bob Robichaud - Req. 2
EN-336:CORPW:D#14i..$, v per GNG ,adg:9/1O/86
-------
GEPA
United States Permits Division October 1986 —
Environmental Protection Washington. DC 20460
Agency
Water A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS AVAILA. JJ UPON REQUEST .
Municipal Permit
Quality Review
Procedures Guide
JL
-------
‘L ... .,
:U 3JFcT: L unicipal kermit (duality Peview (PQF.)
Procedures Guide
t artha G. Prothru, Lirector
Permit Division (E —336)
TO: Lisers of the Document
The iur.icipal Q1 Procedures Guide is designed to provide
nc.w start members, or staff unfamiliar with the PQP concept
with a comprehensive manual—of—practice for review of State—
i sued [ &ES permits. The manual is a result of our experience
in cortciuctin (or assisting) in numerous PQP evaluations over
ti.c ‘ast four yLars. use of the guide should promote compre-
hensive anc systematic permit reviews so that a nationwide
.er it quality system can be n aintained.
The ?QF pro r m has provided substantial information on
national permits program in terms of both çuantity and quality.
i-ieadauarters, F egions and States have used the P R findings
to improve individual permits ana the program in general.
Th P(jP. re iains a vital oversiyht tool for evaluating State
issuec permits. Therefore, we encourage Regions to conduct
a £(.k for each zPDES State at least once every two years.
i view of draft permits submitted by the States to EPA can
I rcvide some information, but it cannot tell us how the over-
all permit program functions. For this we must follow the
. ‘ -mit from açplication through final issuance. The PQR
c . vera the entire permitting process.
I hope you find the guide to be useful in conducting
‘crr.iit reviews. e anticipate that a separate industrial
perrnit quality manual will be completed by the fall of 1987.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. The Permit Quality Review Concept 1
2. Planning a POR 3
2.1 Materials 5
2.2 Team Composition and Experience 6
2.3 Logistics 6
3. Checklist Procedures 7
3.1 Checklist Areas for Special Interest 8
4. Summary and Evaluation of Findings 10
4.1 Presentation of findings 11
5. Follow—up Activities 12
6. Office of Water Mid—Year Evaluation 14
pendices
- Municipal POR Checklist
— PCS list example
- Pretreatment list example
— Index to NPDES Regulations
- Evaluation Summary form
- Sample PQR report
- Model NPDES permit for minor POTWs
— Sample letter to the State
-------
OCT 2 11986
MBMORAR DUN
SUBJ CTI Redraft of Model Letter to b. Sent to POTWs
rpo.s, Martha 0. Prothro, Director
Permits Division (EB —336)
TOt Water Management Division Directors
Regions I -X
On September 11, 1986, 1 sent you a draft .zaap le letter
to be sent to all POTW5 to determine whether they are subject
to RCRA corrective action r.quirem.nts. My staff and I discussed
the draft during çoflf.reuce calls with the Regional Water
Division Hazardous Waste Coordinators on September 22J’1986.
Based on the colh’ — nts received, we have r.draf ted the example
letter. A copy is attached for your information.
Regions are, of course, free to modify the exampl. letter
and may include additional questions. However, we will need
answers to the four basic questions in the example letter in a
form that will allow us to ask. some nationwide assessments for
strategic purposes. If you decide to send a letter that differs
substantively from the example we have developed, I strongly
suggest that your staff work closely with Gary Cohen of my staff
in the drafting effort and that you send me a copy in advance
for informal co nt.
Pleas. note in the attached example letter that we are
interprting the RCRA permit by rule to apply to all PO1S Is
which receive hazardous waste by truck, rail, or dedicated
pip.,’ where the waste is not mixed with domestic sewage in
a s.wpr before reaching the POTW property boundary (excluding
sewer pipes outside the facility boundary). Thu is the inter-
pretation we intend to use in implementing the RCRA permit by
rule program for POTW5. Questions 1 and 2 in Attachment of
the example letter are designed to determine whether manif.st.d
hazardous waste is delivered either inside or outside of the
P01W. Delivery inside the boundary would subject the POTW
tä the RCRA permit by rule: delivery of manifested hazardous
ste outside the boundary could constitute. a violation of
RCPA manifesting and reporting requirements.
-------
Region VII has asked wh.thez letters should be s.nt to
non—discharging POIWs. i.e., POTWs not subject to an NPDE6
permit. I ourag. you to do so. since the purpose of the
mailing is to identify POIWs subject to RCRA treatut nt, storage
or disposal requirements. Although non-discharging POTW 5 are
not eligible fez a RCRA p.rmit by rule (since a precondition
to the permit by rule is that a POTW have and comply with
an NPDES permit). non—discharging POTWs which r.c.ive hazardous
waste may ned to obtain individual RCRA Subtitle C permits.
I should caution you, however, that there are certain legal
questions concerning the applicability of regulatory RCRA
permitting requirements to non—discharging POTW5. I urge you
therefore to work closely with Gary Cohen of my staff before
issuing RCRA permits in any such cases.
Th. conference calls with th. Regional Water Division
Hagardous Waste Coordinators provided us with valuable feedback.
We hope the Regions also found the calls worthwhile. We are
considering arranging such conference calls monthly and would
appreciate your thoughts on this. Your Haaardous Waste Coordinators
may cont&ct Gary Coh.n at PTS 475—7050 with their reactions to
our plans.
If you have any questions or ccn ents. pleas. call me at
F’I’S 475—9545 or have your staff call Gary Cohen.
Attachment
cc i Jim Elder — EN 335
Bill Jordan — EN 338
Bruce Wsddle — WE 563
Mark Gr..nwood — LE 1326
Pam Savage — LE 132W
NPDES Permits Branch Chiefs
R.gional Water Division Basardous Waste Coordinators.
John H.al.y - Req. I
Bob Olson — Req. II
Terry Ode — Reg. III
Al B.rndon — R.g. IV
2 à Henry - R.g • V
Bill Luthans — Rag. VI
Mike ?urvey — Reg. VII
Marshall Fischer — Rag. VIII
Andy Lincoff — Req. IX
Bob Robichaud — Req. X
Cohen’s #14(17):reV:per GHG:lO/17/86
REV:per MGP:lO/21/8 6
-------
(ADR]
A?TN , Legal D.parta.nt or operator of POTW
RE, CRCPAIPA. I.D. * (if applicable))
Dear Sir/Madam,
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) imposes
requirements upon facilities which treat, store or dispose of
hazardous waste. POTWs which receive hazardous waste by truck,
rail, or ddicated pipeline, where th. wast, does not miz with
domestic sewag. in the sewer system befor. reaching he POTW
property boundary, ar. subject to RCRA permit r.quir.ments.
Generally, POTWa which receiv, hazardous waste by truck,
rail or dedicated papelin. are eligibl. for a simplified permitting
proces. under RCRA. Individually—issued RCRA permits are not.
normally required for such POTW5, rather, h. RCRA regulations
provide that a POTW is deemed to have a RCRA ‘permit by rule’
if it complies with certain conditions • Thes. conditions incLude
complianc, with its HPDES permit, complianc, with certain
reporting and recor ’-keeping RCPA (40 CP’R Part 264) requirements,
and c a lianc. with Federal, State. and local pretr.at nt
requirements (i.e., th. waste received by truck, rail #or dedicated
pipeline meets all pretreatment limits and monitoring and
reporting requirements). On Novemb.r 8, 1934, the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA went into effect. One
impact on POTWs is a new requirement thdt permitted RCRA facilities
address continuing releases. This requirement, known as the
‘corrective action’ provision, involves determining whether
any releases of hazardous waste fro. the faciLity have occurred
and, if there have been releases, establishing any necessary
cleanup actions to protect human health and the environment.
In order to effectively implement RCRA permit by ruae
requirements for publicly owned treatment wokrs, the EnvironmentaL
Protection Agency is required to determine whether your faciiity
has been engaged or plans to engag. in certain activities.
Therefome, pursuant to th. authorities of H3007 and 3018(d)
of th Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and 4308 of the
Clean Water Act, you must. respond to the questions in Attach
ment to the best of your knowledge based on all information
and documents in your possession, your control, or the possession,
custody, or control of your employees, agents, servants on
attorneys. You must respond within 30 days of the date of
this lett.r.
-------
—2-
All information you submit must be certified in accordance
with the certification on Attachment A and mailed to:
Hams Water Management Division Director
R.gion —
Address
The certification must be signed by a principal •zecutive officer,
ranking elected official or an authorized representative of your
installation. An authorjz.d r.presentativ. is a person responsible
for the overall operation of the facility (i.e., a plant manager
or superintendent, or a person of equal responsibility).
Under the provisions of the both the Clean Water Act and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, failure to comply with
this request may result in substantial penalties.
If you hay, any questions please contact ____________ of
my staff. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Water Management Division ir.ctor
U.S. EPA, Region —
Address
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Answer th. following question. and mail within thirty days
to,
lame, Water Management Division Director
Mqa.on —
Address
(1) Have you received hazardous waste (as identified in
40 CPR Part. 261) accompanied by a Unifora Hazardous
Waste 4anif.•t’ as shown in Attachment B?
YES. NO
If you answered y.s, was or is this hazardous waste
d.Liv.r.d ___ inside or ____ outside of the P01W property
boundary?
(2) Do you plan to receive hazardous waste (as ad.ntifi.d an
40 CPR Part 261) accompanied by a Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manif.st as shown in Attachment. B?
_______ YES, NO
If you answered y.s. will thi. hazardous waste be
delivered insid. or _____ outsid. of the P01W
property b ry7
(3) Have you raceaved hazardous waste (a. idexstafi in 40
Cm Part 261) by dedicated pap. wher. the wast• does not.
mix with dam.sta.c s.wag. (i.e., sanitary waste) in the
-- sewer .ystem befor. reaching the POTW property boundary?
______ YES. _____ NO
(4) Do you plan to receiv, hazardous waste (as identified i4
40 CPR Part 261) by dedicated pipe where the waste does
not mix with domestic sewage Ci..., sanitary vast.) in
the sawer syst before r.aching the P01W property boundary?
___ YES. ___ NO
CERTIPICATION — I certify under penalty of &aw that this document
and all attachments were prepared under my direction or sup.rvision
in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
p.rsonnd’i properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system.
or thos. persons directly responsible for gathering the information,
the aIfdrmttaon submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that. the,.
are significant p.nalti.s for submitting fa .se information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations. -
Signatur. of principal
executav. officer, ranking
elected official or
authorized representative
-------
United States Office of Water
Environmentai Protection Enforcement and
Agency Permits January1987
A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
EPA
PRELIM USERS GUIDE
Documentation for the EPA
Computer Program I Model for
Developing Local Limits for
Industrial Pretreatment Programs
at Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Version 30
D PORTABT
PLEASE SEE ERRATA/ADDENDUM
SNEETS BEFORE USING THIS
MANUAL
-------
C/H—18b/#15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 . I NTRODUCT ION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—1
1.1 BACKGROUND.. •........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—1
1.2 GENERAL METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING LOCAL LIMITS......... 1-2
1.3 COMPUTER METH000LOGY....... ... ••....... .. ... . .. .. . 1—3
1.4 OTHER USES OF PRELIM. . . . . . . . . . •....... . . . . . . ........ . .. . 1—6
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF USER’S MANUAL.................... 1—7
2. DATA COLLECTION AND INPUT DESCRIPTION 2-1
3. PROGRAM METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—1
3.1 DATA OUTPUT SELECTION...... . . . . . . . . . . . . •. 3—1
3.2 PRELIM PROGRAM METHODOLOGIES AND ALGORITHMS 3-2
3.2.1 Module 1 - Allowable Pollutant Loadings.......... 3-2
3.2.2 Module 2 - Industrial Allocation Methods......... 3-13
3.3 DEFAULT DATA AND DATA BASES......... ............. 3-16
4. INTERPRETING PRELIM OUTPUT...... . . . . . 4—1
4.1 P01W INFORMATION 4—1
4.2 INDUSTRIALWASTESAMPLINGDATA............. . 4-3
4.3 DOMESTIC CONTRIBUTION AND REMOVAL RATE DATA ....... 4-3
4.4 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED MASS LOADINGS TO
MEASURED P01W INFLUENT. . . •... . . . 4—3
4.5 CALCULATION OF ALLOWABLE INFLUENT LOADINGS. ....... 4-7
4.6 REQUIRED INOUSTRIALREMOVAL... . 4-10
4.7 ALLOCATIONOFINDUSTRIALLOADINGS 4-10
4.8 LOADING SUMMARY TABLES .... . 4—20
4.8.1 Derivation of Data Presented in
Loading Summary Tables.. ......................... 4-22
5. P01W SAMPLING PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF LOCAL LIMITS
DEVELOPMENT..... . 5—1
5.1 P01W—SPECIFIC REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES....... 5-1
5.2 INDUSTRIALWASTESURVEYDATA....................... 5-2
5.3 WATER QUALITY DATA. ........ 1 5s SSSS• S 55
5.3.1 Estimation of Receiving Stream Flow. 5-5
5.3.2 Sampling and Analysis of the POTW’s
Receiving Stream....... 5I 5 S•S••e 5—7
-------
, IO ST4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 L pqØ t
OFFICE OF
WATER
Dear PRELIM Requestor:
Enclosed is a floppy disk containing the EPA local limits computer model
PRELIM, Version 3.0, along with the PRELIM Users Guide . PRELIM has been
developed to be used as a tool to assist pretreatment managers at Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) in determining technically sound, defensible
local limits for industrial user discharges. PLEASE READ THE USERS GUIDE AND
THE ERRATA/ADDENDA SHEET BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO USE PRELIM.
Operation of the PRELIM model requires access to a personal computer equipped
with the MS—DOS operating system, Microsoft Basic or GWBasic, at least 256K
RAM and at least two disk drives. Start-up instructions for PRELIM are found
in Appendix C of the Users Guide .
PRELIM performs indpendent sets of calculations for each pollutant, based on
water quality (or effluent), sludge, and POTV protection objectives. The
program computes how each criterion would restrict the amount of each pol-
lutant that the influent to the POTV could contain, based on removal rates and
fate of each pollutant within the POTW. The program then allocates the
influent loadings to the industrial users.
Data requirements for successful operation of the PRELIM model are discussed
in Chapter 2 of the enclosed Users Guide . It is important for the user to
realize the necessity of acquiring site-specific data to input to PRELIM,
rather than to rely on PRELIM default data. It is also important that the
user verify the values derived by PRELIM. The PRELIM Users Guide provides the
equations necessary for hand calculations so that values can be verified. The
validity of PRELIN—derived local limits viii be a function of the extent and
quality of site—specific data available for input to PRELIM.
EPA has recently developed local limits guidance which will be made available
during FY88. The guidance addresses the development and implementation of
local limitations to control conservative and nonconservative pollutant
discharges (i.e., metals and organics) from nondomestic industrial users to
POTWs. The new guidance discusses expanded methodologies for the development
of local limitations. PRELIM 3.0 uses calculations consistent with the
guidance for the development of local limitations for conservative pollutants
only. Nonconservative pollutants are not addressed in the current version of
PRELIM.
-------
PRELIM Requestor
Page 2
If any technical problems with the execution of the PRELIM program should
result, consult the Users Guide . Any technical problems that cannot be
answered by the Users Guide should be referred to Laurie Toffenetti,
(703) 734-3113, or Roger Claff, (703) 734—3122, of Science Applications
International Corporation, the contractor which developed PRELIM, Version 3.0.
If you should have any questions or comments concerning the development of
local limits, please contact your State or EPA Regional Pretreatment
Coordinator.
PRELIM, Version 3.0, incorporates suggestions from many users of PRELIM. We
at EPA believe that it represents a significant improvement over those earlier
versions. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions for further
improvements.
Sincerely,
£ LdLL L
Chuck Prorok
Environmental Protection Specialist
(202) 475-7053
CP/wp
Enclosure
-------
A COPY THIS THIS MEMORANDUM IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
• c r r n i
C!Ip yFr T Q 7’q Crrnsultatic,n OF pnrq rriits for
Soliti 7aste flischarrTe
La ,renc J. Jer c n, Assistant Ar’ministr tor
OfFice of 7at’ r
TO. DPqional p11nFtr torR
s you know thr rt cert Meynoranriur OF Acree ent (Mfl
twc.’,i th’ flenartme nt o th Army anti the TJ.5 . Fnvironr enta1
Prf tmcttrin aq ncy (FP ) (51 FP P7l March 1.4, l9 ) he1 ’s to
c’ari v n rmittinrT an 4 enforcerii nt resnnrsthiJ1t1. s for qoflr
s ni—qoUti wastes untinr s ctions 4(’ anti 4 (14 of the Clna’
‘ pr r Act.
I hav at ch’?ti cony of th MOA for your inFori’ a$ or.
c’ •rt 1 v, it has come to v a tention that nationally there ar
“ rai PDrS er it aonlicatjons or diecharcie of soUti wast F
‘r. r th M A. R c€ use of the recedential nature of the
4 ’ jonc. I rPcuest that my o ice serve In a ccnsu 1 .tation
- =-‘c tv or aU t t S oerinit decisions co”ered by the MO .
T n accortlance with the MOA, wastes of a homooenous ratur’?
r r rr a!1y accociate with a stnrile Intiustry and discharo d from
. ivr .j covovance, or if trucled from a sInr le siti such a fly
ar s hject to the nrovlslons of the section 402 flP S
r or n. ‘ncier the MOA, rPA’s orlmarv concern is its *hi tv
anr t ’€ authori!ec’ States’ ability to e! nlv section 4fl7 Po tb
risr -.arrm o soll ’-i arid sepd—snlH wast to wat rs o the U.S.
(ir clur ing wetlantis), in a w v that atienuat lv rotc cts th
t(’fl1 9’ t.
Tt !s intAr atinci to rota that Ph rurrent ‘PflrF ne It
n l ttons under review all involve we lantis. n informa’
urv’ ’, of 37 Stat’ s rev aled siani icant tii r nc s in the
w ’ 1jcuL or colil waste tiisc arn to wor1an ar r ou] P ti
I r’r r St tc law. (‘nv r c e o wetlands t,nti r State wat r c’ l t”
.3rc s raroed frr r cocci to non xistent, ‘inti none f the
surv v- 1 at’ q h rI ruri rical cr Dria exr r ss1y nr w t arr c.
-------
2
rrrnn ouj 1 tmit -’ ex-,eri nc4? in trvjnc, t o 1Tflfll.?rI flt t M(’
W’ e!j y that r uir tq orm d he ar flhj r’
to solid an s r1i—so1j .j wact s or a —bv— se Rowev r,
wn ‘ 1i v such r oujrprni ts ou1 Phan
“e tc r 1 ttv—has ,1 1 iy jts ‘ i’ ‘o “aturn of P’ wasts s rr
th usii l r hr,r o r 1 cr,os i. Thp and anpror r trnpsq
01 t $- wat r “ual py anr rrs n th’ c cituaPjo ç ar tr fr,rc
cr cj l to ‘.o v n ss o tb nc ip.
I heljov th Copini xjp and Ufl±0UCflP S o th’ sp SiPuati nc
tJflr3f r th P O recuires flversjabt to Ansur national COflSiSt CV
i the anplicatiop of ev tjon 4 2. It i also ii r ortanp that
the P’ c jrrns anti $ tatp are informe .j of r’ cenf devP1nr y, g in
this ama. 1v fft-e will ser 7e as an inforr’al clearInq , jg
or th 4 F in or tion and T antj he1n ahip to nrovlr!’
you a case ‘ xam’,1e invo1v1n a nronospc lischarae of ash
in a wotland in th noar futurø.
1 eas save your qtafc nnti y th ftt e of let r Fnforc pnt
anti Perrnjtq as FOOfl as pOSSjh]p o any NPDrS ner It annhjcatlong
tinder the Ftenher Ruqb , P t jtg flit’jgjon (47S—Q51q) 1
will he the contaCt and coordjnat OW’s review and Consultation
If you have ut-thqr cuestiong concernjn the MOA, nleage contact
P artha rothro, rirector, Pc rr’jts rivjsjon at 47c—9545 ,
ttachy ent
-------
4-
A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
1AR 6
rror :rLY
1 ‘.Ji T: t ccr c t Pr’:trc it c.nt Standards eference
1.
L. ‘ ]lur, it
Tcc’-. Lcz 1 S --’crt r tr c
;‘cjcj l ? tr’ tr.- r’t CcorAir.ator
Pr tr atrcnt ‘oc’rc’iretors
•- t: rz vc1’ir- r r’ nc-. rr..i’ual cont un rr all. the catcccric I
r’ tr t’.-rt st r- as r r sious1j en stint tc eacl c ri on
- t2 . t’ . I cust 1’ f’( we ‘rr vid ’c a cact ac cort iininr
- i’t. r; cr’C rr -v ir.Justri al catcoc.ry.
I á’t. t -... r ost recent r’vi icr c.r irscrtLnc
: tr cer : u i!. Ti is ‘ ckaee includes copies 0 C all regulatory
.ors tw cr. u ust 1 G ar. January 19n7. Please insert
:. t rial according to the proviieri instruct inns. If you
- - ar .i. tions, ; leace contact Tizr vcr of ry starf at
:c:—-;7 — : cr (r rS) 475—9526.
— b. —.
• -.
‘:‘: r
-------
APR 31981
MEMO RAN BUM
SUBJECT: Sewage Sludge PermittinQ Programs: Implementation
or Amendments to Section 405
- tt’ %. SIGHED BY
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director OR 0 PROThRO
Permits Division (EN—336)
TO: Water Management Division Di? ctors,
Regions I — X
The purpose of this memorandum is to alert you to some of
the activities that EPA Regions and States will need to
undertake over the next several months to implement the new
provisions of the cater Quality Act of 1987 pertaining to
sewage sludge. As you know, Congress has recently passed
amendments to the Clean Water Act that include changes to
Section 405 dealing with sewage sludge regulation. The
atiendments to Section 405 are a significant departure from
the old law. For example, Section 405(d)(4) now provides
that prior to the development of the Part 503 technical
regulations,
... the Administrator shall impose conditions in
permits issued to (POTWsJ ... or take such other
measures as th. Administrator deem. appropriate
to protect public health and the environment
from any adverse effects which may occur from
toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.’
The ai ’endments to Section 405 set forth for the first time a
corprehensive program for meeting the goals of reducing
the environmental risks and maximizing the beneficial uses
ot sludge.
The proper management of sewage sludge is becoming
Increasingly important as efforts to remove pollutants from
effluent have become more effective. In addition, greater
focus on surface water toxics control, as well as RCRA
provisions such as the land ban and the Domestic Sewage
Exemption may result in increased volumes of toxic and
hazardous pollutants ending up in sewage sludge. The
-------
£ —
interr lationshir arcnc these efforts to minir.ize environmental
risk n cesritates a ccrpL-ebensive ar-rtcach, which includes
the effcctive manaaencnt of sewaqe dunce.
Under the structure of the amer.c mer.ts, sludçe management
is to be accoi plis ec’ through two initiatives. First,
slucice technical regulations are to be promulgated identifying
toxic pollutants in sewage sludge and s ecifyir.g acceptatle
ranacer’ent practices for sludge (the 405(d) criteria: 40 CFI
Part 5C3). Second, these cLiteria are to be implemented
through permits. The Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(owP ) is developing the 405(d) s1u ige criteria. The first
set of these regulations is scheduled to be proposed by the
erc’ o r 7. ‘The second part of Section 405 requirements,
ir lementing the criteria through pernits, is the responsi—
hility of the Office of Water Fnforcer’ ent and Permits (OWEP).
T ii secor’ elerent is the subject of this inemoLandum, which
e,crlains the changes in the law and the framework it establishes
for the nrocram, and discusses our pzeliminary plans for
irrlenentatiOn.
There are sore areas of amended Section 405 that are
very oeneral and allcw a lot of flexibility in eetablishincj
a rrogvam; in other areas the law is very specific. The
first part of this memcrandun describes the major changes in
t e law and identifies where we do and do not have flexibility
ir d’ velcping a prociram. The second section discusses overall
qoals ar re1irinary plane for implementation. The thitd
section identifies current activities that are o shortly
will he underway to get us moving toward implementation.
I. ! ECTION 406: OVERVIEW OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
A. Permitting Program
Section 406 of the Water Quality Act of 1987, which amends
Section 4C5 of the Clean Water Act, is a significant departur.
ror’ t’ e old Section 405. It clearly establishes that sludge
tegulation will he administered as a permitting program.
T ere are three )ey elements to the amendment: 1) the promul—
cation of technical criteria identifying and regulating
toxic pollutants of concern in sewage sludge; 2) the imple—
rertation of the criteria through rermite issued by EP or
the Etates; and 3) the regulation of sludge through permits
or other appropriate means piior to the development of criteria
(interim implementation). The clear mandate of the gtatute
i5 to establish by regulation both numerical limits and
ranag rent rractices, ii p1ewent those Lequirements through
re rits, and, in the jr.terth, c’eveloj permit 1ii its for
sluc o on a case—by—case basis or take other measures to
rLctect public health and the ervixcr.rert from the adverse
-------
—3—
ef ct 5 of toxic ‘ cllutants ir sludr e.
. ! crc —Terr Irtlerentatjon
‘1 •c states that any 4C•2 reLr Lt 1Ssucr to a
rCTw c’r i n’ ot - r treatrent WCZ}:S tieatjr r c r.,esti.c ccwaUe
Ehall ir cl de t slucj e technjc&l rec;uj egr r s unless uc
recujrc rents have been inclu e(.’ in a :ermjt issu und
eW tjtle C ef ! CPA, part C of the safe Drinkin tater ‘.ct,
or the Clean Air ) ct. or
“unc er state permit p ooran acprcvecl t y the
lic ministrator, ‘where the dr injstra r deter—
rnines that such rrocr s assure cor 1jance with
a y applicable requirements of this Secticn. Not
later than recember 15, l9% 6, the A rjfljstrator
aU promulgate pLocedure for approval cf State
rcar 5 Dursuant to this paragraph.”
Ccr.r.ljaz.ce with the sludge technical equirei ents is requjr
‘it1-jn ore year from their final promt lgatjor Unless Construc
tior. is recuj d, in which case the permjttee has two years
to achieve compliance.
Thu the Act Trandateg that 402 permits 1 whether issued by
or by an PDES State, Contain the sludoe criteria unless
such criteria have been included in one of the li8t d Federal
r er ’1t proc-rams or an approved State proarap. Thig rearLa
that or other peLmjts will be the primary basis foz
.r r1er entjn the criteria. Thus, Once the sludge criteL-ja
are ror ujgated, the issuance of an NPDES permit to a POTW
o cther treatment works treating domestic sewage must include
lu r’e requireme 5 unless they are addressed in another
i rcnrjate permit. Failure to include the criteria would
be cont •ary to law and i y subject the permit issuance authority
to chaj1enc e.
? State desiring to regulate sludge in lieu of EPA r ay
£uhr’it ite own permit program to EPA for approval, and
t - rinjgtrator may approve the prograr if it. assures
cc%rr 1j?nce with Section 405. Pursuant to the Act’g require—
r- r.t , PA will be Proposing regu1atjo g to eata ljsh the
rjfljrt r rec7ujrerpnts for approvabj State sludgc progLams,
t ’ assI.r that such programg comply with Section 405. This
•c isc ssec in more detail below.
C. Interizt Irplementatj
The new laneuac,c In the Act rakes it clear that CongLess
rtr ’ ec 1udce reculation to rccee even t efo . (Lorulaatior,
r. th sluc!cTe criteria. Sectior 4C (r )(4) stat&s i’at p ior
&• .. c nrcruj , tjcn or the criteria,
l••• thc drrjc1stratct ha1]. Lrlcse ir
is tjr to r.ul-ljcli cwne tre ttrprt c ,r)es
-------
4
— —
unc’er sectlor 1 4C2 of this Act o ta}.c such
othe, r.’easu,es as the AdmnLEtrotOL. deems pp o_
nate te protect public health anc: the environ—
rent fror any adverse effects which may cccuc
trom toxic -ollutants in sewage sludge.
This Iieans that, where permits are issued rrior to the pronul—
nation of the technical criteria by OWPS , sludge limits in
such nezn’its will have to be developed on a case—by—case
1 asis.
On its face, the TM or other measuLes deemed a proprja e”
language j amended section 405(d)(4) would appear to grant
broad authority in establishing a program for interim ir ple—
rer&tatjon, Although we intend to take advantage of this
eleljbility we need to begin n to take action to identify
anr ac” ress proble that may result from pollutants in
sludge. Thus, the interim period should he viewed as a time
for FPP ar the States to: 1) identify and regulate through
ermjts those Sources that present or have the potential to
r.resent c rea eg risk to the r.ubljc health and the environ-
ment, and 2) get the lec al and programmatic mechanisms in
riace to incorporate the sludge criteria into permits and
reet the other require,re of the Act. To achieve these
cbjectjves, the intezjn, program will focus On: a) eatabljshjn
reryrittj g priorities 7 b) setting case—by—case limits to be
incorporated into priority pernits; c) putting monitoring
reoujrements into lower—priority permits to provide information
on sludge quality and identify potential problems, and d)
assessing existing State sludge programs to determine what
chances will need to be made, if any, to legal authorities,
sourCes and administration tc assure that the progrema
are able to carry out the regujzegne of Section 405.
II. PLAI FOR IMPLEMENTATION
A. Procrarn Objectives
‘The plan for imrlementing the coals of Section 405 ——
tn pLc-tect public health and the environment from adverse
ffects Cf pollutants in sewage sludge —— will he driven by
wo basic proqrar oh ectives. First, meet the requiremen 9
ection 405 in establishing a process to regulate sludge
t-nuc r erp jts as envisioned by Congress. Second, build as
r’.uc}- as ! ossibl on existinc State sludge prograrrs rather
than hinder existing rrcgrams that are effective, but prov].de
c ’i .ir ar.ce and assistance where State prcgrams aze flot effective
cr aLE? nonexistent.
1r :eepjnc with the objective of zreeting Clean Water Act
renuiLements, one cf the principles of LPA’s Section 405
irr-lerentation both in the interim and in the long—term is
t r ‘7 j n p. —. ‘ r .. — • . - - . -
-------
—5—
rThe r’’ f tst efforts toward t is objectIVe is to establish
s 1u’re lirits in rer ts -t-icr to the 7rorulgatl.cd1
r f :‘rical c eiiererts. culc ccnduct case—b’ -—
r irlc ir’ a ..ay that zill hea’ Eacilities in the
r1rv ctic;n &.f rcrrliarcc with the technical tequirer ents and
r ’diice th ne to reoper. oen its to cet facilities into
cor liancc ihen the final criteria are rrorY’ulgeted. Our
t-riorities icr selectinc facilities for case—by—case err itt1 g
S1 Ould “ixect resources toward those with sludr e ractic s
that re! nt th hict est r’otential risk. to the public health
nc the environrnent while a rore comprehensive regulatory
r ’rar is being developed. Puttinc rt onitoring requirements
ir lower ‘ icrity permits and establishing other basic
rc- uir r’er ts will ensure peL-rut coverage at a later date if
r, leri8 arty identified by the monitoring results.
The second r ajor oh)ective concerns State program develop—
rit, stienothening, surport, and oveLsight. Mcst States
-.v.’e sore type of sludge rar 1 aqer.ent çL-ogram in place; some
o these rroora s erplcy effective perritting that will
re uire little or no chance to meet the cequirements of
ec-tion 4C5. Some states irplement sludge requirewents
ur.der t te authoz.ities but through the vehicle of the NPbCS
r’err it, others use State solid waste permits, still others
u e a hyhrir’ or sor”etbing else. Our preliminary review
in ic tes that existing programs vary widely in terms of
approac’- and ccverace. Thus, State program requirements
reed to be structuLed with sufficient flexibility to
allc i various aLproaches where the State is Lunning an
e’fective proarap that meets EPA ’s basic requirenenta.
It would serve no rurpose to define an approvable .rogram so
t.nflexihly that an existing proaraxn that is effectively
c rulattng sludge through peri its would have to be overhauled
ir order to comply. For example, States that have NPDES
?utl’ority have already undergone a review of their basic
‘ cc ar. In the instances where an rIPDES State has been
te u1 ino sludc e through NPDES permits dr.d wants to continue
r t c c, we are hopeful that at least in tI.e interim an
i-’fcr— i roce s can he established for EPA to defer to
: ‘tate sl’ rae permitting activities. The process would be
trurtur d to assure that these programs carry out
-hc r€ ’icements C’ the Act with a minimum of disruption
;.‘ r’P) y. 1 rot er possible mec anisrr miqht be to reference
-r’ tatA sluc 4 ce re it in the NPCES errit.
t ’r sare tii”e, there are a nurler cf States whose
r, ;rpr t rrocramF aLe inadeouate to carcy cut the 405(d)
i’ ’ rer’ents. Cne of the objectives is tc provide essistanct
ir etrerc’tl’eninu these proqrars, ar’d to encourac7e the States
c t&-e t te lead as ruch as poesible. E will exercise
ts u’t ctitv to ful tll statuto v t€ ’irererts .here a
-roves ‘r 1 a 1c’ r’r unwilli rc.
-------
—6—
;‘ ‘3 19 Qfftc of “ater Acccur tabjljt ’ yi t .i - (O%;A )
€ r’ r’sll ac) state to L hr.ii . descrirticn of its
exi i ie ’ Sta .e sit.c cc anage ’ent rroaraIr by the bet innir of
rY ‘T. “-is ipfc,rration s very lc’portan for the develop—
r ert o tate ccrari recluirezrents and will heir structuie
t e natioflal ron ac- tc raxi ize the use of existing escurces
an’ expertise.
E. Priority Implementation Activities
There are several activities that a e or shortly will 1e
underway to implement th€ requirements cf the section.
1. Work Group . O% FE Ia putting together a sludge
perritting work arou of about fifteen members with repre-
sentatives from the Regions, States and F eadquarters. This
grcup will hold rerioc ic neetings to discuss program implemen-
tation, rrovide input on existing programs, and assist in
the develonrient of State program requirenents and interim
case—by—case permit PecuiL-exnents. We have been in touch
with several of the 1 ecions and States and have a list of
those who have expressed interest in such a work group and
have tentatively agreed to participate. Anyone interested
who has not already beer 1 contacted should ccntact Greg Mcflrien
at (2C2)475—9527. All docurents will be widely distributed
for review. Each Pegion and State that has not done so
should designate a contact person to monitor EPA’s sludge
rermie program activities and receive information.
2. Guidance on Establishing Interim Case—by—Case Permit
Lirite. Permits Division is preparing guidance on how to
write interim sludge limits into permits on a case—by—case
basis. EPA is reviewing existing State sludge contaminant
limits and recuired management practices, and reviewing
other available information including existing EPA guidance
anr results of analyses being conducted by OWRS as they
develer the sludge criteria. Based on this review, EPA will
recorz end contamination limits and management practices that
are consistent with the general direction OWRS is taking to
r eveloF the slu(’ge criteria. This guidance is scheduled to
le available in draft form by the end of F? 87.
3. State Procram Requirements . Another major task for
t e n€ xt several ronths will be to develop minimum require—
rerts for aptrovable State sludge programs. In accordance
.iit Section 405, the most ir ortant element of these proçra e
is that they rrn.ist use permits to regulate pollutants in
ludce. Otherwise, the 1987 Amendments grant EPA considerable
t’iscretion in determining the content and approval process
for State proçra ’s , recuiring cnly that the Administrator
& eter ine that the State procram MassuLeCs] corrpliance with
tbe arçlicahle Lec uirements of Section 4C .”
-------
—7—
‘ e Cf’ice of unicjral PO11 tj 0 Conttcl (CMPC)
rrCro.qr ç State s hir c e r’anacjer-erit L e u l tio s that ar.I. a red
ir ti-c ederal Pegister or Fe ruary 4, l9 6. These regulatior 1 s
ret r’r:’ rirLtrur rrocTrar Lecui ements and rzocedureg fcr
f tat, tz’ obtain arr,roval cf tbej slucjoe r ana iegper,t
rroQra s. ! ecaU5e these regulations were prOtaOS rj pricr c
the -‘ater Quality Act, they did not require permit procrams.
‘ e do not yet know whether we will be able to finalize the
rropc, ec 501 state prograr regulation 5 cr wifl have to
ronose new State sludge r zogram requtre en s , However,
erart from addinq a requirement to issue permits, we currently
exrect that t e reQuired elenents of an approvable State
slur 1 fle perrittjnq program will be very similaz• to those
nrcDosec] by OMPC. As such, States may use these proposed
reaujations as a aulde for assessing the approvabjljt . of
their existjnr progran. The proqran regulations will conta g
such elemen as public participation in pezmitting and
enforc r’pnt, and the authority to conduct inspections, requiL
monitoring, recoidkeenj g and reporting and take enforcei ent
actions, Because an 4PDES State must have these gene&al
proc7rar elements in order to obtain NPDES approval, approved
MPPES States desiring to Lecu late sludge through their NPDC
r oarams may not need signifjcan modification to their
rroczams to addreg 5 the 8 ecific require e of
Cection 4C5. Non—l pD S State sludge permitting programs may
meet these zegujremc.nt 5 with little modification as well,
PA plans to rircpcse State sludge permit progran require—
er.ts by the end of F? P7. Prior to the promulgation of
State Program regulations, we will be able to approve State
sludae orocrams. It will he necessary to establish riiniznur -.
criteria in auid nc prior to any such approvals. -
4. Other Policy Memoranda . OWEP is in the process of
developjna several memoranda to serve as guidance in imple—
r enting the requireme 5 of section 405. The first of these
will addr interjn sludge requiremen in P0Th permits,
‘The I’erorandum will define two classes of POTW for interim
slud-e permitting: high_priority POThs, whose permits Should
reflect the case—by-cage guidance that will be available
at the end of September 19C7; and all cther P0 :g, Guidance
or monito jng or other requirern g, including reopener
clauses, that should be placed into lower priority P0Th
reLrjts as they ext ire will be provided, Suggested rermit
lar.ryuane for the recormended mjnirn . zequjremantg will also
‘iver .
. State Inventories , OWAS contains a requireme that
tates develop inventories of their sludge management
acilities, including the quantity and quality of sludge
ejfl( handled and an identification of the use/disposal
rractices. frany States have been collecting this ir.for ;ation
fcr sore tire, FPA currently has a contract undet a , to
cv S1or PC softwaze to enable the Stateg to incut thjg
-------
—O -
information irto a data ease, an :o allow this inforr atjcn
to ily acc essc and updated.
111. COr CLUSIoN
The arPn’ ments to ectjon 405 direct a Federd]. croc ram
for sludqe managepent. F owever, u i many respects sor ie
States are far ahead of !2PA in this area. EPA and the
States need to work together to set u a pL-ogra that best
c arrjes out the requirements of the Act and builds on existina
e pertjse and ex erjence. The States should continue their
efforts to pull toaether inventories of their sludqe handli.ng
faci1jtje and identify tbe auantity and quality of sludge
and where it is ultimately disposed. Existing State programs
need to be assessed in light of the new re u1rements, and
nror r changes i”ade where needed.
We will continue to send you guidance and pLogram updates,
arid solicit your input and suggestions as the program t kes
shape. I believe the existing tools and expertise in the
P aions and States can be utilized to fulfill the requirements
of the new Act, without major structural changes. I welcome
your comments, suggestions and ideas. Please contact me if
you have any questions, or have your staff contact Martha
Kirkpatrick at (rrs) 475—9517. Questions regarding the
development of interim permit limits should go to Tom Wall at
(FT ) 475—9515. Questions on the sludge technical criteria
should go to Alan Rubjr. in OWRS, at (F?S) 475—7311. Questions
on slu”ae management technologies should go to Ed Gross in
op’pc, at (rrs) 475—9412.
cc: Ned Notzon, OWRS
Susan Lepow, OGC
ob Blanco, OMPC
Bill Jordan, OWEP
bcc: James Elder, OWEP
Alan P .ubjn, OWRS
Margie Pj 5 , OWRS
Ed Gross, OMPC
Bob Bastjan, OMPC
Dov Wejtman, OGC
Rich Kinch, OWEP
ll/d 3/3-16-67/3...23_87/
-------
APR I 6 !987
MFJ’OPANT)UM
TJBJ ’C1’: Permit Implications of privatization
Martha C. Prothro. Director R ;NM.. S’ ° 6 (
Permits Division (EN—336) •: Mp 1BAG.PR0ThRO
TO: Water Management Division Directors, Pegton T X
On June 27, 1985. we sent you a draft document of questions
an answers tiealinq with the Pt’!S permit and pretreatment
im ,1ications of transactions that create private interests in
r’unicipal wastewater treatment works (i.e.. “privati ation).
In the draft m moranduri we set out our conclusions on the
applicable requirements for privatized facilities and discharges
into such Cacilities anti requested your coi ent5.
Based on the coi m ents we received, it is clear that there
is a aood leal oe nisuntieretanding in this area, particularly
with resnect to the relevant Clean Water Act and &PDFS reauire—
r ents anti legal constraints. For example, several coussenters
did not aaree that ownership of the treatment works ehould be
the determining factor in the appropriate limitations and
whether pretreatment applied. These coimn.ntsrs suggested that
any treatment plant treating primarily domestic waste should
he requlateti as a PO1’W (i.e., •ub .ct to limits based on secondary
treatment, with contributors subject to pretreatment) regardless
of whether it is publicly or privately owned. Th. Clean Water
Pct, however, ioes not all for such an approach. Under the
Pet, whether a facility is sublect to secondary treatment (and
itS users to pretre etmeflt) requirements or whether other technology—
based limits (BAT, Bc’t’) apply depends solely upon whether the
plant is publicly or privately owned, and not on the nature of
the wastes baina treated.
Pnother area of jeunderatandiflg involves contracts with
nrivate parties ‘or operation of PO’T e. A couple of co entere
aue tioried whether the private contract operator should be an
7 1) peri’ ittee, suggesting instead that the POTW be the sole
errnittee. Rowever, the NPDES regulations are explicit on this
t oint. stating that when the owner and operator of a discharger
are different persons, the operator of a facility is required
tc obtain an ,qPD F permit. See 40 CFR 122.21(b). W do agree
-------
—2—
wit’i several coimi enters that, although the operator must be a
per iittee, where the municipality continues to own the treatment
works or sewer system, it ahoul he a co—permittee. This policy
is reflected in our revisions to the doc ent.
Several coim enters also raised questions about our state—
r ents that federally owned treatment plants (e.g., those serving
mi’itary bases) are not POTWs, suggesting instead that we regulate
these facilities as POTWa. The legislative history of the CWA
indicates that Congress did not intend this to be the case.
(See Appendix A of the attachment.) Moreover, EPA’. regulatory
definition of NPOTW in the aeneral pretreatment regulations
includes only plants aimed by States and municipalities. See
40 CTR 403.3(o). Thus, these facilities will continue to be
regulated as privately owned treatment work..
Attached is the final guidance that incorporate. co .nts
received on the earlier draft. Also, since the earli.r draft
was listributed for co nent, the Offic. of Municipal Pollution
( ontrol ha. prepared a separate memorandi dealing with the
construction grants implication, of various pxivatisation
scenarios (attached). Accordingly, we have dropped the grants—
related discussions from our dec ent. If you have any question.,
please call me (P’TS 475—9545) or have your staff call George
Young (F’rs 475—9539).
Attachment.
cci James Elder
Su. n Leoow
Michael Quigley
-------
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON PERMIT
AND PRETREATMENT IMPLICATIONS OF
PRIVATI ZAT ION
I. Introduction
“Privatizatjon” of municipal wastewater treatment systems
can occur in a variety of ways. The construction of new treat-
ment plants or the upgrading of existing ones may be privately
financed. Existing POTWs, or portions thereof, may be sold or
leased to private parties. Municipalities may enter into
contracts whereby private parties are to operate an existing
POTW. Privatization may also result where an existing privately
owned facility that was formerly used solely as an industrial
discharger’s treatment facility is now used to treat a munici-
pality’s wastewater. (This is the situation in Golden, Colorado,
where a treatment plant owned by the Coors Company, and formerly
used to treat the company’s brewery waste, is now being used to
treat wastewater received from the town of Golden.)
A treatment plant that treats wastes from any source
other than the operator of the treatment plant is either a
“publicly owned treatment works” (POTW) or a “privately owned
treatment works” under EPA regulations. The grouping in which
a facility is placed depends solely on the ownership and not on
the nature of its influent. POTW is a treatment system that is
owned by a State or municipality (for purposes of the NPDES
program this includes counties or State sewer districts).
“Privately owned treatment works” is defined in 40 CFR 122.2
as “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’.” In other words, a
treatment plant t’ at is not a POTW is by definition a privately
owned treatment works, even if it is not in fact “privately
owned.” For example, a federally owned treatment plant serving
a military base is not a POTW since it is not owned by a State
or municipality, even though the majority of its waste may be
•lomestic sewage from residential base housing. See 40 CFR
403.3(o). */ Conversely, any treatment works that is publicly
owned (by a State or municipality) is a POTW, even if it receives
most or all of its flow from industrial users .
Whether a treatment plant is a POTW or a privately owned
treatment works is important in determining the limits to be
contained in the plant’s NPDES permit and the requirements (i.e.,
pretreatment or otherwise) to which contributors to the tr atment
plant are subject. If a treatment plant is a POTW, its NPDES
permit must contain, at a minimum, technology—based limits
requiring secondary treatment. See §301(b)(l)(B) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). In addition, contributors to the plant are
subject to applicable pretreatment requirenents. Privately
/ The legislative history of the Clean Water Act indicates
that Congress iitended to exclude federally owned treatrnerth
works from being classified as POTWs. See Appendix A.
-------
—2—
owned treatment works, on the other hand, are subject to tech-
nology-based limits that require BPT, BAT, BCT and/or SPS.
See CWA, §S301(b)(2), 306. These limits are established based
upon applicable effluent limitation guidelines, and, for
wastestreams not covered by a guideline, the permit writer’s
“best professional judgment” (BPJ). / Contributors to oriv3tely
owned treatment works are not subject to pretreatment requirements,
but instead must comply with any requirements imposed pursuant
to 40 CFR 122.44(m). That provision authorizes the permitting
authority to include in the privately owned treatment works’
NPDES permit “any conditions expressly applicable to any user,
as a limited co—permittee, that may be necessary in the
permit issued to the treatment works to ensure compliance with
applicable requirements under this part.” Alternatively,
the permitting authority may issue separate permits to the
treatment iorks and its users, or require a separate permit
application from any user. As noted in the preamble to the
consolidated permit regulations (45 FR 33342, May 19, 1980),
the discretionary authority provided by §122.44(m) gives the
permitting authority “sufficient flexibility to ensure compliance
with applicable standards and limitations and to minimize any
administr tive burdens.”
The questions and answers that follow address some of the
basic issues that privatization presents in the pretreatment and
NPDES contexts, and represent an attempt to resolve these issues
within the constraints of the existing statutory and regulatory
schemes. Not all of the possible rivatization scenarios are
discussed, but the general principles set forth should be appli-
cable to most situations that are likely to occur. The first
two sets of questions and answers deal with the preliminary
issues of how “POTW” is defined for pretreatment purposes and
the 2retreatment implications where a privately owned treatment
works is treating wastewater received through a publicly owned
collection system. The remaining Questions and answers examine
the NPDES and pretreatment implications of specific privatization
transactions.
*/ Of course, for both POTWs and privately owned treatment works,
where technology—based limitations are deemed not to be protective
of water qualitj, more stringent water quality—based limitations
may need to be established on a case-by—case basis. See CWA, §301
(b)(l)(C). In addition, privately owned treatment works (and
POTWs not covered by the “domestic sewage exemption” (40 CFR 261.4
(a)(l)) or “permit—by—rule” (40 CFR 270.60(c))) that treat, Store
dispose of hazardous waste, are also subject to applicable require-
ments under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
-------
—3—
II. Questions and Answers
Question #1 : What is a “POTW” for purposes of triggering
pretreatment program requirements?
Answer : Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act (“the Act”)
directs EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for pollutants
introduced into “treatment works (as defined in section 21.2 of
this Act) which are publicly owned.” Section 212 of the Act defines
“treatment works” to include “any devices 3nd systems used in
the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal
sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. . . including
sewage collection systems” and “any other method or
system for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating,
separating, or disposing of municipal waste . . . or industrial
waste . . . .“ This definition includes treatment facilities
that treat exclusively municipal or industrial wastes as well
as those treating a combination of the two. Assuming a facility
is a treatment works, the controlling factor in determining
whether the facility is a POTW under §307(b) is public ownership .
The nature of the pollutants being contributed to the treatment
works is irrelevant.
The General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403)
further clarify the statute by defining “POTW” as “a treatment
works as defined by section 212 of the P ct, which is owned by
a State or municipality (as defined by section 502(4) of the
Act).” 40 CF’R 4 03.3(o). This definition also includes
-------
—4—
“sewers, pipes and other conveyances only if they convey waste—
water to a POTW Treatment Plant.” “POTW Treatment Plant” is
defined as “that portion of the POTW which is designed to
provide treatment . . . of municipal sewage and industrial
waste.” As with the statutory definition, the regulatory
definition of “POTW” turns on ownership of the facility and
not characterization of its flow as mur icipal or industrial
in nature.
Under the General Pretreatment Regulations, a facility
must be owned by a State or municipality in order to be a POTW.
Contributors to facilities meeting this criterion are subject
to any and all applicable statutory and regulatory pretreatment
regu i rements.
Federally owned treatment plants (such as those serving some
military bases or Forest Service operations) are not POTWs (since
they are not owned by a State or municipality), and are therefore
regulated as privately owned treat’aent works. Thus, they are
subject to permit limits based on BPT, BAT, BCT and/or 4SPS
(see tntrt duction, p. 2). Because these plants are classified
as privately owned treatment works, contributors to them are
subject to any requirements imposed under 40 CF’R 122.44(m)
(see Introduction, p. 2).
Contributors to sewerage systens that do not lead to a POTW
treatment works similarly are treated as coitributors to a
privately owned treatment ‘orks. These dLscharges are not
covered by pretreatment standards (although they would be if
a treatment works were later constructed), but instead it- subjec
to direct discharger standards applied under 40 CFR 1.22.44(m).
-------
—5—
QLestion #2 : What are the pretreatment implications where
a treatment plant is privately owned but the collection system
is publicly owned?
Answer : Where a treatment plant is privately owned but the
collection system leading to it is publicly owned, the collection
system ‘loes not meet the regulatory definition of “POTW” since
it does noc convey wastewater to a publicly owned treatment
plant. See 40 CFR 403.3(o). Therefore, contributors to the
system are not subject to Federal pretreatment requirements. J
As contributors to a “privately owned treatment works,” however,
they (and the public entity whose collection system discharges
into the treatment plant) may be subject to requirements imposed
under 40 CFR 122.44(m), which allows the Director to regulate
such contributors, either as co—permittees with the owner/operator
of the treatment plant or under separate permits (see Introduction,
. 2).
/ There may, however, be local sewer use ordinance limitations,
similar to the prohibited discharge limitations in 40 CFR 403.5(a)
and (b), that apply to contributors as a result of previous
construction grant funding requirements (if Feleral construction
grants were used to construct the collection system). These
limitations would generally be contained in a municipal ordinance
:overing .lischarges to the public sewer system.
-------
—6—
Question *3 : What are the pretreatment implications where
a POTW is sold to a private party?
Answer : Where the entire treatment plar t is sold,
pretreatment requirements no longer apply since there is no
longer any intro uction of pollutants into a POTW (i.e., the
treatment plant is no privately owned). This is true whether
or not the collection system remains in public ownership. In
the case of a partial sale of a POTW, the pretreatment irnplication
depend upon which portion is sold. For example, if all system
components located between an industrial user’s outfall and
the POTW’s headworks (i.e., the sewer lines connecting the
industrial user’s facility to the public treatment plant) are
sold to the industrial user, pretreatment requirements c3ntinue
to apply since the industrial user is still introducing
pollutants into a POTW (i.e., the treatment plant is still
publicly owned). The only change is the point at which these
requirements apply. Instead of applying where the industrial.
user’s effluent enters the sewer, they now apply where the
effluent enters the treatment plant (i.e., the headworks),
since this is the point of introducti.on to the POTW. /
/ If other industrial users discharge to the now p’rivately
owned sewer upstream of the treatment plant, and any of the
wastewater in the sewer is subject to a categorical pretreatment
standard, the applicable limits where the effluent enters the
treatment plant will be derived using the same flow—proportioning
calculation required for individual industrial users who combine
wastestreams after treatment. See 51 FR 21461—21462 (June 12, 19.
-------
—7—
Where part of the treatment plant is sold but the collection
system remains in public ownership, whether industrial contributors
to the collection system are subject to pretreatment requirements
depends upon whether the treatment plant can still be characterized
as “publicly owned.” This in turn depends upon the nature and
extent of private ownership. If the public and private entities
are co—owners of the entire facility, it is still a POTW and
pretreatment would apply. If, however, the different entities
own distinct portions of the facility a case specific analysis
tracing the waste would be required. If an industrial user’s
waste flows through any treatment process that is publicly owned,
then the plant is considered a POTW and the contributor is subject
to pretreatment. For instance, where the industrial user’s
waste flows sequentially through treatment processes that are
owned by the public and private entities pretreatment would
apply. This result derives from the fact that the waste is
treated, even though only partially, by a publicly owned treatment
works. If, however, complete treatment trains are distinct,
though possibly identical and adjacent, the result would be
different. The waste treated at the publicly owned portion
would, of course, be subject to pretreatment requirements. The
waste treated solely by the privately owned facility would not,
but would instead be subject to requirements under 40 CFR
122.44(m).
-------
—8—
Question #4 : What are the NPDES pernit implications where
a POTW is sold to a private party?
Answer : Under the NPDES regul. tions, it is the “operator”
of a facility who must apply for and comply with a permit. See
40 CFR 122.21(b). Thus, where a POTW is sold to a private party
who also operates the plant, that party must apply for, and
comply with, an NPDES permit. The permit limitations for the
facility are rio longer based on secondary treatment, but on BPT,
BAT, BCT and/or NSPS (see Introduction, p. 2). If only a portion
of the plant is sold, and the plant can still be characterized
as a POTW (see Answer to Question #3, above), the permit limits
would then be based on secondary treatment. In these cases,
as in any case where the facility is still considered a POTW,
the public entity also shoul 1 be a co—permittee with the operator
of the facility.
Where the treatment plant is sold but the collection system
remains in public ownership, pretreatment requirements no longer
apply. All contributors to the system are now subject to any
requirements imposed under 40 CFR 122.44(m), which applies to
privately owned treatment works. Under that provision, the
Director may issue one permit under which some or all contributors
are co—permittees or may issue separate permlt3. The publicly
owned collection system is now a contributor to a privately
owned treatment works and, as such, may also be made a co—
perrnittee.*/ This will help to ensure that the collection
/ For example, the permit iiiight contain a condition requiring
Ehe municipality to notify the privately owned treatment works
operator of any significant change in the nature or volume of
pollutants being discharged into the collection system.
-------
—9—
system will continue ‘ be operated as an integral part of the
treatment system, thereby maximizing efficiency and avoiding
conflicting interests between public and private parties.
-------
— 10 —
Question #5 : What are the pretreatment and NPDES imr,licationc
where a POTW is leased to a private party?
Answer : Since a lease does not transfer owinership, it does
not affect a facility’s status as a POTW and therefore should not
affect the application of pretreatment requirements. Contributors
to the POTW must comply with pretreatment standards under S307(b)
of the CWA. As in the case of mixed public—private ownership
( e Answer to Question #4 above), the public entity should
be a co—permittee even though the lessee is now the operator
of the treatment works. With respect to permit limits, secondary
treatment (or more stringent requirements under S301(b)(l)(C))
of the CWA) applies since the facility is still a POTW.
-------
— 11 —
Question *6 : What are the pretreatment and NPDES permit
implications of a municipality contracting with a private party
to operate a POTW?
Answer : Since an operating contract does not transfer
ownership, it does not change the facility’s status as a POTW.
Therefore, the facility’s NPDES permit limits #iill continue to
be based on secondary treatment (at a minimum) and an industrial
contributors will still be subject to applicable pretreatment
requi rements.
The NPDES regulations impose the iuty to apply for a permit
on the “operator” of a facility. 40 CFR 122.21(b). Historically,
though, municipal NPDES permits have been issued to the municipality
even where a private party operates the plant under a service
contract. EPA’s intent in adopting this requirement was to
ensure that the permit would be issued to the person(s) with
operational control over the facility. To be consistent iith
this intent, all private parties operating POTWs under contracts
with municipalities should be NPDES permittees. As where there
is mixed public—private ownership or the POTW is leased to a
private party, since the facility is still a ?DTW the municipalie)’
also should be a co-permittee.
-------
— 12 —
Question #7 : What are the pretreatment and NPDES implicattons
where a private party finances improvements to an existing POTW?
Answer : Pretreatment requirements viill continue to apply
if the upgraded facility can . till be characterized as a “POTW.”
This will depend upon the nature of the privately financed improve-
ments (see Answer to Question #3, above). If the private party
also operates the plant, it must apply for an NPDES permit.
If the plant remains a POTW, the municipality must also be made
a co—permittee (see Answer to Question #7, above). In addition,
secondary treatment (at a minimum), and pretreatment standards
for industrial users, continue to apply.
Where the plant can no longer be characterized as “publicly
owned,” it will be regulated as a “privately owned treatment
works” and thus will be subject to permit limits based on BPT,
BAT and/or 3CT (see Introduction, p. 2). This wouli occur
where the private party owns the new treatment works or separate
treatment train. Industrial contributors to the plant will be
subject to any requirments imposeci upon them under 40 CFR
122.44(m) (see Introduction, p. 2).
-------
A,COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
TRAINING MMUAL 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
TEC}U ICAL SUPPORT BRANCH
PERMITS DIVISION
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
MAY 1987
-------
BASIC COURSE FOR PERMIT WRITERS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Overall purpose of the course/manual... .......... .. . .1
B. Overview of the NPDES program.. ...... ... ..... ... .... .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
1. Who is required to obtain a permit.. ............ .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........................................ll
C. Additional Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Background information review.......... .55.5.5.13
2. Facility inspection....... SI.... .. . . . . 5S • .14
III. DEVELOPING THE DRAFT PERMIT
A. General Considerations...... . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
1. Contents of a permit..... .............. .. ... . ...l5
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/SubcategorizatiOfl...........’ 22
d • Production................... ........23
e . Alternate Limlts............................ 24
f. Multiple Products or Categories............. 25
g. Mass vs. Concentration... .. .... ... .. .. .. ... .26
4. Water quality considerations. .......... ...... .5.28
a. Water quality criteria and standards........28
b. Determination of WQ—Based Limits............ 3 1
c. WO—Based Limits forToxics.................. 40
5. Best Professional Judgement.................... .44
a. Definition and statutory authority..........44
b • Background................ ..................44
c. Establishing BPJ conditions................. 45
d. BPJ Permitting tools.. .... . .. .. .... ... .. .. . .47
-------
C. Municipal Perini tting Issues..... .. .. .•• •• . . . • .: .48
1. Overview................. 48
2. Secondary Treatment Definition......... ....... . .49
3. Construction Grants...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
4. National Municipal ....55
5. Pretreatnient.....,.... 57
D . Monitoring......... ....•• •••• 61
1.
2. Monitoring Points...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . i... .61
3. Monitoring Frequency...... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
4. Types of Sampling............. 1 1 ........63
5. Analytical Methods...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
E . Standard Conditjons.......... 66
1. Overview............. 66
F. Special Conditlons................ 68
1. Overview. ••...... .... •......... . . . .68
2. ComplIance Schedules. . .......... •......... . . . ...68
3. Blomonitorlng....... • •••••. 68
4. Best Management Practiseg. 5.5....... .. ......... .69
IV. VARIANCES
A. Definition and overview. ........... ......74
B. Various types.............,. 74
1. Economic — 301(c)................. 74
3. Innovative Technology —
4. Fundamentally Different Factors — FDF...........77
V. FACT SHEET
A. Definition and purpose. •..... .78
1. Legal requIrement. ........78
2. Practical
B. Components........... 78
C. When needed................... 79
D. Permit rationales.. SSSI•SSS..... . . •5IIS . . ...79
VI. PUBLIC NOTICE
A. Overv lew,................. .81
B. Type of actions.. ISS• ... S SSS S S S S I .81
C • When requ I red . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 81
D. How given.... •.. . . . ... • •IS•SIS• 555SSI S S S S S S S•S .81
E. Contents..,...., .. 5 5 582
-------
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Overview... .IS.S••S • ... . . .. . .. , • •. •.......• • , .83
B. Responsibility to respond.. .... .... ..... . .. . ..... .83
C. Reopening of public comment period.............. . .83
VIII. PUBLIC HEARING
A • When held........................ •..•s 84
B. Public
C. Contents..... .....••• . . . . .. . . .. . . .. ..•s.ss•• .... ..84
IX. FINAL PERMIT... . . . . . . . . •.•.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . •.. . . . . . . . . . .85
X. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
A. Importance . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . 86
B. Components of the
XI. LEGAL CHALLENGES TO A FINAL PERMIT
A • Overview.... ... .•...•• .• •. .. .. . .. . . 88
B. Role of the Permit writer. . .....
XII. PERMIT MODIFICATION, REVOCATION, AND TRANSFER
A. PerTnit Modification...... . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .90
a. Major...... . .. . . .. • . .. . . . . .. • .. . • .. . . . . . . . . . . .90
b . Minor...... .•.. . .. . . .• .. .. . . • .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .90
B. Revocation. . . . . . . . . . ...•.• . . . . . . . . . . •.s . . . . . . . . . . .92
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
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OPPICS OF
MAY 2 I 1987 WATIR
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Section 406 of the Water Quality
Act of 1987: sewage Sludge Permitting and State Programs
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director
Permits Division, OWEP (EN—336)
TO: Permits and Compliance Branch Chiefs
Sludge Coordinators, Construction Grants Program
Regions I - X
On February 4, 1987, Congress passed the Water Quality
Act of 1.987 which included revisions to Section 405 of the
Clean Water Act dealing with sewage sludge regulation and
permitting. These amendments clarified some ambiguities
regarding the implementation of the Part 503 sludge technical
criteria. There were, however, several implementation activities
already underway, such as Regions’ working with States on
planning the implementation of the proposed 501 State program
regulations, and States’ developing inventories of sludge
facilities. Passage of the amendments apparently has resulted
in a delay in at least some of these activities, and may have
led to some confusion as EPA and the States hav.e sought to
understand and comply with the new statutory requirements.
Attached for your information is a copy of an April 3
memorandum to the Regional Water Division Directors on the
implementation of the permitting requirements of Section 405.
It will not answer all of your questions, but it does describe
the direction of Office of Water Enforcement and Permits’
(OWEP’s) plans for program implementation and highlight some
of the activities that are currently underway. There are two
areas of concern to the Regions and States that I would like
to specifically address here.
501 Regulations . The 501 State sludge management program
regulations were proposed by the Office of Municipal Pollution
Control on February 4, 1986. Several of you have expressed
concern about the delay in going forward with this rulemaking
and the impact of the uncertainty on current State efforts to
develop programs.
-------
—2—
The final rulemaking was held u when amendments to the
Clean Water Act, which included requirements on sludge program
implementation, were imminent. We currently expect that the
501 regulations will be reproposed to provide the public with
an opportunity to comment on the rules within the context of
the amendments, including some additional requirements mandated
by the Water Quality Act (most importantly, the requirement
that programs implementing Section 405 must be permit programs).
The Administrator’s Tracking System (ATS) schedule calls for
publication of the reproposal in the Federal Register by
mid—December 1987. we hope to have a draft regulation for
your comment this summer. Although we would encourage States
to move forward with development of State programs for permitting
sludge in accordance with EPA’s to—be—promulgated S405(d)
technical criteria, as of yet we cannot be certain what the
minimum requirements will be for approvable State sludge
programs. However, we are committed to the basic approach of
flexibility for States that was reflected in the February 4,
1986 proposal.
Several of you have questioned whether NPDES—approved
States need to obtain separate approval of their sludge
programs before they can implement the Section 405 requirements
through NPDES permits. It also has been pointed out that
at least in some cases State authority to regulate sludge was
included in the review and approval of the NPDES program.
However, consistent with jurisdictional limitations on NPDES
coverage of sludge prior to the Water Quality Act, NPDES
approval of sludge regulatory authority extended only to
discharges of sludge to surface waters. While a State may
have gone beyond this in its State regulatory authority, this
was not part of the NPDES program for purposes of NPDES
program review and approval. State sludge programs need to
be evaluated in terms of their ability to carry out the new
requirements of Section 405, which are much more comprehensive
than prior law. However, in developing the State sludge per-
mitting program regulations, we expect to propose a separate
set of approval procedures for NPDES States that wish to
regulate sludge through NPDES permits, along the lines of a
program modification under 40 CFR 123.62. Thus, NPDES States
seeking approval of their sludge programs would submit
addendums to the original program submission where needed,
to demonstrate that they have the additional authority to
implement the requirements of Section 405.
Another important aspect of State sludge programs is
that, although in the long term States will have to be forn a1ly
approved before implementing Section 405, in the interim (i.e.,
prior to the promulgation of the Part 503 technical criteria)
we have much more flexibility. ( See amendments to 405, which
require that prior to the criteria, the Administrator shall
impose sludge conditions in POTWs’ NPDES permits, or take other
appropriate measures to protect public health and the environment
-------
—3—
We are in the process of setting up a system whereby in the
interim we can defer as much as possible to adequate State
sludge programs to carry out interim sludge permitting. mis
should also facilitate formal program approval later on. We
expect to have a draft memorandum explaining the interim
permitting process and deferral to existing State programs
availabli for your review and comment within the next couple
of weeks.
State Inventories . With regard to State inventories of
sludge handling facilities, the FY’88 Guide to the Office of
Water Accountability System and Mid—Year Evaluations (Appendix
B, Definition/Performance Expectation) provides:
The expectation is that each State will have an
up—to—date assessment of existing sludge manage-
ment facilities by the end of F? 88 as a starting
point for developing their own sludge management
program. An inventory of sludge management facil-
ities should at a minimum provide an estimate of
the quantity/quality of sludge being handled at
each facility, an identification of each facility’s
use/disposal practice, and a summary of the quality/
quantity of sludge being handled by each of the
major use/disposal practices.
OWEP and OMPC currently have a contract underway to develop
software to enable input of this information into Agency
computers and easier access by the States and Regions. There
soon will be a draft for your comment.
OWEP is leading a workgroup on sludge permitting issues
with members from Headquarters, Regions and States. (A
membership list is attached.) This workgroup had its first
meeting on May 8; we expect that hereafter most transactions
will be by telephone or mail. This group serves an important
function in developing the Section 405 sludge program, by
providing input on what the States are currently doing and by
commenting on the various options for implementation being
considered by Headquarters. Any Region not now participating
is encouraged to do so. Please contact Greg McBrien at (FTS)
475—9527.
Changes to the Clean Water Act will necessarily result
in some temporary delays in establishing final sludge program
requirements. It will also require coordination between
permits personnel and sludge management experts in the Construction
Grants area in Heaquarters, Regions and the States. We look
forward to working with you in this important and challenging
endeavor. If you have any further questions or comments
please feel free to contact me at (FTS) 475—9545 or Martha
Kirkpatrick of my staff at (FTS) 475—9517.
Attachments
cc: Bob Blanco, OMPC
-------
bcc: Jun Elder
Frank Hall
Bill Diamond
Geoff Grubbe
Jia Gallup
Toa Laverty
Ed Gro... OMPC
MKIRKPATRICK/EN_336/475951h/Dek 12/Doc 17/5—15—87/5l887/
-------
6EPA
IkW . . Off ic, of
Ifl,i a........,l PW L _ rq Etiforc.m.nt av P.rm,t,
AU.IW Iui ton DC 20460
A C)PY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPO ’ K U I.
Guidance Manual for the
Identification of Hazardous Wastes
Delivered to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works by
Truck, Rail, or Dedicated Pipe
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExEcu’rIvE SUMMARY. ....• .....•• .. ...s .•••.. • ... .....••• . . . . •1• i
1. IN’rRODUC’rION. . . . . . . . . •1 • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL........... sh.ss 5s 5 5s 5s ...• .. •1SS•• 1 1
1.2 LISLATIVEAJIDREGUIATORYOVERVIEV...IS .SSSSS”SSI 5 1—1
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE MANUAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—2
2. DESCRIPTION OF RCRA REGULATED WASTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—1
2.1 DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—2
2.1.1 Definitioflof Solid 2—2
2.1.2 SevageEXclusiO 2—2
2.2 DEFINITION OP HAZARDOUS WASTE. . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—3
2.2.1 CharacteriStic Wastes..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . 2—4
2.2.2 Listed Hazardous 2—10
2.2.3 Mixture Rule.... ...• . ... . ... 213
2.3 RCRA REGULATORY STATUS OF SELECTED WASTES TEAT MAY BE
RECEIVED BY PO’L’Vs.. •.....• ....••• ... .. . .. .. .. ... . .. . ..... 2—14
2.3.1 Selected Wastes.... ...... .•• . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . 2—14
3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF POTVs CHOOSING NOT TO ACCEPT HAZARDOUS
WASTE.... ... . ...• ... . . ..•.. ..... ..._ ..... ..•• . ... ... ....s. 3l
3.1 DESCRIPTION OP POTENTIAL LIABILITIES FOR POT Vs ACCEPTING
HAZARDOUS 32
3.2 CONTROL MEASURES TO PREVENT DISCHARGES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TO POTVS.....................sss•s 5ss 5s 5 5ss 5sI ssIss 3”3
3.2.1 RegulatorYCOfltrOlMeC 5 55.... ....I....
3.2.2 AdMnistvative Contro1i......••• . ............... 3—10
3.3 WASTE MONITORING PLAN...... • • . . . . .... ..•. ...SSSSI.. . . . . 3—20
3.3.1 IdentificatiOn of Potential Hazardous Waste Source
and Types.....................s 5sessss1 5sses 3—21
3.3.2 Considerations in Developing a Waste Monitoring
Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—29
3.3.3 xa 5 p1eWaSteMOflit0ri 1h .......... 3—32
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF POTVs CHOOSING TO ACCEPT HAZARDOUS WASTES 4—1
4.1 IN’rRODUC’rIoN 4—1
4.2 COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT CONDITIONS 4—2
4.2.1 Procedures for Determining Compliance...... 4—2
4.3 COMPLIANCE WITH PRETREATMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 4-3
4.4 COMPLIANCE WITH RCRA PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 4_7
4.4.1 EPA Identification 4—7
4.4.2 Manifest System. . . . . . . . . 4.7
4.4.3 Operating Record . . . . ••...... . 4—10
4.4.4 Biennial Report...... . . . . . . . . . •1• 4—11
4.5 CORRECTIVE AC’rION . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—11
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A RCRA LISTS
APPENDIX A-]. RCRA LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTES
APPENDIX A—2 40 CFR PART 261, APPENDIX VIII
LIST OF HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
APPENDIX A—3 40 CFR PART 261, APPENDIX VII
BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTES
APPENDIX B EXAMPLE POTV SEVER USE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE
APPENDIX C EXAMPLE WASTE HAULER PERMIT
APPENDIX D EXAMPLE WASTE TRACKING FORM
APPENDIX E PERMIT BY RULE REQUIREMENTS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE SECTIONS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
APPENDIX F POEMS
APPENDIX F-i NOTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ACTIVITY
(EPA FORM 8700—12)
APPENDIX P-2 UNIFORM HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST
(EPA PORN 8700-22)
APPENDIX P-3 BIENNIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORT
(EPA PORN 8700—13B)
APPENDIX G STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTACTS
-------
jr tea States Qff ce r a(er
E vuron e taI ?rotec o
gencv Wasri.rgtor X 2 46O
3 L’ ‘yl
A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
PERMIT WRITER’S
GUIDE TO WATER
QUALITY-BASED
PERMITTING FOR
TOXIC POLLUTANTS
-------
( á UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAi. PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICI OF
WATIN
MEMORANDUM FEb U 1987
SUBJECT: Permit Writer’s Guide to Water Quality—based
Permitting for Toxic Pollutants
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
tJPDES State Program Directors
FROM: James
Offi ’of Water Enforcement
nd Permit (EN—3 )
‘ k 1 Director
Office of Water Regulations
and Standards (WH—551)
Attached is the final Permit Writer’s Guide to
Water Quality-based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants. It
has been reviewed by Regional, State, and Headquarters
staff and is ready for use by the Regions and States.
The purpose of this guidance document is to provide
step—wise procedures for use by NPDES permit writers faced
with issuing water quality—based permits for toxic pollutants.
It complements the more detailed Technical Support Document
for Water Quality—based Toxics Control (TSD) issued as
guidance to the States and Regions in September 1985.
The Permit Writer’s Guide gives background information
to permit writere unfamiliar with aspects of water quality
permitting and step—by—step permit limit derivation procedures.
These permit limit procedures are based entirely on the
recommendations found in the TSD, but present them in a
more straightforward manner. Also, a section of the Permit
Writer’s Guide is devoted to Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
(TREs). Although detailed procedural guidance is not given
for conducting TREs, the basic process is described and
case examples are given.
The recommendations contained in this document are not
mandatory. They are intended to support water quality—based
toxics control efforts by Regional and State regulatory
authorities. Mditional. copies of the document will be
sent to each Regional Office for distribution once they
are typeset and printed.
Attachment
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword . , • • • • •
Tableof Contents . . . .. . . . . iii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . • . . . . .
Glossary . . . . • • . . •
Introduction , . . . • • • . . . . . . . .
1. Regulatory Basis for Toxics Control .
2. Components of Water Quality—based Toxics Control . . 5
— EPA Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life . 5
- EPA Water Quality Criteria for Human Health . 6
State Water Quality Standards 7
— Mixing Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
— Design Flow of Receiving Waters . . . . . . . 8
— Wasteload Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
— Lake. Estuarine, and Marine Discharges . . . . 10
—EffluentFlow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1].
— Recommended Toxicity Criteria . . . . . . . . 11
3. Permitting Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Subsection 3.1 - Implementing Narrative Standards . 14
A. Approach 1 — Setting Limits . . . . . . . . . 14
B. Approach 2 — Setting Monitoring Requirements . 24
Subsection 3.2 — Implementing Numeric Criteria . . 29
A. Limits from Two Number State Criteria . . . . 29
B. Limits from Single Number State Criteria . . . 29
C. Limits Based on Unspecified Toxicity Value . . 31
D. Limits Based on Whole Effluent Numeric Value . 31
Subsection 3.3 - Recommended Permitting Procedures 33
A. Issuance Involving Toxicity Limits . . . . . . 33
B. Issuance Not Involving Specific Limits . . . . 33
4. Case Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) . . . . . . . . 43
- Application of TREs and Example Language . . . 43
— Legal Basis . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 43
- Conducting TREs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Appendix A - Example Special Conditions Permit Language
Appendix B — Example §308 Letter
Appendix C — Overview of Selected Available Tools
iii
-------
COPY AV IL1’.BLE UPON P QrJ ST
, . itl)
f 3 , i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OF F ice
WATER
JUL 2 1 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Implementing RCRA Permit-by-Rule
Requirements at POTWs
FROM:
of Water Enforcement and Permits
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
Addressees
Attached is a copy of our final guidance document for
implementing the RCRA permit-by—rule requirements at POTWs.
This guidance applies to POTW5 that receive hazardous waste
by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe. The document will assist
you in issuing RCRA permits by rule and in implementing RCRA
corrective action requirements at POTWs.
Thank you for your assistance in developing this guidance.
Your comments enabled us to produce a comprehensive document
describing the procedures for satisfying the RCRA permit-by-
rule requirements.
As I noted in my memorandum of May 6, 1987, the next steps
for implementing corrective action requirements at POTWa include
the following: 1) follow through on the POTWs that did not
respond to the survey, (2) finish the process of identifying
those POTWs that accept hazardous waste by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe, (3) determine the RCRA permitting status of
these POTWs, and (4) begin the corrective action process.
This guidance document should assist you in these tasks.
For further information about the guidance, please
call Paul Connor of my staff at FTS 475—7718. I hope you
find the guidance document useful.
Attachment
Addressees: Permits Branch Chiefs, Regions I — X
Pretreatment Coordinators, Regions I - X
Hazardous Waste Coordinators, Regions I - X
cc: Martha Prothro
Bill Jordan
-------
GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTING RCRA
PERMIT-BY—RULE REQUIREMENTS AT POTWs
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 N Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Gui.dartce for Irnpl.emerleLng RCR .A
Periu.t—by-Rule Reguirerner ts at ?OTWg
1. Purpose
. 3ac ground arid Statutory arid Regulatory RequLrernent 3
2.1 is i1ctjort etwee 1 Waste Co’,erel ‘ the Domegti .c
S w ge •pt.Lo- i an-t Waste Subject CRA
Per u . -by—RuLe
2.1.1 Definition of “POTW” for Pur oseg Of the
Domesei Sewage Exempti
2.1.2 plica ,iLLty of the Domestic 3ewag
to Ma L estei : zi:d.ous Waste Dur pe1 r)own a
Manho I.e
2.2 ?er u.t- y-RuLe Require’nentq
2.3 Sectjo 3004(u) Standari
2.3.1 Definition of ‘Release’
2.3.2 Defi .nLti .orl of ‘lazardous Wast ” and
‘ iaz r.1oug Congtjtuerit”
2.3.3 ‘Definitton of “SOLL.l Waste Management Unit”
2.3.4 DeE u.tion of POTW “ ‘acility” for Purposes
of Corrective ctio’k
2.4 Descriotjon of Corrective Action Process
2.4.1 RC Facility Asseesment (Preli ninary Review,
Visual Site Inspection and Sanpling ‘lisit) aril
RCRA Facility Investigation
2.4.2 Corrective :leasures arid Clean—Ufl 3eyon the
Facility Boundary
2.4.3 Financial ResponsibiLity
2.5 Other RCRA and HSWA Requirements
3. Implementation
3.1. Ilentificatjon of sigh Priority POTWe
3.2 Permit—by —Rule Requirements
3.2.1 Identification of When a Peri it-by-Ru1e is
Issued/Reissued
-------
3.2.2 DescrLptj .ol, f hw P’DTW Dht L1S a CRAI ?;
t er tLfLc :j31 ‘ urnber
3.2.3 Jse •Df lani.fist System a \s oc ReQor
3.2.4 9eratL g Recor 1 an 3ie ni . 1 Report
3.2.5 Deter atjr,n of “ C3m01 .jaice’ for uroo es
t: ermit—by—Ru1e
3.2.6 Satjsfacti . r of the equir. iier t That t: ? Wast
Must Meet all ederal, St te arid t.ocal. ?retreatr, er t
Requ .r nents
3.2.7 rrectjve ctiort
3.2.7.1 iooli iL ty of Permit—by—R orrectj.ve
A:e .on Reluirenentg
3.2.7.2 e ieraL a’ d ut orize State espor si i] .ity
3.3 ImpLemerit tj . of rr ctive Action Through Use of
“RI Ca’ ?er u .ts
3.3.1 Backgroun arti )e cri.?tjor ‘ I R’ Per u .ts
3.3.2 st s irtg C3rrectLv.e Actiort equ1 .re t3
3.3.2.1 Preli niriary Review
3.3.2.2 Visual. Site Irtspe tLort arti Samt,LL J VLsit
3.3.2.3 RCRA E’acility tr vestL atie n
3.3.2.4 IrtteriM Corrective Measures
3.3.2.6 Firiartcial. Reso nsthiLity
3.3.2.7 Additional trtformaejon an RCRA Omnibus
Provi s ion
3.3.3 RIDER Permit Lssuance nd Modi.ficaeio Proc dureg
3.4. Coordination Procedures for EPA
3.4.1 egional Mste Management Divisions
3.4.2 State Water Management Authorities
3.4.3 State ‘Iaste Management Authorities
—ii —
-------
Appendices
A. Identification of Hazardous Waste
B. Permit-by—Rule Requirements
C. Model RIDER Permit
D. Other HSWA Requirements
E. Example Letter Identifying High Priority POTWs
F. Relevant Guidance
G. EPA ‘Iotificatiori Form for RCRA Identification umber
-------
United States Effluent Guidelines Division August 1987
Environmental Protection and Permits Division
Agency Washington DC 20460
A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
EPA Guidance Manual
for Battery
Manufacturing
Pretreatment Standards
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 . INTRODUCTION 1—1
1.1 HISTORY OF THE BATTERY MANUFACTURING CATEGORY 1-2
2. BATTERY MANUFACTURING CATEGORICAL STANDARDS 2-1
2.1 AFFECTEDINDUSTRY 2—1
2.2 PROCESS OPERATIONS 2-2
2.3 SUBCATEGORIZATION 2-3
2.3.1 Cadmium Subcategory 2-5
2.3.2 Calcium Subcategory 2-11
2.3.3 Lead Subcategory 2-14
2.3.4 Leclanche Subcategory 2-17
2.3.5 Lithium Subcategory 2-20
2.3.6 Magnesium Subcategory 2-23
2.3.7 Zinc Subcategory 2—26
2.4 OPERATIONS COVERED UNDER OTHER CATEGORIES 2-34
2.5 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR THE BATTERY
MANUFACTURINGCATEGORY 2-34
2.6 GUIDANCE FOR CONSIDERATION OF EMPLOYEE SHOWER
WASTEWATER AT LEAD SUBCATEGORY PLANTS 2-36
2.7 COMPLIANCEDATES 2—41
3. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 3-].
3.1 END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 3-2
3.2 IN-PROCESS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 3-4
4. REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS.... 4-1
4 . 1 INTRODUCTION. . 4—1
4.2 CATEGORY DETERMINATION REQUESTS 4-2
4.3 MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE
GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS 4-3
4.3.1 Baseline Monitoring Reports 4—3
4.3.2 Compliance Schedule Progress Report 4—6
4.3.3 ReportonCompliance.. 4—6
4.3.4 Periodic Reports on Continued Compliance... 4—7
4.3.5 Notice of Slug Loading 4—7
4.3.6 Monitoring and Analysis to Demonstrate
ContinuedCompliance 4—8
4.3.7 Signatory Requirements for Industrial
User Reports 4—8
4.3.8 Recordkeeping Requirements 4—9
1.
-------
APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED WASTESTREAM FORMULA...
REMOVALCREDITS
FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS (FDF) VARIANCE.
I OCAL LIMITS •
5. APPLICATION OF BATTERY MANUFACTURING CATEGORICAL
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS . 5-]
Subpart A: B-i
Subpart C: B-2
Subpart D: B-3
Subpart F: 8-3
Subpart G: B-3
Subpart A: B-6
Subpart B: B-7
Subpart C: B-7
Subpart D: B-8
Subpart E: B-8
Subpart F: B-8
Subpart G: B-9
APPENDIX C EPA AND STATE PRETREATMENT COORDINATORS
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4—9
4—12
4—22
4—23
REFERENCES.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
R—i
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
PSES AND PSNS FOR BATTERY MANUFACTURING
SUBCATEGORIES
Cadmium PSES .
Lead PSES .
Lecianche PSES
Magnesium PSES .
Zinc PSES . . .
Cadmium PSNS .
Calcium PSNS
Lead PSNS .
Leclanche PSNS
Lithium PSNS
Magnesium PSNS
Zinc PSNS
ii
-------
&EPA
Permits 0Ivsr)n
Washington DC 20460
“ u cdces Seotember 1987
Envuronmentai Protection
Agency
Water A COPY IS THIS MANUAL IS AVAILABLE UPON REqUEST.
Industrial Permit
Quality Review
Procedures Guide
DRAFT
—
-------
L
F UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
pqØ1t
SEP 30 ;S7
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Industrial Permit Quality Review (PQR)
Procedures Guide
FROM: James D. Gallup, ChiefQL . ’
Technical Support Bran, ?r /
Permits Division (EN—336)
TO: Regional Permits Branch Chiefs
attached for your review and comment is a draft Industrial
PQR Procedures Guide. The industrial guide is similar to the
municipal manual that was sent to you in draft form on
February 4, 1987. It provides new staff members, or staff
unfamiliar with the PQR concept, with a comprehensive manual-
of—practice for review of State—issued permits.
The manual is a result of our experience in conducting (or
assisting) numerous PQR evaluations over the past four years.
Use of the guide should promote comprehensive and systematic
permit reviews so that a nationwide permit quality system can
be maintained.
Our goal is to merge the industrial and municipal PQR
guidance into one final document in early FY88, with revisions
to address your comments and suggestions on both manuals.
We encourage your staff to use the draft guide and provide
us with any comments. Please send any comments to me or to
Greg McBrien.
ktt achment
cc: Dev Barnes, lTD
J. William Jordan
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE PERMIT QUALITY REVIEW CONCEPT I
PLANNING A PQR 2
MATERIALS 3
TEAM COMPOSITION AND EXPERIENCE 4
LOGISTICS
CHECKLIST PROCEDURES 5
CHECKLIST AREAS FOR SPECIAL INTEREST 7
SU *fARY AND EVALUATION OF FINDINGS 9
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS 10
FOLLOW—UP ACTIVITIES 11
OFFICE OF WATER MID—YEAR EVALUATION 12
APPEND ICES
1. Gec era1 t dustrjal PQR Checklist
2. Petroleum Refini g PQR Checklist
3. Coal Mining PQR Checklist
4. I organ1c Chemicals PQR Checklist
5. Organic Chemicals PQR Checklist
6. Steam Electric Power PQR Checklist
7. PCS List Example
8. Index to NPDES Regulations
9. Evaluation Su .ry Form
10. Sample PQR Report
11. Sample Abstract Doc .aenr
12. Regiom V NPDES Permit Review Checklist
13. Memora d a : Calculations of Production — Based Effluent Limits
-------
United States Permits Division EN-336 September 1987
Environmental Protection Washington. DC 20460
Agency
Water A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
EPA Guidance Manual for
Preventing Interference
at POTWs
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements i
Table of Contents ii
List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Definition of Interference 2
1.3 Guidance Manual Objectives 4
2. Detecting Interference 6
2.1 Types of Interference 6
2.1.1 Chronic Inhibition 8
2.1.2 Upset Conditions 8
2.2 Interference - Causing Substances 9
2.2.1 Conventional Pollutants 11
2.2.2 Metals and Other Inorganics 11
2.2.3 Organic Compounds 12
2.3 Sewer Collection System 12
2.4 Plant Operations 14
2.4.1 Observation 14
2.4.2 Instrumentation 15
2.4.3 Analytical Results 15
2.5 Wastewater Monitoring 16
2.5.1 POTW Influent 16
2.5.2 Other POTW Locations 17
2.5.3 Inhibitory Effects Testing 18
3. Source Identification 29
3.1 Chronic Discharges 30
3.1.1 Routine Monitoring 31
3.1.2 Tracking Program 32
3.2 Isolated Spills and Unauthorized Discharges 33
3.2.1 Hauled Wastes 35
3.3 Rapid Screening Techniques 36
3.4 Summary 37
11
-------
Page
4. Mitigation 43
4.1 Treatment Plant Control 43
4.1.1 Biological Process Control 43
4.1.2 Biological Augmentation 45
4.1.3 Chemical Addition 45
4.1.4 Operations Modification 46
4.1.5 Physical Modification 47
4.1.6 Summary 48
4.2 Pretreatment and Source Control 49
4.2.1 Local Limits 49
4.2.2 Accidental Spill Prevention 49
4.2.3 Pretreatment Facilities 50
4.2.4 Regulation of Waste Haulers 50
4.2.5 Planning for Future Sources 51
4.3 Legal and Enforcement Remedies 52
4.3.1 Penalties 53
4.3.2 Orders and Compliance Schedules 54
4.3.3 Litigation 54
4.3.4 Sewer Disconnection or Permit Revocation 54
References 61
Appendix A - Case Studies
Back River (Baltimore, MD) A-3
Patapsco (Baltimore, MD) A-6
Bayshore Regional (Union Beach, NJ) A-9
East Side Plant (Oswego, NY) A-12
Hamilton Township (Trenton, NJ) A-15
Horse Creek (North Augusta, SC) A-18
Maiden Creek (Blandon, PA) A- il
Metro-West Point (Seattle, WA) A-24
Neuse River Plant (Raleigh, NC) A. 27
Newark, OH A30
North Shore (Gurnee, IL) A-33
Passaic Valley (Newark, NJ) A-36
Siou.x City, IA A-39
Tolleson, AZ A-42
Appendix B - terfering Substances B-I
111
-------
f á% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4(
2 1 OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Strategy for Implementing RCRA Permit-By—Rule
Requirements at POTWs that Accept Hazardous
Waste by Tr ck, Rail, or Dedicated Pipe
FROM: IS1JAMt
‘ice of Water Enforcement S E LOfR
and Permits (EN—335)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Over the past several months, you and your staff have
conducted a survey of POTW5 to determine if any of these
facilities are subject to corrective action under RCRA. This
memo summarizes the results of your survey and outlines a strat-
egy for implementing RCRA at POTWs that receive hazardous waste
by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe. This memo is intended to
supplement the Guidance on Implementing RCRA Permit—By—Rule
Requirements at POTW5 that I mailed to you on July 21, 1987.
Attachment 1 shows the results, by Region, of the POTW
survey. Since my May 6 memo to you on this subject, the number
of tentatively identified facilities has been reduced from
68 to 26. This reduction is a result of your continuing efforts
to verify the receipt of hazardous waste by POTW5. The response
rates have also been updated since my last memo. Eight Regions
now report a response rate of 90% or higher. I am pleased with
the progress of your surveys, and I commend you on your diligence
in following through on this task.
Although we have tentatively identified 26 POTWs, this number
may change. The number may go down if your follow-up efforts
reveal that the waste received by a POTW does not meet the
definition of a hazardous waste. The number may also decrease
if a POTW, which indicated in the survey that it intended to
accept hazardous waste in the future, changes its plans so that
it no longer needs a permit—by—rule. It is also possible that
the number of POTWs identified as receiving hazardous waste
will increase. The number may increase as you follow—up on
those POTWs that did not respond to your survey. Furthermore,
our ongoing POTW audit program may identify facilities that
-------
—2—
receive hazardous waste by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe. My
staff is compiling the results from the POTW audits and if the
audits reveal that a POTW (that is not identified in your POTW
survey) received hazardous waste by truck, rail, or pipe, we will
forward this information to you so that you may include the POTW
in your RCRA implementation strategy.
The object of the RCRA survey is to identify those POTWs in
your Region that must obtain a RCRA permit—by—rule. To assist
you in completing the survey, I have included Attachment 2 - a
flow chart that summarizes the major steps in identifying those
POTWs that must obtain a permit—by—rule.
Implementation Strategy for RCRA Surveys at POTWs
Step one :
The first step of the strategy is to follow through on all
POTW5 that did not respond to the survey. For minor POTW5, a
certified letter and a phone call will usually be sufficient
follow—up. If, however, there is reason to believe that a minor
POTW has received or is receiving hazardous waste by truck, rail,
or dedicated pipe, then additional follow—up efforts may be
appropriate. If, after making these additional efforts, the minor
POTW cannot be contacted, then make reasonable further efforts
to determine why the POTW cannot be contacted and then cease
follow—up efforts for this facility.
All major POTWs should submit survey questionnaires
(Attachment 3). If a major POTW did not respond to the survey,
the facility should receive a certified letter and a follow—up
phone call. If the POTW does not respond after these efforts,
then additional steps may be necessary. Additional steps may
include contacting the State or other sources that may have the
address and telephone number of the POTW.
After contacting a non—respondent, send the RCRA question-
naire to the facility. If the POTW responds affirmatively to any
of the survey questions, then follow through on these responses
in the same way as any other “yes” response. If the POTW does
not respond to the survey, you should consider appropriate
enforcement action. If the number of non—respondents is small
(i.e., 6 in Region VIII), an administrative order should be
issued to all non—respondents. Where the number of non—respondents
is high (i.e., greater than 50), you should combine another round
of letters and phone calls with administrative orders to priority
non—respondents (those POTW5 where there is reason to believe
they may accept hazardous waste). The administrative order
-------
—3—
should cite the failure to respond to a S308 request for infor-
mation and should require submission of the information within
30 days.
Step two :
The second step in the strategy is to contact the POTWs that
responded affirmatively to your survey and verify that the POTW
received or is receiving hazardous waste. Where a waste is
accompanied by a manifest, this verification step should be easy.
However, where a waste is not accompanied by a manifest, it may
be difficult to verify that the POTW received or is receiving
hazardous waste. In these cases, it may be necessary to review
the records and reports maintained by the POTW. Under 40 CFR
S270.60(c)(3), a POTW must maintain an operating record of the
hazardous waste received, and must submit a biennial report
(either to EPA or an authorized State) describing the nature and
amount of the hazardous waste received in the preceeding year.
This information may be helpful in completing step 2.
Subsequent steps in this strategy require detailed infor-
mation about a POTWS hazardous waste management activities.
Therefore, I encourage you to obtain as much information as
possible about such practices during step 2. At a minimum, you
should identify:
o the name and classification number of the hazardous waste;
o the date and amount of each hazardous waste shipment to the
POTW, and whether the facility continues to receive hazard-
ous waste; and
o a general description of the POTW treatment processes
(including a flow diagram, the point where hazardous waste
is introduced, and the construction materials used for each
treatment process) .
Before proceeding to step 3, you should be sure that the
waste received by the POTW was hazardous.
Step three :
step 3 requires a determination of whether a POTW was covered
by a RCRA permit—by—rule (PBR) when the POTW received hazardous
waste. Usually, this step will require only a determination that
* This information may be necessary to evaluate whether one or more
treatment units at a POTW qualify for the “wastewater treatment
unit” exclusion under 40 CFR S270.1(c)(2)(v). In order to qualify
for this exclusion from RCRA, a unit must satisfy the definition
of a “tank” under 40 CFR S260.l0. The applicability of this
exclusion should be evaluated when determining whether a POTW must
obtain a permit—by—rule. For more information about the exclusion,
please contact Paul Connor of the Permits Division at FTS—475—7718.
-------
—4—
the POTW had a RCRA ID number before it began receiving hazardous
waste. Applications for RCRA ID numbers are submitted either to
RCRA authorized States or to EPA Regional offices.
If the POTW was not covered by a RCRA PBR at any time during
the receipt of hazardous waste, then enforcement alternatives
must be considered. Additional guidance on appropriate enforce-
ment actions will be developed and distributed by the Enforcement
Division after further information is obtained on these POTWs.
Step four :
If a POTW is covered by a RCRA PBR, the facility may legally
receive hazardous waste until its NPDES permit expires. Usually
the RIDER permit will be issued concurrently with the NPDES
permit, so step 4 involves identifying the date upon which the
NPDES permit expires. (If a POTW does not have a PBR and intends
to receive hazardous waste in the future, the facility does not
need to wait for re—issuance of its NPDES permit to apply for a
PBR.)
Step five :
Step 5 is optional and is included in the strategy for those
POTWs that wish to demonstrate that they no longer treat, store,
or dispose of hazardous waste and, therefore, do not need a
permit—by—rule. This option requires a POTW to make a site—specific
demonstration that the facility no longer treats, stores or dis-
poses of hazardous waste. (This subject is more fully described
in Section 3.2.7.1 of our “Guidance for Implementing RCRA Permit-
by—Rule Requirements at POTWs” that I mailed to you on July 21,
1987.) So long as hazardous waste remains at the facility, it
will be difficult for a POTW to make this demonstration. However,
some POTW5 may prefer this option over the requirements of correc-
tive action under S3004(u) of RCRA. If the POTW is recalcitrant
in pursuing this option, enforcement action should be taken. By
the end of step 5, you should have completed your follow—up
efforts for all POTWs except those facilities that wish to obtain
a RCRA PBR.
Step six :
step 6 applies to the relatively small number of POTWs that
received or are receiving hazardous waste, that have a PBR, and
that need a RIDER permit. These POTWS will be issued a RIDER
permit, (and therefore be subject to corrective action) con-
currently with reissuance of their NPDES permit. A sample RIDER
permit and the procedures for issuing RIDER permits are more
fully described in OWEP’s Guidance for Implementing RCRA Permit—
By—Rule Requirements at POTWs .
-------
—5—
There are limited contract funds available in FY88 for
technical assistance in implementing RCRA at POTWs. These funds
are available through our contract with SAIC. For more informa-
tion about the availability of these funds, please contact
Paul Connor at FTS—475—7718.
In summary, we have made substantial progress in conducting
the RCRA surveys at POTW5 and I look forward to continued progress
on this initiative. For more information about the applicability
of RCRA to POTW5, please have your staff contact Paul Conrior of
the Permits Division at FTS—475—7718. Questions and comments on
the enforcement portions of the strategy should be referred to
Richard Kinch at FTS—475—83l9.
Attachments
cc: Permits Branch Chiefs, Regions I—X
RCRA Coordinators, Regions I—X
-------
4/10/87
Pb. of
IWs
Sent Ltrs.
! sponse RYIWs
Rate Accepting
HW5
R XI(1lAL SUIWEY OF RYIWs RE IVIM HAZARDOUS WASFFS
(August 31, 1987)
Nuutier
I epo n dlng
M’FAatIFNF 1
- -
egion
I
majors
minors
‘Ibtal-
317
231
548
Pb
Info.
Pb
Info,
96%
7
Sent three Letters to major non responders; is
planning [ * ne calls to the 20 RYIWs (both major
and minor) that have not has
not begun
follow
on “yes”
egion
II
majors
minors
428
454
928
760
82%
0
up
responders.
Sent a second letter to 194 non responders and
received 119
‘ibtal-
882
responses.
egion
III
majors
375
1770
322
84%
3
Plans to send certified letter to
minors
1131
708
51%
remaining rxi
responders.
‘Ibtal-
1506
gicn
IV
majors
669
2291
2054
90%
4
Sent certified letters to non
will
minors
1768
responders;
refer remaining non responders to enforcemant;
‘Ibta.l—
3857
telephoned “yes” responses to weed out incorrect
reporting.
gion
V
majors
656
3709
3227
87%
5
Plans follow up letters and phone calls to 72
minors
3201
(100%
major non responders; has telephoned the
‘Ibtal—
3857
for majors)
“yes”
responders.
gicn
VI
majors
minors
456
1758
Pb
Info.
Pb
Info,
91%
6
2 rounds of letters plus telephone survey of all
major non responders; sent first round of letters
‘Ibtal-
2214
to 500 POIW5 that were not in RS; has not
gicn
VII
majors
minors
226
1923
230 -majors
1679—minors
230
1657
100%
97%
1
follow t for Nyes•U re nses.
‘Ible *ioned major non responders and sent a second
letter to minor non responders, the 1 “yes”
‘Ibtal-
2149
response has a RA ID nunter and be covered
gicm
VIII
majors
189
1100
1094
99%
0
by a permit by rule.
Sent a fourth letter to non responders;
minors
842
ibtal-
1031
gion
DC
majors
197
750
—
97%
0
Sent second letter to 29 non responders.
minors
146
gion
X
Ibtal—
majors
minors
343
125
458
650
—
100%
0
Sent 2 rounds of letters with follow up phone
call.
Ibtal—
583
‘ftYrAL RYIWs 26
-------
___ L 2
S’FRA T Y R R IMPlE4FWFIM 1CM PERIIT BY 1(JIE
JIRFMFN S AT P IWS
RYIW does not
respond to survey
Determine if RYIW is
RYIW received covered by a PBR:
or is receiv— Ikes the RY1W have
a 1 M ID# ?
Yes, RYIW
intends to
receive l i v
T ture
JIt not
J, covered
Take enforce-
ment action
(continued
on next page)
Exhaust all avenues
for contacting the
IUIW: e.g. certified
letter and one call
no contact made
with the RYIW
contact made
with RYIW
RYIW does not
respond to survey
Take entorce-
ment action .
____ STtF2
PAGE 1
Mail Survey RYIW responds
‘ lb RYIWs to the survey ,
S1’ P 3
I contact the
“yes” responders
Ito verify receipt
Lof rdoijs waste I ing liv
RYIW has never
received liv
---,
Ask if P01W intends
to receive lI’J in the
future. If not,
send PBR guidance
to P01W
I1 termine if the
IRYIW is covered by
La permit—by—rule
‘ Ii
--->
Assist P01W in
obtaining a ICRA
ID 1, then go to
Step 5
Seril the
survey to
the P01W
P01W responds
to survey
Make reasonable further
efforts to determine
why the P01W cannot be
contacted, and then
cease further imple!nen-
tation efforts.
Fbr Nyes I
responses, go
to step 2.
br “no”
responses,
send PBR
guidance .
-------
IMPLk7IFNrATIcV SFRI TEGY, Q NrINUED
PAGE 2
If the 10 1W
received or is
receiving IM and
is covered byPBR
bTu ’ 4
J
If RYIW wishes
to “opt ait”
If 101W
does not
wish to
“opt out”
Assist 101W in
denonstrating that it
no longer treats, stores,
or disposes of t
I f the 101W intends
to receive IM in the
future and is covered
by a PBR. GO ‘10 S’ft ’ 6
Determine when the
____ RIJER permit is issued
- (same as NP1 permit
expiration date )
STEP 5
Determine if PO’IW
wishes to “opt out”
of RCRA: explain
options of renoving
and delisting
sT1p 6
Issue RIDER
permit con-
currently
with NPDES
-------
A1’TACmIEWr 3
Answer the following questions and mail within thirty day.
to’
N a m e , Water Management Division Dir.ctor
qion
Addr.ss
(1) Have you received hazardous was e (as identified in
40 CFR Part 261) accompanied by a Nuniform Hazardous
Waste Manif.st as shown in Attachment B?
______ YES. ______ NO
If you answer.d yss. was or is this hazardous waste
delivered ___ inside or ____ outside of the P01’W property
boundary?
(2) Do you plan to receive hazardous waste (as identified in
40 CFR Part 261) accompanied by a Uniform Hazardous
Waste Manifsst as shown in Attachment B?
_______ YES. _______ NO
If you answered yes. wiLl this hazardous waste be
delivered inside or _____ outside of the POTW
property b ry?
(3) Have you received hazardous waste (as identified in 40
CFR Part 261) by dedicated pipe wher, the waste doss not
mix with domestic sewage (i.e.. sanitary waste) in the
sewer system before reaching the POTW property boundary?
______ YES. _____ NO
(4) Do you plan to receive hazardous waste (as identified in
40 CFR Part 261) by dedicated pipe where the waste does
not mix with domestic sewage (i.e.. sanitary waste) in
the sewer system before reaching the PO’I’W property boundary?
______ YES. _____ NO
CERTI?tC TIoN I certify under penalty of law that this document
and all att*Chments were prepared under my direction or supervision
in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquixy of th. person or persons who manage the system.
or those pesemas directly responsible for gathering the information.
the inf j submitted is. to the best of my knowledge and
belief, trma, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there
are sigMficant penalties for submitting false information.
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.
Signature of principal
executive officer, ranking
elected official or
authorized representative
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
\ ,ipa
SEP 25 1987 OFFICE OF
WATER
M EMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Plan for Resolution of Fundamentally Different Factors
and Section 3 Ol(g) Variance Requests
FROM: James . 1 7 irector
Off é of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
TO: William A. Whittington, Director
Office of Water Regulatio and Standards (WH—55] .)
Susan G. Lepow
Associate General Counsel for Water (LE—132w)
Water Management Djvj j 0 Directors, Regions I — X
As of June 30, 1987, there were 33 applications for
fundamentally different factors (FDF) variances pending in either
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or in a State agency;
of the pending requests, 24 were from direct dischargers and
nine were from indirect dischargers. The Clean Water Act requires
us to resolve these pending requests by February i, 1988. In ad-
dition, we expect to receive FDF variance requests from facilities
that will be covered by the organic chemicals point Source cate-
gory effluent guidelines.
At this time, there are 34 applications for section 3 Ol(g)
variances pending in either EPA or in a State agency; of these
pending requests, at least four will require my concurrence on
model decisions, while 30 will not require Headquarter 5 . concur-
rence. (However, decisions on several of these requests cannot
be issued until a model decision is issued.) The Clean Water Act
requires EPA to resolve these pending requests by February 4,
1988.
In our review of and negotiatjo 5 on Regional commitments
for FY 1988, I was disturbed to discover that many of the Regional
Water Management Djyj j 0 Directors were unaware of the backlog of
pending FDF and section 3 O1(g) variances in their Regions and the
statutory deadlines for resolution of these requests that were
contained in the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA). Congress is
interested in both our substantive decisions and the time that it
takes for us to issue decisions. My staff has prepared a plan
and schedules for resolution of FDF and section 3 Ol(g) variance
requests. In most cases, our realistic assessment is that the
-------
—2—
pending request will not be resolved within the statutory dead-
line. I am providing a copy of the plan and schedules to you for
your review and comment. If you see ways to expedite the variance
decisions, please let us know. We will otherwise regard these
schedules as the Agency’s official timetable for action on pending
requests.
FDF Variances
In section 306 of the WQA, Congress established various
statutory provisions regarding FDF variances. Included in these
provisions is a requirement that EPA submit a semi—annual status
report to Congress on FDF variances and a requirement that EPA,
issue decisions on FDF variance requests within 180 days. On
August 18, 1987, Martha Prothro provided a draft copy of the
status report for the period ending June 30, 1987 to the Regional
Water Management Division Directors. A final version of the
report was provided to Congress on September 9, 1987.
We have prepared uniform schedules and flowcharts for
resolution of any new FDF variance requests from direct or
indirect dischargers (copies attached). The schedules provide
for different timetables for FDFs that are determined to be
nationally significant and require Headquarters’ concurrence.
These schedules indicate that EPA must be very efficient to
resolve any FDF variance requests within the 180-day time
period provided by Congress. (These schedules do not take into
account the time a State may take in evaluating a request.)
However, I expect that these schedules will be adhered to once
EPA receives a request. In addition, EPA must require the State
to act quickly on a request.
I have also developed schedules for resolving all pending
FDF variance requests. Copies of the list of five FDF variance
requests that were resolved in July and August, along with the
schedules for both direct and indirect dischargers are attached.
The schedules contain a notation of the next step, the lead office
(either Meadquarters or the Region) and a projected final resolu-
tion date. In certain cases, there is some additional time
provided for compliance with the next step; this has been done
in an attempt to develop realistic schedules for resolution of
the existing backlog. (However, I expect to use the time
periods provided in the uniform schedules for subsequent steps.)
Finally, I have listed the staff in Permits Division, Industrial
Technology Division, Office of General Counsel and the Regional
Offices responsible for each request.
SectIon 301(g) Variances
In section 302 of the WQA, Congress limited the availability
of section 301(g) variances to five listed non-conventional p01—
lutants or those subsequently listed by EPA, and established a
requirement that EPA issue decisions on section 301(g) variance
requests within 365 days.
-------
—3—
I have also attached schedules for resolving all pending
section 3O1(g) variance requests; these schedules were developed
after consultation with Regional staff. The schedules contain
specific dates for various steps for the four model section 30 l(g)
decisions and the final resolution dates for the 30 requests for
which the Regional Administrator has complete decision making
authority.
Management Involvement
I am asking that managers in the appropriate Headquarter 5 i
Divisions become involved earlier to resolve staff disagree e 5
and/or assign priority to expediting these decisions as necessary.
To help resolve issues and delays, we expect to schedule periodic
meetings of the line managers, with participation by the Regions
by phone, to discuss any outstanding issues and our overall pro-
gress on FDF and section 3 O1(g) variance resolution. Finally, i
will ask for periodic briefings to discuss our progress.
I am Soliciting your comments on this plan, the model
schedules and the specific schedules for which you have lead
responsibility. I welcome any comments, corrections or sugges-
tions you may have. I request that you provide your comments
and suggestions to me by October 5, 1987. When this plan and
the schedules are finalized, I will implement the resolution of
FDF and section 3 O1(g) variance re ’uests according to these
materials. If you have any questins, or wish to discuss this
matter, please call me (FTS 475—8488) or have your staff contact
the Permits Djvj j 0 staff contacts who are Gary Hudiburgh (FDF)
(FTS 475—9531) or Margarete Heber ( 3 Ol(g)) (FTS 475—9530).
Attachments
-------
Schedule and Flowchart for Regional Resolution of
NPDES FDF Variance Requests
Region Receives
Application
Submission to HO
for Determination
of National Sign .
Public
Notice/
Public
Comment
(30
days)
HQ
(5 da
Concurrence
ye)
Final De
(5 d 1
cision
ye)
Appeals
Public Notice!
Public Comment
( 30 d ys )
I
Final Decision
(5 days)
Appeals
Cumulative
Time (days )
Cumulative
Time (days )
Determination of
National Sign.
(30 days)
Yes I No
Evaluate Applic.
Request Addn. Info.
Draft Tent. Decn.
( 45 days )
0
5
35
Evaluate Applic.
80 Request Addn. Info.
Draft Tent. Decn.
( 45 days )
HQ Concurrence
110 ( 30 clays )
Tentatie Decn.
115 ( 5 d ys )
145
170
175 I __________ _________
180 __________ _________
0
5
35
80
85
115
140
145
Tentative Decn.
(5 days)
Evaluate Comments
Draft Final Decn.
(25 days)
Evaluate comments
Draft Final Decn.
(25 days)
-------
Schedule arid Flowchart for Regional Resolution of
Pretreatment FDF Variance Requests
Cumulative Cumulative
Time (days) Time (days )
National Sign.
(30 days)
Yes I No
vaiuate Applic. -
Request Addn. Info.
( 15 days )
Notice of Complete
80 Application (if RO
is approval auth.)
( 30 days )
110
Evaluate Applic.
Request Addn. Info.
( 15 days )
Notice of Complete
Application (if RO
is approval auth.)
( 30 days )
Evaluate Comments
Draft Determination
( 30 days )
Determi
(5 da
nation
ys)
Appeals
0
5
35
50
80
110
115
0
5
I
Submission to
for Determination
of National Siqn.
35
50
Evaluate Comment9
Draft Determination
140
145
-------
A COPY IF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
GUIDANCE FOR
REPORTING AND EVALUATING
POTW NONCOMPLIANCE WITH
PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Water Enforcement Permits
Washington, D.C.
September 30, 1987
-------
IOSP4%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
+) 4
September 30, 1987
OFFICE OF
WATE A
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance
with Pretreatment Implementation Requirements
FROM: Jajpd R. Elder, Director
,Mffice of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN-335)
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors,
NPDES State Pretreatment Program Directors
The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits has completed development of a guidance for evaluating
and reporting noncompliance by Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) that have failed to
implement their approved pretreatment programs. The Guidance identifies criteria for evaluating the
principal POTW activities that are essential to fully implement most local programs. POTWs that meet
the criteria in the definition should be reported by EPA and approved States on the Quarterly
Noncompliance Report (QNCR).
These criteria were developed by an EPA workgroup and presented to States and Regions at the
National Pretreatment Coordinators Meeting. December 17, 1986. Draft guidance was developed and
circulated for comment in May 1987. In general, your comments supported the criteria that were
proposed in the draft. We also received comments from former PIRT members. As a result, the final
guidance has been modified in two areas. Under the criteria for P01W inspections of SIUs, the percent
coverage has been increased to 80% of the levels required in the permit or approved program. If no
specific permit or program requirement was established, the guidance recommends reporting any POTW
that failed to sample or inspect at least 50% of its SIUs in a 12 month period. The second area of change
was for enforcement of pretreatment standards. Several PIRT comments wanted a specific criterion for
failure to develop adequate local limits. Instead of adding new criteria, we expanded the discussions
under the criteria for issuance of SIU control mechanisms, implementation of pretreatment standards,
and enforcement against interference and pass-through. The discussions include minimum local limit
requirements and recommended procedures to resolve these and other deficiencies of approved
programs.
For FY 1988, EPA Regions and States should use this guidance to identify POTWs that are failing to
implement their approved programs and should report them on the QNCR. While formal enforcement
is not automatically required as a response to noncompliance reported on the QNCR, Regions and
approved States should seriously consider the use of an administrative order (and, perhaps, with a
penalty depending on the egregiousness of the lack of implementation) to establish a schedule to correct
the violations. The Strategic Planning and Management System for FY 1988 contains two measures:
-------
-2-
WQE-12 which addresses the POTWs compliance assessment process; and WQE-13 which will track
how frequently P01W noncompliance is addressed by formal enforcement. Further explanation of this
measure can be found in “Definitions and Performance Expectations” in “A Guide to the Office of
Water Accountability System and Mid-Year Evaluations” (Fiscal Year 1988). EPA Regions should assist
States in applying the definition of reportable noncompliance, identifying noncomplying POTWs, and
tracking cases where formal enforcement is taken. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring is developing more specific guidance on the criteria for judicial referrals and the burden of
proof for demonstrating noncompliance for P01W pretreatment implementation. That guidance will
be distributed to the Regions for review before it is made final.
If you have questions regarding the guidance or SPMS reporting please contact Bill Jordan, Director,
Enforcement Division, or Anne TAssjter, Chief Policy Development Branch (202/475-8307). The staff
contact is Ed Bender (202/475-8331).
cc: Glenn Unterberger
Gerald Bryan
Pretreatment Coordinators, EPA and States
Regional Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regional Counsels
Rebecca Hanmer
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
A. Background 1
B. Existing Rule 1
C. Definition of Reportable Noncompliance 2
II. Applying the Criteria 4
A. Failure to Issue Control Mechanisms to Significant IUS in
a Timely Fashion 4
B. Failure to Inspect Significant lUs 5
C. Failure to Establish and Enforce IU Self-Monitoring
where Required by the Approved Program 5
D. Failure to Implement Pretreatment Standards 6
E. Failure to Enforce Against Pass-Through and Interference 8
F. Failure to Submit Pretreatment Reports Within 30 days 9
0. Failure to meet Compliance Milestones by 90 days or more 9
H. Any Other Violation(s) of Concern to the Approval Authority 9
III. Reporting on the QNCR 10
A. Format 10
B. Description of the Noncompliance 10
C. Compliance Status 11
IV. Examples of Reporting on the QNCR 12
A. Example 1 12
B. Example 2 13
V. Compliance Evaluation 14
VI. Response to Noncompliance 17
VII. Summary 18
-------
A COPY OF THIS tJI 5ANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WA$HlI4GrO,4 D.C. 20460
OCT 5 1987
op.,ci op
WAY
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on the Conduct of RCRA Facility
Assessments at. POTWs
FROM: Jame # Djrector
O$t ce of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions r-x
Attached is a copy of our final guidance document for
conducting RCRA facility assessments at POTWs. This document
applies to POTWS that receive hazardous waste by truck, rail, or
dedicated pipe. The document will assist you in implementing the
RCRA corrective action requirements at POTWs.
The attached guidance should be used in conjunction with the
“Guidance for Implementing RCRA Permit-by—Rule Requirements at
POTWs” that I mailed to you on July 21, 1987. The previous
guidance explains the procedures for issuing a permit—by—rule to
a POTW. Corrective action is a major requirement of the permit-
by—rule, and today’s guidance will assist you in completing the
first phase of corrective action — the RCRA Facility Assessment.
For those Regions with POTWs that receive hazardous waste by
truck, rail, or dedicated pipe, (to date we have identified 26
such POTWs), we anticipate that the permits—by—rule will be issued
during FY88. The major task of these permits is preparing a
schedule for corrective action. The attached guidance will assist
you in Preparing these schedules.
For more information about the guidance, have your staff
contact Paul Connor of the Permits Division at FTS—475—77j . I
hope you find the guidance document useful.
Attachment
cc: Permits Branch Chiefs, Regions i—x
Hazardous Waste Coordinators, Regions i—x
-------
&EPA
Offics of
tsr Enforcsmm,t m d Pormit,
Sirngton. DC 20410
1987
Unit State
Envutonmsntai Promsctso, ______
4Sflcy __
Guidance Manual for
Conducting RCRA Facility
Assessments at Publicly
Owned Treatment Works
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 OVERVIEW OF RCR.A PERMIT-BY-RULE PROVISIONS
AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM 1-1
1.1.1 Overview of RCR.A Permit-by-Rule Provisions 1-1
1.1.2 Overview of RCRA Corrective Action Program 1-5
1.1.3 Overview of the RFA 1-7
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 1-11
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT 1-12
2. CONDUCT OF THE RCR.A FACILITY ASSESSMENT 2-].
2.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH FOR THE RCRA FACILITY ASSESSMENT... 2-1
2.2 CONDUCTING THE PRELIMINARY REVIEW 2-5
2.2.1 Purpose and Scope of PR 2—5
2.2.2 Gathering PR Information 2—6
2.2.3 Evaluating PR Information 2—12
2.2.4 Completing the PR 2—18
2.3 CONDUCTING THE VISUAL SITE INSPECTION (VSI) 2-19
2.3.1 Purpose, Scope, and Work Product of the VSI.... 2-19
2.3.2 Planning the VSI 2—20
2.3.3 Conducting Field Activities During the VSI 2-22
2.3.4 Determining the Need for Further Action During
the RFA 2-25
2.4 CONDUCT OF THE SAMPLING VISIT 2-28
2.4.1 Purposeand Scope . 2—28
2.4.2 Developinga Sampling Plan. 2-29
2.4.3- Preparing for the SV 2—33
2.4.4 Conducting theSV 2—36
2.4.5 Final RPA Recommendations for Further Action... 2-37
2.4.6 Final RPA Product 2—42
3. EVALUATION OF WASTE AND UNIT CHARACTERISTICS AT POTVS 3-1
3.1 POTVUNITCHARACTERISTICS...... ....... 3—1
3.1.1 Description of Typical POTV Treatment
Processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—1
3.1.2 RCRA Terminology as Applied to POTV
Treatment Units/Processes.... . . 3—6
3.1.3 Typical POTVConfigurations..,..,......... 3—7
3.1.4 Pollutant Fate Processes and Release
Mechanisinsvjthjnp oTvs 3—10
3.1.5 Impacts of POTV Treatment System Configuration
on Pollutant Releases
3-15
-------
4.5.1 Potential Effects on Human Health 4...35
4.5.2 Potential Effects on the Environment 4-37
4.5.3 Data Required for Assessment of Potential
Exposures Due to Releases to Ground Water
and Soils
4.6 ASSESSMENT OF SUBSURFACE GAS RELEASES 4-38
4.6.1 Unit Design and Operation 4-39
4.6.2 Waste Characteristics 4—40
4.6.3 Gas Generation Mechanisms 4-41
4.6.4 Gas Migration Barriers 4-42
4.6.5 Assessment of Releases 4—43
5. ASSESSMENT OF POTV RELEASES TO SURFACE WATERS
AND SEDIMENTS 51
5.1 APPLICABILITY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS TO
RELEASES TO SURFACE WATERS AND SEDIMENTS 5—1
5.2 UNIT CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING POTENTIAL FOR
RELEASES TO SURFACE WATERS 5-2
5.2.1 Unit Characteristics Influencing Pass Through
to Receiving Waters 5—2
5.2.2 Unit Characteristics Influencing Movement
ThroughSurfaceRunoff 5—5
5.3 WASTE/CONSTITUENT CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING POTENTIAL
FOR RELEASE TO SURFACE WATERS OR SEDIMENTS 5-7
5.3.1 Waste/Constituent Properties Affecting Pass
Through to Receiving Waters 5-7
5.3.2 Waste/Constituent Properties Affecting
Migration Through Surface Runoff 5—7
5.3.3 Waste/Constituent Properties Affecting
Accumulation in Sediments and Aquatic Species.. 5-8
5.3.4 Data Required on Waste Characteristics for
Assessing Potential for Releases to Surface
•Waters and Sediments 5—8
5.4 ASSESSMENT OF MIGRATION POTENTIAL OP RELEASES TO
SURFACE WATERS AND SEDIMENTS 5—10
5.4.1 Migration Potential of Releases to Soils 5—10
5.4.2 Migration Potential of Constituents in
SurfaceWatersandSediments 5—12
5.4.3 Data Required for Assessment of Migration
Pathways for Releases to Surface Waters
and Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . 5—17
5.5 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR SURFACE WATERS AND SEDIMENTS.. 5-18
5.5.1 Assessing the Need for Additional Sampling..... 5-18
5.5.2 Selection of Sampling Parameters 5—18
-------
6.6.1 Potential Effects on Human Health 6-15
6.6.2 Potential Effects on the Environment 6—17
6.6.3 Data Required for Assessment of Potential
Human Health and Environmental Effects Due
to Releases to Air 6-18
APPENDIX A - PROFILE OF POLLUTANT FATE IN ACCLIMATED AND JNACCLIMATED
SECONDARY P01W
APPENDIX B - HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS POTENTIALLY GENERATED AND DISCHARGED
BY SELECTED INDUSTRIES
APPENDIX C - DATA ON PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FOR SELECTED
CONSTITUENTS
-------
A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
GUIDANCE MANUAL ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF LOCAL DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS UNDER
THE PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
December 1987
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
401 H Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
t0 Si
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
L PROI*P
IvIAR . 2 :...
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Pretreatment Program Local Limits Guidance
‘ ‘— # —
FROM: James ider, Director
Off - of Water Enforcement and Permits
TO: Users of Guidance Manual on the Development and
Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations
Under the Pretreatment Program
This manual provides publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
with comprehensive technical guidance on the development and
implementation of sound local limits. It fulfills one of the
major recommendations of the Pretreatment Implementation Review
Task Force (PIRT) and offers detailed information in a number of
areas including 1) the legal and regulatory basis for local
limits, 2) the relationship of local limits to other pretreatment
regulatory controls, 3) approaches to identify pollutants and
sources warranting local limits control, 4) sampling and analysis
guidance to support local limits development, and 5) several
technically—based approaches for local limits development.
EPA’s General Pretreatment Regulations require local limits
both for POTWS with federally—approved pretreatment programs and
for any other POTWs that are experiencing recurring pass—through
and interference problems. The Agency’s August 5, 1985 local
limits policy (see Appendix B of this manual) explains a POTW’s
general responsibilities: “each POTW must assess all of its
industrial discharges and employ sound technical procedures to
develop defensible local limits which will assure that the POTW,
its personnel, and the environment are adequately protected.”
The key to this assessment is a technical evaluation which
each POTW must conduct. The elements of this assessment are
outlined in the policy and, briefly, include identifying all
industrial users, determining the character and volume of
pollutants in their discharges, and identifying pollutants of
concern through a sampling, monitoring, and analysis program.
For each pollutant of concern, the P01W must then determine the
maximum allowable headworks loading and implement appropriate
local limits to ensure that the maximum loadings are not
exceeded. The specific technical approaches and methods of
control (i.e., pollutant allocation) are left to the judgement
of the POTW.
-------
—2—
OccasionallY, POTW5 may find that loadings of some
pollutants of concern are well below the calculated maximum
headworks loadings. In these cases, limits may not be necessary
to prevent actual exceedances. Nonetheless, EPA encourages POTW5
to establish maximim limits for significant dischargerS of such
pollutants. This will ensure that current loadings cannot be
substantially increased without the POTW’S granting permission
and having the opportunity to assess both increased loadings from
other industrial sources as well as the need to provide for
future industrial growth.
The local limits guidance manual provides further
information on each element of the technical evaluation
summarized above. It also builds upon the requirements of the
August 1985 policy. In this regard, it is important to note that
the manual expands upon th 1985 policy’s requirement that
headworks analysis be conducted for six metals (cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc) as well as other
pollutants of concern. The attached guidance specifically
identifies four additional pollutants (arsenic, cyanide, silver
and mercury) that all POTWs should presume to be of concern
unless screening of their wastewater and sludge shows that they
are not present in significant amounts. Although these
additional pollutants are not as widespread in POTW influentS as
the six metals, they have particularly low biological process
inhibition values and/or aquactic toxicity values.
This guidance addresses one of the most critical tasks of
the national pretreatment program to develop technically sound
and defensible local limits. Its fundamental purpose is to
assist you in addressing the difficult challenge of dealing with
ever changing conditions at the treatment facility. The scope
and level of detail of this manual reflects the complexity of
those conditions and the site specific nature of local limits
development. I am confident it will help you not only to develop
sound and defensible limits, but also to periodically update
those limits tO assure continued achievement of pretreatment
goals.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume I
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL 1.1
1 .2 BACKGROUND . . . . . 1—2
1.2.1 What Are Local Limits and Why Are They
Important ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1—2
1.2.2 Studies Supporting the Need for Local
Limits 1—3
1.2.3 The Need for EPA Guidance to Support POTV
Local Limits Development 1—4
1.3 LEGAL BASIS FOR LIMITS DEVELOPMENT 1-5
1.3.1 Specific Statutory/Regulatory Background 1—5
1.3.1.1 Pretreatment Regulations 1—5
1.3.1.2 Implementation of General Prohibitions . . 1—7
1.3.1.3 Implementation of the Specific
Prohibitions 1—9
1.3.2 Other Considerations Supporting Local Limits
Development 1—10
1.3.3 Relationship of Local Limits to Categorical
Standards 1—11
1.4 POTW DEVELOPMENT OF LOCAL LIMITS . . . . . 1-11
1.4.1 Overview of the Local Limits Process. . 1—12
1.4.2 Planning Considerations in Local Limits
- Development 1—15
1.4.2.1 Updating Local Limits . . . 1—15
1.4.2.2 Ongoing Monitoring Program 1—17
1.4.2.3 Selection of Alternative Allocation
Methods 1—17
1.4.2.4 Use of an Appropriate Control
Mechanism. 1—18
1.4.2.5 Public Participation . 1—19
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE MANUAL . . . . . . . . . . 1—19
2. IDENTIFYING SOURCES AND POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN 2—1
2.1 CONCERNS TO BE ADDRESSED 2-1
2.1.2 Water Quality Protection 2—2
2.1.3 Sludge Protection 2—3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
2.1.4 Operational Problems 2—3
2.1.5 Worker Health and Safety . 2—4
2.1.6 Air Emissions 2—5
2.2 CHARACTERIZING INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES 2-9
2.2.1 Industrial User Discharges 2—9
2.2.2 RCRA Hazardous Wastes 2—12
2.2.3 CERCLAWastes . . 2—13
2.2.4 Hauled Wastes 2—14
2.3 REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CRITERIA AND
POLLUTANT EFFECTSDATA . . . . . . . 2-15
2.3.1 Environmental Protection Criteria and
Pollutant Effects Data 2—16
2.4 MONITORING OF IU DISCHARGES, COLLECTION SYSTEM,
AND THE TREATMENT PLANT TO DETERMINE POLLUTANTS
OFCONCERN 2—17
2.5 MONITORING TO DETERMINE ALLOWABLE HEADWORKS LOADINGS . 2-23
2.5.1 Sampling at the Treatment Plant 2—23
2.5.2 Establishing Monitoring Frequencies 2—24
2.5.3 Establishing Sample Type, Duration, and
Timing of Sample Collection 2—28
2.6 TOXICITY TESTING 2—29
2.6.1 Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs) 2-30
3. LOCAL LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BY THE ALLOWABLE HEADWORKS
LOADING METHOD 3-1
3.1 GENERAL METHODOLOGY 3-1
3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEADWORKS LOADINGS. 3-2
3.2.1 Allowable Headvorks Loadings Based on
Prevention of Pollutant Pass Through. . . . 3-3
3.2.1.1 Compliance With NPDES Permit Limits. 3—3
3.2.1.2 Compliance with Water Quality Limits . 3—4
3.2.2 Allowable Headvorks Loadings Based on
Prevention of Interference with POTV
Operations 3—8
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
3.2.2.1 Prevention of Process Inhibition
3.2.2.2 Protection of Sludge Quality .
3.2.2.3 EP Toxicity Limitations
3.2.2.4 Reduction of Incinerator Emissions
Comparison of Allovable Headvorks Loadings.
Representative Removal Efficiency Data
3.2.4.1 Representative Removal Efficiencies
Based on Mean Influent/Eff].uent
Data
3.2.4.2 Representative Removal Efficiencies
Based on Deciles
3.2.4.3 Potential Problems in Calculating
Removal Efficiencies
3.2.4.4 Literature Removal Efficiency Data
3.3 PROCEDURE FOR ALLOCATING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
HEADWORKS LOADINGS
3.3.1 Building in Safety Factors
3.3.2 Domestic/Background Contributions
3.3.3 Alternative Allocation Methods
3.3.3.1 Conservative Pollutants
3.3.3.2 Nonconservative Pollutants
3.4 REVIEWING TECHNOLOGICAL ACHIEVABILITY
3. 5 PRELIK
4. LOCAL LIMITS DEVELOPMENT TO ADDRESS COLLECTION SYSTEM
PROBLEMS.
4.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS
4.1:1 Fire and Explosion
4.1.1.1 Lover Explosive Limit (LEL)
Monitoring
4.1.1.2 Sample Headspace Monitoring. . .
4.1.1.3 Flashpoint Limitation. .
4.1.1.4 Industrial User Management Practice
Plans
4.1.1.5 Screening Technique for Identifying
Flammable/Explosive Pollutant
Discharges
3.2.3
3.2.4
Page
3—8
3-11
3—14
3—15
3—16
3—17
3—18
3—18
3-20
3—24
3—26
3—27
3-28
3-30
3—31
3—37
3—38
3—38
4—1
4—1
4—1
. . 4—2
4—3
• . 4—4
• . 4—5
4—6
. . •
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.1.2 Corrosion
4.1.3 Flow Obstruction. 4—12
4.1.4 TemperatUre 4—12
4.2 WORKERHEALTHANDSAFETY 4-13
4.2.1 Headspace Monitoring 4—13
4.2.2 Industrial User Management Practice Plans 4—15
4.2.3 Screening Technique for Identifying Fume
Toxic Pollutant Discharges . . . . . 4—15
4.2.4 POTV Worker Safety. . . . . . . . . . 4—19
5. INDUSTRIAL USER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 5-1
5. 1 INTRODUCIIION 5—1
5.2 CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT PLANS 5-3
5.3SPILLCONTINGENCYPLANS 5—6
5.4 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PLANS 5-8
5.5 LEGAL AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS 5-10
5.6 APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL USER MANAGEMENT PLANS . . . . . . 5-10
6. CASE-BY-CASE PERMITS - BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT (BPJ) . . . 6-1
6.1 INTRODUCTION 6—1
6.2 APPLICATION OF BPJ 6-1
6.3 APPROACHES TO BPJ 6—2
6.3.1 Existing Permit Limits for Comparable
Industrial Facilities 6—3
6.3.2 Demonstrated Performance of the Industrial
User’s Treatment System 6—5
6.3.3 Performance of Treatment Technologies as
Documented in Engineering Literature
(Treatability) 6—6
6.3.4 Adapting Federal Discharge Standards 6-10
6.4 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING BPJ LOCAL LIMITS. 6-12
REFERENCES
-------
United States Office of Water
Environmental Protection Washington, D.C.
Agency
A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
STATE WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL
PROGRAM REVIEW GUIDANCE
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
December 1987
-------
STATE WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL
PROGRAM REVIEW GUIDANCE
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
Background
Purpose of State Toxics Program Reviews 1—2
Scope 1-3
Pilot Reviews 1-3
The Checklist and Fact Sheet 1-4
II. THE REVIEW PROCESS 1 1-1
Review Team 1 1.—i
Review Preparation 1 1—1
The Review I I 2
Fo’low—Up 11—3
III. TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR THE CHECKLIST 111-1
A. State Authority and Legal Mechanisms for Toxics
Control 1 1 1— 1
B. Water Quality Standards 111—3
C. Identification of Waters in Need of
Toxics Controls 111—9
D. Exposure Assessment and Waste].oad Allocation
Procedures 111—14
E. Effluent Characterization and Permitting
Procedures 111—18
APPENDIX A: Fact Sheet
APPENDIX B: Checklist
APPENDIX C: Sample State Summary, Action Items, and Letter
-------
A COPY IF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
U.S. Envirorunentaj Protection gericy
‘Jashington, D.C. 20460
GENERAL PERMIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE
Office of Water
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Permits Divisjo (EN—336)
February 1988
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
PREFACE iv
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND
NPDES Permit Program 1
Uses of General Permits 2
General Permits vs. Individual. Permits 3
CHAPTER 2: LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Recognition by the Courts 5
History of the Regulations 5
Coverage under Existing Regulations 8
Administration of General Permits 8
Other Regulatory Provisions Governing
General Permits 10
CHAPTER 3: PROCESS
Identification of Suitable Class or Category 12
Permit Development 17
Relationship to State Water Quality Standards 18
Special Considerations 20
Issuance and Promulgation of General Permits 20
Notice of Intent to be Covered under a
General Permit 23
Variances and General Permits 26
State Role in Development and Oversight 27
EPA Regional Office Role in Development
and Oversight 28
EPA Headquarters Role in Development and
Oversight 29
Continuation of a General Permit 31
CHAPTER 4: CPERIENCE
Benefits and Limitations of General Permits 33
Existing General Permits 35
Examples of Existing General Permits 35
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 37
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page No.
CHAPTER 5: STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL PROCEDURES
General 40
Review of State Statutory Provisions 42
Review of State Regulatory Requirements 43
Modification of State Program 44
Headquarters’ Concurrence in Program Approvals
and ModificatiOnS 46
APPENDIX A - Federal Register Publication Requirements for
Draft and Final NPDES General Permits
APPENDIX B - EPA Headquarters’ Procedures for the Review of
Draft and Final NPDES General Permits
General Permitting Strategy for Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Activities Under EPA/! 24S MOU
APPENDIX C - Continuance of EPA-Issued General Permits
Under the Administrative Procedure Act
APPENDIX D - Existing General Permits
APPENDIX E - Supplemental Attorney General’s Statement
APPfNDIX F - Modified Memorandum of Agreement
APPENDIX G - Federal General Permit Citations
APPENDIX H - Standard Industrial Category Codes for General
Permits
iii
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
pq tC
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: General Permit Program Guidance
FROM: . Martha G. Prothro, Director
Permits Division
TO: Water Management Division Directors
NPDES State Directors
I am pleased to issue the attached General Permit Program
Guidance, which provides a streamlined approach to the general
permit process. This guidance serves two purposes. First, it
provides a centralized source of information about the general
permit process. This will enable all permitting authorities to
benefit from the Agency’s experience in this area. It will also
promote some consistency in the development and application of
general permits among the States and Regions. Second, it
simplifies the existing procedures for the development and
oversight of general permits. Formal review by EPA Headquarters
will be limited to offshore oil and gas general permits and other
general permits of national significance. In addition, the
guidance describes how other general permits may be used as
models to develop new general permits. Finally, the guidance
identifies a simple method of compliance monitoring through the
use of the Permit Compliance System (PCS) data base.
With the issuance of this guidance and the increased
procedural flexibility it offers, I urge States without general
permit programs to carefully consider the benefits of obtaining
authorization to issue general permits. As many of you know,
general permits can be an effective tool for reducing permit
backlogs that are a problem for some States. In addition,
general permit authority will become increasingly important as we
issue general permits to storm water dischargers in order to
implement section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987.
If you have questions on the guidance, please give me a call
or have your staff contact Kevin Smith of this office. He can be
reached at (202) 475—7017 or FTS 475—7017.
Attachment
-------
GENERAL PERMIT PROGRAM GUIDANCE
PREFACE
This guidance document is intended to:
1) demonstrate the benefits of general permits as an
administrative mechanism to assist permitting authorities to
meet the goals of the Clean Water Act and to regulate
numerous discharges in similar, but not necessarily
identical, circumstances;
2) assist permitting authorities that currently have general
permit authority in the development and issuance of general
permits;
3) assist those States currently approved to administer the
basic NPDES permit program to obtain general permit
authority; and
4) identify general permits that have been developed by both
EPA Regions and approved States.
Organization
This guidance discusses the background and history of the
general permit program (Chapter 1), reviews the evolution of the
general permit program in terms of its legal framework (Chapter
2), explains the process for developing and issuing a general
permit (Chapter 3), examines EPA’s and the States’ experience in
the development and issuance of general permits (Chapter 4), and
details the process for assumption by a State of general permit
authority (Chapter 5).
Appendices
This guidance also provides several appendices that should
prove U8eful as reference materials. Appendix A details federal
Register publication requirements for EPA—issued draft and final
NPDES general permits. Appendix B furnishes EPA Headquarters’
procedures for the review of draft and final general permits.
Appendix C discusses the continuation of EPA—issued general
permits. Appendix D lists all the existing general permits that
EPA Headquarters has on file for use as model general permits.
Appendices E and F provide copies of a supplemental Attorney
General’s Statement and a modified Memorandum of Agreement as
examples of how a State NPDES program may be modified to obtain
general permit authority. Appendix G contains the federal NPDES
general permit cites. Appendix H lists the Standard Industrial
Codes used for general permits.
iv
-------
LB 81988
NEPIORANDUM
SUBJECT: Effluent Guidelines for the Organic chemicals and
Plastics and Synthetics Piber% IUU trial Category
PROM: James R. Elder, Director’
Off ice of Water Enforcement and Permits
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
NPDES State Directors
The final rule establishing effluent limitations
guide1i eg, pretreatment standards and new Source performance
standards for the Organic Chemicals and Plastic and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSP) Category was published in the November 5, 1987
Federal Register , 52 PR 42522. The purpose of this memorandum
ii to provide [ iiterim guidance to the Permitting authorities
on the application of the OCpSp effluent guidelines to current
and future NPDES permits. The regulation was effective
December 21, 1987. Final permits issued after that date must
reflect the limits in the effluent guide1jne Permits which
currently are in draft form but have not gone to public notice
should be revised to reflect the guideJi e • Permits which
have gone to public notice since November 5 Should be
re—examined and revised expeditiously prior to final issuance
to reflect the guidelines.
This memorandum summarizes the limitations, monitoring
requirements and compliance dates in the OCpsp regulatjo 5
Evidentiary hearings, PDFS, water quality ba e limitations
and BHps are also discussed. Additional guidance on
monitoring requirements will be prepared in FY88. More
detailed guidance for indirect OCPsp dischargers subject to
the reporting requirements of section 403 pretreatment
regulatio was separately issued Ofl December 30, 1987.
This regulation is signifjca for the NPDES program
because of the opportunity it provides to control the
discharge of toxic pollutants to our nation’s waters,
-------
—2—
The rule prescribes limits On BOD, TSS, and p for BPT and
limits on as many as 63 Priority POllutants for BAT.
Pretreatment standards are established for 47 Priority
POllutants. The regulatjo sets limits for more individual
priority pollutants than any previous national guidelj 5
Some of the important features of the OCPsp regu1atj are
summarized in the following sections of this memorandum.
Interim Permitting guidance is included in the relevant
sections, as appropriate. Since the ocpsp regulatj 0 3 are
complex (cover 62 pages in the Federal Register ) YOU and Your
staff are encouraged to study the re latjons areful1y and
not rely on the summaries herein as the sole basis for
establishing permit limits.
dustry Profile
The OCpSp industry is large, diverge and complex, The
industry manufactures over 25,000 different organic chemicals,
plastics and synthetic fibers. Of the approximately 1000
facilities covered by the guidelj g, 750 are Primary
producers of chemicals and the remainder are Secondary
producers, i.e., their OCPSF productjo is ancillary to their
Primary production activities, ApProximately 32 percent of
discharger s are directs, 42 percent indirect and 26 percent
either do not discharge to surface waters or have Unknown
discharge status. The estimated average daily process
wastewater discharge per plant jg 1.31 MCD for directs and
0.25 MCD for indirects, The flOn —discharging plants use dry
processes, recycle their wastewater, or dispose of their
wastewater by deep well injection, incineration, contract
hauling or employ evaporation/percolation ponds,
Different products are made by varying the raw materials,
the chemical reaction Conditions, and the chemical engineerj g
unit processes, The products being manufactured at a single
large chemical plant can vary on a weekly or even daily
basis, Thus, a single plant may produce simultaneously many
different products using a variety of Continuous and batch
operations and the product mix may change on a weekly or daily
basis,
As a result of the wide variety and complexity of raw
materials and processes used and of products manufactured in
the OCPSF industry, an exceptionally wide variety of
pollutants are found in the wastewater from this industry.
They include conventional pollutants (pR, BOD, TSS and oil and
grease); an unusually wide variety of toxic Priority
Pollutants (both metals and organic compounds). and a large
number of nonconventional pollutants.
-------
—3—
Effluent Limjtatjo
The OCpsp effluent guidelj e 5 are mass—based even though the
limitations for every pollutant at every level f control (BPT,
BAT, PSES, etc.) with the exception of pa are expressed as
concentrations (milligra or micrograms per liter). The permit
writer must determine the appropriate process wastewater flow(s)
to use to multiply by the appropriate concentratjofl( 3 ) of
Pollutant(s) to establish mass limits in the permit.
The appropriate process wastevater flOW(g) to use to
calculate the daily mass limits in the permit is the long term
average flow. Maximum fløw generally should not be used.
Furthermore, permit writers should use flow reduction as a basis
for establishing mass limits in permits where appropriate.
BPT limits are established for three Pollutants, BOD, TSS and
pa, for facilities in seven 5ubcatego j 8 . Rayon Fibers, Other
Fibers, Thermoplastic Resins, Thermoseteing Resins, Commodity
Organic Chemicals, Bulk Organic Chemicals, and Specialty Organic
Chemicals. The date for compliance with BPT is as expeditiously
as practicable but not later than March 31, 1989.
BCT is reserved for all subcategories.
BAT limits are established for 59 or 63 POllutants depending
on whether a facility employs end—of..pjp 5 biologjca treatment
(EOPBT). Those facilities employing EOPBT are subject to
.imitatjona for 57 organic chemicals, five heavy metals, and
cyanide. Facilities not employing EOPBT have limits on 53
organic chemicals, five heavy metals, and cyanide. For
facilities Producing annually less than 5 million Pounds of
products covered by the gujde1j 5 , BAT equals BPT. The date for
complianc, with BAT is as expeditiously as practicable but not
later than March 31, 1989.
-------
—4—
SES
Pretreatment standards for existing Sources are apPliCable to
indirect dischargers and are analogous to BAT limitations for
direct dischargers PSES are established for 47 Priority
pollutants (44 organic chemicals, two heavy metals and cyanide)
which are determined to pass through POTWS. The date for
compliance with PSES is NOvember 5, 1990.
PSNS
Pretreatment standards for new Sources are applicable to new
indirect dischargers and are equiva to PSES. New Sources
must comply on commencement of discharge.
New source performance Standards are established as
equjva to the BPT and BAT limitations. NSPS are based on the
model BPT and BAT treatment technologies. Thus a new Source will
be Subject to the same BPT baseline limitatio 5 for the
conventional Pollutants according to its products (subcategories)
and to a BAT level of control depending on whether or not it
employs biological treatment.
iflpliance Dates
The date for compliance with the technology_ 55
require 5 of the OCPSF guidejj 5 for existing direct
dischargers is March 31, 1989 deadline and for existing indirect
dischargers is November 5, 1990. The Water Quality Act of 1987
recognized the POSSibility that OCpsp facilities may be unable to
comply with the March 31, 1989 deadline because of the delay in
Promulgating the guide j 3 The legislatj history states:
“If dischargera in an entire category are unable to meet the
March 31, 1989, deadline as a result of the Administrator is
failure to Promulgate effluent limitations in Sufficient time to
allow for Compliance by such date, noncompliance resulting from
the Administrator , 3 delay can be dealt with under EPA’S current
post—19$4 deadline enforcement Policy. That Policy calls for the
Agency, at the same time a permit Containing the statutory
deadline is Issued, to issue an administrative order to the
non-complying company which Specifies a schedule of compliance as
expethtiously as practicable, but not later than three years
after permit issuance. Permits issued on the basis of best
professional Judgment in advance of promulgatjo of effluent
guide jn will, be able to comply with the statutory deadline,
nd EPA and the States Should COnsider the use of such permits f
effluent guidejj 5 are delayed.”
-------
—5—
The Permitting authorities should use the leg1s1atj history
as gujda when extending compliance deadlines beyond Match 31.,
1989. If, at the time of permit issuance, the State or Region
determines that the discharger cannot meet the March 1989
deadline, a compliance schedule extending past the March 1989
statutory deadline must be contained in an administrative order
and Public noticed with the permit. Any Other extensions past
March 1989 must be in an administrative Ot judicial enforcement
action.
Monitoring Regujrern
The Ocpsp regu1atj 0 does not prescribe monitoring
requirem 5 5 EPA recog j 55 that Specific guidance
appropriate monitoring require 5 for OCPSp plants would be
Useful, Particularly to assure that monitoring not be needlessly
requjre for Pollutants that are not present in discharges at a
plant, The monitoring scenario assumed by EPA for purposes of
estimating the coats of complying with the OCPSF regula j 0 was
weekly sampling, or four Samples per month. All plants were
assumed to monitor three times per month their toxic Pollutants
expected to be present at levels of regulatory concern. A fourth
monthly analysis was assumed and costed for all regu1at toxic
POllutants,
In assessing wastewater data as part of the analysis for
developing appropriate monitoring freque j 8 for toxic
Pollutants permit writers should take special care to account
for the effects of dilution, which may indicate the absence of
Pollutants which in fact may be discharged, For example, a Form
2C permit application may indicate that a Pollutant is absent or
is present only at very low concentration. This may
reflect dilutjo and may fail to reveal that the Pollutant is
genuinely associated with and discharged from the plant in
Signifj amounts,
Thus, permit writers should obt j in—plant, pre djlution
data when necessary to Properly characterize the wastewater for
purpose. of establishing monitoring require 8
EPA intend. to Publish guida 5 on monitoring at OCp$p
facilitie, in the near future. The guidance will address both
the Issues of comp1ja monitoring generally and of initially
determining Which POllutants Should be Subject to infrequ
monitoring based on a conclusjo that they are Unlikely to be
discharged by a particular facility. Staff of the Permits and
Enforcement Divisions will be working with the Industrial
Technology Division on the monitoring guida c Questions or
comments on monitoring sues related to the OCPSp Lfldu try
should be addressed to ap Throb at FTS/202.. 4 7 5 . . 9537
-------
—6—
! Yldentiary Hearings
Permits for ocpsp facilities based on Bpj which have
evjdentiary hearing requests Pending or granted, but for which rio
initial decision has been rendered, should be withdrawn pursuant
to the NPDES regu1atj 0 5 40 CPR 12 4.60(b) The contested
permit(s) should be withdrawn arid reissued to reflect the OCPSF
guidejj 5 using the same process of public comment and
opportunity for public hearing as any other draft permit.
PD? Varjanc
Direct dischargers are eligible for PD? variances from BPT
upon a satisfactory showing by the permjttee that its request
Satisfies the regulatory criteria contained in 40 CPR Part 125
Subpart D.
A request for a BPT PD? variance from the organj chemicals
regujatj 0 must be submitted along with any BAT PD? variance
request by May 3, 1988, 180 days after the regu1atj 0 was
Published in the Federal ! .. gister . If a request is only from
BPT, an argument can bëmade thã a BPT PD? variance request
currently can be submitted by the close of the comment period on
the draft permit.
Direct dischargera are eligible for PD? variances from BAT
upon a satisfactory showing by the permittee that its request
satisfies the criteria contained in sectjor 3 O1(n)(1) of the
Clean Water Act. One requjre is that an application for an
PD? variance from BAT be based solely on information and
supporting data that discussed the PD? factors and was submitted
to EPA during the OCp$p rulemaking establishing the limitations,
or on information and supporting data that the applicant did not
have a reasonable OPPortunity to submit during the rulemaking. A
BAT PD? variance request must be submitted by May 3, 1988.
pses
Indirect dischargers are eligible for PD? variances from PSES
upon a satisfactory Showing by the permittee based on the
statutory criteria. PD? variances from PSES are subject to
essentially the same requjreme 3 as those for PD? variances from
BAT. A PSES PD? variance request must also be submitted by
May 3, 1988.
-------
—7—
Further information on the PD? process as i appj. 5 to the
OCPSF regujatj 0 3 may be Obtained from Mr. Gary Mudiburgh at
PTS/202_ 475 _ 9531 Please notify Mr. Uudiburgh immediately of
variance request 3 you receive SO that we are aware of the
variance workload you are experiencing and the iSsues being
raised and can assist you in their resOl tL 0 In addition when
you receive a reque for an PDp variance from the OCPSF
guidelj 55 a copy should be Submitted to Permits Divjgj 0 by the
Region for a determination of national signifjc As you
know, the Director of OWEp must concur on a specific decision
when the request raises issues of national signifjc
Water Quality _ Based L.imjtatj
All NPDES permits for OCPSP facilities must contain
limitations that 5 SSure compliance with both techno]ogy_ 585
effluent guide1i 3 and applicable numeric and narrative water
quality standards Since the industry manufactures Over 25,000
different chemicals, plastic 8 and Synthetic fibers in a wide
variety of continuous and batch proces 853 and individual
facilities often produce many different product5 simulta ne o u siy
and experience freque changes in product mix, waste water
discharges will often an exceptionally wide variety of
Pollutants. In order to assure compliance with water quality
standards, most OCPSP permits Should contain whole effluent
toxicity limits based on the Principles described in the
Technical Support Document and the 1984 Policy for Water
Quality_Based Permit E.imjtatjons for Toxic Pollutant 5 49pR 9016
(March 1984). If insufficient data are available for determining
the most sensitive species or for establishing toxicity limits,
then section 308 or other authority Should be used to requj the
OCPSF facility to coflduct necessary toxicity tests prior to
permit issuance.
Due to the requjrem 3 for toxic. control established in the
1987 amendments to the Clean VSt t Act, many OCPSF facilities are
likely to be requj . to achieve rapid compliance with State
water quality Standards Section 304(1) of the Act requjr 3
States to develop by February 4, 1989 lists of waters for which
State water quality Standards have flOt been achieved due to the
point source discharge of toxic Pollutants. Those facilities
discharging to the listed waters will be required to have final
individual control strategies (tCS’s) in place by that same
date. The IC5’ , which we are interpreting as NPDES permits,
must contain limits which will achieve compliance with applicable
numeric and narrative water quality standards by June 4, 1992.
-------
—8—
These new requjrerne 5 Will not negate analysis of water quality
impacts for facilities not on listed waters. ouever, they may
result in establishing a phased approach for OCPSF permjttees n
which the first phase of Permitting is directed only toward those
high Priority facilities discharging to listed waters.
Subsequent phases of water quality Permitting wil]. focus Ofl all
Other permittees Which may not have been listed due to a lack of
water quality data.
Best Manage e Practic
BMps are not established by the OCpSp guidelin 55 but Some
in—plant controls in the form of housekeeping Practices, spill.
control, water conservatjo etc. may be requj e to meet the
effluent limitations, Particularly BAT. In the absence of BMPS
established pursuant to the authority of section 30 4(e), permit
writers may use the authority of section 4 02(a)(j) of the Clean
Water Act to establish Bf1P as special conditions in permits on a
case_by_case basis.
Attached for your reference is a two page summary of the
OCpSp effluent limitations guidelj 3 corresponding to the
various subcategories and levels of technology_ 5 controls.
Agaj , caution you to refer to the regu1atj 0 itself when
extracting information for Permitting purposes.
Undoubtedly, there will, be many questjo 8 raised by the
Permitting authorities and the regulat community as we begin to
implement the OCpSp effluent guideline 8 through permits. As a
first step toward answering questio 8 and addressing Your
concerns, the Induatrjai Technology Division has scheduled a
series of workshops for govern regulato 5 as follows:
February 1.0 in Dallas, March 9 in Secaucus, NJ, and March 23 in
Charleston, SC. For workahop reservations and more information,
call Dianne Borden at Weatec Services, Inc. (703) 471 -555Ø
Your im edjate questjo 5 on the application of the OCpsp
guideline 8 to permits Should be addressed to James Gallup, Chief
of the Technical Support Branch at FTS/2 02.. 475 _ 9541
Attachment
CC: J. William Jordan
David Lyons
-------
tO 8T %
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
p Ø t
OFFICE OF
WATER
NOTE :
SUBJECT: Availability of State and Regional Toxics
Control Strategies
FROM: Bill
Jim Gallup
TO: Permits D vision
A file of State and Regional toxics control strategies has
been set up in Room 211. The purpose is to provide access to
these strategies for staff reference and referral.
An o the documents currently on file is attached.
This list is not comprehensive and additions will be made as the
documents become available. A current version of the index will
be kept in the file drawer. State Toxics Control Strategy review
documents will be added as they are completed.
We hope you find the availability of this information useful.
Attachment
-------
INDEX TO TOXICS CONTROL STRATEGIES
To make additions to this index, add name and date of the
document to list and give to Adelaide Gorby to update index. If
you remove a file, please sign and put “document out” card in
place of the file.
ASWIPCA Proceedings — State toxicity elimination and
management strategy (11—83)
REG IONS
Reg. I Toxic Substance Permitting Strategy (1—84)
Management Process for Toxic Control 85
Toxicity Testing Procedures (3—86)
r)raft Toxics Enforcement Stratec y (4-87)
Re9. IT Policy on Toxicity Testing in NPDES Permits (4—86)
Reg. III Existing Procedures for Developing Effluent Limits
for Toxic Pollutants (12—85)
Reg. IV Toxicity Screening Procedures (8—86)
Proposed Permit Toxicity Limits and Monitoring
Requirements NPDES Permits Chlorine Strategy (4—86)
Water Quality Toxics Control for Municipal Permits
Reg. V MUfliCiI i ‘roxicant Control Strategy 1986
Regional Guidance for Implementing Whole Effluent
Toxicity Controls in NPDES Permits (6—87)
Reg. VI Policy for Third Round NPDES Permit Issuance (4—87)
Draft Permit Writers Guidance to Water Quality—
Based Permits (8—87)
Biomonitoring in Second Round NPDES Permits (5-86)
Reg. VII Toxics Control Strategies (4—87)
Reg. VIII The Use of Biomonitoring Techniques to Control
Effluent Toxicity (3—87)
Reg. IX Policy for Control of Toxic Pollution (5-86)
Letters to California (4—86); Hawaii (2—86)
Reg. X
-------
—2—
STATES
Alabama Policy on Water Quality—Based Toxics Pollutant
Permit Limits and Permit Language (5—86)
Connecticut WQ—based Permitting Strategy for Protection of
Aquatic Life from Acute and Chronic Toxicity (l—86)
Delaware Toxics Control Stategy (9—85)
Florida Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Policy for
Florida (5—86)
Bioassay Program Final Report (10—85)
Municipal NPDES Permits Toxics Strategy (2—86)
Georgia Toxics Management Strategy (2—87)
Toxics Control Guidance Document for Protection
of Water Quality (6—86)
Illinois Report on Biomonitoring Program (2-86)
Maine Toxic Pollution Control Strategy (4—85)
Maryland Maryland Toxic Pollutant Control Strategy (Circa 85)
Maryland Aquatic Toxicity Bioassay Guidance
- Document (9—81)
Michigan Rule 57 Procedures for Implementing “Free From”
Provisions (3—86)
Support Document for Proposed Rule 57 Package (3-84)
Guidelines for Rule 57 (1—85)
Toxics Strategy 1987
Nebraska t’n L :m- zi1 ttion Strategy for Regulating Point and
nonpoint Source Pollution Based Upon Narrative
Toxics Criteria (3—85)
New Hampshire Bio—toxicity Compliance Strategy (4—86)
New Jersey Regulating Point Source Discharges of Toxic Sub-
stances into New Jersey’s Waters (8—85)
-------
—3—
STATES
New York Toxics Management and Control (6-87)
Background on Water Qual tty Standards Develop-
ment for Toxics Substances (7-86)
Waste Assimilative Capacity Analysis and Alloca-
tion for Setting Water Quality Based Effluent
Limits (4—87)
Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance
Values (7—85)
SPDES Permit Drafting Strategy (4—85)
Toxicity Testing in the SPDES Program (4-86)
Analytical Detectability for Toxic Pollutants (7—85)
North Carolina Water Quality Toxics Program (1-87)
Pennsylvania Strategy and Procedures for Addressing Toxic
Pc,iiutants in NPDES Permits (Toxics Management
categy), (9—85)
WQ Criteria arid Threshold Levels for the Priority
Pollutants and other Toxics (11—85)
Guidelines for Conducting a Toxics Reduction
Evaluation (11-85)
Vermont Toxic Discharge Control Strategy (1-86)
Virginia Toxics Management Program Description (10-86)
-------
MAR 1 g8
MEMORANDUM
UBJEC’ ’z Transmittal of Final 304(1) Implementation Guidance
FROM: Martha Prothro, Director IRIOINAL SIGNED fl’s ’
Permit. Division MARTHAG.pRQTHR O
Geoff Grubbs, Director
Monitoring and Data Support Division
TO: OW Office Director.
OW Division Director.
Susan Lapow, OGC
Robert Wolcott, OPPE
Attached is a copy of the Final 304(l) Implementation
Guidance. This guidance is being transmitt.d to all States
and Regions and its availability is being announced in the
Federal Register .
A draft final version of this guidanc, was sent to the States
and Reaions by memorandum of August 5, 1987 with instruction.
that the draft final guidar c. be used immediately for purposes
of implementing the requirements of S304(1). Availability of
the draft final guidance was also announced in a Saptsmb.r 22,
19E7 Federal Register notice. Numerous comments on the draft
final guidance were received from Regions, States, POfl s, indus-
tries, and environmental groups. The guidanc. was revised based
pon thss. CO flt$. Overall, the final guidance :j. substantially
the same as the draft final guidance, however, a number of changes
were made:
o Relationship of f 304(1) to the Ongoing Programs Th, guidance
directs States to comply with the 3O4(l) •t utory tin.
frame. and omit, references to phases.’ fr4owevar, the
guidance continue. to recognise th. ongoing nature of
th. national toxics program and the need to assess wat g
and develop controls after the 3O4(l) deadline, are met.
Additional iiscussjons of the relationship between 5304(1)
and 3fl3(c)(2) have also been provided.
o Listing Waters arid Point Sources : Clarification c Nknownrn
and suspectedw problens has been provided. In a-ldition,
a list cf categories of wators to be eva1uat d ‘ n
-------
developing list, of waters has been included. Procedures
for delisttng waters has also been added.
o Individual Control &trategiess More explicit 1angua
has been added concerning an acceptable individual contro
strategy nd strass .ng that compliance with water ual ty
standards must be achieved by June 1992.
Inpl entation of the requirements of 3O4(1) is already
underway in the Regions and Stat.. and we look forward to
continuing to work with all groups to ensure that the statutory
requireu ents are r et. We are also developing regulation . to
both codify and interpret the requirements of 5304(1) and to
strengthen the ongoing national toxic. control program. W. will
keep you apprised of thi. effort.
Please contact us if you have any questiona on this final
ciuidance. We appreciat. th. high quality assistance and persis-
tence of everyone who helped in developing this draft guidance.
Please conv.y our thank. to the approprist. members of your
staff.
Attac ’.m.nta
bccz Pertuits Division Staff
Monitoring and Data Support Division Staff
Appropriate Staff in oth.r of fic.s
-------
-“
A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
FINAL GUIDANCE
IMPLDIENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS UNDER §304(1)
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AS AMENDED
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS
AND STANDARDS
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT
AND PERMITS
MARCH 1988
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E CUTIVE SUMMARY...... .... .. . . ...••••. •. Si
I • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • , • , • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • • 1
II. SURFACEWATERTOXICSCONTROLPROGRAM...................3
A • The New Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Relationship of New Requirements to
going Programs. ...SSISSSI ••••S•••••• . . ........ .5
. Technical Approaches to Surface Water Toxics
Contro]................................ .... ...... 7
III. IDENTIFICATION OP WATERS AND POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES..10
A. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 10
B. Statutory Requirement. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
C. Identification of Waters................ .... ......14
D. Known and Suspected Problem Waters................16
E. ListingandDelistingWater s......................17
F. Screening Techniques... .......••••.. ........... . . .18
G. Technical Considerations for Listing............. .20
H. Reporting Lists of Waters.........................21
I. Identification of Point Sources
and A unts Discharged. • •. • . .... . . . .. . . . . ..22
J. Approval of Lists of Waters and Point
Source Diechargers • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
IV. DEVELOPMENT OP INDIVIDUAL CONTROL STRATEGIES..........24
A. Statutory Requirement and Relationship to
Other Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
B. Procedural Corisiderations............... .... . . . . 1.25
C. Technical Considerations..........................30
V• IMPLEMENTATION.. .....••••••• ••.....•. •....... . 1 .• ..35
A. Schedule for Implementation of 3O4(1)
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
B. State Responsibilities. . ........ .............. .1.37
C • EPA Responsibilities..... . . . • •.. . . . . ..37
D • State Revolving Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
B • Technical Assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .39
F. Public Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
-------
COPY OF THIS GU ANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUZST
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
AUG 41988
OFFICE O
£NFOR(EUFNT Mb
COMPtJANr OtgIyojlI,.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Bringing Enforcement Actions Against
POTWs for Failure to Implement Pretreatment
Programs
FROM: Glenn L. Unterberger 4Ic .. J’Lh. ,4s
Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Water 1
J. Wi]. 1 iam Jordan ,,- ,6/’.
Enforcement Divisior Dir• or,
Off ice of Water Enforcement and Permits
To: Regional Counsels
Regional Water Management Division Directors
Susan Lepow, Associate General Counsel for Water
David Buente, Chief, Environmental Enforcement, DOJ
Attached is a final guidance document that explains the
legal and policy considerations involved in deciding whether
and how EPA shall pursue enforcement actions under the Clean
Water Act against POTWa that have failed to adequately
implement their pretreatment programs. 1 A model judic .al
complaint and model consent decree for failure to implement
cases are included with this Guidance. 2 We will be preparing
model administrative pleadings for these cases in the near
future. -
This guidance document was distributed in draft for
comment on February 11, 1988 (the draft wag marked “January
1988 Regional Comment Draft). We received comments from
seven regions, two headquarters’ offices, an 1 the Department
of Justice. The comments were generally favorable and the
Guidance has been revised pursuant to those comments.
2 Drafts of the model judicial complaint and consent
decree were sert to several regions and the Department of
Justice for revi.e in May 1988. We received helpful comments
and the enclosed models have been revised accordingly.
-------
-2—
Now that virtually all Federally required local
pretreat ient programs have been approved, EPA is placing a
high priority on assuring that programs are fully imple-
mented. Thus, EPA Regions and NPDES States flOW record on the
Quarterly Noncompliance Report, pursuant to the definition of
Reportable Noncompliance for POTW pretreatment program
implementation, those POTWs that have failed to adequately
implement their pretreatment program requirements. 3
Given finite resources, EPA enforcement actions will, not
be appropriate for all of the POTWs that are listed on the
QNCR for Reportable Noncompliance with pretreatment implemen-
tation requirements. The enclosed guidance document is
intended to help EPA Regions select the best cases for
enforcement in this area.
Enforcement actions against POTWg for failure to
implement will be a high priority in FY 1989. Consistent
with the attached guidance, we encourage all Regions to focus
resources on POTWs that have failed to adequately implement
their pretreatment programs.
We encourage all Regions to discuss any potential
enforcement actions in this area with us. Discussion of
potential cases for failure to implement should be directed
to David Hindi , OECM-Water, (LE-l34w), FTS 475-8547, or Ed
Bender, OWEP, (EN—338), FTS 475-8331.
Attachment
cc: Ed Reich
Jim Elder
Paul Thompson -
Tom Gallagher
Cynthia Dougherty
ORC Water Branch Chiefs
Regional Water Management Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regional Pretreatment Coordinators
Assistant Chiefs, DOJ Environmental Enforcement
OE ( Water Attorneys
See, U.S. EPA, Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits, GuiL ,.. E for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncom-
pliance with Pretreatment Implementation Requirements,
September 1987.
-------
GUIDANCE ON BRINGING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST POTWS
FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS
August 4, 1988
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECtJTIVESU 4ARY ......•••••••• 1
II. INTRODUCTION: POTW Implementation as the Key to an
Effective National Pretreatment Program . . 4
A. Purpose of this Guidance . . . . 4
B. Related Pretreatment Guidance Documents . . . . 5
C. Background on the National Pretreatment Program 6
III. LEGAL BASIS FOR ENFORCING POTW PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION: Look First to a POTW’s Permit . 8
A. Statutory Authority for Requiring POTW
Pretreatment Programs . . . . . . 8
B. Civil Judicial Enforcement Authority . . . . . . 9
C. Administrative Enforcement Authority . . . . . . 12
D. Criminal Penalty Authority . . . . . . . . . . . 13
IV. IDENTIFYING POTW PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION
VIOLATIONS LIKELY TO MERIT AN ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE:
Evaluating a POTW’s Actions In Light of Allowed
Flexibility and Impact of the Violation . . . . 14
A. Identifying Potential Violations . . . . . . . . 14
B. Determining the Extent To Which Identified
Violations Warrant an Enforcement Response:
How Strong Are EPA’s Claims? . . . . . . . . 16
1. Evaluating Unreasonable POTW Action Under
Flexible Implementation Requirements . . 16
2. Evaluating the Impact or Severity of
Identified Violations . . . . . . . . . . 18
a. Inadequate Program Implementation
Causing POTW Effluent Limit
- Violations. 18
b. Inadequate Implementation Not Causing
Effluent Violations . . . . . . . . 19
V. ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT . . . . 20
A. General Considerations for Choosing an
Appropriate Enforcement Response . . . . . . . 20
B. Penalty Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
C. Joining Industrial ‘.h.ers (lUs, and States . . . 23
ATTAC NT A: MODEL FORM FOR LISTING AND EVALUATING
PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION VIOLATIONS
1.
-------
ATTAC} (ENT 3: M DEL CIVIL JUDICIAL COMPLAINT FOR
PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION CASE
ATTAC NT C: MODEL CIVIL JUDICIAL CONSENT DECREE FOR
PRETREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION CASE
ii
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG 9 ! &3
o cice op
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Strategy for the Regulation of Pulp and Paper
, ill Dioxin Discharges to the Waters of the United
( States
,
FROM: Rebecca W. Hanmer
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water (WH—556)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
NPDES State Directors
EPA’S goal is to eliminate the presence of dioxin in
discharges from pulp and paper mills to the waters of the United
States. Attached is an interim strategy for the regulation of
dioxin discharges from these mills. This interim strategy calls
for (1) aggressive action to fully implement or, where necessary,
to develop State water quality standards for dioxin applicable to
all water bodies where mills using chlorine bleach processes are
discharging; (2) collection of data on each of the 104 affected
mills, including dioxin levels in their pulps, effluents and
sludges; (3) detailed technical evaluation of wastewater
treatment technologies and/or in—process changes to reduce or
eliminate the presence of dioxin in wastewater discharges; and
(4) issuance of NPDES permits that regulate and require
monitoring for dioxin, examine effluent toxicity and provide for
modification to tighten controls consistent with the final
strategy and the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Although this document should be used now, I would
appreciate having your comments on this interim strategy and ask
that you send any comments to me on implementation of the
strategy. We plan to issue a final strategy after reviewing your
comments and the results of the EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative
Dioxin Study now underway to characterize dioxin in the pulp,
effluent and sludge of 104 pulp and paper mills.
Also, you should be aware that the Office of Research and
Development CORD) has developed an expert system which can be
used on an IBM—compatible personal computer to walk through a
dioxin exposure assessment. This expert system is now out for
peer review. ORD expects it to be available for your use this
calendar year.
-------
—2—
We are developing material similar to the interim strategy
to address permitting of newly constructed bleach kraft pulp and
paper mills.
If you would like to discuss this, please feel free to call
Jim Elder (FTs/202—475—8488) if you have questions on NPDES
permitting; or call Martha Prothro (FTS/202—382—5400) with
questions on water quality standards, analytical studies or
evaluation of technology such as the Bioaccumulatjon Study or the
Cooperative Study.
Attachment
cc: Environmental Services Division Directors
Water Quality Branch Chiefs
water Permits Branch Chiefs
Charles Elkins (TS—792)
Susan G. Lepow (LE—132w)
Mahesh Podar (PM—221)
Eric Strassler (PM—223)
-------
Interim Strategy for the Regulation of Pulp and Paper Mill
Dioxin Discharges to the Waters of the United States
EPA’s goal is to eliminate the presence of dioxin in
discharges from pulp and paper mills to the waters of the United
States. Ultimately, this goal should be reflected in National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits based on
future national technology—based effluent guidelines and/or on
State water quality standards designed to protect aquatic life
and human health.
Four Office of Water, State, and EPA Regional activities are
necessary to achieve this goal. Many other activities related to
controlling dioxin are underway in other EPA Offices. A final
strategy for the regulation of dioxin in pulp and paper mill
discharges to the waters of the United States will be issued as
soon as possible after review of data now being developed as
discussed below.
This interim strategy calls for (1) aggressive action to
fully implement or, where necessary, develop State water quality
standards for dioxin at all sites where mills using chlorine
bleach processes are discharging; (2) collection of data on each
of the 104 affected mills, including dioxin levels in their
puips, effluents and sludges; (3) detailed technical evaluation
of wastewater treatment technologies and/or in—process changes to
reduce or eliminate the presence of dioxin in wastewater
discharges; and (4) issuance of NPDES permits that regulate and
require monitoring for dioxin, examine effluent toxicity and
provide for modification to tighten controls consistent with the
final strategy and the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Water Quality Standards Development
The Regions will assure that all affected States establish a
firm State water quality regulatory basis for controlling dioxin
at the affected sites as quickly as possible. To accomplish this
task, the Regions will begin immediately to work with States to
develop appropriate numerical water quality criteria for dioxin
for waters receiving discharges from the affected pulp and paper
mills. The criteria can be based upon the existing EPA criteria
document for dioxin and/or site—specific conditions. In all
cases, initial steps necessary for the adoption of numerical
water quality criteria (or derived numeric criteria) for dioxin
should begin immediately. Such steps include completion of any
necessary exposure assessments, State selection of its preferred
risk level, and compilation of- appropriate monitoring data and
background documents. A list of documents which can be used to
assist in adopting dioxin criteria, including development of
site—specific risk assessments, is attached. Public
-------
2
participation must be provided for as required by federal
regulations. In addition, the Office of Water will provide
assistance to Regions and States in specific cases.
Regions and States should confer upon and expeditiously
resolve any other State water quality standards issues including
variances or changes in use designation that need to be resolved
in order to address discharges of dioxin from pulp and paper
mills. The goal is to clear the way to set water quality—based
effluent limitations in permits and to encourage the industry to
take all steps necessary to develop technologies that will
eliminate dioxin from their discharges at the earliest achievable
date.
Regions may also need to assist States in immediate State
actions to protect human health through issuance of fish
consumption advisories or bans.
Collection of Data
EPA is now receiving data from the National Bioaccumu].atjon
Study and the EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin Study.
As part of the National Bioaccumulatjon Study, EPA is
obtaining analyses of dioxin levels in fish which have been or
are being collected near bleached kraft pulp mills. Fish tissue
data from areas near a number of these mills have already been
distributed to the Regions. Release of the data generated as
part of the Bioaccumu].atjon Study is being handled using the
procedures established in February 1988.
The EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin Study was signed
by all parties on April 25, 1988. As a result of this study, EPA
will receive dioxin data from 1U4 pulp mills that bleach chemical
pulps, including process information and dioxin analyses on
effluent, sludge and pulp from all 104 mills. Headquarters staff
will provide individual mill data to the Regions as it becomes
available. This study will be completed for all mills by April
1989.
Staff are in the process of validating analytical methods
for dioxins in pulp mill matrices. Additionally, analytical
comparability studies are being conducted between several u.s.
and Canadian laboratories. This study will ensure that
laboratory capacity will be available for Regional and State
dioxin activities.
Technical. Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Technologies and/or
In—Process Changes to Reduce or Eliminate Dioxin Discharges
EPA has initiated a program to revise the existing pulp and
paper effluent limitations guidelines regulation, with a view
-------
3
toward establishing best available technology economically
achievable (BAT) limitations for dioxin and other nonconverltional
or toxic pollutants of concern. As a part of this activity, EPA
is evaluating the effectiveness of various process modifications,
such as oxygen delignification and chlorine dioxide bleaching, in
reducing dioxin generation arid discharge. Detailed evaluation of
some of these mills has already begun.
As a part of the Cooperative Dioxin Study, the paper
industry has agreed to conduct a more intensive study of
bleaching lines at approximately 25 mills. This study includes
detailed process evaluation at mills that use a variety of
bleaching processes. The objectives of the study include
determination of the bleaching operations in ‘hich dioxin is
formed, process COnditions affecting dioxin formation and factors
affecting dioxin removal from the bleaching process.
EPA staff have conducted a treatability study at two
bleached kraft facilities to evaluate total suspended solids
(TSS) and dioxin reduction resulting from coagulant and polymer
addition. When these results are final, a report of the results
will be provided to the Regions.
EPA staff will also seek information from other governments,
including Sweden and Canada, concerning their technology
evaluations, and make the information available to the Regions
and States as appropriate.
Issuance of Interim NPDES Permits
As soon as possible, permits for the affected mills shall be
reissued or reopened to establish an appropriate best
professional judgment (BPJ) BAT effluent limitation for dioxin
for the mill. The method used for developing a BPJ BAT
limitation for dioxin for an individual mill and the limitation
itself will depend on site—specific circumstances at the
facility. The effluent limitation can be developed by first
requiring the mill to conduct a study leading to development and
implementation of short— and long—term plans for minimization of
use of chlorine and chlorine derivatives in bleach plant
operations. In—plant or other controls may be used in
determining the appropriate BPJ BAT effluent limitation. One
basis for the effluent limitation would be the reduction of
dioxin that can be achieved through optimization of suspended
solids controls, particularly from secondary clarifiers or
lagoons at biological treatment facilities. (The results of the
treatabi]ity study may be useful to assist in developing this
limitation.) Initially, the Office of Water will provide
assistance to some Regional and State Permitting authorities in
developing these interim control approaches. We are now working
to identify appropriate candidate mills for which interim control
requirements will be developed. We will share the experience
-------
4
gained in developing permit provisions for these mills with other
affected Regions and States.
The interim BPJ BAT limitation should in most cases be more
stringent than the existing discharge. Compliance with these
effluent limitations will be requited as soon as possible.
Dioxin effluent monitoring shall be required, but where
effluent monitoring is unlikely to provide useful data, may be
established for individual process discharges or other
appropriate in—plant locations. The Cooperative Dioxin Study
will provide dioxin data from effluents, puips and sludges from
104 mills that bleach chemical pulps with chlorine or chlorine
derivatives. These data will be made available to the Regions
and States as they are received and may be helpful in modifying
or developing the permit monitoring requirements to reflect the
significance of the discharges. Ambient monitoring of the water
column, sediments and fish may be required in the permit or
alternatively through other mechanisms. The availability of
laboratory capacity may impact the frequency of monitoring
required.
The permit shall require both chronic and acute aquatic
toxicity monitoring, a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) and
other requirements as necessary to ensure the mills are working
toward a reduction, as soon as possible, of dioxin discharges
for the long—term protection of water quality and human health.
The permit shall also contain a specific reopener. The
reopener shall provide for modification of the permit to reflect
any additional information or data, including information on the
feasibility of process changes or new treatability data. The
reopener will also provide for modification, if necessary, to
reflect the final permitting strategy for dioxin in pulp and
paper effluents and any effluent guidelines limitations
promulgated for dioxins during the permit term.
Discharges from many if not all of the pulp and paper mills
will also be covered by section 304(1) of the CWA.
Interpretation of provisions of section 304(1) will be addressed
soon in proposed regulations. To the extent that pulp and paper
mill discharges of dioxin are covered by section 304(1), the
regulations will provide the Agency’s permitting approach.
Attachment
-------
Selected Bibliography Relevant to Adopting
State water Quality Criteria for Dioxin
“Guidelines for Deriving Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Human Health,” Federal Register , Vol. 45, No. 231, P. 79347,
November 28, 1980.
Draft “Guidelines for the Preparation of Water Quality AdvLsorjes
for Human Health Protection,” (Request for Science Advisory Board
Review), June 30, 1987.
“Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with
Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo—p—Dioxins and
— Dibenzo Furans (CDDs and CDFs),” (Co—authored by Frank
GostomskiJ, EPA 625/3—87/012, March 1987.
“Ambient Water Quality Criteria for 2 3 7 8—Tetrachloro—Dibenzo_p...
Dioxin,” EPA 440/5—84/007, February 1984.
“Quality CriterLa for Water — 1986,” EPA 440/5—86/001, May 1987.
“Technical Support Document for Water Quality—Based TOxics
Control,” EPA 440/4—85/032, September 1985.
Draft “Guidance for Establjshment of Ambient Criteria to Limit
Human Exposure to Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish,” (Under
Office of Water Review), June 1988.
“Interim Sediment Criteria Values for Nonpolar Hydrophobic Organic
Contaminants,” Sediment Criteria Document Number 17, May 1988.
Public Review Draft, “Proposed Risk Management Actions for Dioxin
Contamination at Midland, Michigan,” EPA 905/4—88—006, April
1988.
“Risk Assessment for Dioxin Contamination at Midland, Michigan,”
EPA 905/4—88—005, April 1988.
Draft “Guidance Manual for Assessing Human Health Risks from
Chemical Contamination of Fish and Shellfish,” (Under Office of
Water Review), October 1987.
-------
COPY AVMLA BLE UPON REQUEST
UNIT STATES ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2040
OFPICU O
. JJG I 2 988
MEMO RAN DUM
SUBJECT: Colorado Springs’ Proposed Alternative
Biomonitoring Regulation
FROM: Ja1n (4 irector
Ofr(ice of Water Enforcement
I and Permits (EN- ’335)
TO: Max H. Dodsori, Director
Water Management Division
Region V I I I
The Office of Water Enforcement and Permit, has reviewed the
“Proposed Alternative Biomonitoring Regulatjon dated July 14,
988 which was developed by the City of Colorado Springs
‘astewater Division. Although the proposal is comprehensive and
innovative in certain respects, we have identified a number of
serious concerns with the content, of the draft itself. Our most
signifjcan concern, are described below, while our specific
comments are included in the Attachment.
Our overall. comment is that the proposal define, a
Permitting and enforcement program in a level of detail not
appropriate for State regulation,. These procedure, are likely
to be too rigid and quickly outdated by advance, in treatment
technology and improvements in the monitoring capabilities of
consulting engineers, laboratories, and permittee,.
The basis-definition of a permit limit in the proposal is
inconsistent with Federal requirement,. As is di5CU , ,.d in the
Attachment, ths proposed requirement that there be a pattern of
toxicity prior to an enforcement action conflict, with Federal
require.e for calculating effluent Limitations ( ii . 40 CFR
122.45(d)) and enforcing permit violation, (see CWA 1402(b)(7)
and 40 CFR 123.27). In addition, the requir T’.howj g of a tack
of di1igence on the part of the permjtte. by a regulatory
authority is inconsistent with 40 CFR 123.27(b)(2) and confuses
the exercise of enforcement discretion by the Permitting
hority with the issue of whether a permit violation has
urred. Enforcement must be based on the result, of a
-------
2
measure.snt of an effluent constituent or parameter, such as
toxicity, which indicates a violation of a permit limit. The
proposal unequivocally states that the results of biomonitoririg
tests alone Shall riot constitute a permit violation. This is riot
acceptable in a State regulat •
In the attached June 7, 1988 letter to the Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), I recognized that POTWs
have certain special problem, involving toxic control. I stated
that EPA is developing a Compliance monitoring and enforcement
strategy for water quality_based tozics Control that attempts to
address some of the problem, which are unique to Po’rw,. When
final, the strategy will ensure that enforcement actions on
effluent toxicity are not initiated without allowing Porwa an
opportunity to establish a program for achievuig compliance. The
draft strategy Supports the use of compliance schedules as permit
conditiori . It would allow a municipality to identify a means
for achieving compliance within a Specified period of time. EPA
is also reviewing draft permit language based on the draft
compliance monitoring and enforcement strategy which would allow
for an affirmative defense against a penalty action where a PoTW
is truly unable to comply with a toxic limit after all rea.o ble
efforts to achieve compliance have been unsuccessful. In
addition, to successfully invoke an affirmative defense, the
permittee would be required to show that it is in compliance with
all other requirements and conditions of the permit,
I must emphasize however, that this draft language has not
been adopted and is still undergoing legal review within the
Agency. Therefore, while we agree in concept with certain
elements of the proposed regu1atjo which take into consideration
the particular concern, of POTWe in Complying with toxic.
requireme tg, it is inappropriate to include these elements of
the proposal in a State regulation. Since the CWA is a strict
liability statute, EPA and State regulatory authorities must
retain the, option of enforcing any exceedenc. of a permit limit
as a violation. it should also be noted that the proposed
regulatjo is not limited to POTWs, but applies to all &PDES
permjtt.e. in Colorado.
We also have a number of technical concern, with the
proposed regulation. Several sections of the proposal are
inconsistent with EPA’s surface water tozics control program.
Exemptions and waiver, from requireme , of the proposed
regulation are provided for various categories of discharger..
Some of these waiver, and exemption, are inappropriate unless
they are further qualified to ensure that all discharges which
are potentially toxic are covered by the regulatjo . Another
concern is the provision that would allow a discharger to modify
the biomonitoring test protocol. The situations in which this
might be needed are anticipated to occur very infrequently if at
all, but the language leads one to believe that it may be a
-------
3
CO on occurrence. In addition, this provision is an example of
the level of detail which is inappropriate for a regulat o • The
languag• Should be removed and the subject Left to the permit
issuance process if and when one of these occasions might arise.
The proposal also fails to address requireme 5 for development
of limitations to prevent Chronic toxicity.
Another concern involves the variance provision specified in
6 . 9 . 7 (3)(d)(ijj)( ) The proposed variance is tied in the
proposal to an analysis of costs and benefits for an individual
discharger. This is inconsistent with applicable Federal water
quality standards regulatjo 5 and is discussed in more detail in
the Attachment.
In a more Positive light, we note that the regulat o
contains some very useful features, In particular, the
utilization of toxicity_ba 5e permit limits and corresponding
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREe) indicate a realization that
these requireme 5 are essential to implementing a fully
effective toxica control program. These sections of the proposal
must be retained and, where necessary, strengthe by including
limitations for controlling chronic toxicity impacts.
We believe the proposal must be significant’y revised in the
areas noted here before we could recommend concurrence as a
modification to Colorado’s NPDES program, We also believe that a
proposed revision of this magnitude would COnat]tute a
ubstantial revision under 40 CFR l 2 3.62(b)(2), and would thus be
subject to Federal public notice and comment require 5 prior
to approval by EPA.
Although we have considerabl, concerns with the current
proposal, we remaj willing to work with all. parties to develop
an effective biomonitoring regujatjo . Please do not hesitate to
contact me at (PTS) 475—8488 if you have any questjo s or have
your staff .con act Rick Brand.. of my staff at (rI ’s) 475—9525,
Attachment
cc: Bob uk1 ,, Stat, of Colorado
-------
S? 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 .J 4
AUS I 1988
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Best Management Practices (BMPS) in NPDES Permits —
Information Memorandum
FROM: James D. Gallup, Chief
Technical Support Bran
TO: Regional Permit Branch hiefs
Region I — X
This memorandum provides information about the use of best
management practices (BMPs) in NPDES permits. Please make the
information available to your staff and your States as you deem
appropriate.
BMP5 are valuable permitting tools where, for example,
numerical effluent limits are infeasible, where housekeeping
problems exist or where facilities have a history of leaks or
spills. Other situations at industrial facilities may warrant
BMP5 after a case—by-case evaluation. BMP5 are appropriately
used to supplement numerical effluent limitations in permits.
They are frequently procedural, flexible and qualitative.
We envision BMPs to be particulary useful as we address
stormwater and combined sewer overflows in permits.
Section 402(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the
incorporation of BliPs into permits on a case—by—case basis. BMP5
should be considered for all permits issued or reissued to
industrial facilities to control plant site runoff, spillage or
leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material
storage which are associated with, or ancillary to, industrial
manufacturing or treatment processes. Ancillary operation s
include materials storage areas; in—plant transfer, process and
material handling areas; loading and unloading operations; plant
site runoff; and sludge and waste disposal areas. BMP5 will be
-------
—2—
particularly useful in issuing permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. In addition, the regulatory
scheme that is being developed for permits for discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems will emphasize a variety
of source control measures, including management practices,
control techniques and systems, and BMPs when an end—of—pipe
treatment technology is not appropriate for this type of
discharge. Source.control measures will also play an important
role in issuing permits for combined sewer overflows.
Attachment 1 is a bibliography of BMP guidance dating back
to 1979. BMPs are placed in irmits in two basic ways: BMP
plans and site or pollutant—specific BMPs. 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 basic components of BMP
plans. These specific requirements are summarized in attachment
2, Overview of Best Management Practices. Site—specific BMPs may
be imposed as conditions of the BMP plan or as independent
provisions of the permit, often in the special conditions.
Site—specific or pollutant—specific BMPs are left to the
discretion of the permit writer and are highly dependent on a
careful review of the circumstances at a particular facility.
Attachment 3 is a listing of permits, by permit number, which
contain BMP requirements. Attachment 4 summarizes recent actual
incidents preventable by effective BMPS.
Should you or your staff need additional information on
BMP5, please contact Hap Thron of my staff at FTS 475—9537.
Attachments: 1 — Bibliography of BMP Guidance
2 — Overview of Best Management Practices
3 — Permits with BMP Plans or Site-specific BMPs
4 — Summary of Recent Chemical Incidents
Preventable by Effective BMPs.
-------
Attachment 1
Biblioara hv
Technical Guidance on BMPs in the NPDES Program
Form of Guidance Title Date
Technical Paper Best Management Practices 5/9/79
for Control of Toxic and
Hazardous Materials; Thron,
H.M. et. al., presented at
the 34th Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference, Lafayette,
Indiana
Report EPA No. NPDES Best Management Practices
600/9-79-045 Guidance Document; Hydroscience 12/79
Inc., EPA Contract Number
6 8—03—2568
Report NPDES Best Management Practice 6/81
Guidance Document (Revised);
NPDES Technical Support Branch
Technical Paper Best Management Practices; 4/20/82
Useful Tools for Cleaning
Up, Thron, H.M., and
Rogoshweski, P.J., presented
at the 1982 Hazardous Material
Spills Conference, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
Case histories NPDES Best Management Practices; 1/29/83
Case Histories; JRB Associates,
Inc., EPA Contract Number
68—01—5052,
Technical Technical Guidance on Best 4/15/83
Memorandum No. 1 Managament Practices (BMP5)
in NPDES Permits; Jordan, J.W.
to Regional Permit Branch Chiefs
Technical Technical Guidance on Best 3/23/84
Memorandum No. 2 Management Practices (BMPs) in
NPDES Permits; Jordan, J.W.
to Regional Permit Branch
Chief
-------
—2—
Information Best Management Practices (BMPs) 6/3/85
Memorandum in NPDES Permits; Grubbs, Geoffrey
to Regional Permit Branch Chief
Information Best Management Practices (BMPs) 8/29/86
Memorandum in NPDES Permits; Gallup, James
to Regional Permit Branch Chiefs
Information Best Management Practices (BMPs) 8/11/87
Memorandum NPDES Permits; Gallup, James to
Regional Permit Branch Chiefs
Information Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Memorandum in NPDES permits; Gallup, James 8/19/88
to Regional Permit Branch Chiefs
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
INTRODUCTION :
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. BMP5 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 tor 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, BMPs 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. BMP5,
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
nlan within six months and impl ’tnentation 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
-------
—2—
th 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
0 Name and location of facility
• Statement of B 1P policy and objective
° Review by plant manager
2. Specific Requirements -
• BMP committee
• Risk identification and assessment
• Reporting of BMP incidents
• Materials comnatibility
o Good housekeeping
o Preventive maintenance
0 Inspections and records
O Security
0 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 implementatjo ,
maintenance and updating. Thus, the committee’s functions are
siriilar to those of a plant fire prevention or safety committee.
Plant management, not the committee, has over3].1. resnonsibility
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 facility’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
BMP inspections and records procedures, review of environmental
incidents to determine and implement necessary changes to the
BMP plan; coordination of incident notification, response, and
clean—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 BMP requirements should
he identified by the BMP committee, plant engineering group,
environmental engineer or others in the plant. ach 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,
-------
—3—
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 details 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, runoff 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:
comoatibility ot the chemicals being stored with the container
materials; compatibility of different chemicals upon mixing in a
container; and compatability of the cr,ntainer with its environment.
The BMP plan should provide procedures to address these three
aspects in the design and operation of the equioment used for the
storage or transfer of toxic and hazardous materials.
Incompatible materials can cause equipment failure resulting
from corrosion, fire or explosion. Equipment failure can be
prevented by ensuring that the hazardous substances or toxic
pollutants re compatible with the container contents and the
surrounding environment.
GOOD HOtJSEKEEPING :
Good housekeeping is the maintenance of a clean, orderly
work envjornment 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 cheanup of ccumulatjons of dry
chemicals as necessary to prevent them From reaching receiving
wat rs? anr provision for storage of containers or drums to keep
them from orotruding into op n walkways or pathways.
-------
—4—
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 rograrn 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 degree of environmental protection. A BMP plan
should not require the development of a redundant PM orogram.
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 equipment and systems;
appropriate adjustment, repair, or replacem nt of items; and
maintenance of complete PM records on the applicable equipment
and systems.
INSPECTIONS AND RECORDS :
An thspection and records system detects and documents
actual or potential RMP incidentc. 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 he instituted to assure that adequate
resoonse and corrective action have be’ n 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 ootential for significant
discharges. To determine the inspection frequency and inspection
procedures, experienced personnel should evaluate the causes of
prev jous 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
‘echniques . nd cost efEectiveness of 3MPs employed.
SECURITY :
A securit? syst3m prevents accidental or intentional s r try
to a plant which might result in vandalism, theft, sabotage or
other improoer or illegal use of plant Facilities that possibly
-------
—5—
could 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 improv ments which are necessary to eflsure
that toxic chemicals are not discharged to receiving waters in
significant quantities as 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
tndividua l resDonsibj].itjes of each emoloyee. Typically, these
could be a part of routine emnLoyee meetings for safety or fire
protection. Such meetings should highlight previous spill events
or failures, malfunctioning equipment, and new or modified BMPs.
Training sessions should review the BMP plan and associated
procedures. Just as fire drills are used to improve art employee’s
reaction to a fire emergency, spill or envir nrnertta1 incident
drills may serve to improve the employee’s reactions to BMP—related
incidents. Plants are encourag d 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 OR POLLUTANT—SPECIFIC BMPS :
Site—specific and pollutant—specific BMPs 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 RMPs to supplement
the quantitative effluent Limits on specific pollutants in the
permit. These “situation—specific” BMPs may he Conventional, such
as secondary containment around a storage tank or innovative, such
as siting containers so that a cpill caused by a careless forklift
Operator wtLl not flow into the river. Other examples of site—
specific Bt4ps are contained in recent NPDES Permits.
-------
ATI’ MENT 3
PEE 1ITS WITH a PLANS OR SITE - SP IFIC 1PS
BMP Plan (required in permit)
AL 22314 AL 46370 AL 47597
AR 38512 AZ 2144 CO 248
CT 86 DE 20001 FL 1104
FL 1139 FL 2771 FL 34690
FL 37338 FL 37923 IA 191
IA 205 IA 2900900 809
IL 2267 IN 2666 IN 49751
IN 53171 KY 134]. KY 1431
KY 1716 KY 3603 IA 54828
LA 59846 94 ?V 1279
P V 53431 M D 370 MD 4863
C 58297 60 507
tTh 647 NE 701 NE 1210
NE 26565 NJ 787 NJ 3166
NJ 3867 NJ 4120 N J 4286
NJ 5061 NJ 5240 NY 574
NY 1635 NY 2160 NY 2399
NY 3310 NY 3328 NY 11043
OR 957 OR 6327 OR 515
OR 1589 OR 1627 OR 2542
SC302 SC914 9C1163
SC 1333 SC 1368 SC 1856
SC 2453 SC 2798 SC 3255
SC 3441 SC 24554 29157
VA 26557 WA 281 WA 647
WA 931 WA 5095 WV 86
WV 108 WV 167 WV 370
WV 841 WV 1121 W 1279
WV 1651 WV 2399 W 2496
WV 4588 WV 4740
B? ‘S (Best Man en nt Pr tices
— f i1ities ar 1 pr tices in
use)
E 24538 AL 213 AL 1970
AL 3891 AR 1171 CA 57177
CO 35394 FL 2488 FL 37869
GA 2071 LA 205 LA 5223
LA 38245 MO 4863 MS 294].
NY 72061 OR 2542 RI 21164
WA 2615 WV 23281
Source: ? bstracts of Industrial NPD Permits , C EP 86 - 01
July, 1986
-------
SUMMARY OF RECENT CHEMICAL It ANTS PREVENTABLE BY EFFECTIVE BMPS
Incident Date Facility Chemical Quantity Cause BMP5 to Prevent Incident
March 4, 1987 Mid—Valley Pipeline Crude Oil 126,000 gal Pipe leak Non—destructive testing
Lima, OH Visual Inspection
April 6, 1987 Kennebec River Aqueous 726 drums Severe Proper storage
Waterville, ME Ammonia Flooding, Good housekeeping
and Glyoxal drums
stored near
river
April 24, 1987 Nyacol Products Sodium 43 lbs Dumping Training
Ashland, MA Picrate Security
June 2, 1987 Unocal Chemical Anhydrous 8 tons Failed Preventive maintenance
Kenai, AK Ammonia Flange Non—destructive testing
Visual Inspection
Sept. 13, 1987 Monsanto Phosphorus 300 gal Open Valve Training
Everett, MA Trichloride Visual Inspection
Oct. 15, 1987 HaliburtOn Services Hydro— 10,000 gal Ruptured Non—destructive testing
Mount Laurel, NJ chloric Tank Visual Inspection
Acid Preventive Maintenance
Oct. 30, 1987 Marathon Oil Hydofluoric Unknown Crane Training
Texas City, TX Acid Accident
damaging
pressurized
tank
4-
-------
Feb. 2, 1988 Mattiace Chemical Toluene, 100,000 gal Deteriorated Visual Inspection
Glen Cove, NY Xylene, tanks and Non—destructive
Methyl— drums testing
ethyl ketone Preventive
Maintenance
July 1, 1988 LCP Chemical Chlorine 300 lbs Human error Sewer separation
Solvay, NY Caustic Soda 1500 lbs and combined Equipment inspections
Sodium drainage Waste stream segregatio
Hypo— 80,000 lbs system
chlorite
Mercury Unknown
-------
EPA
Office of Water
Enforcemm and Permits
Washington, t 20460
United States Segtembe, 1960
Environmentel Protection
Agency
Guidance Manual for
Control of Slug Loadings
to POTWs
A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
ppJ____ —-——
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. I ODU ION 1—1
1. 1 PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL. . . 1—1
1.1.1 ControlofSlugLoadjngs. i—i
1.1.2 Elements of a Slug Control Program 1—2
1.2 SCOPEOFTHESLUGLOADINGPROBLEH 1—2
1.3 BENEFITSOFASLUGCOPITROLPR MM 1—6
1.4 RELEVANT CONTROL EFFORTS 1—7
1.4.1 Federal Programs 1—11
1.4.2 State Programs 1—16
1 . 4. 3 POTV Programs . 1 — 1 7
2. PREVENTION OF IU SLUG LOADINGS 2-1
2.1 IN’rRODUCTION 2—1
2.2 EVALUATETHENEEDFORAPR J N 2 .-i
2.2.1 POTV Definition of Slug . ... 2—3
2.2.2 Identify Potential Sources 2—5
2.2.3 Evaluate Existing Slug Controls: Legal
Authority and Enforcement 2—13
2.2.3.1 Legal Authority . . 2—13
2.2.3.2 Enforcement... 2—14
2.3 DEVELOPANIUCONTROLPR P J .............. 2—15
2.3.1 Mandatory Notification Requirements . 2—16
2.3.2 Slug Loadings From Batch Operations. 2-17
2.3.3 Assign Industrial Users to Slug Risk
Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—19
2.3.4 Requirements of IU Slug Control Plans............ . 2-28
2.3.4.1 General Information 2—30
2.3.4.2 Facility Layout Ploy 2—31
2.3.4.3 Material Inventory............ . . ... . . ..... 2—31
2.3.4.4 Spill and Leak Prevention Equipment
and Procedures.. •••••••.••,•••• ••...... ... 2—32
.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
2:3.4.5 Emergency Response Equipment and
Procedures 2—36
2.3.4.6 Slug Reporting 2—39
2.3.4.7 Training Program 2—40
2.3.4.8 Certification 2—41
2.4 IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM 2-41
2.4.1 POTW Review and Approval of IU Slug Control Plans.. 2-41
2.4.2 Inspection and Monitoring of lUs for Slug Control
Implementation 2-43
3. POTV SLUG RESPONSE PROGRAM 3-1
3.1 SLUG DETECTION AND SOURCE IDENTIFICATION 3-1
3.1.1 Tracking 3_3
3.1.2 Sampling Analysis 3..5
3.1.3 Recordkeeping 3—6
3.2 RESPONSE COORDINATION PROCEDURES FOR SLUGS
OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3...7
3.3 GENERAL POTW SLUG RESPONSE MEASURES 3-9
3.3.1 Initial Response 3—10
3.3.2 Containment and Diversion 3—11
3.3.3 Treatment 3—13
3.3.4 Discharge and Sludge Disposal 3—13
3.3.5 SafetyConsideratlons 3—15
3.4 FOLLOW-up REVIEW AND ACTIONS 3—16
3.4.1 RevievoflUFo]]ov...UpReport 3—17
3.4.2 Penalties 3—18
3.4.3 POTV Slug Control Program Review and Modification.. 3-18
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - REPORTABLE QUANTITIES LISTED IN CERCLA/CVA
APPENDIX B - IU SLUG CONTROL PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST FOR POTVs
APPENDIX C - EXAMPLE FORMS TO DOCUMENT SLUGS
APPENDIX D - SAMPLE IU SLUG CONTROL PLANS
APPENDIX E - BIBLIOGRApHy OF REFERENCE MATERIALS
-------
United States P rrntts Jivisuon September 1988
Environment& Protection Washington DC 20460
Agency
Water
EPA
Guidance for Writing
Case-by-Case Permit
Requirements for
Municipal Sewage Sludge
(A COPY OF THIS GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE
UPON REQUEST)
-
-
-------
Foreword
In the Water Quality Act of 1987 (“WOA”), Congress created a new national sludge permitting
program that ultimately will implement technical standards for the safe use and disposal of
sewage sludge. Congress also emphasized the need to undertake efforts now to protect public
health and the environment from sludge use and disposal practices by providing that:
Prior to the promulgation of the (technical sludge regulationsi, the Administrator shall
impose conditions in (NPDESI permits issued to (POTWsI or take such other measures
as the Administrator deems appropriate to protect public health and the environment from
any adverse effects which may occur from toxic pollutants in sewage sludge.
(WQA, section 406(d)(4), codified at section 405(d)(4) of the Clean Water Act).
The purpose of the Guidance Manual for Writing Interim Case-by-Case Permit Requirements
for Municipal Sewage Sludge is to assist permit writers in determining what measures may be
necessary to prevent harmful sludge use or disposal practices. It provides information useful for
identifying potential problems and for establishing interim sludge conditions for P01W permits.
Because some NPDES permit personnel will be setting sludge requirements for the first time.
the guidance provides background information on sludge treatment and disposal methods that
can affect sludge quality. More importantly, the guidance summarizes existing EPA and State
guidance and regulations that apply to sludge use and disposal. It also recommends specific
sludge management practices and pollutant limits that permit writers should consider, on a
case-by-case basis using best professional judgment, when preparing NPDES permits.
This manual primarily addresses the development of permit conditions that implement the
requirements of section 405(d)(4) of the Clean Water Act. Other aspects of the implementation
of an intenm sludge permitting program, such as EPA/State coordination of interim permitting
efforts and use of non-NPDES permits by States for interim sludge permitting, are covered in
a separate policy memorandum, which is included as Appendix A to this manual. Information
about EPA’s long-term plans for the new federal sludge permitting program can be found in
the proposed rules for sludge permit and State program requirements, recently published in the
Federal Register at 53 Fed. Reg. 7642 (March 9. 1988).
EPA is also developing technical regulations for environmentally safe sludge use and disposal,
which will be codified at 40 CFR Part 503. These standards will identify sludge use and
disposal options and specify numeric limits and management practices for each option. This
manual provides intenm guidance for the sludge use and disposal practices that will be covered
by the forthcoming technical regulations. It also includes recommendations for practices that will
not be covered by the first round of the technical regulations. Therefore, portions of this
guidance will continue to be useful even after promulgation of the first round of technical
regulations.
We hope that permit writers find this guidance useful in carrying out the interim sludge
permitting requirements in section 405(d)(4) of the Clean Water Act. EPA plans to revise this
guidance as new information becomes available, encourages users to write to the Permits
Division (EN-336) with suggestions for additions and improvements.
iii
-------
S7 4 ,
S T UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 L
OCT 1 2 1986
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUB JECT: Questions and Answers Regarding the OCPSF Effluent
Limitations Guidelines
FROM: J a me
Of Øé of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP)
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
NPDES State Directors
The final rule establishing effluent limitations guidelines,
pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards for
the organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers (OCPSF)
point source category (the “guideline”) was promulgated on
November 5, 1987 and became effective on December 21, 1987.
There has been and will be increased concern over the
implementation schedules and permit requirements. The purpose of
this memorandum is to provide you a list of questions and answers
(Q’s & A’s, as attached) which are most frequently asked by
permit writers and permittees regarding the guideline. The areas
of concern which are covered by the Q’s & A’s are given below:
Question No .
1 — 3 Applicability of the Guideline
4 — 6 Calculation of Permit Limits
7, 8 Monitoring Requirements
9 — 11 Promulgation and Implementation
of the Guidelines
12 Disparity of Limitations between
Subparts I and J
13 Whole—effluent Toxicity Testing of
OCPSF Effluent
14 Metals in OCPSF Streams
15 — 18 Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF)
Variance Requests
By providing these answers, we hope many issues and
challenges will be eliminated before the permits are drafted.
-------
2
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me or
James Gallup, Chief of the Technical Support Branch at
(202) 475—9541.
Attachment
-------
QUESTIONS AND ANSWF.RS (Q’S & A’S) REGARDING
THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS, PLASTICS, AND SYNTHETIC
FIBERS (OCPSF) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE GUIDELINE
Ouestion 1 - Do the OCPSF pretreatment requirements apply to
discharges from compounding and formulation
processes?
Answer:
No. The OCPSF pretreatment standards do not apply to
wastewater discharges from compounding and formulation processes.
However, if such wastes mix with regulated OCPSF wastewater prior
to treatment, the combined wastestream formula (CWF) would
allocate allowances for any unregulated wastestreazns. In
circumstances where there are no regulated wastestreams present,
pollutants may be present in the discharge from formulation
processes in amounts that warrant control under local limits.
question 2 - Are auxiliary establislunents primarily engaged in
performing support services such as research and
development activities exempt from the OCPSF
requirements?
Answer:
OCPSF facilities which engage in support service activities
such as research and development, pilot plant, technical
services, and laboratory bench scale operations are subject to
the OCPSF requirements j such operations are conducted in
conjunction with and related to existing OCPSF manufacturing
activities at the plant site [ 40 CFR 414.11(b)]. However, if the
auxiliary establishment is located at a physically separate site
from the OCPSF manufacturing facility, then the OCPSF
requirements would not be applicable as long as the product
manufactured at this auxiliary site is not sold. That is, the
sale of the product would make the auxiliarysite’s operation a
commercial manufacturing facility subject to the OCPSF
regulations.
-------
2
Question 3 - At a facility where the primary production activity
is not regulated by the OCPSF pretreatment
requirements, would a wastestream resulting from
the production of small quantities of
intermittently produced specialty chemicals subject
the facility to the OCPSF pretreatment
requirements?
Answer:
The OCPSF Pretreatment Regulations provide no exemption for
intermittently produced, small quantity production. In the event
that a facility’s primary production activity is not regulated by
the OCPSF requirements but an auxiliary product, such as a
specialty chemical is manufactured which does fall under the
OCPSF requirements, and both wastestreams are mixed prior to
treatment, then the combined wastestream formula applies.
However, for facilities that combine regulated and nonregulated
wastestreajns after treatment but prior to the monitoring point
(usually at the sewer connection to the public sanitary sewer), a
flow weighted average (FWA) or more stringent approach must be
used to adjust Categorical Pretreatment Standards. In the
preamble to the June 12, 1986 proposed rules (51 FR 21462), EPA
clarified when CWF and FWA must be used.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CALCULATION OF PERNIT LIMITS
question 4 - How is “process wastewater” defined in the
guideline?
Answer:
Process wastewater has been defined in 40 CFR 401.11(q) as
“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, by-product,
or waste product.” The Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the OCPSF Point Source
Category further describes, “OCPSF process wastewater discharges
are defined as discharges from all establishments or portions of
establishments that manufacture the products or product groups
listed in the applicability sections of the regulation and also
in Appendix Ill-A of this document, and are included within the
following . . . SIC major groups: 2865, 2869, 2821, 2823, 2824.. .“
(p. 111-20). Please refer to Section V.A. (p. V-i) of the
Development Document for examples of process wastewater.
Noncontact cooling waters, utility wastewaters, general site
surface runoff, ground waters, and other nonprocess waters
generated on site are specifically excluded from the definition
of process wastewater discharges.
-------
3
Ouestion 5 - What procedure will be followed for determining
permit limitations for plants which fall within
more than one of the guideline subcategories?
Answer:
For best practicable control technology currently available
(BPT) limits, a facility whose production activities fall within
two or more subcategories should follow a procedure pursuant to
Section VI.A.l (p. 42533) of the preamble of the OCPSF
regulations. The preamble states, “(un applying the limitations
set forth in the regulation, the permit writer will use what is
essentially a building-block approach that takes into
consideration applicable subcategory characteristics and the
proportion of production quantities within each subcategory at
the plant. Production characteristics are reflected explicitly
in the plant’s limitations through the use of this approach.”
Section IX.E (p. IX-lO) of the Development Document further
describes the procedure as follows (assuming that all
subcategorical process wastewaters are discharged into the same
outfall): First, calculate the subcategory proportion by
dividing the annual production rate (lbs/yr) for each
subcategorical activity by the facility’s total OCPSF production
rate. Next, multiply each subcategory proportion by the BPT
concentration limits to get the weighted concentration for each
subcategory. Then, add all the weighted concentrations to get
the total OCPSF concentration limit. Finally, calculate the
OCPSF mass limits by multiplying the total OCPSF concentration
limits by the facility’s total OCPSF process wastewater flow.
In some cases, non-OCPSF process streams and/or other
nonprocess streams contributing to the same outfall may require
additional concentration limits based on the permit writer’s best
professional judgment (BPJ). A flow-weighted approach should
then be used to calculate the final concentration limit on the
permit. The final mass limit on the permit can be calculated by
multiplying the final concentration limit by the total flow
discharged from that outfall.
For best available technology economically achievable (BAT)
limits, the procedure for calculating the mass limits in Subparts
I and J of the OCPSF rules should be followed whether a facility
falls into a single subcategory or multiple subcategories.
question 6 - How does the permit writer determine the proper
“flow” figure to use in calculating permit limits?
Answer:
EPA believes, in general, that the long-term average process
wastewater flow taken from a representative production year is
the appropriate value to use for the mass limits calculation. It
would be within the permit writer’s discretion to consider
-------
4
various data in determining a proper long-term average flow for
each facility, e.g., the highest monthly average flow during the
past twelve (12) months or the highest yearly mean of the twelve
monthly average flows during the past five (5) years. The
selected flow will then be used to calculate both the daily
maximum and monthly average mass limits.
In cases where the process wastewater flow claimed by the
industry may be excessive, the permit writer may develop a more
appropriate process wastewater flow for use in computing the mass
limits. Significant factors, such as the component flows, the
facility’s water conservation practices, and the barometric
condenser use at the process level, should all be considered in
developing the appropriate process wastewater flow. Section
XIV. (p. 42566) of the preamble to the regulation has a detailed
discussion on this matter.
In situations where flow varies significantly from day-to-
day, the permit writer may also take this into consideration. In
some special instances, the permit writer may find that a tiered
permit is warranted due to the variability of production and
resulting changes in flow conditions. In these cases, the permit
writer should use discretion to develop a case-by-case
determination with appropriate supporting documentation and
rat-ionale. In any event, the permittee is responsible for
demonstrating to the permit writer the need for special
consideration of flow variations in the permit.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
question 7 - What will be the required monitoring frequency for
toxic pollutants regulated by the OCPSF guidelines
that are not expected to be present at levels of
concern?
Answer:
The NPDES regulation (40 CFR 122.48(b)) requires that each
permit specify monitoring frequency sufficient to yield data
which are representative of the monitored activity. In
establishing monitoring frequencies, many factors are considered
by the permit writer. The monitoring scenario assumed for cost
estimation during the development of the effluent limitations
guidelines is one of the factors most commonly considered by the
permit writer. Other typical factors include design capacity of
treatment facility, type of treatment method used, significance
of the pollutants, and nature and sensitivity of the water
quality standards of the receiving water. For OCPSF facilities,
as for all other facilities, EPA has decided that the appropriate
monitoring scheme is best determined on a case-by-case basis.
EPA refrains from setting inflexible monitoring frequencies in
-------
5
national regulations to allow permit writers to establish
frequencies that are appropriately tailored to the facility. The
minimum monitoring frequency for toxic pollutants which are not
expected to be present at levels of concern may be monthly or
quarterly, but in no case shall it be less than once per year as
required in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2) for direct dischargers. For
indirect discharges, the minimum monitoring and reporting
frequency is twice per year as prescribed in 40 CFR 403.12(e)(l).
Section X.4 (pp. 42557-8) of the preamble to the regulation has a
detailed discussion on this matter.
question 8 - Does the NPDES “boilerplate” language requirements
(40 CFR 122.4l(a)(l)) trigger the Duty to Comply
with all OCPSF toxic limits even if the permit is
not modified to incorporate the new limits?
Answer:
No. The OCPSF regulations do not include “Toxic Pollutant
Effluent Standards and Prohibitions” as prescribed in 40 CFR Part
129, Subpart A. Consequently, the “boilerplate” language does
not encompass the new qcpsF toxic regulations. The limits for
toxic pollutants in the OCPSF regulations must be included in
permits for them to become enforceable.
QUESTIONS REG7 RDING THE PROMULGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ThE
GUIDELINES
question 9 - Will best conventional pollutant control technology
(BCT) be promulgated in the future and if so, will
NSPS be made more stringent in the future?
Answer:
All BCT’S are reserved in the final regulation as described
in III.A.3 (p. 42525) of the preamble. NSPS for conventional
pollutants (BqD5, TSS, and pH) are presently equivalent to the
limits established for BPT. The States may develop BCT limits
more stringent than BPT by using BPJ at this time. When a BCT
analysis is done in the future, if it is determined that BCT
limits should be more stringent than BPT, then the technology
basis for NSPS limits will be re—assessed.
-------
6
Question 10 - Will the dischargers be expected to begin
purchasing and installing treatment before the
final permit limits are determined?
Answer:
The statutory deadline for direct dischargers to comply with
BAT is March 31, 1989; the deadline for indirect dischargers to
comply with pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) is
November 5, 1990. EPA believes that dischargers should begin now
to conduct studies to determine whether additional treatment is
necessary and, if so, what additional treatment should be
considered. In many cases, the decision to purchase and install
treatment equipment can be made after these studies and
dischargers should proceed with purchasing and installing
treatment equipment whether their permits contain final limits or
not.
If some direct dischargers are unable to determine final
permit limits, then they should meet with the permitting
authority to determine final permit limits and reasonable
compliance schedules, thereby avoiding delays in purchasing and
installing treatment equipment.
EPA’s pretreatment program requires OCPSF indirect
dischargers to prepare baseline monitoring reports within 180
days after the effective date of the pretreatment standards that
assess compliance and provide detailed schedules showing major
events leading to construction and operation of additional
treatment. If an indirect discharger has a question about their
applicable pretreatment standards, they should consult their
control authority.
question 11 — Are Permitting Authorities to be given any specific
deadlines for reopening the non-expiring OCPS ’
permits to incorporate the new guideline?
Answer:
EPA is preparing guidance which urges permitting authorities
to accelerate compliance with the new guideline for OCPSF
facilities. The guidance would assist permitting authorities in
determining when and how to implement the guideline using all
available authorities and permitting tools. One approach would
be to reopen the permit and incorporate new guidelines pursuant
to the reopener clause or the State’s general authority. Other
possible approaches are to notify OCPSF facilities that immediate
compliance will be expected upon reissuance of the permit, and to
use section 308 authority to request the submission of compliance
plans.
-------
7
EPA recently conducted a compliance assessment in selected
Regions to estimate the number of OCPSF permits that can be
reopened and the number of OCPSF facilities which need additional
treatment for compliance with the guidelines. The assessment
indicated that many existing permits have either specific
reopener clauses or the permitting State has a general regulation
to reopen the permit upon promulgation of new effluent
limitations guidelines. The assessment also revealed that the
majority of OCPSF facilities currently discharge pollutants at
levels which exceed the new BPT and/or BAT guidelines.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DISPARITY OF LIMITATIONS BETWEEN SUBPARTS
I MJDJ
question 12 - Why are there a number of BAT and NSPS limitations
for toxic pollutants, e.g., nitrobenzene, which
allow higher effluent concentrations for
dischargers that do not use end-of-pipe (Non-EOP,
Subpart J) biological treatment than those using
end-of-pipe (EOP, Subpart I) biological treatment?
Answer:
In developing technology-based guidelines for BAT and NSPS,
EPA used performance data that properly reflected the type of
treatment used, based upon the facilities’ particular wastewater
characteristics. In the case of nitrobenzene, the BAT limits for
the EOP biological treatment subcategory were derived from a data
base of four plants using the combination of steam stripping and
activated carbon adsorption plus EOP biological treatment,
whereas BAT limits for the Non-EOP biological treatment were from
a data base of two plants using the combination of steam
stripping and activated carbon adsorption alone. (See Tables
VII-45 & 64 of the final Development Document.) These two sets
of data were evaluated independently and resulted in the
different limitations for these two subparts. Therefore, the
difference between nitrobenzene limits in Subparts I and J was an
inevitable result of this development procedure for technology-
based limitations. Please refer to VI.C.4.d, pp. 42543-4, of the
preamble for a general discussion of this particular issue.
The facilities in the EOP biological treatment subcategory
are the ones which have installed, or will install, end-of-pipe
biological treatment to comply with BPT limits. The facilities
in the Non-EOP biological treatment subcategory are the ones with
low enough levels of BOD5 in their wastestrealnS which do not need
end-of-pipe biological treatment to comply with BPT limits. (See
p. 42538, VI.C.l & 2 of the preamble.) In the future, those
plants that have lower levels of BOD5 (and no end-of-pipe
biological treatment) will most likely choose to manufacture new
chemica 1.s that will also have lower BOD5 levels and require no
-------
8
end-of-pipe biological treatment. However, a plant may choose to
manufacture a new product or products as a result of the higher
effluent limits in the Non-EOP biological treatment SUbcategory
for selected pollutants. If the plant can comply with its permit
for all limited pollutant parameters, it is the plant’s
prerogative to manufacture the new product(s).
Furthermore, the BAT limitations in these two subcategories
are technology—based. If a State feels that c ertain toxic
limits, e.g., nitrobenzene, are too lenient, more stringent
limitations based on State Water Quality Standards or more
stringent provisions of the State law can be imposed.
QUESTIONS REGARDING WHOLE-EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING OF OCPSF
EFFLUENT
Question 13 - Should most OCPSF permits contain whole-effluent
toxicity controls?
Answer:
Yes. Under sections 308 and 402 of the Clean Water Act, EPA
or a State may require permittees to provide chemical, toxicity,
and in-stream biological data necessary to assure compliance with
water quality standards. EPA’S Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants (49
FR 9016, March 9, 1984) calls for the use of “an integrated.
strategy consisting of both biological and chemical methods to
address toxic and nonconventional pollutants from industrial
sources.” The Policy specifies, “(w]here there is a significant
likelihood of toxic effects to biota in the receiving water, EPA
and the States may impose permit limits on effluent toxicity.. . .“
As we have stated in the memo of February 8, 1988, discharges
from OCPSF facilities often contain an exceptionally wide variety
of pollutants. All potentially toxic pollutants discharged from
OCPSF facilities cannot be inexpensively identified by chemical
methods, but it is feasible to examine the whole-effluent
toxicity and instream impacts using acute and/or chronic toxicity
testing rather than attempt to identify and limit all toxic
pollutants. For the reasons given above, EPA anticipates that
whole—effluent toxicity controls, including acute or chronic
toxicity limits and/or biomonitoring requirements, will be needed
in most cases for OCPSF facilities. Acute or chronic toxicity
limits or monitoring requirements are dependent upon available
dilution and species sensitivity. Toxicity limits may be imposed
for the facilities at the discretion of the permit writer on a
case—by-case basis.
-------
9
QUESTIONS REGARDING METALS IN OCPSF STREAMS
question 14 — Are complexed metal-bearing wastestreams exempt
from the standards for metals only, or is the
wastestream also exempt from the organic and
cyanide limits?
Answer:
The exemption for complexed metals in 40 CFR 414.11(f) refers
to the exclusion of the standards for metals only. The exclusion
applies only for the metals listed in Appendix B as complexed for
the product/process in question. In addition, the wastestream is
not exempt with regard to toxic organics and cyanide
requirements.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FACTORS (FDF)
VARIANCE REQUESTS
Question 15 - What will be the effect of imposing OCPSF limits On
a permittee which has filed an FDF variance
request?
Answer:
Section 301(n)(6) states that “an application for an
alternative requirement under this subsection (i.e., FDF] shall
not stay the applicant’s obligation to comply with the effluent
limitation guideline or categorical pretreatment standard which
is the subject of the application.” This provision applies to
the FDF variance requests for BAT, BCT, and PSES. In addition,
the NPDES regulation does not provide for staying the applicant’s
obligation to comply with the effluent limitation guideline for
BPT. The guideline regulation requires compliance with PSES by
November 5, 1990, while BPT and BAT limits are enforceable only
when they are incorporated in NPDES permits. Permitting
authorities can use enforcement discretion, when appropriate,
for the permittees which have filed FDF variance requests and are
not in compliance with their permit requirements.
question 16 — What impact will section 301(n)(2) of the Clean
Water Act, which requires submission of a request
within 180 days of the date of establishment or
revision of a limitation, have on FDF filing
deadlines?
Answer:
The existing State NPDES regulations require submission of a
BPT, BAT, and/or BCT FDF variance request by the close of the
comment period on the draft permit which incorporates the
I
-------
10
guideline-based limitations at issue. At this time, the existing
EPA NPDES regulations also contain this requirement. The
existing EPA general pretreatment regulations require submission
of a FDF variance request within 180 days of the effective date
of the standard from which relief is being requested or within 30
days after a categorical determination.
As indicated in the memo of February 8, 1988, EPA will
consider BAT FDF variance requests submitted by OCPSF facilities
to be timely if the request is submitted to the NPDES permitting
authority by May 3, 1988. This requirement is based specifically
on the language of section 301(n)(2). The conference report
indicated that the FDF variance provisions were to be self-
implementing. 132 Cong. Rec. Hl0567 (daily edition October 15,
1986). Note, however, our regulations at 40 CFR 123.62 provide a
process for revisions to conform State programs to federal
requirements and references as one such instance when controlling
federal statutory authority is modified or supplemented. The
preamble to the OCPSF regulation also noted that the statute
overrode existing EPA FDF regulations to the extent there were
any inconsistencies. 52 Fed. Reg. 42566 (November 5, 1987). EPA
will be changing the NPDES (and general pretreatment) regulations
to conform them to the statutory requirements. To the extent
that the State NPDES regulations would provide any filing
deadline which would be after May 3, 1988, the more stringent
federal provision, section 301(n)(2), which requires submission
no later than May 3, 1988, would control.
Ouestion 17 - Why is there an apparent inconsistency in filing
deadlines between BPT and BAT/PSES and what is the
filing deadline for BPT FDF variance requests?
Answer:
Section 301(n), on its face, only applies to BAT, BCT, and
PSES FDF variance requests. EPA will continue to consider and
evaluate BPT FDF variance requests in accordance with the
existing NPDES regulations, since there is no superseding
statutory provision. Accordingly, BPT FDF variance requests must
be made by the close of the public comment period on the draft
permit. EPA intends to eventually change the regulations for BPT
FDFs to make them consistent with section 301(n). Moreover, EPA
had strongly encouraged that BPT FDF variance requests from the
OCPSF guidelines be submitted along with BAT and PSES variance
requests on or before May 3, 1988.
-------
11
Ouestion 18 - Is the language in 40 CFR §125.31(a)(l) which
requires a request for relief from a “national
limit which is applied in the permit....”
inconsistent with the existing regulatory and/or
statutory filing deadlines?
Answer:
The provision in 40 CFR §125.3l(a)(l) is one of the decision
criteria that is used in deciding NPDES FDF variance requests,
not an application requirement. The intent of this provision is
to require that there be an applicable national effluent
guideline for the pollutant for which relief has been requested
which is applicable to the facility. To the extent that any
applicant claims that this provision allows submission of a FDF
variance request after issuance of the permit containing the
limitations, the application deadline in section 301(n)(2) would
supersede this provision.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
OCT 2: i 88
T
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Release of Dioxin Treatability Study and incer -
Control Measures for Regulating Dioxin Discharges from
Pulp and Paper Mills
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (WH—551)
James R. Elder, Director
‘ Office of Water Enforceme and Permits EN- 3
U
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
State NPDES Directors
Attached is a preliminary report tha: ?resents the results
of EPA’s bench scale wastewater treatabili: study for 2378—TCDD
and 2378-TCDF n pulp and paper miii. wasr aters. The report
also sets out proposed interim control sures for chlorine
minimization and suspended solids controls consistent with the
interim strategy issued on August 9, 1988.
Although data regarding the formation and discharge of 2378-
TCDD and 2378-TCDF for. most pulp and paper mills in the U.S. are
not yet available, data from the U.S. EPA/Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Screening Study (the Five—Mill Study), limited
industry data, and native fish results from the bioaccumulative
pollutant study clearly indicate that discharges of 2378—TCDD and
2378-TCDF may occur at most bleached kraft pulp and paper mills.
Also, for most mills, detectable discharges are likely to result
in ambient water quality levels that exceed the Agency’s current
water quality criterion for protection of human health.
Accordingly, the interim strategy included development of interim
BPJ BAT effluent limitations for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF. The
enclosed bench scale wastewater treatability results indicate
that virtually all of the 2378-rCDD and 2378—TCDF are adsorbed
onto suspended solids in activated sludge treatment systems and
that effective removal of these suspended solids can be a key
factor in minimizing dioxin discharges. Also, the report, along
with data from ocher studies, indicates that chlorine
minimization and chlorine dioxLde substitut n in bleacheries may
be effective at minimizing the formation of 2378—TCDD and 2378-
TCDF.
-------
—2—
To the extent that any available data indicate that dj x
is present at a mill, the attached report provides
that can be used to establish interim chlorine minimizac: r.d
suspended solids minimization programs at this time. The eg:cns
should work with the states to implement the proposed Lrl:er:m
control measures as soon as possible, taking into account arty
site—specific conditions, as appropriate.
Analyses of samples from the 104 mill study are .icw
underway. We anticipate initial results by the end of November
1988 with final results by Spring 1989. OWRS staff will provide
individual mill results to the Regions as they become available.
Staffs of OWRS and OWEP are available to provide technical
assistance. If you have any questions, please call Wendy Smith
(FTS 382—7184) or Gary Hudiburgh (FTS 475—4531).
Attachment
-------
PRELIMINARY REPORT
USEPA BENCH SCALE WASTEWATER TREATABILITY STUDY
PULP AND PAPER MILL DISCHARGES
OF 2378-TCDD and 2378—TCDF
PROPOSED INTERIM CONTROL MEASURES
INTERIM 1PDES PERMIT STRATEGY
OCTOBER 1988
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION
EASTERN DISTRICT OFFICE
WESTLAKE, OHIO
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by Gary A. nendola, u.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 5. Field sampling was conducted under the direction of Daniel S.
Granz, USEPA Region 1, and David R. Barna, LJSEPA egion 5. Treatability
experiments were conducted by David Lovejoy, E.C. Jordan Co. Analyses for
2378-TCDD and 2378—TCDF were conducted at the BrePri Laboratory, Wright State
University under the direction of Dr. Thomas 0. Tiernan. The principal reviewers
of this report were Danforth G. Bodien, IJSEPA Region 10; David R. Barna and
Jonathan Barney USEPA Region 5; Daniel S. Granz, IJSEPA Region 1,; Donald F.
Anderson and Wendy 0. Smith, USEPA Industrial Technology Division, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards; and Gary W. Hudiburgh, USEPA Permits Division,
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits.
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency policy and approved for distribution. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. OBJECTIVES
III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 3
I.V. STUDY DESIGN . . . . . . . . 4
V. FIELDPROGRAM • • • • • • • 4
VI. ANALYTICALPROGRAM. . . . . . 5
VII. SUMMARY OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . 5
A. Distribution of 2378-TCDD and 2378—TCDF 5
in 1astewater Samples
3. Bench Scale Wastewater Treatability Study 9
C. Other Observations 12
VIII. PROPOSED NPDES PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . 16
REFERENCES
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT
1 Proposed Interim Chlorine Minimization Program
2 Proposed Interim Effluent Suspended Solids
Minimization Program
11
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The formation of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo—p-dioxin (2 18-rC O) 3n1
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (2378—TCDF) in the bleaching of certnn
puips and the discharge of ?378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF from certain 5leache
pulp and paper mills have been well documented (USEPA 1988a). Cantamlnat’.)rl
native fish collected downstream from a number of pul? and paper mills .as so
been demonstrated (USEPA 1987). A large—scale cooperative investigative ro r m
is underway to determine the formation and discharge of 2378-TCDD and 2378- COF
at each pulp and paper mill in the United States where bleaching of chemically
produced pulps with chlorine and chlorine derivatives occurs (USEPA 1g88b).
The pulp and paper industry is also conducting independent research directed at
the mechanism of formation of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF in pulp bleaching (NCASI
1988a).
From an environmental standpoint, the most effective method to reduce or
eliminate wastewater discharges of 2373-TCDD and 2378-TCOF from pulp and aper
iiills, as well as the discharge of other toxic pollutants, is through process
modifications which would eliminate or minimize formation of these materials.
The limited information urrently available suggests that certain proceis
modifications and bleaching sequences may result in less formation of 2378-TCDD
and 2378—TCOF. Each of these technologies results ‘ the use of less elemental
chlorine for lignin removal in the first chlorinati. stage during bleaching of
kraft pulps.
The installation of oxygen delignification at hardwood bleach line at
one mill has apparently resulted in less formation f 2378—TCDD and 2378—TCDF
(CPI 1987). The industry reports no detectable levels of 2378-TCDD in bleached
pul PS and e ff1 uents from a relatively new so ftwood mill wi th oxygen del i gn I -
fication followed by a short bleaching sequence incorporating a high degree of
chlorine dioxide substitution in the first bleaching stage (Buckeye Cellulose
1988). Results from the USEPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin Screening
Study, also known as the “five-mill study,” showed no detectable levels of
2378—TCDO and relatively low levels of 2378—TCDF in bleached pulp and filtrates
from a hardwood bleach line with a CDEOD bleaching sequence and 18% chlorine
dioxide substitution in the first bleaching stage (USEPA 1988a). Results from
the same study demonstrated relatively high rates of formation of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF in another mill with both softwood and hardwood CDEOD bleach lines,
much higher chlorination rates, and less chlorine dioxide substitution in the
first bleaching stages (5-6%). The Swedish Pulp and Paper Research Institute
reports that In limited laboratory and full-scale studies the formation of
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF was highly dependent upon the charge of chlorine in
relation to the lignin content of the unbleached pulp (chlorine ratio). Their
work suggests a threshold chlorine ratio of 0.15, below which formation of
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF is substantially reduced (STFI 1988). Data from the
five—mill study exhibit similar trends (USEPA 1988a). The Expert Committee on
Kraft Mill Toxicity, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, estimates reduced
organochlorine discharges with increased chlorine dioxide substitution and
oxygen delignification (OMOE 1988).
-------
-2-
These limited findings suggest that major process ilodifications SUCI s
installation of oxygen dellgnification systems at existing bleach liies r
installation of completely new bleaching sequences may be effective 3t
significantly reducing formation of 2378-TCDD and 2373-TCDF and other toxic
pollutants. Also, the degree of chlorination and chlorine dioxide substitution
in conventional bleaching lines may significantly affect the for’nation of
2378—TCDD and 2378-TCDF. Additional research is underway to deter nine the
mechanisms of formation of 2378—TCDD and 2378—TCDF and the process modifications
that will be most effective at minimizing or eliminating formation of these
compounds. Results from this research are expected during the next few years.
Although decisions to install oxygen delignification and other bleaching
process modifications have been made for several mills, implementation of
process modifications across the industry, if warranted, may be a relatively
long—term proposition.
Human health risks associated with formation of 2378—TCDD and 2378-TCDF in
pulp and paper mills and the distribution of these materials in the environment
through contamination of paper products, wastewater discharges, and wastewater
sludges are currently under review. Although most estimates of potential health
risks in terms of excess cancers are relatively low, the highest risks are
estimated where contaminated materials are directly ingested (e.g., consumption
of contaminated fish) (USEPA 1988c,d); or where 2 8-TCDD and 2378-TCDF are
transferred from a paper product to a material that ; ingested (e.g., transfer
from coffee filters to coffee) (A.D. Little 1987, ;Asi 1988b). The industry
estimates that dermal contact with paper products normal food contact with
paper products, and inhalation of paper dusts by aper mill workers do not
result in significant health risks (NCASI 1987a,b; 1988c). Also, risks to
surfers and swimmers from exposure to pulp mill effluents in the ocean through
dermal adsorption and ingestion were estimated to be quite low (Radian 1988).
Several states have issued fish consumption advisories for segments of
streams with paper mill discharges where native fish have been found to be
contaminated with 2378-TCDD at levels of concern (Minnesota 1985, WisconsIn
1985, Maine 1985, LouIsiana 1987). Other fish consumption advisories are
anticipated as additional data become available through USEPA’s bloaccumulative
pollutant study and monitoring by states. Because of the high incidence of
native fish contamination downstream from pulp and paper mills, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has determined that, as part of an interim
strategy for regulating pulp and paper mills, short-term measures to limit
discharges of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF should be taken where possible (USEPA
1988e).
Based upon these considerations, the USEPA Office of Water Regulations and
Standards - Industrial Technology Division, In cooperation with Regions 1 and 5,
undertook a wastewater characterization and preliminary (bench scale) treata-
bility study at two of the mills from the five-mill study. This study was
focused on the distribution of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF in various untreated and
treated wastewater samples and possible removal of these materials from
the wastewater streams through chemically assisted clarification. While the
-------
—3—
Industry chose not to participate financially or assist in tne ies .;n ‘
study, NCASI did provide assistance to ‘JSEPA in identifying current ast d: r
treatment practices at a number of mills with respect to coag’il ant ano ool jmer
addition for suspended solids control.
This report presents a preliminary summary of the study findings md
proposed interim control measures that can be impl emen ted througn JSEPA s
interim regulatory strategy. A more detailed technical report including a Full
discussion of the field and analytical programs, estimates of sludge generation,
and preliminary engineering cost estimates for installation and operation of
chemically assisted clarification systems is in preparation.
II. OBJECTIVES
1. Determine the aqueous and solid phase distribution of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF in untreated and treated wastewaters from two bleached kraft pulp and
paper mills with known contamination.
2. Determine whether, or to what extent, 2378-ICOD and 2378—TCDF can e
removed from untreated, partially treated, and treated bleached kraft pulp and
paper mill wastewaters through chemically assisted c in fication.
3. Develop proposed interim (i.e., short-t; ) control measures for
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF that can be implemented throL i USEPA’s interim strategy
for regulating dioxins in pu1p and paper mills.
I II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. While some fraction of 2378—TCDD and 2378-TCDF in internal untreated
pulp and paper mill bleachery wastewaters (i.e., caustic extraction stage
filtrates, combined bleach plant wastewaters) is associated with suspended
solids, most of the 2378—TCDD and 2378—TCOF is in the aqueous phase of those
wastewaters or in fine colloidal suspensions.
2. After biological treatment at two mills, more than 90% of the
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCOF is associated with suspended solids and subsequently is
transferred to the sludge or discharged with the suspended solids in the
effi uent.
3. Chemically assisted clarification appears to be an effective mechanism
for control of 2378—TCDD and 2378—ICOF in internal plant wastewaters. However,
as an interim control measure, improved suspended solids controls in existing
treatment facilities can more quickly and easily be implemented at less cost.
4. Limited data from the five-mill study, supplemental data obtained as
part of this study, and data from Scandinavian studies indicate that chlorine
minimization and chlorine dioxide substitution programs in bleacheries can
significantly reduce formation of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF.
-------
-4-
IV. STUDY DESIGN
The bench scale wastewater treatability study was conducted in t o ‘ ses.
Phase I consisted of screening the effectiveness of various coagulants id
polymers for suspended solids removal from samples of caustic extraction staq
filtrate, combined bleach plant wastewaters, aeration basin effluent prior o
settling, and final effluent, all obtained from Mill E as designated in the
five-mill study (see USEPA 1988a). Phase 2 consisted of performing chemically
assisted clarification studies on a second set of samples obtained at Mill E
and a set of similar samples obtained at Mill A from the five-mill study.
Those coagulants and polymers determined to be most effective from the Phase I
screening program were tested at various dosages and combinations in Phase 2.
Caustic extraction stage filtrates and combined bleach plant wastewaters were
selected for the treatability study since data from the five-mill Study
indicated these streams contained the highest levels of 2378—TCDD and 2378-TCDF
(USEPA 1988a).
The untreated samples obtained for the Phase 2 program were analyzed for
2378—TCDD and 2378—TCDF in both the aqueous and solid phases as were thote
treated samples from the bench scale studies exhibiting the best performance
with respect to total suspended solids. Samples of gravity settled (in
laboratory) aeration basin effluents were analyzed 2378-TCDO and 2378-TCDF
in similar fashion.
V. FIELD PROGRAM
Samples for the Phase 1 screening program were obtained at Mill E by
personnel from the 1JSEPA Region 1 Environmental Services Division (ESD) and
E.C. Jordan Co., Portland, Maine. Samples for the Phase 2 program were collected
by Region 1 ESD personnel at Mill E and by Region 5 Environmental Sciences
Division personnel at Mill A. In each case, four grab samples were collected
to prepare an eight-hour composite sample at each sampling site. Samples were
shipped or transported to an E.C. Jordan laboratory in Portland, Maine, where
the chemically assisted clarification studies were conducted.
Bench scale jar tests were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of
various coagulants and polymers for total suspended sol ids (ISS) and total
organic carbon (TOC) removal from the untreated wastewater streams. A six-
paddle gang stirrer was used to perform the tests. After flocculation, samples
were allowed to settle for 30 minutes, which is less than the detention time in
conventional clarification systems for secondary biological solids.
-------
-5-
VI. ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
Analyses for TSS and TOC were performed by E.C. Jordan Co. sii E’A
approved analytical methods. Analyses for 2373-TCDD and 2373_rCJF qere
performed by t e Brehm Laboratory - Wright State University using t e sanpie
extraction, extract clean—up, and analytical protocol ieveloped for :he
five—mill study with a modified three-phase column for concurrent Isomer-
specific determinations of 2378-TCDD and 2373—ICOF. Criteria for identlf lc3tlon
and quantitation of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF were attained. However, for
selected samples with low levels of solid material, the desired analytical
detection levels of 0.01 parts per trillion (ppt) were not achieved. This is
primarily a function of the requested separate analyses of the solid and aqueous
phases of each sample. This problem was particularly evident for the final
effluent and treated samples from Mill E. The untreated Phase 2 samples from
Mill E had much lower levels of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF than similar samples
obtained during the five-mill study. In retrospect, the analytical protocol
for aqueous samples used in the five-mill study would have been preferable for
attaining lower detection limits. That protocol included combining the extracts
from separate extractions of the solid and liquid phases for each sample prior
to analysis. -
VII. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
A. Distribution of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF in Waste iter Samples
Tables 1 and 2 present the analytical results .r 2378—TCDD and 2378-TCDF
in untreated and partially treated wastewaters and the final effluents from
Mills A and E, respectively. Table 3 presents final effluent data for two
California pulp iiills that have no end—of—pipe treatment and discharge to the
ocean. These data show that substantial fractions (6O -7O%) of the 2378—TCDD
and 2378-TCDF found in caustic extraction stage and combined bleach plant
wastewaters are in the aqueous phase. Also, that 35 -5O of the 2378-TCDD and
2378—TCOF found in combined untreated wastewaters from pulping and bleaching are
in the aqueous phases of those wastewaters. All of the untreated wastewaters
are high in organic content. It is theorized that 2378—TCDD and 2378-TCDF are
codissolved with the organic species or are in colloidal suspensions that pass
through the fine laboratory filters used to separate the aqueous and solid
fractions of each sample.
Of particular importance is the finding that nearly all of the 2378-TCDD
and 2378—TCDF in aeration basin mixed liquor suspended solids is found on the
suspended solids. It is likely that as other organics are oxidized in biological
treatment systems, 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF, which are refractory to conventional
biological treatment, are taken up with food by the active microorganisms or are
adsorbed onto the cell walls. This finding is consistent with the distribution
of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF in primary and secondary wastewater treatment sludges
observed in the five-mill study (USEPA 1988a) and findings at the Dow Chemical
-------
TABLE 1
MILL A
DISTRIBUTION OF 2378-TCDO AND 2378-TCDF
IN SOLID AND AQUEOUS PHASES
Sample 2378-TCDD 2378-TCDF
Wastewater Sample Number Phase (%) ( pg/gm or pptT (%) ( pg/gm or DDtT
Caustic Extraction 0E027804S Sol Id 37 35
Filtrate DE027804W Aqueous 63 65
CTSS 40 mg/L] Total 0.50 2.15
Combined Bleach DE027803S Solid 32 35
Plant DE027803W Aqueous 68 65
[ TSS 86 mg/U Total 0.20 0.88
Aeration Basin DE027802S Solid >98 >99
Effluent Prior to DE027802W Aqueous <2 <1
Settling Total 0.84• .85 2.63
[ TSS 3700 mg/U]
Final Effluent DEO2O8O1S Solid >75 75
[ TSS 23 mg/U 0E020801W Aqueous <25 25
Total 0.009-0.012 0.043
Notes: (1) Wastewater concentrations of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF are reported as
picograms/gram (pg/g) or parts per trillion (ppt).
(2) Where 2378-TCDD or 2378-TCDF were not detected in either the solid
phase or aqueous phase of a sample, the distribution between the
solid phase and aqueous phase was estimated assuming the analyte
was present at the detection level for that fraction of the sample.
(3) Where a range of concentrations is presented, the values reported
represent the minimum and maximum concentrations. The minimum
concentration was estimated by assuming that the analyte concen-
tration was zero when not detected in a fraction. The maximum
concentration was estimated by assuming that the anal yte was
present at the detection level
-6-
-------
TABLE 2
MILL E
DISTRIBUTION OF 2378-TCDD AND 2378-TCDF
IN SOLID AND AQUEOUS PHASES
Sample 2378-TCOD 2378-TCDF
Wastewater Sample Number Phase ( ) ( pg/gm or ppt ( ) ( pg/gm or ot
Caustic Extraction 88911S Solid 31
Filtrate 88911W Aqueous 59
[ TSS 240 mg/U Total ND(O.024) 0.069
“B” Bleach Line 889135 Sol Id >30
[ TSS 41 mg/U] 88913W Aqueous <70
Total ND(O.014) 0.027-0.387
‘ratjon Basin 88910S Solid >92 92
luent Prior to 88910W Aqueous <8 8
.tling Total O.1C .11 0.74
LISS 840 mg/U
Final Effluent 88909S Solid 41
[ ISS 44 mg/U] 88909W Aqueous 59
Total ND(0.044) 0.15
Notes: (1) Wastewater concentrations of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF are reported as
picograrns/gram (pg/g) or parts per trillion (ppt).
(2) Where 2378-TCDD or 2378-TCDF were not detected in either the solid
phase or aqueous phase of a sample, the distribution between the
solid phase and aqueous phase was estimated assuming the analyte
was present at the detection level for that fraction of the sample.
(3) Where a range of concentrations is presented, the values reported
represent the minimum and maximum concentrations. The minimum
concentration was estimated by assuming that the analyte concen-
tration was zero when not detected in a fraction. The maximum
concentration was estimated by assuming that the analyte was
present at the detection level.
—7—
-------
TABLE 3
CALIFORNIA PULP MILLS
DISTRIBUTION OF 2378-TCDO AND 2373-TCDF
IN SOLID AND AQUEOUS PHASES
Sample 2378—TCDD 2378-TCDF
Sample Number Phase ( ) ( pg/gm or pptj ( ) ( pg/gm or pptj
MIll 1
Final Effluent 1PGH117 Solid 64 50
[ TSS 120 mg/L] Aqueous 36 50
Total 0.10 0.63
Final Effluent 2PGH I17 Solid 66 56
(duplicate) Aqueous 34 44
Total 0.11 0.63
Mi ii 2
Final Effluent 5PGH117 Solid 56 45
[ TSS 113 mg/L] Aqueous 44 55
Total 0.36 7.59
Final Effluent 6PGH117 Solid 59 48
(duplicate) Aqueous 41 52
Total 0.36 7.42
NOTE: 1. Wastewater concentrations for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF are reported
as picograins/gram (pg/g) or parts per trillion (ppt).
2. The final effluents at both mills are comprised of essentially
untreated wastewaters from pulping and bleaching.
3. Samples collected November 1987 by USEPA-Region 9.
4. Analyses for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF by Brehm Laboratory,
Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio (see Section VI for
analytical protocol).
5. Analyses for total suspended solids by Kennedy/Jenks/Chilton,
San Francisco, California.
-8-
-------
-9-
Michigan Division plant at Midland, Michigan (USEPA 1936). These data :i ariy
indicate that effective separation of mixed liquor suspended sol ids and ex nded
aeration basin suspended sol ids Is a key factor in minimizing effluent iisciarges
of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF.
B. Bench Scale Wastewater Treatability Study
The Phase 2 bench scale results are summarized in Tables 4 and 5, for
Mills A and E, respectively. As noted earlier, the unexpectedly low levels of
2378—TCDD and 2378-TCDF in Mill E samples and the low levels of solid material
in the treated samples confounded the analytical program and rendered analysis of
much of the treatability data for that mill inconclusive.
The results for Mill A demonstrate that more than 95 of the 2378—TCDD and
2378—TCOF present in caustic extraction stage and combined bleach plant
wastewaters was removed through chemically assisted clarification. However,
the substantial dosages of alum (2000 mg/L) or lime (1500 rng/L) required for
treatment would result in generation of large quantities of sludge from the
suspended solids removed, any alum or lime in excess of saturation, and dissolved
and colloidal materials taken out of solution. In order to implement this type
of treatment on a full-scale basis, separate clarification and sludge dewatering
facilities would be required at most mills. Estimates of the quantities of
sludge generated and preliminary engineering cost e :imates will be presented
in the final technical report for this study.
For the aeration basin mixed liquor suspended lids, use of a non—ionic
polymer (dosage 6.25 mg/L) resulted in improved suspended solids effluent
quality over laboratory gravity settling (17 mg/L vs. 70 mg/L). The level of
suspended solids attained was also somewhat lower than the full-scale treatment
system final effluent discharge of 23 mg/L attained without the use of polymers
or settling aids, but with longer settling time. 2378—TCDD and 2378—TCDF were
removed to less than detectable levels (detection level 0.016 ppt). The actual
final effluent concentration of 2378—ICOD was 0.009-0.012 ppt vs. <0.016 ppt in
the “treated” aeration basin effluent sample. The 2378—TCDF in the final
effluent was 0.043 ppt vs. <0.016 ppt in the polymer—treated aeration basin
effluent. Unfortunately, the prescribed analytical protocol precluded attain-
ment of desired lower detection levels in the “treated’ samples. Use of the
same polymer at a lower dosage for the Mill E aeration basin effluent appeared
to be less effective for removal of TSS, 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF.
The final effluent at Mill A was subjected to treatment with alum (200 mg/L)
and a cationic polymer (4.0 mg/L). Marginal improvement of effluent quality Is
indicated with respect to TSS and 2378-TCDF. Results for 2378-TCDD are
inconclusive due to the analytical issues noted earlier. Treatment of a final
effluent in this manner as an interim measure would not be practical because of
the need for installation of additional large—scale clarification facilities.
-------
TABLE 4
MILL A
USEPA BENCH SCALE PAPER MILL WASTEWATER T EATA8iLITY 3 JDY
PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Untreated Treated % Removal Treatrnent
Caustic Extraction
155 40 13 55% Alum (2000 mg/L)
TOC 290 150 48% Nalco 7769 (7.5 ing/..)
2378—TCDD 0.50 <0.019 >96% (anionic)
2378—TCDF 2.15 <0.039 >98%
Combined Bleach Plant
ISS 86 19 78% Lime (1500 mg/L)
bC 190 120 37% Calgon 41 2439
2378-TCDD 0.20 (0.010 >95% (5.0 ng/L)
2378—TCDF 0.88 <0.011 >98% (cation Ic) -
Aeration Basin Effluent
TSS 3700 70 8% Gravity Setti ing
TOC 400 57 36% No Additives
2378-TCDD 0.84-0.85 <0.030
2378—TCDF 2.63 0.091 36%
Aeration Basin Effluent
TSS 3700 17 >99% American Cyanamid
TOC 400 48 38% 1906 N (6.25 mg/L)
2373-TCDD 0.84—0.85 <0.016 >98% (non—ionic)
2378-TCDF 2.63 <0.016 >99%
Final Effluent
TSS 23 15 35% Alum (200 mg/L)
TOC 48 22 54% Calgon 2136 (4.0 mg/ )
2378-TCDD 0.009—0.012 <0.043 - - (cationic)
2378-TCDF 0.043 <0.02 >53%
Notes : 1. AnalytIcal results for total suspended solids (TSS) and total
organic carbon (TOC) are reported in mg/L (or ppm); analytical
results for 2378—TCDO and 2378—TCDF are reported in pg/gm (or ppt).
2. Analyses for TSS and TOC by E.C. Jordan Co.
-10—
-------
TABLE 5
MILL E
LJSEPA BENCH SCALE PAPER MILL WASTEWATER TREATABILITY ST’JDY
PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Untreated Treated % Removal Treatment
Caustic Extraction
“ B Bleach Line
TSS 240 16 93% Lime (5000 mg/L)
TOC 550 250 55% Calgon WT 2439
2378-TCDD <0.024 <0.014 -- (3.0 mg/L)
2378—TCDF 0.069 <0.009 >871 (cationic)
Combined “B” Bleach Line
TSS 410 31 92% Lime (6000 mg/I)
bC 400 200 50% Calgon WT 2439
2378-TCDD <0.014 <0.020 -- (8.0 mg/L)
2378—TCDF 0.027-0.087 <0.008 >70% (cationic) -
Aeration Basin Effluent
TSS 840 160 1% Gravity Settling
TOC 180 110 % No Additives
2378-TCDO 0.10-0.11 <0.030 1%
2373—TCDF 0.74 0.13
Aeration Basin Effluent
TSS 840 39 95% American Cyanimid
TOC 180 97 46% 1906 N (5.0 mg/I)
2378—TCDO 0.10—0.11 <0.054 >48% (non—ionic)
2378-TCDF 0.74 0.35 53%
Final Effluent
TSS 44 21 52% Alum (400 mg/I)
TOC 93 32 66% Nalco 7769 (3.5 mg/..)
2378-TCDD <0.044 <0.027 -- (anionic)
2378—TCDF 0.15 <0.011 >92%
Notes : 1. Analytical results for total suspended solids (TSS) and total
organic carbon (TOC) are reported in mg/I (or ppm); analytical
results for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF are reported in pg/gm (or ppt).
2. Analyses for TSS and TOC by E.C. Jordan Co.
—11—
-------
-12-
Although Installation of facilities for treatment of interial r:
wastewaters (Caustic extraction stage filtrates, combined bleach olant a;-
waters) might appear to be an effective method for reducing effluent i 1sc ar es,
the time required for installation, the additional sludge generated, ossi
difficulties in sludge dewatering, and the relatively high costs arjue ijaiis
this alternative. A more effective interim measure would be improved suspen 1ei
solids controls in existing treatment facilities. At most pulp and 2dper
mills, facilities for addition of clarification chemicals (e.g., coagulants,
polymers) have been installed or can be installed quickly at relatively low
cost. Also, the incremental sludge generated can be handled within the
capability of existing sludge dewatering facilities at most mills. Similar
treatment should also be feasible at manymills with extended aeration wastewater
treatment facil ities.
C. Other Observations
Tables 6 and 7 present comparisons of results obtained in the five-mill
study with results obtained in the treatability study for Mills A and E,
respectively. These comparisons illustrate two important points: (1) si nifi—
cantly lower levels of 2378—TCDD and 2378—TCDF were found in bleach plant
wastewaters with lower bleaching rates (application of chlorine and chlorine
derivatives) in C—stages and across the bleach lirs; and (2) significantly
lower effluent discharges of 2378—ICOD and 2378-TCDF re observed with improved
suspended solids control. Bleach plant operating :ata for Mill E for the
treatability study have been claimed confidential a have not been presented
here. Notwithstanding, the degree of bleaching each mill during the
treatability study sampling as measured by unbleached, partially bleached, and
fully bleached pulp characteristics (K, CEK, final brightness) was about the
same as that measured during the five-mill study. Based upon limited results
from other studies (OMOE 1988, USEPA 1988a, STFI 1988), the changes in levels
of 2378-TCDD and 23?8—TCDF presented in Tables 6 and 7 are believed to be
principally related to changes in bleaching practice rather than laboratory,
random process, or chemical reaction rate variability. These limited data
indicate that an effective interim strategy for minimizing effluent discharges
of 2378-TCDD and 2378—TCDF should include both chlorine minimization and
improved suspended solids controls.
-------
TABLE 6
MILL A
FIVE-MILL STUDY AND TREATABILITY STUDY
CHLORINATION PRACTICE AND 2378—TCDD/2378-TCDF LEVELS
Treat3bll ltj
Five-Mill Study Study 1
June 1986 December 1987
Chlorination Practice 2
C-Stage (softwood) 75 lbs/ton 60 lbs/ton
Bleach Line (softwood) 235 121
C-Stage (hardwood) 66 41
Bleach Line (hardwood) 128 75
Bleach Plants 162 99
Pulp Characteristics
Softwood
K (unbleached) 19.6 20.3
CEK 3.0 2.8
Final Brightness * *
Hardwood
K (unbleached) 11.8 12.4
CEK 2.9 3.0
Final Brightness * *
Wastewater
Caustic Extraction 2378—TCDO 1.8 pp 0.50 ppt
Stage (softwood) 2378-TCDF 33 2.2
Combined Bleach Plant 4 2378-TCDD 0.44 0.20
2378-TCDF 7.6 0.88
Aeration Basin Effluent 2378—TCDD NA 5 0.84—0.85
Prior to Settling 2378—TCDF NA 2.6
Final Effluent 2378—TCDD 0.12 0.009—0.012
2378—TCDF 2.2 0.043
TSS 104 ppm 23 ppm
NOTES: 1. Treatabillty study results for 2378—TCDD and 2378-TCDF (December
1987) are for native wastewater samples prior to addition of
any coagul ants or pol )lners.
2. Chlorination practice expressed as lbs C1 2 EQOX/ton of air-dried
brownstock pulp (see tJSEPA 1988a, pp. 92-103).
3. Bleach plant chlorination practice Is production weighted for
- hardwood and softwood bleach lines.
4. Combined bleach plant sample for the five-mill study represents
mathematical cosilposite of softwood and hardwood bleach line
filtrates. Combined bleach plant sample for treatability study
represents field composite sample obtained from combined bleach
plant se r.
5. NA - Not analyzed in five—mill study.
* Data not presented.
—13—
-------
TA8LE 7
MILL E
FIVE-MILL STUDY AND TREATAB [ LITY STUDY
CHLORINATION PRACTICE AND 2378-TCDD/2378-TCDF LE/ELS
Treatdbll 1 y
Five- 1i 11 Study Study 1
January 1987 December 1987
Chlorination Practice 2
C 0 —Stage (hardwood) 98 lbs/ton ** lbs/ton
Bleach Line (hardwood) 156 “ ** 1
Bleach Plant 3 193 “ **
Pulp Characteristics
Softwood
K (unbleached)(PN) 18.8 **
CEK 3.0 **
Final Brightness * **
Hardwood
K (unbleached)(PN) 16.7 **
CEK 2.3 **
Final Brightness * **
Was tewa te r
Caustic Extraction 2378-TCDD 3.6 ppt <0.024 ppt
Stage (hardwood) 2378—TCDF 14 0.069
B Bleach Line 4 2378—TCOD 2.1 <0.014
2378-TCOF 5.80 0.027 to <0.087
Combined Bleach Plant 5 2378—TCDD 1.3 NA 6
2378-TCDF 5.8 NA
Aeration Basin Effluent 2378-TCDD NA 6 0.10-0.11
Prior to Settling 2378—TCDF NA 0.74
Final Effluent 2378-TCDD 0.09 <0.044
2378—TCDF 0.42 0.15
TSS 89 ppm 44 ppm
NOTES: 1. Treatability study results for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCOF (December
1987) are for native wastewater samples prior to addition of
any coagul ants or pol iiiers.
2. Chlorination practice expressed as lDs C1 2 EQOX/ton of air-dried
brownstock pulp (see USEPA 1988a, pp. 92-103).
-14-
-------
TABLE 7
MILL E
FIVE-MILL STUDY AND TREATABILITY STUDY
CHLORINATION PRACTICE AND 2378—TCDD/2378-TCDF LEVELS
NOTES: continued...
3. ChlorInation practice for bleach plant is production weighted
for hardwood and softwood bleach lines.
4. “B” bleach line sample for treatability study represents field
composite of “B” bleach line (hardwood) filtrates. “A” bleach
line (softwood) was down during treatability Study sampling
program. “B” bleac!’ line sample for five—mill study represents
mathematical composite of “B” bleach line filtrates.
5. Combined bleach plant sample for five—mill study represents a
mathematical composite of “A” bleach line and “B” bleach line
filtrates.
6. NA - Not analyzed in five—mill study or not sampled in
treatability study.
* Data not presented.
** Bleach plant chemical application and pulp :a claimed confidential.
-15-
-------
-16-
VIII. PROPOSED NPDES PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS
To date, there is only one industrial discharger in the United States wi
a specific process wastewater discharge limitation for 2373-TCDD or !373-CJF.
In May 1984, the Michigan Water Resources Commission issued a Final Order f
Abatement for the Dow Chemical - Michigan Division plant at Midland, Michigan,
and a concurrent NPDES permit (MWRC 1984 a,b). The MPDES per—nit 2rOhlblted ne
discharge of detectable levels of 2378-TCDO and prohibited the discharje
“... at a level which is or may become injurious ... •“ The Final Order
establ ished a final water-quality based effluent limitation of 0.3 parts per
quadrillion (ppq) 2378—TCDD and interim effluent limitations of 50 ppq effective
until December 31, 1985, and 10 ppq for the period January 1, 1986 to June 30,
1988. The Final Order also set out a dioxin minimization program including a
requirement for an interim control program consisting of the installation of a
mixed—media wastewater effluent filter. Upon installation of the effluent
filter, the discharge from Dow Chemical has consistently contained less than
10 ppq 2378—TCOD. Recently, the Michigan Water Resources Commission issued an
amended Final Order of Abatement and reissued the NPDES permit for Dow Chemical
(MWRC 1988 a,b). By these actions the state has revised the final water-quality
based effluent limitation from 0.3 ppq to 0.1 ppq 2378-TCDD, and the interim
effluent limitation from 10 ppq to 8 ppq. Further dioxin minimization programs
and treatability studies have also been required. This approach has resulted
in significantly reduced effluent discharge levels d reduced 2378-TCDD levels
in native fish collected from the receiving water ( :EPA 1988d).
USEPA’s interim strategy for regulation of .lp and paper mill dioxin
discharges requires development of appropriate best professional judgment
(BPJ) best available technology (BAT) effluent limitations and suggests the use
of chlorine minimization and improved suspended solids control programs as
mechanisms to develop those limitations (USEPA 1988e). Current data Indicate
that both of these mechanisms are likely to result in reduced effluent discharges
of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF. Attachments I and 2 present proposed NPDES
permit special conditions for chlorine minimization and improved suspended
solids control, respectively. These conditions can be applied in permits as
they are reissued or as modifications to permits currently in effect. The
specific requirements should be tailored to site—specific conditions at each
mill , taking into account any recent progress that may have been made through
programs initiated by the paper companies.
The treatability data presented in this report are the result of bench
scale studies at two pulp and paper mills. While the treatability data and
supplemental information presented here provide insight into approaches for
interim measures to reduce effluent discharges Qf 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF,
the data ale too limited to establish interim BPJ BAT NPDES permit effluent
limitations for these compounds at all bleach kraft pulp and paper mills. Until
such time as more data become available, approaches that establish near-term
target levels in the range of 10 ppq (0.01 ppt) are suggested. The data from
-------
—17-
the five—mill study, data from other researchers, and the limited data pr,serited
here Indicate that discharges of 2378-TCDO and 2378-TCOF n the range of .J
are attainable with changes in bleaching practice and improved suspended sol ids
controls. The interim control programs are reasonable Interim measures t ia
can be taken to work toward attainment of water-quality based effluent
limitations that may be applicable to many pulp and paper mills.
-------
REFERENCES
A.D. Little 1987, Exposure and Risk Assessment of Dioxin in Bleached Kraft
Paper Products (draft report), USEPA Contract No. 68-01-6951, Work Assign-
ment No. 18, endment No. 1, Arthur D. Little Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts,
June 25, 1987.
Buckeye Cellulose 1988, Byrd, JF., The Buckeye Cellul ose Corporation, Memphis
Tennessee, to (Farrar, Michael C., vice president, Environmental and Health
Affairs, Mierican Paper Institute Inc., Washington, DC), July 8, 1988, 2 pp.
Consolidated Paper Inc. (CPI) 1987, Dioxin/Furan In-Mill Source and Environ-
mental Studies Report , Consolidated Papers Inc., Wisconsin Rapdis, Wisconsin,
November 1987 (M ended February 1988).
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (Louisiana) 1987, Elevated Levels
of Dioxin Re or’ed from Northeast Louisiana Watershed (news release) , Baton
Rouge, Louistana, November 23, 1987. -
Maine Departments .of Environmental Protection, Human Services, and Inland
Fisheries and Wildlife (Maine) 1985, DIoxin in Androscoggin River (news
release), Augusta, Maine, May 20, 1985.
Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Pollutiin Control Agency (Minnesota)
1985, 2,3,7,8-TCDD Discovered in Rainy River Fis (news release), St. Paul
Minnesota, October 29, 1985.
Michigan Water Resources Commission (MWRC) 1984a, Final Order of Abatement No.
2022, Cosigned by Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan
Attorney General , Lansing, Michigan, May 17, 1984.
Michigan Water Resources Commission (MWRC) 1984b, NPDES Permit M10000868, Dow
Chemical U.S.A. — Michigan Division (May 17, 1984 - June 30, 1988), Lansing,
Michigan, May 17, 1984.
Michigan Water Resources Commission (MWRC) 1988a, Final Order of Abatement No.
2120, Coslgned by Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan
Attorney General Lansing, MIchigan, September 15. 1988.
Michigan Water Resources Commission (MWRC) 1988b, NPDES Permit M10000868, Dow
Chemical U.S.A. — Michigan Division (October 3, 1988 — October 1, 1993),
Lansing, MIchigan, September 15, 1988.
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement Inc.
(NCASI) 1987a, First Progress Report on the Assessment of Potential Health
Risks from Use of Bleached Board and Paper Food Packaging and Food Contact
Products , Special Report 87—11, National Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvement Inc., New York, New York, November 1987.
-------
-2-
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream :ipr i. e-
(NCASI) 1987b, Assessment of Potential Health isks from Jer’Ttal Ec os -e
Dioxin in Paper Products , Technical Bulletin Mo, 534, National C unc l
the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement Inc., Mew ‘or’, ew 1 ’r ,
November 1987.
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream mprov. ment
(NCASI) 1988a, Gi11esp e, Wifl iam •J., Program Direct3r 4ater ual i y,
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and stream Improvement Inc.,
New York, New York, to (O’Farrell , Th nas, Acting Director, Industrial
Technology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC)
July 22, 1988, 6pp.
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement Inc.
(NCASI) 1988b, Assessment of the Risks Associated with Potential Exposure
to Dioxin Through the Consumption of Coffee Brewed Using Bleached Paper
Coffee Filters , Technical Bulletin No. 546, National Council of the ?aper
Industry for Air and Stream Improvement Inc., New York, New York, May 1988.
National Council of the Daper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement Inc.
(NCASI) 1988c, Risks Associated with Dioxin Exposure Through Inhalation of
Paper Dust in the Workplace , Technical Bulletin ‘,. 537, National Council
of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream linpro. lent Inc., New York, New
York, January 1988.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) 1988, ( raft Mill Effluents in
Ontario (Prepared by the Expert Committee on Kraft Mill Toxicity), Pulp
and Paper Sector of MISA, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, April 1988.
Radian Corporation (Radian) 1988, Health Risk Assessment for Dioxin for Furan
Compounds Present in Humboldt Bay Pulp Mill Effluents , Radian Corporation,
Sacramento, CaLifornia, May 19, 1988.
Swedish Pulp and Paper Research Institute (STFI) 1988, Bleaching and the
Environment (Addendum to paper presented by K. P. Kringstad, et al. , SIFt,
Stockholm, Sweden at 1988 International Pulp Bleaching Conference, Orlando,
Florida), June 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1986, Michigan Dioxin Studies, Dow
Chemical Wastewater Characterization Study, Tittabawassee River Sediments
and Native Fish , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Westlake,
Ohio 44145, EPA-905/4-88-003, June 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1987, The National Dioxin Study,
Tiers 3, 5, 6, and 7 , Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,
DC 20460, EPA-440/4-87-003, February 1987.
-------
—3—
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1988a, U.S. EPA/Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Screening Study , Office of Water, Officer of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC 20460, EPA-440/1-88-025, March
1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1988b, IJSEPA/Paper Industry Coop-
erative Dioxin Study , Washington, DC, April 25, 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1988c, Risk Assessment for Dioxin
Contamination — Midland, Michigan , Region 5, Chicago, Ill inois 60604, EPA—
905/4-88-005, April 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1988d, Proposed Risk Management
Actions for Dioxin Contamination - Midland, Michigan , Region 5, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, EPA-905/4-88-006, April 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1988e, Interim Strategy for the
Regulation of Pulp and Paper Mill Dioxin Discharges to Waters of the United
States , Office of Water, Washington, DC, August 9, 1988.
Wisconsin Division of Health and Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin)
1985, Health Advisory for Fish Eaters, Summary of Wisconsin Fishing
Regulations, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Proposed !nterlm Chlorine Minimization Program
1. Within 30 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall
conduct a 72-hour composite sampling program of the following points at
each bleach line for the purpose of establishing the rates of formation of
2378—TCDD and 2378-TCDF (lbs/ton of air-dried brownstock pulp) with current
bleaching practice:
Pulps
a. Brownstock pulp fed to first stage chlorination
b. Fully bleached pulp after last bleaching stage.
Wastewaters
a. Combined bleach plant wastewaters exclusive of noncontact cooling
waters, process wastewaters from pulping, chemical recovery, paper
machines, utilities or other nonbleach plant sources to the extetit
possible.
b. If it Is not possible to sample combined bleach plant wastewaters sepa-
rately, individual bleach line filtrates and other bleach plant waste—
waters shall be sampled for the 72-hour sampling period. The permittee
may analyze each filtrate separately or prepare a flow—weighted
composite sample of filtrates and other bl ch plant wastewaters for
analyses, insuring that the composite sample is representative In terms
of flow and composition of each wastewater.
2. The permittee shall retain all bleach plant operating logs for the period
beginning 24 hours prior to initiation of sampling and lasting until 24
hours after completion of sampling. A minimum of 24 grab samples shall be
taken at approximate equal-time intervals to make up each 72-hour composite
sample.
3. The samples shall be analyzed for 2378—TCDD and 2378—TCDF in accordance with
the analytical protocol set out in Appendix C of USEPA/Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Screning Study (EPA 440/1—88-025, March 1988) or other
equivalent analytical protocol approved by USEPA.
4. Within 90 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall
submit a report including the results of the sampling program, the rates of
formation of 2378—TCDD and 2378-TCDF, and a description of the bleaching
practice followed (e.g., all chemical additions in lbs/ton of air-dried
brownstock pulp, Kappa number, CEK, and all data necessary to compute the
Kappa factor or chlorine ratio).
-------
-2-
5. BeginnIng 30 days from the effective date of this permit 3nd ‘i; ” :)r
120 days, the permittee shall review bleach plant operating ni
develop operating practices to minimize, to the naximum extent r C .’c1i
without compromising product specifications, the use of elemental •:hior ’e
for pulp bleaching. Operating practices may include control of :rilr; e
application, greater substi tution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine he’-
possible, improved mixing of bleach chemicals, and other operating practices
which would result in lower chlorine use.
6. Within 120 days from the effective date of this permit and lasting until
the expiration date, the permittee shall implement those practices that
are feasible. Within 150 days from the effective date of this permit, the
permittee shall submit a report describing the results of its chlorine
minimization efforts.
7. Within 180 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall
conduct a second bleach plant monitoring program (see paragraphs 1 to 4
above). The permittee shall submit a report of that monitoring program not
later than 240 days from the effective date of this permit. -
8. Beginning 1.2 months after the effective date of this permit and continuing
at six—month intervals, the permittee shall subn a report describing any
further actions it has taken to minimize chlor e use in pulp bleaching
including, but not limited to, changes in ope- ting practices, process
modifications, and process substitutions.
9. Based upon the results of this program, the permitting authority may reopen
this permit for modification, as appropriate.
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
Proposed Interim Effluent Suspended Solids Minimization Program
1. Within 30 days from the effective date of this permit, the perTnittee shall
initiate laboratory scale screening studies for the purpose of determining
what coagul ants, polymers, or other materials or additives, may be most
effective for minimizing the discharge of total su.spended solids from the
final effluent. For mills with biological treatment systems including
secondary ciarifiers, the testing shall be conducted on samples of
biological treatment system effluent (aeration basin) prior to addition of
any treatment chemicals and prior to settling in secondary clariflers. For
mills with aerated stabilization basins without secondary clarifiers, the
testing shall be conducted at the entry or influent to the final settling
zones prior to discharge. The testing shall include as a control a gravity
settled sample of the secondary ci an fier or final setting zone i nfl uent
including any treatment chemicals currently used at dosages reflecting
current practice. -
2. Within 30 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall
obtain 72—hour composite samples of the final effluent and the biological
treatment system effluent (aeration basin) prior -o addition of any treat-
ment chemicals and prior to settling in secon ary clariflers or final
settling zones as noted above. The aeration basir sample shall be analyzed
for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDD in both the solid frar .ion (laboratory filtered)
and the liquid fraction in accordance with the a ilytical protocol set out
in Appendix C of JSEPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin Screening Study
(EPA 440/1-88—025, March 1988) or equivalent analytical protocol approved
by USEPA. The final effluent sample 2378-TCDD and 2378—TCDF analytical
results shall be reported on a total sample basis (i.e., separate extraction
of solid and liquid fractions, but analysis of combined extracts in
accordance with the above analytical protocol).
3. Within 60 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall
report the results of the laboratory-scale screening studies and the
analyses of the final effluent and aeration basin effluent for 2378—TCDD
and 2378—TCDF. The permittee shall also submit a study plan for pilot
plant or full-scale verification of the laboratory—scale screening study.
4. Within 75 days from the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall
initiate pilot-scale or full-scale total suspended solids wastewater treata—
bility studies for the purpose of validating the results of the laboratory—
scale screening studies. If pilot-scale treatability studies are conducted,
the studies shall be conducted at a scale that would permit implementation
of the results on a full-scale basis.
-------
-2-
5. WithIn 150 days from the effective date of this permit, the pern1t ee
submit a report of the pilot—scale or full-scale total suspended :o s
wastewater treatability studies. The report shaH include the com l t
study results; estimates of the increased amounts (volume and ias;) f
wastewater sludge generated; estimates of expected total suspended soiris
effluent quality; estimates of the investment and annual costs associated
with improved suspended solids controls; and a proposed conStruction
schedule should additional facilities be required.
6. Beginning 150 days after the effective date of this permit and lasting
until expiration, the permittee shall implement the most effective interim
effluent total suspended solids controls derived from the above studies
within the capability of existing wastewater treatment and sludge dewatering
facilities. Installation and operation of chemical or other material
addition facilities shall be considered within the scope of “existing
wastewater treatment,” if those facilities are not in place, r if
modification of existing chemical or other material addition facilities is
required.
7. 3ased upon the results of this program, the permitting authority may reopen
this permit for-modification, as appropriate.
-------
i 0 ST
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
i PRO1 OCT 2 8 1988
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUB JECT: POTW Contract Operations
FROM: Jame ,?f t”
Of $e of Water Enforcement & Permits
TO: Addressees
On May 13, 1988, I sent you the attached memorandum
discussing the potential liability of private operators of POTW5
as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) co—
permittees. The purpose of the memorandum was to solicit your
comments on four options we developed to address this issue.
Briefly, the four options were:
o Change the NPDES regulations to require that the POTW be the
sole permittee even when the plant is operated by a private
concern.
o Make POTWs and private operators co—permittees, but specify
in the permit that either permittee may claim as an
affirmative defense that the other permittee caused a
violation.
o Pursue the regulatory changes- in the first option and
encourage use of the affirmative defense option as a
interim measure.
o Retain current policy of making the private operator a co—
permittee with the POTW.
A number of the commenters who responded to my memo believed
that the POTW should be the sole permittee. These commenters
generally believed that the ultimate responsibility for
compliance should rest with the POTW and that adding another
party as a co—permittee might unnecessarily complicate
enforcement policy. Other commenters preferred the co—permitting
policy. None of the commenters preferred using the affirmative
defense option, either permanently or as an interim measure.
-------
—2—
After reviewing all comments and investigating the legal and
policy aspects of this issue, we have decided to provide
clarifying guidance in today’s memorandum to supplement 40 CFR
§122.21(b) and Martha Prothro’s “privatization” memo of April 15,
1987. This guidance is applicable only to POTWS.
Section 122.21(b) imposes the duty to apply for a permit on
the “operator” of a facility. EPA’s intent in adopting this
provision was to ensure that permits would be issued to the
person or persons with true operational control over the
facility. To be consistent with this intent, Martha Prothro’s
memorandum of April 15, 1987, suggested that all private parties
operating POTWs under contracts with municipalities should be
NPDES co—permittees, along with the POTW. However, Martha’s memo
was intended to address those situations where contract operators
exercise primary management and operational decision—making
authority. We have received information suggesting that most
parties conducting contract activities for POTW5 do not exert
such control over POTWs. In such instances, the municipality or
sewage authority should be the sole permittee.
It should be emphasized that parties involved in POTW
operations who are not permittees may nevertheless be subject to
civil and criminal enforcement actions where their activities
result in violations of a POTW’s permit.
If you have any further questions or comments on this issue,
please feel free to contact me at (FTS) 475—8488 or have your
staff contact Ephraim King at (FTS) 475—9539.
Attachment
Addressees:
Water Management Division Directors, Regions I—X
Susan Lepow, Office of General Counsel
Kathy Summerlee, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring
-------
itD S74
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I 4jn Ø/
MAY 13 $88
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Liability of Private Operators of POTWs
FROM: James Wi- EIder, Director
Office of Water Enforcement
‘and- Permits (EN—335)
TO: Addressees
On April 15, 1988, I met with several private operators
of publicly owned treatment works (POTW8) to discuss their
potential liability as National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) co—permitteeg under EPA regulations
and policy. The purpose of this memorandum is to solicit
your comments on some options we have developed to address
their concerns.
There are roughly ten private companies throughout the
country serving about 150 POTWs. It appears that four of
these companies are responsible for most of the contract
operations. Service provided by the contractors ranges
from complete operation of the POTW to limited supervisory
assistance.
40 CFR 5122.21(b) provides that when an NPDES facility
is owned by one person but operated by another person 1 it is
the operator’s duty to obtain a permit. The purpose of this
provision was to make the person most involved in day—to—day
operation of the facility responsible for permit compliance.
In April, 1987, Martha Prothro sent a memo to the Regional
Water Management Division Directors which stated in part
that upon permit reissuance, permitting authorities should
make private operators of POTWa and municipalities co—permittees
where the municipality continues to own the treatment works.
Pursuant to EPA regulations and policy, some permitting
authorities have started to issue permits to private operators
and POTWa as co—permjttees. Both permittees would be jointly
-------
—2—
and severally liable for any permit violation. The operators
have expressed concern about this practice, since they lack
control over certain matters affecting compliance with NPDES
permit conditions, such as pretreatment enforcement, revenue
raising, and facility upgrading. They believe that
conscientious operation of an otherwise inadequate system
will not protect a private operator who is a co-permittee.
Although fl most cases there are contracts between the
private operator and the POTW which could provide for
ultimate compensation by the party responsible for a permit
violation, the private operators have argued that these
arrangements are inadequate if they are made co permitteeS.
This is because there are limitations in most states arising
from the revenue—raising authority of the municipality which
restrict the practical availability of funds from which the
contractor could -expect to be indemnified. In addition,
some states have laws which could be interpreted by courts
as forbidding the reimbursement of persons who are not officials
of a political subdivision, even though those individuals
perform a public service. The operators therefore believe
that their liability under the rIPDES permit is essentially
uninsurable. This would necessitate raising fees substantially
to compensate for their liability for risks, which could
severely curtail the private contract operations business.
We share the concern of the private operators about the
possible curtailment of their services, since we believe that
many of these businesses provide valuable assistance to
POTW5, to the ultimate advantage of the pretreatment program.
At the same time, we want to make sure that all interested
parties have a chance tO express their views about this
issue. To this end, we have developed the following options
to address the problem:
1. Change the NPDES regulations to require that the POTW be
the sole per ittee even when the plant is operated by a
private concern.
Pro : S]22.2](b) was intended to address situations where the
own•r was essentially a passive partner in the facility
(i.e., a landowner) and the operator had complete control.
This is arguably never the case with POTWS. The regulatory
change under this option would place responsibility
for permit compliance on the party who may ultimately
have the most control over such compliance. This option
would also provide ease of enforcement — the permitting
authority could take action against the POTW, which
could then be compensated by the private operator if
appropriate.
-------
—3—
Con : Since some operators are completely responsible for
day—to—daY operation of the POTW, it is arguably
inappropriate to relieve them of permitting
responsibilities.
2. Make POTWS and private operators co PermitteeS. but
specify in the permit that either perinittee may claim
as an affirmative defense that the other permittee
caused a violation (sample permit language attached).
Pr : permitting authority could take appropriate action
against either or both parties, while the private
operator would be afforded more protection in case
of non_negligence.
con : would be diffiCUlt for all parties to agree on the
appropriate burden of proof of the party using the
defense, since it is hard tO foresee the circumstances
of many violations.
3. Pursue the egulatOrV change in optiOn 1 and encourage
use of the affirmative defense option as an interim _
measure.
Pro : Could afford private operators relief until a regulatory
change was promulgated.
Con : same as option #2.
4. Retain current polici
Pro : Ease of enforcement — no need for permitting authority
to determine who is reponsible for a violation. POTWS
and operators could then handle the compensation issue
between themselves as in Option 01.
Con : Doesn’t alleviate concerns about private operators’
liability for events beyond their control.
-------
—4—
We are very interested in your opinion about the relative
advantages and disadvantages of these options. Please give
this question your serious attention and let us know your views,
including which option you believe is the best. I would
appreciate it if you could contact Marilyn Goode of my staff
(FTS 475—9533) with your comments by June 3, 1988. Thank
you for your help in resolving this issue.
Attachment
Addressees:
Water Management Division Directors, Regions I—X
Susan Lepow, Of f ice of General Counsel
Glenn 3nterberger, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring
Ken Kirk, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities
-------
EO ST4
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
L
NOV 8 1989
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Sewage Disposal from Trains
FROM:
O e of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
EPA has received letters from Members of Congress concerning
sewage disposal from trains. In addition, I have received a
September 9, 1988 memorandum from Bob Burd requesting guidance on
this issue.
As discussed below, while it may be possible to claim Clean
Water Act (CWA) authority to regulate sewage disposal from trains
in some situations, since this issue is addressed under the Rail
Passenger Service Act and the Public Health Service Act, we
believe it is more appropriate for this question to be dealt with
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under those statutes.
Most intercity passenger trains currently dispose of sewage
outside of the stations along the railroad right—of—way with
almost no treatment. In the case of older equipment, the dis-
charge is directly to the tracks. In newer equipment, the sewage
is retained and discharged when the train reaches speeds greater
than 25 miles per hour. Amtrak trains in the Northeastern corri-
dor do not follow these practices and hold wastes for treatment
and disposal at the stations.
In 1971, the FDA promulgated regulations concerning
interstate conveyance sanitation under its authority contained
in the Public Health Service Act. Specifically included were
provisions which regulated the discharge of wastes from railroads
(21 C.F.R. S1250.51). The effect of the FDA regulations was to
greatly restrict the discharge of the sewage onto the tracks.
However, in 1976, section 306(i) of the Rail Passenger Service
Act was added and amended to exempt “intercity rail passenger
service” from the requirements of the regulations dealing with
the discharge of waste from railroads. These amendments also
required submission of a report to Congress on the public health
and environmental risks of these actions and the financial and
operating hardships that would result from a prohibition of such
disposal. This report, submitted to Congress in 1979, recommended
-------
—2—
allowance of discharge of the waste when the trains reached speeds
greater than 25 miles per hour and recommended removal of the
statutory exclusion.
One possible EPA statutory authority to regulate this matter
may be available under section 402 the CWA which prohibits the
discharge of pollutants from a point source to the waters of the
United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit issued by EPA or an approved State agency
under the CWA. The Amtrak passenger trains are discharging “p01—
lutants” since sewage is specifically included in the definition
of pollutant. In addition, the discharge is from a “point source”
since rolling stock is specifically included in the definition of
point source. The only question that would remain is if the dis-
charge is to “waters of the United States.” This authority could
apply in those limited circumstances where a train is discharging
over wetlands or surface waters. However, since this issue is
addressed under the Rail Passenger Service Act and the Public
Health Service Act, we believe it is more appropriate for this
question to be dealt with under those statutes.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter,
please contact Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director, Permits Division
(FTS 475—9545) or have your staff contact Gary Hudiburgh of her
staff (FTS 475—9531).
cc: Malcolm Reddoch (FDA)
-------
NOV 30
L4EMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Remand of the OCPSF Effluent Limitati.ons Guidelines for
Big (2-Qiloroisopropyl) ether
FROMi Cynthia C. Dougherty. Director
Permits Division (EI -336)
Ruth G. Bell
Assistant General Counsel for Water (LE-132W)
TOi Regional Water Management Division Directors
Regional Counsels
NPDES State Directors
Director, NEIC
On November 5, 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency
( “EPA”) promulgated a final regulation establishing effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source
performance standards for the organic chemicals, plastics, and
synthetic fibers (OCPSF) point source category (the guideiine ”).
The regulation became effective on December 21, 1987.
On June 7, 1988, EPA and Dow Chemical Company filed a joint
motion (“joint motion for voluntary remand”) in the U. S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit requesting that the Court remand
for reconsideration the guideline for the pollutant Si. (2—
Chioroisopropyl) ether, promulgated in 40 C.F.R. 414.91 and
414.101 (52 Fed. Rag. 42522, 42581—32 ; Nov. 5, 1987). On June
27, 1988, the Court granted the joint motion for voluntary
remand. Copies of the Court’s action and the joint motion for
voluntary remand are attached.
This means that, as of June 27, 1988, best available
technology economically achievable (“BAT”) and new source
performance standards (“NSPS ”) for Si. (2—øiLoroi.opropyl) ether
are no longer effective and that the permit writer must develop
technology-based permit limits for this pollutant based on the
permit writer’s best professional judgment ( “BPJ”).
-------
2
if you have any questions on this matter, please contact
James D. Gallup. Chief of the Technical Support Branch (202 or
FTS 475—9541) or Dcv Weitman, Office of General Counsel (202 or
FTS . 62—7700).
Attachments
cc: Thomas O’Parrell (WH-552)
J. William Jordan (EN-338)
3
CHOU:EPA HQ:EN—336 :NE202:382—6960
CHOU:DOC REMAND1:DISK GENE CHOU 6:gc l1- -88
3
-------
DEC28
MEMORA1 DUM
SUBJECT, Procedures for Revising the Major Permit List
FROM. Cynthia Dougherty, Director
Permits Division
TOx Water Management Division Directors
Regions 1-X
At our recent meeting in Wintergre.n, Virginia a question
arose about our current procedures for revising the majors list.
This memo clarifies the requirements for both municipal and
industrial discharger..
Municipal 5
Requests for changes to the municipal majors list can be
made at any time. However, two to three weeks should be allowed
for processing. To be eligible for designation as a major, a
facility must meet the following criteria, public ownership,
SIC Code 4952, active statue, and design flow of one mgd or
greater (or service population of 10.000 or cause significant
water quality impacts). In order to add a facility that meets
th criteria above to the officiaj list of major municipal
facilities, the name, permit number, and design flow (or other
pertinent information) should be forwarded to the chief,
Compliance Evaluation Section (Eb—338). Before a request for
additions to the list is submitted, the Region should check to
be sure that the data necessary to substantiate the request is
in PCS. This will help expedite Headquarter’. processing of the
request. Deletions should be requested in the same manner as
additions. Questions concerning the .. procedures may be
addressed to Richard Lawrence of the Enforcement Division at
FTS—475—95l0.
Industrials
Requests for change. to the industrial majors list may be
mad, semiannually, on October 1 and April 1 and should be
addressed to the chief, Technical Support Branch (EN—336).
Regular additioms (those permits scoring 80 or above on the
major rating scale) must be accompanied by a rating shet.
-------
—2—
Discretionary .dditiofl muat also be accompanied by a rating
sheet, and will be assigned a rating on the major rating scale
of 500 plus the actual rating of the facility.
For example. a facility rating 75 would normally be a
minor. Rowever. if it w.rs designated a discretionary addition
major, it would be rated 575 in PCS. For each Region.
discretionary addition csilings are calculated on the basis of
30 plus 10 percent of the Region’s actual number of majors. For
example, if a Region has 400 industrial p.rmits rating 80 or
greater, the Region’s discr.tiOnary additions ceiling would be
70 (30 + 0.1.0 x 400). A timelino for the semiannual industrial
majors list updating procsss appears as attachment 1 and a copy
of a rating sheet is attachment 2. You will notice that the
National Enforcement investigations Center (NEIC) is no longer
involved with the semiannual industrial majors list updating
process. changing priorities at LJEIC necessitated that Jim
Vincent. who has done a c nd&bls job over the years.
disengage fr a n the project so we are now using a contractor,
SAIC, to perform NEIC’s functions. Once the transition from
bIEIC to a contractor has been effected, we may decide to use
Permits Division staff to perform the semiannual update.
Questions concerning these procedures may be addressed to
Rap Thron of the Permits Division at FTB—475—9537.
Attachments
HAP:EPAHQ:EN —336:214NE475953 7 :DOC. Major.pg. 15:Disk.Rap#1:
Word Perfect:ACM:11/8/88
-------
COPIES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
t UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTION AGENCY
t WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
January 25, 1989
or ice o
WATI
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: ole Effluent Toxicity Basic Permitting Principles and
forceiuent Strategy
iA frt
FROM: R becca W. Hanmer, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
TO: Regional Administrators
Since the issuance of the apolicy for the Development of
Water Quality—based Permit Limitations for Toxic PollutanteN in
March of 1984, the Agency has been moving forward to provide
technical documentation to support the integrated approach of
‘sing both chemical and biological methods to ensure the
eotection of water quality. The Technical Support Document for
Aater Quality—based Toxics Control (September, 1985) and the
Permit Writer’s Guide to Water Quality—based Permittin for Toxic
Pollutants (July. 1987) have been instrumental in the initial
implementation of the Policy. The Policy and supporting
documents, however, did not result in consistent approaches to
permitting and enforcement of toxicity controls nationally. When
the 1984 Policy was issued, the Agency did not have a great deal
of experience in the use of whole effluent toxicity limitations
and testing to ensure protection of water quality. We now have
more than four years of experience and are ready to effectively
use this experience in order to improve national consistency in
permitting and enforcement.
In order to increase consistency in water quality—based
toxicity permitting, I am issuing the attached Basic Permitting
Principles for Whole Effluent Toxicity (Attachment 1) as a
standard with which water quality-based permits should conform.
A workgroup of Regional and State permitting, enforcement, and
legal representatives developed these minimum acceptable
requirements for toxicity permitting based upon national
experience. These principles are consistent with the toxics
control approach addressed in the proposed Section 304(1.)
regulation. Regions should use these principles when reviewing
aft State permits. If the final Section 304(1) regulations
dude changes in this area, we will update these principles as
ecessary. Expanded guidance on the use of these principles will
be sent out shortly by James Elder, Director of the Office of
-------
—2—
Water Enforcement and Permits. This expanded guidance will
include sample permit language and permitting/enforcement
scenarios.
Concurrent with this issuance of the Basic Permitting
Principles. I am issuing the Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Strategy for Toxics Control (Attachment 2). This
Strategy was developed by a workgroup of Regional and State
enforcement representatives and has undergone an extensive
comment period. The Strategy presents the Agency’s position on
the integration of toxicity control into the existing National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance and
enforcement program. it delineates the responsibilities of the
permitted community and the regulatory authority. The Strategy
describes our current efforts in compliance tracking and quality
assurance of self—monitoring data from the permittees. It
defines criteria for review and reporting of toxicity violations
and describes the types of enforcement options available for the
resolution of permit violations.
In order to assist you in the management of whole effluent
toxicity permitting. the items discussed above will join the 1984
Policy as Appendices to the revised Technical Support Document
for Water Ouality—based Toxics Control. To summarize, these
materials are the Basic Permitting Principles , sample permit
Language. the concepts illustrated through the permitting and
enforcement scenarios, and the Enforcement Strategy. I hope
these additions will provide the needed framework to integrate
the control of toxicity into the overall NPDES permitting
program.
i encourage you and your staff to discuss these documents
and the 1984 Policy with your States to further their efforts in
the implementation of EPA’s toxics control initiative.
If you have any questions on the attached materials, please
contact James Elder, Director of the Of fice of Water Enforcement
and Permits . at (FTS/202) 475-8488.
Attachments
cc: ASWIPCA
Water Management Division Directors
-------
*
COPY AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
m2,geg
OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM WATER
SUBJECT: Whole-effluent Toxicity Sample Permitting and
Enforcement Guidance
FROM: Jame .
Of ce of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN-335,
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
State NPDES Program Directors
In recent months, the Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits has been coordinating the efforts of an EPA/State
workgroup composed of permitting, enforcement and legal counsel
representatives to develop materials in support of our wholq—
effluent toxicity permitting and enforcement effort. Those
materials were sent to the Regions for comment in October and
included Basic Permitting Principles; draft boiler-plate language
on a permit provision allowing petitions for relief from civil
penalties; sample permit language for whole-effluent toxicity
limits, Toxicity Reduction Evaluations, and special conditions;
and permitting/enforcement scenarios.
Most of the materials, with the exception of the draft
boiler-plate language, received general support. The Basic
Permitting Principles for Whole Effluent Toxicity and the
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Strategy for Toxics Control
have already been issued by the Acting Assistant Administrator
for Water and transmitted to the Regional Administrators
(Attachment A). The Basic Permitting Principles are consistent
with the recently proposed 304(1 ) regulations, and will help to
avoid ambiguities that may arise in NPDES permits. As you will
see, the Enforcement Strategy was revised from the December 1987
draft to reflect Regional/State comments as well as advances in
technical documentation since that time. The Permitting
Principles and Enforcement Strategy will serve as companion
documents to the Policy for the Development of Water Quality-
Based Permit Limitations for Toxic PollutantsN issued in 1984.
The sample toxicity permit language and the permitting and
enforcement scenarios are attached in final form as guidance.
The concepts contained in this guidance will also be reflected in
the revisions being made to the Technical Support Document this
year.
-------
-2-
The sample toxicity permit language (Attachment B) is a
compllatloa of limits, Toxicity Reduction Evaluation schedules,
and special conditions that would be part of a permit. Each
example Is •eant as guidance; it is not meant to be used verbatim
as boiler plate language in permits, but should be adapted to the
specific case at hand.
The permitting and enforcement scenarios (Attachment C) give
examples of the permitting and enforcement mechanisms available
for the control of whole-effluent toxicity. These scenarios
illustrate that the toxics control effort fits Into the ongoing
NPDES program as it currently exists. As with the rest of the
NPDES program, limitations are set by permits. Schedules may be
set by permits or, in response to permit violations, through
enforcement actions. Information, including monitoring and
toxicity identification evaluations, may be requested through the
permit, an enforcement action, or a Section 308 letter or state
equivalent.
The draft boiler plate language that was part of the
original package sent for Regional review received much critlcis
from Regions and State workgroup members. The concept of relief
from penalties assessed in enforcement actions was broadly
believed to be outside the realm of EPA permitting authority. As
a result of numerous comments, the concept of enforcement
discretion in assessing penalties has been incorporated as part
of the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Strategy for Toxics
Control. Enforcement discretion will allow equitable defense
reasoning to influence penalties assessed against permittees that
have done everything technically feasible, but are unable to
identify or control toxicity. These instances are believed to be
rare and have not occurred in our present experience.
If you have any questions on the attached materials, please
call either David Lyons or Rick Brandes of my staff at (FTS/202)
475-8310 or (FTS/202) 475-9525 respectively.
Attachments
cc: AS! WPCA
-------
COPY AVAILABLE UPON R X UEST
EPA GUIDANCE
ON
NPDES PERNITTING STRATEGY
FOR
OCPSF INDUSTRY DIRECT DISCRARGERS
February 1989
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
COPY OF STRAT Y AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
O SZq
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. o o
q
F 16
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: NPDES Permitting Strategy for OCPSF Industry Direct
FROM: , irector
of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
TO: rional Water Management Division Directors
NPDES Delegated State Directors
As you know, the final rule establishing effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source
performance standards for the organic chemicals, plastics, and
synthetic fibers (OCPSF) point source category (the “guidelines”)
was promulgated on November 5, 1987 and became effective on
December 21, 1987. While the Agency was sued on the guidelines
by numerous parties, the guidelines are in effect except for a
voluntary remand of the pollutant Bis (2—Chioroisopropyl) ether
for BAT and NSPS about which you were notified on November 30,
1988. We will keep you apprised of the status of the litigation.
In addition, the Agency provided an implementation guidance and a
list of questions arid answers regarding the guidelines to NPDES
permitting authorities on February 8 and October 12, 1988,
respectively.
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with the
NPDES Permitting Strategy for OCPSF Industry Direct Dischargers
(the “strategy”). At the request of permitting authorities and
permittees, this strategy was developed to assist permitting
authorities in determining when and how to implement the
guidelines.
At the October National Branch Chiefs’ Meeting in
Wintergreen, Virginia, we distributed and requested comments on a
draft flow chart (given as Attachment A of this strategy) which
provides an overview of the decision—making procedure involved in
implementing the strategy. The seven sections in the strategy
are narrative descriptions of each step in the flow chart.
In the strategy, we request that the permitting authority
immediately reissue OCPSF permits that have already expired or
will expire before September 30, 1989, to reflect the
guidelines. For permits which expire after October 1, 1989, the
J ante
-------
2
permitting authority must use the procedure in the flow chart (or
use Sections 1 — 7 of the strategy) to determine whether the
permit should be reissued before the expiration date. The
strategy requires the permitting authority to perform the
following tasks after reviewing all the relevant documents (as
described in Section 1).
(1) Water Quality Review
Section 2 describes how to assess the water quality
impacts imposed by the §304(1) requirements. OCPSF
facilities listed on the “C List” must comply with the
§304(1) requirements and must be treated separately in
accordance with the “Final Guidance for Implementation of
Requirements under §304(1) of the Clean Water Act as
amended”, March 1988.
(2) Authority to Reopen Permits
Section 3 describes how the permitting authority
determines whether the permit can be reopened upon
promulgation of new guidelines. After this determination
is made, all permitting authorities must conduct
compliance assessments unless the authority elects to
reopen all permits.
(3) Compliance Assessment
Section 4 provides guidance on determining whether
facilities are currently discharging pollutants at levels
that would exceed the new BPT and/or BAT guidelines. A
compliance assessment procedure is provided in
Attachment C for your convenience. A worksheet
(Attachment c—i.) has been devised for you to perform this
task efficiently. For complying facilities, reissue the
permit upon expiration. For non—complying facilities,
the permitting authority should either provide the
assessment results to the facilities and notify them that
immediate compliance is expected upon permit reissuance
or follow the priority determination procedure (as
provided in Sections 5, 6, and 7) based on the results of
items (2) and (3).
(4) Priority Determination
Sections 5, 6, and 7 provide guidance on how to establish
the permit reissuance priority where there is authority
to reopen the permit upon promulgation of new guidelines
and the facility currently discharges pollutants at
levels that would exceed the new guidelines. Discharges
into near—coastal waters have been designated in this
strategy as having the highest priority for permit
-------
3
reissuance (Section 5). Section 6 contains six other
significant factors to be considered in establishing
priorities in the reissuance schedule. For high priority
permits which are to be reopened, the compliance deadline
in the permit is March 31, 1989. For the facilities
which cannot comply with the new permit limits by
March 31, 1989, an administrative order may be issued to
establish a compliance schedule as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than three years after the
effective date of the reissued permit. For the permits
which the permitting authority decides not to reopen
prior to the expiration date, the permitting authority
must use letters to request submission of compliance
plans from the permittee. A sample information request
letter is provided in Attachment D for your use.
In summary, we believe that, by implementing this strategy,
we can accelerate compliance with the new guidelines and
adequately control the most significant OCPSF dischargers.
Also included in this document is a list of known OCPSF
active direct dischargers (Attachment B). Please review the
permit files of those facilities in your Region/State to identify
the ones which currently discharge OCPSF process wastewater as
defined in 40 CFR 414.11. Delete from the list any facility
which does not discharge OCPSF process wastewater and/or add to
the list any additional OCPSF facilities, then submit the amended
list to me by March 10, 1989 . NPDES delegated States should also
send a copy of the amended list to the Region. If you have any
questions or concerns about the implementation of the strategy,
please submit them with the amended list.
For further questions, please contact me (FTS 475—8488) or
have your staff contact James Gallup, Chief of the Technical
Support Branch (FTS 475-9541) or Gene Chou (FTS 382—6960) of this
staff.
Attachments
cc: Susan Lepow (LE—132W)
Martha Prothro (WH-551)
J. William Jordan (EN-338)
-------
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C.
IqØI#
MAI 15 1989 OFFICEOF
WATER
rIEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: (uidance for Section 304(1) Listing and
Permitting of Pulp and Paper Mills
FROM: P 1 artha G. Prothro, Director
Off ice of Water Regulations and dards (WH-55].)
James R. Elder, Di ctor
office of Water)Øforcexnent and Permits (EN-335)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
As part of the National Bioaccumulatjon Study we have
identifieü the presence of chlorinated dioxins and/or furans in
fish tissu’ s near the discharges of all of the first 81
chlorine bleaching pulp and paper mills examined to date.
Seventy-four of these 81 sites had detectable levels of
2,3,7,8-TCDD present in the fish tissue. Several of these
mills are indirect dischargers to POTWs but in every such case,
2,3,7,8-TCDD was found in fish near the discharge from the
POTW.
As further evidence of the association of chlorine
bleaching pulp and paper mills with dioxin formation and
discharge, the Cooperative Dioxin Study recently conducted by
EPA and the paper industry at five mills found dioxins and/or
furans in the effluents of four of the five plants studied and
in the sludges of all five plants. EPA and the paper industry
are now c’)operatjng in a follow-up study to collect detailed
effluent and operating data for dioxin and furans at all 104
U.S. pulp and paper mills which use chlorine to bleach pulp.
Initial, results received so far indicate that dioxins and/or
furans are present at detectable levels in about 80 percent ot
the effluent samples.
sting
The (A)(ii) list of Section 304(1)(1), often called the
“long list,” must include waters which after the application
BAT cannot reasonably be antIc pat -c d to attain or maintain tti’
I’;hahLP/swum ,y a p goals of the Act. Based r n the result-s rr
dioxin t.uuIi es cond’ictecj “ l. r ‘ , e have conc Ilirlerl t h. .r
all 104 rh1’irui e bleaching pulp .in’t p,ip mills or . ssociarr’ I
-------
2
POTWs should be assumed to be discharging dioxins or furans at
levels which Wi ].]. lead to detectable levels in fish tissue.
Such levels are inconsistent with the fishable/swimmable goals
of the Act, which is the basis for the subsection (A)(ii)
list. Therefore, receiving waters for all 104 mills or
associated POTW5 should be listed under Section
304(1) (1) (A) (ii).
The (B) list of Section 304(l)(1), often called the “short
list,” is limited to those waters for which applicable water
quality standards (including narrative “free-from” standards)
are not expected to be achieved due entirely or substantially
to point source discharges of Section 307(a) pollutants. Only
2,3,7,8-TCDD is a Section 307(a) pollutant; other dioxins and
furans are not.
2,3,7,8-TCDD has been detected to date in fish at 74 of
the 81 mills tested.* Using conservative assumptions, we
calculate that the EPA water quality criterion for this
pollutant will be exceeded at the 10-6 risk level at all 74
mills where 2,3,7,8-TCDD has been detected in fish tissue. EPA
water quality criteria present human health values for
2,3,7,8—TCDD at the l0— , 10—6 and i0 cancer risk levels. In
the absence of an explicit State policy or formally proposed or
final numeric criterion which establishes a different risk
level, EPA will use the risk level of iO_6 to interpret the
States’ narrative water quality standards for Section 304(1)
listing. This will ensure that all waterways affected by point
source discharges of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are not arbitrarily omitted
from lists withOut sound site-specific data and analysis. New
site-specific data generated in the future (including local
fish consumption patterns, intensive site surveys, or new State
numeric water quality standards) may then be considered during
the ICS development process.
On the basis of the information that is now available, ‘ e
have concluded that for the subsection (B) list, receiving
waters should be listed for every mill or associated POTW wher”
*2,3,7,8.... rcDD is a highly potent carcinogen which probably
affects humans. The Science Advisory Board recently
reevaluated the potency factor used in calculating the nation !
water quality criterion for the pollutant, and recommended th.r
the factor remain unchanged.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
WATER
MA j. 5 1989
SUBJECT: Final Guidance on Section 304(1) Listing and
Permitting of Pulp and Paper Mills
FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director
Office of Water Regulatj
James R. Elder
Office of Wa Ø? Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
At last October’s Water Quality Branch Chiefs meeting in
Orlando, OWR5 and OWEP were asked to prepare a national policy
on Section 304(1) listing of chlorine bleaching pulp and paper
mills. Dloxjns and/or furans have been detected in fish near
all 81 mills tested to date; 2 , 3 ,7,8-TCDD (a Section 307(a)
pollutant) has been detected at 74 of these mills. Additional
data is now being collected for all 104 mills which use
chlorine to bleach pulp, and based on test results so far we
would expect to find dio jn or furans at all 104 mills.
On January 31, 1989, we circulated a draft policy on
Section 304(1) listing and control of pulp and paper mills.
This draft policy called for listing the receiving waters for
all 104 mills on the Section 3 O 4 (1)(1)(A)(jj) “long” list.
With regard to the Section 3 O 4 (l)(J.)(B) “short” list, the dr.jt’
policy called for listing only the receiving waters for those
mills where 2 , 3 ,7,8-TCDD has b en detected in fish. Addjtj .- j
facilities would be listed in the near future if 2 , 3 ,7,8-TCDD
is detected in fish or effluents.
We received written comments from Regions it, iv, V 9 and
IX and verbal comments from Staff members in other Regions as
wr ll. All basically endorsed the draft policy and raised no
“lajor issues. All Regions suqger specific clarifications
.nvl improvements which we have incorporated to the extent
p0 s i h I e.
-------
—2—
We are pleased to transmit final guidance for Section
304(1) listing and permitting of pulp and paper mills. This
guidance is effective immediately. We asic you to share it with
your States as quickly as possible. Where appropriate, States
may supplement their Section 304(1) submissions with
additional waters and ICSs as indicated by the policy prior to
the June 4, 1989, statutory deadline for EPA approvals and
disapprovals.
Please feel free to call either of us with any questions
you may have.
Attachment
cc: Environmental. Services Division Directors, Regions I - x
Water Quality Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
Permits Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
Rebecca W. Hanmer, Acting AA for OW
William A. Whittington, Acting Deputy AA for OW
Susan Lepow, Associate General Counsel for Water
-------
3
2,3,7,8-TCDD is detected in fish (whole or fillet), unless the
State has adopted an explicit State policy or formally proposed
or adopted a numeric water quality criterion for the pollutant
which establishes a risk level less stringent than 10-6 and the
State’s criterion is not violated. In addition, if 2,3,7,8—
TCDD data for the effluent indicate, after use of appropriate
procedures specified by the State regarding mixing zones and
risk levels, that there will be a violation of water quality
standards, then the receiving water for the mill or associated
POTW should be listed on the subsection (B) list.
For those mills where 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in
fish flesh or has not been found in effluents or where fish
contamination data are not yet available, 2,3,7,8-TcDD should
be considered as a suspected, but not confirmed, toxic
pollutant for the purposes of the subsection (B) “short” list.
Additional studies are now underway to help resolve these
concerns, including fish tissue sampling at the remaining 23
mills and detailed data collection on 2,3,7,8-TCDD as part of
the ongoing 104-mill EPA and paper industry cooperative study.
All of these additional data are expected to be available
within the next four months. If these investigations yield
data which show 2,3,7,8-TCDD to be present in fish tissue near
any additional chlorine bleaching pulp and paper mills or in
the effluents from the mills at levels that violate standards,
then receiving waters for these mills or associated POTWs
should be added to the subsection (B) list at that time,
provided that the list has not been finalized.
The (C) list of Section 304(l)(l) must include all point
source discharges of the Section 307(a) pollutants believed to
be preventing or impairing water quality standards in waters
identified on the subsection (B) “short” list. Chlorine
bleaching pulp and paper mill point source discharges or
associated sediment deposits are the likely sources of dioxins
in all cases examined so far; nonpoint sources have not been
implicated to date. Thus, the chlorine bleaching pulp and
paper mill or associated POTW should be identified on the
subsection (C) list for each water identified on the (B) list.
Water Oualitv Standards
A major element in the Interim Strategy for the
Regulation of Pulp and Pacer Mill Discharges to the Waters of
the United States issued on August 9, 1988, was establisI ment
of water quality standards for dioxin. it is crucial that the
Regions urge and assist the States where these discharges are
occurring to adopt a numerical procedure for interpreting thei:
narrative criterion or establish a numerical water quality
-------
4
standard. We are encouraged that a number of States have
begun this- process. EPA Headquarters will track progress
closely and will assist Regions and States as necessary.
Individual Control Strategies
Section 304(l)(2) requires States to develop an individual
control strategy (i.e., an NPDES permit) for each facility
listed on the “short list.” Thus, an individual control
strategy will be required for each pulp and paper mill listed
due to 2,3,7,8-TCDD discharges or fish contamination. This
requirement is consistent with the long-term goal to eliminate
the presence of dioxin discharges from pulp and paper mills to
the waters of the United States articulated by Rebecca Haniner
in the Interim Strategy .
Where the facility is listed due to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, it will
likely be necessary to set effluent limitations more stringent
than the current permit to meet State water quality standards.
In most cases, this will require an interpretation of the
State’s narrative standard. There is flexibility in the
State’s interpretation of its narrative standard and in
development of appropriate water quality-based effluent
limitations for the discharges. If the State determines it is
most appropriate to develop a numerical limitation based upon
its narrative standard and the EPA criterion is used, the State
has the responsibility to determine the appropriate level of
risk. The State may also choose to develop a State numeric
criterion which is demonstrated to be protective of aquatic
life and human health, as indicated above. Consistent with the
national policy for listing, in the absence of an explicit
State policy or formally proposed or final State criterion to
the contrary, the iO_6 risk level should be used as the basis
for establishing effluent limitations for 2,3,7,8—TCDD in
individual control strategies.
A State—issued permit must require compliance with the
final water quality-based effluent limitation as soon as
possible, but no later than June 4, 1992. Where EPA
disapproves a State ICS and subsequently issues the ICS (in
cooperation with the State), the compliance date is June 4,
1993. In most cases, the final calculated limitation will be
below the current level of detection. In these cases, the
permit should contain:
1. The calculated water quality-based permit
limitation for 2,3,/, -’IcDD.
2. A statement in the permit that the
detection level is ‘ - i’ threshold for
compliance/non—compi. i.’ determinat ions.
-------
5
3. A statement in the permit citing the analytical
protocol set out in Appendix C of USEPA/Paper
Industry Cooperative Dioxin Screening Study (EPA
440/1-88—025, March 1988) as the method to use
when analyzing the effluent for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
The permit must also contain a compliance schedule that
achieves compliance no later than the appropriate statutory
deadline.
In addition, permits should contain interim best
professional judgment BAT effluent limitations for dioxin for
each facility, establishing as stringent an interim limitation
as possible before the 1992 (or 1993) compliance date for
compliance with the water quality-based limit. These interim
limits will be the controls which are currently imposed on the
mills and move the mills towards compliance with the more
stringent water quality-based limit. These interim BPJ/BAT
limitations can include both a numerical technology-based
limitation as well as interim control measures including
chlorine reduction and suspended solids minimization plans.
These are discussed in more detail in the Interim Strategy and
the October 1988 treatability guidance.
The other permitting provisions of the tnterim Strategy
involving monitoring, e.g., testing and a reopener clause,
should also be incorporated into ICSs for these facilities.
Staff from the Permits Division are available to work with your
staff in the development of appropriate permit language. The
Industrial Technology Division in OWRS is also available to
work with you and/or the State to address technology and
treatability issues.
ApDrovp].s and Dispr,prpvpls of State Section 304(1) Submissions
National consistency is especially critical in listing ir t
ICS decisions related to dioxin discharges for pulp and paper
mills due to extraordinary public interest and a high
likelihood of litigation. EPA will use this guidance as the
basis for approving or disapproving State Section 304(1)
submitta].g with respect to dioxin discharges and contaminatic,
from pulp and paer mills, in addition to other applicable
guidance and requirements for the Section 304(1) program.
Additional Information
If you need additional copies of the fish tissue data
collected so far, please contact Stephen Kroner of OWRS at
(FTS) 382-7046. Copies of the Cooperative Dioxin Study may
obtained by calling Jennie He1m of OWRS at (FTS) 382-7120.
-------
6
Jennie may also be contacted for status and schedule
informatj on the Ongoing EPA and paper industry 104-mill
cooperative study.
If you have any questions or need any further
information, please feel free to call us or Geoff Grubbs or
Cynthia Dougherty of our staffs.
Attaclunent
CC: Environmental Services Division Directors, Regions i - x
Water Quality Branch Chiefs, Regions r - x
Permits Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
Rebecca Hanmer, Acting AA for Water
William A. Whittington, Acting Deputy AA for OW
Cynthia Dougherty, Director, PD
Susan Lepow, Associate General Counsel for Water
-------
ATTACHMENT
LE 2S
PULP AND PAPER MILLS USING
CHLORINE_BASED BLEACHING
James River Corp.
:1 * International Paper Co.
kFinch Pruyn & Co., Inc.
:I:*westvaco Corp.
. ternatjona1. Paper Co.
appleton Papers, Inc.
Proctor & Gamble Co.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
* P.M. Glatfelter Co.
Westvac Corp.
‘Union Camp Corp.
.rChesapeake Corp.
V International Paper Co.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
, Jefferson Smurf it
* Alabama RIver Pulp
Gulf States Paper Corp.
Champion International
James River Corp.
International Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Berlin, NH
Ticonderoga,
Glens Falls,
Luke, MD
Erie, PA
Roaring Springs,
Mehoopany, PA
Johnsonburg, PA
Spring Grove, PA
Covington, VA
Franklin, VA
West Point,
Selma, AL
Coosa Pines, AL
Brewton, AL
Claiborne, AL
Demopolis, AL
Courtland, AL
Butler, AL
Mobile, AL
Mobile, AL
Jackson, AL
Sites wnich had detectable levels of 2.3.7.3-TCDD in fish nssue from
samples collected as part of tPie Nationai Bloaccumujation Study.
COMPANY
no
* Boise Cascade Corp.
Lincoln Pulp/Paper
S.D. Warren (Scott Paper)
e James River Corp.
Georgia-pacific
S.D. Warren (Scott Paper)
t International Paper Co.
LOCATION
Rumford,
Lincoln,
Minckley,
Old Town,
Woodland,
Westbrook,
Jay, ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
NY
NY
PA
VA
-------
COMPANY
—a a
Champion International
ITT—Rayonier, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose (P&G)
St. Joe Paper Co.
‘-Stone Container Corp.
Georgia —pa jfj Corp.
Gilman Paper Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose (P&G)
-Federai. Paper Beard Co.
* Brunswick Pulp/Paper
-Wesevace Corp.
Wjlamette Industries
International Paper Co.
u. Great Northern Nakoesa Corp.
* International Paper Ce.
* Weyerhauser Ce.
* Champion International
* Weyerhauser Co.
* Federal Paper Beard Ce.
4 International Paper Co.
.Bowater Carolina Corp.
i Jriian Camp Corp.
Head Corp.
.e Bowater Southern Corp.
+ S.D. Warren (Scott Paper)
Mead Corp.
Champion International
Boise Cascade Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
-Mead Corp.
‘-Weyerhauser Co. -
Badger Paper Mills, : c.
‘ James River Corp.
‘-Great Northern Nekoosa Corp.
‘Great Northern Nekoosa Corp.
Pentair, nc.
‘ Conso1 ated Papers, c.
ausau Paper Mills Co.
Cantonment, FL
Fernandjna Beach,
Perry, FL
Port St. Joe, FL
Panama City, FL
Palatka, FL
St. Marys, GA
Jesup, GA
Oglethorp , GA
Augusta, GA
Brunswick, GA
Moss Point, MS
New Augusta, MS
Natchez, MS
Plymouv , NC
Canton, MC
New Bern, NC
Riege]woo , NC
Georgetown, SC
Catawba, SC
Eastovar, SC
Kingsport, TN
Calhoun, TN
Internatjonaj Falls,
Cloquet, MN
Chillicothe, OH
RothChlld.
Peshtigo,
Green Bay,
Po;t Edwards, WI
Nekoosa, WI
Park Falls. WI
Wjsc ns1 Rapids,
Broxaw. . t
LOCATION
Wjckljffe,
Hawesvj lje,
KY
KY
FL
WI
Muskegon,
Escanaba,
Quinnesec,
MI
MI
MI
MN
WI
WI
WI
-------
COMPANY
McGhee, AR
Pine Bluff,
Ashdow , AR
Crosset, AR
Bastrop, LA
DeRidder, LA
St. Francegvj]1.e
Zachary, LA
Missoula, MT
Snowflake, AZ
Fairhaven, CA
Samoa, CA
Anderson, CA
Antioch, CA
Ketchikan, AK
Sitka, AX
Clatskanje,
St. Helens,
Halsey, OR
Bellingham, WA
Wallula, WA
Everett, wa
Camas, WA
COsmopolis, WA
Longview, WA
Port Angeles,
Tacoma, WA
Longview, WA
Everett, wa
Hoquiam, WA
LOCATION
AR
.
Houston, TX
Lufkin, TX
Pasadena, TX
Evadale, TX
Texarkana, TX
..I .-Potlatch Corp.
“-International Paper Co.
v-Great Northern Nekoosa Corp.
Georgia—pacjfj Corp.
Internatjonaj Paper Co.
Boise Cascade corp.
‘-James River Corp.
.Georgia—p cj j Corp.
‘-Champion International
Champion International
“Simpson Paper Co.
- Temple—Eastex, Inc.
‘International Paper Co.
111 Stone Container Corp.
X Stone Container Corp.
impsen Paper Co.
.ouisiana Pacific Corp.
lSimpson Paper Co.
Gaylord Container Corp.
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper
Alaska Pulp Corp.
Pot]atch Corp.
James River Corp.
. Boise Cascade Corp.
- Pope & Talbot, Inc.
Georgia—pacjfj Corp.
e Boise Cascade Corp.
lu.Weyerhauser Co.
4 James River Corp.
‘Weyerhauser Co.
eweyerhauser Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co.
‘Longview Fibre Co.
‘-Scott Paper Co.
TT-Rayoni.er, Inc.
Lewiston,
OR
OR
WA
a
-------
COPY AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
ljnned S ate5
Environmenta’ Protection
Agency
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Washington, DC 20460
&EPA
Model NPDES Permit for
Discharges Resulting From
The Cleanup of Gasoline
Released From
Underground Storage Tanks
June 1989
-------
COPY AVAILABLE UPON R X UEST
10 Sr 4 ,
S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 f RO1t
OFFICE OF
WATER
JUN 131989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Development of tate NPDES General Permit Programs
FROM: C n ia Dougherty, D Ct
Per its Division (EN—336
TO: Water Management Division Directors
NPDES State Directors
The Permits Division is seeking co increase State interest
in general permit authority. We have taken several steps to
increase the availability of information concerning State general
ermit programs and to simplify the process of obtaining program
. uthority. In February 1988, the Permits Division issued the
General Permit Program Guidance and today we are distributing the
attached program authorization summary. We believe NPDES States
should review this information and consider adding this key
element to their NPDES programs.
The General Permit Program Guidance (Guidance) was issued to
provide a streamlined approach to the general permit process.
The goal was to provide a centralized source of information about
the general permit process and obtaining general permit
authority, and to simplify the existing procedures for the
development and oversight of general permits. We have found,
however, that questions still remain regarding the State program
approval process. To address these concerns, we are issuing the
attached package on the State general permit program approval
process.
A prime example of where general permits can be very useful
is in dealing with stormwater discharges. As you are aware, on
December 7, 1988, EPA proposed regulations covering stormwater
discharges associated with industrial activity. One of the most
frequently asked questions at each of six public meetings
conducted during the comment period concerned general permit
application. General permit authority is a key program element
r successful implementation of the stormwater group application
-------
—2—
process and may be essential for dealing with large numbers of
stormwater permit applications for construction activities. The
ability to employ general permits wi]]. become even more important
when the stormwater moratorium ends in October 1992 and all other
stormwater point sources will be subject to permit requirements.
The attached State General Permit Program Development
summary describes the approval process and the necessary
requirements which must be met prior to approval of a State
general permit program. The cover document briefly explains
these requirements. The package also includes model documents
which can be used to develop a submission for general permit
authority, as well as a copy of the federal general permit
regulations and the Guidance. These materials are provided with
the intent to facilitate and promote consistency in the
development of general permit programs.
The Permits Division remains Committed to assisting
interested States in obtaining general permit approval. We urge
NPDES States without general permit programs to carefully
consider the benefits of receiving authorization to issue general
permits.
If you have any questions regarding general permits or the
approval process, please call me (FTS/202 475—9545) or have your
staff contact Kevin Smith (FTS/2O2 475-9516) of this office.
Attachments
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG I 0 I
OFFICE OF
WATER
Dear Colleague:
Attached is the final National. Combined Sewer Overflow (CS0)
Control Strategy. The Strategy will be printed in the Federal
Register in the near future.
The Strategy requires that all CSOs be identified and
categorized according to their status of compliance with
technology—based and water quality—based requirements. it is
estimated that there are about 1200 combined sewer systems in the
United States serving a population of 43,000,000. The Strategy
calls upon the States to develop a State—wide strategy by January
15, 1990, for the development and implementation of measures to
reduce pollutant discharges from CSOs.
The Strategy sets forth three objectives:
o To ensure that if CSO discharges occur, they are only as a
result of wet weather,
o To bring all wet weather CSO discharge points into
compliance with the technology—based requirements of the CWA
and applicable State water quality standards, and
o To minimize water quality, aquatic biota, and human health
impacts from wet weather overflows.
The Strategy confirms that CSOs are point sources,
independent of the treatment facility (POTW) and reaffirms that
both technology-based and water quality—based requirements apply
to CSOs. The Strategy emphasizes that CSOs which are discharging
without a permit are unlawful and must be issued permits or
eliminated.
-------
—2—
A guidance document to complement the Strategy is currently
being developed which will expand the implementation section of
the Strategy and will contain technical discussions of various
control, techniques and technologies for CSOs. This guidance will
be ready for distribution later this year. If you have any
questions please call Jim Elder, Director Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (202—475—8488).
Sincerely yours,
Rebecca W. Hanmer,
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Water
Attachment
-------
NATIONAL COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
Combined sewer overf lows (CSOs) are flows from a combined
sewer in excess of the interceptor or regulator capacity that are
discharged into a receiving water without going to a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW). CSOs occur prior to reaching the headworks
of a treatment facility and are distinguished from bypasses which
are “intentional diversions of waste streams from any portion of
a treatment facility” (40 CFR 122.41(m)).’
Most major municipal areas in the United States are served by
a combination of sanitary sewers, separate storm sewers, and
combined sanitary and storm sewers. The Agency has estimated that
there are between 15,000 and 20,000 CSO discharge points currently
in operation. Sanitary sewer systems must adhere to the strict
design and operational standards established to protect the
integrity of the sanitary sewer system and wastewater treatment
facilities. Discharges from separate sanitary sewer systems with
less than secondary treatment are prohibited. The regulation of
discharges from separate storm sewer systems is addressed in
Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA is proposing
regulations implementing Section 402(p) which include requirements
to develop system—wide municipal storm water management programs
to reduce pollutants from municipal separate storm sewers. The
following strategy is designed to control effluents from combined
systems which are not regulated under the sanitary system standards
nor as discharges from separate storm sewer regulations.
This CSO permitting strategy is designed to complement the
control programs for sanitary sewers and separate storm sewers.
This strategy establishes a uniform, nationally—consistent approach
to developing and issuing NPDES permits for CSOs. CSO5 have been
shown to have severe adverse impacts on water quality, aquatic
biota, and human health under certain conditions. Therefore,
permits for CSO5 are to be developed expeditiously to minimize
these potential impacts by establishing technology-based and water
quality-based requirements.
. Flows to the treatment works (POTW), including dry weather and
wet weather flows, are subject to secondary treatment regulations,
water quality standards, and the National Municipal Policy. Dry
weather discharges from CSOs, which are also subject to this
strategy, are illegal and must be expeditiously eliminated.
Regions and approved States should use appropriate enforcement
actions to eliminate such activities and assure compliance.
-------
—2—
The objectives of this strategy are threefold:
1) To ensure that if CSO discharges occur, they are only as
a result of wet weather,
2) To bring all wet weather CSO discharge points into
compliance with the technology_based requirements of the
CWA and applicable State water quality standards, and
3) To minimize water quality, aquatic biota, and human
health impacts from wet weather overf lows.
STATEMENT OF STRATEGY
CSOs are point sources subject to NPDES permit requirements
including both technology-based and water quality-based
requirements of the CWA. CSOs are not subject to secondary
treatment regulations applicable to publicly owned treatment works
( Montgomery Environmental Coalition vs. Costle , 646 F. 2d 568(D.c.
Cir. 1980)).
Technology-based permit limits should be established for best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), best
conventional pollutant control, technology (BCT), and best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) based on best professional
judgement (BPJ) when permitting CSOs. The CWA of 1977 mandates
compliance with BPT on or before July 1, 1977. The Water Quality
Act Amendments of 1987 (WQA) mandates compliance with BCT/BAT on
or before March 31, 1989.
Section 301(b) (1) ( ) of the CWA mandates comp liance with water
quality standards by July 1, 1977. In addition it is likely that
at least some CSO discharges will be point source discharges to
waters listed under Section 304(1) of the CWA and subject to the
control, requirements of that Section.
All CSO discharges must be brought into compliance with
technology—based requirements and State water quality-based
requirements. The Agency expects that this can be achieved using
a combination of CSO control measures.
-------
—3—
APPLICABXLZ?Y 01 STRATEGY
This strategy applies to all CSO5. Flows in combined sewers
can be classified into two categories: wet weather flow and dry
weather flow. Wet weather flow is a combination of sanitary flow,
industrial flow, infiltration from groundwater, and stormwater
flow, including snow melt. Dry weather flow is the flow in a
combined sewer that results from domestic sewage, groundwater
infiltration and industrial wastes with no contribution from
stormwater runoff or stormwater induced infiltration.
This strategy applies to EPA and approved NPDES States. EPA
Headquarters will oversee the implementation of the strategy to
ensure actions taken by the Regions and States are consistent with
the national strategy and that the Agency as a whole is making
progress towards meeting the statutory requirements and achieving
the water quality objectives of the CWA.
This strategy does not apply to bypasses. Bypasses are
“intentional diversions of waste streams from any portion of a
treatment facility.” The treatment facility begins at the
headworks where equalization of the waste streams takes place.
Bypasses are regulated under 40 CFR 122.41(m). Bypasses from any
portion of the treatment facility are prohibited unless the
criteria in 40 CFR 122.41(m) (4) are satisfied. These criteria are
(1) bypasses are unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal
injury, or severe property damage; (2) there are no feasible
alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment
facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during
normal periods of equipment downtime; and (3) the permittee
submitted notices as required under 40 CFR 122.41(m) (3).
IMPLEMENTATION
State-wide permitting strategies will be developed by the
States or Regions to ensure implementation and consistency with
this CSO strategy. Permitting strategies should be developed no
later than January 15, 1990 and Regions should approve State
strategies z later than March 31, 1990. A discussion of different
elements that may be addressed in the strategies is provided below.
-------
—4—
1. Identification
CSO point sources currently discharging without a permit are
unlawful and must be permitted or eliminated. The Regions and
States must identify the communities with combined sewer systems
and each particular CSO discharge point within these Communities.
The permitting strategy should place each CSO discharge point into
one of three categories: (1) not permitted; (2) permitted in
conjunction with POTW; and (3) permitted separately from POTW.
The status of compliance with technology-based and water quality-
based permit requirements should be provided for each cso
discharge. An ongoing commitment of evaluating and maintaining
CSO location and permit discharge status records should be adopted
by every community.
2. Priorities
The Regions and States are expected to set priorities in
permitting and controlling the unpermitted and insufficiently
permitted discharges. In addition to the requirements identified
above, the permitting strategy should describe the Regional or
State completed and planned actions and timing to bring the
discharges into compliance. Permitting and control priorities
should be established based upon a system—wide evaluation of known
or suspected impacts from CSOs using estimates of flows,
frequencies, durations, and pollutant loadings to rank POTW
collection systems for permitting.
One of the most important considerations for establishing
priorities is whether the CSO discharges to marine or estuarine
waters. Other factors to be considered in the priority setting
effort are the nature of CSO control measures and the use
designation of streams and the estimated increases in beneficial
uses resulting from these measures, receiving waters listed under
Section 304(1) of the Water Quality Act of 1987, other water
program efforts such as the Great Lakes program and pretreatment
program evaluations,,
-------
—5—
3. Permit Issuance
A single, system-wide permit should be issued whenever
possible for all discharges, including overflows, from a combined
sewer system operated by a single authority. The permit should
identify separately, as specifically as possible, the location of
each overf low in the system (i.e., longitude, latitude, street
address, and a map).
Different parts of a single combined sewer system are in some
cases owned and/or operated by more than one authority. Permits
issued to such authorities should require joint preparation and
implementation of the requirements of this strategy and
specifically define the responsibilities and duties of each owner
and operator. The POTW is responsible for planning and
coordinating a system-wide approach. The individual owners and/or
operators are responsible for their own discharges and must
cooperate with the POTW. When a CSO is permitted separately from
the POTW, the POTW’s NPDES permit should cross-reference this for
informational purposes.
4. Compliance Schedules
Compliance dates for water—quality and technology—based
limitations are governed by the statutory deadlines in Section 301
of the CWA. CSOs that discharge toxic pollutants into water bodies
listed under paragraph (B) of Section 304(1) of the CWA are
additionally regulated under Section 304(1). All CSOs that are
subject to Section 304(1) must achieve applicable water quality
standards by the statutory deadlines in that Section (see Final
Guidance for Implementation of Requirements Under Section 304(1)
of the CWA as Amended, March 1988 and forthcoming regulations).
To the extent technology and water quality-based limitations cannot
be met by the applicable dates, the permit should contain the
statutory dates and public notice should be given simultaneously
with an administrative enforcement order or other appropriate
enforcement actions requiring compliance within the shortest
reasonable time. Effluent limitations based upon newly developed
water quality standards or new interpretations of existing water
quality standards, however, may be covered by compliance schedules
in the NPDES permit. This strategy is not to be considered a new
development or new interpretation of water quality standards.
-------
—6—
5. Minimum Technology—Based Limitations
All permits for CSO discharges should require the following
technology—based limitations as a minimum BCT/BAT, established on
a BPJ basis: (1) proper operation and regular maintenance programs
for the sewer system and combined sewer overflow points; (2)
maximum use of the collection system for storage; (3) review and
modification of pretreatment programs to assure cso impacts are
minimized; (4) maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment; (5)
prohibition of dry weather overflows; and (6) control of solid and
floatable materials in CSO discharges. Control measures, as
mentioned below, may also be required on a case—by-case basis to
address the particular circumstances of each combined sewer system
and overflow point. All. BPJ permits must consider the factors set
forth at 40 CFR 125.3(d).
6. Additional CSO Control Measures
Cost is always a consideration when establishing technology—
based limits in NPDES permits (40 CFR 125.3). However, the CWA
under Section 301(b)(l)(C) also requires any additional permit
limits that may be necessary to protect State water quality
standards. In the event additional control measures are necessary,
the permittee should choose the most cost effective control.
measures which will insure compliance with water quality standards.
For example, CSO control programs should be designed to incorporate
best management practices and other low cost operational methods
and only incorporate more expensive control measures if necessary
to meet water quality standards,
Additional control measures that should be Considered to bring
all wet weather CSOs into compliance with technology-based and
applicable State water quality standards include improved operation
and maintenance, best management practices, system—wide storm water
management programs, supplemental pretreatment program
modifjcatjo , sewer ordinances, local limits program
modificatjo , identification and elimination of illegal
discharges, monitoring requirements, pollutant specific
limitation., compliance schedules, flow minimization and hydraulic
improvement., direct treatment of overflows, sewer rehabilitation,
in-line and off—line storage, reduction of tidewater intrusion,
construction of CSO controls within the sewer system or at the CSO
discharge point, sewer separation, and new or modified wastewater
treatment facilities.
-------
—7—
7. Monitoring
Monitoring requirements for wet weather CSOS will vary based
on the unique circumstances of each combined sewer system and
overflow point. Cost effective monitoring requirements should be
developed to serve three purposes: (1) to characterize cso
discharges, including their frequency, duration, and pollutant
loadings; (2) to evaluate the water quality impacts of these
discharges; and (3) to determine compliance with CSO permit
requirements.
Discharge monitoring and/or modeling, wasteload allocations
that address rainfall—related hydrological conditions, and often
stream surveys are necessary to measure the extent to which cso
discharges are causing violations of technology—based limitations
or water quality standards, and to design corrective programs.
These monitoring/modeling requirements should be included in the
initial CSO permits with reopener clauses to adjust permit limits
as warranted.
Compliance monitoring requirements should also be included in
CSO permits. These monitoring requirements should include
collecting and reporting data on CSO events and insuring that no
dry weather overflows occur. Monitoring may also include
inspections or reports aimed at assuring that required facility
improvements have been made and/or that best management practices
and other operation and maintenance requirements are being
effectively implemented. Permits should require development and
implementation of a monitoring plan or program to assure data needs
are met. In—stream monitoring is expected to be conducted after
improvements are made to assure water quality standards are met.
8. Water Quality Standards Modification
Section 301(b) (1) (C) of the CWA mandates compliance with water
quality standards. Permits must be written to ensure cso
discharges do not cause violations of water quality standards.
The applicability of water quality standards should not be waived
under any circumstances. In limited cases, it may be appropriate
to adjust a s water quality standards to address the impact of
pollutants in vet weather flows more adequately. In these cases,
this strategy encourages monitoring, modeling, or wasteload
allocation procedures to better quantify influences and formulate
control strategies. to address rainfall—related hydrological
conditions.
-------
—8—
EPA sets forth the criteria for modifying State water quality
standards 40 CFR l 3 1.10(g). In general, States may remove a
designated use which is not an existing use as defined in 40 CFR
131.3, or establish subcategories of a use if the State can
demonstrate that attaining the designated use is not feasible
because of one of the six enumerated criteria listed at 40 CFR
l 3 1.1O(g) including that controls more stringent than those
required by Sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act would result in
substantial and widespread economic and social impact. States may
not remove designated uses if they are existing uses, as defined
in 40 CFR 131.3, unless a use requiring more stringent criteria is
added; or if such uses will be attained by implementing effluent
limits required under Section 301(b) and 306 of the Act and by
implementing cost effective and reasonable best management
practices for nonpoint source control. Additionally, prior to
removing any uses or establishing subcategories of use, the State
must provide notice and an opportunity for public hearing under 40
CFR 131.20(b). Changes in designated uses or the estab1js ent of
subcategories of uses must be made on a site—specific basis in
accordance with the procedures specified in 40 CFR 131.10(j).
In instances where current State water quality standards waive
or relax compliance with those standards during wet weather, these
wet weather provisions should be revised during the next triennial
review to ensure appropriate water quality standards coverage
during wet weather events.
9. Funding
CSOs which cause adverse impacts on water quality and human
health should be considered for funding. CSO corrections are
fundab].e under both the Construction Grants and State Revolving
Fund programs, although significant limitations apply.
Construction grants may be awarded for CSOs under the
following CWA provisions: Section 201(g) (1) Governor’s 20 percent
discretionary fund: Section 201(n) (1) funding from State’s regular
allotment for CSOs that are a major State priority and meet the
water quality criteria in regulation (40 CFR 35.2024); and Section
201(n)(2) special national fund, from a reserve of 1 percent of
construction grants appropriated in FY 89 and F l 90, for marine
CSOS that meet the water quality criteria in the regulation.
-------
—9—
Before a State Revolving Fund (SRP) may Use the capitalization
grant, Stats match, or repayrne 5 of first round loans from the
grants for CSOS, the State must meet the first Use require g
i.e., its National Municipal Policy list of projects must all be
in Compliance, on an enforceable schedule, have an enforcement
action filed, or have a funding commitment Once the first use
requjre is met, the SRF may make loans or provide other
assistance for CSOs with 20 percent of its grant amount (or With
other grant dollars for CSOS under Section 20 1(n) (1)) and with all
or its matching or other funds in excess of the grant amount.
Before the first Use requjre 5 is met, the SRF may fund csos with
State funds in excess of the matching bond proceeds in excess of
the grant and match, and repayme 5 of loans made with non —gr
funds. For further information regarding SRF funding, see
idance for SR , January, 1988.
10. Permit Application Forms
CSO 5 that are permitted in conjunction With a POTW Should be
identified fl the permit application form submitted to the
Permitting authority POTW must Submit a Form A (EPA Form 755o—
22) 180 days prior to discharge or permit expiratjo CSO 5 that
e permitted Separately from a POTW, should submit a NPDES Form
(EPA Form 35 1O—2c) to the Permitting authority 180 days prior
to permit expiration For new C5o 8 , NPDES Form 2D (EPA Form 3510—
2D) should be submitted 180 days prior to discharge.
I I
Rebecca W. Hanmer, Acting D te
Assistant Administrator for Water
-------
IO SF 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4 , 1110 d.
SE 2 9 989
WATER
SUBJECT: Pretreatment Program Industrial User Permitting
Guidance Manual
FROM: James
Of of Water Enforcement and Permits
TO: Users of the Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual
This manual provides publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
with guidance on the development and issuance of effective
industrial user (IU) permits. The need for this guidance has
been identified by EPA and approved pretreatment states through
audits of local programs during the past several years. There
have also been many technical and procedural questions about
industrial user permits from control authorities. During program
audits, Approval Authorities found that nearly one half of local
Control Authorities were issuing inadequate or incomplete control
mechanisms. EPA believes that individual industrial user permits
are the most effective control mechanism available.
Recognizing the need to address this issue, EPA proposed on
November 23, 1988 to amend the General Pretreatment Regulations
to include a requirement that POTWs with approved pretreatment
programs must issue permits or similar individual control
mechanisms to control the discharges from all significant
industrial users (53 FR 47632). The proposed amendment also
identified certain minimum conditions which EPA has determined
must be present in each control mechanism to ensure its
effectiveness. This manual has been developed to address and
expand upon these minimum requirements and to provide Control
Authorities with guidance on how to establish a permit program,
procedures for permit issuance, procedures for writing a permit,
and requirements for waste haulers.
The Agency expects POTWs to issue effective and enforceable
control mechanisms pursuant to 40 CFR §403.8(f)(l)(iii). POTWs
that are currently issuing permits are encouraged to use the
materials in this manual when drafting new permits or when
reissuing existing permits as their terms expire. Upon
promulgation of the November 23, 1988 proposed revisions to the
General Pretreatment Regulations, control mechanisms should be
revised, where necessary, to include the minimum requirements
identified in these revisions. For POTWs that are not currently
using a permit system, EPA recommends that this manual be used to
establish new permitting policies and procedures to ensure that
industrial users are adequately controlled.
-------
INDUSTRIAL USER PERMITTING GUIDANCE MANUAL
(A TRAINING MANUAL FOR CONTROL AUTHORITIES TO DEVELOP
INDUSTRIAL USER PERMITS)
September 1989
Office of Water
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pag
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .. j
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES v
HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS xi
PART I - ESTABLISHING A PERMIT PROGRAM
1. BACKGROUND 1-i.
1.1 INDUSTRIAL USER PERMITS 1-3
1.2 WHO ISSUES PERMITS 1-3
1.3 WHY PERMITS ARE RECOMMENDED 1-4
2. PRELIMINARY DECISIONS 2-1
2.1 WHO NEEDS A PERMIT 2-1
2.2 WHEN TO ISSUE A PERMIT 2-2
2.3 HOW LONG SHOULD PERMITS BE ISSUED FOR 2-3
2.4 WHEN TO MODIFY OR TERMINATE PERMITS 2-4
2.5 PERMIT TRANSFERABILITY 2-6
3. LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR A PERMIT PROGRAM AND
PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES 3-1
3.1 LEGAL AUTHORITY 3.3
3.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 3-7
3.3 ISSUING THE FINAL PERMIT 3-9
3.4 PERMIT APPEALS 3-10
3.5 PERMIT REISSUANCE 3-11
3.6 CONTINUING PERMITS BEYOND THEIR EXPIRATION DATE ... 3-11
PART II - PERMIT WRITING PROCEDURES
4. PERMIT APPLICATIONS 4-1
4.1 WHAT INFORMATION TO COLLECT 4-1
4.2 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS 4-2
4.3 PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION 4-9
9/15/89 ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5. GENERAL PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS 5-1.
5.1. CONTENTS OF PERMIT 5-1.
5.2 STRUCTURE AND WORDING 5-1.
5.3 COMMON PERMITTING ERRORS AND OMISSIONS 52
54 FLEXIBILITY 5-3
5.5 DOCUMENTING PERMIT DECISIONS
6. COMPONENTS OF THE COVER PAGE 61
6.1 FORMAT 6-1
6.2 ELEMENTS OF ThE COVER PAGE 6-1
7. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 7-1.
7.1 SELECTING POLLUTANTS TO BE REGULATED 7-1
7.2 APPLYING EFFLUENT LIMITS
7.3 TIERED PERMITS 7-9
8. MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 8-1
8.1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS 8-2
8.2 POLLUTANTS TO BE MONITORED 8-4
8.3 SAMPLE TYPE 8-5
8.4 MONITORING FREQUENCIES 8-7
8.5 ANALYTICAL METHODS 8-9
8.6 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 8-10
9. STANDARD CONDITIONS 9-1.
10. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 101
10.1 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES 101
10.2 INDUSTRIAL USER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 10-2
10.3 SPECIAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 10-4
11. DOCUMENTATION OF PERMIT DECISIONS 11-1
11.1. FACT SHEET 11-2
11.2 PERMIT 1.1-2
p15/89
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART III - PERMITTING WASTE HAULERS AND OVERVIEW OF REQUIREMENTS REGARDING POTW
RECEIPT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Page
12. PERMITTING WASTE HAULERS 12-1
12.1 LEGAL AUTHORITY 12-2
12.2 PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURES 1.2-2
12.3 CONDITIONS FOR WASTE HAULER PERMITS 12-3
1.3. OVERVIEW OF REQUIREMENTS REGARDING POW RECEIPT OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES 13-1
PART IV - APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX B - LIST OF STATE AND REGIONAL PRETREATMENT COORDINATORS
APPENDIX C - GLOSSARY OF TERMS
APPENDIX D - SAMPLE SEVER USE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS FOR PERMITS
APPENDIX E - SAMPLE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
APPENDIX F - SAMPLE INDUSTRIAL USER PERMIT
APPENDIX G - SAMPLE STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR PERMITS
APPENDIX H - INDUSTRIAL USER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
APPENDIX I - SAMPLE FACT SHEET
APPENDIX J - SAMPLE WASTE HAULER PERMIT
PART V - KEY WORD INDEX
9/15/89 iv
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
OFFICE O
MEMORANDU j . WATER
SUBJECT: Draft Interim Guidance on Implementation of Section
402(0) Anti-backsliding Rules For Water Quality-Based
Permits
FROM: Jame y (6
O f ce of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN-335)
TO: Water Management Djvjsjo Directors, Regions I-x
NPDES State Directors
As you know, the 1987 Water Quality Act (WQA) provisions
modified EPA’S Position regarding backsliding from both
technology....based effluent limitations based on best professjonaj
judgment (BPJ), and from water quality based effluent
limitations. Attached is a draft of the Interim Guidance which
has been prepared to provide EPA’s interpretation of the WQA
requirements applicable to water quality—based limitations. I
would appreciate your comments and suggestjon on thjs draft.
The WQA establishes anti-backsliding rules governing two
situations: revision of effluent limitations
based on best professional judgment (BPJ) to reflect a
subsequently promulgated effluent guideline which is less
stringent; and revision of limitations based upon a State
treatment standard or water quality standard. New regulations
governing revision of techno1ogy_bas BPJ limits based on
subsequent effluent guidelines are found at 54 246 (January 4,
1989)
With respect to backsliding from water quality—based
effluent limitations, the attached draft guidance reflects our
recommended interpretation of the WQA requiremen g The
statutory anti-backsliding provisions found at §402(o) take
precedence over EPA’s existing regulations governing backsliding.
Therefore, the Regions and States must now apply the statute
itself, instead of these regulations, when questions arise
regarding backsliding from limitations based on State treatment
or water quality standards.
We would appreciate hearing from you by October 16, 1989.
If there are any questions or if OU need additional information,
please have your staff contact either Ephrajm King (FTS 475-9539)
or Thane Joya]. (FTS 475—9520).
Attachment
-------
tQ
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
DRAFi
WATER
MEMO RAN DW
SUBJECT: Interim Guidance on Implementation of Section 402(0)
Anti-backsliding Rules For Water Quality-Based Permits
FROM: James R. Elder, Director
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (EN—335)
TO: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I-x
NPDES State Directors
Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in the
Water Quality Act of 1987, establishes anti-backsliding rules
governing two situations. The first situation occurs when a
permjttee seeks to revise a techno1ogy base effluent limitation
based on best professjona judgment (BPJ) to reflect a
subsequently promulgated effluent guideline which is less
stringent. The second situation addressed by §402(o) arises when
a permittee seeks relaxation of an effluent limitation which is
based upon a State treatment standard or water quality standard. 1
With respect to the first situation, EPA’s existing anti—
backsliding regulations have recently been revised in the NPDES
codification rule to include the new §402(o) requirements for
revising technology-based BPJ limits based on subsequent effluent
guidelines. These new regulations are found at 54 246
(January 4, 1989) (see attached). 2
‘In this guidance, except when otherwise specifically noted,
the term “water quality—based effluent limitation” is used to
refer to any effluent limitation established on the basis of CWA
§301(b) (1) (C) or §303. Section 301(b)(l)(C) is not limited to
requirements established on the basis of §303 water quality
standards, but also includes any other State treatment
requirements more stringent than required by the CWA (e.g.,
technology-based State treatment requirements).
2 Please note that the 1988 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
does not reflect the recent revisions to the rules. Please refer
to the attachment, which sets forth all of EPA’s current
regulations concerning backsliding.
-------
DRAFT
2
With respect to the second situation, §402(o)’s requirerne 5
for water qUality based permits will be included in th NPDES
rulemaking to be proposed early next year. The purpose of this
memorandum is to provide interim guidance on implementation of
§402(o) ‘s requirements for water quality-based permits.
I. EFFECT OF SECTION 402(0) ON CURRENT EPA REGULATIONS
The statutory anti-backsliding provisions found at §402(o)
take precedence over EPA’s existing regulations governing
backsliding, found at §122.44(1)(1) (attached). Therefore, the
Regions and States must now apply the statute itself, instead of
these regulations, when questions arise regarding backsliding
from limitations based on State treatment or water quality
standards.
EPA’s existing anti-backsliding regulations continue to
apply to questions regarding non-water quality-based effluent
limits. Specifically, EPA’s existing regulations govern
backsliding questions regarding permit limitations based on
effluent limitation guidelines, BPS, or new source performance
standards (NSPS). The existing regulations also apply to
backsliding questions regarding permit conditions, (rather than
permit limitations) even where the conditions in question are
based on water quality considerations. Section 402(0) is silent
on the issue of permit conditions, and only addresses backsliding
from permit limitations.
II. INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 402(o)
A. OVERVIEW
Section 402(o), as it applies to water quality-based
effluent limitations, establishes a prohibition against
backsliding except in certain limited circumstances. The section
is divided into three paragraphs. First, paragraph (o) (1)
establishes the conditional prohibition against backsliding. it
prohibits backsliding from water quality-based effluent limits
unless the revised limits are established in compliance with
§303(d)(4). Second, paragraph (o)(2) provides for a number of
3 Please note that like §402(0), §303(d)(4) is also a new
provision, which was enacted by the WQA of 1987 as part of the
anti-backsliding amendments.
Both sections 303(d) (4) (A) and (B) apply to “waters
identified under paragraph (d)(1)(A)” for which technology-based
effluent limitations are insufficient to implement applicable
water quality standards. The §303(d)(l)(A) identification
(Continued)
-------
DRAFT
3
additional exceptions. These exceptions, discussed below, are
similar to those found in EPA’s existing regulatjo 5 Finally,
paragraph (o) (3) establishes a baseline, which requires that all
revised effluent limits assure compliance with applicable
national technology_ba$ guidelines, and State water quality
standards, including a State’s antidegradatj 0 policy.
It is important to note that restrictions on backsliding do
not apply to challenged permit limits which have been stayed
pending final agency action. For example, where a limit is
challenged in an evidentiary hearing or administrative appeal,
the limit may be made more or less stringent than the initially
proposed revision, without that change being subject to the
backsliding prohibition. The restrictions on backsliding do
apply to limits with a delayed implementation date which have not
been challenged.
B. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
In order to fully understand §402(o), it is necessary to
consider the legis1at ve history of the provision. Because the
provision, as enacted, reflects a combination of individual
language and sections from the Senate and House bills, along with
new language added by the Conferees, it is difficult to reconcile
the various provisions of the statute. In light of this
difficulty, and the conflicting and uncertain legislative history
of the statute, EPA has attempted to interpret the provision in a
manner which, to the extent possible, gives full meaning to all
of its components and strengthens the development of water
quality-based permit limits.
The anti-backsliding requirements of the WQA were developed
in a Conference Committee that was established to resolve
differences between House and Senate versions of the statute.’
In Conference Committee, differences between the House and Senate
requirement will, be deemed to have been satisfied for purposes of
anti-backsliding if a permit contains water quality-based
effluent limitations. However, for the purpose of EPA
regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 130, a State is still required to
identify and list these waters.
‘The Senate anti-backsliding amendment was passed on June
13, 1985, as part of Senate bill S. 1128, 99th Cong., §115. The
House anti-backsliding amendment was incorporated into the House
bill that was passed on July 23, 1985 (H.R. 8, 99th Cong., §404).
-------
DRAFT
4
versions of the anti_backs1 djflg amendment were resolved by
Combining Concepts and provjsio 5 from each of the bills. 5
The Senate bill was written to add new provisions to both §
303 and 402 of the CWA. The provisions of § 4 O2(o) (2) Would have
applied to BPJ effluent limitations; while the provisj 0 5 of
§303(d) (4) would have applied to backsliding from water quality
based effluent ljmjts,
Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill was written to amend
only CWA §402. These provisions were to apply to both BPJ and
water quaiity_ba 5 effluent limitations.
With respect to backsliding from BPJ effluent limitations,
the WQA essentially follows the House bill. However, for water
quality_b 5 effluent li.mitations, the WQA reflects a
Combination of the House and Senate bills plus additional
language added by the Conferees. As with the Senate bill, WQA
§404 was written in the form of amendments to both CWA § 303 and
404. As a result, WQA §404 reflects an effo by the Conferees
to retain the overall structure and organjza j 0 of the Senate
bill while adding to that structure elements of the House bill.
As discussed above, § 4 02(o) (1) establishes a conditional
prohjbjt 0 Ofl backsliding from BPJ and water
effluent limitations For water qua1ity_ba 5 effluent
limitations, the primary exception to this prohjbjt 0 is found
at CWA §303(d) (4), drawn from the Senate bill, 6 In the case of
water quality b 5 effluent limitations which do not fall under
this provision, or for backsliding from BPJ-based effluent
limitations to reflect subsequent’y promulgat , less stringent
effluent guideli 5 the applicable exceptions are found in CWA
§402(O)(2), (drawn from the House bill). Finally, under
§402(O)(3) (which comes from the House bill), in no event may a
or water quality based permit be revised to Contain effluent
limits less stringent than those requjre by effluent guideline 5
in effect at the time of the revision or which would result in
violation of the applicable §303 water quality standard.
Both paragraphg 402(0)11) and (o)(2) contain exceptions that
apply to the relaxation of water qua]ity...bag permit limits.
One of the issues faced by EPA in implementing the anti-
backsliding provisions of the WQA was whether the exceptions
should be read cumulatively or alternatively. In other words,
5 Conf. Rep. No. 99—1004, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 154
(1986) (hereinafter Cited as Conf. Rep.).
6 The Conference Repo expressly notes that these
..acksiidjng exceptions apply in addition the exceptions set
forth at §402(o)(2) (Conf. Rept., 156).
-------
DRAFT
5
must a permit meet exceptions within just one or both paragraphs
in order to qualify for a relaxed limit. Given the language of
the statute and its legislative history, EPA believes that the
proper interpretation of WQA §404 is that backsliding from water
quality based effluent limitations is allowable if kthe the
requiremen of CWA §303(d) (4) or of §402(o) (2) are met.
Before arriving at this interpretation the Agency also
Considered whether WQA §404 could be read to mean that water
qualjty base permit limitations could only be made less
stringent if an exception in bot CWA § 303(d)(4) and 402(o) (2)
were met. This interpretation was not accepted since it appears
inconsistent with the statutory language, as well as being
contradictory to the Previously referred to language of the
Conference Report. Moreover, interpreting WQA §404 to mean that
exceptions in both §402(o) (2) and §303(d) (4) must be met would
result in inconsistencies within the various provisions of WQA
§ 404.
For example, CWA §303(d) (4) (A) clearly allows for the
relaxation of water quality-based effluent limitations based on a
revision of water quality standards, whereas §402(o) (2) would not
allow this relaxation since the new information exception
excludes revised regulations. Reading the statute to require
that both §303(d)(4) and 402(o) (2) must be satisfied to allow
backsliding from water quality based effluent limits thus would
have the effect of reading §303(d) (4) out of the statute.
Another example of the inherent contradiction which would
result from reading §303(d) (4) and §402(0) (2) cumulatively is
shown by considering the additional language at the end of
§402(o) (2) which was added by the Conference Committee. This
language provides that relaxation of permit limits based on a
revised wasteload allocation may only be allowed if there is a
net reduction in pollutant loadings. In contrast, §303(d) (4)
would allow such a revision if it “assured attainment” of water
quality standards, without regard to its impact on pollutant
loadings.
EPA believes that interpreting CWA § 303(d) (4) and
402(o) (2) as providing alternative grounds for backsliding from
water quality based effluent limits is the interpretation most
consistent with the statutory language itself, the legislative
history, and the fundamental rule of statutory construction that
a statute should be interpreted to give meaning to all its
provisions and avoid contradictions between various statutory
provisions.
-------
DRAFT
6
III. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 402(o)
A. BACKSLIDING IN NON ATTAINMENT AND ATTAINMENT WATERS §303(d) (4)
1. INTERPRETATION OF §303(d) (4)
The most important provision relating to backsliding from
water quality_based effluent limitations is §303(d)(4). As
discussed above, §402(o) (1) provides that water quality_based
permit limitations may not be relaxed except in compliance with
§303(d)(4). Section 303(d) (4) has two parts: paragraph (A)
applies to “non-attai ent waters” and paragraph (B) applies to
“attainment waters.” The determination of attainment or non—
attainment is made on a basis at the time
the application for the permit issuance, modification, revision,
or reissuance is submitted.
2. NON-ATTAINMENT WATERS: §303(d) (4) (A)
For non—attaj ent waters, § 3 03(d)(4)(A) provides that a
permitte may backslide from a water quality—based effluent
limitation if certain COndjtjo s are met. First, the existing
permit limit being revised must be based on a Total Maximum Daily
Load 7 (TMDL) or other Wasteload Allocation (WLA) established under
§303. Second, the revised permit limit must assure attainment
of the water quality standard ., 8 The statute provides that there
are two mechanisms for determining attainment of water quality
standards. Implementation of the revised permit limitations may
be sufficient to assure attainment. In addition, the statute
provides that the use designation applicable to the stream
segment may be revised in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 131.10.
3. ATTAINMENT WATERS: § 3 O3(d) (4) (B)
Section 3 O3(d) (4) (B) provides that a permjttee may backslide
from a water quality_ba5 effluent limitation where water
quality meets or exceeds applicable water quality standards, if
7 Section 303(d) (1) (C) of the CWA, and EPA regu1atjo g at 40
C.F.R. §130.7 require States to calculate TMDL/w s and submit
them for EPA’s approval for waters identified under
§303(d) (1) (A).
8 The determination of whether attainment of water quality
standards is assured is made based on the assumption that all
dischargers to a stream segment are complying with the
requirements of their NPDES permits.
-------
DRAFT
the revision is consistent with a State’s approved
antidegra j 0 policy (see 40 C.F.R.
B. LISTED EXCEPTIONS: §402(O)(2)
As discussed above, § 4 02(o) (2) lists S X additional
exceptions to the general prohibition on backsliding. This
provision provides that in cases where the Conditions of
§303(d) (4) cannot be met, backsliding may be allowed in certain
limited circumstances, listed below. The exceptions listed in
§ 4 02(o) (2) are also applicable to backsliding questjo 5
concerning technology_b 5 limits. tinder these exceptions,
backsliding from water quality..ba5 permit limitations may be
allowed under the following circumstances:
1) Where there have been material and substantial
alterations or additions to the permitted facility
which justify this relaxation; 2) Where good cause
exists due to events beyond the permjttee’s control
(e.g., Acts of God) and for which there is no
reasonably available remedy; 3) Where the permjttee
has installed and Properly operated and maintained
required treatment facilities but still has been unable
to meet the permit limitations (backsliding may only be
allowed to the treatment levels actually achieved); 4)
Where new inforntation (other than revised regulatj 5
guidance, or test methods) jUstifies backsliding from
water quality _ba 5 pe r -mit limitations and other
§301(b) (1) (C) limitations tO
Please note that although paragraph (0) (2) lists two
additional exceptions, one for technical mistakes and mistakes
law and one for permit modifications or variances, the statute
provides that these exceptions do not apply to water quality
based effluent limitations. However, under the paragraph (o) (1)
exceptions, mistakes or new information may justify the
relaxation of water quality-based permit limitations where the
§303(d) (4) require e 3 are met.
9 Note that § 3 O 3 (d)(4)(B) is broader than § 3 O 3 (d) (4) (A), in
that (B) allows for the relaxation of permit limitations based on
a §303 TMDL/WLA, any water quality standard established under
§303, or any other permit standard, whereas (A) only allows for
the relaxation of permit limitations based on a §303 TMDL/W .
‘°This exception applies to water quality bas permit
limitations only where the revised limitations result in a net
reduction in pollutant loadings and are not the result of another
discharger’s elimination or substantjaj reduction of its
discharge because of compliance with the CWA or for reasons
Unrelated to water quality (e.g., shut down of operations).
7
of
-------
DRAFT
8
0. RESTRIC IONS ON BACKSLIDING: §402(0) (3)
Section 4 02(o) (3) acts as a floor, by restricting the extent
to which water quality base permit limitations may be relaxed.
Specifically, this paragraph prohibjt the relaxation of such
permit limitations below applicable technology_based effluent
limitation guideljne and water quality standards. It requires
compliance with a State’s approved antidegrada j policy when
permit limitations are relaxed, since water quality standards
include antidegrada j requirement • In short, paragraph (0) (3)
prohibits the relaxation of permit limitations, even where an
exception would othezwise allow this relaxation, if there will be
a violation of applicable effluent limitation guidelines or water
quality standards, including antidegradat o requireme 3 •
III. EXAMPLES AND FLOW CHART
Attached to this document are examples of situations which
require application of the anti-backsliding provisions, and an
analysis of these which is consistent with this guidance. A flow
chart which summarizes the decision—making procedure set forth in
this guidance is also attached. In addition, copies of the
relevant statutory and regulatory provisions are appended.
If there are any questions about this guidance, please feel.
free to give me a call, or have your staff contact Ephrajm King
at FTS/(202) 475—9539 or Tharte Joyal at FTS/(202) 475—9520.
Attachments
-------
1 DRAFT
EXAMPLES REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 402(o)
ExamDle 1
Scenario:
o POTW seeks to relax its water qua1ity—base permit
limitation for ammonia.
o Current permit limitations are based on ‘I’MDL or WLA
developed in accordance with 40 C.F.R. §130.7.
o POTW is in compliance with its existing limit.
o Water quality standard for ammonia is attained.
o POTW has new information about flow levels, which
indicates that the water quality standard for ammonia
would be maintained with relaxed permit limits.
o May the permit limit be relaxed?
Answer:
Possibly. Under the interpretation discussed above, the
water quality-based permit limitations may be relaxed where one
of the exceptions in paragraph (o)(1) or paragraph (o)(2) of CWA
§402 is met.
In this case, although new information is being relied on to
request the permit modification, paragraph (o) (2) will not
justify the requested modification unless the State reduces the
pollutant loadings from other point Sources or non—point sources
of pollution. This is because, as discussed above, paragraph
(0) (2) restricts the use of new information to cases where there
is a decrease in the amount of pollutants being discharged.
The paragraph (0) (1) exceptions, on the other hand, may
justify this requested relaxation. In this case, the paragraph
(0) (1.) exception that is relevant is the reference to
§303(d)(4) (3). It provides that for waters identified under
§303(d) (1) (A) where applicable water quality standards are being
attained, permit limitations based on a CWA §303 TMDL/w or
other permit standard may be relaxed only if a State’s
antidegradation requirements are met. EPA’s requirements for
State antidegrada j provisions are set forth in EPA regulations
at 40 C.F.R. Part 131.
-------
____ DRAFT
ExamDle 2
Scenario:
o Industrjai permjttee seeks to revise its water
quality base permit limitation for TSS to reflect
actual discharge levels of 6000 mg/i.
o Current permit limitations are based on a TMDL or WLA
developed in accordance with 40 C.F.R. §130.7.
o Current permit limitation for TSS is 1000 mg/i.
o A permit limit of 6000 mg/i TSS is consistent with
applicable effluent guidelines.
o Permittee cites §402(0) (2) (E) in support of the
revision, which states that permit limits can be
revised where the limits have not been met despite the
installation and proper operation and maintenance of
required treatment facilities.
o Water quality standard for TSS is not being attained.
o Water quality standard for TSS will not be attained
unless current permit limits are met.
o May the requested revision be made?
Answer:
No. Even where a paragraph (o) (2) exception may otherwise
allow for the relaxation of permit limitations, paragraph (0) (3)
provides that this relaxation may not result in a violation of
water quality standards.
This revision would also be prohjbjte if the permittee
sought to apply the paragraph (o) (1) exceptions. The applicable
provision under this paragraph is §303(d) (4) (A) since the TSS
water quality standard is not being attained, and since the water
has been “identified” under §303(d) (1) (A) because water quality-
based effluent limits have been written for it. Revision of the
permit’s effluent limit for TSS could only be allowed under this
section if compliance with applicable water quality standards is
assured, or if the State determines that it is appropriate to
reclassify the designated use of the waterbody in accordance with
the provisions f 40 C.F.R. Part 131.
-------
____ DRAFT
Example
Scenario:
o Industrial per -mittee seeks to revise its water
quality base permit limitation for TSS to reflect
actual discharge levels of 6000 mg/i.
o Current permit limitations are based on a TIWL or WLA
developed in accordance with 40 C.F.R. §130.7.
o Current permit limitation for TSS is 1000 mg/i.
o A permit limit of 6000 mg/i TSS is consistent with
applicable effluent guidelines.
o Water quality standard for TSS is not being attained.
o New model shows that the water quality standard for
TSS will be attained with a permit limitation of 4000
mg/i.
o May the permit limit be revised from 1000 mg/i to
4000 mg/i?
Answer:
Yes. Such backsliding is permissible under either the
paragraph (o) (1) or paragraph (o) (2) exceptions.
The water quality standard for TSS is not currently being
attained. Therefore, under paragraph (0) (1) the applicable
exception is found in §303(d)(4)(A). This section applies to
waters identified under §303(d) (1) (A) where applicable water
quality standards are not being attained. In this case, if the
TSS limit was based on a TMDL or other WLA, backsliding is
permitted because the data show that attainment of the applicable
water quality standard is assured.
Alternatively, under paragraph (o) (2), new information can
be relied on to relax permit limitations where there is a
reduction in pollutant loadings and, pursuant to paragraph
(o)(3), where water quality standards are complied with. Again,
water quality standards are being met in this case, and there
also will be a reduction in actual pollutant loadings since the
new proposed permit level of 4000 mg/i will represent a real
reduction compared with the actual discharge levels of 6000 mg/i.
-------
Scenario:
Answer:
DRAFT
o The State has established a technolo _based
treatment standard for fecal coljform pursuant to CWA
§ 3 O1(b) (1) (C)
o The State later relaxes thj 5 Standard
o A POTW, which has been in violation of thj limit,
req1 e 5 a revj 0 of its permit limit for fecaj
Coliform to reflect the new standard
O Water quality standards for fecal coliform are not
being attained.
o Models show that attainment of water quality
standards will be assured if the POTW Complies With a
revised, relaxed permit limitation for fecal coliform
o There was no TMDL or wt . perfo because the
standard was a State technojo _based standard
o May the permit limitatjo be relaxed?
.
No. rJnder Paragraph (o) (1), the applicable provi 0 is
This subsection does not authorize backsliding in
this case because it only applies to permit limitations based on
a §303 T?fDL or Other WLA (Unlike § 3 03(d)(4)( 3 ) WhiCh is broader).
IIere, the limitatjo in question is based On a type of State
treatment standard authorized under § 3 01(b) (1) (C)
Furthermore if the permittee sought to apply the Paragraph
(o) (2) exceptj 0 5 the new nformatjo provj 0 under this
paragraph would flOt allow the revis 0 New information does not
include “revised regulatj 0 5 “ Which is the type of new
information (i.e., the rulemaking revising the treatment
Standard) being relied on here to )Ustify the backsliding.
-------
____ DRAFT
Exam 1 e5
Scenario:
o A State has a narrative criterion “rio toxjcs in tOXjc
amounts.” it has an EPA approved procedure for
developing permit limits based on its narrative
criterion.
o In issuing a §304(1) permit in April 1989, the State
uses its approved procedures and applies a risk level
l06 using EPA criteria, instream criteria of 0.013
ppq.
o The permit contains a numerical TCDD limit with a
1992 compliance date.
o If in 1990 the State issues a numeric criterion for
TCDD which is less stringent tI an that used in the 1989
permit, e.g., risk level of 1O using EPA criteria,
instream criteria of 0.13 ppq, may the permit be
revised to reflect the new standard?
Answer:
Possibly. Under paragraph (0) (1), the applicable
exceptions would be found in §303(d) (4).
If the water quality standard for TCDD is not being
attained, the revision would-on].y be allowed under §303(d) (4) (A)
if the limit was based on a TMDL or other WLA, and the revision
assured compliance with water quality standards, including
antidegradation, or if the State determines that it is
appropriate to reclassify the designated use of the waterbody in
accordance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 131.
If the water quality standard for TCDD was being attained,
§303(d) (4) (B) would allow the revision if antidegradation
requirements were met.
-------
6 DRAFT
Scenario:
o A State has numeric standard for pollutant “A.”
o The State/EPA adopts an EPA water auality advisory
recommendation for an appropriate instream
concentration of the pollutant.
o The State/EPA issues a permit containing a limit for
pollutant “A” based on the water quality advisory
recommendation.
o Several years later, EPA revises the advisory
recommendation to a pollutant “A” instream
concentration that is 10 times higher (i.e. less
stringent) than the original advisory, based upon new
toxicity information that has been developed.
o May the permit limit for pollutant “A” be relaxed to
reflect the new toxicity data?
Answer:
Possibly. The applicable exceptions would be found in the
paragraph (o)(1) reference to §303(d) (4).
If the water quality standard for pollutant “A” is not being
attained, the revision would only be allowed under §303(d) (4) (A)
if the limit was based on a TMDL or other WLA, and the revision
assured compliance with water quality standards, including
antidegradation, or if the State determines that it is
appropriate to reclassify the designated use of the waterbody in
accordance with the provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 131.
If the water quality standard for “A” was being attained,
§303(d) (4) (B) would allow the revision if antidegradatjon
requirements were met.
-------
AVFh iF 2
DRAFT
Anti-backsliding Rules Relating to Water Quality-Baud Effl . t Limitations
on a Stat. wa q it standa d NO.
isa listed exc.ption m.i J
I 303(d)(4)(B)
Attainment waters
a revision consistent
Ith antidegradation
1.
YES
r 3 03(d)(4)(A)
Non-attainment wat,
I lslimitbased
L a TMDL/WLA ?
4YESj
Is attainment of water7
quality standards assured7l
( including antidegrada$jon?
YlS
__ 4 _ i
402(o)(3)
YES
___ Does revision comply with ________
effluent guidelines and
water quality standards ?
4 -VESJ
I R.vssion aliowedj Revision not allowed I
[ 40 C.F.a.1 44(l!J
I
-------
A TAC MENT 3: CWA Sectj. 40 2(o) ar 30 3(d)(4)
Sectjo 4 02(o)
— - (a) A fl&CZRJoiy —
(LI Gz vi, PROi , —1 ,s th. c of elf ?zsent limgtagz
on c / se bass. of sj 6, (aILV8) of t / sz.i 3ectZ n, a
Per?Ptu “ t Y # 4 be ‘Vflawed. iaj “lodi/Ee on c/s.. baai.,
of eff7c, ,,jg gu4 ,j isnd_er JO4ibi sii6,.
qis.,u to Ma Or’41na1 &S1UO ’ lC, of such “sut, to cont j e/} 7 .
‘lt lzm1t4 ’ l, which are the,, th . com j , ef.
fluent lzmgags ,,, Mapr,1, permi& In c/s. COM of e1Th .ne
on sh , of 3 cfto JOllb%J%c) ,
tzo JO ..? (d) or (e4 a rnu “,ay riot 6 Pvnl PVLUU
“sodifi,d to con p e/flu ,ng lim whIic/ a, £ st’iri.
gins than t/t eftlii,,u lumutagi , us th ,
ac,p us w it/ i s tza, J 3 ’ 4 )
(2) £rcgprroN* —A pep ,psgs with to wit ic/i
(1) appisa “say be rvwu ‘viaiu or “cdifi to con taus a
1 strzn g, , , efflu ,,,: limitation applictibi, to a poilut if.. -.
fAj lat45l(3j and subetanti 0 g OItF5ti ,,s. or addgg e, to
cA. 4 rmus ,d facility aft . ,’ per”su U1swsc, which
ji ati 5, c/s. appliciflion of a £es strsn4 ,M eftT ,,,u linHga.
(BXi) ia a ilabi , which ‘sot ava j g
c/s. tzmaofper it £asua,,c, (ot / s ,’ th 5
or t t and which woug hau,
tit. applj e, , of a Li ofrsng,M efflu I mua e, , as s/s.
tin of rr ,sut or
(ii) t/i Admu , s, , d ,e ,p,, ,L , , that t hnAc,,j
° tak of Ia u “sad, in
p ,r”sij mdi , SUbe , tze, (aXJ%B .
(C) a l eft?u,, ,s limjta , , ‘w ,
c au of etmn ouvr which c / i, pir ”s : hai no cwssp,,j and
for which Ma,’, ‘a ‘so a& aa bS, rvm
(D) t/s per ,us /iai a madE
wsd,, Xh c.4 Xl(g4 XJmI JO1(L4 JO!( b .4 JO1( ,s 4 or
( . ) s/s. itai usataj c/ia treatm, , , facuitia,’,.
quw to m s c/s. ep7?u , , ,g li tzo,s . ui c/s pr ,vso, .
nn and ha. p#vp,rIy opvv s and nsaEnta, , , t / s. Pa.
cslEti but hai ‘wwrr/s ,I ,s wsabi . to achi, , 5/s. p
uw,4 a 7?um .ai lin ,uasg ma which s/s. lii,usaga
s/s. ,vvsa, , ssj or ‘slay re/Tat s / i.
I .e i of comibr,J actiw.lly acAj , (bufl s/sail not
6, 1 s/sa , by .ffl g gvud ,lj ,,
5/s. S1m.ofp re w resi or __
Si (B) shall not apply to any revi u .s . I d al.
Iacsglo,s. or any altar ,sasav, grauad for laser quai.
£ty stan ,d usso e’?uc,tj lmmjlatza, ,, ucept u i/s. ,, s/s. cumim.
Iasuj •ff of asic/s ,vus OU gia, ,usij in a d.r us
aa, of poil,aa, , dEg / so into 5/so con
and such ‘vv ailocagz a not c / s. “wilt of a
slims, atz or Ssi 5ai 5 45 nducsng diac/sa ,g, of poiizj .
anse d i i. to consp lysn.q wit/s Mo of thE. Act or for
‘ea na otharwuc unrel sad to wo ____
(J) £Ja(STA TZON& —1 . .im*J ‘ ssay a wit/s ‘up(cs to
which raqrijp / s (U applis be or nsodifl,d
to contain an eft7z,,ng hmstas a,s which is Lw wsnq,ng than
by eff Tiia, ,: gtmudejus us effi ’: as tha szns . ffi
ren ,w , d, ‘eiuu.d or “sadif Its ‘so .t , ,g may such a
rrtsj to disc hare, into wat pp 6, rvww.d, res s, ,d , or “sadi.
fled to contain a Lw atru’ 4 , ’ sg eff lucris limitation if c/s. impLu-
l s.n g of such limitation uld “wilt in a usolagion of a
wasar quality star4e,,j iander section JO.? appüc zoL, to such
wat .Pt.
-------
CHMZNT 4:
Existing Anti backs1idjng Regu1atj 5
40 C.F.R. 122.44(1)
(17 R asimdp,,i,sa& (1) Ezc.pt an
prov d.d per.ç pl (lJ(2) of thia
sec ai whe 0 a perm is renewed or
reiuu.,j, lnt.,rfa effluent U2nitat o ,
•tanda orcendidon, mi be at hut
as ‘ ng . t u he final emusne
liitauon,, sa d , or condj ,,, in
th. P ’Svioua permit (uni... the
____ on whIch lb. Pi’iVloui
p.rm wa based have matatl.AJy and
substan jjy chanp since he tInts lb.
permit ws 51usd and would onnitItut.
cause fo r permit modification ar
revoca o, 1 and reII1UInC. under
I 22Z6z)
(122.44 (l)(l) a revej by 54 FR I$780,
May 2. l989J
(l22. ,u l) and (2) revis by 54 FR 254,
Janua,-j 4. l 9 89fl
(2) In the case of eM en 1 lima.uio
established on the basis at Section
4 O2(a)(l)(B) of thi CWA. a permit may
not be renewed reissued. or modified on
the basis of effluent guideljn promu lpc.
ed under section 304(b) subsequent to the
original issuance of such permit, to n-
tarn effluent limitatio which are less
stringent than the mparabl. effluent
limitations in the previcue pennit.
(i) Exceptions — A permit with respect
to which paragraph (l)(2) of this 5ictio
applica may be renewed, tCiuued or modi.
tied to COflt5i a less strlng,rn effluint
limitation applicable to a pollutant, if.—.
(A) 4 ateriaj and substantial altar tio
or additions to the permsi facility oc-
curred after permit iss uance which justify
the application of a less stnngent effluent
limitation:
10)41) ln(orvn , a availa which
was flOt availabl, at the time of permu
ig1 ,,ce (ohm than revij
guidance, or tess method ) which
would have justified th i 5 pplicatjon of a
l . stnnge effluent limita ,, a the
time of permit issuance; or
(2) The Admjn rat detarmjii that
technical mutak or mistahait interpreta.
tionj of law were mad. ‘ issuing the
permit under sect o
(C) A less stnnh,flt effluent limitation
is beea of evei j over which
the permiu has no centr and (or which
there us no reasonably avsila , remedy;
(0) The permittes has ‘ sved a per.
mis modification under 3 0 1(e),
)Ol(g), 301(h), 30 1(j), 301(k), 3 0I(n), or
3 l6(a); or
(E) The psrmitt.e has inatalled be
treatment facilities reqsar o meet the
effluent limita ii the prsviu. permit
and has prop , opei t, and maiasa,,
the f* iljt bit his nerevthejeu been
unable to achieve the previ oue eSUu,es
limutatjo, , in which case the limtatjo
in the review , , reissued, or per.
mit may reflect the level of lutant cen-
tral actually achieved (but shall not be less
stringent than required by effluent guide.
lines in effect at the time of psnna renew.
aS, reiuuance or modification).
(ii) lJmuvja.,. lii no event may a
permit with respect to which
(I )(2) of this se o applies be renewed,
or modified to cenu an efflu-
ent limitation which is si stnngS t than
required by effluent guidelines in effect at
the time the permit is renewed, reissued,
or modified. In no event may such a per-
mit to discharge into waters be renewd,
issued, or modified to centain a less strut.
gent effluent limitatio r, if the implernenta.
cio.i of such limitation would result in a
violation o(a water quality standard under
section 303 applicable to such waters.
-------
Sect on 303d)(4)
(4) 1.1 WtT.4 ?IONS o v Rfyy5, , o Cza,
TIONg. —
(4) SmN NOT 4 7TAJN . —For 1dintzfi iaid p
qnzp (!XV whar, thm appikabl Sir quAlity stand
ha. ‘ioe aftained, any eftluaM linugs M., .j o
tOt j maxu, ,, 1 daily 1 d or oM.r wait. Load atab
1 a und, t/ Nctzo, may b. P VS4 only i((i) tha cw,,,,j .
tiu of all such r uiaid lzjiens urn Lione oii such
tos 4 j maiu ,,, daily 4 ad or u g Lend alkz,jg , will a w
thm aft4 ,w, ,., of such wa*.r qualitj sSan4 , or ‘.i) :/s d a r n 1 .
•‘ — whi c.4 ‘a not attam mo
- w iM q j i atabjjM w,d.r thu
9) S?AND.& A watar, 4. uz$ and .,
4raph (1X44) wh., . quality of such wa,, ua -. or
to p.ug , LA. ag,uu. j u /br such was.,, or
oth .r &, r ui 6, appljc,, wag. ” quality stand , any
•ft7u g lvnua,j &‘r on a total lax j tig daily 1 oad ‘
etA., uaas 1 ”ad alZoaitj , atabjjgA wud thu or
any wasap quaüty stand , j so ijah 4 wud thi or
any oth., 05sn4a,d may V uuag only if such r,vs.
is su6 , to and oana g.. wsgh sha a Uid Yad3iz Policy
tabl wid., thAj. p
-------
( DPY AVAILT BLE UPON REQUEST
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 2—
WATER
MEMORAND
SUBJECT: ma]. Sewage Sludge Interim Permitting Strategy
FROM: ebecca Hanmer
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water
TO: Water Management Division Directors, Regions i-x
NPDES State Directors
State Sludge Program Directors
Attached is the final “Sewage Sludge Interim Permitting
Strategy.” The Strategy sets forth EPA’s policy on fulfilling
Section 405(d) (4) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which directs EPA
to impose sludge Conditions in NPDES permits issued to POTWs or
“take other measures deemed appropriate” to protect human health
and the environment from any adverse effects, before promulgation
of the technical sewage sludge standards.
The Strategy addresses: 1) basic sludge permit conditions
for all POTW permits; 2) identification of priority facilities
for more comprehensive sludge Permitting; and 3) EPA/State
coordination for interim sludge permitting. The Strategy also
contains model documents for use in interim permitting and a
description of the forthcoming permit writers guidance for
developing interim, case-by-case permit limits. The draft
Strategy was distributed for review and comment in June, 1988,
and subsequently revised to reflect the comments received.
Notice of Availability of the final Strategy will appear in the
Federal egiste shortly.
The guidance document, Guidance for Writing Case-by-Case
Permit Reguirements for Municipal Sewage Sludg , has been
developed to complement the Strategy. The guidance is designed
to assist permit writers in developing permit conditions
necessary to protect public health and the environment from any
adverse affects associated with the use or disposal of sewage
sludge prior to promulgation of the technical sludge standards.
It provides information useful in identifying potential problems
and for estQblishjng interim sludge conditions for POTW permits.
The draft guidance was distributed for comment in September,
1988. The final guidance will be distributed in early Fl 1990.
-------
I Would like to thank you and your staff for your input
during the development of the Strategy. If you have any
questjo 5 please cal ). Cynthia Dougherty at (FTS) or (202) 475—
9545.
Attachment
cc: Martha Prothro
Susan Lepow
Michael Quigley
Permits Branch Chiefs, Regions I—x
2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONM .p PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
OCT 6 1989 OFFICEOc
WATER
MEMORANDTJM
SUBJECT: Interim Petroleum Refinery Dioxin Discharges
Activities and Guidance Update
FROM: James R. Elder, Director
Of f ice of Water Enforcement and Permits
Martha C. Prothro, Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
TO: Water Management Division Directors, Regions i - x
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an interim
report on the available information regarding the potential
presence of dioxins and furans in wastewater discharged from
petroleum refineries and to provide the Regions with
recommendations concerning notification of petro1eu refineries
about the detection of dioxiris and furans in certain refinery
wastestreams. This interim report contains information on the
most recent developments in the Preliminary field sampling for
analytical methods evaluation and the National Bioaccumujatjon
Study. An additional update along with permit guidance
recommendations will be forthcoming upon completion of the
analyses for measuring dioxins and furans in the refinery
wastewater and sludge samples taken during the preliminary field
sampling work.
BACKGROUND :
On Qeäàmber 5, 1988 Environment Canada released monitoring
data det ctjng di.oxing and furans for two of the three petroleum
refjnerj s tested. From this data, it appears that djoxjn 5 and
furans are generated during some types of catalytic reformer
regeneration processes. The Canadian data found, for final
combined effluents, that the concentrations for total dioxjns
including 2 ,3,7,8—TCDD (and for all furans except one) were
determined to be below the detection limit due to djlutj and
possibly some treatment. The internal wastestream analyses found
total dioxins including 2 ,3,7,8-TCDD at concentrations between
1.8 and 22.2 parts per billion (ppb) and total furans at
-------
—2—
concentrations between 4.4 and 27.2 ppb. Total dioxin and
furans were also found in the refinery’s biological sludge at
maximum concentrations of 75.4 ppb and 125 ppb respectively.
It is not known at this time how much of the dioxing and
furans remain in the gasoline product or in air emissions from
the process. Attempts to measure dloxins and furans in the
product stream from a reformer were Unsuccessful due to
analytical methods problems. Any future work on the product
stream will necessitate an analytical methods development
project.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) stated that the
catalytic reforming process is used in most u.s. refineries and
is essential for the production of high octane gasoline. API has
provided the attached list of refineries identifying location and
types of catalytic reforming processes.
There are three general types of catalytic reformer
regeneration processes: semi-regeneratjve, cyclic or fully
regenerative, and continuous. The cyclic and continuous
regeneration processes, reviewed for several, refineries
to—date, do not generate a wastewater stream. This is
accomplished by maintaining the regeneration temperatures at a
high enough level to prevent condensation of the water present in
the vapor phase. In some of these instances, the gas phase
emissions are scrubbed and a scrubber wastewater discharge
occurs.
The semi-regéneratjve process has a number of variations,
and all of them reviewed to date have a wastewater discharge
associated with them. The water used to wash the catalyst bed or
formed during the high temperature burning of the bed (decoking
phase) is passed through a heat exchanger and condensed. This
discharge is neutralized with caustic prior to discharge. Also,
during the regeneration, chlorine is added to reactivate the
catalyst. Variations in the decoking temperature, type of
chloride added, and the times of chloride addition have been
identified in the eemi—regeneratjve process to-date. Based on
the limited number of ref nerieg reviewed to-date it is not known
whether only refineries using a selected regeneratio process
would discharge dioxing and furans or whether the catalytic
reforming process is the only refinery process resulting in the
formation of dioxins and furans.
-------
—3—
EPA ACTIVITIES :
EPA has completed sampling at three petroleum refineries.
One of the refineries which was sampled on March 14, 1989 uses a
cyclic catalytic regeneration process. Samples were collected
from internal waste streams generated after the reforming process
step, discharges after biological treatment, bio.logical sludge
and product stream after discharge from the reformer. In this
case no scrubber or catalyst bed wash wastewater was generated
directly from the reformer.
Two additional refineries were sampled on May 26-28 and June
26-28, 1989. Both of these refineries use a semi-regenerative
process during the regeneration of the catalyst. The last
refinery also has a continuous regeneration reforming process
which does not have a wastewater discharge. The preliminary
results from the last two refineries sampled are being evaluated.
A summary report on all of the data will be prepared and should
be completed by the end of November 1989.
The primary objective of the preliminary sampling work is to
evaluate the analytical methods for measuring dioxins and furans
in the petroleum refinery wastewater matrices. The analytical
method being used in these evaluations includes high resolution
CC/MS similar to methods used to detect dioxins and furans in
pulp and paper discharges and sludges. A copy of method 1613 is
attached and has been revised to incorporate the experience from
analyzing refinery samples.
In addition, EPA Headquarters, with support from the
Regional offices, has reviewed sampling site information from the
National Bioaccumulation Study and determined that 38 ambient
fish tissue monitoring sites were located near petroleum
refineries using the reforming processes. The presence of
chlorinated dioxjns and/or furans in fish tissues from these
sites has been identified, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD which has been
detected in fish at 32 of the 38 sites near the refineries. Data
showed 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels in whole fish ranging up to 18 parts
per trillion. The current sampling site information does not
identify whether other known sources of dioxin are in the
vicinity of the sampling locations. An inventory of sources of
contamination for each sampling location is in progress. These
site specific characterizations are expected to be completed
soon.
-------
—4—
NPDES PERMITS
Since the above mentioned efforts are not yet completed, EPA
Regions will need to address dioxin in permits that are expired
or will expire before this new information is available. The
permitting strategies developed for dioxin/furaris for pulp and
paper mills are generally not useful for permitting petroleum
refineries because inadequate data exists to either characterize
discharges from the reforming process or the refinery or to link
dioxin levels in the environment to refinery discharges.
Headquarters recommends that refineries be notified that
dioxins/furans have been detected in certain refinery waste
streams and that the refineries may be required to provide
additional information on their production process and treatment
facility to assess dioxin/furan generation potentials at their
facility. An example of an appropriate notification letter is
attached.
Refineries that submit NPDES Application Form 2C for permit
reissuance should not be allowed to check “believed to be absent”
for the pollutant dioxin. Rather, refineries which produce
gasoline and have a wastewater discharge from their catalytic
reformer regeneration step should indicate that dioxins and
furans are “believed to be present” and include sufficient
information to characterize these pollutants at their facility
(dependent on acceptable analytical protocols).
Since sufficient dioxin/furan information may not be
available to determine the need for effluent limitations for most
NPDES permits issued in the near future to refineries with the
catalytic reforming processes, these permits should require
monitoring and a specific reopener. In instances where final
effluent monitoring is unlikely to provide useful data, sampling
points may be established for individual process discharges or
other appropriate in-plant locations. In addition to effluent
and in plant monitoring, the permits may require ambient
monitoring of the water column, sediments and fish in the
vicinity of discharge(s). The Agency is aware of less than ten
laboratories capable of performing the analytical measurements of
dioxins/furans in the above mediums. Therefore, monitoring
frequencies and schedules for obtaining analytical methods will
be determined by available laboratory capacities.
As an alternative to monitoring requirements for
dioxins/furaris and a reopener in NPDES permits, it may be
appropriate to require Best Management Practices (8MPg) for
segregation, storage or separate disposal of the regeneration
wastewater stream prior to discharge to receiving waters. If
segregation, storage or separate disposal of wastewaters
containing dioxins/furans is necessary, the potential for cross
media contamination by dioxin/furan contamination should be
considered (e.g. sludge, air emissions).
-------
—5—
The permit should also contain a specific reopener to
provide for modification of the permit to reflect any additional
guidance or data, including information on the feasibility of
process changes or new treatability data.
Please feel free to call us: Jim Elder (FTS: 202—475—8488)
if you have any questions on NPDES permitting or the industrial
notification letter, or Martha Prothro (FTS: 202-382—5400) with
questions on water quality standards, catalytic reformer
regeneration process and/or analytical methods evaluation or the
results from the National Bioaccumulation Study.
Attachments
-------
ATTACRJW
DRAF’r NOTIFICATION LETTER TO PETROLEUM REFINERI
(name and address of refineryj
Dear Sir or Madam:
As your company is probably aware, petroleum refineries
Using certain types of regeneration for their catalytic reforming
process during the production of gasoline have been found to have
wastewaters and/or produce sludges that are contaminated with
chlorinated dibenzo-p—djoxi 5 and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDDS
and CDFs). Preliminary indications are that these toxic
Pollutants originate during the regeneratj 0 of the catalytic
reforming Units. Data were first presented in a press release by
Canada’s Ministry of the Environj n (see enclosure). The
extraordinary persistence and toxicity of these chemicals,
Combined with their tendency to bloaccumulate in edible fish, has
prompted the Environmentaj Protection Agency (EPA) to initiate an
investigation.
Preliminary sampling has been conducted at three refineries
covering the three general types of regeneratjo processes
associated with catalytic reforming operations. Results of this
ork will, be used in evaluating the analytical methods for
easuring CDD’s and CDF’s in petroleum refinery wastevaters and
sludges and to give the Agency some Preliminary information on
the potential for generating CDD’s and CDF’g, s a next step to
gaining a more complete understanding of which types of
refineries may exhibit the problem of CDD/CDF contamination and
which processes or operatjo s may be the sources, EPA may choose
a limited number of facilities from which to sample product and
waste materials to analyze for CDDs and CDFs. The factors which
may be used to select additional refineries for sampling include
type of catalytic reforming process used, catalytic reforming
capacity, use of chlorinated hydrocarbons, and CDD/cDp
contamination of fish collected from the water body receiving the
wastewater discharge,
In ord.; to enable us to accomplish the next step in the
screening procegs, EPA may notify selected refineries and request
that they provide certain existing and new information on their
facilities: (1) descriptive data on portions of the facility and
selected operations, including any existing monitoring results
for CDDs or CDFs; and (2) results of new monitoring for CDDs and
CDFs to be undertaken in accordance with an approved study plan.
-------
4
-2—
NPDES Permit ADDlicptjon :
Finally,- please be advised that on your next application for
a permit to discharge wastewater under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) you must indicate that
dioxins and furans are “believed to be present” and include all
analytical procedures and information used to characterize these
pollutants at your facility in accordance with the applicable
state and federal rules and regulations as administered by the
permitting authority. If an application has already been filed,
but the permit has not yet been issued, you may be required to
amend your application to address CDD5 and CDFs.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact
(name) of my staff at (phone number].
Sincerely yours,
(NAME)
Chief, Permits Branch
Enclosure (Canadian refinery press release/monitoring data]
cc: State Water Program Director
State NPDES Permit Program Director
------- |