Permits Division
Policy and Guidance
Voliime III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Washington, D.C.
-------
Error Correction Sheet
Minor errors were made when printing these materials. Those
errors are described below. For better ease of use, recipients
should read the descriptions and make any necessary corrections.
This will require the use of additional spacing paper.
O The “National Policy Regarding Whole Effluent Toxic
Enforcement” (8/14/95) is not separated with blue spacing
paper from “Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Long-
Term Control Plan” (8/85).
o The “Consent Decree in Natural Resources Defense Council
Inc. v. Browner, Civ. No. 95-634 PLF - Storm Water Phase II
litigation” (04/24/95) and “Cothbined Sewer Overflows -
Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls” (5/95) are reversed in
order.
o “Guidance on EPA’s NPDES and Sludge Management Permit
Procedures on Feder l Indian Reservations” (.11/16/93) is not
separated with blue spacing paper from “Waters of the United
States Determination for a Proposed Cooling Pond Site in
Polk County” (12/13/93)
O The “Report to Congress on the National Pretreatment
Program” (7/26/91) is placed before “Construction Site
Stormwater Discharge Control: An Inventory of Current
Practices” (6/91) instead of after it.
0 The “NPDES Permit Writer’s Guide on Data Quality Objectives”
(12/03/90) is not separated with blue spacing paper from
“New Regulations Governing the Discharge of Toxic and
Hazardous Pollutants to Publicly Owned Treatment Works”
(12/17/90)
-------
1
2/20/96
MASTER LIST
PERMITS DIVISION POLICY AND GUIDANCE
LISTING OF CURRENT POLICIES
- BY SUBJECT -
Title Date
I. State Program Document
A. NPDES Program
US EPA Authority to Review State Permit Modifications 07/03/75
Extent of Environmental Protection Agency Veto Authority and
Ability to Participate in State Administrative Appeals 07/08/75
Jurisdiction Over Discharges Into Boundary Waters 04/19/78
NPDES State Program Guidance 07/29/86
Colorado Springs Proposed Alternative Biomonitoring Regulation 08/12/88
Determining Compliance Dates for Individual Control Strategies
Issued Pursuant to Clean Water Act 304(1) (See also II.A and VLC) 03/28/91
Results of SNC Study (see also ffl.A) 08/25/93
Policy Statement on Scope of Discharge Authorization
and Shield Associated with NPDES Permits, Perciasepe 07/01/94
Interpretation of Industrial Wastewater Discharge
Exclusion frQm the Definition of Solid Waste 02/17/94
Office of Wastewater Management - Catalog of Publications 03/95
** = Complete copy of docwnenz available upon request.
-------
2
B. Pretreatment Program
Procedures for Review and Approval of State Pretreatment 04/30/79
C. Federal Facilities
State Regulation of Federal Facilities 03/10/78
Applicability of — §301(h) & (i) to Federal Facilities 09/12/78
Transfer of Authority Over Federal Facilities to NPDES States 11/28/78
D. General Permits
Processing Approved States’ General Program Submissions 12/31/80
Determining WhetherRevision to State Programs to Authorize
General Permits is Substantial 02/12/81
General Permit Program Guidance 02/88
Development of State NPDES General Permit Programs 06/13/89
II. Permit Issuance
A. Procedures for and Effect of Issuance
Permit as Authorization to Discharge 04/28/76
Confidentiality of Applications 04/06/78
Regional Review of State Permits 01/18/80
Statements by Agency Personnel Purporting to Sanction Actions
Inconsistent with Clean Water Act 05/28/80
Incorporating Federal Requirements in Permits Prior to Their
Adoption as State Law 12/24/80
Policy for Issuance of Second Round Permits 06/02182
Part 124 Procedures 04/12/85
Minor Permits Issuance Strategy 02/20/86
= Complete ëopy of docwnent available upon request.
-------
3
02/04/90 Deadline for Storm Water Permit Applications
(see also VI.J) 01/31/90
NPDES Permit Writer’s Guide on Data Quality Objectives 12/03/90
Determining Compliance Dates for Individual Control Strategies
Issued Pursuant to Clean Water Act 304(1) (see also I.A) 03/28/9 1
Recent Concerns About USGS Data for Selected Metals 0 1/02/92
Current Status of the Permit Writers Guide to Water Quality-Based
Permitting for Toxic Pollutants, Dougherty 02/18/93
B. Forms/Model Permits
Concentration Limits Permit Language 12/27/73
e.
Application Forms 1 and 2C 12/10/80
Modifying NPDES Permit to Show POTW Program Approval; 09/22/83
Example Language
Interim Sewage Sludge Permit Application Form 01/31/94
p.
C. Major/Minor Permits
Major Permits List (Procedures for Adding/Deleting from List) 12110181
Minor Permits Issuance Strategy 021201*6
Procedures for Revising the Major Permits List 1 212$IS
D. General Permits
Offshore Oil and Gas 01 / 30(21
Applicability to New Sources 12/21 V
Federal Register Publications Checklist 01/01*3
EPA Authority to Issue in Approved Stares 07/ I l 1*3
Procedures for Final Review 09 127 1*3
= Complete copy of document available
-------
4
Continuance of General Permits Under the APA 01/16184
Federal Register Requirements for Draft Final General Permit 01/16/84
NPDES Permitting Process for Oil and Gas Activities on
Outer Continental Shelf 06/08/85
E. Permit Quality Review
Municipal PQR 10/86
Draft Industrial Permit Quality Review 09/87
III. Permit Limits and Conditions
A: General
Modifying Permits to Meet More Scnngent State Law Requirements 05/04/77
Policy Regarding Including More Stringent State Limits in Permits 10/13/77
Inclusion.of Compliance Schedules in Second Round and New Permits 12/26 /78
Suspension of Criteria Thr New Source Determinations 09/25/80
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001) 03/c) I
Training Manual for NIPDES Permit Writers (EPA 833-B-93-003) 03/Q
Results of SNC Study (see also IA) 08/23 193
B. Receiving Water Issues
1. Water Quality
Low Flow Augmentation by Federal Reservoirs 0liIS
Incorporation of §303(e) Basin Plans into Permit 08/&
Impact of §303(e) Basin Plans 09 10 1.1 1
Use of Low Flow Augmcrnano1i to Meet Water
Quality Standards 1 I I(*
** = Complete copy of docwneiu available ‘ r il .
-------
5
Development of Water Quality-Based Limits for
Toxic Pollutants 02/03/84
Permit Writer’s Guide to Water Quality Permitting
for Toxic Pollutants 07/87
Questions & Answers on Implementation of §304(1) of the
Clean Water Act 01/04/90
Stay of Star Kist Decision (regarding compliance schedules
for water quality-based limits) (see also IX) 09/21/90
2. Type of Receiving Water-body
NPDES Permits in Wetlands .. 07/12/77
Implementation pf §403 (Ocean dumping) 07/20177
Intermittent Streams 09/28173
Impounded Waters and Weaands as
“Waters of the United -States” 07/151,0
“Waters of thE United States” Determination for a Proposed
Cooling Pond Site in PoUc County, Florida 12/I 3fl43
3. In-stream Treatment
Use of In-Stream Mechanical Aerators to Meet Water
Quality Standards 0 /0V7P
Regulation of Solid Waste Discharges and Instream Treatment
Impoundments (see also X.B) O /OS
C. Technology-based Standards (general)
BFr: Relevance of Economic Factors - O2J t
BCT Cost Test Guidance
Interim Guidance on Determinauon and U of Water-
Effect Ratios for Metals (EPA-823-B-94-OOl)
** = Complete copy of docwnent available upt ivq .
-------
6
D. Industry-Specific Issues and Standards
Petroleum Marketing Terminals & Oil Production Facilities
Applying Electroplating Guidelines
API v. EPA (1976)-Information Memo
Confined Animal Feeding Operations
Water Treatment Plants (Sludges)
Breweries-BCT Limits Guidance
Pulp and Paper Facilities and Other Facilities with BCT Limitations
Leather Tanning, gtrlfide Waivers
Water Treatment Plants (BAT/BCT)
OCS Oil & Gas General Permits
Guidance for NPDES Permits Issued to Stream Electric Power Plants
Categorical Standards Summaries
OCPSF Interim Guidance
Pulp and Paper Mill Dioxin Discharge
Organic Chemical P., & S.F.: Q&As
Pulp and Paper Mill Dioxin Treatability
Sewage Disposal from Trains
Bis (2-Chioroisopropyl) Ether, OCPSF Guidelines Remand
OCPSF Permitting Strategy
Applicability of Combined Wastesueam Formula for Commercial
Waste Treatment Facilities
07/18/74
08/28/74
08/24/76
12/ 15/76
01/13/77
10/18/79
05/ 15a8 1
01/13/83
03/06i84
07/03i*5
08/ .*5
0*1 Oi *6
08 t ’ U
IOii .$$
10 ’ 1 U
II N
O2
03/I’
= Complete copy of document available upim rrques:.
-------
7
Strategy for the Regulation of Discharges of PHDDs and PHDFs
from Pulp and Paper Mills to Waters of the United States, Wilcher 05/21/90
Clarification of “Instantaneous Maximum” as Applied to Stream Electnc
Facilities Effluent Limitations 07/27/92
Report of the EPA/State Feedlot Workgroup 9/93
E. Pollutant-Specific Issues
Supply Water Treatment Sludge 09/13/74
Use of Closed Cycle Cooling Systems to Meet §316(b) Requirements 02/26/75
Asbestos Limits . 10/15/76
Fecal Coliform Limits 02/14/77
§316(a)&(b) Guidance (cooling water and thermal discharges) 05/01/77
§307(a) Toxic Standards Imp1eme itation 06/01/77
Treatability Manual 09/25/80
Phosphorous Derived Chemicals 01/18/82
Total Toxic Organics Guidance Manual 09185
Petroleum Refinery Dioxin Discharges 10/06 189
F. Best Management Practices
BMPs in NPDES Permits 08a l’ /$1
G. Production-Based Limits/Combined Wastestream
Calculating Production-Based Limits 12; I & $4
Guidance Manual for Using Production-Based Standards and the
Combined Wastestream Formula 09’$3’
= Complete copy of document available U M request.
-------
8
IV. Variances
A. Fundamentally Different Factors
Opinions on Variances in Second Round 06/13/78
FDFs for Iron and Steel 0 1/07/83
Processing Procedures 10/11/83
Advance Concurrence of A.A. for FDF and §301(g) Variances 05/19/86
Procedures for FDF and §301(g) Variances 09/25/87
B. Section 301(g) Variances
§301(c) and (g) A plicatipn Requirements . 12/29/82
§301(g) Variance Requests 05/17/83
§301(g) Technical Guidance . 08/22/84
Notice of Tentative §301(g) Decisions 08/01/85
Advance concurrence of A.A. for FDF and §301(g) Variances 05/19/86
Procedures for FDF and §301)(g) . 09/25/V
C. Other Variances
Variances in Second Round 06/I .V7*
- Innovative Technology Extensions 09’0 7*
Applicability of §301(h) and (0 to Federal Facilities 09/ I .71
§301(c) and (g) Application Requirements I 21291
Leather Tanning Sulfide Waivers 01 / I .t $3
Review of §301(c) Variance Requrits 08/21 $4
§301(i)(1) Variance Eligibility 04/I l $4
= Complete copy of docwnent available i a vrquest.
-------
9
V. Sampling and Reporting
Use of Biomonitoring in NPDES Program 01/11/79
Use of BOD5 Carbonaceous Test Results 04/18/80
Representative Sampling Requirements 05/06/83
Baseline Monitoring Reports 07/21/83
Electroplating and Metal Finishing, Baseline Monitoring Reports 08/19/83
Toxicity Testing in Municipal Permits 07/24/85
Volatile Organic Fraction Sampling Proc. . 07/31/85
Final Policy on Bi6lOgic 1 Assessments and Criteria 08/13/91
NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document
(EPA 833-B-92-001) (see also Vl.J) 7/92
Representative Sampling in NPDES Permits - 05/06/93
Guidance for the Det fmination of Appropriate Methods
for the Detection of Section 313 Water Priority Chemicals
(EPA 833-8-94-001) 4/94
VI. Municipal Permits and Pretreatment
A. General
National Municipal Policy & Strategy 10/79
Deadlines for POTW Compliance with Secondary Treatment
Requirement . 031041$)
PIRT Final Report 0l185’
“The National Pretreatment Program 07/*6 • —
Privatization (effect of private ownership on secondary treatment
and pretreatment requirements) 04/1617
Industrial User Permitting Guidance 09/
** = Complete copy of docwnent available i request.
-------
10
Report to Congress of the National Pretreatment Program 07/26/91 **
Guidance to Protect POTW Workers from Toxic and
Reactive Gases and Vapors (EPA 812-B-92-001)
(NTIS No. PB92-173-236) 6/92
EPA Model Pretreatment Ordinance 06/92
Applicability of pH Waivers to Pretreatment Standards 05/13/93
B. POTW Permit, Limits and Variances
Fecal Coliform Limits 02/14/77
Suspended Solid Limits for POTW Ponds .. 09/01/78
Example Permit andMOA Language for Pretreatment 09/22183
Program Approval
§301(i) Variance Eligibility 04/11/84
Expediting Water Quality Improvement by §301(h) Applicants 1012q 1 84
Municipal Permit Qua1 ty Review Guide 10186
C. Pretreatment Program Development Requirements
Coordination Between Regions’ Enforcement and Water Program
Regarding Pretreatment 11 12’4t7$
Flexibility in State Pretreatment Programs 0411:.
Incorporation of Pretreatment Program Development Compliance
Schedules into POTW NPDES Permits 01.21$)
Procedures Manual for Reviewing a POTW Pretreatment Program
Submission 10 /* 3
Guidance Manual for Pretreatment Program Development 101*3
Deletion of Local Pretreatment Program Development Requirements 08e .
Determining Compliance Dates for Individual Control Strategies 03/1 l
Issued Pursuant to CWA 304(l) (s also LA. and V.A.)
= Complete copy of documeiu available u m rrque.u.
-------
11
Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist and Instructions 05/92
40 CFR 403. 18 Pretreatment Program Modifications 07/22/93
Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Programs - Guidance Manual
(EPA 833-B-94-005) 6/94
D. Local Limits
PRELIM User’s Guide (EPA program for developing local timits) 01/87
Guidance Manual on Development of Local Discharge Limits 11/87
Industrial User Permitting Guidance 09/89
Preliminary 4.0 Users Manual: Documentation for the EPA
Computer Program for Development of Local Discharge
Limitations under the Pretreatment Program (21-W-4003) 5/91
Supplemental Manual for Local Limits Development Under the
Pretreatment Program (21W-4002) 5/91
E. Categorical Standards -
•p
Electroplating & Metal Finishing Pretreatment Standards 02J84
Textile Mills 05/31*4
Guidance Manual for Pulp. Paper & Paperboard
Pretreatment Standards 07/*4
Applicability of Standards to [ U.s of Non-Discharging POTWs 06/ I
Iron & Steel Manufacturing Guidance
Production-Based Standards and the Combined Wastestream Formula 091*5
Total Toxic Organics Guidance 09/85
Guidance Manual for Leather Tanning & Finishing Pretreatment
Standards 09I*
Categorical Pretreatment Standards Reference Manual (3 Vol.s) 03/ 16V
Battery Manufacturing Pretreatment Standards 08/V
= Complete copy of document available upo.i rrques:.
-------
12
OCPSF Interim Guidance 02/08/88
Organic Chemicals, P. & S.F.: Q&As (see abs III.D) 10/28/88
Bis (2-Chioroisopropyl) Ether, OCPSF Guidelines Remand
(see also III.D) 11/30/88
Applicability of Categorical Pretreatment Standards to
Zero Discharge Facilities 04/16/93
F. Pass Through, Interference and Slug Loads
Guidance for Preventing Interference 09/87
Guidance Manual for the Prevention of Slug Loads . . 09/88
Control of Slug Lo ding to POTWs: Guidance Manual
(21W-4001) 02/91
G. Removal Credits
Preparation and Review of 1 emoval Credit Applications 07/85
H. RCRA Requirements
Guidance on POTWs’ Solid Waste Disposal Obligations 09/85
Application of RCRA Corrective Action Requirements to POTW 09/I 1/86
Model Letter to be Sent to POTWs Regarding Corrective
Action Requirements 10/21/86
Guidance Manual for Identification of Hazardous Waste Delivered to
POTWs by Truck, Rail or Dedicated Pipe O6/87
Guidance for Implementing RCRA Permit-By-Rule Requirements
at POTWs 07/21 *7
Strategy for Implementing RCRA’s Permit-By-Rule Requirements
for POTWs that Accept Hazardous Wastes 09/21 ,11
Guidance on the Conduct of RCRA Facility Assessments at POTWs 10 iV
Applicability of General Permit Requirements under RCRA, Lowrance 03i2
** = Complete copy of document available u i request.
-------
13
I. Enforcement, Audits, Compliance, etc.
Enforcing the 1977 CWA Deadlines for Compliance by POTWs 03/04/83
Pretreatment Compliance Schedules in NPDES Permits 06/05/80
Pretreatment Compliance Inspections & Audit Manual for
Approval Authorities 07/86
Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance 07/86
Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance 09/87
Guidance on Actions Against POTWs for Failure to Implement 08/04/88
Liability of Private Operators 10/28/88
New Regulations Govehfing the Discharge of Toxic and Hazardous
Pollutants to Publicly Owned Treatment Works 12/17/90
Compliance with Water Quality Standards in NPDES Permits Issued to
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 01/09/91
J. Storm water and CSOs •.
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy 08 /I 0/89
02/04/90 Deadline for Storm Water Permit Applications (see also II) 01 / 31 ilO
February 4, 1990 Deadline for Storm Water
Permit Applications, Elder 01/31/90
Sediment and Erosion Control: An Inventory of Current Practices 4/9O
V
Designation of Storm Water Discharges for
Immediate Permitting, Elder 08/0&
Storm Water Discharges for Imm iaze Permitting 08/0*/90
Draft Manual of Practice Idenufication of
Illicit Connections
Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Part 1 of the NPDES
Permit Applications for Discharges ( mm Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems (EPA-5 /8-9L-OO3A) 4/91
** = Complete copy of document available i iv vst.
-------
14
Guidance Manual for the Preparation of NPDES
Permit Applications for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Industrial Activities (EPA-505/8-91-002) 04/91
Construction Site Stormwater Discharge Control: An Inventory
of Current Practices (EPA 833-R-91-100) 6/91
Storm Water Program Question and Answer Document, Volume 1 03/92
1
NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document 07/92
Storm Water Management for Construction Activities:
Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management
Practices (EPA 832-R-92-005) 9/92
Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices
(EPA 832-R-92-006) 9/92
Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices -
Summary Guidance (EPA 833-R-92-OOl) 10/92
Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices -
Summary Guidance (EPA 833-R-92-002) 10/92
Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Part 2 of the NPDES Permit
Applications for discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (EPA 833-B-92-002) 1 1 1/92
Phase II Deadline Extension Fact Sheet I 2/03 /92
Investigation of Appropriate Pollulant Enines into
Storm Drainage Systems: A Users Guide EPA/600/R/92/238 1/93
Storm Water Program Question and Answer Document,
Volume 2 (EPA-F-93-002B) 07i
Storm Water Program Question and Answer Document, Volume 2 07193
Storm Water Enforcement Strategy
= Complete copy of docwne,u available • ripws .
-------
15
Guidance on the Preparation of Discharge Monitoring Reports;
Facilities Required to Report Semi-annual Monitoring Results
Under the NPDES Storm Water General Permits (revised)
(EPA 833-B-93-002) 4/94
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy (59 FR 18688) 04/19/94
Storm Water Pollution Abatement Technologies
(EPA/600/R-94/129) 09/94
Policy for End of Moratorium for Stormwater Permitting 10/18/94
Combined Sewer Overflows - Questions and Answers on Water
Quality Standards and the CSO Program 03/95
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Nine Minimum
Controls (EPA 832-B-9 -003) 5/95 .
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls 05/95
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Long-Term
Control Plan (EPAI832-B-9 -002) 8/8.5
Combined Sewer Ov&1lows - Guidance for Screening and Ranking
Combined Sewer System Discharges (EPA 832-B-95-004) 8/95
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Funding Options
(EPA/832-B-95-007) 8/95
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Permit Writers 801’$
VII. Toxicity Control
- Development of Water Quality-Based Limits for Toxic Pollutants 02.0% I I
Toxicity Testing in Municipal Permits
Permit Writer’s Guide to Water Quality-Based Permitting
for Toxic Pollutants
Biological Toxicity Testing Survey O&iV
State Water Quality-Based Toxics Control Program Reviev Guidance 121V
= Complete copy of document available upon rvqaes,.
-------
16
State and Regional Control Strategies / 02/22/88
§304(1) Implementation Guidance 03/17/88
Review of Biomonitoring Regulation (Colorado Springs) 08/12/88
Whole Effluent Toxicity Basic Permitting Issues and
Enforcement Strategy 0 1125/89
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Permitting and Enforcement Guidance 02/02/89
304(1) Permitting of Pulp and Paper Mills 03/15/89
Ninth Circuit Court Decision Regarding 304(1) Implementation
(see also IX) . 10/25/90
Methods for Aquallo TQxicity Identification Evaluations,
EPA: Phase I Toxicity Characterization Procedures
(EPA/600/6-91/003) 02/91
Revised TIE Phase I Guidance Document 11/18/91
Toxicity Identification Evaluation: Characterization
of Chronically Toxic’Bffluents, Phase I (EPA/600/6-9 11005F) 5/92
Amendments to Surface Water Toxics Control and Water Quality
Planning and Management Regulations (see also E1I.B. 1.) 07/4192
Federal Register Publication of the 304( 1)/303(d) Proposed and
Final Regulations (see also III. B. 1)
Clarifications Regarding Certain Aspects of EPA’s Surface Water
Toxics Control Regulations 0*. i92
Report form the Water Quality Permit Specialists (see also llI.B. 1) I I is92
Implementations of Metals Toxicity Cntena for Aquatic Life 01 Ii’ I
OW Memorandum of Implementation of Metals Criteria, Prothro 044)1
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations:
Phase U Toxicity Identification Procedurts for Samples
Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity (EPA/600/R-92/080) 919%
** = Complete copy of document available upo i request.
-------
17
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations:
Phase Ill Toxiciiy Confirmation Procedures for
Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity
(EPA/600/R-92 1081 9/93
Recent Environmental Appeals Board Decision (see also IX) 12/07/93
EPA Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Control Policy
(EPA 833-B-94-002) 7/94
National Biological Survey - Data Needs for Aquatic
Threatened and Endangered Species 10/21/94
National Policy Regarding Whole Effluent Toxic Enforcement
(Also see §IX) 08/14/95
Vifi. Sludge
Use of NPDES to Promote Sludge Management 04/13/77
Municipal Sewage Sludge Management Policy 05/31/84
Implementation of Amendments to §405 04/03/87
Implementation of WQA §406: Sewage Sludge Permitting and
State Programs 05121/87
POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance 08/89
Sewage Sludge Interim Permitting Strategy, Office of Water 09189
State Sludge Management Program Guidance Manual, EPA 10J’X)
National Approach to Sewage Sludge Implementation 1012 Q2
Guidance for Writing Permits for the Use of Disposal
of Sewage Sludge 03’Q
OWEC State Sewage Sludge Management Program, Cook 10/25 / 93
Intenm Sewage Sludge Permit Application Form 01/3
THC CEM Guidance for Part 503 Sewage Sludge Incinerators
(EPA 833-B-94-003) 06/g4
** = Complete copy of docwnenz available upim request.
-------
18
Monitoring of Total Hydrocarbons by Sewage Sludge Incinerators 02/17/94
Authorization of Partial State Sewage Sludge Programs 07/28/94
IX. Hearings
Ex Parte Contacts in EPA Rulemaking 08/04/77
Ex Parte Contacts in Adjudicatory Hearings 06/16/78
NPDES Evidentiary Hearing Management Program 10/03/80
Stay of Star-Kist Decision 09/21/90
Ninth Circuit Court Decision Regarding 304(1) Implementation
(see also VII) 10/25/90
Order Denying Modification Request with Respect to the
Administrator;s 1990 Decision in the Star-Kist
Caribe, Inc. (NPDES Appeal No. 88-5) 05/27/92
Ninth Circuit Storm Water Decision Fact Sheet 09103/92
Recent Environmental ppeals Board Decision (see also VII) 10/07/93
Consent Decree in Natural Resources Defense Council
Inc. v. Browner, Civ. No. 95-634 PLF (storm water
Phase II litigation) 04124/95
National Policy Regarding Whole Effluent Toxic Enforcement
(Also see §VH) 08/14/95
X. Other Programs
A. Water Quality Management Plan
Coordination between NPDES Prpgram and Water Quality Management
Planning Program under §208 and 303 07/O7.1
B. Solid Waste Discharges
NPDES Permits in Wetlands 07/12/77
MOA. with Army 02J87
** = Complete copy of document available upo.. request.
-------
19
Regulation of Solid Waste Discharges and Instream Treatment
Impoundments (see also II1.B.3) 05108/89
C. CERCLA
CERCLA Discharges into POTWs 04/15/86
D. SMCRA
Overview and Permit Requirements 05/25/78
E. UST
Model NPDES Permit for Discharge of Gasoline from
Underground Storage Tank 06/89
X I. Tribal Programs
NPDES and Sewage Sludge Program Authority: A Handbook for
Federally Recognized Indian Tribes (EPA 833-8-94-004) 07/94
Clean Water Act - Indian Tribes; Qualification for
Treatment as States Under Section 404 State
Program Regulations (59 FR 6(339) 12/ I 4/’M
XII. Watersheds
Final Watershed Protection Framework Document 10/21Ql
NPDES Watershed Strategy 03/21 ‘N
Regional Guidance for Development of State-by-State
Watershed Protection Assessments and Action Plans 05 /I .‘N
The Watershed Approach: Our Framework for Ecosystem Protection 10/01
Moving the NPDES Program to a Watershed Approach 10/25
= Complete copy of document available upm rrques:.
-------
NPDES POLICY COMPENDIUM
VOLUME Ill
CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING
Title Date
Questions and Answers on Implementation of
Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act 01/04/90
February 4, 1990 Deadline for Storm Water
Permit Applications, Elder 01/31/90
Applicability of Combined Wastestream Formula for
Commercial Waste Treatment Facilities 3/15/90
Sediment and Erosion Controt:.Aj Inventory of Current Practices 4/90 **
Strategy for the Regulation of Discharges
of P}IDDs and PHDFs from Pulp and Paper Mills
to Waters of the United States, Wilcher 05/21/90
Designation of Storm Water Discharges for
Immediate Permitting, Elder ‘‘ 08/08/90
Draft Manual of Practice Identification of
illicit Connections 9/90
Stay Granted in Star-Kist Caribe, King 09/21/90
State Sludge Management Program Guidance
Manual, EPA 10/90
Ninth Circuit Court Decision Regarding 304(1)
Implementation, Brandes 10/25/90
NPDES Permit Writer’s Guide on Data Quality
Objectives, Dougherty 12/03/90
New Regulations Governing the Discharge of Toxic
and Hazardous Pollutants to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, Elder 12/ 17190
** = Complete copy available upon request.
-------
2
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations,
EPA: Phase I Toxicity Characterization Procedures
(EPAI600I6-911003) 02/91
Control of Slug Loadings to POTWs: Guidance Manual
(21W-4001) 02/91
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-00l) 03/91 *
Determining Compliance Dates for Individual Control
Strategies Issued Pursuant to Clean Water Act
304(1), Elder 03/28/91
Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Part I of the NPDES
Permit Applications for Disclcarges from Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems (EPA-505/8-91-003A) 4/91
Guidance Manual. for the Preparation of NPDES
Permit Applications for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Industrial Activities (EPA-505/8-91-002) 4/91 **
Preliminary 4.0 Users Manual: Documentation for the EPA
Computer Program for Development of Local Discharge
Limitations under the Pretreatment Program (21 -W-4003) 5/91
Supplemental Manual for Local Limits Development Under the
Pretreatment Program (2 1W-4002) 5/91
Construction Site Stormwater Discharge Control: An Inventory
of Current Practices (EPA 833-R-91-100) 6/91 **
Report to tongress of the National Pretreatment
Program 07/26/91
Final Policy on Biological Assessments and
Criteria, Brandes 08/13/91
Final Watershed Protection Framework Document 10/28/91
= Complete copy available upon request.
-------
3
Recent Concerns About USGS Data for Selected Metals,
Pendergast 01/02/92
Storm Water Program Question and Answer Document,
Volume 1 03/92
Toxicity Identification Evaluation: Characterization
of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I (EPA/600/6-9 l/005F) 5/92 **
Order Denying Modification Request with Respect to the
Administrator;s 1990 Decision in the Star-Kist
Canbe, Inc. (NPDES Appeal No. 88-5) 5/27/92
Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist
and Instructions 5/92
Guidance to Protect POTW Workers from Toxic and
Reactive Gases and Vapors (EPA 812-B-92-OOl)
(NTIS No. PB92-173-236) 6/92 **
EPA Model Pretreatment Ordinance 6/92
NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document
(EPA 833-B-92-OOl) 7/92
Clarification of “Instantaneous Maximum” as Applied to
Steam Electric Facilities Effluent Limitations, Dougherty 07/27/92
Clarifications Regarding Certain Aspects of EPA ’s Surface
Water Toxics Control Regulations, Cook, Wayland 08/14/92
Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices
(EPA 832 R-92-006) 9/92
Storm Water Management for Construction Activities:
Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management
Practices (EPA 832-R-92-005) 9/92
Ninth Circuit Storm Water Decision Fact Sheet 09/03/92
= Complete copy available upon request.
-------
4
Storm Water Management for Construction Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices -
Summary Guidance (EPA 833-R-92-001) 10/92
Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices -
Summary Guidance (EPA 833-R-92-002) 10/92
National Approach to Sewage Sludge Implementation, Cook 10/02/92
Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Part 2 of the NPDES Permit
Applications for discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (EPA 833-B-92-002) 11/92
Phase II Deadline Extension Fact Sheet 12/03/92
Investigation of Appropriate Pdllutapt Entries into
Storm Drainage Systems: A User’s Guide EPA/600/R192/238 1/93
Guidance for Writing Permits for the Use or Disposal of
Sewage Sludge - . 03/93
Training Manual for NPDES Peçmit Writers (EPA 833-B-93-003) 03/93
OW Memorandum of Implementation of Metals Criteria,
Prothro 04/01/93
Applicability of Categorical Pretreatment Standards to
Zero Discharge Facilities 4/16/93
Applicability of pH Waivers to Pretreatment Standards 5/13/93
Storm Water Program Question and Answer Document,
Volume 2 (EPA-F-93-002B) 07/93
40 CFR 403.18 Pretreatment Program Modifications 7/22/93
Results of SNC Study, Cook 08/25/93
Report of the EPA/State Feedlot Workgroup 9/93
** = Complete copy available upon request.
-------
5
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Eva1uati ns:
Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples
Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity (EPA/600/R-92/080) 9/93
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations:
Phase III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures for
Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity
(EPA/600/R92/081 9/93 **
Implementation of Metals Toxicity Criteria for Aquatic
Life, Prothro 10/15/93
OWEC State Sewage Sludge Management Program, Cook 10/25/93
Guidance on EPA’s NPDES and Sludge Management Permit
Procedures on Federal Indian Reservations 11/16/93
= Complete copy available upon request.
-------
itO VP.,.
___ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4
OFFICE OF
WATER
JAN zi igg
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers on Implementation
of Section 304(1) of the cieany er ActjJ
FROM: Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director V ’ -/
Assessment and Watershed Pro ect’ion Division (WH-553)
A -
e ’ Tr1 ‘V Dougflerty, 1rE or
Pe its Division (EN a3 6)
TO: Permits Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Water Quality Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
304(1) Coordinators, Regions I—X
Regional Counsel 304(1) Contacts, Regions I-X
This memorandum addresses questions that have come up during
implementation of 304(1). A number of these questions were
raised at the 304(1) and WLA Coordinators Meeting held in
Philadelphia, PA on September’27 and 28, 1989. Ken Fenner,
Region V, also raised several implementation issues in a
memorandum dated September 11, 1989.
Qi. How and when do.. HPA tak. over the authority to issue
an ICS?
The new regulations at 40 CFR 123.46(f) provide that any
time after the Regional Administrator disapproves an ICS (or
conditionally approve. a draft permit as an ICS), the RA may
submit written notification to the State that the Regional Office
intends to j 1 j the ICS. Upon mailing the notification, and
not-withstanding any other regulation, exclusive authority to
issue the psrpit passes to EPA. Headquarters recommends that the
Regions ass e sole authority over issuance of an ICS only as a
last resort where the NPDES—authorized State refuses to fully
implement the requirements of 304(1).
We suggest the following procedure:
1. Instruct States that they must issue ICSs that EPA
approved on 6/4/89 as final permits by February 4,
1990.
-------
2
2. After review of comments received during the 120-day
public comment period on the lists and ICSs, we
recommend the Regions issue formal responses to all
comments in early 1990 along with the final lists.
3. Where EPA disapproved a State’s ICS on 6/4/89, but the
State is nonetheless issuing the permit, the State
should submit acceptable drafts by February 4, 1990.
This date is designed to allow the Region sufficient
time to prepare a draft permit should the State fail to
do so. In any case, an acceptable draft permit must be
in place by June 4, 1990. For drafts already
submitted, the Permits Branch Chief should send a
letter to the State pointing out which draft ICSs
appear acceptable, and which ones do not. This letter
should indicate that EPA may formally take over
authority to issue the disapproved ICSs at any time via
letter from the PA to the State Director, if
corrections t3 unacceptable ICS5 are not made. The
letter should point out that it is not a final decision
regarding the sufficiency of the ICS and is not the
formal permit objection required by existing State/EPA
MOLT, nor is it the letter which transfers authority to
issue the permit under 40 CFR 123.46(f).
4. Where the Regions determine they must assume sole
authority to issue an ICS, the Region should send
letters from the PA to the State and to the permittee
saying that EPA is taking over sole authority to issue
the permit. The letter should list the reasons for
this action and relate them. to specific regulations.
These letters should include a copy of the responses to
comments received during the 120-day public comment
period or information regarding where the responses are
available.
5. Where the Region assumes sole authority to issue an ICS
that was disapproved in June of 1989, the Region or the
State must prepare a draft permit by June of 1990 and
issue the final permit by February of 1991.
6. In cases where the Region assumes sole authority to
issue an ICS that was originally approved in June of
1989 but where the State has failed to fulfill its
commitment to issue the final permit by February 4,
1990, the Region should withdraw its approval of the
ICS and prepare its own draft or final permit by June
of 1990.
-------
3
Q2. Can EPA modify a permit issued by the Stat.?
The regulations at 40 CFR 123.46 and 124.5 are silent on
whether EPA can assume the authority to modify a State-issued
permit and if so what the correct procedures for doing so are.
The preamble to the section 304(1) regulations (at 52 f
23890) states that section 304(1) gives EPA the authority to
reopen a permit before the term of the permit expires. The term
reopen suggests that permit modification and revocation and
reissuance might both be viable options for EPA. However, little
legal assurance in the form of regulatory authority or precedent
exists which would allow EPA to modify a State-issued NPDES
permit. A possible result of such a modification could be the
existence of EPA—issued and State—issued conditions in the same
NPDES permit that conflict or perhaps the existence of two NPDES
permits (one EPA-issued and one State—issued) for the same
facility. While the existence of State and NPDES permits for the
same facility is not uncommon, contradictory NPDES permits or
permit conditions for the same facility would be unworkable.
Thus, the statement in the preamble to the section 304(1)
regulations (52 23890) that section 304(1) gives EPA the
authority to reopen an NPDES permit needs clarification. It is
clear that EPA can reopen and modify a permit that EPA has
issued. However, in the case of State-issued NPDES permits,
since there is littl, legal basis for EPA to modify an NPDES
permit issued by a State, and for the reasons stated above, EPA
should not attempt to modify State—issued WPDES permits, but
rather revoke and reissue such permits as a last resort where the
State refuses to modify or reissue the permit to be consistent
with the requirements of section 304(1).
Q3. If EPA issues a permit as an ICS, what is the status of
the State—issued permit?
When EPA issues an NPDES permit as an ICS to replace an
existing State-issued NPDES permit, EPA should follow the
procedures for rsvocation and reissuance of permits at
40 CFR 124.5(c) and (e). The regulations at 124.5(c) (2) provide:
“When a permit is revoked and reissued under this section, the
entire permit is reopened just as if the permit had expired and
was being reissued. During any revocation and reissuance
proceeding, the permittee shall comply with all the conditions of
the existing permit until a new final permit is reissued.” The
status of the State—issued permit upon EPA—reissuance of the new
final permit is that it is revoked and no longer effective as a
State-issued NPDES permit; it may continue indefinitely as a
State-issued non-NPDES permit.
-------
4
Q4. DO IPa and Stat.. have an obligation to issu. permits
that bays complianc. date. within th. permit term’
Yes. In order for EPA to approve or issue an ICS it must
make a finding that the permit contains the requirements
necessary to meet water quality standards by the section 304(1)
deadlines. To make this finding, the permit must require
compliance with a limit. The permit can only require compliance
with limits that are effective within the term of the permit.
Furthermore, it is EPA practice to require compliance deadlines
within the term of the permit. This is sound practice and should
continue so that the full enforceability of the permit is
uncompromised.
Thus, there are two available options for issuance of ICSs
where the compliance deadline required by section 304(1) and 40
CFR 123.46 (1992 or 1993) would extend beyond the term of the
existing permit. The first option is to revoke and reissue the
permit thereby creating a new five year term of the permit. The
second option is to roquire, in the existing permit, compliance
with ICS conditions within the term of the permit, even if such
compliance would be required before 1992 or 1993. Section
304(1) (1) (D) and 40 CFR 123.46(a) require ICS5 to achieve
compliance with applicable water quality standards as soon as
possible , but not later than three years after the establishment
of the ICS. To the extent that the permitting authority can
negotiate compliance deadlines that fall prior to 1992 or 1993
(and within the term of the existing permit), it should do so.
If the permitting authority is unable to negotiate or otherwise
establish a compliance deadline within the term of the existing
permit (which is being modified to meet the requirements of
section 304(1)), then revoking and reissuing the permit may be
the only available recourse.
Q5. I. the term “draft permit” a. applied to section 304(1)
regulationi consistent with the term a. defined in 40
CYR 122.2?
Yes. The term “draft permit” found at 40 CTh 123.46(c) is
intended to be consistent with the same term as defined at 40 CFR
122.2. The definition of “draft permit” at 122.2, together with
the requirements at 124.6(e), indicate that “draft permits”
should be made available for public comment. Since completion of
the public notice period is necessary before the permit may be
issued as a final permit and because of the short deadlines for
developing final permits, EPA and the States should, wherever
possible, public notice draft permits at or before the time such
permits are approved as ICS5. In all cases, final permits to
meet the ICS requirements of 304(1) must be issued by February 4,
1990 where EPA initially and finally approved the ICS and by
February 4, 1991 where EPA initially or finally disapproved the
ICS.
-------
5
QC. flat should the Regional Office do if a stats
challenges !PA’s authority to disapprove an Ics or to
implement the requirements of Section 304(1) after
disapproval?
The Regional Office should cite EPA’s authority under the
regulations at 40 CFR Part 123.46(f). The validity of these
regulations has been challenged by several parties, but these
challenges do not affect whether the Region may rely on the
regulations. Section 304(1) (2) gives EPA the authority to
approve or disapprove the control strategies submitted under
paragraph (1) by State. Section 304(1) (3) mandates the
action to be taken by EPA: “If a State fails to submit control
strategies in accordance with paragraph (1) or the Administrator
does not approve the control strategies submitted by the State in
accordance with paragraph (1), then, not later than 1 year after
the last day of the period referred to in paragraph (2), the
Administrator, in cooperation with such State and after notice
and opportunity for public comment, shall implement the
requirements of paragraph (1) in such State....” This is new,
one-time authority for EPA which is unique to the Section 304(1)
process.
Q7. What is the difference between “vetoed” permits and
approved/disapproved ICBi2
The key differences between a permit “veto” and an ICS
disapproval are that the authorities are different. Where as a
permit objection is based upon the failure of the permit to be
consistent with the CWA and implementing regulations, an ICS
approval/disapproval is based on the adequacy of the permit
limits that are designed to meet the ICS requirements under
Section 304(1) of the CWA. A “vetoed” NPDES permit is one that
EPA is objecting to either during public comment on the draft
permit, at the proposal stage (under authority found at 40 CFR
123.44), or after the permit has been issued (under an memorandum
of agreement) between EPA and the approved NPDES State). An EPA
disapproval of an ICS on. the other hand, is based on the
authority provided by section 304(1) (3) and 40 CFR Part
123.46(f). EPA disapproval of an ICS is essentially EPA’S
finding that those limitations and conditions in an NPDES permit
that are designed to comply with water quality standards by 1992
(or in some cases 1993) are inadequate.
QB. can the Regional Administrator or an officially
appointed designee still object to and tak. over
authority to issue an ICS if it has not been objected
to under the normal permit issuance process?
Yes. The process for ICS approval/disapproval can be
independent of the process for EPA review and objections to State
-------
6
permits (40 CFR 123.44). A final issued permit that EPA reviewed
and did not object to under 40 CFR 123.44 could be disapproved as
an ICS by EPA. (Failure to object to a permit does not
necessarily indicate that EPA approves of the ICS.) However, EPA
should not put itself in the position of approving ICS conditions
within a permit and subsequently objecting to those same
conditions under a separate review (although EPA may object based
on non—section 304(1) conditions). EPA should make every effort
to be consistent in its ICS and permit reviews.
Q9. If, after ths 120-day public coment period, EPA
approves an 1C8 that is a draft p.rmit, can conditions
in the p.rmit chang. b.for. it b.co..s a final permit?
Yes, provided the changes do not jeopardize compliance with
the 1992 or 1993 statutory deadlines. If the changes are
inconsistent with section 304(1) then EPA can reconsider or
withdraw its approval of the ICS.
Q10. flat should EPA Regions do if a m.mb.r of the public
has requested an extension to ta. 120—day public
co.m.nt pined on approvals and disapprevals? Must EPA
grant the .xt.nsion? If EPA grant. an •xt.nsion to one
party, must all parti.. automatically r.c.iv. an
extension?
EPA may, upon request, agree to consider particular comments
received after the 120-day public comment period or EPA may
formally extend the comment period and provide notice that it is
doing so. Extensions may be of any length. Headquarters
recommends that the Regions accept comments after the close of
the comment period and/or grant extensions only where the Region
believes that the deadlines for draft and final permits
established by the 304(1) regulations will not be compromised.
Regardless of whether an extension is granted, the 6/4/90
deadline for EPA final approval of ICSs and the statutory
compliance deadlines of 1992 or 1993 apply for fl ICSs. If EPA
agrees to accept coents from one person until a particular date
it should agree to accept comments from others until that same
date.
Qil. If a atats issues an Ice no ,, whim ii the compliance
dati for that ICS?
The latest possible compliance date will either be 6/92 or
6/93. If EPA initially finally disapproved the ICS then the
later date will apply. The compliance date does not depend on
the permit issuance date. However, we recommend that wherever
possible the State or Region negotiate compliance dates prior to
6/92 or 6/93. The discharger should comply with the ICS
conditions as soon as possible, but not later than three years
after EPA approval of the ICS or preparation of the draft permit.
-------
7
The ICS conditions are the water quality-based limits on
section 307(a) toxic pollutants or indicator pollutants that are
to achieve applicable water quality standards. EPA should work
with States to evaluate what will, be necessary for a facility to
comply with its ICS and then negotiate the earliest compliance
date possible.
Ql2. what happens to the B and C lists where a State adopts
a water quality criterion that is more or less
stringent than the criterion that served a. the basis
for listing the facility and the receiving water?
In those States where EPA has not yet finally approved or
disapproved State section 304(1) lists, new information may
become available which indicates that a water quality standard
for a priority pollutant at a location is no longer exceeded.
This information may include a new numeric criterion adopted by a
State under section 303(c) (2) (B) or a new and formal State
interpretation of its narrative criterion. In such cases, where
a water is not exceeding the water quality standard as required
by section 304(1) at the time of final Agency approval or
disapproval, then the water or facility need not be listed.
Where a State adopts a more stringent water quality
criterion and as a result, prior to EPA taking final action on
lists, EPA determines that additional waters and facilities
should be listed, EPA should notify the State and facility, list
such waters and facilities, and provide for public comment on
those additions.
Ql3. Under what circumstances (other than those discussed in
Q12) can EPA or a State add waters or facilities to the
304(1) lists?
Up to the tin. EPA finally disapproves State section 304(1)
lists, the Agency can add waters to the lists based on public
comments or the receipt of additional data and information. If
EPA adds waters, based on substantially new data discovered
independently of the public comment process, it must provide
public notice of the additions to the lists and allow an
opportunity to comment. If, however, the data was made available
by the public during the comment period, the Region does not need
to provide any additional public notice, although the State and
any affected dischargers should be notified. This advice applies
to additions to each of the lists. The 1993 statutory deadline
for compliance with applicable water quality standards still
applies to any additions to the B and C lists after June 4, 1989.
EPA can add facilities to the C list that discharge to
waters already on the B list as well as facilities that discharge
to waters added to the B list. Such additions must be based on
-------
8
public co ent3, new data, or the fact that a facility was
mistakenly left off of the C list. The decision to add the
facility to the C list is EPA’S decision. If a State wishes to
add a facility to the C list, it must provide EPA with
information sufficient to support the addition.
Q14. Under what circumstances (other than thos. discusssd in
Q 12) can a wat.rbody or a facility hi tak.n off the
final hit if it was on the R.qion’s proposed list in
Jun. of 1989?
In addition to the reasons presented in Q12, a waterbody or
a facility may be taken off the final list if the original basis
for listing the facility was incorrect or is no longer correct.
Examples of circumstances which warrant removing a waterbody or a
facility from the list are: if a facility shuts down or ceases
discharging 307(a) pollutants after June 4, 1989, if a facility
now discharges to a POTW instead of directly (check to see if
POTW is listed), if there was a mistake in the listing data
originally used, or in certain cases where the facility was
initially listed solely on the basis of whole effluent toxicity
(WET) (see Q15 below).
QIS. What is thi rol, of whole if fluint toxicity (WET) in
‘CS.?
WET could have been a reason to initially list a water or a
facility. Where toxicity alone was the basis for listing, the
water or facility should be removed from the final list unless
data is available indicating the WET is caused by one or more
307(a) pollutants. Non—307(a) pollutants, and therefore WET
caused by non—307(a) pollutants, are not addressed under the ICS
provisions of 304(1). Where WET is caused by non—307(a)
pollutants, WET limits can be kept in the permit but the section
304(1) 1992 and 1993 statutory compliance deadlines do not
automatically apply. In addition, the absence from an ICS of a
WET limit that protects against toxicity caused by non-307(a)
pollutants would not be a basis for taking over the authority to
issue a permit from a State under section 304(1). When the
permitting authority determines that 307(a) pollutants are the
source of WIT, limits on WET should be included in the permit
unless limits on the 307(a) toxic pollutants alone are sufficient
to attain and maintain all applicable numeric and narrative water
quality standards (see 40 CFR 122.44(d) (1) (v)).
The Section 304(1) regulations allow the use of WET as an
indicator parameter tar any 307(a) toxicant for which a State
numeric water quality criterion is not available. If whole
effluent toxicity is used as an indicator parameter, it must meet
the following 4 conditions listed at 40 CFR 122.44 Cd) (1) (vi) (C):
1) the permit must identify the pollutant to be controlled: 2)
the fact sheet must set forth the basis for the limit, including
-------
9
a finding that compliance with the indicator will achieve water
quality standards; 3) the permit must require monitoring to show
continued compliance with water quality standards; and, 4) the
permit must contain a reopener allowing changes necessary to meet
water quality standards. However, we strongly recommend that
where a State has adopted a numeric criterion for a 307(a)
toxicant, the pollutant be limited directly where necessary to
achieve State water quality standards.
Q16. Is dredged spoil considered a point source?
Dredge spoil would only be considered a point source for
purposes of Section 304(1) if it were a continuous or
intermittent discharge to a water of the U.S. that has been
issued or is required to be issued an NPDES permit.
Q17. A number of discharg.rs have obj.ct.d to being listed
on the C list becaus, of inconsistencies in listing/not
listing c.rtain categories of facilities among the
States. Is such inconsistency a valid r.ason for d i—
listing a discharger?
No. EPA must act on the data that is available. If the
data show that a facility is discharging priority pollutants to a
water on the B list at levels which cause or are expected to
cause or contribute to excursions above applicable numeric and
narrative water quality standards due to 307(a) toxic,, the
facility must be listed. To the extent possible, Regions were to
have worked with States to fill significant data gaps.
Nevertheless, some inconsistency has still resulted. Where a
significant water quality problem exists, but data were not
available to put the water on the short list and address the
problem through an ICS, the waterbody should still appear on the
long list and a high priority should be attached to the problem.
Q18. How do the Regions us. Tezias R.l.as. Inventory (TRI)
data for 304(1) purposes?
EPA indicated its intention to consider TRI data in
reviewing 304(1) lists. For final reviews, the TRI data can be
used as a check on or as a supplement to Stat. 304(1) short and
long list submittals (e.g., to identify POTWs receiving
significant quantities of toxics that may have escaped the 16
“categories of waters”).
TRI data should be used cautiously as it has a number of
limitations: 53 priority pollutants are not reported; only
specific Standard Industrial Codes are covered; facilities
discharging less than 1000 lbs/yr of a chemical may choose to
report only broad ranges of loadings; there are no common
identifiers linking all facilities to OW databases; and
-------
10
facilities calculat, their annual releases by different methods
(e.g., mass balance calculations vs. using monitoring data). TRI
data is th•rsfore most appropriately, used as a trigger for other
analyses. If TRI data is used as the sole basis for listing, and
it was not submitted as part of a petition to list or a comment,
then the Region should provide notice and opportunity for comment
on the data. If the data were submitted as part of the public
comments, then the Region should, in its formal response to
comments, notify the State and the discharger that EPA is
considering the addition to the list based on the TRI information
and provide an assessment as to why the TRI data showed the need
to list the facility and develop an ICS.
-------
d’
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
I C
JAN 311990
OFFICE oc
WATER
MEMO RAN DUM
SUBJECT: February 4, 1990 Deadline for Storm Water Permit
Applications
FROM: James
Off Kof Water Enforcement and Permits
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
NPDES State Directors
Backaround
Section 402(p) (4) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the
Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations setting
forth permit application requirements for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity and municipal discharges of
storm water from separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 250,000 or more two years after enactment of the
Water Quality Act of 1987 (i.e. by February 4, 1989.) CWA
section 402(p) (4) also requires dischargers of storm water
associated with industrial activity and municipal discharges from
separate storm sewer systems serving a population of over 250,000
to file permit applications addressing such storm water
discharges within three years after enactment of the Water
Quality Act (i.e. by February 4, 1990.)
On December 7, 1988, EPA issued a proposal setting forth
application requirements for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity, large municipal storm water discharges,
and discharges from municipal separate storm sewers serving a
population of 100,000 or more, but less that 250,000. 53 .
g . 49416. The proposal provided for submission of permit
applications for discharges associated with industrial activity
one year after promulgation of the final rule. The proposal also
provided for a two part permit application for large municipal
separate storm sewer systems. Under the proposal, Part 1 of the
application would be submitted one year after promulgation of the
final rule, with Part 2 submitted two years after promulgation of
the final rule. The proposed regulations represent a significant
change in the type and quality of information required for
applications from a storm water permit for discharges from both
municipal and industrial sources. EPA is subject a court
approved consent decree to promulgate final storm water permit
-------
application regulations by July 20, 1990.
EPA has received several inquiries, both during and after
the public continent period, regarding the February 4, 1990,
deadline for permit applications from industrial and large
municipal storm water sources. The public has asked two basic
questions regarding the deadline: 1) since EPA did not meet the
February, 1989, deadline for promulgating new/amended storm water
application regulations, will the Agency require industrial/large
municipal dischargers to file applications by February 4, 1990,
or is the deadline waived; and, 2) if the deadline is not waived,
what application requirements should these dischargers follow,
the existing requirements in 40 CFR 122, or those proposed on
December 7, 1988. -
Clarification of reauirements
The Agency will not be able to promulgate the final
application regulations for storm water discharges before the
February 4, 1990 deadline. Further, the Agency is not able to
waive the statutory deadline. As a result, some guidance is
needed with regard to those dischargers required to apply by
February 4, 1990, who will not know for certain until later on in
the year what application information will be required by the new
regulations.
Application information required from all permit applicants
is presently found at 40 CFR 122.21(f). These requirements
should be reviewed by those dischargers affected by section
402(p) (4) of the CWA. Complying with these requirements is the
current minimum response with regard to submitting permit
applications for discharges, including storm water discharges.
Storm water dischargers should also review 40 CFR 122.21(g)
through (k) to determine if any additional application
information is currently required given their particular case.
The minimum information and any such additional information may
be submitted using current standard NPDES application forms
including: Form 1. and all appropriate portions of standard Form
A, Short Form A, Form 23, Form 2C, Form 2D and Form 2E. Those
dischargers affected by section 402(p) (4) of the CWA should
assess these forms for possible use as a storm water permit
application. Storm water discharges designated under section
402(p) (2) (E) of the CWA, may be required to submit storm water
permit applications using these forms along with additional
appropriate information.
If additional questions exist, please feel free to call me
at (202) 475—8488 or Cynthia Dougherty at (202) 475—9545, or your
staff may call Tom Seaton at (202)-245—4204. Dischargers should
be instructed to call the storm water hotline at (202) 475—9518.
-------
.‘ _4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
.4
15
wAT
Mr. Joseph M. Polito
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn
2290 First National Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226—3583
Dear Mr. Polite:
Thank you for your letter of December 21, 1989, addressed to
Administrator William Reilly. You requested in your letter that
the Administrator review and issue a clarification on the
applicability of the combined wastestream formula (“CWT”) in
establishing effluent limits for commercial waste treatment
facilities (“CWTs”) that are industrial users of publicly owned
treatment works (“POTWs”) and which treat wastes covered by
national categorical pretreatment standards. Because your letter
raises issues under the Clean Water Act Pretreatment Program,
Mr. Reilly asked that the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
provide a response.
I would like to start by reviewing for you EPA’ . position
with regard to the treatment by CWTs of wastes covered by
national categorical pretreatment standards. Thereafter, I will
discuss ongoing regulatory activities that should be of interest
to you.
EPA has established national categorical standards
applicable to the introduction to POTWs of wastes (“categorical
wastes”) generated by a number of industrial categories. Under
the regulation., generators of categorical wastes must ensure
treatment of the wastes to the levels prescribed by the
categorical standards. Most generators choose to construct on-
site facilities that provide the pretreatment necessary to allow
the discharge of the treated effluent to a POTW. Other
generators, however, say choose to send their wastes off-site to
CWTS for the requisite pretreatment. It is EPA’s longstanding
view that generators are not relieved of their obligations under
the Clean Water Act simply because they send their waste. off-
site. (See, for example, the enclosed 1983 Memorandum from
Martha Prothro to Frank Covington.) Rather, generators sending
their wastes off-site for treatment must ensure that the CWT
treats the categorical waste to the degree prescribed by the
-------
—2—
relevant categorical standard. Moreover, CWTs have an
independent responsibility under the Clean Water Act to ensure
that wastes introduced by them to a P01W are treated in
accordance with categorical pretreatment standards applicable to
the wastes they treat as well as any other pretreatment standards
and requirements.
Those cwrs that mix a categorical waste with other
categorical or non-categorical wastes prior to pretreatment may
use the CWP to calculate legally permissible discharge limits.
The CWF is available for use whenever process wastewaters covered
by a categorical standard are mixed with other wastes prior to
treatment. EPA does net view the CWF as being available only to
waste generators, but allows any party introducing categoricaL
wastes to a P01W to utilize it as appropriate. I wish to
emphasize, however, that under current rules CWTs are not
reauired to use the CWT. The CWT may handle and treat
categorical wastes in any manner that will result in compliance
with categorical standards applicable to the categorical wastes.
Other alternatives available to CWTs to accomplish this result
would include: (1) segregation and batch trsatment of each type
of categorical waste to the degree required by the single
categorical standard applicable to each such waste, or
(2) treatment of a mixture of categorical and noncategorica].
wastes such that each pollutant discharged is in compliance
(after correction for dilution flows) with the most stringent
numerical limit prescribed for that pollutant in any of the
categorical standards applicable to the wastes being treated.
Option (2) is essentially a variation of the CWF that uses the
most stringent numerical limit rather than a limit based on a
flow weighted average. The option provides for equivalent or
better treatment than is required by strict application of the
CWP, but it has the distinct advantage of requiring much less
data for its application. As with industrial users strictly
applying the CWP, those entities using option (2) must have
alternate limits derived by the Control Authority or do so on
their own with the concurrence of the Control Authority.
You describe in your letter a number of practical problems
associated with use of the CWT by CWTs. In response, I reiterate
that CWT5 are not now required to use the CWP if they otherwise
ensure compliance with applicable categorical standards. In
addition, EPA is considering amending the current requirements
appl.tcable to CWrs. Ultimately, EPA plans to develop a
categorical standard specifically tailored to certain CWT5.
However, because it may be a number of years before such a
standard is developed, and because the types of CWT5 to be
covered by any such categorical standard has not yet been finally
determined, EPA is currently reviewing a number of other options
for regulating CWTs. Among the additional options under
consideration is development of case—by-case limits based on a
-------
—3—
best professional judgment determination of best available
technology. 53 Fed. Req. 47,632 (Nov. 23, 1988). we anticipate
promulgating a final rule addressing this issue in the near
future.
The Agency received many comments on the CWF similar to
yours in response to its notices of proposed rulemaking on this
subject. EPA will address these comments as part of any future
rulemaking activity.
If you have any further questions regarding these matters,
please contact either Ephraim King of my staff at (202) 47 -9539
or Roland Dubois of the Office of General Counsel at
(202) 382—7703.
Sincerely yours,
,# James R. Elder, Director
Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits (EN-335)
Enclosure
cc: Ken Fenner, EPA Region 5
Susan Lepow, Of fic. of General Counsel -
Charlie 3. Williams, Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
-------
ÔEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
W- .278
Sediment And Erosion
Control
An Inventory of Current Practices
April 20, 1990
ERI
CSMEE
Distributed by
ERIC Clearinghouse
Columbus, OH
-------
United States Office of Water EPA 505/8-90-001
Environmental Protection (EN-336) May 1990
Agency
$IEPA Guidance For Writing
Case- By-Case
Permit Requirements For
Municipal Sewage Sludge
COPY AV2\IL?J3LE UPON !‘E tJEST
-------
,ItsO I 4 )
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECIION AGENCY
WA3MINGTON. D.C.
S 4 L
o.rncs oa
WAY”
STJ 7ECT: Guidanc. for Writina Cass-bv C&se Permit Reouiremants
FROM:
of Water Enforcement and Permits
TO: Users of the Guidanc.
This manual provides Regional and Stat. permit writers with
technical guidance on the development of best professional
judgment (SN) sludge permit conditions to b incorporated into
permits in the interim before the 40 CFR Part 503 technical
sludge standards are promulgated.
The 1987 amendmentS to the Clean Water Act require that
prior to the promulgation of the sludge standards, EPA must
“impose sludge conditions in C 1PDES) permits issued to publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs]... or take such other measurea 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.’ Thus, the amendments direct
EPA to protect the environment from improper use and disposal
practice. prior to promulgation of the technical standards.
To implement the Clean Water Act requirements, EPA has
developed a program outlined in the document entitled ‘The Sewage
Sludge Interim Permitting Strategy’ (S.ptember 1989). The
interim program utilizes existing experience, exp.rtis. and
permitting process.. to focus permitting efforts on the
facilities .tch, based on the available information, are thought
to present eat.r risk. The Interim Permitting Strat
includes standard permit conditions, monitoring requirements, and
State/EPA coordination in the permitting process. In addition,
the Interim Permitting Strategy notes that case—by-case permit
requirements will need to be developed for certain I’Ws. This
may mean more frequent monitoring or other site specific
conditions such as management practices or numeric limitations
developed on a case-by-case basis.
-------
Contents
Tables v ii
Figures ix
Acknowledgments x
Chapter 1 Introduction . .. i
1.1 Purpose and Use of this Guidance I
1 2 History of Sludge Requirements in the Clean Water Act 2
1.3 Implementation of the Water Quality Act of 1987 3
1.3.1 Legal Basis for Interim Sludge Requirements 3
1.4 Permitting Requirements and Recommendations 5
1 5 Development of this Guidance 6
Chapter 2 Applicability of this Guidance 7
2.1 FacilitiesCovered 7
2.2 Facilities Not Covered 7
2.3 Practices Covered 8
2.3.1 Landfilling 8
2.3.2 Incineration . . . 8
2.3.3 Surface Disposal 9
2.4 Practices Not Covered 9
2.4.1 Ocean Disposal 9
2.4.2 Sludge Storage ... 9
2.4.3 Sludge Treatment Processes 9
2.4.4 Septage Disposal 9
2.4.5 Disposal of Hazardous Waste 10
2.5 Relationship Between Sludge Permitting and the Pretreatment Program ... 10
Chapter 3 Overview of Sludge Treatment Processes and Their Effect on Sludge Properties .... 11
3 1 Introduction 11
3.2 Sludge Treatment Alternatives 11
3.2.1 Thickening 11
3.2.2 Stabilization 11
3.2.3 Conditioning 12
3.2.4 Dewatering 12
3.2.5 Composting 13
3.3 Pathogen Reduction 13
3.3.1 Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP) 13
3.3.2 Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) 13
3.3.3 PSRP and PFRP Equivalency 15
3.4 Effect on Sludge Properties 15
Chapter 4 Summary of Permitting Procedures and Requirements 17
4.1 Gathering Information 17
4.2 Secondary Information Sources 17
4.3 Setting Priorities 19
4.4 Standard Permit Requirements 19
111
-------
4.4.1 General . 19
4.4.2 Monitoring Requirements 20
4.5 Additional Permit Requirements for Class I POTWs 20
4.5.1 Case-by-Case Sludge Conditions 20
4.5.2 Case-by-Case Monitoring Requirements 20
Chapter 5 Landfihling 23
5.1 Introduction 23
5 1.1 Permitting Responsibilities 23
5.2 Technology Guidelines 25
5.2.1 Sludge-Only Mortofills 25
5.2.2 Co-Disposal Landfills 26
5.3 Characteristics of Sludges Suitable for Landfilling 27
5.3.1 Sludge Pollutant Concentration Limits 27
5.3.2 Sludge Physical Properties 28
5.3.3 Landfihling of Sludges Containing Radionuclides 29
5 4 Operating Conditions and Management Practices 29
5 4.1 Endangered Species Protection 29
5 4 2 Floodplain Restrictions 29
5.4.3 Ground Water Protection 30
5.4.4 Surface Water Protection 33
5.4.5 Safety 34
5.4.6 Air Quality Control 35
5.4.7 Gas Control 35
5.4.8 Pathogen and Disease Control 36
5.4.9 Other State Management Practices 37
5.5 Monitoring, Reporting, and Record Keeping 37
5.5.1 Sludge Monitoring 37
5.5.2 Ground Water Monitoring 38
5.5 3 Gas Monitoring 39
5.5.4 Surface Water Monitoring 39
5.5.5 Monitoring for Hazardous Wastes 39
5.5.6 Reporting and Record Keeping 39
Chapter 6 Land Application 41
6.1 Introduction 41
6.1.1 Agricultural Utilization 41
6.1.2 Forest Utilization (Silviculture) 41
6.1.3 Land Reclamation 42
6.1.4 Dedicated Land Disposal 42
6.2 General Requirements and Guidance for All Forms of Land Application 43
6.2.1 Permitting Responsibilities 43
6.2.2 Characteristics of Sludges Suitable for Land Application 45
6.2.3 Operating Conditions and Management Practices 48
6.2.4 Monitoring. Reporting, and Record Keeping 53
6.3 Additional Requirements and Guidance for Agricultural Land
Application 59
6.3.1 Permitting Responsibilities 59
6.3.2 Technology 60
6.3.3 Characteristics of Sludge Suitable for Agricultural
Land Application 60
6.3.4 Operating Conditions and Management Practices 62
6.3.5 Additional Monitoring Considerations for Agricuitural
Land Application 67
6.4 Additional Requirements and Guidance for Silvicultural (Forest Land)
Application 67
iv
-------
6.4.1 Characteristics of Sludges Suitable for Silvicultural
Land Application 67
6.4.2 Operating Conditions and Management Practices for Silviculture .. 67
6.4.3 Additional Monitoring Considerations for Silviculture 68
6.5 Additional Requirements and Guidance for Land Reclamation 68
6.5 1 Characteristics of Sludges Suitable for Land Reclamation 69
6.5.2 Operating Conditions and Management Practices
for Land Reclamation 69
6.5.3 Additional Monitoring Considerations for Land Reclamation 71
6.6 Additional Requirements and Guidance for Dedicated Land Disposal 71
6.6.1 Permitting Responsibilities 71
6.6.2 Characteristics of Sludges Suitable for Dedicated Land Disposal ... 71
6.6.3 Operating Conditions and Management Practices
for Dedicated Land Disposal 72
6.6.4 Additional Monitoring Recommendations
for Dedicated Land Disposal 73
Chapter 7 Distribution and Marketing . .. .. 75
7 1 Introduction .. .. . . . 75
7 11 Permitting Responsibilities . . . . . 75
7 2 Technology Guidelines . . 76
7 3 Characteristics of Sludges Suitable for Distribution and Marketing .. 78
7.3.1 Sludge Pollutant Concentration Limits .... . . 78
7.3.2 Physical Properties .. 81
7 4 Operating Conditions and Management Practices 81
7.4.1 Surface Water Protection 81
7.4.2 Ground Water Protection 81
7.4.3 Storage 81
7.4.4 Buffer Zones/Access Controls 82
7.4.5 Crop Use Limits 82
7.4.6 Other Conditions 82
7.5 Monitoring, Reporting, Record Keeping, and Labeling 82
7.5.1 Pollutant Concentration Monitoring 82
7.5.2 Treatment Process Monitoring 83
7.5.3 Soil Monitoring 83
7.5.4 Reporting and Record Keeping 84
7.5.5 Product Labeling 84
Chapter 8 Incineration 91
8.1 Introduction 91
8.1.1 Permitting Responsibilities 91
8.2 Incineration Technology 92
8.2.1 Definitions 92
8.3 Current Regulatory Requirements 93
8.3.1 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR Part 60) 93
8.3.2 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) (40 CFR Part 61) 93
8.3.3 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 93
8.3.4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and State
Implementation Plan (SIPs) (40 CFR Part 50) 93
8.3.5 New Source Review Standards (NSRS) (40 CFR 51.160) 95
8.3.6 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
(40 CFR 52.21) 95
8.4 Characteristics of Sludges Suitable for Incineration 95
8.4.1 Pollutant Concentration Limits for Sludge Feed and Air
Emissions 95
8.4.2 Sludge Physical Properties 98
V
-------
8.5 Operating Condition and Management Practices . 99
8.5.1 General Operating Conditions and Management Practices 99
8.5.2 Operating Guidelines for Specific Incineration Technologies 102
8.5.3 Guidelines for Pollution Control Systems 103
8.6 Monitoring, Reporting, and Record Keeping 104
8.6.1 Monitoring 104
8.6.2 Reporting and Record Keeping 106
Chapter 9 Surface Disposal 109
9.1 Introduction 109
9.2 Characteristics of Sludges Suitable for Surface Disposal 109
9.2.1 Sludge Pollutant Concentration Limits 109
9.2.2 Sludge Physical Properties 110
9.3 Operating Conditions and Management Practices 110
9.3.1 Floodplain Restrictions 110
9.3.2 Surface Water Protection 111
9.3 3 Ground Water Protection 111
9.3.4 Buffer Zones 112
9 35 Access Control 112
9.3 6 Pathogen and Disease Control 113
9.37 Air Quality Control 113
9.3.8 Endangered Species Protection 113
9.3.9 Explosive Gases 113
9.3.10 Other Sludge Lagoon Restrictions 113
9.4 Monitoring. Reporting, and Record Keeping 114
9.4.1 Monitoring 114
9.4.2 Reporting and Record Keeping 114
Appendix A Sewage Sludge Interim Permitting Strategy 115
Appendix B Regional and State Air, Solid Waste, Ground Water,
and Sludge Contacts 141
Appendix C Distribution and Marketing Labels and Instructions 145
Appendix D 40 CFR 257— Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
and Practices 159
Appendix E State Requirements and Guidance for Sludge Use and Disposal 169
V I
-------
., to
f UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 4eO
(
o,p’cIo .
WAtIR
MAY 211930
MENO RAN DUN
SUBJECT: Strategy for the Regulation of Discharges of
PEDD5 and PEDY5 from Pulp and Pap.r Xiii . to
Waters of th. United States
/ f
FROM: LaJuana S. Wilcher - —
Assistant Administrator —‘ -‘ • / (“ -
TO: Regional Water Management Di .ksion Directors
NPDES State Directors
The “Strategy for the Regulation of Discharges of PMDDs and
PHDF5 from Pulp and Paper Mills to the Waters of the United
States” is attached. (For this strategy PNDD and PHD? refer to
the family of compounds called polyhalogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins
and dibenzofurans, respectively.) The purpos• of this strategy
is to update information which was included in EPA’S “Interim
Strategy for the Regulation of Pulp and Paper Mill Dioxin
Discharges to the Waters of the United States” (August 9, 1988)
and to provide additional guidance on several aspects of
assessment and control of discharges of PEDDS, PMDFS, and other
chlorinated organics from chlorine bleaching pulp and paper
mills.
This strategy is designed to be EPA’s recommended approach,
based on current information, to the regulation of discharges of
PHDD5 and PHDPs from chlorin, bleaching pulp and paper mills to
waters of the United States. As such, it relies on all
applicable CWA authorities including, but not limited to, Section
304(1). Th. strategy is also intended to fulfill the Agency’s
obligation. under paragraph 19 of the Consent Decree in
Environmental D.fanu Fund and National Wildlife Federation vs.
Thomas. No. 85 — 0973 . Due to its conpr.h.n.ive nature, the
strategy provides information and recommendations in a number of
areas not covered by the terms of the Consent Decree.
The Office of Water (OW) has issued regulations and several
guidanc. documents which are relevant to the regulation of
effluent discharges from U.S. pulp and paper mills. These
documents are listed and summarized in th. attached strategy.
-------
2
Copies of all final documents are available from EPA Headquarters
(Office of Water Regulations and Standards and Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits).
In addition to the various guidance documents, several
initiatives are currently underway and are summarized in the
attached strategy. Data from the 104 Mill Study are presently
being evaluated and a final report is expected in the near
future. A summary of technologies for the control and reduction
of chlorinated organics was sent to EPA Regions and States on
May 8, 1990. The preliminary report of the Bioaccumulatjon Study
was sent to the EPA Regional Bioaccumulation Study Coordinators
and i final report is expected by the end of the fiscal year.
Finally, EPA’S analytical method 1613 has been developed and
preliminary results from the interlaboratory comparability study
are expected in the near future. (The interlaboratory evaluation
is scheduled to begin in May 1990.) Although this method has not
yet been formally promulgated, its use is recommended.
Information on any of these projects may be obtained by
contacting the Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Knowledge on various state-of-the-art production processes
and their ability to reduce the production and discharge of
PHDDs, PHDFs, and other toxic organic compâunds is increasing
rapidly and should be considered in establishing limitations on
the discharge of such compounds from a facility. We have
provided and are continuing to provide assistance to EPA Regions
and States in evaluating performance of these technologies and
processes and developing permit limitations.
The attached strategy summarizes specific requirements for
permits developed under Section 304(1) as well as for those
permits issued under authorities other than Section 304(1). The
strategy emphasizes that in all cases, final effluent limits
must include the more stringent of either technology-based or
water quality—based permit limitations as required by the Clean
Water Act.
The fundamental approach presented in EPA’S March 15, 1989
guidanc. entitled, “Final Guidance on Section 304(1) Listing and
Permitting of Pulp and Paper Mills” is not changed by this
strategy. Psr its issued following the principles of the
March 15, 1989 guidance will comply with the principles of this
strategy. However, this strategy provides additional
clarification concerning the recommended analytical method for
2, 3,7,8-TCDD and the associated detection level. Information is
also provided in this strategy concerning recommended monitoring
approaches for situations where the calculated water quality-
based limits are below the detection level. These approaches
include internal waste stream monitoring/limitation points;
-------
3
monitoring for PHDFs and applying a plant-specific PMDD/PHDF
ratio to project 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations; and fish tissue
collection and analyses.
The attached strategy is guidance; it is a general statement
of policy. It does not establish or affect legal rights or
obligations. It does not establish a binding norm and is not
finally determinative of the issues addressed. Agency decisions
in any particular case will be made applying the law and
regulations on the basis of specific facts and actual action.
In some cases, this strategy reiterates statutory or
regulatory requirements, and cites to the relevant statutory or
regulatory provisions. Otherwise, the strategy makes
recommendations only; these recommendations are not accompanied
by statutory or regulatory cites.
If you would like to discuss this strategy, please feel free
to call Jim Elder (FTS/202—475—8488) if you have questions en
NPDES permitting; or call Martha Prothro (FTS/202-382-5400) with
questions on water quality standards, analytical studies or
evaluation of technology.
Attachments
cc: Environmental Services Division Directors
Water Quality Branch Chiefs
Permits Branch Chiefs
Charles Elkins (TS—792)
Susan G. Lepow (LE-132W)
Mahesh Podar (PM—221)
-------
STRATEGY FOR THE REGULATION OF DISCHARGES OF PHDDS AND PHDFS
FROM PULP AND PAPER MILLS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
EPA’S goal is to reduce the amount of chlorinated organics
and eliminate the presence of polyhalogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins
and dibenzofurans (PHDD5 and PHDF5) in discharges from pulp and
paper mills to the waters of the United States. This goal should
be reflected in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits based on technology-based requirements (using
best professional judgment), future national technology-based
effluent guidelines, and/or on State water quality standards
designed to protect aquatic life and human health.
Chlorine bleaching pulp and paper mills are known to
discharge chlorinated organic compounds as a by-product of the
chlorine bleaching process. Contained in this large family of
compounds are polyhalogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PHDDS) and
polyhalogenated dibenzofurans (PHDFs). PHDDs and PHDFs are a
family of chlorinated aromatic organic compounds which are
structurally and chemically related. Two specific PHDD and PHDF
compounds of particular concern due to their high toxicity are
2,3,7,8—TCDD and 2,3,7,8—TCDF.
The Office of Water (OW) has issued regulations and several
guidance documents regarding the regulation of dioxin discharges
from U.S. pulp and paper mills. The documents issued to date and
a brief summary of the contents of each is as follows:
o “Int.rim Strategy for the R.gulation of Pulp and Paper Mill
Dioxin Di.charq.. to the waters of ths United States”
(8/9/88): Four important objectives for interim regulation
of dioxin discharges from pulp and paper mills are
discussed, including recommendations on how to accomplish
these tasks and a description of available mill or fish
data. The recommendations were designed to be applied
immediately, pending the outcome of various studies and
regulatory initiatives. The attachments to the August 9,
1988 interim guidance are still current; however, new
information as it becomes available will be distributed by
the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) to EPA
Regions and States.
o “*eieaae of Dioxin Tr.atabiiity Study and Interim Control
Xeaamr.s for aequlating Dioxin Discharges from Pulp and
Paper *iiisfl (10/20/88): This document reported the
preliminary results of EPA’S bench scale wastewater
treatability study for 2,3,7, 8—tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(2,3,7,8—TCDD) and 2,3,7,8—tetrachlorodibenzefuran (2,3,7,8-
TCDF) in pulp and paper mill wastewaters. The study also
outlined interim control measures consistent with the August
1988 strategy.
-------
2
o “Pinal Guidance on Section 304(1) Listing and Permitting of
Pulp end Paper xiii .” (3/1.5/89): This guidance recommended
approaches for regulating pulp and paper mills identified as
impacting waters of the U.S. listed under Section 304(1),
including specific requirements for individual control
strategies (ICS) and associated statutory deadlines.
o “Surface Water Toxics Control Regulation (54 -
is..tiz 23868” (6/2/89)): This regulation and the
associated preamble interpret the specific statutory
requirements of Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act. In
addition, they clarify EPA’S surface water toxics control
regulations and provide a greater level of specificity than
previously existed in regulation.
o “Pulp and Paper/Dioxin Strategy Teen - Transmittal of
Information on Technology, Analytical Methods, and
Bioaccumulation study” (12/14/89): This document provided
all of the latest available information as of December 1989
to permit writers to assist them in developing ICS’s under
Section 304(1). The document included preliminary data en
the 104 miii Study, a summary of EPA analytical method 1613,
and copies of permits issued to Sectthn 304(1) listed pulp
mills. It also reported on other areas such as the
Bioaccumulation Study and the latest improvements in mill
technologies for dioxin reduction.
o “State Policies, Water Quality Standards, and P.rmit
Limitations R.lat.d to 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Water”
(1/5/90): This memorandum addressed the degree of
flexibility available to States in establishing policies,
standards, and permit limits related to 2,37,8-TCDD. The
document’s purpose was to clarify EPA’S general policy on
this matter and the circumstances under which EPA Regions
should approve or deny State decisions on water quality
standards for dioxin, including recent adoptions of numeric
water quality standards by the State.
The underlying principles contained in both the first and
third li.t.d guidance documents above (dated 8/9/88 and 3/15/89)
are reasserted by today’s strategy. A more detailed discussion
of these underlying principles as well as additional
considerations appears below under “Issuance of NPDES Permits.”
The March 15, 1989 guidance made a number of specific
recommendations concerning the listing of waters and facilities
and the development of ICSs for chlorine bleaching pulp and paper
mills under Section 304(1) of the CWA. Today’s strategy
reiterates those recommendations and supplements them by
providing additional requirements and recommendations for the
development of NPDES permits for chlorine bleaching pulp and
paper mills. Today’s strategy should therefore be used by
permitting authorities as the Agency’s guidance for the
-------
3
development of NPDES permits for chlorine bleaching pulp and
paper mills. The guidance contained in the January 5, 1990
memorandum is unchanged by this strategy. Regulatory authorities
should utilize the most current information available when making
regulatory decisions, which may consist of information contained
in these earlier memoranda as well as more recent data referenced
in this strategy.
This strategy calls for: (1) aggressive action to fully
implement or, where necessary, develop State water quality
standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDD at all sites where mills using
chlorine bleach processes are discharging: (2) collection of new
data on pulps, effluents and sludges from mills in which the
level of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is uncertain or undetectable because it is
below the detection limit (either as part of NPDES permit
application or as permit special conditions): (3) detailed
technical evaluation of in-process changes and/or wastewater
treatment technologies to reduce the presence of chlorinated
organics including PHDD5 and PHDFS in wastewater discharges; and
(4) issuance of NPDES permits that regulate and require
monitoring for chlorinated organics including PHDDs and PHDFs,
examine effluent toxicity, and provide for modification to
tighten controls consistent with this strategy and the
requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
This strategy is designed to be EPA’S recommended approach,
based on current information, to the regulation of discharges of
PHDDs and PHDFS from chlorine bleaching pulp and paper mills to
waters of the United States. As such, it relies on all
applicable CWA authorities including, but not limited to, Section
304(1). The strategy also begins to address other chlorinated
organics.
In addition, this strategy is guidance; it is a general
statement of policy. It does not establish or affect legal
rights or obligations. It does not establish a binding norm and
is not finally determinative of the issues addressed. Agency
decisions in any particular case will be made by applying the law
and regulations on th. basis of specific facts and actual action.
In some cases, this guidance reiterates statutory or
regulatory requirements, and cites to the relevant statutory or
regulatory provisions. Otherwise, the strategy makes
recommendations only; these recommendations are not accompanied
by statutory or regulatory cites.
WATER OUALITY STAIIDARDS DEVELOPMENT
As of March 1990, a total of 45 out of 57 States and
territories had 2,3,7,8—TCDD human health criteria adopted,
proposed or expected to be proposed. Of the 45, 21 States and
territories have promulgated numeric human health criteria or
-------
4
translator procedures for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Ten States have
proposals to adopt numeric human health criteria or translator
procedures for 2,3,7,8-TCDD with most of these scheduled for
adoption by the end of Fl 90. Fourteen States are expected to
adopt numeric human health criteria or translator procedures but
have not yet issued formal proposals.. In 1984, EPA issued a
water quality criteria guidance document for 2,37,8-TcDD
pursuant to Section 304(a) of the CWA and established EPA
methodologies. States have the authority to establish standards
for other pollutants beyond 2,3,7,8-TCDD in accordance with
Agency guidance.
In accordance with the requirements of CWA Section
303(c) (2) (B), the Regions need to continua to assure that all
States with waters affected by pulp and paper mill discharges
develop an appropriate numeric water quality criterion for
2,3,7,8-TCDD for those waters as quickly as possible. The
criterion can be based upon the existing EPA criteria document
for 2,3,7,8—TCDD, and any additional data and/er site-specific
conditions. In all cases, the necessary steps for the adoption
of numeric water quality criteria (or derived numeric criteria)
for 2,3,7,8-TCDD should continue to move rapidly to completion.
Such steps include completion of any necesàary exposure
assessments, State selection of its preferred risk level,
compilation of appropriate monitoring data, and public
participation.
A list of documents which can be used to assist in adopting
a 2,3,7,8-TCDD criterion, including development of site-specific
risk assessments, was included as an attachment in the August 9,
1988 interim guidance entitled, “Interim Strategy for the
Regulation of Pulp and Paper Mill Dioxin Discharges to the Waters
of the United States.” Also, the January 5, 1990 memorandum,
entitled “State Policies, Water Quality Standards, and Permit
Limitations Related to 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Surface Water”, provides
answers to questions concerning the degree of flexibility
available to States in establishing policies and standards
related to 2,37,8—TCDD. That document clarified EPA’s general
policy and the circumstances under which EPA Regions should
approve or deny Stat. decisions that differ from EPA’S approach.
The Office of Water will continue to provide assistance to
Regions and States in specific cases.
N1TIO)ThL DATA OOLL CTICW ACTIVITIIS
EPA is now completing its reports on data from the National
Bioaccumu].ation Study and the EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative
Dioxin Study (104 Mi ii Study). When completed, copies of the
results of these studies may be obtained by contacting the
-------
5
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division and the Industrial
Technology Division, respectively, within the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, at U.S. EPA Headquarters.
As part of the National Bioaccumulation Study, EPA analyzed
for PHDDs and PHDFs in fish which were collected near chlorine
bleaching pulp and paper mills. Fish tissue data from areas near
these mills were distributed to the Regions according to the
procedures established in February 1988. The final
Sioaccumulation Study report is expected by the Fall of 1990.
The EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin Study was signed
by all parties on April 25, 1988. As a result of this study, EPA
received dioxin data from 104 pulp mills that bleach chemical
pulps, including process information and dioxin analyses on
effluent, sludge, and pulp from all 104 mills. EPA Headquarters
staff provided preliminary data to the Regions as it became
available; the latest data summary was provided on December 14,
1989. A preliminary report on the evaluation of the data is
expected in the near future, at which time it will be distributed
to the Regions and States.
EPA method number 1613 has been revised and updated.
Although the method has not yet been formally promulgated under
40 CFR Part 136, it is recommended for us. in conjunction with
permit limitations for all dioxin and furan congeners. Method
1613 is a high resolution capillary column gas chromatography
(HRGC)/high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) method for
analysis of tetra-through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxiris and
dibenzofurans using isotope dilution. Method 1613 was developed
by the Industrial Technology Division in the Office of Water
(ITD) to provide improved precision and accuracy of analysis of
pollutants in aqueous and solid matrices. A brief summary of
method 1613 prepared by lTD is attached (Attachment 1).
As a part of the analytical method promulgation process, EPA
staff are continuing to work on further validation of EPA method
1613 for dioxin. in pulp mill matrices. The interlaboratory
evaluation of method 1613 is scheduled to begin in May, 1990. At
least ten laboratorie, from five countries have agreed to
participat. in the study. Data from the study will be used by
the Agency to provide the basis for constructing estimates of
precision and accuracy, estimates of inter— and intralaboratory
components of variability for the method, and to generate
improved method specifications. In addition, EPA anticipates
this study will result in expansion of the number of labs with
demonstrated capability to perform method 1613 analyses. EPA
method 1613 will be proposed as an approved method under 40 CFR
Part 136 in the near future.
-------
6
In addition, lTD is currently reviewing both the
“International Standards Organization” (ISO/DIS 9562) analytical
method and Scan W-9:89 method for Adsorbable Organic Halogens
(AOX). lTD plans to proceed with a proposal of an equivalent
U.S. EPA approved AOX method for eventual promulgation as a final
method in the near future.
TECENICAL !VALUATION OP VABT!WAT!R TREATMENT TECENOLOGIE8 AND/OR
IN-PROCESS CHANGES TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE PHDD/PKDP DISCHARGES
EPA has initiated a program to revise the existing pulp and
paper effluent limitations guidelines regulation, with a view
toward establishing limitations for PHDDS, PHDFs, other
chlorinated organics, and other nonconventional and toxic
pollutants of concern based on the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). 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 the generation and discharge of PHDDs, PHDF5 and other
chlorinated organics.
Evaluation of numerous in-plant processes and wastewater
treatment systems and an extensive literature search is discussed
in an EPA report entitled, “Summary of Technologies for the
Control and Reduction of Chlorinated Organics from the Bleached
Chemical Pulping Subcategories of the Pulp and Paper Industry.”
This report was distributed to Regions and States on May 8, 1990.
As a part of the Cooperative Dioxin Study, the paper
industry agreed to conduct a more intensive study of twenty-five
bleaching lines. This study included detailed process evaluation
at mills that use a variety of bleaching processes. The
objectives of the study included determination of the bleaching
operations in which dioxin is formed, process conditions
affecting dioxin formation, and factors affecting dioxin removal
from the bleaching process. As of this date, the results of this
study have not been provided to the Agency. When this
information becomes available it will be provided to the Regions
and Stat...
EPA conducted a treatability study at two bleached kraft
facilitie, to evaluate total suspended solids (TSS) and 2,3,7,8-
TCDD and 2,3,7,8.-TCDF reduction resulting from coagulant and
polymer addition. The results from the analyses for these first
two bleached kraft facilities have been provided to EPA Regions.
This effort has been expanded within EPA to include further
research by EPA’S Office of Research and Development CORD). The
study is scheduled for completion by late 1990.
EPA staff is continuing to collect and seek the latest
information from other governments, particularly Sweden and
Canada, concerning regulation development, effluent data, and
-------
7
available state—of-the—art technologies. This information will
continue to be made available to the Regions and States by EPA
Headquarters, as appropriate.
IS8U NCE OF NPDES P!PXITS
There are certain statutory and regulatory requirements
applicable to all chlorine bleaching pulp and paper mill
discharges. Special considerations appropriate for each type of
permit are discussed separately below, followed by consideration
of various permit strategies and elements which should be
considered for any permit for a chlorine bleaching pulp and paper
mill. “Individual control strategies” (ICSs) pursuant to Section
304(1) of the CWA are required for some, but not all, chlorine
bleaching pulp and paper mill discharges.
Permits D•v•loøed und.r Section 304(1) of ths C I I
All chlorine bleaching pulp and paper permits that also
constitute ICS5 pursuant to Section 304(1) of the CWA for
2,3,7,8-TCDD, should be developed in accordance with EPA’s
surface water toxics control regulation (June 2, 1989, Vol. 54
No. 105 p.23868) and the March 15, 1989 guidance, entitled “Final
Guidance on Section 304(1) Listing and Permitting of Pulp and
Paper Mills.” In accordance with the requirements at 40 CFR Part
122.44(d) (1), these pulp and paper permits must contain specific
water quality-based limitations for 2,3,7,8—TCDD that the
regulatory authority determines to be necessary to ensure
compliance with a State numeric water quality criterion for
2,3,7,8-TCDD or the State’s narrative criterion for toxicity.
The permits must also require compliance with these effluent
limitations as soon as possible, but in no case later than the
statutory deadlines required by Section 304(1) (1) (D).
(Compliance with these deadlines must be 3 years after
establishment of the Ics; in most cases these deadlines should be
on or about June 4, 1992, for ICS5 approved in June 1989 by EPA
and June 4, 1993, for ICSs which were originally disapproved by
EPA in June 1989.)
All IcSs which were approved on June 4, 1989 as draft
permits v.re to have been issued as final permits by February 4,
1990. IcSs which were disapproved on June 4, 1989 should be
draft or final permits subject to EPA approval by June 4, 1990.
On June 4, 1989, 91 pulp and paper mills and 5 Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) receiving discharges from mills were
identified as requiring ICSs because of their 2,3,7,8-TCDD
impacts to receiving waters. This list of facilities requiring
ICS5 has subsequently been revised as a result of the public
comment period. A number of facilities have been deleted,
primarily based on determinations by EPA that the waters to which
they discharge are no longer listed on the “short” list of
impaired waters (pursuant to CWA Section 304(1)(1)(B), a list of
-------
8
those waters which, after application of technology-based
effluent limits, the State does not expect will achieve
applicable water quality standards, due entirely or substantially
to point source discharges of priority pollutants). Some
facilities have also been added. Such decisions may be based on
new information, including that provided in public comments,
which has become available since the initial decisions were made.
However, as noted below (under “Permit Limits Developed under
other CWA Authorities”), facilities which are deleted from the
Section 304(1) lists will still be required to meet all
applicable CWA requirements during normal permit reissuance or
modification processes.
All permits (both 304(1) and non-304(l)) which expire and
are reissued should be comprehensive permits in all other
respects in addition to containing limitations on 2,3,7,8-TCDD
where necessary. Appropriate limitations and monitoring
conditions for all parameters for which water quality-based or
technology-based limitations are required must be included in
permits in accordance with the requirements of the CWAat Section
301(b) (1) and (2). In particular, these permits should contain
technology-based limits where such limitations are more stringent
than those based on attaining water quality standards.
These permits should also include any appropriate conditions
concerning the investigation of interim control measures, and
other conditions, if any, necessary to assure compliance with
permit limitations and requirements (see discussion below of
interim control measures and additional conditions set pursuant
to CWA Section 402(a)).
All water quality—based limitations (in both 304(1) ICSs and
in non-304(1) permits) should be developed in accordance with
sound scientific principles and should properly account for all
relevant site—specific considerations. EPA has provided a number
of guidance documents for regulatory authorities on the various
aspects of this proc..., including the “Technical Support
Document for Watsr Quality-based Toxics Control” (September
1985). Specific elements which need to be adequately considered
include the duration and frequency requirements of the water
quality criterion, the critical receiving water flows, selection
of water quality models, information on all sources of pollutants
of concern, and translation of wasteload allocation requirements
into enforcsabls permit limitations.
Determinations of critical receiving water flows and any
applicable mixing zones are at the discretion of the State
regulatory authority subject to review by EPA. However, where
unsafe fish tissue levels or other evidence indicates that a
bioaccumulativa pollutant is being incorporated into the aquatic
organisms, special care should be taken in determining the
-------
9
appropriateness of mixing zones and subsequent development of
permit limitations. EPA’S mixing zone policy is described in
more detail in its “Water Quality Standards Handbook” (1984).
March 15, 1989 Guidance
The March 15, 1989 guidance made a number of recommendations
and reiterated a number of statutory requirements concerning the
identification of waters, as well as sources and amounts of
pollutants, under CWA Section 304(1). The March 15, 1989
guidance on listing under Section 304(1) remains current and in
effect.
The March 15, 1989 guidance also made a number of specific
recommendations concerning the development of ICS5 for chlorine
bleaching pulp and paper mills under Section 304(1) of the CWA.
Today’s strategy reiterates those recommendations and supplements
them by providing additional requirements and recommendations for
the development of NPDES permits for chlorine bleaching pulp and
paper mills. Today’s strategy should therefore be used by
permitting authorities as the Agency’s guidance for the
development of NPDES permits for chlorine bleaching pulp and
paper mills. Current permits based on the March 15, 1989
guidance are consistent with the principles described here.
The March 15, 1989 guidance indicated that water quality-
based limits for 2,3,7,8—TCDD derived to protect a numeric
criterion in a State water quality standard for 2,3,7,8-TCDD or a
numeric interpretation of a narrative criterion in a State water
quality standard should be placed in NPDES permits. On June 2,
1989, when EPA amended its regulations at 40 CFR Part
122.44(d)(1) (54 23868, 6/2/89), this recommendation became a
requirement. The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) (1) require all
NPDES permits to include, where necessary, limitations to control
all pollutants or pollutant parameters which the Director
(permitting authority) determines may be discharged at a level
which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or
contribute to an excursion above any State water quality
standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality.
EPA is hereby reaffirming the following fundamental
principles contained in the March 15, 1989 guidance (and
supported by the regulations at 40 CPR Part 122.44(d) (1)) with
regard to ICS under CWA Section 304(1) and other non-304(1)
permits that require water quality-based effluent limitations
(note section 304(1) applies to section 307(a) toxic pollutants,
which include 2,3,7,8—TCDD):
0 Where a water quality-based limit on 2,3,7,8—TCDD is
necessary in the permit, that limit should be established
using the State’s adopted numeric criterion for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD or where the State has not adopted a numeric criterion
-------
10
for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in its water quality standards, using one
of three options (in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44
(d) (1) (vi):
(1) using a calculated numeric water quality criterion for
2,3,7,8—TCDD based on a proposed State criterion, or an
explicit State policy or regulation interpreting its
narrative water quality criterion;
(2) using EPA’s water quality criterion for 2,3,7,8-TCDD on
a case—by—case basis; or
(3) establishing effluent limitations on an indicator
parameter for 2,3,7,8—TCDD (subject to the provisions
of 122.44(d) (1) (vi)).
o In addition, permits should contain BPJ/BAT effluent
limitations pursuant to Sections 402(a) (1) and 304(b) of the
CWA and regulations at 40 CFR Part 125.3 for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
for each facility, thereby establishing an appropriate
technology—based limitation before the 1992 (or 1993)
compliance date for compliance with the water quality-based
limit. These 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.
o An EPA-approved ICS must require compliance with the final
water quality-based effluent limitations in the ICS as soon
as possible, but in no case later than three years after
establishment of the ICS (in most cases compliance should be
no later than June 4, 1992). An ICS that was originally
disapproved by EPA and subsequently developed by EPA in
cooperation with the State or by the State based on
agreements with EPA, must also require compliance with the
final water quality-based effluent limitations in the ICS as
soon as possible, but in no case later than three years
after establishment of the ICS (in most cases compliance
should be no later than June 4, 1993). (See Clean Water Act
Section 304(1) (1) (D).)
o The permits must contain limitations as necessary to meet
State water quality standards (see CWA Section
30l(b)(l)(C)). Where the final calculated effluent
limitation for 2,3,7,8-TCDD is below the current level of
detection, EPA recommends that the permit contain the
calculated water quality-based limit for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
necessary effluent monitoring for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The permit
should also contain:
-------
11
1. A statement that the detection level is the threshold
for compliance/non-compliance determinations (the term
“detection level” is defined in detail under the
section below entitled “Dioxin Analytical Methods and
Detection Levels”).
2. A statement citing the analytical protocol to use when
analyzing the effluent for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The March 15,
1989 guidance recommended the analytical protocol set
out in Appendix C of USEPA/Paper Industry Cooperative
Dioxin Screening Study (EPA 440/1-88-025, March 1988).
Today’s strategy recommends an analytical method that
is an updated version of the one specified in the March
15, 1989 guidance (see the discussion below on “Dioxin
Analytical Methods and Detection Levels”).
The above guidance should be supplemented by the recommendations
below under the heading, “Recommendations for Specific Permit
Elements.”
Permit Limits D•veloø.d Undir Other CWA Authoriti.s
For mills which do not require an ICS under Section 304(1),
permits must still include the more stringent of either
technology-based or water quality-based limitations on all
pollutants or pollutant parameters of concern in accordance with
requirements of Sections 301(b) (1) and (2) of the CWA. All
permits should be reissued upon expiration and include all
appropriate requirements as discussed above. In addition, prior
to reissuance, permits should be reopened and modified where
appropriate in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part
122.62(a) (Note that the permitting authority may only review
the specific permit terms for which the grounds for modification
exist.) In som. cases, it may be necessary to revoke and reissue
the permit prior to its expiration date if one or more of the
conditions for permit revocation under 40 CFR 122.62(b) is met.
T.chnoloqy-’baa.d a.quiru.nts
Permits for all mills that bleach with chlorine or chlorine
derivatives should either be reissued upon expiration or prior to
reissuance, reopened and modified to establish an appropriate
BPJ/BAT •fflu.nt limitation for PHDD5, PHDFS and other pollutants
of concern for the mill. Reopening and modifying of permits
should be in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part
122.62(a). The methodology used for developing a BPJ/BAT
limitation should be consistent with EPA’S regulations at 40 CFR
125.3(d) as outlined in the “Training Manual for NPDES Permit
Writers (May 1987).”
-------
12
Development of BPJ/BAT effluent limitations should be based
on an evaluation of in-plant control processes and wastewater
treatment facilities. In-plant controls can include various
methodologies designed to reduce formation of PHDDs, PHDFs, and
other chlorinated organics in pulping and bleaching operations.
Reductions in discharges of these compounds can also be achieved
by optimizing suspended solids controls, particularly from
secondary clarifiers or lagoons at biological treatment
facilities.
The results of the various national data collection
activities discussed earlier should be reviewed. The results of
the treatability study may be useful in developing these
limitations. The Cooperative Dioxin Study provided dioxin data
from effluents, puips, and sludges from 104 mills that bleach
chemical puips with chlorine or chlorine derivatives. These data
were made available to the Regions and States and may be helpful
in modifying or developing the permit requirements to reflect the
significance of the discharges. However, more recent data may
exist for many of these mills and should be obtained where
available.
The permitting authority should also consider including
conditions that would require the permittee to investigate and
report on the use of additional short-term control measures. The
authority for such conditions is provided by Sections 402(a) (2)
and 308(a) of the CWA. The primary objective of such conditions
would be for the permittee to report to the regulatory authority
on those measures it plans to implement to achieve compliance
with permit limitations and, if appropriate, to investigate the
feasibility of certain other control measures. Such measures
(e.g., chlorine substitution) can lead to the prevention of
pollutant formation and resultant environmental benefit.
The results of such a program could be used to reopen a
permit to revise BPJ/BAT limitations if necessary or to establish
such limitations where not yet in place. In addition, following
this study of control measures, the permitting authority, under
CWA Section 402(a) (2), may want to set such further conditions in
the permit as ar. necessary to assure compliance with permit
limitations and requirements. Where such control measures are
being assessed as possible technology-based limitations, cost may
be considered in accordance with 40 CFR 125.3(d). A control
measure study of this type would typically be required in
conjunction with BPJ/BAT technology-based limitations. An
example control measure program is attached (Attachment 2).
The statutory deadline for compliance with all technology-
based requirements of the CWA was March 31, 1989. Thus,
compliance with technology-based effluent limitations must be
required upon the effective date of the permit. Where such
-------
13
limitations cannot be met immediately, administrative orders
should be issued with schedules requiring compliance as soon as
possible, as determined by the permitting authority.
Wat•r Quality—based Requirements
Water quality-based requirements. must be developed in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.44(d) and should
conform with the recommendations discussed above from the March
15, 1989 guidance. Permits not specifically covered under
Section 304(1) because the criteria for listing the water and
facility under Section 304(1) were not met, may still require
water quality-based limitations on 2, 3,7,8-TCDD as well as other
PHDDs and PHDF5. This may include situations where information
that indicated a need for such limits was not available at the
time that Section 304(1) lists of impaired waters and responsible
point sources was compiled, but has subsequently become available
(e.g., as a result of permit monitoring requirements or
monitoring required by the permit application). Where
information is not available to determine whether water quality—
based limitations are needed, reissued permits should contain
special monitoring requirements (as discussed below) together
with specific reopener requirements that could lead to modifying
the existing limitations, if necessary, based upon the results of
the monitoring.
It is also important to establish water quality based
effluent limitations, where appropriate, on discharges of
chlorinated organics from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
which receive discharges from chlorine bleaching pulp and paper
mills. Such limits will provide a strong regulatory and
technical basis for requiring local limits, where appropriate, on
chlorine bleaching pulp and paper mills which are industrial
users of POTWs, in order to prevent pass through and
interference.
Water quality—based limitations for 2,3,7,8—TCDF should also
be developed where appropriate. EPA has not yet developed a
Section 304(a) water quality criterion guidance document for
2, ,7,8—TCDF, nor have many States adopted a criterion for
2,3,7,8—TcDP as part of their water quality standards. It may
therefore be scientifically difficult to establish water quality-
based permit limits for 2,3,7,8-TCDF. Nevertheless, permitting
authorities may establish water quality—based permit limitations
for furans based on an applicable State narrative criterion and
in accordance with Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA.
It is also expected that reductions in PNDDs in accordance
with limitations on 2,3,7,8-TCDD can be expected to result in
some concomitant removals of PHDFs (see additional discussion
-------
14
below). EPA will be investigating the extent to which ancillary
removals of other compounds can be expected to occur as a result
of 2,37,8-TCDD reductions. At a minimum, EPA recommends that
PHDD and PMDF monitoring as well as some of the additional
monitoring tools discussed below be included in permits pursuant
to Section 402(a) of the CWA.
Compliance with such water quality—based limitations should
be in accordance with the following provisions. Dischargers must
comply with water quality-based limits on the effective date of
the permit unless a schedule of compliance is authorized pursuant
to the applicable State water quality standards or regulations
implementing the standards (see Decision of the Administrator, in
the Matter of Star-lUst Caribe, Inc., NPDES Permit 88-5, April
11, 1990.)
RECO)O(2NDATIONS IC R SPICIPIC P! XIT ELEXEIITS
The following discussion applies to any permit developed for
chlorine bleaching pulp and paper mills, whether or not such a
permit is required under Section 304(1) authorities.
Limitations or Xonitorin Riauir.a•nt. on X c v Paransters
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Permits are to include limitations on whole effluent
toxicity and associated monitoring requirements as necessary to
achieve any applicable State water quality standard (see 40 CFR
122.44(d) (l)(iv) and (v))
Limitations on whole effluent toxicity are intended to
protect against acute and chronic toxic effects on aquatic life
of a whole effluent mixture. Limits on whole effluent toxicity
at chlorine bleaching pulp and paper mills, while not necessarily
protective of human health, may be necessary to help address the
overall toxicity of the discharge caused by complex mixtures of
chlorinatd organic.. Such complex mixture. at chlorine
bleaching pulp and paper mills are expected to contain levels of
PHDDs and PI Ts. Limits on whole effluent toxicity will
therefore help ensur. that PHDD5 and PHDFs are appropriately
addressed (with respect to effects on aquatic toxicity) where
numerical water quality-based limitations for PHDDS and PHDF5
have not yet been established. where toxicity monitoring data do
not exist, toxicity monitoring should be required together with a
reopener to establish limitations where necessary.
Requirements for a toxicity reduction evaluation (ThE)
should also be included, where appropriate, as described below.
Where monitoring data indicate unacceptable effluent toxicity,
the TRE is the principal mechanism for investigating causes of
toxicity and steps necessary to bring the discharge into
-------
15
compliance with a water quality-based whole effluent toxicity
effluent limitations. The purpose of a TR.E is to provide the
discharger with the opportunity to investigate the causes of and
identify corrective actions for difficult effluent toxicity
problems.
Chlorinated Organic.
Adsorbabli Organic Halog.n . (AOl)
2,3,7,8-TCDD is only one of a number of toxic chlorinated
organic compounds in chlorine bleached effluents, many of which
have yet to be identified. The use of surrogate parameters,
indicative of levels of chlorinated organic ., can provide
valuable monitoring information.
Numerous methods have been developed for the measurement of
chlorinated organic., including Total Organic Chlorine (TOC1),
Adsorbable Organic Halogens (AOX), Total Organic Halogens (TOX)
and Extractable Organic Halogens (EOX). Of these parameters,
EPA’S current information indicates that the most effective
choice for monitoring is AOX. The advantages of monitoring for
AOX are as follows: (1) analysis is rapid. and not difficult to
perform: (2) cost of the analysis is relatively inexpensive
(approximately $125/sample); (3) good repeatability associated
with test results, and (4) good data comparability due to an
already existing and rapidly expanding database. For these
reasons, EPA currently believes that AOX is the best choice for a
surrogate measure of total chlorinated organic. and strongly
encourages permit writers to include AOX as a monitoring
requirement in permits pursuant to Section 402(a) of the CWA.
Additional information concerning AOX and the AOX analytical
methods (ISO/DIS 9562) and Scan W—9:89 appear in Attachment 3.
As previously stated, lTD is currently reviewing both the
“International Standards Organization” (ISO/DIS 9562) analytical
method and Scan W-9:89 method for Adsorbable Organic Halogens
(AOX). lTD plans to proceed with a proposal of an equivalent
U.S. EPA approved AOX method for eventual promulgation as a final
method in the near future.
Toxicity Iquival.nt. Approach (TEQ)
The Toxicity Equivalents (TEQ) approach used with respect to
PHDD5 and other chlorinated organic. was first presented in a
memorandum from U.S. EPA Administrator Thomas on January 7, 1987,
which recommended the use of the 1987 “Interim Procedures for
Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDDS and CDFs)”
(EPA/625/3—87/012). This report was recently updated and
republished in 1989 under the same title (EPA/625/3-89/0l6) to
include the latest data and research on the TEQ approach. The
-------
16
current Administrator has also recommended use of this 1989
report for the Agency wherever regulatory activities are
involved.
An assessment of the human health risk of a mixture of PHODs
and PHDFs, using the TEQ approach, involves the following steps:
(1) Analytical determination of the PHDDs and PHDFs in the
sample using U.S. EPA method 1613.
(2) Multiplication of congener concentrations in the sample by
the toxicity equivalent factor (TEF) in Attachment 4 to
express the concentration in terms of 2,3,78-TCDD
equivalents
(3) Summation of the products in step 2 to obtain the total
2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents in the sample.
Attachment 4 lists a TEF for each of the respective
congeners including 2,3,7,8-TCDD which is set at a TEF of 1,
since it is considered to be the most potent of the congeners.
There are a total of 210 congeners of dioxin and furan, including
2,3,7,8-TCDD. All of the remaining congen rs are set at some
proportional fraction of potency (less than one) with respect to
the potency of 2,3,7,8—TCDD. For example, 2,3,7,8-TCDF has a TEF
of 0.1 which means that it is considered 1/10th as potent as
2,3,7,8-TCDD. Therefore, if a permit required monitoring for
both 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF and a monitoring sample
reflected concentrations of 10 ppq 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 5 ppq
2,3,7,8-TCDF then the total TEQ for this sample would be 10.5 ppq
TEQ. TEQ data may be used to determine the amount of other
chlorinated compounds, such as 2,3,7,8-TCDF, contributing to the
overall toxic effect of the permittee’s discharge.
In order to assess and limit, as appropriate, the various
dioxin and furan congeners, at this time, EPA recommends
monitoring and, wh.r. the permitting authority has sufficient
site-specific information, limits on PHDDS and PHDF5 expressed in
terms of Toxicity Equivalents (TEQ). TEQ should be calculated
using th. three steps described above. If the monitoring results
indicat. the TEQ level(s) merits limitation pursuant to 40 CFR
122.44(d) then th• permit may be reopened (according to 40 CFR
Part 122.62(a)) and th. effluent limit(s) adjusted appropriately.
Overall, the TEQ approach offers an additional tool for
monitoring, assessing, and limiting the relative toxic effects
and risks of all isomers of dioxins and furans, including
2,3,7,8-TCDD and TCDF.
-------
17
Analytical N•thodi and D.t.ction Levels
The March 15, 1989 guidance recommended that where
calculated water quality-based limitations are less than the
detection level for the analytical method, the calculated limit
should be included in the permit. The memorandum also stated
that the detection level of the analytical method should be the
threshold for compliance/noncompliance determinations. While the
overall thrust of those recommendations is still accurate,
additional information has become available since that memorandum
and is discussed below.
Analytical X•thods
EPA regulations found at 40 CFR 122.41(j) (4) require that
“monitoring results must be conducted according to test
procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136... unless other test
procedures have been specified in the permit.” The analytical
method currently specified in 40 CFR Part 136 for dioxin is EPA
method 613. Method 613 is a low resolution method incapable of
detecting dioxin in the range of many of the recently developed
water quality-based limitations. Therefore, it would be
inappropriate to include method 613 in current pulp and paper
mii i. permits. Instead, EPA recommends U.S. EPA method 1613 as
the analytical method which should be specified in permits in
conjunction with numerical permit limitations for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
and limitations and/or monitoring requirements for other PHDDs
and PHDF5. Thus, method 1613 should be specified on a permit-
specific basis citing the authority of 40 CFR 122.41(j) (4) and
122.44(i)(1)(iv). This high resolution method was not available
at the time of the March 15, 1989 guidance. Although this method
has not yet been formally promulgated and published in 40 CFR
Part 136, its use is recommended. EPA method 1613 can also be
used to determine other dioxin/furan congeners in effluents.
The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI)
(a research arm of the pulp and paper industry) developed NCASI
method 551 as a high resolution method which was utilized for
analyses of 2,3,7,8—TCDD and 2,3,7,8—TCDF in the 104 Mill Study.
The latest edition of EPA method 161.3 and the method described in
NCASI Technical Bulletin 55]. produce comparable results for
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF when performed by qualified
laboratories. Permitting authorities should specify method 1613
or, where requested, allow a permittee to employ NCA$I method 551
as an equivalent method for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,37,8-TCDF only.
The Agency is not recommending at this time the use of method 551
as an equivalent method for the other dioxin and furan congeners
because the necessary performance data and written protocol for
the other congeners, although requested, has not been received.
-------
18
Both EPA method 1613 and NCASI method 551 rely on high
resolution gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer techniques which
are relatively more expensive than many other types of analyses.
Cost of analyses should be one of the factors considered by
regulatory authorities when determining monitoring frequencies
for a permit limitation or when requiring monitoring only.
D•tsction Levels
The March 15, 1989 guidance referred to the “detection
level” as the level for compliance/noncompliance determinations.
Based upon discussions with Regions and States, today’s strategy
recommends that permit writers specify the “minimum level” (ML)
in permits that limit 23,7,8-TCDD as the “detection level”
(i.e., the level at which compliance/noncompliance determinations
will be made). EPA prefers this approach because the ML is
conservative with respect to the determination of compliance with
limits which are below the detection level. EPA’s Industrial
Technology Division has applied the ML in determinations of
pollutant measurements by gas chromatography combined with mass
spectrometry (GC/MS). The concept of a minimum, level has been
utilized in developing effluent limitations guidelines, most
recently in the Organic Chemicals Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF) effluent guidelines rulemaking (52 PR 42562).
The ML is defined as the “level at which the entire
analytical system shall give recognizable mass spectra and
acceptable calibration points.” This level corresponds to the
lowest point at which the calibration curve is determined. The
calibration curve is determined on the basis of analyses for the
pollutant of concern in a reagent water. The ML for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD in reagent water using method 1613 is 10 ppq.
A review of data from the 104 Mi ii Study conducted by the
pulp and paper industry demonstrates that measurement at the 10
ppq level is achievable by qualified laboratories. The value of
10 ppq was established in that study as the target detection
level for 2,3,7,8—TCDD and 2,3,7,8—TCDF. A total of 31
measurements of 2,3,7,8—TCDD in pulp and paper industry effluents
were reported as non—detects, with 80% of the detection levels
associated with these non-detects less than or equal to 10 ppq.
A total of 11. measurements of 2,3,7,8-TCDF in effluent were
reported a. non—detects with all detection levels at or below 10
ppq. Attachment 1 includes graphs of cumulative distributions of
detection levels for the 104 Mill Study non-detect measurements
for effluent 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8—TCDF measurements. These
cumulative distribution graphs show how the detection levels are
distributed throughout the range of reported values.
EPA believes that the Minimum Level (ML) is a valid
scientific and regulatory concept. The ML is the smallest
concentration used in calibration of the measurement system. The
-------
19
relationship established in the calibration process defines the
manner in which measurements are quantified. Quantifying
measurements below the ML requires extrapolation of the
calibration relationship below the range of data used to
establish the calibration. The Agency will continue to use the
Minimum Level concept in establishing numerical limitations for
the discharge of pollutants in wastewater.
The minimum level is not equivalent to the “method detection
limit” (MDL) which is defined in 40 CFR Part 136 Appendix B as
“the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured
and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyte
concentration is greater than zero and is determined from
analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte.”
The Agency’s methodology for determining the MDL is described in
40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B. For 2,3,7,8—TCDD, the MDL of 5.6
ppq was determined using Agency methodology on the basis of a
single laboratory study conducted by lTD. The permitting
authority may choose to specify the MDL (which usually is more
restrictive than the ML) as the level at which
compliance/noncompliance determinations are made. Where the
permitting authority elects to specify the MDL within a permit,
the regulatory authority may employ the Agency determined value
(5.6 ppq) or require a new MDL study.
Another approach sometimes considered in the development of
regulatory requirements is referred to as the “Practical
Quantitation Limit” (PQL). The PQL typically is set as a
specific multiple of the MDL. EPA does not recommend the use of
the PQL as the value for making compliance/noncompliance
determinations in chlorine bleaching pulp and paper mill permits
for PHDD5 and PHDFs; instead, EPA recommends use of the ML for
the reasons discussed above.
A recent discussion of the concepts related to detection
limit/quantitation limit is contained in the 17th Edition of
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater ,
1989, Section 1030!, pages 1—18 to 1—20. This discussion
includes the following statement on page 1—18: “Detection limits
are controversial principally because of inadequate definition
and confusion of terms.” EPA believes that the use of the ML can
avoid much of the confusion associated with terms such as Limit
of Detection CLOD), Limit of Quantitation (LOQ), Practical
Quantitation Limit (PQL) and Detection Limit. The ML and LOQ are
approximately equal numerically with the degree of agreement
depending on specific circumstances. The ML and LOQ are
equivalent conceptually in the sense that values above the ML are
considered to be quantified measurements.
-------
20
Monitorina strategies associated with nernit limitation. which
are below the minimum level
There are a number of additional approaches which should be
considered and employed if appropriate where a calculated water
quality-based limit is below the compliance level specified in
the permit in order to help determine whether water quality
standards are being attained or maintained. These approaches can
be applied separately or in combination. Regulatory authorities
should carefully consider the utility of each approach for
specific situations and include such measures in permits where
they believe these techniques will provide valuable information.
Use of internal waits stream limitations and monitoring points
Where final, end-of-pipe effluent limitations are determined
to be impractical or infeasible to measure, permitting
authorities can, in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR
122.45(h), establish limitations for internal plant waste streams
from bleached plant processes. Section 122.45(h) states that.
where the permit contains internal limits, the permit shall also
require monitoring at the point where the limit applies. The
rationale for internal waste stream limits is that levels of
2,3,7,8-TCDD (as well as other chlorinated organics) at a plant
are highest in process waste streams where they are produced,
before being diluted with other waste water flows. In addition,
sufficiently accurate measurement of pollutant concentrations in
the final effluent is not possible where the effluent limit is
below the minimum level. It should be noted, however, that
monitoring of internal waste streams may require establishment of
a higher level at which compliance/noncompliance determinations
will be made (due to matrix effects) than is used for final
effluents. Limitations on internal waste streams should only be
imposed where they can be related to the calculated end-of-pipe
loading, accounting for demonstrated removals of 2,3,7,8-TCDD by
the wastewater treatment facility. The fact sheet for the permit
should set forth the specific circumstances which make
limitations on internal waste streams necessary in accordance
with the requirements of 122.45(h). The permitting authority may
choose to require internal waste stream monitoring without
internal waste stream limits to provide an indication of
PHDD/PHD? levels at the end of the bleach process.
Furan (2,37,S-fCDI) as an indicator of dioxin (2,378—TCDD)
levels
2, 3,7,8-TCDF concentrations tend to be at least an order of
magnitude higher than 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations for many
chlorine bleaching pulp and paper mill effluents. This
relationship is different for different mills, but can be
expected to be relatively constant for a particular mill as long
as a mill’s production processes remain the same. Thus, where
-------
21
the relationship can be quantified, 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations
might serve as an indicator of 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels or could be
used to establish wastewater treatment plant removal efficiencies
in cases where permitted 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels are below detection
levels. 2,3,7,8-TCDF should be monitored in effluents and may
also be monitored in fish tissues, sludge, and pulp to gather
additional information. EPA method 1613 should be used as the
analytical method for such monitoring.
Fish or shilif jib tissu, analysis
Dioxins and furans are highly bioaccumulative. Because of
this, aquatic organisms can serve as valuable indicators of
whether effluent levels below detection are of concern and are
causing excursions above narrative or numeric water quality
standards. For this reason, fish or shellfish tissue analyses
are strongly encouraged in most discharge situations.
Several general approaches are possible. These include
exposing aquatic organisms to various effluent concentrations or
sediment in the laboratory in accordance with standard test
protocols; ambient studies where resident fish in the receiving
waters would be collected and analyzed; and ambient studies which
utilize caged organisms placed at desired locations within the
receiving stream. There are advantages and disadvantages
associated with the various types of fish or shellfish studies.
Attachment 5 provides a more detailed discussion of the various
options.
Regulatory authorities should exercise caution in
interpreting and applying the results of fish tissue analysis.
For example, contaminated sediments can sometimes contribute to
fish tissue contamination and thus affect fish tissue analyses.
Any constraints inherent in the study plan as well as quality
assurance/quality control information should be considered in
evaluating sample results. Regulatory authorities may use
permittees’ fish tissue data in a number of different ways where
such data ars deemed to be representative of the current
discharge.
First, since fish bioaccunulate diexins and furans, data may
serve as a check on the effectiveness of effluent limits and
appropriateness of monitoring frequencies. Fish tissue data can
serve as a check for whether the water quality standard is being
attained. For permits where the gap between the calculated
permit limit (which protects against violations of water quality
standards) and the detection level specified in the permit is
large, tissue monitoring data can reveal whether or not controls
implemented to achieve standards are sufficient. If data reveal
that controls do not effectively achieve standards (tissues
continue to show unacceptable contamination) even though dioxirts
or furans are not detected using appropriate methods, further
-------
22
control actions may be warranted. Second, data indicating tissue
levels of concern may be used as a tool to trigger re-examination
of mill operating records or mill treatment system performance.
Third, tissue data can be used as a trigger for issuance of local
health advisories or to initiate clean—up actions. Finally,
where numeric effluent limits are not yet in place, these data
can be used for determining whether a water quality standard is
likely to be exceeded, and thus, whether water quality-based
limits are necessary.
FURTHER GUIDANCI AND ASSISTMICI
This strategy represents EPA’s guidance for assessing and
controlling discharges of PHDDS and PHDPs from chlorine bleaching
pulp and paper mills and in some cases chlorinated organics.
Numerous ongoing studies and evaluations are referenced in this
strategy. As these and other data become available, EPA will
forward this information to regulatory authorities along with any
specific guidance relative to its use. EPA will also work with
regulatory authorities to provide assistanc. in implementing this
strategy.
Attachments
1) USEPA Method 1613 Summary
2) Sample Special Permit Conditions for Chlorinated
Organics Reduction and Monitoring Program for Chemical
Pulp Mills that Bleach with Chlorine
3) AOX Used as a Surrogate Measure of Chlorinated Organics
4) Toxicity Equivalent Factors for Dioxin and Furan
Congeners
5) Fish Tissue Analysis for Dioxins/Purans
-------
Attachment 1
U8EPA METHOD 1613 8U)O(ARY
Introduction
Method 1613 is a high resolution capillary column gas
chromatography (HRGC)/high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS)
method for analysis of tetra- through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDF5) using isotope
dilution. Method 1613 was developed by the Industrial Technology
Division (ITD) within the United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s (USEPA) Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS)
to provide improved precision and accuracy of analysis of
pollutants in aqueous and solid matrices. The lTD is responsible
for development and promulgation of nationwide effluent
limitation guidelines for pollutant levels in industrial
discharges.
ScoDe and A D1ication
Method 1613 is designed to meet the survey requirements of
the USEPA lTD. The Method is used to determine the tetra-
through octa- chlorinated dibenzo-p—dioxins (PCDD5) and
dibenzofurans (PCDF5) associated with the Clean Water Act (as
amended 1987); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (as
amended 1986); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (as amended 1986); and other
dioxin and furan compounds amenable to high resolution capillary
column gas chromatography (HRGC)/high resolution mass
spectrometry (HBZ4S). Specificity is provided for determination
of the 2,3,7,8— substituted isomers of polychlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (PCDD) and polychlorodibenzofuran (PCDF). The Method is
based on EPA, industry, commercial laboratory, and academic
methods (References 1 — 6).
The compounds listed in Table 1 may be determined in waters,
soils, sludges, and other matrices by Method 1613. The detection
limits of the Method are usually dependent on the level of
interferences rather than instrumental limitations. The levels
in Table 1 typify the minimum quantities that can be detected
with no interferences present.
The G XS portions of the Method are for use only by analysts
experienced with KRGC/HPXS or under the close supervision of such
qualified persons. Each laboratory that uses Method 1613 must
demonstrate the ability to generate acceptable results using the
procedure in Section 8.2 of the Method.
-------
Si immarv of Method
stable isotopically labeled analogs of fifteen of the PCDDS
and PCDFs are added to each sample. Samples containing coarse
solids are prepared for extraction by grinding or homogenization.
Water samples are filtered and then extracted with methylene
chloride using separatory funnel procedures; the particu].ates
from the water samples, soils, and other finely divided solids
are extracted using a combined Soxh]et extraction/Dean-Stark
azeotropic distillation (Reference 7). Prior to cleanup and
analysis, the extracts of the filtered water and the particulates
are combined.
After extraction, 31 C1+—labeled 2,3,7,8-TCDD is added to each
extract to measure the efficiency of the cleanup process. Sample
cleanup may include back extraction with acid and/or base, and
gel permeation, alumina, silica gel, and activated carbon
chromatography. High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)
can be used for further isolation of the 2,3,7,8- isomers or
other specific isomers or congeners.
After cleanup, the extract is concentrated to near dryness.
Immediately prior to injection, two internal standards are added
to each extract, and a 3. uL aliquot of the extract is injected
into the gas chromatograph. The analytes are separated by the GC
and detected by a high resolution ( lO,OOO) mass spectrometer.
The labeled compounds serve to correct for the variability of the
analytical technique.
Dioxins and furans are identified by comparing GC retention
times and the ion abundance ratios of the m/z’s with the
corresponding retention time ranges of authentic standards and
the theoretical ion abundance ratios of the exact m/z’s. Isomers
and congeners are identified when the retention times and m/z
abundance ratios agree within pre-defined limits. By using a GC
column or columns capable of resolving the 2,3,7,8-substituted
isomers from all other isomers, the 2,3,7,8—substituted isomers
are identified when the retention time and m/z abundance ratios
agree within pre—defined limits of the retention times and exact
m/z ratios of authentic standards.
Quantitative analysis is performed by Gals using selected
ion current profile (SICP) areas, in one of two ways: 1) For the
fifteen 2,3,7,8—substituted isomers for which labeled analogs are
available (see Table 1), the GalS system is calibrated and the
compound concentration is determined using an isotope dilution
technique; 2) For non—2,3,7,8-substituted isomers and the total
concentrations of all isomers within a level of chlorination
(i.e., total TCDD), concentrations are determined assuming
response factors from the calibration of labeled analogs at the
same level of chlorination. Although a labeled analog of the
octachlorinated dibenzofuran (OCDF) is available, using high
resolution mass spectrometry, it produces an m/z that may
interfere with the identification and quantitation of the native
-------
octach].orinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD). Therefore, this labeled
analog has not been included in the calibration standards, and
the native OCDF is quantitated against the labeled OCDD. The
labeled analog of l,2,3,6,7,8—HxCDD is added to the extracts
immediately prior to analysis, and is used as an internal
standard. As a result, this analog cannot be used to quantify
the native l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD by isotope dilution. Therefore,
this native isomer is quantitated against the other two labeled
HxCDD analogs.
The quality of the analysis is assured through reproducible
calibration and testing of the extraction, cleanup, and GCMS
systems.
quality Control
Each laboratory that uses Method 1613 is required to operate
a formal quality assurance program (Reference 16). The minimum
requirements of this program consist of an initial demonstration
of laboratory capability, analysis of samples spiked with labeled
compounds to evaluate and document data quality, and analysis of
standards and blanks as tests of continued performance.
Laboratory performance is compared to established performance
criteria to determine if the results of analyses meet the
performance characteristics of the Method. If the Method is to
be applied routinely to samples containing high solids with very
little moisture (e.g., soils, filter cake, compost) or to an
alternate matrix, the high solids reference matrix or the
alternate matrix is substituted for the reagent water matrix in
all performance tests.
Method DeveloDment. Validation and Promulaation
Method 1613 was originally developed by lTD in the summer of
1988 to increase the quality of data collected and provide a
QA/QC program consistent with other lTD survey methods. lTD
survey methods contain QA/QC programs that equal or exceed the
600 Series (304(h)] standard. The current revision is a result
of extensive peer review and comment, intralaboratory validation,
and analysis of over 500 samples of industrial and municipal
waste waters and sludges.
ITO has conducted a single laboratory validation of the
Method and the SDS extraction technique for municipal sewage
sludge. A single laboratory validation of the Method for paper
pulp is currently in progress.
A multiple laboratory validation study is scheduled to start
in May 1990. More than fourteen laboratories from four countries
are scheduled to participate in this study.
As part of the Method’s ongoing QA/QC requirements and lTD’s
QA/QC program, ITO and each laboratory performing Method 1613
routinely collect data on method performance in various reference
-------
matrices (see Section 6.6 of the Method). Additional method
performance data were collected by lTD during 1989 industry
studies on effluent and sludge samples from the pulp and paper,
petroleum refining, superfund dischargers, and pesticides
industries.
Currently, Method performance data are being compiled into a
summary report for submission to EZ4SL Cincinnati for interim
approval under Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act.
Method References
1 Tondeur, Yves, “Method 8290: Analytical Procedures and
Quality Assurance for Multimedia Analysis of Polychlorinated
Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans by High-Resolution Gas
Chromatography/High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry,” USEPA,
EMSL-Las Vegas, Nevada, June 1987.
2 “Measurement of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachiorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) and 2,3,7,8—Tetrachlorinated Dibenzofuran (TCDF) in
Pulp, Sludges, Process Samples and Waste waters from Pulp
and Paper Mills”, Wright State University, Dayton OH
45435, June 1988.
3 “NCASI Procedures for the Preparation and Isomer Specific
Analysis of Pulp and Paper Industry Samples for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD and 2,3,7,8- TCDF”, National Council of the Paper
Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, 260 Madison Av, New
York NY 10016, Technical Bulletin No. 551, Pre—release
Copy, July 1988.
4 “Analytical Procedures and Quality Assurance Plan for the
Determination of PCDD/PCDF in Fish”, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, 6201
Congdon Blvd., Duluth P*i 55804, April 1988.
5 Yves Tondeur, “Proposed GC/MS Methodology for the Analysis
of PCDDS and PCDF8 in Special Analytical Services Samples”,
Triangle Laboratories, Inc., 801-10 Capitola Or, Research
Triangle Park MC 27713, January 1988; updated by personal
communication September 1988.
6 Lainparski, L.L., and Nestrick, T.J., “Determination of
Tetra—, Hexa-, Hepta-, and Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Isomers in Particulate Samples at Parts per Trillion
Levels”, “Anal. Chem.” 52, 2045—2054 (1980).
7 Lamparski, L.L., and Nestrjck, T.J., “Novel Extraction
Device for the Determination of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-
dioxins (PCDDs) and Dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in Matrices
Containing Water”, Chemosohera , 19:27-31, 1989.
8 Patterson, D.G., et. al. “Control of Interferences in the
Analysis of Human Adipose Tissue for 2,3,7,8-Tetra—
chlorodibenzo—p-dioxin”, “Environ. Toxicol. them.,” 5, 355-
360 (1986).
9 Stanley, John S., and Sack, Thomas M., “Protocol for the
-------
Analysis of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin by High-
Resolution Gas Chromatography/High-Resolution Mass
Spectrometry”, U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Las Vegas NV 89114, EPA 600/4-86—004, January
1986.
10 “Working with Carcinogens,” DHEW, PHS, CDC, NIOSH,
Publication 77—206, (Aug 1977).
11 “OSHA Safety and Health Standards, General Industry” OSMA
2206, 29 CFR 1910 (Jan 1976).
12 “Safety in Academic Chemistry Laboratories,” ACS Committee
on Chemical Safety (1979).
13 “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste
water”, 16th Ed. and Later Revisions, American Public Health
Association, 1015 15th St, N.W., Washington DC 20005,
Section 108 “Safety”, 46 (1985).
14 “Method 613 -— 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo—p—dioxin”, 40 CFR
136 (49 FR 43234), October 26, 1984, Section 4.1.
15 Provost, L.P., and Elder, R.S., “Interpretation of Percent
Recovery Data”, “American Laboratory”, 15, 56—83 C1983).
16 “Handbook of Analytical Quality Control in Water and Waste
water Laboratories,” USEPA, EMSL, Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA—
600/4—79—019 (March 1979).
17 “Standard Practice for Sampling Water,” ASTM Annual Book of
Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 76 (1980).
18 “Methods 330.4 and 330.5 for Total Residual Chlorine,”
USEPA, EMSL, Cincinnati, OH 45268, EPA 600/4—70-020 (March
1979)
-------
Table 1
PCDD AND PCDF CO UNDS DETERMINED BY METHOD 1613
Native
Compound ( 1)
2, 3, 7, 8—TCDF
2, 3,7, 8—TCDD
1, 2, 3,7, 8—PeCDF
2, 3,4,7, 8—PeCDF
1,2,3,7, 8—PeCDD
1,2, 3,4,7,8—HxCDF
1,2, 3,6,7,8—HXCDF
2, 3,4,6,7,8—HxCDF
1,2, 3,4,7,8—HXCDD
1,2, 3,6,7,8—HxCDD
1, 2 , 3,7,8,9 —MxCDD
1,2, 3, 7,8, 9—HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8—HpCDF
1,2, 3,4,6,7,8 —HpCDD
1,2,34,7,8,9—HpCDF
OCDD
OCDF
Labeled
Analog
12 , —TCDF
13 12 , —TCDD
,C 12 —l,2, 3,7,8—PeCDF
‘C 12 —2,3,4,7,8—PeCDF
1 3 C 12 -l,2, 3,7,8—PeCDD
3 C 12 —1,2, 3,4,7,8—HxCDF
I C 12 —1,2,3,6,7,8—HxCDF
C 12 —2,3,4,6,7,8—HxCDF
13 C 12 —1,2, 3,4,7,8—HXCDD
13 C 12 —1,2, 3,6,7,8—HxCDD
3 C 12 —1,2, 3, 7,8, 9—HXCDD (3)
3, 7,8, 9—MxCDF
3 C 12 —1, 2, 3,4 , 6, 7, 8—HpCDF
13 C 12 —1,2, 3,4,6,7,8—HpCDD
C 12 —1,2, 3,4,7,8,9—MpCDF
3 C 12 -OCDD
3 C 13 -OCDD
(1) Po].ychlorinated dioxins and furans:
TCDD — Tetrachl.orodibenzo-p-dioxin
TCDF Tetrach lorodibenzofuran
PeCDD = Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
PeCDF — Pentachlorodibenzofuran
HxCDD — Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
HxCDF = Hexachlorodibenzofuran
HpCDD — Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
HpCDF — Heptachlorodibenzofuran
OCDD — Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
OCDF — Octachlorodibenzofuran
(2) Level at which the analytical system will give acceptable SIC?
and calibration.
(3) Labeled analog is used as an internal standard and therefore
cannot be used for quantitation by isotope dilution.
Minimum Level(2)
Water soii . Extract
‘c nq,f g pg/ L
10
1
0.5
10
1
0.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
50
5
2.5
100
10
5.0
100
10
5.0
6
-------
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
104 MILL STUDY
USFPA/PAPFR INDUSTRY COOPERATIVE DI0XI 11 STUDY
SAMPLE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH
PFFLUENT ‘TCDF DFTPCTION LEVE LVALUFS
Conc. of 2378--TCDF (in PPQ)
I _h &
15
C
0
t )
4)
4)
0
C
‘4
0
0
‘4
E
5 10
-------
104 1 .L STUDY
USEPA/PAP R INDUSTRY COOPPRATIVE DIOXIN STUDY
SAMPLE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH
EFFLUENT TCDD DETECTION LBVELVALUPS
1.0
S.)
>
0
U
0
0.4
0
0 .
0
3 -.
0.2
0
0.0
0 20
- .L_.. _I
I
5 10 15
Conc. of 2378-TCDD (in PPQ)
-------
Attachment 2
EXAMPLE
CELORIIIATED ORGAIIIC8 REDUCTION AND MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR CEEXICAL PULP MILLS TEAT BLEACE WITE CHLORINE
A. CHLORINATED ORGANIC8 REDUCTION PROGRAM
Beginning not later than 60 days from the effective date of
this permit, the Permittee shall submit to the permitting agency
a Chlorinated Organics Reduction Program showing how the
permittee, in the short term intends to meet the chlorinated
organics limitations contained in this permit. The objectives of
the program should be (1) to reduce, to at least the extent
required to meet all permit limitations, formation of
2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF in pulping and bleaching operations
through process changes and process modifications; and (2) to
reduce the discharge of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8—TCDF through
changes in waste water treatment system operations. The scope of
the Chlorinated Organics Reduction Program is intended to
encompass changes that can be made in relatively short periods of
time at relatively low levels of capital funding. However, the
Permittee should include in its submitted program longer term
capital intensive projects that are planned or under
construction.
As a minimum, the Program shall address whether each of the
following items is appropriate and feasible:
1. Discontinuing the use of pitch dispersants and brown stock
defoamers which may contain chlorinated dioxin and
chlorinated furan precursor compounds.
2. Maximizing delignification in the pulping process within
the capability of available equipment.
3. Maximizing brownitock pulp washing efficiency to achieve the
lowest possible washing loss (measured as pounds Na2SO4 per
ton of pulp)
4. Elimination of the use of foul condensates for brownstock
pulp washing.
1. Reducing the chlorine multiple (Kappa factor), with a target
value of less than 0.15.
-------
2. Maximizing chlorine dioxide substitution for chlorine in the
first stage of bleaching.
3. Eliminating or minimizing the use of hypochlorite through
substitution with hydrogen peroxide and other chemicals.
4. Providing for hydrogen peroxide reinforced oxygen extraction
in all extraction stages and prior to chlorination.
5. Installing chlorination residual sensors and controllers to
improve chlorination control and eliminate localized
overchiorination.
6. Installing on—line Kappa monitoring to assist in controlling
the chlorine multiple.
7. Providing for split addition of chlorine/chloride dioxide
with PH adjustment.
OTHER IN-PLANT
1. Alter cleaning procedures such that no chlorine-based
bleaches are used for cleaning of process equipment.
2. Substituting chlorine dioxide for chlorine for use as a
slimicide/fungicide.
3. Investigating and implementing of process waste water flow
reduction and water conservation practices for all mill
operations (e.g., wood yard, pulping and chemical recovery,
bleaching, papermaking).
WASTE WATER TREATMENT
1. Investigating utilization of polymers and/or coagulants to
provid. improved TSS removal,or otherwise provide for
improved TSS removal in waste water treatment facilities.
Within 180 days from the effective date of this permit and
continuing every three months thereafter through the life of
the permit, the Psrmittee shall submit a report describing
the status of the above program. Such report shall describe
which actions hay, been taken to date and which actions will
be uM.rtak.n along with a projected completion date and the
anticipated results expected from completion of the action.
Th . report shall be specific as to changes in pulping
operations; bleaching operations (bleaching sequence,
chemical application rates, chlorine ratio, percent chlorine
dioxide substitution, etc.); waste water flow reduction;
waste water treatment operations, etc. All items on the
above list shall be addressed. In the event that the
Permittee has not or does not intend to implement the above
referenced actions, a detailed explanation including
supporting data shall be provided showing the basis of such
decision for each action not implemented.
-------
B. qUARTERLY TESTING PROGRAM MID PROGRESS REPORTING
1. Once per quarter, the Permittee shall conduct a 72-hour
sampling program at each bleach line, the final effluent and
waste water sludge from the permitted facility. The purpose
of the monitoring program is to document current rates of
formation of 2378-TCDD, 2378-TCDF and AOX, and characterize
the final effluent and sludge in terms of TSS, AOX,
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF.
2. Seventy-two hour composite samples shall be obtained at the
following locations:
Each Bleach Line
o Fully Bleached Pulp
o Combined Bleach Plant waste waters prior to mixing
with other process waste waters and on-contact
cooling waters. Individual bleach plant filtrates
may be sampled and composited on a flow-weighted
basis prior to analysis, or analyzed separately.
(Installation of flow monitoring equipment for
bleach plant process waste waters may be
necessary).
east. water Treatment Sluda.s
o Combined primary and secondary dewatered sludge or
other sludge removed from the waste water
treatment system.
3. Three consecutive 24-hour composite samples shall be
obtained at the following location and shall be analyzed
individually:
Pinal Effluent
o Final treated process waste water effluent prior
to discharge and prior to mixing with non-contact
cooling waters.
4. The Permittee shall determine mass flow rates of sampled
waste waters and puips and shall record process information
during the sampling event as required for the USEPA/Paper
Industry Cooperative Dioxin Study (104 Mill Study). For
swing lines, separate bleached pulp and bleach plant waste
water samples shall be obtained for each type of pulp
bleached.
-------
5. Samples shall be analyzed for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF by
USEPA Method 1613 or other methods explicitly approved by
USEPA. Samples shall be analyzed for AOX by method ISO/DIS
9562 OX Scan W-9:89 until an U.S. EPA AOX method is formally
promulgated.
6. The Permittee shall report the results of the monitoring
program and the process information for each 72 hour
sampling event not later than 60 days after the end of each
calendar quarter. -
-------
Attachment 3
AOl Used as a eurreaat• Measure of Chlorinated Or anjcs
Recently, there has been increasing concern about the
environmental impact of chlorinated organics, such as dioxin and
furan, created in the pulping and bleaching processes. These
compounds are not completely decomposed or destroyed in the
conventional biological treatment processes and are subsequently
released into the receiving water bodies. Some of these
compounds, such as resin acids and chlorinated guaiacol, are
toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, while some of the
others contribute to carcirtogenicity and mutagenicity.
Furthermore, some recent scientific research and studies indicate
that some of the chlorinated organics with high molecular weights
and which were thought to be biologically inactive, have been
found to be broken down by certain bacteria into low molecular
weight chlorinated organics possibly having detrimental
biological effects.
An analytical parameter now being evaluated as a monitoring
tool and as a measure of the chlorinated organics in the
discharge(s) is Adsorbable Organic Halogens (AOX). AOX and
dioxin are both related to the amount of chlorine used in the
bleaching process; however, to date a relationship between AOX
and dioxin has not been developed. Canadian, Scandinavian and
EPA experts believe that achievement of 1.5 kg of AOX per metric
ton of pulp production could result in substantial reductions in
the levels of dioxin and furans in effluent, pulp, and sludges.
One of the presently preferred methodology in this country
for the reduction of dioxins is to reduce the amount of chlorine
used through substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine.
However, low levels of substitution (10-50 percent) may result in
variable decreases in the amount of chlorinated organics total
produced, and can actually result in an increase in the levels of
chlorinated phenolics. However, where greater than 50 percent
substitution is practiced, substantial reductions in chlorinated
organics are achieved. Process changes such as oxygen
delignification, extended delignification, improved brovnstock
washing, oxygen extraction and peroxide reinforced extraction
result in reductions in chlorinated organics as well as dioxin.
Regulations for the control of chlorinated organics measured
as AOX have been established or are in preparation in Norway,
Finland, West Germany and Canada. Regulations in Sweden are
based on TOC]., which is a measurement of the total organically-
bound chloride in the process effluent. However, compliance will
be performed using AOX and an AOX/TOCI. correlation to be
established for each facility. The Swedish government has set a
goal for their paper industries requiring that mills reduce their
-------
2
generation of chlorinated compounds via a phased reduction
program and ultimately attain a maximum discharge of 0.1 kg
TOC1/metric ton of bleached pulp by the year 2010. (For
comparative purposes, AOX is approximately 1.4 times TOCL.) The
Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec have
established interim AOX limitations of 2.5 kg/metric ton and a
final limitation of 1.5 kg/metric ton. The Province of Alberta
has indicated that it intends to establish its regulation at 1.0
kg/metric ton and the federal government of Canada is preparing
regulations which will limit AOX at 1.5 kg/metric ton.
In the United States, wastewater control criteria have not
yet been developed and EPA is considering including AOX in the
revised technology-based regulations that are under development.
Following the leads of the Canadian Federal and Provincial
governments, the States of Oregon and Washington are developing
BPJ/BAT effluent limitations for AOX of 1.5 kg/metric ton of
production. Initial research and monitoring studies done by the
State of Oregon suggest that the existing mills in Oregon could
achieve 1.5 kg of AOX/metric ton after they have been upgraded
with the best available technology for controlling chlorinated
organics. Further background information is available in a
document entitled, “Best Professional Judgement on the Control of
Chlorinated Compounds from the Pulp and Paper Industries
(1/24/90)” prepared by the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality.
EPA’S approach to the regulation of AOX is to develop a
method specific to the determination of AOX in wastewater,
adapted from existing methods. EPA plans to incorporate
standardized quality assurance/quality control into the AOX
method. This standardized QA/QC is not present in existing AOX
methods, such as Scandinavian Pulp and Paper Board method Scan W-
9:89 and ISO/DIS method 9562. A draft EPA AOX method in EIISL-
Cincinnati format and containing a 600 series QC program is
scheduled for release in July 1990. This method is being
developed based on the currently available methods referenced
above and data collected to date from analysis of pulp and paper
industry wastewaters. The EPA AOX method is scheduled for
proposal under Section 304(h) of the CWA in the fall of 1990.
Preliminary development has revealed that an AOX method using a
batch adsorption procedure is preferable to the Total Organic
Halogen (TOX) method because the AOX method provides more
reproducible results for pulp and paper industry samples in which
finely divided particles are present. Further, the TOX procedure
employs carbon columns that are subject to plugging by the
particulates and are susceptible to channeling, resulting in more
variable results.
Until U.S. EPA promulgates its approved AOX analytical
method it is recommended that the “International Standards
Organization” (ISO/DIS 9562) method or the Scan W—9:89 method be
-------
3
cited in permits. A copy of the ISO and Scan AOX analytical
methods may be obtained by contacting the Office of Water’s
Industrial Technology Division at (202) 382-7120.
-------
Attac1 c 4
ra5. 2. T W S I1I,Cip , Pic N
EPA. Vv17 i. ij
4 ’Q- . .. tnC 0 0
2.3.7.l-7
,r 1C 0.01 0
2 .3.7.l . O 0.5 0.3
w 0. 0 0 1 0
237 . C 004 0.?
N 00004 0
2.3.7lMoCOO 000? 0.oi
C4 ’r COOs 00000? 0
OCX 0 0.00t
vo .. -. - TnCCP 0 0
23.7I .1’c 0? 0.?
000? 0
t23.7 8 PeC 0? 001
2.3.471PSCOF 0? Os
0007 0
237*NzCOPs 00? 0I
0 ? 0
23? l4 s OX, 00?
— 0 ? 0
OC 0 000l
- -i: ? fr AT CC IlU .
(U.S. GA’s “Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks
Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Qtlorina ted
ar -Dibenzofur (CDDs ai DFs)
aM1 W Update, EPA/625/3-89/016, .rch 1989)
-------
Attachment 5
Wish Tissue Analysis for Dioxins/Purans
Regulatory authorities can consider requiring permittees to
sample fish tissues for contamination from pulp mills where
effluent levels of dioxins/furans may be below limits of
detection. Fish tissue data can provide an indirect compliance
tool which can supplement existing effluent limitations by
helping to ensure adequate monitoring and detection. Possible
types of tissue studies as well as potential uses of fish tissue
data in a regulatory context are discussed below.
Study TvDes
A number of different types of fish tissue studies have been
proposed. These include resident fish sampling, caged fish
ambient exposures, and laboratory exposures to effluent or
sediment. All of the study types and their drawbacks are
discussed below.
1) Resident Fish
For resident fish sampling studies, a number of geographic,
species-related, and data quality considerations apply. Sampling
sites should be located near mill outfall. to ensure that fish
sampled have been maximally exposed to mill effluents. To
enhance the probability of detecting dioxin in the aquatic
environment, analyses are recommended for fish representing the
largest and oldest specimens to provide the best indicator of the
potential impacts on aquatic life and hum&T health. Nonmigratory
species are preferred, but if migratory fish are used, fish
should not be collected during the migratory season. Similarly,
spawning season should be avoided.
Criteria to be considered for selection of fish species to
be sampled should include habitat preference (e.g., areas of
sediment deposition) and known accumulators (e.g. carp, catfish,
walleye, bass). If composite samples are used, individual
specimens should be of similar size. As an indicator of the
presence of dioxin, whole body analysis is preferred over filet
analysis. Analysis of some target organs (e.g.. liver) could
serve as a more sensitive indicator than whole body. Fish from a
“clean” control site should also be analyzed for comparison. For
further information on sample study design, see EPA’s “Assessing
Human Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and
Shellfish; A Guidance Manual” (EPA-503/8-89—002).
For performing resident fish sampling, EPA recommends the
following quality assurance/quality control requirements:
-------
2
1. Standardized written sampling and analytical
procedures.
2. Standardized handling and shipping procedures.
3. Use of blanks (reagent and field).
4. Use of spiked samples to control accuracy and internal
standards to quantify target analytes.
5. Specified calibration procedures to control accuracy
and verify detection limits.
6. Standardized data reduction and validation procedures.
2) caged Fish
A proposed alternative to resident fish sampling is to
conduct sampling via “caged fish” exposures to effluents.
However, applying this type of study to mill effluents where
dioxin is expected to be present may be problematic. First,
caged fish are excluded from natural contact sediment, a
potentially significant route of exposure. Second, it may be
difficult to successfully keep caged fish alive for several
months to meet the long exposure time necessary for dioxin to
bioaccumulate to detectable levels in tissue.
3) Laboratory Studies
The third possible study type is to expose fish to mill
effluent in a laboratory setting (see American Society of Testing
and Materials , “Standard Practice for Conducting Bioconcentration
Tests with Fishes and Saltwater Bivalve Mollusks”, Designation
E1022-84, 1986, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 11.04, 01-
110485—48, pp. 702—724, 1985). There are a number of potential
problems associated with this approach: difficulty of maintaining
healthy organisms during moderately high dioxin effluent exposure
due to dioxin’s extreme toxicity; adapting the test to a complex
effluent mixture when it was originally designed to test a single
compound at a time; and accounting for differences in
bioconcentration factors and exposure durations necessary for
dioxin to reach equilibrium among different species.
Another proposed laboratory method for fish sampling is
exposure of fish in the laboratory to ambient dioxin-contaminated
sediment. This approach is also difficult to apply and
interpret, since the link between tissue levels from exposure to
sediment and tissue levels of resident fish from the same water
body has not yet been established (see D.W. Kuehi, et al.,
“Bioavailability of Polychlorinated Dibenzo—p-dioxins and
dibenzofurans from Contaminated Wisconsin River Sediment to
-------
3
Carp”, Cheinosphere, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 667—679, 1987).
Moreover, there are difficulties in characterizing sediment
composition and in compositing a representative sample.
-------
•. 3 “. AC- .” ? \IL?3LZ L DN PZC(J!Sr
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WAS IP4GTON. D.C. 20460
4( i.. 1 it
o.•IcI OP
WA1I
MEMORANDUM
SU8JECT: Designation of Storm Water Discharges
for Immediate Permittin
FROM: James ‘. .I er, Di ector
Off j.e(of Water Enforcement and Permits
TO: Water Management DLvision Directors
Regions I - X
NPDES State Directors
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) provides EPA and NPDES
States with new deadlines for the development of NPDES permit
requirements for storm water discharges. This memorandum is
intended to inform Regional and State offices of the authorLty
under the Act to continue or initiate efforts to permit storm
water discharges that are causing environmental problems.
Backaround
Section 405 of the WQA amends the Clean Water Act (CWA) by
adding section 402(p) to address storm water discharges. The Act
provides a moratorium for certain storm water discharges from the
requirement to obtain permits until after October 1., 1992.
However, there are specific exceptions to this moratorium:
(A) A discharge with respect to which a permit has been
issued under Section 402 before the date of enactment
•of section 402(p).
(3) A discharge associated with industrial activity.
(C) A discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer
system serving a population of 250,000 or more.
(D) A discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer
system serving a population of 100,000 or more, but
less than 250,000.
-------
—2—
(E) A discharge for which the Regional Administrator or the
State Director, as the case may be, determines that the
storm water discharge contributes to a violation of a
water quality standard or is a significant contributor
of pollutants to the waters of the United States.
The existing delegation of authority to Regional Administrators
to issue and condition permits or to deny applications for
permits for discharges pursuant to section 402 of the Clean Water
Act includes the authority to implement section 402(p) (2) CE)
(Delegations Manual 7/25/84, 2-20 NPDES). This authority may be
redelegated to the Directors of the Regional Water Divisions,
subject to the provisions of 40 CFR 124 and 125.
Section 402(p) (2) (A) preserves the ability to enforce
existing permits. On December 7, 1988 (53 49416), EPA issued
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) addressing permit
application requirements for discharges covered by sections
402(p) (2) (B) through (E). This memorandum will discuss
implementation of section 402(p) (2) CE).
Discuss ion
Although EPA is currently amending regulatory requirements
for permit applications for industrial and municipal storm water
discharges, some storm water discharges have already been
identified as representing significant sources of pollutants with
discernible adverse effects on water quality and should be
regulated through the permits program new. Regional Offices and
NPDES approved States should designate those storm water
discharges for permit issuance under the authority of section
402(p)(2)(E) as seen as possible after their impact is
documented.
Storm water dischargers required to obtain an NPDES permit
under section 402(p) (2) CE) can include dischargers from any
conveyance or system of conveyances used for collecting and
conveying storm water runoff including municipal separate storm
sewer systaas, storm water discharg.rs associated with industrial
activity, and ether dischargers from a point source. To be
designated for a permit under section 402(p) (2) (E), the
Administrator, or in States with approved NPDES programs, the
Director, must determine that the storm water discharge
contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or s a
significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United
States.
Section 502(14) of the CWA defines the term point source”
broadly to include “any discernible, confined and discrete
conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, di tch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container,
rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel
-------
—3—
or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be
discharged.” Many courts have supported broad interpretations of
this term, for example, the court in Sierra Club v. kbston
Construction Co.. Inc. , 620 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1980) found that
conveyances formed either as a result of natural erosion or by
material means, and which constitute a component of a drainage
system, were point sources.
However, it should be noted that agricultural storm water
discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture are
specifically excluded from the CWA definition of point source,
and cannot be designated for a permit under section 402(p) (2) (E).
In addition. Section 402(1) (2) prohibits EPA from requiring an
NPDES permit for discharges of storm water runoff from mining
operations or oil and gas operations composed entirely of storm
water which is not contaminated by contact with, or does net come
into contact with any overburden, raw material intermediate
products, finished product, by-product or waste products located
on the site of such operations. Storm water discharges from
mining operations or oil and gas operations which meet the
criteria of section 402(p) (2) (E) as being either a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States or
contributing to a water quality standard violation either will be
contaminated by contact with, or will have come into contact with
overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished
product, by-product or waste products located on the site of such
operations.
At a minimum, Regions and States should consider immediately
designating any storm water discharges as requiring an NPDES
permit if the discharges are known/suspected to:
1. Contribute to a violation of a water quality standard
for a waterbody segment listed under section
304(1) (1.) (B). or contribute significant amounts of
pollutants to any waterbody segment listed under
sections 304(l)(l)(A), 3l9(a)(3.), or 3l4(a)(l)(F)’.
2. Contribute significant amounts of pollutants to waters
of the United States, including sensitive wetlands,
drinking water sources, estuaries, lakes, scenic
rivers/streams, or near coastal areas that are highly
valued natural resources.
Many discharges of pollutants associated with urban
runoff, construction, mining, agricultural (feedlets), and waste
disposal have traditionally been considered nonpetht sources.
However, legally, storm water from these sources discharged
through conveyances are point sources under the CWA.
-------
—4—
3. Originate from aunicipal separate storm sewer syste is
that have, or are suspected of having, process waste or
sanitary wastes discharged to them.
4. Originate from municipal separate storm sewer systems
that are suspected of containing a significant
contribution of pollutants.
The four categories presented include (but are net limited
to) discharges which require storm water permits. Each category
is described and further clarified using example case histories
categorized in the following pages.
2. CONTRI U’PE TO A VIOLATION OP A AT!R OUALI?Y STANDARD POR A
WATERBODY SEGXEN’P LISTED UNDER SECTION 304 (1 ) (1) ( ) OR
CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANT POLLUTANTS TO MIY WATER2ODY SEGNENT
LISTED UNDER SECTIONS 304(1) (1) (A). 319(a)(1 . OR
314 (a) (1) (1 )
A. Contribut. to a violation of a water quality standard
for a vaterbody segment list.d under section
304(2) (2) (5), or contribut. significant amounts of
pollutants to any vat.rbody segment listed under
ssctien 304(1) (2) (A).
Section 304(1) of the CWA requires States to develop three
lists of related waters impaired by toxic and nontoxic
pollutants. The first list (section 304(l)(1)(A)(i)) includes
waters that will. net achieve numeric water quality standards for
the 126 priority pollutants identified as toxic pursuant to
section 307(a) of the CWA after application of CWA technology-
based requirements. The second list (section 304(1) (1) (A) (ii))
is a comprehensive list of waters impaired by any pollutant from
any source such that th. water is net meeting the goals of the
CWA after application of technology-based requirements. The
section 304(l)(l)(B) list consists of those waters which, after
application of technology-based requirements, are net expected to
achieve numeric or narrative water quality standards due entirely
or substantially to point source discharges of any of the 126
priority toxic pollutants. The fourth list (section
304(1) (1.) (C)) is a list of point sources affecting the
waterbodies on the section 304(1) (1) (B) list. On this fourth
list, States must identify the specific point sources discharging
the toxic pollutant responsible for the listing, and provide an
individual control. strategy (ICS) for each source. The statutory
language for section 304(l)(1) is as follows:
“State list of Navigable Waters and Development of
Strategies. .
(A) a list of those waters within the State which after the
application of effluent limitations required under
-------
—5—
section 301(b) (2) of this Act cannot reasonably oe
anticipated to attain or maintain (i) water quality
standards for such waters reviewed, revised, or adopted
in accordance with section 303(c) (2) (B) of this Act,
due to toxic pollutants, or (ii) that water quality
which shall assure protection of public health, public
water supplies, agricultural and industrial uses, arid
the protection and propagation of a balanced population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities itt and on the water;
(3) list of all navigable waters in such state for
which the State does not expect the applicable
standard under section 303 of this Act will be
achieved after the requirements of sections
301(b), 306, and 307(b) are met, due entirely or
substantially to discharges from point sources of
any toxic pollutants listed pursuant to section
307(a) ;
(C) for each segment of the navigable waters included on
such lists, a determination of the specific point
sources discharging any such toxic pollutant which is
believed to be preventing or impairing such water
quality and the amount of each such toxic pollutant
discharged by each such source.”
Waterbedies may be listed under section 304(1) because of
storm water discharges associated with urban runoff, construction
site runoff, mining runoff, or other runoff categories whièh
contribute to a water quality standard violation. For
waterbodies listed on the section 304(1) (1) (3) list, States or
EPA must have identified the specific point source discharging
the toxic pollutant by June 4, 1989. States must have developed
an individual control strategy (ICS/NPDES permit) by June 4, 1989
or EPA in cooperation with States must have done so by
June 4, 1990. If the storm water discharge does not have an
NPDES permit that will control the point source and bring the
waterbody into compliance with State water quality standards,
then the discharge should be designated under section
402(p)(2)(E). After designation, the ICS should have been
developed by June 4, 1990 in accordance with 304(1) regulatory
requirements established on June 2, 1989 (54 23868).
Paragraph (A)(ii) of section 304(1)(l) includes a listing of
waterbedies which, after application of technology—based limits,
fail to meet applicable water quality standards that assure the
attainment of designated uses and the fishable/swimmable goals of
the CWA. This list is comprehensive (i.e. it is not limited to
waterbodies impaired by toxic pollutants); and where storm water
.4ischarges impair these listed waters, the storm water discharge
-------
—6—
should be considered for designation and permit issuance under
section 402(p) (2) (E)
Exarn le
The lower Duwamish River, which empties into the Puget Sound in
Washington, has bean categorized as having extremely poor water
quality, partly attributable to metals contamination. The major
causes of the river’s condition are industrial discharges,
polluted storm water discharges, overland runoff, and combined
sewer overflows. As a result, the lower Duvamjsh River was
originally included on Washington’s section 304(l)(l)(B) list.
As part of the Puget Sound Estuary Program’s activities, storm
water discharges were characterized for pollutant loadings of
metals and organic.. Several storm drains were listed due to
metals contributions under section 304(l)(l)(C). Since the
original listings were submitted, however, the State has
suggested that storm drains be delisted. If any storm drains
remain on the section 304(1) (1) (C) list, an ICS/NPDES permit will
be developed. For storm drains not listed, additional
information should be collected: and if this information shows a
contribution to a water quality impairment, such storm water
discharges should be designated for permitting under section
402(p) (2) CE)
B. Contribute significant pollutants to any vatsrbedy
segment listed under section 3 29(a) (2).
Many storm water, discharges have traditionally bean
considered to be nonpoint sources of pollution because of their
diffuse and intermittent nature. Legally, however, they are
considered point sources if discharged from a cenvsyance.
Section 319(a) (1) (A) of the CWA require. States to identity in
Monpoint Source Assessment Reports those navigable waters within
the Stat. which, without additional action to control nonpoint
sources of pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to attain or
maintain applicable water quality standards or goals and
requirements of the CWA. Section 319(a) (1) (8) requires States to
identify those cat.gori.s and subcategories of nonpoint sources
which add significant pollution to navigable waters identified
under section 319(a)(l)(k). These lists were required to be
developed by Stats. by August 4, 1988. Similarly, section 305(b)
requires that water quality impacts from diffuse sources be
identified. Discharges from storm water point sources may be
classified in categories such as urban runoff or constructi.on
site runoff in these reports. The statutory language of section
319(a)(l) is as follows:
“The Governor of each State shall, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, prepare and submit to the
Administrator for approval, a report which:
-------
-7—
(A) identifies those navigable waters within the State
which, without additional action to control nonpoint
sources of pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to
attain or maintain applicable water quality standards
or the goals and requirements of the Act;
(B) identifies those categories and subcategories of
nonpoint sources or, where appropriate, particular
nonpoint sources which add significant pollution to
each portion of the navigable waters identified under
subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute to such
portion not meeting such water quality standards or
such goals and requirements;”
As previously stated, identifiable categories under section
319(a) (1) (B) may include discharges that are associated with
urban runoff, construction site runoff, mining runoff, etc.
(i.e., those categories that are identified in the State
Nonpoint Source Assessment Reports). After a State’s Nonpeirtt
Source Assessment Report is approved by the Regional
Administrator, storm water discharges covered by section 402(p),
which may be listed in the section 319 assessment that impact
listed waterbodies, should be considered for designation under
section 402(p) (2) CE).
ExamD le
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency lists Ryan Creek in its
State Nonpoint Source Assessment Report as being impacted solely
by storm sewers and surface runoff. The Report also lists
Shingle Creek as being impacted by land development, storm sewers
and surface runoff. Those storm water discharges that contribute
to the impairment could be considered for designation and
permitting under section 402(p) (2) CE).
C. Contribute significant pollutants to any vaterbody
segment listed under section 3 14(a) (1) (1).
As required by section 314, each State will conduct a two-
part study to determine a lake’s condition and develop methods
and strategies for restoration and protection. Such information
will specify the location and loading characteristics of
significant sources polluting the lake. The statutory language
appears in the following lines:
“Each State on a biennial basis shall prepare and submit to
the Administrator for his approval - -
(F) an assessment of the status and trends of water quality
in lakes in such State, including but net liai.ted to,
the nature and extent to which the use of lakes is
-------
—8—
impaired as a result of such pollution, particularly
with respect to toxic pollution.”
In accordance with section 314(a) (1) (F), States have already
submitted Lake Water Quality Assessment Reports. These reports,
in many cases, document the impact of storm water discharges on
lakes, and were included as part of the State 305(b) Report.
Where this information is provided in an Assessment Report that
has been approved by the Regional Administrator, any storm water
discharges included in the section 314(a) (1) (F) assessment (such
as urban runoff, construction site runoff, mining runoff, etc.)
which impact a given waterbody should be considered for
designation under section 402(p) (2) CE).
Exa 1 e
In the 1988 Lake Water Quality Assessment Report, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency lists Levings Park Lagoon,
Winnebago County as being water quality limited and partially
supporting of one or more designated uses with moderate
impairment. The principal source of impairment has been
identified as urban runoff. Therefore, discharges resulting from
the urban runoff that impact the Levings Park Lagoon could be
considered for designation under section 402(p) (2) CE).
2 • 8!GNIIICAIITLT IXPAC? SENSITIVE WETLANDS DRINXINO WATER
SOURCES. !ST ARIES a LAKES. OR NEAR COASTAL AREAS TEA? ARE
EIGELY VALUED NATURAL RSOURCES .
Under section 402(p) (2) CE), the Regional Administrator or
State Director must determine whether a storm water discharge
contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a
significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United
States. Based on such a determination, 402(p) (2) CE) designations
should be considered for storm water discharges that
significantly impact certain waters that warrant special
consideration such as wetlands, lakes, scenic rivers/streams,
high quality headwaters, estuaries, or coastal regions. Such
waterbadiec ar. often spawning, feeding, and nursery grounds for
various species, and include sensitive habitats such as mangrove
marshes, s.aqrass beds, and coral reefs. Storm water may enhance
eutrophication of thes. water bodies, and contribute to an
overall deterioration in water quality. SOD loads will generally
lower the dissolved oxygen (DO) in receiving waters. Petroleum
hydrocarbon loads in receiving waters may result from storm water
discharges. Sediment loading from storm water runoff can settle
to cover spawning habitat or can shade submerged vegetation and
limit photosynthesis. Lakes and estuaries have long detention
times and tend to concentrate nutrients, such as phosphorous and
nitrogen, and other pollutants in the muds and water columns.
Where such waterbodies are significantly impacted by storm water
discharges, these discharges should be considered for
-------
—9—
designation. The Regional Administrator or NPDES State Directors
may use the Lake Water Quality Assessment Reports and other
available information necessary to prioritize impacted
waterbodies for discharge designation.
ExamDle
The quality and productivity of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries have declined due to the impact of human activity
that has caused increased levels of pollutants, nutrients, and
toxics in the Bay system and declines in protective land uses,
such as forested and undeveloped lands. Shoreline areas of the
Bay system are particularly sensitive and susceptible to adverse
impacts due to storm water discharges. Where storm water
discharges, such as urban runoff, construction site runoff,
mining runoff, etc., have been determined to represent a
significant source of pollutants to a segment of the Bay or a
particular stream segment of a Bay tributary, the discharge could
be considered for designation under section 402(p) (2) CE).
3. MO 1ICXPAL SEPAR7 TI STORM SEWIRS TI ? ARI 1OWM TO RAY!
OR S SP!CT!D 0? RAVING PROC!88 WAS?! OR SANITARY WAST!S
DISCRARG!D TO TEEM .
Studies have shown that many storm sewers contain illicit
discharges of non—storm water. In som. municipalities, illicit
connections of sanitary, commercial and industrial discharges to
storm sewer systems have had a significant impact on th. water
quality of receiving waters. Removal of thes. discharges
presents opportunities for improvement in the quality of storm
water discharges.
Under the proposed storm water permit application
regulations, municipalities with separate storm sewers serving a
population over 100,000 must submit a management plan that
requires screening for illicit discharges and improper disposal.
Municipal separate storm sewer systems with identified improper
discharges that significantly impact receiving waters should be
considered for designation under section 402(p)(2)(E). Once
designated, the affected municipality will be responsible for
submitting a permit application. The permitting authority may
request the municipality to submit a description of a storm water
management plan, or any aspect of a management plan that may call
for monitoring and screening for illicit connections and improper
discharges. Such plans are to include subsequent measures for
the removal and elimination of such known discharges. The
following examples document cases where such problems existed and
where improvement in water quality was achieved following the
elimination of illicit connections. It is important to note that
the section 402(p) (2) CE) designation authority can be used to
require NPDES permits for any size municipal separat. storm sewer
system or specific discharges points within the system. This
-------
— 10 —
authority may be useful to address municipal separate storm sewer
systems that serve populations of less than 100,000, since those
cities are not required to file applications for storm water
permits before October 1, 1992.
Exam 1e
One recent study performed in Ann Arbor, Michigan concluded that
illegal and improper industrial and commercial point source
connections to storm drains represents a significant source of
pollutants in storm water discharges. Half of th. businesses
investigated in Ann Arbor had at least on. storm drain connection
through which potentially hazardous pollutants could enter the
storm sewer. Significant improvements in water quality were
realized as these connections were removed and the flows shifted
to sanitary sewers. Over two—thirds of auto-related businesses
such as repair shops, tire stores, service stations and body
shops, and half of the car washes investigated had illegal or
improper connections to the storm drainag, system. Similar
municipal separate storm water systems should be considered for
designation under section 402(p) (2) CE).
The City of Fort Worth has begun a surveillance program to curb
illegal dumping of industrial and domestic waste into the city’s
estimated 200 storm drains that feed streams flowing to the
Trinity River. Over a period of on. year, 57 cases of illegal
waste dumping by businesses and industries were investigated.
Eighteen cases of improper connection of domestic sewage lines to
storm drains were discovered. The city has impl.msnted
corrective measures and several citations have been issued to
violators. The surveillance effort was initiated, after a series
of devastating fish kills plagued the Trinity River. Monitoring
has shown that diesel fuel, chemical solvents, pesticides, raw
sewage and chlorine ar. present in storm water discharges.
Similar storm water corrective measures could be required after
the municipal system is designated under section 402(p) (2) CE).
4.
ltu,i& ó
m n
OP C AI1IT A SIGNIPICAIIT CONTRIBOTIOX OP POLL ?MITS .
Th. characterization of storm water discharges in terms of
concentrations and pollutant loads viewed together with water
quality standards and National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) data
derived from typical urban runoff characteristics, provides an
indication of whether the discharge is a significant contributor
of pollutants. For instance, the mean concentration is defined
as the total constituent mass discharge, divided by th. total
runoff volume for a rainfall event. These simplified
approximations can be used as the basis for designation as a
significant contributor of pollutants. Where such specific
-------
— 11 —
information is lacking for a particular municipality, NURP data
can be used to make initial screening estimates of pollutant
loads associated with municipal Separate storm sewers. Using the
NtJRP recommendations for load estimates provided in Attachment A,
pollutant loadings can be calculated for a range of pollutant
concentrations. As municipal dischargers provide a more accurate
estimate of pollutants based en site specific data and the use of
mor. sophisticated models, such as the Storm Water Management
Model (SW?O , pollutant concentrations and loads can be compared
to NURP and other estimates. Based on the resulting
characterizations, discharges from municipal separate storm sewer
systems that contain a significant contribution of pollutants can
be determined and, where appropriate, considered for 402(p) (2) (E)
designation.
Procedures for Desi nation
On January 12, 1989, (54 E3 246), EPA published a final rule
which codified portions of section 402(p), including section
402(p) (2) CE), into EPA regulation at 40 CFR 122.26(a). In
addition, en December 7, 1988 (53 49416), EPA proposed
revisions to procedures at 40 CFR 124.52 for designating storm
water discharges on a case-by-case basis. Until EPA promulgates
these regulations, procedures for case—by-case designations
should be modeled after existing regulatory procedures at 40 CF’R
124.52. The Regional Administrator, or in States with approved
NPDES programs, the Director, will notify the discharger in
writing that the discharge is being considered for designation
and the reasons for the consideration. In addition, an
application form is to be sent with the notice.
Until EPA promulgates specific permit application
requirements for storm water discharges, operators of storm water
discharges considered for designation under section 402 Cp) (2) CE)
should generally submit Form 1. and Form 2C permit applications.
For designation of discharges from a municipal separate storm
sever system, Form 1 and Form 2C applications for each outfall
may not be appropriate. In this case, the permitting authority
may request the applicant to submit information modelled after
the permit application requirements for large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems proposed in the December
7, 1988, notice.
Deadlines for submitting permit applications viii be
established on a case-by-case basis. Although a 60—day period
from the date of notice for submitting a permit application may
be appropriate for many designated storm water discharges, site
specific factors may dictate that the Regional Administrator or
NPDES State provide additional time for submitting a permit
application. For example, due to the complexities associated
yith designation of a municipal separate storm sewer system for a
system— or jurisdiction-wide permit, the Regional Administrator
-------
— 12 —
or NPDES State may provide the applicant with additional time to
submit relevant information or may require that information be
submitted in phases.
Attachment B contains example reports from the “Waterbody
System,” which is an information system which retains the results
of the section 305(b) reports. The 305(b) reporting process is a
critical source of information for making determinations under
the authority of section 402(p)(2)(E). The data system is now
only partially implemented, but beginning with the 1990 305(b)
reporting cycle should contain the assessment data for all
States.
Regional Offices and States can use data from the 305(b)
Waterbody System, the 1988 Lake Water Quality Assessment Report,
and other available information characterizing storm water
discharges to make determinations under the authority of section
402(p) (2) (E). The permitting procedures should commence as soon
as the impact from storm water discharges is recognized. In
addition, when industrial permits that regulat. only non-storm
water discharges expire, they should be evaluated to determine
whether storm water discharges need to be addressed.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Cynthia Dougherty at FTS/202 475—9545 or have your staff
contact Mike Mitchell at F S/202 475-7057.
Attachments
cc: LaJuana S. Wilcher
Robert H. Wayland III
Martha Prothro
Tudor Davies
Dave Davis
Geoff Grubbe
NPS Coordinators
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
W-496
Draft Manual of Practice
Identification of Illicit
Connections
IERII
CSMEE
Distributed by
ERIC Oearinghouse
Columbus, OH
-------
-. -- - . AL R0T C TiC’.
S 6 - - o r c
—
.!MOPANDUM
SU3JECT: Stay Granted in Star—Kist Caribe
FROK: Susan G. L.epow
Associate GeneZ’ Counsel
Water Division (LE-l32W)
TO: LaJuana S. Wjleher
Assistant Administrator for Water (WH—556)
Attached for your information is a decision by the Chief
Judicial officer granting our request for a stay of the
Administrator’s April 1.6. 1.990 “Order on Petition for
Reconsideration” in Star-Kist Caribe . Th. 1 effect of the stay is
o allow compliance schedules for water quality—based limits to
be included in permits where it is consistent with state policy.
The stay encourages the Office of Water to continue to work w.th
the states to encourage them to include any policies allowing
schedules of compliance in their regulations or standards.
Please feel free to call me. Lee Schroer, or Cathy Winer if
you have questions.
Attachment
cc: Don Elliott
Gerald Yamada
Ray Ludwiszewski
Ji t Elder
Martha Prethro
Cynthia Dougherty
Bill Diamond
Bill Painter
Regional Counsel. Water Branch Chiefs. I—X
Regional Wat.r Management Division Directors, I-X
Water Division Attorneys
-------
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C
In the Matter of
Star-lUst Caribs,
Inc.
Petitioner
NPDES Permit No.
PR0022012
NPDES Appeal. No. 88—5
I
This claim was made
STAY OF ORDER ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
By petition dated August 13, 1990, EPA Region II asked
the Administrator to modify his reconsideration order of April
16, 1990, where he held, inter that:
(T)he Clean Water Act does not authorize EPA to establish
schedules of compliance in the permit that would sanction
pollutant discharges that do not meet applicable stats water
quality standards. In my opinion, the only instance in
which th. permit may lawfully authorize a permitt.. to delay
compliance after July 1, 1977, pursuant to a schedule of
compliance, is when the water quality standard itself (or
the State’s implementing r.qulatibns) can be fairly
construed as authorizing a schedule of compliance. The
Agency’s powers in this respect * • * are no greater than
the States’.
rder on Petition for Reconsideration at 5 (hereafter the “Apr .
order”). Th, petitioner also asked for a stay of the April
order, claiming, jfl j 1 jj , that it was causing “undue confusion
and disruption’ in som. unspecified sens..
somewhat mor. specific in a subssqu.nt submission by the
. ‘ Petition for Modification of Order on Petition for
Reconsideration, dated August 13, 1990. The petition is signed
by representatives of the Agency’s Of f ic. of the General Counsel
(Headquarters) and Region II’s Office of Regional Counsel.
S.
-------
2
petit Ofler on August 24, 1990, ‘ but stLll leaves much to the
imagination. ] ‘ Nevertheless, petitioner’s sincerity in its
concern for the effects of the April order on the ad jnjstrat. .on
of the affected aspects of the NPDES program is Obvious.
Therefore, I am hereby granting a stay Of th. April Order pending
the Administrator’s consideration of the modification request.
In th. meantime, however, even if the April order is
eventually modified (or withdrawn), the goals of the Clean Water
Act wi]], be served if States that want the flexibility of using
schedules of complianc, make their standards and criteria for
establishing such schedules explicit. In States that have not
adopted explicit provisions governing the establishment of
Supplemental Materials, dated August 24, 1990. This
submission was made at the request of the Agency’s Chief ud. cia1
Officer by letter to petitioner’s representatives, dated August
15, 1990.
1’ Although petitioner furnishes information respecting the high
number of NPDES permits the States and EPA plan to issue during
the last quarter of the fiscal year, tke supplemental materials
do not provide any clues as to what fraction of those permits
would be affected by the April order. To get some grasp of that
figure it first would be necessary to determine how many States
have defined policies sanctioning compliance schedules but which
are nevertheless not reflected in their water quality standards
or implementing regulations. Then it would be necessary to
determine which of the permits in those States require compliance
schedules. Only then could an informed judgment be made of the
actual effects of the April order. Petitioner’s supplemental
materials do not answer these critical questions. Nor do they
provide a particularly compelling rationale for the great stress
petitioner places on hew burdensome it would be for the States to
th i :tar quality .andards (t ifl rp raie explic . .
provisions governing compliance schedules). By law 33 USCA
S1313(c), all States must routinely update and make necessary
modifications to their water quality standards--not less than
once every three years (in contrast, NPDES permits are normally
issued for a term of five years).
-------
3
co plianc. schedules, i.e., in those States Whose regulations and
water qualitY Standards “can (not) be fairly construed” Ud.) as
authorizing schedules of compliance, or are otherwise silent o
their use, the general public may presently believe, erroneOu5 y,
as it turns out, that every newly issued permit will always
mandate strict and immediats compliance with the State’s water
quality standards. That reasonabl. expectation, however, is not
th. case. In reality, some dischargers obtain a grace period to
come into compliance with applicable stat. water quality
standards. Although these grace periods are subject to challenge
in individual permit proceedings, the public would hay, to
monitor each individual permit a State or ‘EPA issues to discover
the existence of these special permit features. A strong
argument can be made that the public should net bear such an
onerous burden.
Accordingly, I do not believe that any stay of the April
order should suspend efforts to open up the processes for
establishing the.. compliance schedules. Therefore. EPA’s Office
of water should continue its efforts to develop guidance for the
States while the stay is in effect, thereby avoiding further
delay in implementing ths April order if the order, contrary to
petitioner’s wishes, is either not withdrawn or is net modified
(in a manner that would allow State and federal permit issuers to
continue establishing compliance schedules in an unrestricted
manner). The Of f Ice :f Water should inform the States :f a
-------
4
possibility, to enable t e to zak. any needed Contingency plans.
So ordered. ‘
Ronald L. MCC j]tj
Dated: SFP 041990 chief Judicial Officer
‘ The Chief Judicial Officer, as the Administrator’s delegatee,
has the authority to issu. orders in NPDES p.r it proceedings, 40
CFR 124.72.
-------
CERTIFICATE OF £ERVI
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Stay of Order
on Petition for Reconsideration in th. matter of Star-Icise
Caribe, Inc., HPDES Appeal Ho. 88-5, were sent to the following
persons in the manner indicated:
First class mail, Warren H. Ll.vsllyn
postage prepaid Regional Counsel’s Office
U.S. EPA, Region II
20 Federal Plaza
New York, NT 10278
Dan L. Vogue
John Ciko, Jr.
H.J Heinz Company
P.O. Box 57
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230-0057
By interoffice mail: Susan G. Iapov
Office of General Counsel
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
LE-132W Room W509
Washington, DC 20460
I p
ateQ: ..FP 0 4 .990 char .se E Page J
-------
5 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
/
f4p
d(
OfFICE Of WATER
SEP 2 g
M EMORANDUM
SU 7ECT: Stay Granted in Star—lUst Caribe
PROM: Ephraim S. King, Chief
Program Implementation B’ranch (EN-336)
TO: Regional Water Permits Branch Chiefs
On April 16, 1990, the Administrator issued an Order denying
Region II’s petition to reconsider a ruling by the Chief Judicial
Officer in an appeal from the denial of an NPDES evidentiary
hearing by Star-lUst Caribe, Inc. In the April 16, 1990 Order, the
Administrator held that schedules of compliance for water quality-
based permit limitations may not be included in NPDES permits
unless explicitly authorized by the State in its water quality
standards or implementing regulations. (EPA had requested
reconsideration of Chief Judicial Officer (CJO) McCallum’s March
8, 1989 decision that EPA lacks the authority to include in permits
compliance schedules for water quality—based permit limitations for
water quality standards adopted after July 1, 1977.)
On August 13, 1990, EPA asked the Administrator to modify his
reconsideration order and to stay the order.
On September 4, 1990, the CJO granted a stay of the April 16,
1990 order pending the Administrator’s review of the modification
request. Attached is a copy of the Stay of the Order on Petition
for Reconsideration regarding the matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc.
The effect of the stay is that EPA and the States may continue
issuing permits with compliance schedules for water quality-based
limits whers it is consistent with State policy. The stay also
directs the Office of Water to continue to develop guidance to
implement the Administrator’s April 16, 1990 decision on the use
of compliance schedules for water quality standards if the earlier
decision is not withdrawn or modified. We are working with staff
in the Criteria and Standards Division to develop such guidance and
hope to provide it to you for your review in the next few weeks.
Prviz.Oor -C,l 1g.’
-------
-2—
Please Contact me (FTS 475-9541) or have your staff contact
Katharine Dowell (FTS 475-7050) i you have any questions.
Attachment
cc: Cynthia Dougherty
Rick Brandes
Jim Taft
Dave Sabock, OWRS
Lee Schroer, OGC
-------
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECrION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C
In the Matter of
)
)
Star-Kist Caribe,
Inc.
)
)
Petitioner
)
)
NPDES Permit No.
PR0022012
)
)
)
NPDES Appeal No. 88-5
STAY OF ORDER ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
By petition dated August 13, 1990, EPA Region II asked
the Administrator to modify his reconsideration order of April
:6, i990, where he held, inter qua , that:
(T]he Clean Water Act does net authorize EPA to establish
schedules of compliance in the permit that would sanction
pollutant discharges that do not meet applicable state water
quality standards. In my opinion, the only instance in
which the permit may lawfully authorize a permittee to delay
compliance after July 1, 1977, pursuant to a schedule of
compliance, is when the water quality standard itself (or
the State’s implementing regulatibns) can be fairly
construed as authorizing a schedule of compliance. The
Agency’s powers in this respect * * are no greater than
the States’.
Order on Petition for Reconsideration at 5 (hereafter the “Apri i
order”).
The petitioner also asked for a stay of the April
order, claiming, inter that it was causing “undue confusion
and disruption” in some unspecified sense.
This claim was made
somewhat mere specific in a subsequent submission by the
‘ Petition for Modification of Order on Petition for
Reconsideration, dated August 13, 1990. The petition is signed
by representatives of the Agency’s Office of the General Counsel
(Headquarters) and Region II’s Office of Regional Counsel.
-------
2
petitioner on AuguSt 24, 1990, but still leaves mUCh to the
imagination. ‘ Nevertheless, petitioner’s sincerity in its
concern for the effects of the April Order Ofl the administrat .on
of the affected aspects of the NPDES program is ObViOus.
Therefore, I am hereby granting a stay of the April Order pending
the Administrator’s consideration of the modification request.
In the meantime, however, even if the April order is
eventually modified (or withdrawn), the goals of the Clean Water
Act will be served if States that want the flexibility of using
schedules of compliance make their standards and criteria for
establishing such schedules explicit. In States that have not
adopted explicit provisions governing the establishment of
31 Supplemental Materials, dated August 24, 1990. This
submission was made at the request of the Agency’s Chief Judicial
Officer by letter to petitioner’s representatives, dated August
15, 1990.
Although petitioner furnishes information respecting the high
number of NPDES permits the States and EPA plan to issue during
the last quarter of the fiscal year, the supplemental materials
do not provide any clues as to what traction of those permits
would be affected by the April order. To get some grasp of that
figure it first would be necessary to determine how many States
have defined policies sanctioning compliance schedules but which
are nevertheless not reflected in their water quality standards
or implementing regulations. Then it would be necessary to
determine which of the permits in those States require compliance
schedules. Only then could an informed judgment be made of the
actual effects of the April order. Petitioner’s supplemental
materials do not answer these critical questions. Nor do they
provide a particularly compelling rationale for the great stress
petitioner places on how burdensome it would be for the States to
anc their ‘:tor quality .andards (Le iiworpcrate expliciL
provisions governing compliance schedules). By law, 33 USCA
§1313(c), all States must routinely update and make necessary
modifications to their water quality standards-—not less than
once every three years (in contrast, NPDES permits are normally
issued for a term of five years).
-------
3
compliance schedules, i.e., in those States whose regulations and
water quality Standards “can (not] be fairly construed” (id.) as
authorizing schedules of compliance, or are otherwise silent on
their use, the general public may presently believe, erroneously,
as it turns out, that every newly issued permit will always
mandate strict and immediate compliance with the State’s water
quality standards. That reasonable expectation, however, is not
the case. In reality, some dischargers obtain a grace period to
come into compliance with applicable state water quality
standards. Although these grace periods are subject to challenge
in individual permit proceedings, the public would have to
monitor each individual permit a State or ‘EPA issues to discover
the existence of these special permit features. A strong
argument can be made that the public should not bear such an
onerous burden.
Accordingly, I do not believe that any stay of the April
order should suspend efforts to open up the processes for
establishing these compliance schedules. Therefore, EPA’S Office
of Water should continue its efforts to develop guidance for the
States while the stay is in effect, thereby avoiding further
delay in implementing the April order if the order, contrary to
petitioner’s wishes, is either not withdrawn or is not modified
(in a manner that would allow State and federal permit issuers to
continue establishing compliance schedules in an unrestricted
anner). The Office cf Jater 3hould inform the States f suc i a
-------
4
possibility, to enable them to make any needed Contingency plans.
So ordered. ‘
‘ 6 & _
Ronald L. MCCallum
Dated: SFP 0 4 1990 chief Judicial Officer
The Chief Judicial officer, as the Administrator’s delegatee,
has the authority to issue orders in NPDES permit proceedings, 40
CFR §124.72.
-------
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Stay of Order
on P tjtjo for Reconsideration in the matter Of Star—lUst
Caribe, Inc., NPDES Appeal No. 88-5, were sent to the following
persons in the manner indicated:
First class mail, Warren H. Liewellyn
postage prepaid Regional Counsel’s Office
U.S. EPA, Region II
20 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dan L. Vogus
John Ciko, Jr.
N.J Heinz Company
P.O. Box 57
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230—0057
By interoffice mail: Susan G. Z pov
Office of General Counsel
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
LE- 132W Room W509
Washington, DC 20460
V p 4 IOQ P
atea: ‘ Charise E. Page J
-------
United States Office Of Water October 1990
Environmental Protection (EN.336)
Agency
3EPA State Sludge Management
Program Guidance Manual
Printed 0(7 Recycled Paper
I
-------
S? 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C 20460
\ PRc
OCT 25 1990
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORM4DUI(
SUBJECT: Ninth Circuit Court Decision Regarding 304(1) Implemen-
tation
FROM: Rick Brandes, Chie
Program Development Branch (EN-336)
TO: NPDES Permits Branch Chiefs
Regions I - X
Please find attached a copy of the recent Ninth Circuit
Court decision regarding NRDC’s suit against the Agency over the
304(1) regulations. This decision was previously sent to all
water management division directors by the Office of General
Counsel. I believe that due to the importance of the decision I
should also send a copy directly to each of you.
The court ruled that we need to revise the listing regula-
tion to require that point sources discharging toxic pollutants
which caused a water to be listed on the long (“A(ii)”) and mini
(“A(i)”) lists be also listed on the discharge (“C”) list. This
may result in a large increase in the number of facilities on the
discharge list and could substantially increase the number of
ICS5. It is also important to note that the court did not expand
the definition of an ICS to include other pollutants (conven-
tional and non—conventional pollutants) or nonpoint sources.
The Office of General Counsel is presently exploring options
on how to respond to this decision. We will provide further
information to you on this decision at the OWEP Branch Chief’s
meeting in Sante Fe, New Mexico. If you have any immediate
questions on the decision, please call me at FTS 475—9537, or ask
your staff to call Jim Pendergast at FTS 475-9536 or Rob Wood at
FTS 475—9534.
Attachment
Prisje4 0 , , Rec c’eJ P..,er
-------
,JI•” •“ ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON 0 C 20460
•( ( _
PRIORifY
October 3. 1990
GCP (U* COw N$LL.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Partially unfavorable decision in
NRDC •;. EPA . No. 89—70135 (9th Cir.)
FROM: Susan G. t ,epow’--
Aasoc .ate General Counsel
7.Water Div .s ,on (LE—l32W)
L .aJuana S. Wilcher
Assistant Administrator for Water (WH—556)
By opinion filed on September 28. 1990. the Ninth Circuit
rem*nded a portion of EPA’s regulation interpreting the listing
requirements of section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). 33
U.S.C. 5 1314(1).
Section 304(1) required the States to submit to EPA three
lists of waters and one list of discharger . The first list, the
“A(i) list”. s of those waters which, after the appli.cation of
technology—based requirements, cannot be expected to attain or
maintain new water quality standards developed under
§303(c)(2) ) due to toxic pollutants discharged from point and
noripoint sources. Section 304(1)(1.)(A)(i). The second list, the
“A(jj) list”, is of all, waters not meeting the water quality
goals of the CWA ( e.g . fishable and swimmable) no matter what
pollutant and no matter what th source. Section ____
304(1)(3 ,)(A)(ij). The third list, the “3 list” is of those ‘
water, that are not expected to achiev, applicable water quality
standards, after the application of technology—based controls.
“due entirely or substantially to discharges from point sources
of any toxic pollutants listed pursuant to section 307(a)” of the
Act. Section 304(1) (1) (B) . The list of dischargers. the “C
list” was to include “for each segment... on such lists, a
determination of the specific point sources discharging any such
toxic pollutant” that is i pairing “such water quality.” Sect n
304(1) (1) (C) . Section 304(1) (1) (D) (“paragraph D’) requires the
states to devise individual control strategies (“ICSs”)
controlling point source discharges of toxic pollutants to
certain listed water segments.
-------
2
EPA interpreted section 304(1) to require that the C list
of dischsrgers identify only those point sources impairing water
segments listed on the B list, and to require that ICS5 be
prepared controlling only those point sourcas. NRDC challenged
EPA’s reading, arguing that :css must be i posed for not only
facil.ties discharging to waters or the B list but also for
fac .t:es discharging to waters on the A(i) and A(ii) lists.
The Ninth Circuit held that EPA erroneously interpreted
paragraph C as only requiring listing of point sources
discharging toxics into waters on the B list, because paragraph C
unambiguously requires list ng of point sources for waters
“included on such lists ” (emphasis added) • and the us. of the
plural “lists” must refer to more than just the 3 list. Slip —
op. 12260-64. The key to the result was the Court’s review of
the meaning of the statute de novo , without giving deference to
the Agency’s interpretation under Chevron and other cases. This
approach ”permitted the Court to disregard EPA’S arguments that
NRDC’s reading made little sense, as a matter of statutory
construction and Congress’ intent.
The Cou’tt .eft open whether every water with a point source
on the paragraph C list would require an ICS under paragraph D.
It has been EPA’s interpretation that when a point source is
iden ified on the C list the point source (on th. water segment)
automatically requires an ICS. The Court said, however, that
this assumption that paragraphs C and D “must perfectly
interlock” is in error. Furthermore the Court did not decide
whether ICS5 should be required for more than the segments on the
3 list. The Court requ :ed EPA. however, to reconsider this
Lnterpretation.
The Court also left standing EPA’S interpretation that ICSs
address only toxic pollutants discharged from point sources.
Slip op. 12265—67.
The Court ordered EPA to change its regulations to require
that the C list include “all point sources discharging any toxic
pollutant which is believed to be preventing or impairing the
water quality of any stream segment listed under CWA H
304(1)(l)(A) and (3)....” Slip op. 12267.
We need to decide how to respond to the Court’s decision.
If we want to ask the Court to reconsider or request rehearing
banc we must file a motion on October 12. In order to request
rehearing en banc we must obtain the approval of the Solicitor
General; this usually takes approximately one week. Therefore
we must decide by this Friday. October 5, 1990 whether to seek
rehearing en banc . We are seeking an extension of these
deadlines.
-------
1
A copy of the decis1.On 1.5 attac ed. f you or your staff
save any 1S$tiQn or suggestions Ofl how to proceed please call
e1.ther me or Diane Reqas at 382—7700.
Attachment
cc: E. Donald Elliott
Gerald Yamada
Ray !udwiszeweki
Associate General Counsels
Water Division Attorneys
Thomas Pacheco
Delia Scott
Betsy LaRoe
Fred Stiehi
Martha Prothro
Geoff Grubbs
Mary Belef ski
James Elder
Cynthia Dougherty
Rick Brandes
Water Mnagement Division Directors, Regions I-X
Water Quality Branch Chiefs Regions I—X
Regional Section 304(1) Coordinators. Regions I-X
Regional Counsels. Regions I-X
Regional Counsel Water Branch Chiefs. Regions I-X
Regional Counsel Section 304(1) Contacts, Regions I-X
-------
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
CouNciL
Petitioner.
No. 89-70135
V.
OPINION
U,wnto STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PR0TtCTI0N AGENCY,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Action
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Argued and Submitted
April 16, 1990—San Francisco, California
Filed September 28, 1990
Before: Pierce Lively, Betty B. Fletcher and
Stephen Reinhardi, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Fletcher
SUMMARY
Envlronmsntal Law
Granting a petition for review in part. and remanding. the
court of appeals held that the EPA erred in promulgating a
Honorabie Pier Lively. Senior United States Cirv iit Iud e for the
Sszth Circuit. sitiin by dcsagxtation.
12247
-------
I 224$ P4RDC v. EPA
regulation that does not require the states to identify pount
source toxic polluters for ati of the polluted waters listed
under the Clean Water Act.
Section 304(l) of the Clean Water Act requires the slates to
prepare lists of polluted waters and identify point sources
toxic polluters, and develop strategies to control the sources
identified. The EPA promulgated two particular regulations
interpreting the statute. By referring to list in the singular. the
first regulation excluded the statutory requirement that point
sources of toxic pollution, and the amount of pollution dis-
charged for each source be identified. The second regulation
provides that individual control strategies (ICS) be prepared
only for the point sources identified through the first regula-
tion. Thus, under these regulations, ICS’s are required only in
connection with waters that are not expected to meet water
quality standards, due entirely or substantially to toxic pollu-
tion from point sources. The Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) challenged the regulations, arguing that
identificatiot ’ f toxic polluters must be made for all listed
waters.
1J Congress has spoken directly to require the identifica.
lion of point sources discharging toxics into the waters idenu .
fled on all three lists. By using the plural iists, Congress
foreclosed EPA from restricting the statutory scope of ICS’s
to point source pollutants. 121 The court rejected EPA’s argu-
ment that the use of the singular ListN in the caption of the
statutory section in question created an ambiguity, thus
requiring the court to give deference to the agency’s iriterpre-
tation of the statute. While words in the title of a statute or the
heading of a section may shed light on the meaning of an
ambiguous word or phrase in the text of a statute, in this case
they could not create an ambiguity where none otherwise
existed. 131 A statute is not ambiguous simply because an
agency can suggest a change in wording that would make the
statute more elegant. 141 EPA reached the wrong iriterpreta-
lion of the statutory section in question because it started
-------
NRDCV EPA 2249
with a faulty premise. If Congress was interested only in iridi.
vidual control strategies for toxic pollutants, it would not
have wanted a list of waters whose failure to meet the goals of
the Act was not necessarily traceable to toxic pollutants 151
The statute required the centification of point sources dis-
charging toxic pollutants, and the determination of the
amount of such pollutants discharged. 161 Because the court
invalidated EPA’s first regulation, ii remanded to the agency
to reconsider its second regulation requiring ICS ’s only in
connection with point sources of listed waters under the first
regulation.
COUNSEL
Robert W. Adler, Natural Resources Defense Council. Wash.
ington. D C.. for the petitioner.
Thomas M. Pacheco, Department of Justice, Land & Natural
Resources Division, Washington, D.C.. for the respondent.
OPINION
FLETCHER. Circuit Judge:
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitions
for review of a final rule issued by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA). The rule provides that with regard to
some, but not all, of the polluted waters listed pursuant to sec-
tion 304(0 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1314(0, the
states must identify the factories and other point sources
responsible for discharging toxic pollutants into those waters
and must develop strategies to control the pollution from
those sources in an expedited manner. 40 C.F.R. §4123.46.
130.10. The NRDC argues that with regard to all of the listed
waters, the states must identify point source toxic polluters
-------
12250 NRDCv EPA
and must develop strategies to control all the sources identu-
fled.
We grant the petition wih respect to the claim that identifi-
cation of toxic polluters must be made for all listed waters
and remand for EPA to reconsider the question of individual
control strategies.
I.
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA), Pub. L. No. 100.4,
101 Stat. 7, amended the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 u.s.c.
§412 I et seq., adding a number of new provisions, including
section 304 (1). 33 U.S.C. § 13 14 ( / ), which is the focus of this
petition. Section 304(/) refers to other provisions in the Clean
Water Act; its proper construction requires a familiarity with
the history, the structure, and, alas, the jargon of the federal
water pollution laws.
A.
Prior to 1972, Congress attempted to control water pollu-
tion by focusing regulatory efforts on achieving water quality
standards, standards set by the states specifying the tolerable
degree of pollution for particular waters. See EM v State
Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200. 202-03 (1976).
This scheme had two important flaws. First, the mechanism
of enforcement was cumbersome. Regulators had to work
backward from an overpolluied body of water and determine
which entities were responsible; proving cause and effect was
not always easy. Second, the scheme failed to provide ade-
quate incentives to individual entities to pollute less; an cmi-
ty’s dumping pollutants into a stream was ignored if the
stream met the standards. Id. The scheme focused on the tol-
erable effects rather than the preventable causes of pollution.
Id.
-------
NRDCv EPA 12251
In 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, which made
important amendments to the water pollution laws. The
amendments placed certain limits on what an individual ñrm
could discharge, regardless of whether the stream into which
it was dumping was overpolluted at the time. Firms were
required to use progressively more advanced technology: by
1977 they were to use the best practicable control
technology.” CWA § 30 1(bXlXA), 33 U.S.C. § 131 t(bXIXA).
and by 1987 at the latest they were to use the more demand-
ing “best available technology” to limit the discharge of pollu-
tants. CWA § 30 1(bX2XA), 33 U.S.C. § 131 l(bX2XA); CWA
§ 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. With regard to toxic pollutants listed
pursuant to CWA § 307, 33 U.S.C. § 131 7,’ compliance with
the “best available technology” was required by 1984. CWA
§ 301(bX2XA). The limits on discharges were to be effectu-
ated by a system of permits, the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). Without a permit, no person
could “discharge. . . any pollutant.” CWA § 30 1(a). 33 U.S C.
§ 131 1(a). Section 30l(a)’s ban on the discharge of pollutants
sounded bolder than it really was. The term “discharge of any
pollutant” was a siatutonly defined term meaning. “any addi-
tion of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point
source.” CWA § 502(1 2). 33 U.S.C. § 1362(1 2). The Clean
Water Act defined a “point source” as a discrete location from
which pollutants could be discharged. such as a pipe or drain
from a factory. CWA § 502(14), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14)’ The
‘Be nning in 1977, the Act distinguished among three kinds of pollu-
ants—tozic, conventional, and nonconventional—and established .
dards by which EPA wu to categorize poilutant.s. See CWA 4 307’aX I), 502
(13): 33 USC. 44 13I7(aXI). 1362( 13)(de6ningtoz ic pollutanlf). CWA
4 304(aX4). 33 11 S.C. 4131 4(aX4) ( ncerning ‘conventionaj pollutants’).
CWA 4 30l(bX2XFXconcereing ‘nonconventional pollutants,” which art
pollutants that are neither tornc nor conveniionaH.
‘The full de lnition is u fo1lowi
The term ‘point source” means any diaoti’nible. conñned and dis-
crete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch.
channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete assure, container. rolling
stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other
9oating craft, from which pollutants ate or may be discharged.
This term does not include return flows from imgsted agriculture.
-------
12252 NRDCv.EPA
Act thus banned only discharges from point Sources. The a.
charge of pollutants from nonpoint sources—for example.
the runoff of pesticides from farmlands—was not directly
prohibited.’ The Act focused on point source polluters pre-
sumably because they couid be ideniiñed and regulated more
easily than nonpoint source polluters.
Congress, in passing the Clean Water Act, thus shifted the
focus of the water pollution laws away from the enforcement
of water quality standards and toward the enforcement of
technological standards. But Congress recognized that even if
all the firms discharging pollutants into a certain stream seg-
ment were using the best available technology, the stream still
might not be clean enough to meet the water quality stan-
dards set by the stases. To deal with this problem, Congress
supplemented the technology-based limitations with
waser-quality.based limitations. See CWA §4302, 303. 33
U.S.C. 41312, 1313.
The water quality standard for a particular stream segment
was to be determined in the following manner. First, the state
in which the ‘tream segment was located was to designate the
uses to which it wished to put the segment. The designations
that the states had made prior so the 1972 Clean Water Act
were deemed to be the initial designations under that Act:
however, states were thereafter to review their designations at
least on every three years. CWA § 303(cXl), 33 U.S.C.
4131 3(cX I). Pursuant to the statute’s policy that the designa-
tion of uses enhance the quality of waier. CWA 4 303(cX2),
33 U.S.C. * 131 3(cX2), EPA enacted regulations setting limits
on the states’ ability to downgrade previously designated
uses. If a state wished so redesignate a use so that the new use
did not require water clean enough to meet the statutory goal
‘CWA section 20$, 33 U.S.C. 28$, provided fInancial ncenuve for
farmen and other nonpotat source poilute,, io adopt man.gemeni piic.
lices desin.d to reduce nonpoint sowu pollution, but the section dad nec
penalize nonpornt source polluters for fsilin to adopt such pf1c1i .
-------
4R . v EPA 12233
of shable, swimmable water, seeCWA4 lOl(aX2). 331_I Sc.
* 125 l(aX2), it had to conduct a use attainability anaJysis
as a condition to federal approval of the redesignated use.
CWA 4 303(cX3), 33 u.s.c. § 13l3(cX3); 40 C.F R.
§4 13 1.10(j), 131.3(g) (I98’ . If the result of the muse attain.
ability analysis wa that it was feasible to attain fishable,
swimmable waters, EPA would reject the redesignated use.
Second, the state was to determine the cntena for each
segment—the maximum concentrations of pollutants chat
could occur without jeopardizing the use. These criteria could
be either numerical (e.g. S mnillignms per liter) or narrative
(e.g. no toxics in toxic amounts). The criteria, like the uses,
were subject to federal review. The EPA was to reject criteria
that did not protect the designated use or that were not based
on a sound scientific rationale. 40 C.F.R. § 131.11(1989).
Under sections 30l(bXIXC) and 402(aXl), 33 U SC.
§4131 1(bXIXC), l342(aXI), NPDES permit writers were to
impose, along with the technology-based limitations, any
more stringent limitations on discharges necessary to meet
the water quality standards. Although ostensibly they were
supposed to impose these more stnngenc limitations, in prac-
tice they often did not.
One explanation for this failure is that the criteria listed by
the states, particularly for toxic pollutants, were often ‘.ague
narrative or descriptive criteria as opposed to specific numer-
ical criteria. These descriptive criteria were difficult to trans-
late into enforceable limits on discharges from individual
polluters. As one commentator put it:
The descriptive criteria, in particular, call for both
expert testimony and a receptive forum to trans-
form, let us say, a general obligation to maintain
‘recreational’ uses into a specific obligation to
reduce loadings of phosphorus or nitrogen from a
particular sou, . The decision requires, among
-------
12254 NRDCv EPA
other things, judgments about the degree of algal
bloom that interferes with recreational’ uses such as
swimming or boating, estimates of loadings from all
contributing point and nonpoint sources, assump.
tions about degrees of control elsewhere, and predic-
tions of how a water segment will respond to a
hoped-for change of parameters.
Rodgers, 2 Environmental Law 4 4. 16 at 250-51(1986). The
Clean Water Act dealt with the difficulty of these decisions
and judgments in various ways, for example by calling for the
publication by the EPA of criteria documents spelling out
causes and effects of various pollutant loads, see CWA
§ 304(a), 33 U.S.C. * 1314(a), and by requiring states to set
total maximum daily loads for certain pollutants (but, nota-
bly, not for toxic pollutants) CWA 4 303(dXl). 33 U.S.C.
§ 131 3(dX I); however, the complexity of these decisions and
judgments led many a permit writer to avoid making them
altogether. Rodgers, 4 4.18 at 283-84.
B.
In 1987 Congress reexamined the water pollution laws. It
found that the requirement that individual polluters use the
best available technology was not suffident to solve the pollu-
tion problem, particularly the problem of toxic pollutants; a
renewed emphasis on water quality-based standards was nec-
essary. Congress enacted a number of new provisions. Three
are relevant for our purposes.
CWA section 319, 33 U.S.C. 41329, requires states to sub-
mit for federal approval nonpoins source reports and man-
agement programs by August 4, 1988, identifying specibc
nonpoint sources of pollution and setting forth a plan for
implementing the best management praclices to control
such sources by 1992. Section 319 does not require states to
penalize nonpoint source polluters who fail to adopt best
-------
4RDCv EPA 12255
management practi s: rather it provides for vants to
encourage the adoption of such practices.
CWA section 303(cX2)(B). 33 U S.C. § l3 13(CX2XB).
requires states to adopt “ peci c numencal critena for tog-
ics for which the EPA has published cnteria pursuant to Sec.
lion 304(a), 33 U S.C. § 1314(a). Those cnteria are to be
adopted when the state first reviews its water quality stan-
dards following the enactment of the 1987 amendments. The
requirement of numencal criteria for toxics makes it easier
for permit writers to incorporate the water quality standards
into NPDES permits. Permit writers thus no longer have an
excuse for failing to impose water-quality-based limitations
on permit holders.
In addition to requiring the adoption of numerical cnteria.
Congress enacted new CWA section 304(d), 33 U S C
§ 1314( 1 ). the section directly at issue in this petition. Certain
aspects of section 304(d) are not in dispute. We briefly explain
these background aspects to bring the disputed issues into
sharper focus.
Section 304 (1) provides:
(t) Ind ividual Contiol Strategies for Tonic
Pollutants.
(1) State List of Navigable Waters and De eIop-
ment of Strategies. Not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this subsection [ Febri.iary 4.
‘The Water Quality Act also amended the Clean Water Acts declaration
of peals and policy to stale that it is the national policy hat proejams (or
the niroI ofnonpoint so’ 1 uoes of pollution be developed and implemented
to assure adequate control of soiuces of pollutants in each state. - CW a
* I0t(aX6), 33 U.S.C. 3 l25 1(aX6). Sections 101 and 319 reflect Con ress
awareness that iliac evidence of nonpotni pollution continues to sro
and that (ijt has been estumaied thai 30 percent of all wale? pollution
comes from nonpoini sourees. S. Rep. No. 30, 99th Coni. lit Scs i at $
-------
12256 4RDCv EPA
1987J. each State shall submit to the Administrator
for review, approval, and implementation under this
subsection —
(A) a list of those waterl within the State which
after the application of effluent limitations required
under section 3Ol(bX2) of this Act cannot reason-
ably be anticipated to attain or maintain (i) water
quality standards for such waters reviewed, revised.
or adopted in accordance wixhseçtion 303(cX2XB)
of this Act, due tpIoxic pollutants, or (ii) that water
quality which sh.1l as.urr i tection of public
health, public water supplies, agricultural and indus-
trial uses, and the protection and propagation of a
balanced population of shellfish, fish and wildlife,
and allow recreational activities in and on the water,
(B) a list of all navigable waters in such State for
which the State does not expect the applicable stan-
dard under section 303 of this Act will be achieved
after t : requirements of sections 301 (b). 306, and
307(b) are met, due entirely or sub antuHy-w djs-
charges from point sources of any toxic pollutants
listed pursuant to section 307(a); -
(C) for each segment of the navigable waters
included on such(lisu a determination of the spe-
cific point sources discharging any such toxic pollu-
tant which is believed to be preventing or impairing
such water quality and the amount of each such
toxic pollutant discharged by each such source; and
(D) for each such segment. an individual control
strategy which the State determjnet.wilJ produce a
reduction in the discharge ottoxic pollutants from
point sources identified by the State undiñhis para-
graph through the establishmen’ of effluent limita-
tions under section 402 of this Act and water quality
-------
NR v EPA 1257
standards under section 303(CX2XB) of this Act,
which reduction is sufficient, in combination with
existing controls on point and nonpoint sources of
pollution, to achieve the applicable water quality
standard as soon as oossible, but not later than 3
years after the date of he establishment of such
strategy.
(2) Approval or Disapproval. Not later than 120
days after the last day of the 2-year penod referred
to in paragraph (I), the Administrator shall approve
or disapprove the control strategies submitted under
paragraph (1) by any State.
(3) Administrator’s Action. If a State faiLs to
submit control strategies in accordance with para-
graph (I) or the Administrator does not approve the
control strategies submitted by such State in a or.
dance with paragraph (I), then, not later than 1 year
after the last day of the period referred to in para-
graph (2). the Administrator, in cooperation with
such State and after notice and opportunity for pub.
lic c.,mment, shall implement the requirements of
paragraph (I) in such State. In the implementation
of such requirements, the Administrator shall, at a
minimum, consider for listing under this subsection
any navigable waters for which any person submits
a petition to the Administrator for listing not later
than 120 days after such last day.
Section 304(l) requires the preparation of three lists. The
list required by section 304(l)( I )(B) (hereinafter the B list)
is the narrowest of the three lists. It consists only of waters
that are not expected to meet water quality standards, even
after the application of the technology-based limitations, due
entirely or substantially to toxic pollution from point sources.
The list required by section 304(l)(IXAXi) (hereinafter the
A(i) list”) is broader, it includes most of the waters on the B
-------
1225* NRDCv EPA
list’ plus waters expected not to meet waler quality standards
due to pollution attributable entirely or almost entirely to
toxic pollution from ?ionpoinr sources. The list requited by
section 304(/)( I )(AXii) (hereinafter the A(ii) list) is the
broadest. It includes all the waters on the other two lists plus
any waters which, after the implementation of technology.
based controls, are not expected to meet the water quality
goals of the Act; since the goals of the Act are sometimes
higher than the state standards, the A(ii) list includes even
some waters expected to comply fully with applicable water
quality standards.’
The effect of the individual control strategies is simply to
expedite the imposition of water..quality .based limitations on
polluters —limitations which otherwise would have had to be
imposed when the polluters’ NPDES permits expired.
NPDES permits are issued for periods of no more than five
years, although administrative delays can extend defacto the
duration of the permits.
The EPA ha promulgated a number of regulations inter•
preting the statute; two are particularly important for our
purposes. The first regulation, codified at 40 C.F R
§ 130.10(d), interprets sections 304(!)(IXA), (B), and (C).’
‘The reason that some waters on the B list may not be on the A(i) I:st is
that para$raph AO) refers to section 303(eX2XB), which in turn refers only
to waters whoic water quality standards have been revtewed since the pas-
sa e of the 19*7 amendments, whereas pansraph B refers to all waler quaJ-
ity standards, even if adopted before the 19$? amendments.
‘Since he states have a certain deVee of flexibility in determinun uses
of their waters, not all states have set water quality standards based on the
uses enumerated in paraiaph A(ii).
‘40 C.F.R. 1130.10(d) provides in relevant psit
Not later than February 4, 9*9, each State shall submit to EPA
for review, approval, and unplementaison—
( I) a list of those waters within the State which after the appli-
cation of efituent limitations required under section 301( ’bX2) of
-------
NRDCv EPA 12259
The first two subsections of that regulation, subsections
130. I0(dX I) and (2). simply track the language of subsections
304(I)( I )(A) and (B) respectively. The next subsection of the
regulation. section 130 I0(dX3). does no:. however, track
subsection 304(F)(IXC) r iher it changes the word iists in
the statute to iist. By referring to list in the singular. it
excludes the A(i) and A(ii) lists from the requirement of sec•
lion 304(I)(l)(C) that point sources of toxic pollution and the
amount of pollution discharged for each source be idencified.
Only the B list is subject to the identification requirement.
The second regulation, codified at 40 C.F R. § I 23 46.’
interprets section 304(!)(IXD). It provides that individual
control strategies (ICS’s) must be prepared only for the point
the CWA cannot reasonably be anticipated to attain or maintain
(i) water quality standards for such waters reviewed. revtsed, or
adopted in accordance with section 303(cX2XB) of the CWA. due
to toxic pollutants, or (ii) that water quality which shall assure pro.
tection of public health, public waler supplies, a rtcultunl and
industrial uses, and the protection and propa asion of a balanced
population of shell6sh, Is Is and wildlife, and allow recr uoiial
acuv” in and on the witer
(2) a list of all navigable waters in such State for which the
State does not expect the applicable standard under section 303 of
the CWA wsU be achieved after the requirements of i.evtions
301(b). 306. and 307(b) are met, due entirely or substantially to
discharges from point sources of any toxic pollutants listed pursu.
ant to section 307(a);
(3) for each se meat ot’ihe n.avi able waters included on such
list, a determination of the spectlc point sources diwha.rIanS any
such toxic pollutant which is believed to be preventin; or impair.
in such waler quality and the amount of each such toxic pollutant
diichar ed by esch such sown.
re vlation provides in relevant par c
(Ejacis state shall submit to the Reional Administrator for
review, approval, and implementation an individual control strsi-
e y for each point soures identikd by the State pursuant to sac.
lion 304(!);IXC) of the Act(.j
-------
12260 NRDCV EPA
sources identified in section 304(l)(lXC), as interpreted, of
course, by the first regulation. Thus, under the regulations.
ICS ’s are required only in connection with waters on the B
list. The A(i) and A(ii) lists are not to be consulted in deter-
mining which segments require ICS’s.
The NRDC petitioned for review of these regulations, argu-
ing they are inconsistent with the statute. We have jurisdic-
tion under CWA § 509(bX I XE), 33 U S.C. I 369(b)( I XE).
II.
DISCUSSION
We review two separate regulations. The first one, 40
C.F.R. § 130.lO(dX3), interprets section 304(/XIXC). The
second, 40 C.F.R. § 123.46, interprets section 304(l)(IXD).
We consider each regulation in turn.
A.
Ill EPA argues that its interpretation of section 304(! ( I XC)
is entitled to special deference on review. In Ch ron USA
v Natural Resources Defense Council. 467 U.S. 837, 843
(1984), the Supreme Court held:
[ W]hen a court reviews an agency’s construction of
the statute which it administers, it is confronted
with two questions. First, always, is the question
whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise
question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear,
that is the end of the matter, for the court, as well as
the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously
expressed intent of Congress.... (I]f the statute is
silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,
the question for the court is whether the agency’s
answer is based on a permissible construction of the
statute.
-------
NRDCv EPA 12261
In this case. Congress has spoken directly, in unambiguous
terms, to the question whether subsection 304(t)(lXC)
requires the identification of point sources discharging tozics
into the waters identified on all three lists. By using the plural
iists, Congress foreclosed EPA from restricting the scope of
paragraph C to waters on the B list. Since the language of
paragraph C is unambiguous, there is no need to resort to
extnnsic sources to interpret the statute. Cf Green v Com-
missioner. 707 F.2d 404, 405 (9th Cit. 1983).
121 The EPA makes two arguments as to why paragraph C
is ambiguous. First, it points to the caption of § 304(I)( I).
which says, “State List of Navigable Waters and Develop.
mens of Strategies.” EPA argues that the use of the singular
“List” in the caption creates an ambiguity, thus triggering
Chevron’s requirement of deference. While words in the title
of a statute or the heading of a section can shed light on the
meaning of an ambiguous word or phrase in the text of a stat-
ute, they cannot create an ambiguity where none otherwise
would exist. 8,otherhoc of Railroad Trainmen v. 8. 4 0.
Railroad. 331 U.S. 519, 528-29 (1947). Since the text is not
ambiguous, the caption does not aid our interpretation.
EPA attempts to distinguish Trainmen by arguing that it is
not offering the caption as evidence of ambiguity but rather
as evidence that Congress made a drafting error. But, other
than the caption, EPA offers no evidence indicating that the
text is the product of a drafting error. When the caption is the
only evidence of a drafting error, there is no good reason to
assume that it is the text and not the caption that is erroneous.
The ordinary presumption is that Congress’ drafting of the
text is deliberate. United States v Moniamedi. 767 F.2d 1403.
1406 (9th Cir. 1985). Moreover in this case, even absent that
presumption, there is good reason to believe that the use of
the plural “lIsts” is not a drafting error. The conference com-
mittee which drafted section 304(0 fused elements of House
and Senate bills containing similar provisions. The House
version of section 304(0 required only one list to be prepared.
-------
12262 NRDCv EPA
corresponding to the B list. Cong. Research Service. A Leg s .
larive History of the Water Quality Ac: of /987. Comm. Print
Not, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. at 1186. Since only one list had
to be prepared, the House ‘tiuivalent to Section 304(/XIXC)
requited the identification of point sources for the waters on
such Iist. Id. The Senate version of section 304 (/) requited
two lists, corresponding to the A(i) and A(ii) lists. Id. at 1557
The conferees determined that all three lists should be pre-
pared. This change, in turn, necessitated changing the House
version’s phrase, “such list, since leaving that phrase intact
would have created an ambiguity. Changing the phrase to
“such lists” made clear that identification of point sources on
all three lists was required. In these circumstances, it can
hardly be argued that the change to the plural was inadver.
tent.
The EPA’S next argument for its interpretation of section
304(I)( IXC) is more complex. The EPA starts not with the
language of paragraph C, but with the language of paragraph
D. EPA asserts several propositions concerning paragraph D:
that in referring to “effluent limitations under section 402 of
this Act,” paragraph D necessarily refers only to limitations
imposed on point sources, since it is only point sources that
are subject to the NPDES permitting process described in sec-
tion 402; that paragraph D requires individual control strate-
gies which will cause a reduction in toxic pollutants
“sufficient, in combination with existing controls on point
and nonpoint sources of pollution, to achieve the applicable
water quality standard.. . not later than three years after the
date of the establishment of such strategy;” and that since
ICS’s are not required under paragraph D when they cannot
be expected to achieve water quality standards within the
specified time, Congress must have intended ICS ’s to be
required only for polluters discharging into streams whose
failure to meet standards could be cured by eliminating dis-
charges of lozics from point sources. From these proposi-
tions, the validity of which we do not now decide. EPA then
arrives at two controversial conclusions: that ICS’s are
-------
4RDCv EPA l::63
required only for polluters discharging into the streams on the
B list, streams whose failure to meet water quality standards
is due entirely or substantially to discharges from point
sources; and that because only B list waters require ICSs
under paragraph D, only those waters are subject to the iden.
Ii cation requirement 01 paragraph C. EPA argues that the
prepositional phrase introducing paragraph D. for each such
segment, compels these conclusions because the phrase must
refer only to segments that will require ICS ’s.
(3) We disagree. Even f EPA’s interpretation of paragraph
D is proper, which we do not decide here, its interpretation of
paragraph C cannot stand. In using the phrase, for each such
segment, Congress was simply requiring the states to consult
each segment before determining whether an ICS on that seg-
ment could achieve water quality standards within the rele-
vant period of time. We acknowledge that ‘(the use of the
plural iists in paragraph C were treated as a drafting error,
the phrase “for each segment” would make paragraphs B, C.
and D flow together more smoothly. But a statute is not
ambiguous simply because an agency can suggest a change in
wording that would make the statute more elegant. Since
paragraph C as drafted neither is ambiguous in its terms nor
is incoherent when considered together with the other provi-
sions of the statute to which it relates, we do not accord EPA ’s
regulation redrafting paragraph C any special deference on
review. Cf Chevron.
(4) Reviewing the regulation de novo. we conclude chat EPA
reached the wrong interpretation of paragraph C because it
started with a faulty premise. EPA assumed that paragraph D,
requiring individual control strategies for certain waters, was
the only significant provision of section 304(!)( I) and that
paragraphs B and C of that section had to be read as having
one purpose and one purpose only—to effectuate paragraph
D. This assumption has two flaws, one obvious and one more
subtle. The obvious flaw is that the assumption utterly fails to
account for the presence of paragraph A—especially pars.
-------
12264 NRDCv. EPA
graph A(ii). If Congress was interested only in individual con.
trol strateves for toxic pollutants, why would it have wanted
a list of waters whose failure to meet the goals of the Act was
not necessarily traceable to toxic pollutants’ One readily can
infer from the presence of paragraph A that Congress wanted
certain information not necessarily because it would affect
the ICS program but because it might subsequently be useful
in formulating other statutory or regulatory programs. There
are other provisions in the Clean Water Act which require the
gathering of information but which do not necessarily require
immediate action on the basis of the information. See e g
CWA § 305, 33 U.S.C. § 1315; CWA § 303(d), 33 U.S.C.
§ 13 13(d).’
LSI The more subtle flaw in EPA’s assumption is that it does
not account for the purposes that paragraph C might serve.
Like paragraph A, paragraph C will produce useful informa-
tion. Ii requires the identification of point sources discharg-
ing toxic pollutants and the determination of the amount of
such pollutants discharged. Such information may prove use-
ful to regulators even if every point source identified does not
require an ICS.
In sum, we hold that EPA erred in assuming that paragraph
D and paragraph C of subsection 304(l I) must perfectly
interlock. Since the provisions do not serve the identical pur-
pose, there was no need to distort paragraph C in order to
make it connect better with paragraph D.
‘EPA sugesta that prior to the soacuneni of iectioa 304 (l), states already
were t uired, albeit without a statutory deadline, to subeut the informa-
tion ,equest . It cites CWA 303(d). bus that section reqwm states to
identdy only those waters for which limitations baaed on the best
precucabie technology would not be urrn ent enouØ to implement the
viler quality standards. floe waters for which limitations based on the
more demanding best available technology—the required level of technol-
Q 10 nud toai —were insu$cient did not have to be listed.
-------
NRDCv EPA 12265
B.
Our determination that EPA erred in interpreting section
304(t)( I XC) does not settle the issue on which the parties have
focused most of their attention: which waters are subject to
the ICS’s required by section 304(/)(IXD)?
EPA; position is that only waters on the B list. I e. waters
for which the state does not expect water quality standards to
be achieved wdue entirely or substantially to point sources of
any toxic pollutants are subject to the ICS requirement. EPA
interprets entirely or substantially” broadly:
If a water meets either of the two conditions listed
below the water must be listed [ under paragraph BJ
on the grounds that the applicable standard is not
achieved or expected to be achieved due entirely or
substantially to discharges from point sources.
(i) Existing or additional water quality-based
limits on one or more point sources would result in
the achievement of art applicable water quality stan-
dard for a toxic pollutant; or
(ii) The discharge of a toxic pollutant from one
or more point sources, regardless of any nonpoiai
source contribution of the same pollutant, is sum-
dens to cause or is expected to cause an excursion
above the applicable water quality standard for the
toxic pollutant.
40C.F.R. § l30.lO(dX5)(1989).
16) Consider the hypothetical situation of a stream that can
absorb a load of tOO pounds per day of a particular toxic sub-
stance without violating water quality standards. In June of
1992 (the date by which ICS’s are required to achieve their
purpose) after existing controls are implemented. it Is
-------
12266 NRDC v. EPA
expected chat lOS pounds per day of the toxic will flow
through the segment. If six ot ’ihe expected lOS pounds are to
come from point sources, the Doint source contribution is
considered substantiar under EPA’s regulation and ICS ’s
are required for the point sources. If three of the lOS pounds
are expected to come from point sources, the contribution is
considered Insubstantial” and no ICS’s are required. The
reason why the six pound contribution is considered subsian.
tial is that a reduction of six pounds would be sufficient. in
combination with existing 1 ’ controls on point and nonpoint
sources of pollution, to achieve the applicable water quality
standard.” The language just quoted comes, of course, from
paragraph D, which specifies when ICS’s are required. EPA
thus derived its interpretation of paragraph B essentially by
beginning with its interpretation of paragraph D and working
backward. That is the same method EPA used to interpret
paragraph C. Since ‘we are remanding to the agency to have it
promulgate new r’ ula1ions under paragraph C, we do not
decide whether EPA’s current interpretation of paragraph D
is too restricti. . (It is not too inctusive. ) Rather we invite
‘The EPA’s 6naI guidance document to the statea, published pursuant
to C AA seclion 304(a* 7 ), 33 U S.C. 13 14(aX7). explains thai the term
ezisiing controls includes planned controls, if the controls will be in
effect by June 1992. the statutory deadline for achieving the applicable
water quality standard under section 304(1 ). EPA, Fs’,aI Guidance for
lneplerneniation of Rvqv:rernena Under’ section 30411) of the Clean
Act as 4mended at 25 (195$) (bereinat%er Guidancei. With rrgard to
nonpoint source controla, assumptions concerning what controls would be
to effect by thai date musa be based on specific, reliable, and preferably.
enforceable control plans. A mere intention to establish a control plan wiul
not su tce. The purpose of this requirement of reliability is to make the
ICS program tougher by depriving point source polluters of the argument
that a vague intention to control isonpoint source pollution should excuse
them from doing their pan. It is unclear from the Guidance whether seclien
319 nonpoint source management plans constitute suMciently specil c and
reliable plans to qualify as eaisting” controls.
uiEPAs regulations require icr . not only for stream segments wh
point source iozic problem. it eliminated, would bnng the segment up io
-------
MRDC EPA
EPA to reconsider its interpretation on remand. In the mean.
lime, until EPA promulgates new regulations, the program
shall continue.
UI.
CONCLUSION
We grant the petition for review in part and remand. On
remand. EPA must, pursuant to CWA § 304(d)( I XC), amend
its regulations to require the states to identify all point
sources discharging any toxic pollutant which is believed to
be preventing or impairing the water quality of any stream
segment listed under CWA § 304(IXIXA) and (B) and to
indicate the amount of the toxic pollutant discharged by each
source. EPA shall also reconsider its interpretation of CWA
§ 304(IXIXD).
REMANDED.
standards, but also for seveenta not meetta that de,cnpiton but “hose
point souree oinbutioa of a psiticuMt toxic is so sevete that. standing
alone. it ‘ould cause an exciareico above the applicable water quility stan.
dard regardims of any nonpoint sowos nonuabution o(the toxic. 40 C F R.
,130. IO(dXSXIi). The inclusion of this lattrfl of strum sewlent in the
I program has not been challenged. We note that EPA baa ample author.
ity. in addition to CWA4 304(i ), to require expedited actiàn on such stream
segjatents. Sd4CWA N 301(1) 402(k), 33 U.S.C. N 13 1 1(1 ), 1342(k). To
require such action is fully consistent with paragraph D’s iecogniiion that
tnage is neos a’y.
-------
4 tO
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC11ON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4L
DEcf 1 ?
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: New Regulations Governing the Discharge of Toxic and
Hazardous Pollutant Publici Owned Treatment Works
FROM: James R. E1 Lrector
Office of ,,1 ter Enforcement
and P mits
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
On July 3, 1990, the Administrator signed regulations
amending 40 CFR Parts 122 and 403. The amendments were published
in the Federal Register on July 24, 1990 (55 FR 30082), and
became effective on August 23, 1990. They address the findings
and recommendations of the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) regarding
improved control of hazardous wastes discharged to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). The purpose of this memorandum is to
describe the significance of these amendments to EPA’s
pretreatment and NPDES programs. The memorandum discusses both
permitting and compliance monitoring and enforcement
implementation activities.
EPA Regions should develop their own strategies for
implementing the DSS regulations and should encourage States with
approved NPDES or pretreatment programs to do the same. Some
general suggestions to ensure effective implementation of DSS
requirements are:
o Pretreatment POTWs whose NDPES permits have expired or will
expire soon should be identified so that conditions requiring
implementation of DSS regulations can be included in the reissued
permits.
o POTWs whose NPDES permits are coming up for renewal should
be advised of the new application requirements regarding toxicity
testing and local limits evaluation (discussed below).
Priiued Rw,cL,d Pap,
-------
2
o Regions and States with approved pretreatment programs
should use existing tools to ensure compliance with DSS
requirements as revised NPDES permits become effective. Some of
these tools are pretreatment compliance inspections (PCIs),
audits (with checklists revised to incorporate the new
provisions), and POTW annual reports.
o POTWs that are developing a pretreatment program for the
first time or are now in the process of revising or modifying
their approved programs must develop or revise their programs
consistent with the new regulations.
o Regions and States with approved pretreatment programs
should consider advising POTWs to coordinate existing and
anticipated pretreatment program modifications to minimize
resources devoted to this activity (for example, one program
modification package could include both DSS and PIRT changes).
EPA encourages POTWs to submit any necessary pretreatment program
modifications pursuant to 40 CFR 403.18 as soon as possible.
Some of these changes will likely be substantial program
modifications (e.g., a change from an ordinance system to
individual control mechanisms). These changes will be subject to
public notice and Approval Authority approval or disapproval
pursuant to 40 CFR 403.18(b)-(f). Other changes (e.g., minor
changes to industrial user slug control plans) may be considered
nonsubstantial program modifications under 40 CFR 403.18(b). In
those cases the changes shall be deemed approved by the Approval
Authority within 90 days after submission of the changes, unless
the Approval Authority specifies otherwise within that time
period. Both substantial and nonsubstantial pretreatment program
modifications must be incorporated in the POTW’s NPDES permit as
a minor permit modification under 40 CFR 122.63(g).
One important requirement that should be expedited is
for POTWs to identify all of their significant industrial users
pursuant to the new definition in 40 CFR 403.3(t) as soon as
possible. The POTW should submit this list to its Approval
Authority as a nonsubstantial program modification pursuant to
new 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6). The POTW must then notify all of its
significant industrial users of their status pursuant to new 40
CFR 403.8(f) (2) (iii).
Any regulatory changes that need to be made to State NPDES
programs pursuant to the amendments to 40 CFR Part 122 (discussed
below) should be made within one year of the date of promulgation
of these regulations (two years if a statutory enactment or
revision is necessary). EPA encourages States with approved
pretreatment programs to make regulatory changes to conform to
the amendments to 40 CFR Part 403 within the same time frame.
-------
3
Following is a description of the revised requirements of 40
CFR Part 122, since these are the changes that most directly
affect Regions dnd States as NPDES permitting authorities. Also
included are some suggestions for appropriate action items. The
changes to Part 403, which principally affect POTWs, are
described in an attachment, along with some action items which
EPA Headquarters is considering.
CHANGES TO 40 CFR PART 122
1. Section 122.21(1 (1 —(3 : Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing
This new paragraph provides that designated POTWs shall
provide the results of valid whole effluent biological toxicity
testing to the Director (EPA Regional Administrator or NPDES
State permitting authority) in their NPDES permit applications.
The designated POTWs are: 1) all POTWs with design influent
flows equal to or greater than one million gallons per day; 2)
all POTWs with approved pretreatment programs or POTWs required
to develop a pretreatment program; 3) POTWs required to perform
such testing at the Director’s discretion. Such testing must
have been conducted since the last permit reissuance or permit
modification, whichever occurred later.
POTWs whose NPDES permits will expire soon should be
notified of this requirement if they are in either of the two
“non-discretionary” categories above, and permitting authorities
should consider which additional POTWs should conduct toxicity
testing pursuant to the Director’s discretionary authority.
The NPDES permitting authority must determine acceptable
protocols for the testing, as is currently the case. Permitting
authorities should provide instructions about testing protocols
to POTWs who have never before performed such testing.
The testing must be performed using EPA methods or other
established protocols which are scientifically defensible and
sufficiently sensitive to detect aquatic toxicity. Testing
protocols will be addressed in the revised Technical SuDPort
Document for Water quality-Based Toxics Control , to be issued in
early 1991. Other guidance documents include EPA’s Short Term
Methods for Estimatina the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms , EPA 600/4—89/001,
Second Edition, February 1989; Methods for Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms , EPA
600/4-85/013, Third Edition, March 1985; Short Term Methods for
Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters
to Marine and Estuarine Organisms , EPA 600/4-87/028, May 1988.
Testing results should be used to determine whether
toxicity—based or other appropriate limits should be included in
-------
4
the POTW’s NPDES permit, consistent with 40 CFR 122.44(d). It
should be noted that when the permitting authority determines
that a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause,
or contributes to an excursion above a water quality criterion,
(whether the criterion is narrative or numeric), the permit must
include one or more water quality-based effluent limits (see 40
CFR 122.44(d) (1) (iii)—(vi))
2. Section l22.23(i (4): Revisions to Local Limits
This paragraph requires all POTWs with approved pretreatment
programs to submit, with their NPDES permit applications, a
formal evaluation of the need to revise local limits.
Pretreatment POTWs whose NPDES permits will expire soon
need to be notified of this requirement. Permitting authorities
may wish to consider which POTW5 have had pass through or
interference problems, so as to give those applications
particular attention.
I believe that these amendments will be very valuable in
achieving better control of toxic and hazardous wastes discharged
to POTW5. I hope this memorandum will help you to develop your
own individual plans for implementation of the regulations. We
have also conducted several activities involving direct outreach
to pretreatment POTWs, such as a distribution of the regulations
with the September 1990 Pretreatment Bulletin and a checklist for
POTWs for implementation evaluation purposes. If you have
questions or need more information about these requirements,
please contact Cynthia Dougherty at FTS 475-9545 or have your
staff contact Marilyn Goode at FTS 475-9526.
Attachment
cc: Regional Pretreatment Coordinators
-------
DEC I T Wi
Prepared by the Office of Water Enforcement and Permits,
Environmental Protection Agency
SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO 40 CFR PART 403
JULY 24, 1990: 55 FR 30082
1. Sections 403.3. 403.8(f)(6L and 4O3.8(f (2Uiii ’:
Definition of “Sianificant Industrial User ”
These provisions codify a definition of significant
industrial user (SIU) to conform to guidance that has been in
place for several years, and specify how a POTW’s designation of
an SIU becomes effective. An SIU is:
o Any IU subject to categorical standards;
o Any noncategorical IU that discharges 25,000 gallons per day
or more of process wastewater, or any IU that contributes a
process wastestream which makes up five percent or more of
the dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW
treatment plant; or any IU that has a reasonable potential,
in the opinion of the Control Authority, for adversely
affecting the POTW’s operation or for violating any
pretreatment standard or requirement.
POTWs with approved pretreatment programs are required to
prepare a list of significant industrial users pursuant to 40 CFR
403.8(f) (6). The list, and any subsequent modifications thereto,
must be submitted to the Approval Authority as a minor program
modification under section 403.18(b)(2). Approval Authorities
may wish to consider establishing special procedures for POTWs
with very frequent modifications to their list of SlUg. Approval
Authorities should be prepared to review POTW5’ lists of SIUs to
ensure that the regulatory criteria are being applied. Pursuant
to 403.8(f) (2) (iii), within 30 days of approval of the list,
POTWs must notify all their SIUs of their status and the
requirements stemming from that status.
2. Section 4O3.5(b : SDecific Discharae Prohibitions
This paragraph makes certain changes to prohibited
industrial user discharges, as follows:
o Ianitabilitv : All industrial users are prohibited from
discharging pollutants with a closed cup flashpoint of less
than 140 degrees Fahrenheit (the RCRA ignitability standard
for liquid characteristic waste).
The sampling for these discharges is relatively
straightforward and will be covered in forthcoming guidance
on worker health and safety. We also expect to address this
issue in future local limits workshops.
-------
2
o Reactivity : All industrial users are prohibited from
discharging pollutants to the POTW that result in toxic
gases, vapors, and fumes in a quantity that may cause worker
health and safety problems.
Guidance for POTWs on the subject of worker health and
safety (including implementation of this prohibition) is
being prepared and will be distributed in 1991. The subject
of worker health and safety was also addressed in the local
limits guidance distributed in 1987.
o Oil and Grease : All industrial users are prohibited from
discharging petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or
products of mineral oil origin in amounts that could cause
pass through or interference.
We are considering addressing this issue in workshops (e.g.,
impacts of various amounts and types of oil, test
procedures, etc.).
o Trucked and Hauled Waste : All industrial users are
prohibited from discharging trucked or hauled pollutants to
POTW5 except at discharge points designated by the POTW.
Pretreatment workshops and seminars will continue to stress
the importance of adequate control of trucked and hauled
wastes, including the designation of appropriate discharge
points.
3. Section 4O3.8(f (l)’(iifl: Individual Control Mechanisms for
SI Us
This paragraph provides that POTWs shall control the
contributions of SIUs through permits or equivalent individual
control mechanisms issued to each such user. The paragraph also
lists the minimal conditions which such permits or individual
control mechanisms must contain. EPA issued guidance on this
subject in September 1989 (the Industrial User Permitting
Guidance Manual) .
We also plan to continue training of POTWs through
workshops; distribution of the industrial user permitting
guidance; tracking of individual control mechanisms through
OWAS, STARS; and oversight through pretreatment audits and
pretreatment compliance inspections (PCI5).
4. Section 4O3.8(f (5 : Enforcement Response Plans
This paragraph provides that POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs must develop and implement an enforcement
response plan containing procedures indicating how a POTW will
respond to instances of industrial user noncompliance.
-------
3
EPA issued guidance on this subject in September 1989
( Guidance for Developing Control Authority Response Plans ) which
was distributed to Regions and POTWs. Workshops for POTWs on the
development of POTW enforcement response plans were held in 1990
and will be available again in 1991. Existence of plans will be
verified through audits and PCI5.
5. Section 403.8(fU2 )(v ): Inspection and Sam 1ing of SIUs
This paragraph requires pretreatment POTWs to inspect and
sample the effluent from SIUs at least once a year. With respect
to this requirement, no specific action items are planned, since
many POTWS are conducting these activities already. Sampling and
inspections will be verified through audits and PCIs.
6. Section 403.8(f )(2Uv ): Slug Control Plans
This paragraph requires pretreatment POTW5 to evaluate, at
least once every two years, whether each SIU needs a plan to
control slug discharges. If the POTW decides that a slug control
plan is needed, the regulations specify certain minimal elements
which the plans must contain.
A guidance manual addressing this subject ( Guidance Manual
for Control of Slua Loadings to POTWs ) was developed and initial
copies were distributed to the Regions in 1989. We expect to
renew efforts to print and distribute this guidance. We also
expect this requirement to be verified through audits and PCIs.
7. Section 403.8 (f) (2) (vii ): “Significant Noncompliance ”
This paragraph provides criteria for what constitutes
significant noncompliance for industrial users (for purposes of
newspaper publication). The criteria are similar to those used
for requiring noncompliance reports from direct dischargers.
No new action items are planned, since the criteria are
essentially the same as those which have been contained in the
1986 Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance .
8. Section 403.12(h): SIU Sampling and Reporting
This paragraph requires all noncategorical SIUs to sample
their effluent a minimum of twice a year and report results to
the POTW.
No action items are planned because most POTW5 are familiar
with the similar sampling requirements for categorical users.
Audits and PCIs will verify compliance.
-------
4
9. Section 403.12(pI: Notification by lUs of Hazardous Waste
Discharges
This paragraph requires industrial users to notify POTWs,
EPA Waste Management Division Directors, and State counterparts
of any discharge of a listed or characteristic hazardous waste.
The contents of the notification vary somewhat according to the
amount of waste discharged. The industrial user must also
certify that it has a program in place to reduce the volume and
toxicity of hazardous wastes generated to the degree it has
determined to be economically practical. This is a one-time
notification requirement, which takes effect six months after
promulgation of the rule.
We plan to coordinate with OSWER on options for tracking and
compiling this information. We are also investigating the need
for guidance or training on industrial user waste minimization
requirements.
-------
s’d.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
\4,
OEC - 3 99O
OFFICE OF WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: NPDES Permit Writer’s Guide oi
FROM: ,Cynthia Dougherty, Directo :
Permits Division (EN—336)
Kozlowski, Director
Enforcement Division (EN-
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions 1 - 10
Attached for your use is the final version of the subject
document. The purpose of this document is to help permit writers
understand the process for establishing Data Quality Objectives
(DQOs), thus ensuring that environmental data collected or
required will be adequate for decision making under the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
This document provides specific guidance on developing DQOs
for the collection of data to support the development of NPDES
permit limitations and on determining compliance with those
limits. The DQO process is a decision making tool that may be
used by the permit writer to ensure that resources are being
expended in the most efficient way and that data collected are
sufficient to support the decision making process. By using the
DQO process, the permit writer will be better able to determine
the level of uncertainty that is acceptable, and therefore, the
type and quality of data that should be considered necessary for
the permitting and compliance process.
The document consists of three chapters and an appendix.
Chapter One provides a general introduction to the DQO process.
Chapters Two and Three discuss the DQO process in terms of
permit development and compliance determination respectively.
The appendix examines four permitting scenarios as they might be
addressed through the DQO process.
We have incorporated comments from the Regions in the
development of the document. The latest version was sent out on
April 12, 1990, and reviewed by the branch chiefs in the Water
Management Division. We plan to include the document in the
permit writer training course. If you have any questions, please
contact eborah Gillette FTS-475-9541 or Samuel To at FTS-475- )2-’.
Attachment
Objectives
P,:n ea . - — —
-------
NPDES PERMIT WRITER’S GUIDE TO
DATA QUAUTY OBJECTIVES
NOVEMBER 1990
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street. SW
Washington. DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
Purpose 1—1
Background of the NPDES Program 1-2
Overview of DQOs and the DQO Process . . . . 1-4
Stage I: Define the Decision 1-5
Stage II: Clarify the Information Needed for
the Decision 1—5
Stage III: Design the Data Collection
Program 1—6
2. PERMIT DEVELOPMENT . . 2—1
Information Sources 2-1
STAGE I: DEFINING THE DECISION 2-2
Determining the Basis for Limit Setting . . . 2-3
Deriving Permit Limits 2-4
STAGE II: CLARIFYING THE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR THE
DECISION 2 — 5
Description of Data to be Collected 2-6
Domain of the Decision 2-6
Calculations of Data 2-6
STAGE III: DESIGN OF THE DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM . 2-7
3. DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT LIMITS 3-1
Introduction 3-1
STAGE I: DEFINING THE DECISION 3-3
Rationale for Self-Monitoring 3-4
STAGE II: CLARIFYING THE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR THE
DECISION. 3—5
Nature of Compliance Data 3-6
Determining the Variables Needed and the Gaps that
Need to be Filled 3-7
1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
STAGE III:
APPENDIX A:
DESIGN OF THE DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM
3—7
3—8
3—9
3—10
3—11
3—11
3—12
3—12
3—13
3—13
SCENARIOS ILLUSTRATING THE USE OF DATA QUALITY
OBJECTIVES WHEN ISSUING NPDES PERMITS
Analytical Variability
Sampling . .
EffluentVariability .
Data Systems . . . . . . . . . . .
MonitoringFrequency .
Confidence Level Variability
Effluent Toxicity Testing . . . .
National Policy . .
Quality Assurance
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This manual provides the permit writer with guidance for
develàping data quality objectives (DQOs). DQOs are statements
of the level of uncertainty that a decision maker is willing to
accept in results derived from environmental data, when the
results are going to be used in a regulatory or programmatic
decision (e.g., setting or revising a standard, or determining
compliance). DQOS are a tool that may be used by the permit
writer to ensure that resources are being expended in the most
efficient way, and that data collected are sufficient to support
the decision making process and not extraneous to that process.
The information and methods presented in this manual are not
procedural requirements that permit writers must follow.
However, review of this document is intended to provide the
reader with an understanding of the principles of DQOs and the
advantages that they provide. Specifically, this document
describes steps for the systematic evaluation of data needs,
allowing for the optimal use of available resources. DQOs will
assist the permit writer in identifying the number of data
elements and the types and quality of data necessary to support
permit limits development as well as in assessing compliance with
permit conditions.
This guidance discusses the process that should be followed
in developing and defining DQOs. A comprehensive DQO should
contain the following elements:
o Definition of the decision to be made regarding the
data and the specific permit that is to be written
o Statement of why the environmental data are needed ard
how they will be used
o Time and resource constraints on data collection
o Description of the environmental data to be collected
o Specifications regarding the domain of the decision
o Calculations, statistical or otherwise, that will be
performed on the data in order to arrive at the result.
Having defined the DQOs, permit writers will need to
complete three additional steps: 1) define the decision; 2)
clarify the information needed for the decision; and 3) design
the data collection program. The development of DQO5 and these
final three steps must be sensitive to the regulatory need to
determine compliance with permit conditions and limitations and
be integrated into the permit writing process.
iii
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Purpose
For the purposes of this document, data quality objectives
(DQOs) are statements of the level of uncertainty that the
decision maker is willing to accept in results derived from
environmental, data, when the results are to be used in a
regulatory or programmatic decision. The purpose of this manual
is to provide guidance to develop DQOs for the collection of data
to support the development of National Pollutant discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit limitations and to determine
compliance with those limits. The DQO process will enable the
permit writer to determine the level of uncertainty that is
acceptable to support each programmatic decision and, therefore,
the type and quality of data that must be collected. This
process results in optimal use of available resources.
The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP) has
developed a method for establishing DQOs. This guidance is
designed to improve permit writers’ understanding of the
principles represented by the DQO process and in the value of
systematically evaluating the specific data needs of each
situation. In explaining the value of DQOs, an analogy may be
drawn with a trip to the grocery store before preparing a meal.
Care must be taken in determining the nature of items needed, the
number and size of each item, and perhaps the brand name
(representing quality and price). Without these details, it is
quite probable that the shopper will buy either too much or too
little of the items needed or even the wrong things. Two results
are possible: either too much money is spent for unnecessary and
extravagant items or too little is purchased, which prevents the
meal from being prepared. Similarly, permit writers have the
potential to require extensive monitoring as part of the permit
issuance process or as part of compliance evaluation. Through
the systematic examination of objectives, the DQO process
attempts to identify only the necessary data elements and to
optimize the use of limited monitoring resources.
The permit writer should not accept any data at face value.
Rather, he/she should use data from these sources only when they
meet the DQOe set forth during the permit development process.
State and Regional permit writers should develop their own DQOs
that are tailored to requirements of their permitting policies.
At a minimum, those DQOs should meet and be consistent with the
Federal DQO guidelines. The issues discussed in this document
provide NPDES permit writers with a basis for developing DQOs and
a sensitivity toward the DQO factors: precision, accuracy,
comparability, representativeness, and completeness.
NPDES permit writers typically collect environmental dat3
1—1
-------
primarily to derive permit limits and to evaluate the discharge’s
effects on the environment. Prior to setting permit limits,
permit writers must collect data on the characteristics of the
receiving waters and the facility’s wastewater discharges. Data
on the receiving water must be collected to determine if water
quality—based limits are needed, the extent of environmental
degradation, and specific problems (e.g., metals accumulation in
the sediment) that should be addressed through the permitting
process. The permittee’s discharge also should be evaluated to
determine specific constituents and their concentrations, as well
as the overall level of toxicity in the effluent. These data can
assist the permit writer in determining if toxicity limits are
necessary or which constituents must be limited.
Data are also needed after the permit is issued to evaluate
the impacts of the discharge on the receiving stream. Methods
for data collection can involve such measures as chemical or
biological testing of the effluent and/or receiving stream,
ambient biological surveys of the receiving stream, and sediment
analysis. This document will explain the relevance of the DQO
process and concepts to these aspects of the NPDES permitting
program.
Environmental data play a critical role in many NPDES
decisions by providing information to decision makers on the
quantity and quality of the effluent, the status of compliance
with permit requirements, the adequacy of operation and
maintenance procedures, and the impact on water quality. To
ensure that this data quality is adequate for use in decision
making, the permit writer must clearly define the regulatory
objectives of the program, the decisions that will be made with
the data collected, and the possible consequences of an incorrect
decision. The DQO process allows for the development of
unambiguous permits requiring the optimal collection of data
necessary to support program objectives.
Background of the NPDES Program
The NPDES permit process is authorized by Section 402(a) (1)
of the Clean Water Act. The permit process begins when the owner
or operator of a facility desiring to discharge wastewater
submits a permit application. All wastewater discharges to
waters of the United States from point sources must have an NPDES
permit.
The authority to issue permits may be delegated to States
meeting certain technical, administrative, and legal require-
ments. The NPDES permit program is administered by the 10
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions and 39 approved
NPDES States as of July 20, 1989. Not all of the States have
received delegation for the five categories of permit programs - -
municipal and industrial NPDES permits, NPDES permits for Federal
1—2
-------
facilities, pretreatment, general NPDES permits ano sludge
permits.
The types of application forms that proposed dischargers
must complete have changed as the NPDES program has evolved. The
older forms will eventually be replaced by revised application
forms. The current forms are:
Standard Form A and Short Form A-S are used by publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs). The standard form is used for
major dischargers and the short form is used for minor
dischargers. Definitions of “major” and “minor” may be found on
the application forms. These two forms will be replaced by Form
2A, which is now being developed by the Agency.
Form 1 is a general form and is used with all “series 2”
NPDES permit applications. It provides general information
including the name of the facility, location, and contact person.
The other four forms are used depending upon the type or class of
discharger.
Form 2B is used by concentrated animal feeding operations or
aquatic animal production facilities.
Form 2C is used by existing industrial dischargers,
including privately owned waste treatment facilities and water
treatment plants, whether publicly or privately owned.
Form 2D is used by the following categories of dischargers
if they discharge process wastes:
o New manufacturing and economical facilities
o New minor manufacturing and mining facilities
o New minor commercial dischargers.
Form 2E is used by new and existing facilities that
discharge only sanitary wastewater and/or noncontact cooling
water. (Form 2E is the revised Form 2C-S.)
is used for stormwater discharges associated with
industrial activity.
Approximately 32,200 facilities are expected to be able to
use Form 2C while approximately 15,600 facilities are expected to
be able to use Form 2E. Animal feedlot permits (Form 2B) number
about 2,900, while the number of new industrial dischargers is
expected to remain in the hundreds. As the number of permits for
existing sources far exceeds all other types of discharge
permits, processing Form 2C will remain the main topic of concern
with respect to industrial discharges.
1—3
-------
A considerable amount of correspondence may be required
before the permit writer obtains an application that can be
considered “complete” and “accurate.” Some offices employ
checklists to review application forms. In addition, it is often
useful to send form letters to applicants when certain portions
of the application are either missing or inadequate. As the
permit writer gains experience in writing permits, it will become
easier to detect omissions and errors in the permit application
form.
Overview of DQOs and the DQO Process
DQOs are statements of the level of uncertainty that a
decision maker is willing to accept in results derived from
environmental data, when the results are going to be used in a
regulatory or programmatic decision (e.g., setting or revising a
standard use or determining compliance). They are a tool that
the permit writer may use to ensure that resources are being
expended in the most efficient way, and that data collected are
sufficient to support the decision-making process and not
extraneous to that process. To be complete, these quantitative
DQOs must be accompanied by clear statements of:
o Decision to be made
o Why environmental data are needed and how they will be
used
o Time and resource constraints on data collection
o Descriptions of the environmental data to be collected
o Specifications regarding the domain of the decision
o Calculations, statistical or otherwise, that will be
performed on the data in order to arrive at a result.
This document explains the information needed for each of the
items above and suggests a step-by-step process by which all of
the items may be prepared.
The document also presents four scenarios to illustrate the
DQO process (see Appendix A). These scenarios summarize real-
life permitting decisions faced by permit writers. They are
intended to show how the DQO process can be employed to help the
permit writer systematize his/her permitting efforts and ensure
that all data elements are complete.
Developing DQO5 should be the first step in initiating any
significant environmental data collection program that will be
conducted by or for EPA or State agencies. The DQO process helps
1—4
-------
to define the purposes for which environmental data will be used
and sets guidelines for designing a data collection program that
will meet the agency’s regulatory objectives. Once DQOs have
been developed and a design for the data collection activity
expected to achieve these objectives has been selected, DQO5 are
used to define quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC)
requirements specifically tailored to the data collection program
being initiated. A “QA Project Plan” is prepared, documenting
all of the activities needed to ensure that the data collection
program will produce environmental data of the type and quality
required to satisfy the DQOs. Without first developing DQO5, a
QA program can only be used to document the quality of obtained
data, rather than to ensure that the data quality obtained will
be sufficient to support a (permitting) decision.
The DQO process consists of three stages, each containing
several steps. The first two stages result in proposed DQO5 with
accompanying specifications and constraints for designing the
data collection program. In the third stage, potential designs
for the data collection program are evaluated. Stage III results
in selecting a design both that is compatible with the
constraints and that is expected to meet the DQOs. The process
is meant to be interactive. The proposed constraints from Stage
I, the proposed DQO5 from Stage I, the proposed DQO5 from Stage
II, and the design alternatives analyzed in Stage III must be
compatible.
Stage I: Define the Decision
This stage is the decision maker’s responsibility. The
decision maker states an initial perception of what decision must
be made, what information is needed, why and when it is needed,
how it will be used, and what the consequences will be if
adequate information is not available. Initial estimates of the
time and resources that can reasonably be made available for the
data collection activity are presented.
Stage II: Clarify the Information Needed for the Decision
This stage is primarily the responsibility of the senior
program staff with guidance and oversight from the decision maker
and input from technical staff. The information from Stage I is
carefully examined and discussed with the decision maker to
ensure that senior program staff understand as many of the
nuances of the program as possible. After this interactive
process, senior program staff members discuss each aspect of the
initial problem, exercising their prerogative to reconsider key
elements from a technical or policy standpoint. The outcome of
their work, once explained and concurred upon by the decision
maker, leads to the generation of specific guidance for designing
the data collection program. The products of Stage II include
proposed statements of the type and quality of environmental data
1—5
-------
required to support the decision, along with other technical
constraints on the data collection activity that will place
bounds on the search for an acceptable design in Stage III.
These outputs are the proposed DQO5.
Stage III: Design the Data Collection Prograa
This stage is primarily the responsibility of the technical
staff. However, it involves both the senior program staff and
the decision maker to ensure that the outputs from Stages I and
II are understood. The objective of Stage III is to develop data
collection plans that will meet the criteria and constraints
established in Stages I and II. It is the prerogative of the
decision maker to select the final design that provides the best
balance between time and resources available for data collection
and the level of uncertainty expected in the final results.
Precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and
comparability are characteristics that serve to qualitatively and
quantitatively identify a particular set of data. All data are
subject to error. Different types of errors occur during the
accumulation and interpretation of data. When the errors become
magnified, the data quality decreases. In some cases, this
situation cannot be avoided. It is important to know the
“quality” of data when evaluating NPDES permits (e.g., discharge
monitoring report (DMR) data). Each of these five DQO factors is
explained below.
Precision
Precision is used to describe the reproducibility of
results. The precision of an analytical procedure can be
determined by replicate analyses (more than one) of a uniform
sample. Precision refers to the agreement among a group of
experimental results and implies nothing about their relationship
to the true value. In the case of a single laboratory and
analyst, the sample is analyzed N (>1) independent times under a
specified set of conditions. The method used to analyze the
sample is the same in all cases. Analytical precision varies
over the range of a procedure and is worst near the detection
limit. This is important in monitoring because many pollutants
are regulated near the detection limit.
Pollutants such as cyanide and mercury are regulated near
the detection limit, and the precision of the analyses for these
pollutants is strongly affected by the presence of other
pollutants in the sample, referred to as interferences or matrix
effects. For example, EPA’S ambient water quality criteria for
cyanide (49 Fed. Rea..4551 ) propose an acute freshwater toxicity
concentration of 22 ugh of free cyanide (HCN + CN—) and a
chronic toxicity concentration of 4.2 ugh. However, the
approved NPDES analytical procedure for total cyanide has a
1—6
-------
detection limit of 20 ugh. Precision data for the test
procedure using mixed industrial and domestic wastewater samples
at concentrations of 60 and 280 ugh indicate standard deviations
of +5 and 31 ugh, respectively.
Determining analytical precision is made more difficult by
theoretical limitations because most statistical analyses of
scientific data assume a constant variance over a range of
concentrations, which rarely occurs. Although analytical
precision can and does affect variability, it can be quantified
and taken into consideration when reporting data for NPDES
permits. Usually the methods used for water and wastewater
analysis have precision and accuracy factors reported.
The term “accuracy” means the nearness of a measurement to
its real, or true, value. The true value of any quantity is
really not known. In analytical chemistry, the analyst acts as
though the true value of a quantity were known when the
uncertainty in the value is less than the uncertainty in
something else with which it is being compared. For example, the
percentage composition of a standard sample can be treated as
correct in evaluating an analytical method: differences between
the standard values and the results obtained by the analytical
method are treated as errors in the method.
An accurate result agrees closely with the real value. The
closer the result to the real value, the more accurate the
result. A typical analysis could give results that are accurate
with respect to the true value but not be precise. Precise
values may well be inaccurate since an error causing deviation
from the true value can affect all the measurements. When
evaluating a particular test method, precision and accuracy
characterize the amount of variability and bias found in a given
data set. Essentially, all the data reported in the DMR are
controlled by requiring the use of EPA-approved test procedures.
In addition, EPA and State permitting authorities inspect
permittee laboratories on a regulatory basis. Performance
evaluation samples are sent to each major permittee once a year
with results evaluated by EPA.
Information about accuracy is available for most
EPA-approved analytical methods. The notable exceptions are BOO
and TSS, the parameters most commonly regulated under the NPDES
program. Accuracy information is not available for TSS because
no standards exist against which the accuracy of this test can be
measured. As for BOD, there is no organic substance that
produces an equivalent to its theoretical oxygen demand because
the BOD test is actually a biological rather than a chemical
analytical test.
1—7
-------
comparability
comparability is another characteristic associated with the
data quality set. It refers to the similarity of data evaluation
from different sources. Standard procedures for sampling sites,
analyses of samples, and reporting of analyses must be observed
to ensure that comparability of results is maintained. For
example, if more than one person is collecting samples for an
analysis, the same procedures for handling and preservation must
be used to ensure comparable results. Different procedures will
have different accuracy and precision levels, thus invalidating a
comparison of results. As another example, if more than one
laboratory is analyzing the samples from a particular
wastestream, the same procedures for the analytical test should
be used, preferably with identical instrumentation. Each
instrument has its own set of errors that will invariably affect
the accuracy and precision of the results. Using identical
procedures ensures that the different data sources are measuring
similar parameters and performing the measurements in the same
way.
Re resentat iveness
Representativeness refers to the extent to which the data
collected accurately reflect the group or medium being sampled.
An example would be the case of dilution. If a plant discharges
its wastewater to a stream and it is diluted with stormwater
before the sampling point, the result will not be representative
with respect to the treatment plant effluent. Sampling before
the stormuater dilution point provides a more accurate assessment
of pollutant concentrations and loadings discharged to the
receiving stream.
Another example of representativeness is sample type. Since
waste flows can vary widely in magnitude and composition over a
24-hour period, the sampling type is important. Grab samples
reflect the chemical composition at a given instant. A grab or
noncomposited sample will not distinguish any differences in the
waste flow, whereas the composite sample technique will.
Composite samples average stream composition over time. When
sufficient samples are taken and mixed together (amount of sample
should be proportional to flow for greater accuracy), the results
obtained will be similar to taking a sample from a
completely mixed tank and more representative numbers will
result. On the other hand, if batch processes are the method of
production (prepared at one time) and composite samples of the
wastewater are taken, erroneous results may distort the data.
1—8
-------
Composite Samples are not always the most representative
samples of a waste discharge. Some wastewater characteristics
change rapidly with time or cannot be coxnposited, resulting in
nonrepresentative samples if 24-hour composite samples are used.
These characteristics are pH, temperature, cyanide, total
phenols, residual chlorine, oil and grease, and fecal coliforms.
Although NPDES regulations specify that grab samples must be used
for these pollutants when sampling the wastewater for a NPDES
permit application (40 CFR 122.21(g) (7)], the sample type
specified on an individual NPDES permit is left to the permit
writer’s discretion. Consequently, some D data are reported
using grab samples, while other data are from composite samples.
Not only are the data unrepresentative of the facility’s
discharge, but comparability of data from different sources may
not be valid.
Coin 1eteness
Completeness refers to the amount of data that is collected
with respect to the amount intended or required. A certain
percentage of the intended amount of data must be collected
before conclusions based on the data can be drawn. For example,
a flow is measured four times a year for a plant that operates
continuously 7 days a week, 365 days a year (an exaggerated
case). The four measurements are not enough to characterize
accurately the flow being discharged. In addition, nothing is
said about changes in flow, process upsets, or diurnal swings
resulting from seasonal changes. More information is required
before the flow can be fully characterized with respect to the
plant and its surroundings. Conclusions cannot be readily drawn
and compliance with NPDES permits cannot be determined without
sufficient data.
Completeness is of great concern in the development and
maintenance of the permit development files and background
documents. These reports and data are critical to the entire
permit process as they provide the documented basis upon which
the permit was derived—-documentation that is vital if the permit
is ever challenged.
The following table describes some of the general
considerations relevant to determining the basis for permit
limits, setting permit limits, and determining compliance.
1—9
-------
TABLE I
Precision
Accuracy
Comparability
Rcprcsentativcness
Completeness
Determining the Basis
For Limit Setting
Procedures and
methodologies used to
collect data and evaluate
the stream and discharge
characteristics muss be
reproducible. They
should be based on
standardized, accepted
methods.
Data should be
compared to known
values and standards to
determine the accuracy
of stream and discharge
measurements.
Data collection and
analysis for the same
facility or stream must
be made with the same
procedures, so that
data from different
sampling events are
comparable.
Data must be collected
that represent the actual
discharge and stream
conditions as accurately
as possible. Sampling
designs must take into
account site specific
characteristics, such as
hardness, dilution,
stream flow patterns, etc.
Enough data must be
collected to provide the
permit writer with a
picture of the Situation
under all circumstances,
such as high and low
flow conditions.
l)ata used as a basis for setting limits must have all the qualities mentioned above to ensure that limits are both protective of the receiving stream and accurately reflect
the pollutants and/or toxicity of the facility’s discharge.
l)cterniining Compliane
wiili l crmii Limits
Pc i mit writers should
determine and specify
exact sampling and
analysis protocols that
ensure the reproducibil-
ity of self-monitoring and
compliance monitoring
data.
Whenever possible,
sample analysis must
compare effluent
samples to known
standards. Acceptable
levels of error should be
determined by the
NPDES authority.
Laboratories that
perform analysis should
be required to report
levels of error.
Permuttecs should be
required to use
consistent method-
ologies for sampling and
analysis to allow for
comparisons of data over
time.
Monitoring requirements
should be designed to
provide the NPDES
authority
with a representative
picture of the discharge
and, where appropriate.
instream impacts. For
example, permit writers
may wish to specify more
than one species for
toxicity testing to ensure
that the most sensitive as
well as least sensitive
species are evaluated.
ilie permit writer should
require thai enough
monitoring data are
collected to evaluate ilic
permuuee under all
conditions, such as
changing flows,
manufacturing processes,
etc
-------
2. PERMIT DEVELOPMENT
NPDES permit writers need to collect a significant amount of
data to determine the appropriate basis for setting limits and to
derive those limits. The decision to impose technology-based or
water quality-based limits on a facility will depend on whether
the receiving water quality is meeting designated uses. To
determine if the receiving water quality is impaired, permit
writers can conduct or require to be conducted a number of
biological and chemical tests.
In evaluating permit applications and developing permits,
NPDES permit writers can use a broad range of information
sources. These sources can be used to check or uncover
discrepancies in the application forms, obtain more information
from or about the discharger, and guide the permit writer in
identifying appropriate technological or water quality-based
limits.
Information Souróes
o NPDES application forms
o Abstracts of Industrial NPDES Permits
o NPDES Best Manaaement Practices Guidance Document
o Technical Su ort Document for the Development of Water
quality—Based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants
o Economic achievability protocol ( Workbook for
Determining Economic Achievabilitv for NPDES Permits ,
August 1982)
o NEIC reports on specific facilities
o Toxicity reduction evaluations for selected industries
o Industry experts within EPA
o Section 308 questionnaires
o Effluent guidelines information
— Screening and verification data
— Development documents
— Contractors’ reports
2—1
-------
- Proposed regulations
- Project officers
o Permit Compliance System (PCS) data
o Permit file
- Previous NPDES application forms
- Discharge monitoring reports
— Compliance inspection reports
o Other media permit files (such as Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit applications)
o Technical journals and books
o STORET
o Other data bases (e.g., Chemical Information System
(CIS)]
o Local permitting authority’s regulations
o Treatability manuals.
Prior, to performing any tests or requiring the permittee to
perform tests, the NPDES permit writer should evaluate the data
and data quality needs of the permit development process:
o Decisions to be made with the data
o Why data are needed and how they will be used
o Time and resource constraints on data collection
o Descriptions of data to be collected
o Domain of the decision
o Calculations that will be performed on the data.
These steps constitute Stages I and II and should avoid the
collection of unnecessary or unusable data. Each of these steps
is discussed below in the context of NPDES permit writing.
STAGE I: DEFINING THE DECISION
In the permit development phase, two major decisions must be
made by the NPDES permit writer. The permit writer must
2—2
-------
determine a basis for the limits (e.g., technology-based or water
quality-based) and, once this has been done, the parameters to be
regulated and the specific limits. To make these decisions, the
permit writer will need to collect and analyze a substantial
amount of data on the facility’s discharge characteristics and
the receiving stream.
Prior to collecting these data, the permit writer should set
DQO5 using the three-stage process described in this document.
For each major decision described above, the Stage I analysis
will be discussed.
Determining the Basis for L 1 imit Setting
To determine if a facility’s limits should be based on
technology or water quality considerations, the permit writer
needs to collect data on the permittee’s discharge and the water
quality of the receiving stream. In some cases, data
requirements may be substantial. Where dynamic modeling is
necessary to determine the need for technology-based or water
quality—based limits, data collection may need to be extensive
and precise. However, if simple dilution analysis is used as a
screening tool, data needs may be much more limited. The DQO
process allows the permit writer to determine both the needed
data elements and the necessary data quality from the outset,
avoiding collection of unusable, extraneous, or insufficient
data.
Why Data are Needed and How They Will be Used
Data on the facility’s discharge and the receiving stream
are needed to determine if technology-based standards will
achieve designated uses, if designated uses are currently being
met, and the current impact of the discharge on stream quality.
Data on the facility’s effluent are needed to reveal the presence
of toxic, nonbiodegradable, and/or bioaccumulative pollutants;
oxygen demanding pollutants; pH; and overall toxicity. Using
dilution analysis or modeling, these data can predict instream
impacts under different scenarios (e.g., no treatment,
technology—based limits, or water quality-based limits). Data on
the receiving stream can identify specific problems, such as
contaminated sediments, impacts on indigenous species, and
bioaccumulation of toxics in fish, that may be addressed in the
permit. These data will be used to determine the basis for
setting limits and to justify the types of limits incorporated
into the permit.
Time and Resource Constraints on Data Collection
Time constraints on data collection may depend on the date
that the previous permit expires, seasonal changes that affect
2—3
-------
data gathering, or statutory deadlines. The permit writer will.
need to design data-gathering plans that allow for the timely
issuance of permits, while providing adequate input into the
permit development process. Resource constraints may be felt by
both the permitting authority and the permitted facility.
It is important to understand that monitoring in the context
of an NPDES permit is primarily carried out by the permittee and
is, therefore, a self-monitoring program. Potential problems
that can result from a self-monitoring system include improper
sample collection, poor analytical technique, falsification of
records, and other abuses of the system. The DQO process should
address these potential problems.
Deriving Permit Limits
To derive permit limits, the permit writer must collect and
evaluate information on the types of processes at the facility,
the pollutants detected in the wastestreaxn, the treatment
processes, effluent toxicity, and in some cases, receiving water
assimilative capacity. The permit limits derived from these data
may have a significant economic impact on the permittee and a
significant environmental impact on the receiving stream.
Consequently, it is important to obtain high-quality data that
accurately reflect the discharge and receiving streams.
Decision to be Made
The decision made during this phase of the permit
development process is two—fold: which parameters should be
limited and what should those specific limits be? Data
collected during the characterization of the facility and the
receiving stream are intended to answer these questions.
Why Data are Needed and How They Will be Used
Data are needed to determine if the facility is subject to
categorical standards, if it can meet those standards, and what
those standards must be if process waste mixes with nonprocess
waste. If the facility cannot meet categorical standards,
compliance schedules must be developed. Variability in the
wastestream composition and treatment performance will help the
permit writer obtain instantaneous and average limits. If the
facility must meet water-quality based limits, the appropriate
dilution available to the facility must be determined, which may
entail the use of models with very specific data requirements.
In addition, data can be used to identify pollutants present in
the discharge that must be limited in the permit. The type of
model used to develop appropriate permit limits (e.g., steady
state or dynamic) will determine many of the DQOs. Model inputs
typically include low (7Q10) and average stream flow, wastewater
2—4
-------
flow (used to determine the instream waste concentration), and
the size of the mixing zone. For more information on model
inputs, please refer to EPA’s Technical SuPDort Document for
Water Quality—Based Toxics Control .
The model provides a measure of effluent quality that is
necessary to protect water quality in the receiving water. It is
very important to consider how the model addresses variability in
effluent quality. For example, a model output for nutrients or
bioaccumulative pollutants could be expressed as the average
effluent quality, because the total loading of these pollutants
is of concern. On the other hand, an output for toxic pollutants
is normally expressed as a maximum value for the effluent because
the concentration of these pollutants is of more concern than the
total loading. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the
duration and frequency of occurrence of the required effluent
quality is an important aspect of a water quality model.
There is a significant risk of incorrectly using the output
from a water quality model if effluent variability and the basis
for both the water quality model and the permit limits are not
considered. The permit writer should be especially careful to
ensure that the limits designed to implement the recommendations
of water quality models are consistent with the assumptions and
requirements associated with those models.
Time and Resource Constraints
The permit writer faces time and resource constraints in
collecting data that are used to calculate limits. If water
quality—based limits for specific pollutants or toxicity are
needed, data collection can be particularly extensive. Water
quality models often require large amounts of site-specific
stream data. Data completeness requirements for modeling may be
difficult to achieve. Technology-based permits require less
data, as they do not involve analysis of the receiving stream.
To ensure that resources are effectively used, permit writers
should determine all necessary data elements prior to initiating
extensive data gathering. This can be done by selecting water
quality models and/or methodologies for setting limits in advance
of requiring data-gathering by the permittee. For example, if
the facility is located on a water quality—limited stream, the
permit writer can then begin to identify needed data and require
such data through the permit application or a Section 308 letter.
STAGE II: CLARIFYING THE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR THE DECISION
In this stage, senior program staff members should review
the DQOs developed in Stage I to ensure that all necessary data
elements have been identified, that the quality of needed
environmental data will be adequate, and that all relevant
2—5
-------
technical and policy issues are addressed. After Stage II
analysis has been completed, statements should be written on the
tvce and aualitv of environmental data to be collected ,
specifications on the domain of the decision, and the
calculations that will be performed on the data. The following
sections discuss these statements in the context of the permit
development process.
Description of Data to be Collected
Once the permit writer has determined why data are needed
and how they will be used, he/she should describe precisely what
data are needed, including general monitoring points (e.g.,
treatment plant influent and final effluent, sediment below
outfall, and various locations on the receiving stream). In
addition, the permit writer should specify the type of test
(e.g., 48—hour static acute toxicity test with Da hnia pulex , or
priority pollutant scan) and the frequency with which the test
needs to be conducted. The types of samples (e.g., grab or
composite), the sampling frequency, and the analytical methods
should be established at this stage or in Stage III, where the
overall data collection strategy is developed. However, the data
descriptions should be sufficient to meet all data needs and to
be statistically significant (representative sampling). Also,
the data should reflect variability resulting from seasonal
changes in the receiving environment and fluctuations in plant
processes and treatment plant operations.
Domain of the Decision
In the case of NPDES permit development, the domain of the
decision is, at a minimum, the permitted facility and the
receiving environment. If the receiving stream is water quality-
limited and a wasteload allocation is used to set permit limits,
more than one facility may be affected by the decision. The
spatial boundaries of the receiving stream affected by the
decision depend on the area of impact from the effluent. The
temporal impact of the decision will be the duration of the
permit, or until the permit is reopened.
Calculations of Data
As part of the DQO process, the permit writer should
identify all calculations, such as dilution analysis, deter1nLrur g
the contribution of nonprocess wastestreams, or calculating
appropriate categorical standards as they apply to the end of e
pipe. Identification of calculations can help the permit wrLter
determine the data inputs needed in terms of Drecision and
accuracy prior to initiating data gathering. This ensures that
data gathering is complete and that the data are of sufficient
quality to be useful in performing the calculations.
2 -5
-------
STAGE III: DESIGN OP THE DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM
The permit writer should design a data collection plan that
is tailored to the characteristics of the permitted facility. A
number of factors should be taken into account in designing the
plan: types of chemicals expected in wastestream, manufacturing
processes, treatment units, size of the facility (flow), and
physical and chemical characteristics of the receiving stream.
In determining the extent of any new data-gathering
activities, the permit writer should be aware of any available
information, such as the facility’s existing NPDES permit, the
permit application, discharge monitoring reports, inspection
reports, and any actual effluent sample analysis data or toxicity
test results. In addition, water quality information can be
retrieved from STORET.
Information may also be available from Section 308 letters
sent to the facility. The permit writer may wish to consider the
use of Section 308 letters as an integral part of the data
collection process. The use of Section 308 letters can be
consistent with the intent of the DQO process. For example, if a
complex facility’s permit is approaching renewal and it is known
that the facility will be submitting only a single set of
analytical data, a Section 308 letter could be used to reduce the
expenditure of resources on the part of both the permit writer
and the permittee. A Section 308 letter could be used to explain
the data needs and to request the required information (Section
308 letters used to request additional data or monitoring should
include a statement that sampling and analysis must be in
accordance with EPA approved procedures). A time savings is
realized since both the permit writer and the facility are
immediately aware of the data needs. Additionally, resources are
saved since the permittee can design the sampling and analysis
scheme just once, knowing that the information required will be
acceptable to the permitting agency.
The factors above should all be carefully considered and
serve as the basis for designing a sampling plan. The sampling
plan should provide for the collection of representative data
necessary to identify water quality impacts from the facility,
those wastewater constituents that are causing the impacts, the
current level of treatment, the level of treatment necessary to
mitigate the adverse environmental impacts, and the sources of
the constituents responsible for the impacts (e.g., spills or
specific processes).
2—7
-------
3. DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT LIMITS
Introduction
There are a number of methods to determine a facility’s
compliance with its NPDES permit and the quality of reported
data. The annual D!’ QA program is designed to evaluate the
ability of permittees to analyze and report self-monitoring data
accurately. The results of performance evaluations are compared
among other major permittees as well as other State and EPA
laboratories. Responding permittees receive an evaluation of
their data and are given guidance for checking for various error
sources. In addition, while performance evaluations can indicate
analytical problems, data quality can also be ascertained through
on-site laboratory audits where analytical procedures,
preservation techniques and quality control procedures can be
reviewed.
NPDES permits require that monitoring frequency and sample
type be specified for all effluent characteristics contained in
the permit. Monitoring frequency varies from permittee to
perinittee and between parameters within a given NPDES permit.
Some State agencies have policies regarding sampling frequency of
common parameters, such as BOD and TSS, with different
frequencies for POTWs, major perinittees, and minor perinittees.
In most cases, monitoring frequency is left to the discretion of
the permit writer who may consider the importance of the
pollutant in characterizing the discharge, the cost of the
analysis, and the number of parameters monitored, in determining
sampling frequency.
Sampling frequency affects the representativeness of the
data collected, not the representativeness of the sample. In
most cases, a sampling frequency of three times per week will
produce data that are more representative of the wastewater
discharge than a frequency of once per week. Ideally,
statistical procedures should be used to determine the number of
samples per month needed to provide a statistically significant
characterization of the data. Using statistics to determine the
sampling frequency will result in more frequent sampling of
effluent discharges that are highly variable, whereas permittees
discharging a consistent quality effluent need to monitor less
frequently.
Sampling frequency is also important in determining
compliance with NPDES permits. Compliance is based on monthly
and/or weekly average values and daily maximum values as reported
on the permittee’s DMRs. The monthly average can be based on a
single sample, 2 samples, or 31 samples (for each day of the
month), depending on the monitoring frequency; the same is true
for the weekly average. The daily maximum is the highest value
3—1
-------
for the month and may be either the highest of up to 31 samples
or the only value for the month; therefore, it could be the same
as the monthly average if the monitoring frequency is once per
month. Infrequent sampling may result in a violation of the
monthly average if a single high value is averaged with a small
number of lower values. A violation of the daily maximum may not
result if the daily maximum limit is much greater than the
monthly average permit limit. Consequently, the sampling
frequency is related to data representativeness in determining
compliance with permit limitations and apparent compliance or
noncompliance may be a function of sampling frequency, rather
than treatment system performance.
In terms of determining compliance, there are no differences
in data quality requirements between water quality-based and
technology—based permits that limit specific pollutants. In both
cases, compliance is determined by the pollutant concentrations
or mass loadings in the effluent being discharged since NPDES
permits limit the concentrations or mass loading in the effluent.
The difference exists in the water quality data used to develop
the effluent limits for a water quality-based permit. The permit
writer collects all available ambient water quality data, usually
from the STORET data base or local studies. Desk-top
calculations employing a mass balance or computerized water
quality models are used to determine the allowable effluent
discharge concentrations for the point source of interest based
on the ambient water quality concentrations and water quality
standards or criteria of the pollutants and low flow conditions.
These allowable effluent concentrations become the effluent
limitations for a water quality-based permit.
In addition to determining compliance, DMR data are used to
develop effluent guidelines limitations and in some cases, pernu.t
limits. In developing effluent guidelines limitations for an
industrial category, EPA collects daily data from a number of
facilities in the category. Data from several facilities are
compared and grouped into subcategories. Long—term averages of
the data are computed along with variability factors. The
variability factors account for fluctuations in treatment plant
performance, analytical error, and differences among facilities
within a subcategory. The daily maximum and monthly average
limitations are computed as the product of the long-term averages
and corresponding variability factors.
In cases where effluent guidelines limitations do not exist
for an industrial facility (noncategorical industry), permit
writers can derive effluent limitations based on D!ffi data, permit
abstracts, and detailed process data provided by the permittee.
The methodology used depends on the permit writer, but
statistical procedures are commonly used.
3—2
-------
STAGE I: DEFINING THE DECISION
Each direct discharger is regulated by an NPDES permit that
specifies the point of discharge, limits on pollutants in the
discharge, and self—monitoring requirements. The terms of each
permit are determined largely by the permit writer following
policies and regulations provided by EPA Headquarters. Permit
writers must then define the type of data that must be obtained
to support decisions made under the authority of the Clean Water
Act and the regulations promulgated pursuant to it. The decision
maker must also determine why and when the information is needed,
how it is to be collected, and what the consequences will be if
data of adequate quality are unavailable, and make initial
estimates of the time and resources that can be reasonably made
available for any data collection activities.
The stage of defining the decision typically occurs in four
steps. During Step 1, the decision maker determines the purpose
for which data are needed and presents an initial explanation of
why the information is needed and the decision that must be made.
Data collection activities that occur under the NPDES program may
be designed and carried out to determine compliance status of the
permittee and to decide upon appropriate remedial actions.
Overall, data collection activities support the following
determinations:
o Adequacy of construction progress
o Performance of treatment systems
o Compliance status of NPDES permittees
o Establishment of permit limits based on effluent
guidelines, water quality standards, and BPJ.
To support these decisions, the permit writer must have a clear
idea of the types of information needed for the decision.
In Step 2, the decision maker places initial bounds on the
problem. This step allows the decision maker to address general
questions that will guide the data collection activity. For
example, the permit writer might wish to consider the time period
in which data must be collected (such as season or time of day);
the type of sample (grab or composite); and the frequency of
monitoring. These elements are then determined and described in
the permit. The primary data needed from the permittee are
self-monitoring data, which are reported in the DMR. Ensuring
the quality of the data reported by the permittee for decision-
making purposes requires careful thought by the permit writer
about the data elements necessary to determine compliance and
characterize effluents.
3—3
-------
In Step 3, the decision maker defines the uses of the data
in effluent characterization and compliance assessment. Effluent
data are needed to determine:
o Precise quality and quantity of effluent
o Status of compliance with permit requirements
o Adequacy of operation and maintenance procedures
o Impact on water quality.
Lastly, the decision maker considers the constraints of time
and resources on data collection. The purpose of a resource
estimate is to provide gross guidance and to propose some initial
constraints on the resources available for the data collection
activity. (Estimates generated during this stage should be
considered subject to modification pending the results of the
final stage when the balance between desired data quality, time,
and resources is quantitatively assessed.)
Rationale for Self-Monitoring
Since it is not logistically or financially possible for the
regulatory agency to collect and analyze all of the samples from
a perinittee’s wastestream necessary to support compliance
determinations, the burden of data collection falls primarily on
the perinittee. Self-monitoring provides the foundation of the
NPDES program and is the primary basis for ensuring that permit
limitations are met. It is also a basis for enforcement actions
against permittees that violate their permits. Since
monitoring for the NPDES permit system is primarily
self-monitoring, there is a potential for problems to result,
including improper sample collection, improper sample handling,
poor analytical technique, falsification of the records, and
other abuses.
The permit stipulates that “self-monitoring” requirements
are the discharger’s responsibility. Typically, the permit sets
forth the frequency and type (grab and/or composite) of sampling
requirements as well as the flow monitoring, analytical, and data
reporting requirements. The validity or quality of the DMR data
is ultimately the permittee’s responsibility and is a direct
result of the adequacy and functioning of the perinittee’s
self-monitoring program. For the program to function properly,
data requirements must be structured so that responses will
provide the decision makers with information necessary to
determine compliance and support enforcement.
3—4
-------
STAGE II: CLARIFYING THE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR THE DECISION
In the second stage, senior program staff members typically
generate the specific guidance to design the data collection
program based upon guidance and oversight from the decision maker
and input from other technical staff members. The final products
of this stage include statements of the type and quality of the
data required to support the decision in question, along with
other technical constraints on the data collection activity.
In order to manage the NPDES program most effectively with
limited resources, OWEP has developed objective criteria for
making decisions based on the best available data. The criteria
were needed to support and act upon effluent violations of
primary concern. These violations are defined as a subset of
those instances of noncompliance reported on Quarterly
Noncompliance Reports and are called Significant Noncompliance
(SNC). The SNC is used to report violations of primary concern
within EPA’S management accountability system and generally
indicates the need for agency action. The SNC criteria are
described and illustrated in the Guidance for Preparation of
Quarterly and Semi-Annual NoncolnD].iance Reoorts (pet 40 CFR
123.45).
In the NPDES programs, regulations are in place and the need
for compliance and enforcement monitoring is already defined.
Therefore, the DQO process will most likely be initiated during
Stage II, where the permit writer must focus on interpreting the
data needs specified implicitly or explicitly by the regulations
and incorporating them into conditions in the permit. The per!ut
writer will also need to determine the level of uncertainty
tolerable in the enforcement and compliance data.
Stage II is typically broken down into a series of steps
described briefly below.
Step 1 : Break Decision into Decision Elements -— Program
staff members identify all questions that must be answered to
make a decision. Answers to these questions will be referred to
as “elements” of the decision in the remainder of the document.
Each element of the decision should be classified as either
dependent or not dependent on the data.
a . . .2: Specify Data Needed —- In this step, data that
will be needed for each element should be specified. Data should
be specified in terms of the variables (e.g., specific
pollutants) for which quantitative estimates are desired and the
medium in which they will be measured.
SteD 3 : Define the Domain of the Decision -— The domaLn
is that portion of the environment or physical system, delineated
by spatial and temporal boundaries, from which samples will be
3—5
-------
collected and to which the decision will apply. The domain in
the NPDES program refers to the type of facilities from which
data are needed. In the NPDES program, there are 65,000
permittees, including municipal and industrial facilities. As a
matter of priority, EPA focuses compliance action on 7,500 major
perinittees. The violations review action criteria (VRAC) in the
Enforcement Management System (EMS) and the Technical Review
Criteria on determining significant noncompliance are used to
select permittees with persistent problems.
Step 4 : Define the Results to be Derived from the Data
—- The results consist of analyzed data that will be used to make
the final decision. The results should answer the questions
first posed in Stages I and II. The definition of the result
should include the following items:
o Statistics that will be used to summarize the data
(e.g., mean, range, and medium)
o “Action level” or other value to which the summary
statistic will be compared
o For trends monitoring and research programs, the
reference value (if any) to which the summary statistic
will be compared.
Nature of Compliance Data
Because of the number of permittees involved, controlling
data quality is a very complex task. For OWEP, controlling data
quality is primarily an oversight function. Primary
responsibility for the overall quality is dependent upon the
permit writer; thus, the Regions and the States have control over
data quality. Factors that influence data quality include:
o The level of data quality varies for each perinittee as
specified in the permit. Regions and NPDES State
agencies control data quality through permit writing
and compliance monitoring.
o The program relies heavily on self-monitoring, so
knowledge of appropriate analytical techniques by
permittees is critical. Training, inspection, and
dissemination of information on approved methods are
important.
o To control data quality, the use of 304(h) rules (EPA-
approved test procedures) to analyze pollutants is
required. The specific methods are promulgated by
EPA’s Office of Research and Development under 40 CFR
Part 136.
3—6
-------
Determjnina the Variables Needed and the Gaps that Need to be
F i ] . led
Data collection always involves some error. Error is an
inherent characteristic of any sampling design, method used for
sample collection or sample analysis, and statistics employed for
raw data interpretation. With these potential error sources in
mind, the permit writer must establish limits on the total error
that can be accepted in the results of the data collection
process in order to use the results in decision making. The
conclusions based on effluent data may be in error in two ways.
The effluent parameter values may be too high, which would show
violations where none actually exist; or conversely, the values
may be too low, thereby indicating compliance incorrectly.
Another factor to consider is that a sample may not be truly
representative of the effluent, thus triggering the errors
mentioned above. Referring to the appropriate industry effluent
guideline (promulgated under Sections 301 and 304 of the Clean
Water Act) will aid in ensuring that the data collected will
correctly and accurately reflect the characteristics being
measured. The guidelines include a careful statistical analysis,
taking into account data variability. The guidelines are
established at the upper bounds of acceptable treatment facility
performance. Thus, a normally functioning treatment facility
will have a very low probability of exceeding permit limitati ’ ns.
STAGE III: DESIGN OF THE DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM
Collecting data is a multistep process that includes
elements of statistical design, selection of sampling sites, the
actual collection and analysis of the samples, data validation,
and interpretation of the results. Selecting the method that
incorporates each of these steps can vary widely depending upon
data quality and level of acceptable risk that is associated with
the decision to be made. In Stages I and II, the decision was
defined and the objectives summarized to provide the basis for
selecting the best approach to data collection in Stage III.
This final stage focuses on evaluating the problems associated
with each approach, and balancing the time and resource
constraints against data quality and resultant levels of
acceptable risk (each option has a different implication in terms
of cost, time, data quality, and the risk of making an incorrect
decision).
In the NPDES program, two elements are crucial to the
collection of data: emphasis on good sampling design and strict
QA of the data. To incorporate the DQO process into data
collection activities required by the NPDES program, OWE?
recommends addressing the following items when specifying
monitoring requirements in individual permits:
3—7
-------
o Analytical variability
o Representative sampling
o Effluent variability
o Data systems
o Monitoring frequency
o Confidence level variability
o Effluent toxicity testing.
Each of these items is discussed briefly below.
Analytical Variability
Analytical variability addresses the issues of precision and
accuracy, which are quantitative measures that characterize the
amount of variability and bias inherent in a given data set.
Precision refers to the level of agreement among repeated
measures of the same parameters. Accuracy refers to the
difference between an estimate based on the data and the true
value of the parameter being estimated. Analytical variability
can result from two activities related to data collection:
sample collection and sample analysis.
Accurate sample collection and analysis are essential in
determining a permittee’s compliance status with NPDES permit
limits. However, sample collection is frequently an area in
which errors are made, leading to analytical results that are ot
representative of the discharge in question. To avoid sampling
errors that can lead to analytical variability, permit writers
and permittees are referred to the following publication for a
comprehensive discussion of wastewater sampling:
Handbook for SamDling and Sample Preservation of Water and
Wastewater . EPA Publication No. 600/4-82-029. Washington, DC:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1982. (NTIS
Order No. P283—124503.)
Analytical procedures performed by the perinittee or contract
laboratory introduce another source of analytical variability.
The analytical methods required in conjunction with monitoring
requirements are usually specified in the standard conditions
portion of the permit. It is usually sufficient to require that
all analyses be performed in accordance with the guidelines
established by EPA under 40 CFR 136, Guidelines Establishing Test
Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants . These guidelines,
published in the Federal Register on October 26, 1984, and
amended on January 4, 1985, cover:
3—8
-------
o Lists of approved test procedures for:
- Coliform and fecal streptococci
- Inorganic chemicals
- Nonpesticide organic chemicals
- Pesticides
- Radiological parameters
o References, sources, and costs for these approved test
procedures
o Required containers, preservation techniques, and maximum
holding times
o Appendices providing detailed descriptions of approved
test procedures for a variety of organic chemicals
o QC requirements that establish acceptable limits of
analytical performance for the toxic organic pollutants.
Other sources of analytical procedures are:
o Methods for the Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes .
EPA Publication No. 600/4-79/020. Revised March 1983.
o Test Methods: Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater . EPA Publication io.
600/4—82/057. July 1982.
o Final Pesticide Regulations, 50 Fed. Rep . 40672, October
4, 1985.
Samoling
As stated in the previous section on analytical variability,
sample collection is an integral component of determining permit
compliance. In general, the following principles are suggested
for both self-monitoring and compliance sampling:
o A permanent sampling location(s) should be identified for
use by both the regulatory authority and the permittee.
o The sampling location should be easily accessible and
provide a well-mixed representative sample of the
discharge being monitored.
3— 9
-------
o All samples must be properly collected and preserved
until they are analyzed. It is important to use the
right container for sample collection and storage (e.g.,
do not use a metal container to collect or store a sample
that will later be analyzed for metals). Large samples
should be divided for appropriate pollutant preservation
as soon as possible, but for no longer than 24 hours.
o Accurate records should be required indicating the time,
date, location, type of sample, method of collection and
preservation, name of person who collected the sample,
and any pertinent comments.
In designing a data collection program, completeness of the data
collected must be considered, i.e., the amount of data that is
successfully collected with respect to the amount intended in the
design. Successful collection of all the data required is
important because missing data may reduce the precision of the
estimates, introduce bias, and lower the level of confidence in
the results.
Samples should also accurately reflect the population,
group, or medium being sampled. To obtain representative data,
sampling sites must be selected to measure accurately the
discharge parameters and to reflect the discharge’s impact.
Sampling frequency required depends on the size and type of flow.
Types of samples generally specified are either grab or composite
samples. Grab samples, which are single, discrete samples, are
used where the quality of the wastestream being sampled is not
likely to change significantly over time. For larger facilities
or in those cases where the material being sampled varies
significantly over time as the flow changes, a composite sample
is required. In this type of sample, a better representation of
the effluent is determined by obtaining a number of samples over
time or based upon flow volumes. For additional guidance on
determining sample types for a data collection program, the
reader is referred to the Handbook for Sampling and Sample
Preservation of Water and Wastewater (1982) and the Training
Manual for NPDES Permit Writers (1986).
Effluent Variability
In designing a data collection program, it is important to
recognize that the quality of the effluent from a treatment
facility will normally vary over time. Permit limits are
generally set at the upper bounds of acceptable performance.
Requirements are usually expressed using two types of permit
limits. The daily maximum limit is the maximum allowable value
for any single observation. The average daily or “ monthly ”
permit limit is the maximum allowable value for the average of
all observations obtained during one month. (Average daily
limits for weekly periods are also used for POTWs.) It is
3— 10
-------
important to note that statistical variability is already “built
in” to the effluent limitation guidelines, and the permit writer
need not perform a separate evaluation in those cases where a
permit limitation is derived from a guideline.
Data Systems
Data collection activities under the NPDES program must be
designed to ascertain a permittee’s adherence to its NPDES permit
so that compliance evaluation and enforcement can be supported.
A primary source of information that is used by
compliance/enforcement personnel is PCS. PCS is a data
management system used to compile all relevant facts about a
facility’s permit conditions, self-monitoring data, inspections
performed, and any enforcement actions taken. PCS is the
national data base for the NPDES program. As such, PCS promotes
national consistency and uniformity in permit and compliance
evaluations. To accomplish this goal, all required data are to
be entered into and maintained regularly in PCS.
NPDES permits must be enforceable and capable of being
tracked by PCS. There may be situations where permit limits and
monitoring conditions are not initially compatible with PCS entry
and tracking. In these cases, States should ensure that the
permit writer takes appropriate steps to identify difficult
permits to the PCS coder (either in the State or the Region) and
to resolve any coding issues. The Training Manual for NPDES
Permit Writers contains specific suggestions for collecting da:a
to be entered into PCS so that PCS coders can accurately
interpret and code the permit.
Monitoring Freauencv
Establishing monitoring frequencies that balance the expense
of self-monitoring with the need for representative sampling data
represents a major task. The quantity and temporal distribution
of data collected must ensure adequate measurement of the daily,
weekly, and seasonal patterns, depending on the size of the
facility. Types of parameters in the effluent and the frequency
of monitoring specified in the NPDES permit must provide
sufficient data to evaluate compliance.
While establishing self-monitoring frequencies, a number of
major factors should be taken into account, including:
o Design capacity of the treatment facility (relative to
the size of the receiving stream)
o Type of treatment method used
o Significance of the pollutant
3— 11
-------
o Cost of the monitoring relative to the discharger’s
capabilities.
Useful tools for the permit writer in establishing monitoring
requirements include any general State or EPA guidance, Abstracts
of Industrial. NPDES Permits , information from facility
inspections, plant performance data, and receiving water quality
data.
Confidence Level Variability
The collection of data always involves some error. Error is
an inherent characteristic of any sampling design, method for
sample collection, or sample analysis. As discussed in Stage II,
the decision maker must define the necessary accuracy
requirements for the results of the data collection program. The
conclusions based on effluent data may affect the confidence
level in two ways: the values may be too high, thereby
indicating violations when none actually existed (false
positive); or the values may be too low, which would incorrectly
show compliance (false negative). Also, the sample may not be
truly representative of the actual effluent because of sampling
errors, thereby triggering one of the two errors. When
establishing permit limits, referring to the effluent guidelines
promulgated under Sections 301 and 304 of the Clean Water Act for
the appropriate industry will aid in the likelihood that data
collected will correctly and accurately reflect the
characteristics being measured. The guidelines include a careful
- statistical analysis that takes into account data variability.
The guidelines are established at the upper bounds of acceptable
treatment facility performance. A normally functioning treatment
facility will have a very low probability of exceeding permit
limitations.
Effluent Toxicity Testina
Whole effluent toxicity testing is often used as a screening
and assessment tool. It is a preliminary step in the process of
setting water quality—based permit limitations for toxic
pollutants. Preliminary testing may indicate that the effluent
is not toxic and that toxicity-based limits are not warranted.
Toxicity testing may also take the form of a monitoring
requirement. SUCh a requirement could be used in conjunction
with toxicity—based limits or as a separate condition. In the
latter case, results of the testing requirement would indicate
whether the existing limitations were sufficient or whether more
stringent limitations were required.
A number of special considerations apply to the specific
area of developing permit limitations and conditions for whole
effluent toxic limits. This extremely important area is
increasingly becoming an integral part of EPA and State permit
3— 12
-------
programs. It is, therefore, recommended that all permit writers
have a basic understanding of the subject. For additional
information, refer to the Technical Su ort Document for Water
Quality-Based Toxics Control (September 1985).
National Policy
EPA issued a National policy on water quality-based permit
limits for toxic pollutants on March 9, 1984 (40 Fed. Req . 9016).
The main feature of this policy is the statement that an
integrated strategy, using both biological and chemical methods,
will be necessary to control the discharge beyond the application
of BAT. Thus, the policy recognizes that it is not always
possible to set limits on every chemical of concern (as
determined by a technology-based limit or as established by a
water quality model). There may often be too many chemicals to
limit or there may be unknown toxicants. In addition, chemical
limits do not address the extent to which a wastewater discharge
may impact aquatic organisms (bioavailability). Therefore, it is
often necessary to use toxicity as an assessment tool and
effluent control parameter.
Quality Assurance
To maintain proper overview, EPA uses a variety of methods
to determine facility compliance and DMR data quality. One is
the D? QA Program for major permittees. It is designed to
evaluate the ability of perznittees to analyze and report
self-monitoring data accurately. Permittees are required to
analyze the performance evaluation samples using the analytical
methods required under 40 CFR Part 136. In addition, analytical
performance of the permittee is compared to other State and EPA
laboratories. This ensures that validity and objectivity of
monitoring operations are obtained and that analytical data will
support compliance and enforcement decisions.
3— 13
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
SCENARIOS ILLUSTRATING THE USE OF
DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES WHEN ISSUING NPDES PERNITS
INTRODUCTION
The NPDES Permit Writer’s Training Manual and this DQO guide
point to the reliance on a permit writer’s best professional
judgment (BPJ) during the NPDES permit development process. The
DQO process is used to reduce the uncertainty related to data
collection and evaluation activities of the NPDES permit
development process.
This appendix presents four scenarios to illustrate how the
DQO management tool can be used. By following the DQO process,
the permit writer should be able to develop a facility-specific
blueprint of data adequate to draft, using his/her best
professional judgment, a representative and enforceable discharge
permit. The scenarios are based on actual information submitted
as part of the permit application or as a supplement to the
permitting process. Scenario 1 examines how the DQO process
relates to the adequacy of information contained in NPDES per ut
applications. Scenario 2 examines the implication of using DQCs
when developing a permit for a facility with production tied to
the marketplace. Scenario 3 looks at the use of DQO5 when
determining whether technology-based permit limits will
adequately protect the designated use of the receiving water
body. Scenario 4 examines the use of DQOs to determine the type
of information needed when deciding whether a POTW requires whole
effluent toxicity limitations and testing.
SCENARIO 2.
Three permittees in the Steam Electric Power Generating
Point Source Category have submitted applications for reissuance
of their NPDES permits. The facilities are ranked by the State
Permitting Authority from “minor” to “major” depending on the
potential environmental impact of their discharges. They are
Facility A — a “minor” facility; Facility B — a “minor” facility
with the potential to be of major concern; and Facility C - a
“major” facility.
The objective of this scenario is to show how the DQO
process, in conjunction with a permit writer’s best professional
judgment, can be used to maximize the quality and quantity of
data necessary to develop discharge permits for similar
A-i
-------
industrial facilities with different environmental impact
potentials. The DQO process is highlighted by analyzing
discharge permit applications and follow-up data. Two data
components are analyzed in this scenario: 1) operations
contributing flow data from the 2C form; and 2) effluent chemical
data from the 2C form.
DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION INFORMATION
Facility A
Operations contributing flow
Outfall 001 — 4 MGD of once-through cooling water
Outfall 002 — 0.02 MGD of cooling tower blowdown
Outfall 003 — 0.2 MGD of miscellaneous cooling water
None of the effluents is treated prior to discharge.
Effluent chemical data
Each outfall is in compliance with existing permit
limitations for BOD, COD, TSS, pH, ammonia, oil and grease, free
available chlorine, and temperature. The permittee indicates
that each of the nonconverttional and priority pollutants is
“believed to be absent.”
Facility B
Operations contributing flow
Outfall 001 — 2 MGD of once-through cooling water
Outfall 002 — 0.01 MGD of cooling tower bloudown
Outfall 003 — 0.1 MGD of miscellaneous cooling water
Effluent chemical data
The permittee reports data indicating compliance with
existing permit limitations for conventional and nonconventional
pollutants, including BOD, COD, TSS, pH, ammonia, oil and grease,
total residual chlorine, and temperature. The permittee
performed one priority pollutant analysis on each outfall and
found that 0.1 zng/L chromium is present in outfall 003. Total
residual chlorine is reported as less than 0.05 mg/L for each
outfall.
A-2
-------
Facility C
ODerations contributina flow
The major permittee describes the following six outfalls:
Outfall 001 —
Outfall 002 —
Outfall 003 —
Outfall 004 —
Outfall 005 —
blowdowT
Outfall 006 - 0.1 MGD of demineralizer wastes
The permittee describes the following treatment:
Outfall 001
Outfall 002
Outfall 003
Outfall 004
Outfall 005
Outfall 006
Effluent chemical data
The permittee reports representative conventional,
nonconventional, and inorganic and organic chemical data, except
pesticides, for each outfall except outfall 003, which has only
conventional and nonconventional data. The data are based on the
results of a single analysis. The results show that chromium and
zinc are both found at less than the analytical detection limit
of 0.01 mg/L, while total residual chlorine for outfalls 001 and
002 are reported as 0.00 mg/L. Pollutants detected at outfall
004 (low volume wastes) include 1,2,4- trichlorobenzene (50
ug/L), selenium (5 ug/L), and other metals above the lower
analytical detection limit.
USE OP BPJ IN TEE DQO PROCESS
Facility A
Often small or minor perinittees interpret and respond to
information requests based on facility operating and/or
engineering practices instead of requirements based on
environmental regulations. Based on the review of the permit
application, it is known that outfall 003 from Facility A
contains “miscellaneous cooling water.” It is unclear which
specific wastestreams comprise this outfall. In addition, the
250 MGD of once-through cooling water
350 MGD of once-through cooling water
0.005 MCD of sanitary sewage
0.2 MGD of low-volume wastes
0.05 MGD of metal-cleaning wastes and boiler
— chlorination
- chlorination
- package treatment consisting of primary/secondary
and final disinfection with chlorine
- settling, skimming, separation
- settling, neutralization, aeration
- settling, neutralization, aeration
A- 3
-------
facility submitted no effluent chemical data. This is where the
permit writer can use his/her best professional judgement in
conjunction with the DQO tool. First, this facility is
classified as a minor facility. Second, by reviewing the
available information, the permit writer can see that Facility A
probably does not chlorinate its cooling water. Therefore, there
is little reason why the permit writer should require the
facility to collect additional chemical data from its effluents.
In addition, it probably is unnecessary to require the applicant
to break down the component wastestreams of outfall 003 because
the flow is very small compared with the major wastestream.
Thus, even though the data from Facility A are not as
representative as they could be, the permit writer can prepare
the discharge permit with the reasonable assumption that the
facility’s effluent will exert little, if any, deleterious impact
on the quality of the receiving water.
Facility B
Facility B is also a minor discharger, but has specific
traits that cause the permit writer to investigate further. The
facility indicates that outfall 003 also contains only
“miscellaneous cooling water.” Even though it is one-half the
flow of Facility A, evidence indicates that metals are discharged
via outfall 003. Here it would be prudent for the permit writer
to require Facility B to provide more specific information about
the wastestreams that comprise outfall 003. For example, this
outfall may actually be comprised of continuous-flow office HVAC
condensate and intermittent-flow metal cleaning wastes. The
intermittent discharges of metal cleaning wastes may cause
violations of water quality standards that would have previously
gone undetected unless a sampling event coincided with a
discharge event. The DQO process can provide the permit writer
with this information so that he/she can tailor a sampling
program specific to this situation. The sampling program will
enable the permit writer to determine if the facility needs water
quality or whole effluent toxicity based permit limits if the
facility is in compliance with its current permit.
Facility C
The permit writer sees that there are two basic deficiencies
in the effluent chemical data of the major facility. First, the
applicant used the results of a single analysis to describe
representative effluent chemical data. The sheer magnitude of
the facility discharge indicates that this permittee probably has
more data available, but only reported the minimum results of one
sample. The permit writer can then request additional data so
he/she can determine the average and the variability of the data.
A-4
-------
Second, the applicant reported that total residual chlorine in
outfalls 001 and 002 was 0.00 ing/L. Data can only be reported as
less than the lower analytical detection limit. Here the permit
writer can set in motion procedures to require the applicant to
report the analytical technique and the lower detection limit.
Further, the applicant provided no information on how the sample
for chlorine analysis was collected in terms of the duration of
the chlorination event. The permit writer can use the sampling
program element of the DQO process to overcome this deficiency.
In this way, he/she can minimize the requirement of additional
data that prolongs the permitting process.
CONCLUSION
The objective of this scenario was to show how the DQO
process can be used to maximize the quality and quantity of data
needed from facilities based on their potential environmental
impacts. The comparison of the different quantity and quality of
data required for these three similar facilities illustrates how
the permit writer can couple the use of best professional
judgment with the DQO process to develop representative and
enforceable NPDES discharge permits.
A-5
-------
SCENARIO 2
An aluminum forming facility’s principal market is the
commercial and residential building industry, which often shows
seasonal dependence. The permittee’s discharge permit
application included information about daily maximum and monthly
average maximum concentrations for conventional, nonconventional,
and toxic pollutants.
Since effluent quality can be influenced by production
variability, an important data quality objective is to reduce the
amount of uncertainty associated with the quantity and quality of
information about the applicant’s production. The objective of
this scenario is to examine how the formulation of statements
about the quality and quantity of data can be used to prepare a
discharge permit that echoes seasonal fluctuations in the
production of art industry.
Following the general three stages of the DQO process, the
following specific steps are addressed by the permit writer:
1. Decision to be made - determine if production output
fluctuation warrants the development of seasonal
production-based effluent limitations.
2. Why data are needed and how they will be used - average
monthly aluminum production will be examined to determine if
the fluctuations justify modified effluent limits. Average
daily flow rates will be needed in case alternative
concentration-based effluent limitations are required.
3. Time and resource constraints on data collection -
constraints are minimal as the applicant needs to only
search for the data and submit it; calculations to be
performed by the permit writer are not time-intensive.
4. Descriptions of the data to be collected - average monthly
production of etched extrusion and average daily effluent
flow.
5. Specifications about the domain of the decision - the
cleaning or etching rinse as per 40 CFR 467.33.
6. Calculations that will be performed on the data -
seasonally-based average monthly gross production,
production—based effluent limitations, and, if necessary,
alternative concentration-based effluent limitations.
During the review of application form 2C and recent DMRs,
the permit writer detects substantial differences in effluent
A-6
-------
flow during three months of the preceeding winter and is
concerned that the production also may vary. The permit writer
asks the applicant to submit average monthly production and flow
information for at least the last two years. He/she also asks
the applicant to describe any substantial differences between the
last two years and include a production forecast for the
immediate future. The permit writer then examines the production
and written information to determine the extent of any
fluctuations and the probability that they would continue into
the life of the new permit.
The permit writer can justify seasonally—based effluent
limitations if they are more representative of the permittee’s
effluent than limitations based on average annual production
figures. The permit writer is also concerned about setting
permit limits that are either too lax, so that violations go
undetected or too stringent so that compliant discharges are seen
as violations.
The permit writer tabulates the following production
information for the last two years:
Year One (ka/dav) Year Two (kg/day )
Jan. 150,000 July 150,000 Jan. 50,000 July 200,000
Feb. 150,000 Aug. 150,000 Feb. 50,000 Aug. 200,000
Mar. 150,000 Sept. 150,000 Mar. 200,000 Sept. 200,000
Apr. 150,000 Oct. 150,000 Apr. 200,000 Oct. 200,000
May 150,000 Nov. 150,000 May 200,000 Nov. 200,0C0
Jun. 150,000 Dec. 150,000 Jun. 200,000 Dec. 50,000
The permit writer also determines that, during the final fiscal
quarter (Dec - Feb) of year two, the average daily effluent flow
rate drops disproportionally from 250,000 L/day during March
through November to 125,000 L/day during December through
February.
The BAT effluent limitations for the cleaning or etching
rinse found at 40 CFR Part 467.33 are applicable to this
applicant and consist of the following pollutant limitations:
Pollutant One Day Monthly Average
Maximum Maximum
( ma/off-kg) ( ma/off-kg )
Chromium 0.61 0.25
Cyanide 0.41 0.17
Zinc 2.03 0.85
Aluminum 8.95 4.45
A-7
-------
The permit writer now calculates and compares annualized
production-based effluent limitations with seasonally-adjusted
annualized production—based limitations to determine which set .s
most representative.
Annualized effluent limitations
Calculate the production-based and equivalent concentration
based effluent limitations for chromium based on the yearly
averages of production and effluent flow.
One day max = 0.61 mg/kg * 162.500 kg/day = .045 lb/day
2,200,000 mg/lb
. 045 lb/day * 2.200.000 ma/lb = .453 mg/L
218750 L/day
Monthly avg max = .018 lb/day = .186 mg/L
Seasonal-dependent effluent limitations
Calculate the production-based and equivalent
concentration—based effluent limitations for chromium from on the
production and effluent flow rates for the two periods of March -
November and December — February.
One day max for March — November:
0.61 mg/kg * 200.000 ka/dav = .055 lb/day
2,200,000 mg/lb
. 055 lb/day * 2.200.000 ma/lb = 0.488 mg/L
250,000 L/day
Monthly avg max for March - November = .023 lb/day = 0.200 mg/L
One day max for December - February:
0.61 malka * 50000 ka/dav = .014 lb/day
2,200,000 mg/lb
. 014 lb/day * 2.200.000 ma/lb = 0.244 mg/L
125,000 L/day
Monthly avg max for December - February = .006 lb/day =
0.100 mg/L
The permit writer sees that one day and monthly average
maximum effluent limitations derived from annualized production
A-8
-------
arid flow data are approximately 18 percent too restictive during
March through November. When the production drops during
December through February, the annualized limitations are
approximately three times more liberal than those adjusted to the
reduced production levels.
From this exercise, the per nit writer can determine the most
representative per!nit limitations for a NPDES permittee with
fluctuating production. Without the use of adjusted effluent
limitations, compliant discharges during periods of high
productivity may be determined to be in violation while violating
discharges during periods of low production may go undetected.
A-9
-------
SCENARIO 3
A coal-fired dual condenser steam power plant uses a
once-through cooling water process to remove waste heat.
Biofouling of the condensers is mitigated by treating the
incoming water with chlorine for up to two hours per day. The
effluent flow rate averages 20 cfs. The BAT effluent limitation
for total residual chlorine (TRC) is 0.20 mg/L (40 CFR 423.13).
The applicant has submitted monthly summaries of daily effluent
TRC levels spanning the previous five years with application
forms 1. and 2C.
The receiving stream segment 7Q10 is 200 cfs, which provides
a critical low flow dilution of 9 percent. The water quality
standard for the stream segment includes a total chlorine chronic
toxicity limit of 11 ug/L, which must be met at the edge of the
mixing zone.
The objective of this scenario is to show the implications
of selecting the amount of data necessary to determine if the BAT
TRC limitation is sufficient to meet the in—stream ambient total
chlorine standard. On one extreme, a determination can be made
using a simple methodology that does not require much data, but
results in a large degree of uncertainty. Alternatively, a more
data intensive approach can be used that will reduce the
uncertainty. The first involves the use of simple dilution
equations. The second involves the derivation of a water
quality-based TRC effluent limitation through the use of effluent
TRC long term average (LTA), the effluent TRC coefficient of
variation (CV), and the dilution factor.
Following the general three stages of the DQO process, the
following specific steps are addressed by the permit writer:
1. Decision to be made - determine if the designated use of the
receiving stream segment will be protected by the
technology-based effluent TRC limitation.
2. Why data are needed and how they will be used - effluent TRC
data are needed to determine the coefficient of variation
that is used to calculate a water quality—based chlorine
effluent limitation.
3. Time and resource constraints on data collection - effluent
data are not confidential information and can be collected
from the permittee without excess expenditure of time and
resources. No additional data are required as the permLttee
provided five years of TRC monitoring data.
A-jO
-------
4. DescriDtior%s of the data to be collected - daily total
residual chlorine measurements.
5. Specifications about the domain of the decision - the
decision is concerned with the effluent and the potential
water quality impacts.
6. Calculations that will be performed on the data - use simple
dilution calculations and then compare the limit with one
derived using EPA’S Technical Su ort Document for the
Development of Water quality-based Permit Limitations for
Toxic Pollutants (TSD).
Water aualitv—based limit using simple dilution procedure
This calculation assumes the conservation of mass and a zero
upstream TRC concentration. This effluent limitation is
calculated by dividing the BAT TRC limitation of 0.20 mg/L by the
dilution factor of 9 to equal an effluent limitation of 0.022
mg/L (22 ug/L).
Water aualitv—based limitation using the TSD procedure
The permit writer first calculates the CV that will be used
to derive a chlorine limitation. The data computation produced a
CV=l.2. Now the daily maximum and monthly average maximum water
quality-based total residual chlorine permit limits can be
calculated using the dilution factor of 9 percent and a TRC
CV= 1.2
Assumptions
- Effluent TRC wasteload allocation (WLA) = 11 ug/L * 9 = 99 ug/L
where, 11 ug/L = water quality standard at edge of mixing zone
that will protect from chronic toxicity;
- 9 = dilution factor;
— CV = 1.2 (calculated from monitoring data);
- No upstream toxicity or TRC.
Calculations
1. Calculate a long term average (LTA) based on an average
monthly monitoring frequency of N=20.
LTA exp (U + •5 2) 2
where, u = u(20) — .5s 2 + .51n(l + ((exp — 1)/20))
u(20) = in WLA — Z sqrt ln(I. + ((exp S - 1)/20])
A—il
-------
= in (CV 2 + 1)
S = sqrt S 2
Z = Z score at 99th percentile occurrence
probability
= 2.326
S 2 = 0.892
s = 0.944
u(20) 3.987
u = 3.575
Therefore, LITA exp [ 3.58 + .5(0.892)] = 56.0 ug/L.
2. Calculate a maximum daily permit limit = exp ( i + (Zs)]
where, Z = Z score at 95th percentile occurrence probability
= 1.645
u — in LTA - .5s 2
52 = in (CV 2 + 1) = 0.892
s = sqrt s 2 = 0.944
Maximum daily limit =
exp ((in 55.5 — .51n(i.2 2 + 1) + (1.645 * 0.944)) = 192.7 ug/L.
3. Calculate a monthly average maximum = exp (u + (Z * s )
where, u, = u + (g2 — s 2 )/2
= in (1 + [ (exp s 2 — 1)/20])
Sn = sqrt 52
Z = 1.645
s 2 = 0.070
u, = 3.99
Therefore, monthly average maximum =
exp (3.98 + (1.645 * 0.265)] = 83.5 ug/L.
The results of these calculations indicate that BAT TRC
limitations may not protect the designated use of the receiving
stream segment and that the discharge permit should be written to
include water-quality based TRC permit limitations. Also, the
use of the TSD procedure to calculate permit limits resulted in
more liberal limitations than the simple dilution approach. This
highlights the impact that data quality and quantity can have
when deriving NPDES permit limitations.
A— 2.2
-------
SCENARIO 4
An NPDES Permitting Authority wishes to determine whether
the permits of all major POTWs should be opened up for inclusion
of water quality-based toxicity permit limitations. As part of
this determination, the Permitting Authority decides to issue
Section 308 letters requesting effluent biomonitoring
information. Also as part of this overall effort, the permit
writer is required to design a sampling program adequate to
characterize the potential whole effluent toxicity of a major
POTW.
This POTW, located in the south-central United States, is
currently achieving permit limitations for conventional and
nonconventional pollutants. The industrial contribution to the
influent is less than one percent by flow. The Permitting
Authority requires the POTW to conduct whole effluent toxicity
(WET) tests of dechlorinated effluent. The objective of this
scenario is to highlight the importance of natural effluent
variability when deciding whether a permittee needs
whole—effluent toxicity permit limitations.
Following the three stages of the DQO process, the following
types of information are addressed by the permit writer:
1. Decision to be made — to assess the potential for in-stream
toxicity to be caused by the permittee by using WET testing.
2. Why data are needed and how they will be used — the data
will be used to determine the probability of in-stream
toxicity by comparing the No Observable Effect Concentration
(NOEC) with the calculated in-stream waste concentration.
3. Time and resource constraints on data collection - the
permittee’s permit must be renewed within 24 months or
opened up at any time.
4. Descriptions of the data to be collected — Raw and final
data from chronic toxicity tests and chemical effluent data.
5. SDecifications about the domain of the decision - the
decision is concerned with the effluent toxicity and the
potential water quality impacts.
6. Calculations that will be Derformed on the data -
verification of proper numerical and statistical methods
used to derive the NOECs.
A-13
-------
Before designing the sampling program, the permit writer
makes a general assessment of the facility in terms of the
potential for effluent toxicity. The permit writer makes the
following assessments:
1. Episodes of toxicity may be independent of chlorination
since dechlorinated effluent samples will be tested.
2. The small industrial contribution probably precludes
industrial user discharges from being the causative agents.
3. The POTW DMR information shows that facility treatment
performance is within 95 to 98 percent of the design
efficiency. DMR data also show that effluent ammonia and pI-(
increase during the summer months. The effluent chemical
data show that all priority pollutants either are either not
detected or less than water quality criteria levels.
4. The POTW’s current NPDES permit includes seasonally-adjusted
effluent limitations for ammonia and dissolved oxygen.
5. Receiving water quality studies have found that certain
river reaches have poor water quality at certain times of
the year and after heavy rainfall events.
The permit writer determines that the higher effluent
ammonia concentrations in the summmer may justify amending this
POTW’s permit to include whole effluent toxicity limitations.
The permit writer determines testing effluent samples on a
monthly basis for one year will provide adequate information
about the toxicity of the effluent. The permit writer also finds
that this frequency will provide a buffer in the event that
toxicity is the result of the presence of previously unknown
nondomestic constituents.
The permittee conducts monthly biomonitoring tests with the
cladoceran CeriodaDhnia dubia according to method 1002.0 located
in EPA’s Short—Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity
of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms . The
permit writer requires the permittee to test at the following
effluent concentrations (percentages): 100, 75, 60, 45, and 30.
The 7Q10 low flow corresponds to 60 percent effluent. The permit
writer anticipates that statistically significant chronic
toxicity at 60 percent effluent or less would require the POTW to
conduct more definitive monitoring and possibly toxicity
identification tests. The permit writer also requires the
permittee to submit effluent ammonia monitoring data.
At the end of one year, the permit writer summarizes the No
Observable Effect Concentrations (NOEC) of each test and
A- 14
-------
tabulates the average monthly total ammonia conentration. The
following results are as follows:
NOEC Ammonia NOEC Ammonia
Month ( % ( malL) Month ( %) ( mg/L )
Jan. 75 0.50 July 45 2.71
Feb. 100 0.48 Aug. 30 1.98
Mar. 75 0.37 Sept. 30 1.88
Apr. 100 0.66 Oct. 75 0.68
May 100 0.56 Nov. 100 0.47
June 75 0.87 Dec. 100 0.55
The results of these biomonitoring and chemical tests show
that the Permitting Authority can justify opening up or reissuing
the NPDES discharge permit to include biomonitoring tests on a
routine schedule and require, if necessary, implementation of a
toxicity identification/reduction evaluation. The results of
this exercise illustrate how a limited, less time-intensive data
review and monitoring program may have been unable to adequately
characterize the potential for whole effluent toxicity from a
perinittee consistently meeting secondary treatment effluent
guidelines.
A-15
-------
Unite State3 Office of EPAI600/6•911003
Environmental Protection Research and Development February 1991
Agency Washington. DC 20460
REPA Methods for Aquatic
Toxicity Identification
Evaluations
Phase I Toxicity
Characterization Procedures
Second Edition
-------
United States Oflice Of Water 21W-4001
Environmental Protection (EN-335) February 1991
Agency
EPA Control Of Slug Loadings
To POTWs
Guidance Manual
- -
- -
-------
United States Office Of Water EPA/505i2.9O-OO1
Environmental Protection (EN.336) PB91-127415
Agency March 1991
EPA Technical Support Document
For Water Quality-based
Toxics Control
: ° : T.
-------
UMrrED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAR 2 S 1991
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Determining Compliance Dates for Individual Control
Strategies Issued Pursuant to Clean Water Act S304(l)
FROM: James R. Elder, Director I 7’
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act provides that
individual control strategies (ICSs) require compliance “as soon
as possible, but not later than 3 years after the date of the
establishment of such strategy.” While compliance dates should
always be as soon as possible, in some cases, compliance -may not
be possible in less than three years. Because the 3—year
compliance period is triggered by the date of the establishment
of the ICS, determining the date of the establishment of the ICS
is essential to determining the latest possible compliance date
for the ICS.
In the preamble to the June 2, 1989 rule, EPA was not clear
about what constitutes establishment of an ICS. On the one hand
we implied that an ICS is established at the time the ICS is
submitted by a State to EPA, i.e., February 4, 1989 (where the
ICS was submitted on time). 54 23868 at 23888. Elsewhere in
that preamble, we implied that an ICS is established when EPA
approves it, i.e., June 4, 1989 (where the ICS is submitted and
approved on time). 54 23868 at 23869. Where EPA is the
permitting authority, the preamble implied that establishment of
the ICS occurs at the time EPA issues the draft permit.
As the Regions implement ICSs through issuance of final
permits or approval of State-issued permits, the question of what
is the date of establishment and therefore what is the latest
appropriate compliance date is becoming more pressing. This
should only become an issue when the Region is considering a
compliance date later than June 1992 for ICSs approved in June
1989 or later than June 1993 for ICSs disapproved in June 1989.
The June 1992 and June 1993 compliance dates seem clearly to meet
the statutory requirement for compliance within three years of
-------
2
establishment because the statute does not require establishment
before 1989 (or 1990 when EPA disapproved the State submission).
The purpose of this memorandum is to identify what I believe are
the objectives that Regional Offices should consider in
determining the dates that ICSs become established and what are
appropriate dates for compliance.
Because the Agency has not promulgated a regulation
interpreting when an ICS is established pursuant to S304(l), each
Region will have flexibility in determining, as a factual matter,
the date of establishment. There are a number of reasonable ways
to apply the statute and therefore reasonable dates that the
Regions could select as the date of establishment for different
ICS5.
The Regional Offices should make their determinations of the
dates of establishment after evaluating the objectives outlined
below. Using a common set of objectives, the decisions from
Region to Region will be based on the same underlying principles.
Below is a discussion of what I believe to be the considerations
that should be balanced in determining ICS establishment dates.
o First, compliance with ICS5 should occur as soon as -
possible. This is consistent with S304(1) which
contemplates the implementation of regulatory controls
on the discharge of toxics within the 5-year permitting
cycle.
o Second, an important national objective is to group all
ICS compliance dates for similarly situated dischargers
as closely as possible. Otherwise, we risk creating a
competitive advantage for some dischargers.
o Third, the date chosen for the establishment of the
ICS, and the basis therefore for determining the latest
possible compliance date for the ICS, should be made
clear in the ICS decision, although in many cases it
can be easily implied from the choice of compliance
date. EPA must explain its rationale for choosing a
compliance date in a permit. This will minimize
confusion and ensure that a case—by-case rationale for
the Region’s choice is available.
o Fourth, the date chosen for the establishment of the
ICS should not encourage needless litigation as might
happen if simply bringing an administrative challenge
would stay the compliance dates.
o Fifth, the determination of the date of the
establishment of the ICS may consider issues related to
the overall process available in a particular ICS
development. For example, a Region might revise the
-------
3
date of the establishment of the ICS from notice of a
draft permit to issuance of a final permit if the
limitations were significantly changed between draft
and final. Or, a Region could consider whether there
was a full opportunity to comment at the State level
before EPA’S approval process started.
There is a broad range of dates the Regional Office could
choose as the date of the establishment of an ICS. Arguably,
these dates could range from the date the Region first notifies
the permittee of the necessary effluent limitations (prior to
public comment), or EPA receives a draft permit from the State,
to the date EPA issues a final permit or approves a final State
permit. For most ICSs, the most appropriate date of
establishment is somewhere between these dates.
The two sets of dates at the ends of the range of
possibilities above — two very early in the process and two very
late - do not achieve the five objectives. The first dates of
establishment fall very early in the S304(l) process, when the
effluent limits are first calculated. Defining the establishment
date so early helps achieve one goal of S304(l) - early
compliance. Yet, it is not a well defined point in. the grocess,
it may result in a competitive advantage’ for dischargers w osé
ICS5 contain later compliance dates, and all of the public
process occurs after the establishment of the ICS. The second
dates of establishment are dependant on a well defined point -
permit issuance. Yet they could allow a prolonged period to
comply, which is not consistent with one principal goal of
S304(l). Moreover, because these dates are so late in the
§304(1) process, they could very well provide the discharger with
a competitive advantage.
Two examples of establishment date determinations which
might better meet the five objectives follow. First, the date of
establishment could be the date on which EPA approved the ICS
(or, where EPA is the permit issuing authority, the date on which
EPA made the draft permit available for public comment). In this
example, the establishment date is early enough in the §304(1)
process for compliance to be achieved within the 5—year
permitting cycle. Where several Regions choose this approach, it
minimizes the potential for competitive advantage. Further,
unfounded challenges could not be used to postpone compliance.
Last, a public review process is normally available before
approval of the ICS.
In a second example, EPA disapproves the ICS and the date of
establishment is determined to be the date of EPA issuance of the
new draft permit for public comment. This establishment date is
relatively early in the §304(1) process. If the notification of
the new draft permit occurs soon after disapproval of the ICS,
the potential for competitive advantage among dischargers will be
-------
4
minimized. The establishment date will be well defined. And by
choosing this date, EPA will create an incentive for dischargers
to work with EPA to finalize the effluent limitations in the ICS,
thus minimizing the potential for the discharger to challenge the
ICS. Finally, there will normally have been an opportunity for
public comment on the listing and the ICS disapproval before the
draft permit is developed.
I do not wish to either require or foreclose any of the
possibilities described in the examples above. Case-specific
circumstances may compel differing findings of when the
establishment of the ICS occurs. Let me reiterate, however, that
compliance with ICSs should be as soon as possible. In some
cases it may be necessary to determine that ICS establishment
occurs at the time of final permit issuance, but this should be
-very rare. We want to avoid prolonging compliance periods where
it is not warranted. I urge you to consider the objectives
outlined in this memorandum when determining establishment dates
for any remaining unfinished ICSs you have. I understand that a
number of these considerations have already gone into the
decisions you have made.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or have your
- - staf.f contact Rab Wood in Permits Division at 475’9534 or -
Diane Regas in Office of General Counsel at 382—7713.
cc: Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
WOOD:WP DISC #4:2/5/91:REV 2/21/91:FILE;JEDATES:rkw:475—
9534 .REV: 3/26/91;rkw
-------
United States Office Of EPA-505/8-91 -003A
Environmental Protection Water April 1991
Agency (EN-336)
EPA Guidance Manual
For The Preparation Of
Part 1 Of The NPDES Permit
Applications For Discharges
From Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems
-------
&EPA
.d .nqten C 20460
.jrii,ø SiatIu
Env., rirns ’ OIC1 On
GUIDANCE MANUAL
FOR THE PREPARATION OF
NPDES PERMIT APPLICATIONS
FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES
ASSOCIATED WITH
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
A;Q: cc
EP*-5O5,8-c - O2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
PREFACE
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCI1ON 1
1.1 What Is The Purpose Of This Guidance Manual” 1
1.2 How Is This Manual Organized? 1
SECTION 2.0 WHAT IS THE NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM’ 2
2.1 Authorized NPDES State Programs 2
2.2 What Is A Storm Water Discharge Associated With
Industrial Activity’ 2
2.3 Discharges Through Large And Medium Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems 7
2.4 Discharges To Combined Sewer Systems 9
2.5 Options For Applying For Permit Coverage 9
SECTION 3.0 INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS ... 13
3.1 The Process Of Submitting Individual Applications 13
3.2 Forms I And 2F 15
3.3 Special Provisions For Selected Discharges 16
3.3.1 Special Provisions For Small Businesses 16
3.3.2 Special Provisions For Construction Activities 17
3.3.3 Mining And Oil And Gas Operations 17
3.4 Individual Applications Deadlines 18
3.5 When Are Additional Forms Required’ 19
3.6 Where To Obtain And Submit Applications 19
3.7 Signatories 19
3.8 Penalties For Knowingly Submitting False Information 20
SECTION 4.0 THE PERMITTING PROCESS 21
4.1 How Are Individual Applications Processed” 21
4.2 Completeness Of The Application 21
4.3 Public Availability Of Submitted Information 24
4.4 How Long Is A Permit Valid’ 24
4.5 How Are NPDES Permits Enforced’ 24
SECTION 5.0 TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR SPECIFIC
ELEMENTS OF THE NPDES PERMIT
APPLICATION FORMS . 26
5.1 Overview . 26
5.2 Site Drainage Map 26
5.3 Identification Of Outfalls To Be Monitored . . . . 27
-------
Oflce Of Waxer
(EN-336)
21W-4003
May 191
Undid States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRELIM Version 4.0
User’s Guide
Documentation For The
EPA Computer Program
For Development Of
Local Discharge Limitations
Under The Pretreatment Program
—-- ..a.
-------
cID S•Pap
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
&
OFFiCE CF
WATER
Dear PRELIM Requestor:
Enclosed are two floppy diskettes (a Program diskette and a Data
diskette) containing the EPA local limit, computer program,
PRELIM, Version 4.0. PRELIM was developed for use as a tool for
publicly owned treatment works (POTW5) when developing
technically based local limits. PLEASE READ THE USER’S GUIDE
BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO USE PRELIX.
Operation of the PRELIM program requires access to a personal
computer equipped with the Disk Operating System (DOS) 2.0 or
higher, a minimum of 640K of RAM and at least 1) two floppy disk
drives of either high or low density, or 2) one floppy disk drive
of either high or low density and a hard drive.
PRELIM calculates a limit for each pollutant, based on water
quality (or effluent), sludge, and POTW protection objectives.
The program computes the amount of each pollutant that the POTW
can receive and still meet the desired environmental objectives
while considering the fate of each pollutant within the POTW.
Using any one of several methods, the program then allocates the
maximum allowable influent loadings to the appropriate
riondomestic users.
Data requirements for successful operation of the PRELIM program
are discussed in Section 3 of the User’s Guide . It is important
for the user to realize the necessity of acquiring site—specific
data to input to PRELIX. The validity of PRELIX-derived local
limits will be a function of the extent and quality of the data
used. While PRELIX provides certain “default” data, use of site-
specific data is preferred. It is also important to verify the
values derived by PRELIX and the User’s Guid. provides the
equations necessary when performing those calculations.
If you have any technical problems or questions regarding the use
of PRELIM, please consult the User’s Guide . Problems that cannot
be answered by the User’s Guide should be referred to your State
or EPA Regional Pretreatmsnt Coordinator. If you wish to comment
on ways to improve PRELIM, or if questions persist, you may write
to the PRELIM Coordinator, Permits Division (EN —336), U.S. EPA,
401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
R, I.d
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Th. PREUM computer program and accompanying User’s Guide were prepared with assistance from
Science Applications international Corporation (SAIC) under Contract Nos. 68-01.7043. 68-03-3509
and 68 -C8-0061. Technical direction was provided by Mr. John T. Hopki s, Work Assignment
Manager. Pretreatment Section. Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Special appreciation is extended to Ms. Teena Wooten of
U.S. EPA Region 6 for her numerous reviews and comments on the kitermedlate drafts of this
document. Thanks are also given to those persons who commented on various portions of the
document throughout the revision process.
-------
DISCLAIMER
This project has been funded. ii part, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance under Contract No. 68C80066. WA No.. C i -37 (P1 and
C .2-4 (P). The mention of trade names, commercial products. or organ izations does not Imply
endorsement by the U.S. Government.
PRELIM is Intended to provide a technically-based methodology for development of local limits while
simplifying the extensive calculations involved. P iM is riot sxpsctod to replace sosxid idgment
whets input or output I is needed. Users of the program should be familiar with the
procedures and methodologies used by PREUM. The Guidance Manual on the Develooment and
Imolementatlon of Local Discharae Limitations Under the Pretreatment Prooram (December 1987)
contains information on development of discharge limitations to control incompatible pollutants.
This program was developed for an IBM or IBM-compatible microcompute, using DOS Version 2.0 or
higher. Alterations to the program source code are discouraged and may result in incorrect results.
There —s neither any express nor kuplied s,a...ifllu aoclstsd with this program, in no event wil
the U.S. Government be liable for dkect. bidkuct. special, incidental, or consequential damages arising
out of the usa of the program or doaamantadun. Nor wi the U.S. Government be liable for any of
the aforementioned damages arislig out of the inablity to use the program or do imentatJugi.
II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
1.2. OTHERREFERENCES 1
1.3. USERASSISTANCE 2
2. PREUM 4.0 PROGRAM COMPONENTS
2.1. MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 3
2.2. SETTING THE DOS CONFiGURATiON 3
2.3. INSTAWNG PREUM 4.0 ON A HARD DISK DRIVE.... 4
2.4. ACCESSINGPREUM4.0 4
3. PREUM 4.0 DATA SHEETS
3.1. DATASHEETI-FACILITYPROF1LE 7
3.2. DATA SHEET IA - POU.UTANTS OF CONCERN 9
3.3. DATASHEET2-STANDARDSANDCRITERIA 9
3.4. DATA SHEETS 3 AND 3A - REMOVAL EFFICIENCY DATA 11
3.5. DATASHEET4-INDUSTRIALUSERDATA 12
3.6. UTERATURE DATA 13
4. PRELIM 4.0 MENU-DRIVEN SYSTEM
4.1. DATA ENTRY 17
4.2. REMOVAL CALCULATION 21
4.3. PREUM 4.0 OUTPUT 25
5. REFERENCE GUIDE
5.1. SELECTMENU 29
5.2. DATAMANAGEMENTMENU . 29
5.3. FLJNCTIONSMEPIU 30
6. PREUM OUTPUT AND METHODOLOGY
6.1. MASS BAI.AI4CE CHECIC 33
6.2. CALCULATION OF PASS-THROUGH HEADWORKS LOADING UMITAT1ONS .... 35
6.3. CALCULATION OP PROCESS INHIBITiON HEADWORKS LOADING UMITATIONS . 38
6.4. COMPARISON OF HEADWORKS LOADING UMITATIONS 40
6.5. TOTAL POUNDS OF POLLUTANT COMPARED TO ACTUAL (POUNDSIDAY) .... 43
6.6. UNIFORM CONCENTRATION INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT UMITS (mgll) 44
6.7. INDUSTRIALEFFLUENTUMITSBASEDONMASSPROPORTION 45
6.8. INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT LIMITS BASED ON SELECTED INDUSTRIAL REDUCTiON . 47
‘-p
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
IIk!I pppp
3.1. LITERATURE DATA FOR EPA AMBIENT WATER CRITERIA FOR THE
PROTECTiON OF AQUATiC UFE 14
3.2. LITERATURE DATA FOR UNIT PROCESS INHIBITION LEVELS 15
3.3. UTERATURE DATA FOR PROCESS REMOVAL RATES AND
NONINDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS 16
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - PRELIM 4.0 DATA ENTRY SHEETS A-i
APPENDIX B - DATA SHEETS FOR SAMPLE RUN IN CHAPTER 6 B-I
Iv
-------
-F-
Ca C l Water
EN -335)
Supplemental Manual On
The Development And
Implementation Of Local
Discharge Limitations
Under The Pretreatment
Program
Residential And Commercial
Toxic Pollutant Loadings And
P01W Removal
Efficiency Estimation
w w
I
— —ac Eiates
E v :rrer.:aj P taC Cr
Age r.Cy
N - C2
Uav
C
-------
DISCLAIMER
This project has been funded, at least in part, with Federal
funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office
of Water Enforcement and Compliance under Contract No. 68-C8-
0066, WA Nos. C-l-4 (P), C-l-37 (P), and C-2-4 (P). The mention
of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not
imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
i
-------
ACKNOWT..EDCEMENTS
This document was prepared under the technical direction of Mr.
John Hopkins and Mr. Jeffrey Lape. Program Implementation Branch.
Office of Wascewacer Enforcement and Compliance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Assistance was provided to EPA
by Science Applications International Corporation of McLean,
Virginia. under EPA Contract 68-C8-0066, VA Moe. C.I.4 (P)
C .l-37 (P) and C-2-4 (P).
iii
-------
PART 1.
RESIDENTIAL AND COIO(ERCIAL SOURCES
OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 RESIDENTIAL AND COI (ERCIAL SOURCES OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
1.1 SU) (ARY OF DATA RECEIVED 1-3
1.2 DATA ANALYSIS AND LIMITATIONS 1-3
1.3 RESIDENTIAL AND COZOCERCIAL (ONITORING DATA 1-7
1.4 SPECIFIC COIO(ERCIAL SOURCE MONITORING DATA 1-13
1.5 SEPTAGE HAULER MONITORING DATA 1-26
1.6 LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING DATA 1-29
1.7 SU (ARY 1-29
V
-------
PART 1.
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. MUNICIPALITIES WHICH PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL DATA . . . . 1-4
2. RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL TRUNK LINE MONITORING DATA 1-9
3. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL TRUNK LINE MONITORING
DATA WITH TYPICAL DOMESTIC WASTEWATER LEVELS FROM THE 1987 LOCAL
LIMITS GUIDANCE • 1-11
4. SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL SOURCE WASTEWATER MONITORING DATA -
HOSPITALS . . . . 1-15
5. SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL SOURCE WASTEWATER MONITORING DATA
RADIATOR SHOPS . . . 1-1.8
6. SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL SOURCE WASTEWATER MONITORING DATA - 1-19
CAR WASHES
7. SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL SOURCE WASTEWATER MONITORING DATA 1-20
TRUCK CLEANERS
8. SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL SOURCE WASTEWATER MONITORING DATA -
DRY CLEANERS
9. SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL SOURCE WASTEWATER MONITORING DATA
LAUNDRIES 1-23
10. SEPTAGE HAULER MONITORING DATA 1.27
11. LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING DATA 1-30
12. OVERALL AVERAGE ORGANIC POLLUTANT LEVELS . . . . 1-34
13. OVERALL AVERAGE INORGANIC POLLUTANT LEVELS - . . 1-37
14. OVERALL AVERAGE NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT LEVELS . 1.38
vi
-------
PART 2
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY ESTIMATION
FOR LOCAL LIMITS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
2.0 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY ESTIMATION GUIDANCE
2.1 DEFINITIONS
2.1.1 Daily Removal Efficiency
2.1.2 Mean and Average Daily Removal Efficiencies .
2.1.3 Decile Removal Efficiency
2.2 ILLUSTRATIVE DATA AND APPLICATIONS
2.2.1 Daily Influent, Daily Effluent, and Daily Removal
2.2.2 Average Daily and Mean Removals
2.2.3 Decile Estimates
2.3 USE OF REMOVAL ESTIMATES FOR ALLOWABLE HEADWORXS LOADINGS
2.4 EXAMPLE ZINC AND NICKEL DATA SETS
2.4.1 Zinc Sample Data
2.4.2 Nickel Sample Data
2.5 OTHER DATA PROBLEMS
2.5.1 Remarked Data
2.5.2 Seasonality
2.6 NONCONSERVATIVE POLLUTANTS
2.7 SUMMARY REMARKS
2-1
2-2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2-7
Data . . 2-7
2-12
2.14
2-18
2-22
2-22
2.30
2-36
2-38
2-39
2-39
2-41
vii
-------
PART 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. COPPER MASS VALUES (LBS/DAY) AND DAILY REMOVALS
2. ORDERED COPPER REMOVALS
3. DECILE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET FOR COPPER DATA
4. ZINC MASS VALUES (LBS/DAY) AND DAILY REMOVALS
5. ORDERED ZINC REMOVALS
6. DECILE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET FOR ZINC DATA
7. NICKEL MASS VALUES (LBS/DAY) AND DAILY REMOVALS
8. ORDERED NICKEL REMOVALS
9. DECILE ESTIMATION WORKSHEET FOR NICKEL DATA
PART 2
LIST OF FIGURES
2-8
2-15
2-16
2.24
2-28
2-29
2-32
2-35
2-37
Ft gure S
1. INFLUENT COPPER MASS VALUES .
2. EFFLUENT COPPER MASS VALUES .
3. DAILY PERCENT REMOVALS FOR COOPER
4. INFLUENT COPPER vs. EFFLUENT COPPER
5. INFL.UENT ZINC MASS VALUES
6. EFFLUENT ZINC MASS VALUES
7. INFLUDIT ZINC vs. EFFLUENT ZINC
8. DAILY PERCENT REMOVALS FOR ZINC
9. INFLUENT NICKEL MASS VALUES .
10. EFFLUENT NICKEL MASS VALUES .
11. INFLUENT NICKEL vs. EFFLUENT NICKEL
12. DAILY PERCENT REMOVALS FOR NICKEL
2-10
2-10
2-1].
2-13
2-23
2-23
2-26
2-27
2-31
2-3]
2-34
2-34
viii
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL DATA
• A -I RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL TRUNK LINE MONITORING DATA
• A-2 COMMERCIAL SOURCE MONITORING DATA
• A-3 SEPTAGE MAULER MONITORING DATA SUMMARIES
• A.4 LANDFILL LEACHATE DATA
APPENDIX B - DECILE ESTIMATION WORXSMEET
ix
-------
, i3 S7l,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
L
JUL 1 o 1991
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable J. Danforth Quayle
President of the Senate
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
I am pleased to present the Environmental Protection
Agency’s Report to Congress on the National Pretreatment Program.
This Report responds to Section 519 of the Water Quality Act of
1987, which required EPA to study certain elements of the
National Pretreatment Program. The National Pretreatment Program
is a joint regulatory effort by EPA, States, and municipalities
to ensure that nondomestic discharges of pollutants to municipal
wastewater treatment plants (“publicly owned treatment works,” or
POTWs) do not interfere with POTW operations, pass through to
receiving waters, or contaminate sewage sludge.
Section 519 required EPA to study the following:
(a) STUDY. The Administrator shall study--
(1) the adequacy of data on environmental impacts
of toxic industrial pollutants from publicly
owned treatment works;
(2) the extent to which secondary treatment at
publicly owned treatment works removes toxic
pollutants;
(3) the capability of publicly owned treatment
works to revise pretreatment requirements
under section 307(b) (1) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act;
(4) possible alternative regulatory strategies
for protecting the operations of publicly
owned treatment works from industrial
discharges, and shall evaluate the extent to
which each such strategy identified may be
expected to achieve the goals of this Act;
(5) f or each such alternative regulatory
strategy, the extent to which removal of
toxic pollutants by publicly owned treatment
works results in contamination of sewage
sludge and the extent to which pretreatment
Pt,nzed on Recyded Paper
-------
2
requirements may prevent such contamination or
improve the ability of publicly owned treatment
works to comply with sewage sludge criteria
developed under section 405 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act; and
(6) the adequacy of Federal, State, and local
resources to establish, implement, and
enforce multiple pretreatment limits for
toxic pollutants for each such alternative
strategy.
(b) REPORT. Not later than 4 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
submit a report on the results of such study along with
recommendations for improving the effectiveness of
pretreatment requirements to the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate.
This Report to Congress accomplishes that mandate. It
examines what is known about discharges of toxic pollutants to
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), the extent to which POTWs
remove toxic pollutants from wastewaters, and the environmental
effects of toxic pollutants released from POTW5 to receiving
waters, sewage sludge, and air. It also evaluates how well the
National Pretreatment Program is being carried out, and examines
alternative regulatory strategies for improving the Program.
Finally, the Report recommends improvements to the Program that
will allow POTWs to better control toxic pollutant discharges and
meet the goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The Report reaffirms the Federal, State, and local
government partnership that is unique to the National
Pretreatment Program. It finds that publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) have made tremendous progress carrying out and
enforcing national and local pretreatment standards and
requirements. Many POTWs have achieved significant reductions in
toxic pollutant loadings to their treatment plants and subsequent
reductions of toxic pollutants in their effluents and sewage
sludges.
The Report finds that additional work is necessary. States
and POTWs have been limited to some extent by the lack of
environmental standards and criteria that provide an important
basis for the Pretreatment Program and which allow us to
thoroughly demonstrate the environmental effectiveness of this
truly multi—media program. EPA is making good progress in
ensuring that States adopt water quality criteria for toxic
pollutants, is considering expansion of its criteria development
activities, and, along with States, is issuing water quality-
based NPDES permits. The Report also demonstrates that POTW5 and
industries are using pollution prevention as an important means
of reducing toxic pollutants to and from POTWs.
-------
Office of Water
4203
EPA 833 -91-iOO
June 1991
EPA CONSTRUCTION SITE STORMWATER
DISCHARGE CONTROL
AN INVENTORY OF CURRENT
PRACTICES
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Prepared for
Mr. Mike Mitchell
Work Assignment Manager
U.S. EPA
Office of Water Enforcement & Permits
Washington. D.C. 20460
By
Kamber Engineering
Civil - Environmental Surveying
818 West Diamond Avenue
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
(301) 840-1030
DRAFT
Construction Site Stormwater
Discharge Control
An Inventory of Current Practices
EPA Contract No. 68-C8-0052
June 26. 1991
KE# 91521.03
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction . I
2.0 Construction Site Stormwater Discharges . 2
2.1 Construction Stages . 2
2.2 Erosion and Sediment Control • 3
2.3 Construction Site Housekeeping . 4
3.0 Stormwater Management Theory and General Design Basis 6
4.0 - -. Stormwater Management Plknning Considerations g
5.0 Stormwaser Management Practice Inventory 11
5.1 Non-Structural Storm Water Management 11
5.2 Structural Storm Water Management Facilities 11
Appendix 13
Non-Structural Storm Water Management Practices
Structural Storm Water Management Practices
-------
1.0 Introduction _____________________________
The information presented in this report has been prepared to assist municipalities in prepari g
the Stormwater Management and Sediment and Erosion Control program portions of their system.
wide National Pollutant Discharge 1iminition Service (NPDES) Stormwater permit applications.
This report discusses the stormwater discharges of construction sites and provides an inventory of
stormwater man*gement technologies currently implemented to control both the quantity and
quality of post-construction storm water discharges. The inventory is intended to be
comprehensive; providing general information including technolo ’ description, application,
advantages, and disadvantages for structural and non structural methods of storm water
management The inventory also addresses methods considered ‘Best Management Practices’,
storm water management practices which provide pollutant removal benefits, and methods
considered primarily quantity control measures. lnaddition to the inventory, this report discusses
a variety of planning considerations which influence the selection and design of storm water
management facilities on an individual site or within a particular drainage area or watcrahed.
KE# 91521.00 . i. KAMBER EziozN P.u’G
-------
1.0 Introduction
-------
2.0 Construction Site Stormwater Discharges
The quantity and quality of storm water discharged from a construction site varje according to the
stage of construction and the effectiveness of measures implemented on-site to control the quality
of storm water discharges. These controls include structural measures such as erosion and sediment
control practices which control the discharge of sediment related pollutants, and non-structural
measures such as site management or housekeeping plans which control non-sediment related
pollutants on the construction site.
2.1 ConstructIon Stages
Typical construction stages and the changes in site crosiow potential and storm water runoff that
accompany each stage are described below:
Stage 1 Pre-Construction
Storm water runoff from the site is at predeveloped levels, erosion is minimaL Site perimeter
erosion controls should be installed for initial disturbed areas.
Stage 2 Clearing and Grading for Access
Clearing and grading is accomplished for a 1ess only. Measures are implemented to protect off.
site properties, including installation of inlet protection measures in the downstream storm drain
system. and the installation of construction entrances (large aggregate aprons which transition (rota
the construction site to paved off-site roadways). Erosion from the site increases to moderate
levels, and storm water runoff volume begins to increase as vegetation is removed and site areas
become compacted by heavy equipment. At this stage. the installation of sediment controls and
storm water management facilities should occur.
Stage 3 Full Clearing and Grading
Full clearing and grading results in moderate to high levels of erosion. Major storms can wash
away sediment control structures, and can deposit substantial sediment in control structures.
significantly reducing capacity. Runoff volume is increasing as disturbed area increases. Regular
inspection and maintenance of sediment control practices is essential to maintain effectiveness of
the devices.
KE# 91521.00 . 2. Ku.tB R E.’40uiEERING
-------
2.0 Construction Site Stormwater Discharges
-------
Stage 4 Installation of Storm Drainage System
Storm water management facility construction is complete and storm drains are installed and
gradually connected to concentrate and divert runoff to the structure or structures. Erosion
continues to be moderate to high, and storm water runoff volume continues to increase as
disturbed areas become more compacted.
Stage 5 Active Construction of Structures
Construction is at its peak. Moderate to high erosion rates continue, and storm water runoff
volumes approach maximum. The impact of high erosion rates can be signi eant if sediment
control practices have not been maintained during previous stages of construction and are clogged
or have inii 4 diquate capacity to control site storm water discharges.
Stage 6 Site Stabilization
Disturbed areas are stabilized with vegetation or other suitable, non-erosive cover, and erosion
rates decline. Once all areas of the site are stabilized, temporaiy sediment control measures are
removed from the site, and sediment collected during the construction phase is removed (dredged)
from permanent storm water control structures to restore design capacity, if necr.taty. Storm
water runoff volume reaches post-development rates and may be less than the volume that
occurred in stage 5. due to areas of the site that are stabilized with vegetation.
2.2 Erosion and Sediment Control
The overall plan of erosion and sediment control for a construction site includes implementation
and regular maintenance of sediment control practices. These practices include various erosion and
sediment control measures that can be categorized as follows:
1. Perimeter controls
2. Slope protection
3. Sediment traps and basins
4. Drainageway and stream protection
5. Temporary stabilization
6. Permanent stabilization.
KE# 91521.00 - KAMBER ENOINEUINO
-------
These measures are described in an inventory prepared under Task 2 of this work assignment
entitled ‘Sediment and Erosion Control Measures, An Inventory of Current Practice’. Perimeter
cctrols, slope protection, and sediment traçn are temporary forms of stabilization that are
generally removed from the construction site at the end of the construction period. These facilities
are usually replaced with permanent stabilization measures such as vegetation or other permanent
(non eroding) surfaces. The s&i”ent and erosion control measure most often converted to a
permanent structure for storm watcr ‘ nigement is the sediment basin. The sediment basin can
often be dredged to remove sediment accumulated during the project construction pha’ . and with
minor improvements including the installation of an appropriate outlet structure, can be converted
to provide Long-term storm water m2fl gemCflt for the
site,
2.3 Conatructlog Site Housekeeping
Non-structural storm water controls on construction sites focus on methods of preventing non-
sediment related pollutants from entering storm water runoft sediment control structures, the down
stream storm drain system. and receiving streams. Pollutants that may be generated on a
construction site, and could potentially enter storm water runoff from the site if not controlled,
include gasoline, oils, grease, paints, raw materials used in the manufacture of concrete including
sand, aggregate. cement, water and admiztures. solvents, paper. plastic. styrofoam, aluminum cans.
glass bottles, and other torms of liquid and solid wastes. Construction site management plans
should include the following elements to prevent these pollutants from entering site storm water
discharges:
• Designated areas for equipment maintenance and repair which
include appropriate waste recepticals for spent oils, gasoline, grease
and solvents, and regular collection and disposal schedules.
• A site solid waste plan which provides waste receptacles of adequate
capacity at convenient locations to site workers and provides regular
collection of accumulated wastes.
• Equipment washdown areas located on-site only in areas which drain
to regularly maintained sediment control devices designed to
accommodate such discharges.
• Storage areas protected from storm water in accordance with the
manutacturers guidelines for storage of chemicals, paints, solvents
acids, pesticides. fertilizers or other potentially toxic water pollutants.
• Storage areas for raw materials used in construction which can be
carried by storm water runoff located only in drainage areas
controlled by retention-type sediment control devtces,
KE# 91521.00 - 4. KAMU.5 t4Q,J(mj) (
-------
3.0 Stormwater Management Theory
And General Design Basis
-------
• Water used during dust control activities discharged only to on-site
retention-type sediment control devices.
• Adequately maintained sanitary facilities.
Routine site housekeeping in accordance with a construction site management plan can rrnnuvni jp
non sediment related pollutants from entering storm water runoff. Sediment which enters storm
water during events, wasbdown of construction equipment, or from dust control acuvtties
can be controlled by properly “ i”tained se ”ent control devic . The remaining sections of this
report foctts on the purpose and general dasign basis of storm water management facilities which
control storm water discharges after construction is completed and includes the technolo
inventory of current storm water management practice.
KE# 91521.00 - 5. ICAMUR EZ4GINEE 74G
-------
3.0 Stormwater Management Theory And General
Design Basis ___________________________
Water flowing over the land during and immediately following a rainstorm is called stormwatcr
runoff. The characteristies of stormwater runoff in an urbnni”ng watershed change substantiaJly
in term of quantity, quality, and timing of the discharge to the natural hydrologic system, during
and after construction activities. Prior to construction, stormwater runoff is managed by a natural
hydrologic system created by the vegetation. soils, geolo ’ and topography of the watershed.
Rainfall enters the hydrogic system via a number of mutes:
• a portion falls on leaf or plant where it eventually evaporates;
• a portion is absorbed into the ground near the surface, to ultimately be
absorbed through the root syste of vegetation and returned to the
atmosphere through transpiration;
• a portion percolates through surface soils to replenish groundwater.
o a portion collects into rivulets which flow down gradient to natural
depressions and ultimately to receiving waters; i.e., tributaries, streams, rivers,
lakes, and the sea. This portion is termed storm water runoff.
The quantity of storm water that will be converted to runoff on a given site is a function of the
storm event (the quantity of rainfall delivered to the system), vegetative cover, soil type, and
topography. Construction activities remove vegetation and create impervious surfaces such as
streets, parking areas, sidewalks and roofs, and the change in land use created by the construction
results in changes in the natural hydrologic system. These changes reduce the amount of rainfall
that evaporates from plant surfaces. is absorbed and transpired by vegetation. or infiltrates through
the soil column to replenish groundwater supplies. and increase the amount of r,inf.ll converted
to direct surface runofL Post-construction runoff is often concentrated in peaks that are sharper.
faster and higher than those pmdue d by the undeveloped site. The concentrated, faster moving
runoff dislodges and dissolves pollutants which build up on the impervious land surfaces between
storm events and thus create changes the quality of storm water runoff discharged to surface
waters.
The cumulative effects of these changes can be observed in receiving streams where the increased
peak discharges create unstable and unvegetated stream banks, scoured or heavily deposited stream
channels, accumulations of in-stream trash and debris, reduced base-flow (non-storm flow), and the
regular disruption or absence of aquatic communities. Storm water management facilities are
intended to reduce the impact of the long term changes in the site storm water runoff
KE# 91521.00 . 6. Ic w EI4GD4EERJNG
-------
cbaracteristi by controlling the quantity, and in some facilities, the quality of post-construction
storm water discharges.
In order to address the impacts of the increased peak storm water discharges in receiving streams.
storm waler management facilities are designed to retain the peak storm water runoff from the
developed site within the structure and control the release rate to a level equal to or less than
the peak runoff rate that vuld have been generated by the site under the predevelopment
conditions. The volume of storage provided within the facility is controlled by the design storm
(the amount of rainfall) assumed for calculation of the pre.developmenc and post-development
site runoff and the criteria which specify the allowable release rate. Many localities specify the
10-year design storm as the design basis for storm water management structures to protect
downstream drainage structures such as road crossing culveru originally designed to pass a 10-
year pre-development storm. In the metropolitan Washington area, most jurisdictions require
control of the 2 and 10 year return interval storms to predevelopment release rates. In areas
where downstream flooding is an existing problem. control may be required for the 25, 50 and 100
year storms to reduce downstream effects of these major storms. In general, the larger the storm
event controlled within the structure and the slower the allowable release rate, the greater the
storage volume and cost of the facility.
Water quality controls address the impacts of increasing the amount and type of pollutants
discharged to receiving screams via storm water. The National Urban Runoff Project (NURP)
studies found that the majority of pollutants discharged to receiving screams via storm water are
washed from impervious land surfaces during the early stages of a storm, and are contained within
the first 1/2 to 1 inch of runoff from the contributing drainage area. To reduce the impact of
these iirst flush discharges on receiving streams, storm water management facility designs can be
modified to improve discharge quality by providing treaunern within the structure. Additionally,
a number of structural and nonstructural facilities and management practices have been developed
to remove or reduce pollutants in storm water runoff and in discharges from storm water
management facilities. These methods are termed Best Management Pracuces, or BMPs. The
facilities and methods referred to as BMP5 may provide only water quality control, or both quantity
and quality control within the same facility.
KE# 91521.00 . 7. )C g ENGINEERING
-------
4.0 Stormwater Management Planning
Considerations
-------
4.0 Stormwater Management Planning Considerations____
Scormwater management facilities control the volume, quality and release rate of storm water
runoff from the developed site once construction is complete and the site s1abiIi d. The
development of a storm water management plan for a site includes the selection of the most
appropriate type of facility, method or combination of methods to provide quantity and water
quality control and influenced by the physical site conditloes, the size of the contributing
drainage area, and the water quality and classification of the receiving stream.
Site conditions include topography, soils, slopes, geolo r, and the location of on-site suiface waters
including intermittent and flowing streams and drainageways, ponds, l2ke and wetIands In
addition to the natural features. the site conditions includes the casting zoning designation and
the land use proposed by the owner/developer.
The size of the site and the contributing drainage area influence the selection of control structures.
In general. the use of infiltration-type storm water management structures is limited to smaller
drainage areas (generally Less than ten acres). while the use of pond type facilities, particularly
wetponds. is limited to larger drainage areas (generally greater than 10 acres) where sufflci nt base
flow to support the permanent poo 1 is available. In addition to size of the site and contributing
drainage area, soils and topography influence selection of control methods. For mple.
infiltration-type structures are limited to sites with sandy, or sandy loam soils which are capable of
infiltrating the required volumes, and grassed swale type conveyance systems are only appropriate
on sites with gentle slopes so that erosive velocities do not scour the bottom of the swale. These
types of constraints are addressed in the inventory provided in the appendix.
Site planning techniques are used to develop a concept plan for a proposed construction activity
which accomplishes the long-term Land-use change objectives of the development within the
framework of existing site conditions. Site planning which minimizes disturbed area, reduces the
need for mass grading of the site, and preserves, to the maximum atent practicable, the natural
site topography and drainage features, can reduce the number of sediment control structures and
practices necesaasy to protect receiving waters during construction, and can reduce the volume of
storage necessary in storm water management structures. Site planning which clusters development
in areas most suited to construction allows preservation of more sensitive areas such as on-site
streams and wetlands, and areas of unstable soils and steep slopes. Cluster development techniques
also increase the opportunity to provide undisturbed buffer areas adjacent to on•site streams which
can provide water quality benefits.
KEs 91521.00 . 8. K wa Esou EuIso
-------
The concept site plan indicates the proposed location of structures including buildinp, roadways
and parking facilities. Using this information, and a rough grading plan of the site, storm water
management options can be developed.
The plan for managing site storm water will include methods of storm water collection, conveyance
and management in control structures, and may include additional control measures which provide
water quality improvement as well as quantity controL The selection of the appropriate facility
for a given site is influenced by size of the receiving drainage area and other site specific
considerations. For example. a proposed large-lot single -Family residential development storm water
management concept plan may include storm water collection and conveyance by a combination
of grassed swales and enclosed pipes which discharge to a central storm water management wet
pond. Quantity control would be provided by the storm water management wetpond, which
controls the discharge of the two and ten year return interval storms from the developed site to
predevelopment levels. Quality control would be provided by the grassed swales ( with check dams
) WhiCh provide some physical filtering of storm water runoff and encourage infiltration, and by the
design of the pond which provides at least 24 hours of detention for the mean storm event. A
commercial site in the same watershed might implement a completely different set of in nagemcnt
practices.
The inventory of storm water management practice provided in the Appendix addresses site
conditions most appropriate for each of the practices, and other application considerations.
In addition to selection of storm water management practices appropriate to site conditions, the
overall plan for storm water management must consider the water quality and existing storm water
management practices of the entire watershed. Watershed conditions can affect the selection of
the method of storm water management quantity control and the level and type of water quality
protection provided by the facility. The storm water management plan for the residential
subdivision described above would be designed as a dry pond. not a wetpond. if it were discharging
to a watershed protected for trout propagation to minimize the potential for thermal impacts.
Development within the protected watershed would likely have to conform to standards which limit
impervious area and establish stream setbacks for water quality and aquatic habitat protection.
Similarly, if the storm water management facility discharged to receiving waters protected for water
supply. the facility might include extended detention features and a planted wetlands permanent
pooi to provide maximum removal of pollutants in storm water discharges. If the proposed
development were located in the lower reaches of a drainage basin where quantity controls are
least effective, the proposed storm water management plan might focus on quality controls, and
provide minimal quantity control within the structures. Similarly, if the site is located immediately
upstream of a proposed major regional storm water management facility, a waiver of on-site storm
water managemeni quantity and quality control might be appropriate in the event that acceptable
KE• 91521.00 . 9. KAM3ER E. ’ OUIEEP4NG
-------
conveyance of site storm water runoff can be provided to the regional facility.
ICES 9*521.00 10- K AMBU Enotnnnio
-------
5.0 Stormwater Management Practice Inventory
-------
5.0 Stormwater Management Practice Inventory
As noted in previous sections of this report. storm water management facilities are installed during
the construction phase to control the quantity and/or quality of storm water discharged from the
site once construction is completed. The storm water management inventory provided in the
appendix is addresses structural and non structural methods of storm water m nagemcnt, and
identifies which methods are considered Best Management Pra ees, or storm water nagement
methods which provide water quality controL
5.1 i’,wu-sflvctural Storm Water Management
Non-structural storm water management methods include vegetation practices designed to limit site
impervious area and reduce the need for volume control storm water management facilities, and
pollution prevention techniques designed to control pollutants prior to contact with storm water
and discharge in storm water runoff.
Vegetation practices include grassed swains and grassed and wooded filter suips and various
landscaping techniques which encourage the preservation of ex ting woodlands, and the replanting
of woodlands where preservation is not possible. These practices are often used in combination
with other quantity control based storm water management practices to improve the quality of
storm water discharged from the site. In addition to swains filter strips. and landscaping techniques
used individually as water quality control methods. vege(ation plantings are often proposed within
the basins of volume control storm water management facilities such as dry ponds and wctponds
to improve the pollutant removal capabilities of these facilities.
Non-structural storm water management practices include housekeeping practices such as street
sweeping, urban litter control programs. and fertilizer and pesticide control programs. These storm
water management methods focus on controlling the build-up of pollutants on the land surface
in between storm events to prevent pollutants from entering storm water runoff.
5.2 Structural Storm Water Munqement Facilities
Structural storm water management facilities described in the inventory provided in the appendix
are grouped in three categories; pond systems. infiltration-based systems. and underground and
other storage systems.
ICE# 91521.00 . II. K...MaEa EIOU4EERINO
-------
Pond systems designed primarily as volume control structures provide , nini i I pollutant removal
capabilities and cannot be considered water quality controls, or BMP facilities. However, pond
systems can be designed with e t nded detention, sediment forebays, planted wetlands basins and
permanent paàls. which improve water quality performance significantly by creating conditions
within the basin for physical and biological treatment of pollutants in storm water runoff.
Infiltration -based storm water m*nsgement facilities include infiltration basins and trenches,
pavement alternatives including porous asphalt and grid payers, and rooftop storage-disposal
alternatives which direct rooftop runoff to underground facilities which discharge to the surrounding
soils. Infiltration devices are all considered BMPs because they treat storm water by filtration
through gravel and the soil column, and discharge treated storm water to pound water. In
addition to the treatment provided by percolation through the soil oolunin, infiltration devices are
particularly favored because storm water replenishes groundwater and thus replicates as much as
possible the prcdevelopment hydrolo r of the site. Pavement alternatives reduce site impervious
area, and thus reduce the need for volume control storm water management facilities. Rooftop
storage-disposal facilities are similar to infiltration trenches and basins in that ultimate disposal of
storm water is to on-site soils and ultimately to local groundwater.
Underground storage facilities include vaults and pipe storage systems that are typically installed
on urban and suburban commerciallindustrial sites where site area is limited. These systems are
typically designed as volume control facilities only, and provide only temporary detention (or time
periods insufficient to provide for significant sedimentation or removal of other storm water
pollutants. For this reason, underground vaults and pipe storage facilities are not considered BMP
facilities. Similarly, parking lot storage, and rooftop storage facilities provide temporary storage of
storm water and a controlled release rate to receiving streams, but provide only minimal pollutant
removal benefits. These facilities are also not considered BMP facilities.
KE# 91521.00 • 12. g ,.J ,4BEk E 4GINEEPJNG
-------
APPENDIX
XE# 91521.00 13 . Lutan ENGINEERD4G
-------
NON S RUC URAL
STORMWAit R MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
KE# 91521.00 - K BER Ez4o1x DIo
-------
Street Sweeping
Definition:
Regular sweeping of urban areas to remove accumulated debris including sediment. trash, materials
from atmospheric deposition and motor vehicle sources.
Purpose:
To re accumulated materials between storn to prevent the dislodge and transport of these
pollutants to surface waters during storm events.
Conditions Where Practice Applies:
Urban areas and particular industrial sites where accumulation of materials on paved surfaces is
signifleanL
Effectiveness:
The practice has received limited application in urban areas that has been monitored to provide
data sufficient to estimate effectiveness.
Mvantages:
Can be implemented in urban areas to improve storm waler runoff quality without committing
costly land area necrinsy for volume controls. Can be implemented as a retrofit storm water
management BMP.
Disadvantages:
Method is labor and equipment intensive. In addition to purchase/rental of the street sweeping
equipment. o erators are ne ry. and schedules must be developed which do not conflict with
periods of high use/ activity by pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic. Equipment is noisy, and may
generate complaini.s from residential portions of the urban area.
CE# 91521.00 - 18. K. MaER EI’oD’ zNo
-------
Fertilizer and Pesticide Application Controls
Definition
Managing the appLication of fertilizers and pesticides to encourage proper application.
Purpose
To reduce pesticides and fertilizers in storm water runoff from residential, commercial and
industrial land uses.
Condition Where Practice Applies
Suburban and urban areas including residential lou. common areas, recreation areas. parks. roadway
right of ways. commercial sites, industrial sites, cemeteries, and other institutions and public
facilities.
Effectiveness
Unknown
Advantages
A storm water management BMP that can be applied on a system-wide or jurisdiction basis to
reduce nutrient loadings and pesticides in receiving waters from the entire system.
Disadvantages
Implementation of a public information program to encourage proper application of pesticides and
fertilizers would be costly, and estimates of effectiveness would be conjecture at best.
KE# 91521.00 . i . KAMBEB E O111EEPJKG
-------
Vegetative Practices
Description
Grass filter strips, wooded filter strips. preservation of wooded areas. reforestation areas and tree.
shrub landscaping instead of turfscaping.
Purpose
To provide vegetated areas between structural development and receiving streams to provide a
filtering area for storm water and to promote infiltration into the soil.
Conditions Where Practice Applies
Mostly applies to developing areas, but in some instances can also be used as a water quality BMP
in retrofit situations.
Effectiveness
Treatment of storm water in filter strip applications is accomplished physically by a combination
of filtration through the standing vegetation and infiltration into the underlying soils. In order to
treat storm water effectively, filter strips must be designed to function as overland flow systems
where storm water is evenly distributed. There is a high potential for short circuiting and reduced
pollutant removal from these systems.
Advantages
In addition to water quality benefits provided by vegetative filter and infiltration, vegetative
practices. particularly those involving preservation of woodlands, reforestation, or tree.shsub
Landscaping provide aethetic features for the community, and provide wildlife habitat in urban and
suburban areas.
Disadvantages
Filter strips are considered BMPs. but provide limited storm water volume control and are usually
implemented in combination with other volume control storm water management facilities.
Sufficient land area must be available for grassed and woodland filter strips and woodland
preservation areas and reforestation areas. Land availability constrains application of this BMP in
KE# 9152L00 . . KAMBER ENGINEERING
-------
retrofit situaUOfl .
KE# 91521.00 • 21.
-------
S h.Ifl$tIC of a Filtar Strip
Reference:
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual
for PIannin and Dcsifning Urban BMP S Thomas R. Schueler, July, 1987.
-------
Grassed Swales
Description
Grassed lined channels used to collect and convey storm water runoff.
Purpose
An alternative to closed pipe systems which provides opportunities to reduce storm water velocny
and promote infiltration.
Conditions Where Practice Applies
Low density development and in medians and adjoining roadways. Soil and slope conditions dictate
application.
Effectiveness
Treatment of pollutants ls primarily physical filtration through stknding vegetation with some
infiltration into undertying soik. By slowing velocity of runoff and providing some infiltration,
grassed swales reduce the time of concentration (the tune it takes runoff to reach the receiving
stream).
Advantages
Provides a low cost alternative to enclosed pipe systems which offers some water quality benefits
if properly designed.
Disadvantages
Although grassed swales provide some flow attenuation, they are not considered volume control
storm water management facilities. Pollutant removal effectiveness is a function of proper design
and application, and can be variable.
ICE# 91521.00 . . 1 AMBER E.NGINUPJ!40
-------
Schmatic of a Grass.d SwaI
Reference:
Metropolitan Washington Cou 1 of Governments, Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual
for Planninf and Designing Urban BMP’s . Thomas R. Schueler, July, 1987.
31
s_
Zor.ss Oramal .
wa Psrm*
T
cMs d.m
( muisss mam. sn)
D. u G
of Gm.
Caiisry or KY.31
-------
structural Stormwater Management Practices
MEt 91521.00 • 23- - L UtHER ENOWEERDJO
-------
Stormwater Detention Wetpond
Description
Wctponds are natural or man made depressions which provide storage of the permanent pool and
storm water runoff from a site or drainage area, and allows gradual release of the post.
development peak runoff from the site to down stream areu
Wetponds regulate the discharge of post-development site runoff and provide water quality control
by providing physical settling of storm water pollutants and by providing an aquatic system for
biological treatment.
Conditions Where Practice Applies
Wetponds are appropriate where the contributing drainage area provides sufficient base flow to
support the permanent pool area of the wespond. Generally, the !ninfnum contributing drainage
area for wetponds is about 10 acres unless a known water source such as a spring is present.
Larger ponds are preferred.
Advantages
Wetponds provide both volume and water quality control, and provide additional advantages by
offering opportunities for recreation and wildlife habitat in the community. Water quality
performance of wetponds is variable, but generally high. Extended detention and other design
features such as sediment forebays and permanent pool areas managed as shallow wetland marshes
improve water quality performance.
Disadvantages
Permanent pooi areas can thy up during periods of drought in marginal watersheds, creating odors
and nuisance. Wetponds are typically placed in stream valleys which meet the regulatory defInition
of wetlands and require U.S. Corps of Engineers and State water quality certification approvals
for construction. Pond construction in the stream valley alters riparian wetland habitat and
precludes the migration of aquatic species through the pond. Werponds can present safety hazards
in residential communities. Fencing can control ac but affects aesthetics of the pond.
KE# 91521.00 - 24. KAMBER ENGINEERING
-------
WET DETENTION SYSTEM
I’OND CONIIOIJIIA1 ION - A
LI flORAl.
ZONE 13.51
Source: Southwest Florida Water Management District
Management and Storage of Surface Waters, Permit Information
Manual, Vol.1, March 1988.
I —
INP LOW
UAFFLE OR
SK
— — — JJ I 1M N
sIIWIv VU
SEDIMENT SIJMP
DEEPER AREA
1 SLOPE IflESIRAft1E
(4:1 MINIMUM$
-------
Mthods For Ext.nding D.t.ntion Tines In W.t Ponds
C sNsus1 S.. Si.. ,
flam * Ca
IMas,& _ y P l Ors i .. .
Referen :
Metropolitan W hington Coun l of Governmenu Controllin, Urban Runo A Practical Man
for PIannin and D i nina Urban BMP’s . Thomas R. Schueler, July, 1987.
a. . wq*ia $ SWd $ a .s
S. rs.ga,,t s .. p,.
H’
“ Ills ”
—
Ft iit Vssw
Sidi V sw
-------
WET DETENTION SYSTEM
POND CONFIGURATION fl
Source: Southwest Florida Water Management District
Management and Storage of Surface Waters, Permit Information
Manual, Vol.I March 1988.
INFLOW
— — WL L
IflEAIMENI
SEDIMENt SLJMP fl(( )(fl AREA
1SLOPE IOESIRABL($
14: 1 MINIMUM)
-------
Stormwater Detention Diy Pond
Definition
Dry ponds are man made storage facilities which rem n dry between storm events, and provide
temporary storage and gradual release of the post development runoff during and after storm
events.
Dry ponds contain post-development storm water runoff and control the release to predevelopment
peak levels. Unless modified to provide extended detention, dry ponds provide only minimal water
quality improvement, and are comidered primarily a volume control facility.
Advantages -
Dry ponds can be implemented in watersheds and drainage areas where thermal impacts are a
concern. Dry ponds arc generally the least costly storm water management volume control
alternative, Mditionally. recreation areas such as playing fields can be used as dry detention areas.
Disadvantages
Dry ponds provide little water quality control unless designed for extended detention.
KE# 91S21. 25. ENGINEERING
-------
Porous Asphalt Pavement
Definition
Pavement alternative which allows infiltration of storm water to gravel and soil layers underlying
the pavement surface.
Purpose
To reduce the quantity of storm water runoff from paved areas and infiltrate storm water to
underlying soils. Practice is applicable only in areas with suitable subsurface soil conditions.
Mvantages
Reduces the need for volume control storm water management facilities, and provides water quality
control for storm water which infiltrates through the pavement to underlying soils.
Disadvantages
Voids in asphalt fill with sediment over time and surface eventually clogs. Must be combined with
other volume control storm water management facilities. Water remaining in void areas is subject
to freeze-thaw cycle which streasfi and weakens pavement.
KE# 91521.00 26. L Mas ENOINEERUic
-------
PMthods For Ext.nding Dstantiori Tim.s irs Dry Ponds
Sids Visw
S 111 C.s Is1 f ’ d
t. Wi1 Ol C.sII N P 5i1,$4 PISS
I--- - O —
o .o F .
‘,•S *?ISs .im Fu ,
I
I
W
G svi
p
‘aces.. Ca
to, C1eo.i.o ii
To ..a.
O c o
... .. ...
Ww N
Re1eren
Metro ütan Ww binpoc Co 1 o( G c Controlling Urban Runoff A Prictical Mini i
f si Planninf md D ignint Urban BMP!L Thomu R. SC IUCICr , July, 19€7.
-------
PERVIOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT
TYPICAJ. SECTION
fr:.. cj
WATEI ,5TO/ AGE
PER VIOUS CONCRETE
PAVING
SC/B GRAOE
Reference:
florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The florida Deve oomeflt Manual: A Guide To
und Land And Water ManucmentI June, 19 .
CONCRE1 E
C(JLATEO
PER VIOL /S
A dsss.u ,i .w 14 n.$wms wi $s
-------
POROUS ASPHALT PAVING TYPICAL SECTION
4 POROUS ASPHALT SURFACE COURSE
1/2’ to 3/4 ’ Aggregate
asphaltic mix
2.5 to 4’ thickness typical
i nucuc isr•
1/2’ Aggretate
2’ ThIckness
4 RESERVOIR IASE COURSE
1’ to 2’ Aggregate
Voids volume Is designed for
runoff Retention
Thickness is based on stora je
required
rl [ 1tUFASRIC _________
EXISTING SOIL
Minimal compaction to retain
porosity and permeability
4
I
vII
iii iii, i1iL=uU II
llUI L1lIIt lift l i ii
Modified after Diniz, 1980 and City of RockVille, Maryland, 1982
-------
Infiltration Trenches and Basins
Description
Infiltration facilities collect, store and infiltrate runoff through gravel areas and underlying soils.
Purpose
To provide both volume control and water quality control, and replicate as much as possible,
predevelopment hydrologic conditions.
Conditions Where Practice Applies
Infiltration devices are most applicable on smaller development sites, and insiallation requires
careful management during the construction period to avoid clogging the structure with sediment.
Mvantages
Changes in down stream peak flows are minimal because storm water is infiltrated to resupply local
groundwater. Water quality control is provided by infiltration through the soil column and is
considered high performance. -
Disadvantages
Infiltration structures are costly to construct and require maintenance that eventually will involve
reconstruction of the basin to restore infiltration capacity as systems become clogged over time.
Infiltration systems can only be implemented on sites with suitable soil and ground water
conditions.
KEW 91521.00 . 27. ICAI4Baa ENGu.rEE INo
-------
IIIs•r Fabrkc
Fx ie Application of a Vegetated Area for
Pretreatment of Nsrnoff Prior to E*tiltration im Frederick Co. $0
AqqteqMe
0 1k.
— Width ______
V.q.tM.d Area
hoc Fil led. . 9 )
) NIni.ua
Dept Ii
I1lt.r Fabi lc
1’
t
1’
4
4,
qt
(1
(1
-4
3
I
1
3
21
D
Runoff
-------
IVPICAL INfiLTRATION IILNCII UNDER GUTTIRLISS ROOF
I
I
I
1
I
I
Source: Virginhi Soil jnd Water Conservation Co ission
-------
Cross-Section of Typical lnfIltration/Exftltratton
Trench Syst.ea for Parking Areas or Roadways
;I3IIMWn SSI (- .
Uvilfi i YH—I
‘, ,
S II li.I Vt I I Ii
IiiIIU I
LAKE
E’\,III I I EJ’.LIII II
-JoI
$1111 Sli
MAI1I” IJOX
ç
PARKING LOT
RUNOFF
N 10
II Al 1.1101
iussi ussa
list PILIS1INIS
I
$
1
I’
IJYEfl, IllIH)LE, MIttS
*110 PflECOUflI• INC. ( ] 3)
e, .w.tiI,s 3IM$V y %
ucilsi * - $
(IIIui*iiu ut ica aisuca
“ flit
C III ’
‘tIISCI $$1 j
. IIzI ,
Csa,se
III ”
III ,,
1
•0
I
I
ii
1
3.
Si’
S
p.
-------
Ex lSS of Typicil Underground Percolati on Systs
f or
Retrofittifl9 Existing StOr eWt? Syst s in Orlando, Florida
Referen :
flOnda Department of Environmental Regulation. The florida DCVeIOOmCnt Manual: A Guide Th
Sound Land And Witer Msnuement . June, 1988.
•*$MSNSTON
o oc*
100, #11. psuI,s)
II , Ii. 3 rL * .
T
4 .
£
p.- - l
-------
JYPICAt SELl ION, SI.AII COVERED WENCH, HAIJE COIINJY, El ORIDA
HOlES:
I) if material at edge of ditch Is unsuitable
for foundation undersiab, clean out and backfill
with concrete. Depth of backfill varies.
2) Transition to trench bottom when It
Is lower than catch basin bottom.
0
a
a
a
I. )
a
S
0
0
I
I
LONGITUDiNAL SECTION
-------
L]J
; . ;;
) ;
1R
La
t-.
I
FRENCh DRAIN (EXFILTRATION TRENCH), DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
NOlES:
IITf ir wic hail & splg* pipe 5’ h ig Is not avalWle,
pl * , i to 24 ki dlte ha saI tltutaI.
2) Uwic
or pipe
.* at
1
hail I spI t pipe Is not 16& It tie 1ø4h
i & Is çeata thai 5, 3/4 sa. oats shall ha
Intevais d 2’ tiru tie hail ol pIpe, 5’
m y ha LGed ft vitriflel clq pipe.
3) lie a bKtø h tie qitlai or inst.iii.
tie foik a1ng pipe t :
A. Cimaete frat& a nt i-p frateI (bell spIqit)
S. VItrIfIedCl — S
* C. tth ugstefl Lai - SItlInc*5 costel ( frated)
* 0. vnJ It& Abalnia festal )
4) No pipe p fratIe ta 10’..
LOI$GITIJOINAL S E CT 1014 i v s’ s cuoti
* /4 to V8 dia. hole, spx ed at 2-3/4+ (.Inie.a 162 holes iIis.ft.)
-------
IYP(S OF GRID AND MODULAR PAVINENIS
Castellated Unit
Lattice Unit
Nodular Unit
Source: Virginia SOIl and Water Conservation Co ission
-------
Rooftop Runoff Disposal
Description
Disposal of rooftop runoff by systems and techniques which avoid or replace direct connections to
storm or sanitary sewers. Disposal alternatives include underground vaults, c rerns. infiltrauon
trenches and basins -
Purpose
To detain roof top runoff and provide opportunities for reuse and eventual infiltration to
underlying soik.
Conditions Where Practice Applies
In urban and suburban areas where space constrains use of other volume control storm water
management alternatives. Only applicable on sites where adequate storage can be provided, or
soil and ground water conditions are suitable for the infiltration of runoff.
Advantages
When used on an area wide basis, can provide effective volume and quality control for rooftop
runoff. Particularly applicable in areas where thermal impacts are a concern.
Disadvantages
Similar to other infiltration-type devices in terms of maintenancel reconstruction requirements for
infiltration portion of the system. Roof top detention may require building structural improvement
co accommodate weight of storm water detained temporarily on roof.
ICED 91521.00 . 28. K..MBU ENOINEEP.ING
-------
JNFII.IRATIOI4 DRAIMME OF ROOFTOP
UW OUN
PEA7E tre. WATE PE U E
‘20M ‘0 T0 A E 02CE W TE
rW20ucj w rw s ou-r o
P 2F026J-rI0N , P20V JN PL NT
i V, 1LA LE, MO TLJ E Wrr 1T EVAPO2 1CN
9
U
t: PE 2 2 TE qh
/ PIPE
a.
I,
‘$1
S
PLOW VIEW
• CYE FL OW SO 200F 02 POW 422 AJ
W 2AI N N1PLETE L Y IN
0 JI LE T1M F02 NEx”T
ro2’ v1
PE2F02.4TE
PIPE
I
I l U tL
P 1
Source: Virginia Soil and Water Conservation C .nission
-------
Source: Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Cosission
Downspout
Use water for
‘awn watering or
other purposes
TYPICAL RETENTION CISTERN
-------
Underground and Other Storage Systems
KE# 91521.00 • 29. K...MBE EI OINEZRJNG
-------
Water Quality Inlet
Description
A water quality inlet is basically a three chambered oil/grit separator provided at curb inlets in the
storm drain s Lem which receives runoff from parking areas and ace s drives.
Water quality inlets are intended to provide removal of oil and grease and go. solids from storm
water runoff entering the storm drain system. Water quality inlets provide minimal storage and are
not considered volume control facilities.
Conditions Where Practice Applies
In urban and suburban area parking lots and str ts in commestial and industrial land use areas.
Advantages
If properly maintained, water quality inlets can provide removal of solids including grit (heavy
portion of sediment load which readily settles out of the water column), and floatable trash, debris.
oil and grease. Ck’ipbers of the oil grit separator must be regularly cleaned to remove
accumulated sediment and debra to avoid wash through of these materiak or dogging of the
facility during subsequent storm events.
Disadvantages
Water quality inlet provides removal of gross solids in storm water runoff only. These facilities do
not provide adequate storage to allow signirv nt settling of solids or removal of other pollutants.
Adequate maintenance is ne .’ rg to maintain effectiveness of gross solids removal pmces&
Water quality inlets are an improvement over traditional storm drain inlets because they provtde
for screening of gross debris and prevent debris from entering the downstream storm drain system
and receiving waters. Howaver. water quality inlets are more costly to install and maintain and do
not provide significant pollutant removal or volume control benefits.
(ES 91521.00 . 30. K MBEA E.’IOINEER INO
-------
Sid• V.w
Cia, sstto
F,,it CMmer
Sch.matic of a Wat•r Quality lnl.t, RockvilI• Percolating
Inlet Design
Outlilto
— SIoi tsiii S st.m
1 , _ 4 ______________________________
I:L r ‘
‘ 6 lnc?i I ‘
‘IN C* .JOrthc.s
L.L_... ...L...I
Curb
o.d
od Surlce
Stormor.w
Out$t
Grivos Layer
So.$
Side View I n l e t
Seosetem Cheeses, Inverted £lbsse
/
/
/
/
)__ __ /
WseO MOl /
/
________ ____ _____/
Tr ji scb
Oil ____
Chamoer
W..D
Stoemd’$.
A eu
!psse Pressctt
1 ,s$ InceOllIiG$$
Inverted Ilbow
IØe *gulete$ f
Wiser
Livele
s,ntorc,d
Concrete
Construction
— pe
400 CuSs Feet
of Ste1i Per
Conuibvt sAI
Fist
0 e i S
wis ch.sessr
( Ss1g .l Waese )
S.c.na Chamber
(Oil Seperutisn-
TPwd Chamber
Top View
Source: itv of Roc’.. .a 198 b)
-------
Underground Storage
D
Underground storage the practice of storing storm water runoff in underground vaulu, overaiznd
pipes, and other structures beneath site structures such u parking bts.
The purpose of underground storage to provide volume control on space limited sites.
Conditions Where Practice Applies
Underground storage applicable where there a lack of surface storage ares or the land t
is greater than that of underground storage construction.
Effectiveness:
Underground storage effective for volume control only. Water quality control not provided
by these facilities.
Advantages
The advantage of underground storage that it can be used on space limited sites and fafility
location is not greatly influenced by site topography.
Disadvantages
Cost is the major disadvantage. Underground facilities are espenaive to construct and are not
easily m intainet Accordingly, underground structures are applicable only in areas where land
costs are high and space is limited.
KE# 91521.00 K* Ei oD( D O
-------
Rooftop Detention
Definiuon
Rooftop detention f dlities provide temporvy stormwateT storage OD fiat roof surfacen allowing
gradual release of runoff to pound-level storm drain sys1ems
The purpose of rooftop detention E to provide quantity or volume control of storm water coll tM
on the roof of the structure.
Conditloes Where Practios Applies -
Rooftop detention can be incorporated into design of most new buildinp. In addition, many
aisting flattop structures can be modified . Rooftop storage can be imed as a quantity control
retrofit technolo r in urban areas.
Effectiveneu
Rooftop detention is effective for quantity control but does not provide quality controL
Advantages:
Rooftop detention can be implemented in urban areas as a retrofit technoIo for quantity control,
and to correct edsting uncontrolled connections to the storm drain system.
Disadvantages:
The building mtist be structurally designed to accommodate the additional weight of waier storage
at the roof level. Water quality control cannot be provided unless connected to a ground level
infiltration facility. Effective volume control can only be realized when applied on an area-wide
basis.
KE# 91521.00 . 30. L ii1Ea Ei ou wD4o
-------
BTORM SEWER
ABOVE GRADE
CURB CUTS
Parking Lot Detention Configurations
s 1O _TI4ROUG A ‘!‘YPICAL PARKING LO STORAGE AREA
PERP 4ETER SWALE
RECESSED LANDSCAPE AREA WITH RAISED _________
STORM SEWER I&ET AND CURB CUTS
PARKlO LOT
Reference:
Rorida Department of Environmental Regulation. The Flonda DeveloDment Manual: A Guide To
— — — — — —
Berm
Overflow
/ Inlet with Ponding
O”lf,ce Plat.e
1pI:: IH1t Ill1 •I’
Qynd Land And Wpte Manuement . June, 19 .
-------
Parking Lot Storage
Description
Method of storm water management volume control which provides temporarj storage (ponding)
of storm water runoff in paved parking areas an/or within landscaped & ndi of parking Iota, and
allows a controlled rate of release to receiving streams.
Parking lot stage an alternative to dry pond systemas.and basi ally provides volume control for
the post development peak storm water runoff from the contributing drainage area.
Conditions Where Practice Applies
Parking lot storage is applicable where portions of large, paved surface parking can be used for
temporary storm water storage without interfering with normal pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
Large commercial parking lieu and employee parking areas have been used for thi purpose.
Advantages
Parking lot storage allows the inc of aissing or plinned parking facilities for temporary volume
control storage. and is a low cost method of providing volume controls. Parking lot storage can
be used in combination with infiltration practices to provide volume control and water quality
control for a site. Additionally, use of parking areas for temporary storage allows site open space
to be used for other purposes.
Disadvantages
Large surface areas are required to provide adequate storage volume without creating unacceptable
water depth in parking areas. Parking lot surfaces are normally subject to heating due to sun
exposure and will transfer heat to stored runoff. Practice is not appropriate where thermal impacts
arc a concern.
KEØ 91521.00 . 31. K tB EKouiwwo
-------
I - UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASI4INGTON, D.C. 20460
._
JG 1 3 1991
OFFICE OF WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Policy on Biological Assessments and Criteria
FROM: Jick Brandes, Chief ‘ ‘—- -
Water Quality and Industrial
Permits Branch (EN-336)
TO: Regional Permits Branch Chiefs (I-X)
I have enclosed for your information and use a copy of the
recently issued “Policy on Biological Assessments and Criteria”.
This policy was signed by Tudor Davies on June 19, 1991. The
content of the policy is also stated in the Technical Su ort
Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control .
One aspect of the policy expresses that water quality
standards are to be independently applied. This means that any
single assessment method (chemical criteria, toxicity testing, or
biocriteria) can provide conclusive evidence that water quality
standards are not attained. Apparent conflicts between the three
methods should be rare. They can occur because each assessment
method is sensitive to different types and ranges of impacts.
Therefore, a demonstration of water quality standards nonattain-
ment using one assessment method does not necessarily require
confirmation with a second method; nor can the failure of a
second method to confirm impact, by itself, negate the results of
the initial assessment.
If you have any questions about the policy, please call Jim
Pendergast at FTS 475-9536 or Kathy Smith at FTS 465-9521.
Attachment
Printed on Peci ec 3;dr
-------
_•jI
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WAShINGTON. 0 C 20460
4)
4 QQ1t
JJN I 9 iggi
OF ’CE OF
I ’IEMOM WATER
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Final LoLicy on Bint gLcaL
Assessments and Criteria
FROM: Tudor T. Davies. Dir cto
Office of S.:ience and Technol.oqy (WM-551)
TO: W t’?r M nRrJement Division Dir ctors
Regions 1-X
Attached t T As “Policy on r.h - PiologicqI
ssA qm nt. ann iteri in the Wr ter ‘?uaLlt Program”
( t arhrnent A). Thjq olt y is -‘ ign ic nt s t ep toward
acLdie irg aLL pollution pr bJ. is ‘.nthin war.p ’ hqd. tt is a
n t..tit& o’: Tr wt of ‘ir gtc ’a ’ undel-3tanding of the range of
pi-oblem, ff- t ng w ut4’r3n’ -ts From c ’pm1r s o phya c cl
, irtou. ann r f cts the necd ro cot 5ider the whol.e
L . 3 ‘t ‘.; “N n I t v 1 ç’c I T it n eon rt; 1 str teqte -
T i -ol icy 3 $ the pr’ diur . oC a hr oari-ba ed ‘ rkgr ”p r-hci r d
hy Jim lafk’ n and Chri F ’ulkrter r.f fCic ‘f W t:lands.
arc) Wit -qh dp - The woi-’cujr ,uc. w
rres rtt:3 c v -s from sv vpn FP) edr ’iat-t rs r’ fF : s s. four F.PA
c e3t -: -! ( r ’riee. all 10 FPA Regions. 11 Fish and WiLd1 fq
c 7-;?] rT Forest Ser rice. and the St te of Hew Vork and
Jnrt- CaroLina (see Attachment B). This policy also r flecte
revi”w comments to the draft policy st emcnc i sue4 in Mare-h of
i 90. Comments were received from three F.PA E4 adquarters
offices, three EPA R.secrch ahoratories. five EPA Req ons and
two States. The following secti”ns of this ; em randt’m rro’/ide a
rief history of the policy r1e ) sr L and cdnli innai
in ormatioit on relevant gu dai e
Back . round
The Ecopo] icy Workgroup was r- tme’1 n re rise to several
convergi!v:7 in L1 atives in F. A s i.c ’na ‘ai r ‘u.oqram. In
ep’:embcr l9 7, a r - j’r in rn r ‘ u.ij .1 tlød “Surface Wat r
Moni toriw : A Fr umcwork for rha:rV . -rror.r4Ly mphasizenI Ph n”?d
o “acceleratc ri 1 teIrpYT ’ - ’ t • - u J ;i --it .rtu rf p’o 1 n sina
hic ] gicaL ir.on I ring ‘ h:’t : :° ‘ in ‘: ar’d rp mnnjt,’-irg
rogrcms Soon u.n i’h . -1 N t:]’ 1ai Wrn-ksh p
c IriEt eam io’- ’ica T’1jt. 1r j ‘rct C ’u.I.; t’ tt ra ’ d r’i’s
Pr. ,4 au .Q:g !g P ;v
-------
recommendation but also pointed out the importance of integratir.g
the biological criteria and assessment methods with traditional
chemical/physical methods (see Final Proceedings, EPA-905.’9-
99/003) Finally, at the June 1988 National Symposium on Water
Quality Assessment, a workgroup of State and Federal
representatives unanimously recommended the development of a
national bioassessment policy that encouraged the expanded use of
the new biological tooLs and directed their implementation across
the water quality program.
Guided by these recommendations, the workgroup held three
workshop-style meetings between July and December 1988. Two
major questions emerged from the lengthy discussions as issues of
general concern:
ISSUE 1 - How hard should EPA push for formal adoption of
biological criteria (biocriteria) in State
water quality standards?
ISSUE 2 - Despite the many beneficial uses of
biomonitoring information, how do we guard
against potentially inappropriate uses of such
data in the permitting process?
Issue 1 turns on the means and relative priority of having
biological crit ri formally incorpcrate’l in State water quality
standards. Because biological criteria must be related to local
conditions, the development of quantitative national biological
criteria is not ecologically appropriate. Therefore, the primary
concern is how biological criteria should be promoted and
integrated into State water quality standards.
Issue 2 addresses the question of how to reconcile potential
apparent conflicts in the results obtained from different
assessment methods (i.e., chemical-specific analyses, toxicity
testing, and biosurveys) in a permitting situation. Should the
relevance of each be judged strictly on a case-by-case basis?
Should each method be applied independently?
These issues were discussed at the policy workgroup s last
meeting in November 1988, and consensus recommendations were then
presented to the Acting Assistant Administrator of Water on
December 16, 1988. For Issue 1, it was determined that adapting
biological criteria to State standards has significant
advantages, and adoption of biological criteria should be
strongly encouraged. Therefore, the current Agency Operating
Guidance establishes the State adaptation of basic narrative
biological criteria as a program priority.
With resper t to Issue 2, th’ r O11#- , reflects a position 0
“independent application.” Independent application means that
any one of the three types of assessment information (i.e.,
chemistry, toxicity testing results, and ecological assessment)
provides conclusive evidence of nonattainment of water quality
-------
standards regardLess of the results from other types of
assessment information. Each type of assessment is sensitive to
different types of water quality impact Although rare. apparent
conflicts in the results from different approaches can occur
These apparent conflicts occur when one assessment approach
detects a problem to which the other approaches re not
sensitive. This policy establishes that a demonstration of water
quality standards nonattainment using one assessment method does
not require confirmation with a second method and that the
failure of a second method to confirm impact does not negate rhe
results of the initial assessment.
Review of Draft Policy
The draft was circulated to the Regions and States on
March 23, 1990. The comments were mostly supportive and most of
the suggested changes have been incorporated. Objections were
raised by one State that using ecological measures would increase
the magnitude of the pollution control workload. We expect that
this will be one result of this policy but that our mandate under
the Clean Water Act to ensure physical, chemical, and biological
integrity requires that we adopt this policy. Another State
objected to the independent application policy. EPA has
carefully considered the merits of various approaches to
integrating data in light of the available data, and we have
concluded that independent application is the most appropriate
policy at this time. Where there are concerns that the results
from one approach are inaccurate, there may be opportunities to
develop more refined information that would provide a more
accurate conclusion (e.g., better monitoring or more
sophisticated wasteload allocation modelling).
Additional discussion on this policy occurred at the Water
Quality Standards for the 21st Century Symposium in December,
1990.
What Actions Should States Take
This policy does not require specific actions on the part of
the States or the regulated community. As indicated under the
Fiscal Year 1991 Agency Operating Guidance. States are required
to adopt narrative biocriteria at a minimum during the 1991 to
1993 triennial, review. More specific program guidance on
developing biological criteria is scheduled to be issued within
the next few months. Technical guidance documents on developing
narrative and numerical biological criteria for different types
of aquatic systems are also under development.
Relevant Guidance
There are several existing EPA documents which pertain to
biological assessments and several others that are currently
under development. Selected references that are likely to be
important in implementing this policy are listed in Attachment C
-------
Please share this poiLcy statement with your States and work
with them to institute its prov:sions f you have any
questions, please call me at ETS 382-5400 or have YOUr staff
contact Geoffrey Grubbs of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds at (FTS) 382-7040 or Bill Diamond of the Office of
Science and Technology at (FTS) 475-7301.
Attachments
cc: OW Office Directors
Environmental Services Division Directors, Regions I-X
-------
Attachment A
Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria
in the Water Quality Program
May 1991
-------
Contents
Statement of Policy
Dcfi n itions
Background
Context of Policy
Rationale for Conducting Biological Asscscmcnts
Conduct of Biological Surveys
Integration of Methods and Regulatory Application
Site-specific Considerations
Independent Application
Biolcg cal Criteria
Statutory Basis
Section 303(c)
Section 304(a)
State/EPA Roles in Policy Implcmcntation
State Implementation
EPA Guidance and Technical Support
-------
Statement of Policy
To help restore and maintain the biological integrity of the Nation’s
waters, it is the policy of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that
biological surveys shall be fully integrated with toxicity and chemical-specific
assessment methods in State water quality programs. EPA recognizes that
biological surveys should be used together with wholc-cmucnt and ambient
toxicity testing, and chemical-specific analyses to assess attainmcnt/nonattainment
of designated aquatic life uses in State water quality standards. EPA also
recognizes that each of these three methods ce” nrovidc a valid assessment of
designated aquatic life use impairment. Thus, if any one of the three assessment
methods demonstrate that water quality standards arc not attained, it is EPA ’s
policy that appropriate action should be taken to achieve attainment, including
use of regulatory authority.
It is also EPA’s policy that States should designate aquatic lif e uses that
appropriately address biological integrity and adopt biological criteria necessary to
protect those uses. Information concerning attainmcnt/nnnattainmcnt of standards
should be used to establish priorities, evaluate the effectiveness of controls, and
make regulatory decisions.
Close coopcration among the States and EPA will be needed to carry out
this policy. EPA will provide national guidance and technical assistance to the
States; however, specific assessment methods and biological criteria should be
adopted on a State-by-State basis. EPA, in its oversight role, will work with thc
States to ensure that assessment procedures and biological criteria reflect
important ecological and geographical differences among the Nation’s waters yet
retain national consistency with the Clean Water Act.
-------
Definitions
Ambient Toxicity : Is mcasurcd by a toxicity test on a campic collcctcd fron a
waterbody.
Aquatic Community : An association of interacting populations of aquatic
organisms in a given waterbody or habitat.
Aquatic Life Use : Is the water quality objective assigned to a waterbody to
ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous aquatic
community.
Biological Assessment : An evaluation of the biological condition of a watcrbody
using biological surveys and other direct measurements of resident hiota in
surface waters.
Biological Criteria (or Biocriteria) : Numerical values or narrative expressions that
describe the reference biological integrity of aquatic communities inhabiting waters
of a given designated aquatic life use.
Biological Integrity : Functionally defined as the condition of the aquatic
community inhabiting unimpaired waterbodics of a specified habitat as measured
by community structure and function.
Biological Monitoring : Use of a biological entity as a detector and its response
as a measure to determine environmental conditions. Toxicity tests and
biosurveys are common biomonitoring methods.
Biological Survey (or Biosurvey) : Consists of collecting, processing, and analyzing
a representative portion of the resident aquatic community to determine the
community structure and function.
Community Component : Any portion of a biological community. The
community component may pertain to the taxonomic group (fish, invertebrates,
algae), the taxonomic category (phylum, order, family, genus, species), the feeding
strategy (herbivore, om mvnre, earn ivorc), or organizational level (md ivid ual,
population, community association) of a biological entity within the aquatic
community.
Habitat Assessment : An evaluation of the physical characteristics and condition
of a waterbody (example parameters include the variety and quality of substrate.
hydrological regime, key environmental parameters and surrounding land use.)
Toxicity Test : Is a procedure to determine thc toxicity of a chemical or an
effluent using living organisms. A toxicity tcst measures the degree of responcc
of exposed test organisms to a specific chemical or effluent.
.
-------
Whole-effluent Toxici y : Is the total toxic cfTcct of an clflucnt mcasurcd dtrcctly
with a toxicity test.
Background
Policy context
Monitoring data arc applicd toward water quality program needs such as
identifying water quality problems, assessing thcir scvcrity, and setting planning
and management priorities for remediation. Monitoring data should also be used
to help makc rcgulatory decisions, develop appropriate controls, and evaluate the
effectiveness of controls once they are implcmcntcd. This policy focuses on the
USC of a particular type of monitoring information that is dcrivcd from ambient
biosurveys, and its proper integration with chemical-specific analyses, toxicity
testing methods, and biological criteria in State water quality programs.
The distinction between biological surveys, assessments and criteria is an
important one. Biological surveys, as stated in the section above, consist of the
collection and analysis of the resident aquatic community data and the
subsequent determination of the aquatic community’s structure and function. A
biological assessment is an evaluation of the biological condition of a watcrbody
using data gathered from biological surveys or other direct measures of the hiota.
Finally, biological criteria arc the numerical values or narrative expressions used
to describe thc expected structure and function of the aquatic community.
Rationale for Conducting Biological Assessments
To more fully protect aquatic habitats and provide more comprehensive
assessments of aquatic life use attainment/nonattainmcnt, EPA expects States to
fully integrate chemical-specific techniques, toxicity testing, biological surveys and
biological criteria into their water quality programs. in date, EPAc activities
have focused on the interim goal of the Clean Water Act (the Act), stated in
Section l0l(aX2): To achieve; ‘...whcrevcr attainable, an interim goal of water
quality which provides for protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the watcr.... However, the
ultimate objective of the Act, stated in Section 101(a), goes further. Section
101(a) states: The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical.
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Taken together,
chemical, physical, and biological integrity dcfinc the overall ecological integrity of
an aquatic ecosystem. Because biological integrity is a strong indicator of overall
ecological integrity, it can serve as both a meaningful goal and a useful measure
of environmental status that relates directly to the comprehensive objective of the
Act.
-------
Deviations from, and thrcat-s to, biological intcgrity can he estimated
indirectly or dircctly. Traditional measures, such as chemical-specific analyses
and toxicity tests, are indirect cstimators of biological conditions. Thcy assess
the suitability of the waters to support a healthy community, but they do not
directly assess the community itself. Biosurvcys arc uscd to directly evaluatc the
ovcrall structural and/or functional characteristics of the aquatic community.
Water quality programs should use both direct and indirect methods to assess
biological conditions and to determine attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt of designated
aquatic lifc uses.
Adopting an integrated approach to assessing aquatic life usc
attainmcnt/nonattainmcnt represents the next logical step in the evolution of the
water quality program. Historically, water quality programs have focused on
evaluating the impacts of specific chemicals discharged from discreet point
sources. In 1984, the program scope was significantly broadened to include a
combination of chemical-specific and whole-effluent toxicity testing methods to
evaluate and predict the biological impacts of potentially toxic mixtures in
wastewater and surface waters. Integration of these two indirect measures of
biological impact into a unified assessment approach has been discusscd in detail
in national policy (49 FR 9016) and guidance (EPA-440/4-85-032). This
approach has proven to be an effective means of assessing and controlling toxic
pollutants and whole-effluent toxicity originating from point sources.
Additionally, direct measures of biological impacts, such as hiosurvcy and
bioassessment techniques, can be useful for regulating point sources. However,
where pollutants and pollutant sources are difficult to charactcrizc or aggregate
impacts are difficult to assess (c.g., where discharges are multiple, complex, and
variable; where point and nonpoint sources arc both potentially important; where
physical habitat is potentially limiting), direct measures of ambient biological
conditions are also needed.
Biosurveys and biological criteria add this needed dimc ision to assessment
programs because they focus on the resident community. The cfTects of multiple
stresses and pollution sources on the numerous biological components of resident
communities are integrated over a relatively long period of time. The community
thus provides a useful indicator of both aggregate ecological impact and overall
temporal trends in the condition of an aquatic ecosystem. Furthermore,
biosurveys can detect aquatic life impacts that other available assessment methods
may miss. Biosurveys detect impacts caused by: (I) pollutants that are difficult
to identify chemically or characterize toxicologically (c.g., rare or unusual toxics
[ although biosurveys cannot themselves identify specific toxicants causing toxic
impact], clean sediment, or nutrients); (2) complex or unanticipated exposures
(e.g., combined point and non-point source loadings, storm events, spills); and
perhaps most importantly, (3) habitat degradation (e.g., channclization,
sedimentation, historical contamination), which disrupt the interactive balance
among community components.
-------
Biosurveys and biological criteria providc important information for a widc
variety of water quality program needs. This data could be used to:
o Refine use classifications among different types of aquatic ecosystems
(e.g., rivers, streams, wetlands, lakes, estuaries, coastal and marine
waters) and within a given type of usc category such as wannwater
fishes des;
o Dcfine and protect existing aquatic life uses and classify Outstanding
National Resource Waters under State antidcgradation policies as
required by the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.12);
o Identify where site-specific criteria modifications may bc needed to
effectively protect a waterbody;
o Improve use-attainability studies;
o Fulfill requirements under Clean Water Act Sections 303(c), 303(d),
304(1), 305(b), 314, and 319;
o Assess impacts of certain nonpoint sources and, together with
chemical-specific and toxicity methods, evaluate the effectiveness of
nonpoint source controls;
o Dcvelop management plans and conduct monitoring in estuaries of
national significance under Section 320;
o Monitor the overall ecological effects of regulatory actions under
Sections 401, 402, and 301(h);
o Identify acccptahlc sites for disposal of drcdgc ahd flU material
under Section 404 and determine the effects of that disposal;
o Conduct assessments mandated by other statutes (e.g.,
CERCLA/RCRA) that pertain to the integrity of surface waters;
and
o Evaluate the effectiveness and document the instream biological
benefits of pollution controls.
Conduct of Biological Surveys
As is the case with all types of water quality monitoring programs,
biosurveys should have clear data quality ohjcctivcs. usc standardized, validated
-------
laboratory and field methods, and includc appropriate quality assurance and
quality control practices. Biosurveys should be tailored to the particular type of
waterbody being assessed (e.g., wetland, lake, stream, river, estuary, coastal or
marine water) and should focus on community components and attributes that
are both representative of the larger community and arc practical to measure.
Biosurveys should be routinely coupled with basic physicochcmical measurements
and an objective assessment of habitat quality. Due to the importance of the
monitoring design and the intricate relationship between the hiosurvey and the
habitat assessment, well-trained and experienced biologists arc essential to
conducting an effective biosurvey program.
Integration of Assessment Methods and Regulatory Application
Site-sDecific Considerations
Although biosurveys provide direct information for assessing biological
integrity, they may not always provide the most accuratc or practical measure of
water quality standards attainment/nonattainment. For example, biosurveys and
measures of biological integrity do not directly as.scs.s nonaquatic life uses, such
as agricultural, industrial, or drinking water uses, and may not predict potential
impacts from pollutants that accumulate in .ccdimcnts or tissues. These
pollutants may pose a significant long-term threat to aquatic organisms or to
humans and wildlife that consume thcsc organisms, hut may only minimally alter
the structure and function of the ambient community. Furthermore, hiosurveys
can only indicate the prcscnce of an impact; they cannot directly identify the
stress agents causing that impact. Because chemical-specific and toxicity mcthods
are designed to detect specific strcs.sors, they arc particularly useful for diagnosing
the causes of impact and for developing source controls. Where a specific
chemical or toxicity is likely to impact standards attainmcnt/nonattainment,
assessment methods that measure these stresses directly arc often needed.
Independent Application
Because biosurvey, chemical-specific, and toxicity testing methods have
unique as well as overlapping attributes, sensitivities, and program applications,
no single approach for detecting impact should be considered uniformly superior
to any other approach. EPA recognizes that each method can provide valid and
independently sufficient evidence of aquatic life use impairment, irrespective of
any evidcnce, or lack of it, derived from the other two approaches. The failure
of one method to confirm an impact identified by another method would not
negate the results of the initial assessment. This policy, therefore, states that
appropriate action should be taken when any one of the three types of
assessment determines that the standard is not attained. States arc encouraged
to implement and integrate all three approaches into their water quality programs
and apply them in combination or independently as site-specific conditions and
I
-------
assessment objcctivcs dictate.
In cases where an assessment result is suspcctcd to bc inaccurate, thc
assessment may be repeated using more intensive and/or accuratc methods.
Examples of more intensive assessment methods are dynamic modelling instead of
steady state modelling, Site specific criteria, dissolved metals analysis, and a more
complete biosurvey protocol.
Biological Criteria
To better prot”’ the integrity of aquatic communities, it is EPA ’s policy
that States should develop and implement biological criteria in their water quality
standards.
Biological criteria are numerical measures or narrative descriptions of
biological integrity. Designated aquatic life use classifications can also function
as narrative biological criteria. When formally adoptcd into State standards,
biological criteria and aquatic life use designations serve as direct, legal endpoints
for determining aquatic life use attainment/nonattainmcnt. Per Section
131.11 (b)(2) of the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR Part 131),
biological criteria can supplement existing chemical-specific criteria and provide an
alternative to chemical-specific criteria whcrc such criteria cannot be established.
Biological criteria can be quantitatively developed by identifying unimpaired
or least-impacted reference waters that operationally represent best attainable
conditions. EPA recommends States use the ecoreQinn concept when establishiig
a list of reference waters. Once candidate references arc identified, integrated
assessments are conducted to substantiate the unimpaired nature of the reference
and to characterize the resident community. Biosurvcys cannot fully characterize
the entire aquatic community and all its attributes. Therefore, State standards
should contain biological criteria that consider various compooents (e.g., algae,
invertebrates, fish) and attributes (measures of structure and/or function) of the
larger aquatic community. In order to provide maximum protection of surface
water quality, States should continue to develop water quality standards
integrating all three assessment methods.
Statutory Basis
Section 303(c )
The primary statutory basis for this policy derives from Section 03 of the
Clean Water Act. Section 303 requires that States adopt standards for their
waters and review and revise these standards as appropriate, or at least once
every three years. The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131)
-------
requires that such standards consist of the dcsignatcd uses of thc waters
involved, criteria based upon such uses, and an antidcgradation policy.
Each State develops its own use classification systcm based on the gencric
uses cited in the Act (e.g., protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife). States may also subcategorize types of uscs within the Act’s general
use categories. For example, aquatic life uses may bc subcatcgorizcd on the
basis of attainable habitat (e.g., cold- versus warm-watcr habitat), innate
differences in community structure and function (c.g., high versus low species
richness or productivity), or fundamental differences in important community
components (e.g., warm-water fish communities naturally dominated by bass
versus catfish). Special uses may also be designated to protect particularly
unique, sensitive or valuabic aquatic species, communities, or habitats.
Each State is required to ‘specify appropriate water uses to be achieved
and protected’ (40 CFR 131.10). If an aquatic life usc is formally adopted for
a waterbod), Lhat designation becomes formal component of the water quality
standards. Furthermore, nonattainment of the usc, as determined with either
biomonitoring or chemical-specific assessment methods, legally constitutes
nonattainment of the standard. Therefore, the more refined the use designation,
the more precise the biological criteria (i.e., the more dctciled the description of
desired biological attributes), and the more complete the chemical-specific criteria
for aquatic life, the more objective the assessment of standards
attainment/nonattainment.
Section 304(a )
Section 304(a) requires EPA to develop and publish criteria and other
scientific information regarding a number of water-quality-related matters,
including:
o Effects of pollutants on aquatic community com oncnts (‘Plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life...’) and community attributes
(‘diversity, productivity, and stability... ’);
o Factors necessary ‘to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
biological integrity of all navigable waters...’, and ‘for protection and
propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife for classes and categories
of receiving waters...’;
o Appropriate ‘methods for establishing and measuring water quality
criteria for toxic pollutants on other bases than pollutant-by-pollutant
criteria, including biological monitoring and assessment mcthods.
This section of the Act has been historically cited as the basis for
-------
publishing national guidance on chemical-cpccific critcria for aquatic life, hut is
equally applicable to the development and usc of biological monitoring and
assessment methods and biological criteria.
State/EPA Roles in Policy Implementation
State lmølementation
Because there are important qualitative diffcrcnccc among aquatic
ecosystems (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, cstuarics, coastal and marine waters),
and there is significant geographical variation even among systems of a given
type, no single set of assessment methods or numeric biological criteria is fully
applicable nationwide. Therefore, States must take the primary responsibility for
adopting their own standard biosurvey methods, integrating them with other
techniques at the program level, and applying them in appropriate combinations
on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, States should develop their own biological
criteria and implement them appropriately in their water quality standards.
EPA Guidance and Technical Suø ort
EPA will provide the States with national guidance on performing
technically sound biosurveys, and developing and integrating biological criteria
into a comprehensive water quality program. EPA will also supply guidance to
the States on how to apply ecoregional concepts to reference site selection. In
addition, EPA Regional Administrators will ensure that each Region has the
capability to conduct fully integrated as.cc ssmcnt.s and to provide technical
assistance to the States.
-------
Workgroup Members
Al I i Iirnt’iui ft
OffICE
USEPA keg. 10 WND WD-139
USIPA OWEP/ED (EN-338)
mv. k.sp. T.a. MS 101
USEPA ESD keg. 7
USEPA keg. 6 (6W-QT) WIW
USIPA ESD R.g. S (5-SISQA)
USEPA OWRS/AWPD WH- 553
USEPA 0CC (LE-132W)
USEPA keg. 6 luI
USEPA OWE? (EN-336)
USDA Forest Serv. OPPE
NY St.t. DEC Div. of Water
USEPA OWRS/CSD (WH- 58S)
USEPA OW? (A-104)
USEPA keg. I £SD
USEPA OPA/ERED PN-221
USEPA keg. 3 • ESD
USEPA OWEP/PD (EN-336)
I IS EPA keg. 2 ESD
NC Dept. of Envir. Ilgmt.
USEPA ilL-Duluth
USEPA R•g. 3 (3 WN 12)
USEPA keg. 8 WIE (8WIS-SP)
ADDRESS
1200 6th Avenue
401 N. St. SW
Woodbridge Avenue
25 Funston Road
1445 Ross Avenue
536 S. Clark St.
401 N. St. SW
401 N. St. SW
1445 Ross Avenue
401 N. St. SW
P.O. Box 96090 km.
401 N. St. SW
Colisge Station Road
726 Minnesota Avenue
200 SW 35th Street
Bldg. 209 Woodbridge Ave
215 Frs.ont Street
3411 Church Street
Sb Wolf Road
401 N. St. SW
401 N. St. SW
60 Westview Street
401 N. St. SW
303 IS.th. Bldg. 11th & Chapi.
401 N. St. SW
Woodbridge Avenue
P.O. Box 27687
6201 Condgon Blvd.
841 Chestnut Blvd.
999 18th Street. *500
CITY
Seattle. WA 98101
Washington.
Edis.. n, NJ
Kansas City,
Dallas, Ti
Chicago, .1
Washington.
Washington,
Dallas, TX
Washington,
Washington.
Washington.
Athena, GA
Kansas City. KS 66101
Corvallis, OR 97333
Edison, NJ 07828
San Francisco. CA 9410S
Nevtown, OH 45244
Albany, NY 12233
Washington. DC 20460
Washington. DC 20460
Lexington, MA 02173
Washington, DC 20460
Wheeling, WV 26003
Washington, DC 20460
Edison, NJ 08837
Raleigh. NC 27611
Duluth, MN 55804
Philadelphia. PA 1910/
Denver, CO 80202
NAME
Rick
Ed
David W.
Norm
Philip
Wayne
Steve
Roland
Bruce
Steve
Warren
Margaret.
Del
John
Bob
Jim
Jacques
Jim
Peter
Susanne
John
Pete
Bill
Ronald
Jackie
Mark
Steve
Nelson A.
Randall
Bill
LAST
Aibright
Bender
Charters
Crisp
Crocker
Day a
Dressing
Duboi s
Elliott
Cl omb
Harper
Heber
Hicks
Houl ihan
Hugh..
Kurtenbach
Landy
Lazorchak
Mack
Marcy
Hasted
Nolan
Painter
Preston
Romney
Sprenger
Tedd.r
Thomas
Waite
Wuerthele
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
OWEP/PD (EN-336)
keg. 4 ESD
w m keg. 7
ERL-Corval lii
ESD/R.g. 2
WIW keg. 9 W-3-2
SL-Cinn ABBranch
121
DC 20460
08837
KS 66101
75202-2733
60605
DC 20460
DC 20460
75202
DC 20460
DC 20090-6090
DC 20460
30613-7799
-------
Attachment C
Relevant Guidance
Exiitifl documents
o Chemical-specific evaluations
Guidance for Deriving National Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses (45 FR 79342, November 28, 1990, as
amended at 50 FR 30784, July 29, 1985)
Quality Criteria for Water 1986 (EPA 440/5-86-001,
May 1, 1987)
o Toxicity testing
Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms, Second Edition (EPA/600-4-
89—001), March 1989)
Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Marine and Estuarine Organisms (EPA/600-4-87/028,
May 1988)
Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents
to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (EPA/600-4-85-
013, March 1985)
o Biosurveys and integrated assessments
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and
Assessments for Conducting Use A ttainabi1ity
Analyses: Volumes 1-111 (Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, November 1983-1984)
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90/0O1, March 1991)
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Streams and
Rivers: Benthic Macro-invertebrates and Fish
(EPA/444-4—89—001, May 1989)
Hughes, Robert N. and David P. Larsen. 1988.
Ecoregions: An Approach to Surface Water
Protection. Jou - 1 he Water Pollution
Control Federation 60, No. 4: 486—93.
Omerik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Coterminous
United States. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 77, No. 1: 118—25.
-------
Regionalizatiort as a Tool for Managing
Environmental Resources (EPA/600-3-89-060, July
1989)
EPA Biological Criteria - National Program
Guidance for Surface Waters (EPA/440-5-90-004,
April 1990)
Docum•nti bsina daveloDed
Technical Guidance on the Development of
Bi e logical Criteria
State Development of Biological Criteria (case
studies of State implementation)
Monitoring Program Guidance
Sediment Classification Methods Compendium
Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Manual for
Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface
Waters
Fish Field and Laboratory Manual for Determining
the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters
-------
/ . ‘ I
‘..NITEO STATES E!4V’ CNME4TAL AGENCY
W AS INGTOi4. 0 C 20440
/
Y &•!
OCT 2 8 199 1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Final Watershed Protection Framework Do wtent
FROM: Robert H. Wayland III , Director
Office of Wetlands, Oc.an and atershe
Michael I. Cook. Directo jI),.j ..i1 j
Office of Wastewater Enfo cdi ent aMd ptisnce
James R. Elder. Dir. :or
Office of Ground Water and kin er
Tudor T. Davies, DLrec .
Office of Science and Techn logy
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
Regional Environmental Services Division Directors
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Policy and Management, Region V I I
We are pleased to share with you the enclosed final
Watershed Protection ?rsmework document. This final version
differs only slightly from the draft version which we forwarded
to you in June for your comment. Your response to the draft was
very positive and this version mereLy adds a ‘preface and
information concerning drinking and ground water programs that
was net included in the prevLcus draft. W• are issuing this
document jointly in recognition titat watershed protection wilL
require control of both point and nonpoint sources and
consideration of surface water as well as drinking and ground
water.
We have now received the tr itiaL Regional Plans from all. :
you and are in the process of p eparing a synopsis of the
projects that we can share wit t y u and your “champions.
-------
S
—2
u. a1 ptans c1 sar1y demonstrati !‘t t you and your Stat•s
v• •xsrLsncs and •xp.rtiss in th $ approac t. our •ffor w2.LL
t c s on pr vidirtg assistance to you and proset ng the approach
to broader groups of staksholders.
We look forward to working with you in presoeinq your
projects and developing the cosprehertsive Regional Fraaswozk
documents due in Septe er 1992. Please 1st us know how we can
serve or ass2.st you.
Enclosure
0
-------
Til V1TZUU P*OT!C?XCW APP*OACI
?PANUO J OCC NT
Octob.r 1.991.
U.S. £nvirortm.rttaL Prot.etion Ag.ncy
Of ftc. of Wstlands Oc.ans and Watsrshsds
401 M St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
T Z WAT!RS ZD PROTECTION APPRQACZ
?R. J(ZWORX DOC X!W?
T .3LS oi cowrzirrs
1. Preface
2. Watershed Protection Framework
• The watershed Protection Approach (WPA)
• The goals of the UPA
• Relationship of the WPA to other vater programs
• I ple entatien of the WPA
• EPA MQ and Regional co it enta
• Schedule for ii p1ementation
3. AppendiCes
A. Definition of a Watershed Protectiøn Project
8. Detailed Description of August 2991 Initial
?ra ework and Pro ecta
C. D.tailed DeecrLptLon of S.pte .r 2992
Coiprshensive Reg2 .onal Watershed ?ramevork
0. !xa pl. Regional. Approaches to Watershed
Protect tort
4
!. Proqraa ?lexLb .t .ty to Isple .nt the VPA
-------
: . ‘i:S e V I1?te .:t1 A :p:
At .s e wat.rsei ? : ec .r a ;rcach (WPA) eg.-s
with a focus on the condi: cr of ar.d t eat to a watershed,
rather thafl on arty specific poll atat%t 5 or SOUZC 15 as the star..-q
;oi t. A project ariaqer, or ha piort’, for the watershed
enlist th S pa ticipatiOrt of staff across the water programs, as
we]], as other stakeh olders, in developing an assessment of the
watershed and art action plan to address impairments or threats.
This approach provides an appropriate and effective way to -
address threats tO human health and aquatic ecosystems in a
ho]. istic and integrated manner.
Wh ls the WPA is not a new program in itself, it provides a t
opportunity for the Regions to work with States, local
governments, citizen groups, and other Federal agencies to
develop watershed-specific action plans that address both
traditional and non—traditional sources of pollution. Further,
the action plans for watershed protection projects (WPPI) will,
help focus available resources, and aid in the development of
technical and programmatic tools to successfully carry out the
projects.
many Regions and States have been using this approach and
have developed action plans for selected watersheds. For the
short term, it will be valuable to implement these plans in the
next two years to gain experience in demonstrating and evaluating
the value of this approach. For the long term, the Region will
develop, by October 1992, Comprehensive Regional Frameworks to
quid. their long-term activities. Th, development of Region-
wide, riskbased assessments of each Region’s watersheds would
provide an appropriate basis for futur. targeting. This
assessment can be conducted by making systematic as. of available
information on water quality and the living resources dependent
en waters and threats to these resources.
Starting in FY93, the Regions will use their framework
documents to target high priority watersheds. As part of their
long-term goals, Uk and the Regions will work toward permanent
institutional changes that will, enable and empower States and
other agencies to operat, their programs in a manner that wilt
achieve the WPA goals.
-------
- w T!RSE!D PRCT!CT O14 U L!QJI
T33 V T1U!1D p&G?!CTON APPROACI CWPA)
A. t e -iiater program has made great progress over the past t.o
decades Lfl identifying and controlling water poLlutjo .
3. w j,. current efforts have been successful, they have
concentrated on point sources and the chemical. integrity
the 4ation’s waters. The current program approach has:
created “gaps which have failed to address overaU
ecoloqical and habitat health;
ii. in many cages, not considered the cumulative effects :f
different types of pollution from different sources f
pollution; and
iii. ne taken advantage of opportunities to involve Local
decision-makers and other responsible parties in
cooperative efforts to improv, the ecological health Cf
specific waterbodies.
C. Water protection programs evolve as our technical
understanding of the environment changes and as our secia.
values and political institutions change. The UPA is ir ter e:
to be a vehicle to promote incremental improvements in t e . .
we approach the task of protecting watersheds.
2 • 00AL OP TEl tP*
A. Tho oaal of the WPA is to reorient !PA and other Federal
aaencv. St a t.. and local orocrams to address watershed
rotectien in a holistic manner . Specific goals ar. to
encourage State and Local governments to target watersheds
based on overall human health and ecological risk: to
encourage the development of site-specific watershed
protction m.as ares based on a holistic, integrated appr:a:-
to address both traditic’aL and non-traditional sources; :
establish processes in whLch all decision-takers at all. le.e.;
of qovsrnaent, different agencies, and other stak.hold.rs .: -‘
together to implement soLu ions: and to establish effect . -i.
programs to measure success and continuous improvements.
3. The WPA is comprehensive Lfl scope and seska to change
incrementally the approach to watershed protection withi
levels of government.
i. EPA has responsibllLtLes to promote coordination -.“
the family of Federal ;er cLes, develop techrtical
serve as a point of c: r . ation at the EPA Region
-------
LeveL, and, .ihers ecessarj, pr:vL e exa:pl.es c
integrated o .st .: . aters .d pr tection.
. The seat.. and ndiart Tr es have responsibi1jt es f ::
State— and res.rvati .on-w .de planning and targeting,
managing water quality programs, integrating Stat.
agencies and support ng Local. Levels of government.
The State—wide level is also a. critical Level, f
integrating information and coordinating the act .vi g
of many State, Federal, and other agencies.
iii. Local governments (e.g., counties, municipaliti.., a:
planning agencies) and other organizations (e.g.,
Conservation Districts Lake Associations, business-
related groups, public interest groups) in many cases
are the decision—makers responsible for actions that
af feet the environmental quality of watersheds.
C. The watershed approach is an integrated and holistic stra ey
for watershed protection. AS such, the WPA provides a
framework that:
i. empowers Federal, State, Indian Tribes, and local
agencies to im lem.nt wat .rsh.d -s acific ølar that
prevent, reduce or abate environmental degradation ar
risks to ecological. systems and public health from j
5. JJJ21 and from all sourqps in the watershed:
ii. encourages consideration of the cumulativ, chemical..
pptyij a 1. and bi lc ical effects throughout the
watershed:
iii. enhances coardinatiort amanc all interested oarties ,
including State, local, Federal. agencies, Indian Tr es.
and, most importantly, the public: and
iv. enables States and EPA to assess oraar.se and
successfully develop and improve tools and program a .:
uthodelogi.s.
3 • UL&TIOIUZP OP ?tI fl TO OTEU flfl* PROOSAMS
Several current water programs incorporate risk-based
geographic targeting to sore degree, including the Nonpoi-
Source Program, the Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs (which incorporate We]lhead Protecti:
Sole Source Aquifer Protection Programs), the National Es-
Program, the Clean Lakes Program, and Advanced IdentifiCa . .
or Special. Area Management Plans in the Wetlands Program.
Regions are also undertaking geographically targeted. ‘ .‘:. -
media enforcement initiat vas. In the near term, the
-------
— e: 4 A;;:a:r .:... r t : a-q. e e;: e
ex.st.-q p :gra:s are ca r ed t or are t;e e .
WPA is jntended to existing tar etlng
progrUs. but tZer to iaxi i and bui.Ld en these tar;et. ;
effOgt$ On a watershed basis. r.der t” e Watershed Prot.ct.:n
Approach. we would look to sake several of these targeted
efforts coincide in the same watershed and th•r.by strengthen
and broaden our efforts. The approach will encourage
stakeholders to view all targeting efforts in a holist c
fashion, in the context of the specific watershed. A
designated champiOfl for each watershed project will work to
tie the programs together. Fiq’ars 1 illustrates ti’te
relationship of the WPA to other water programs.
Final]y, there are important traditionil tools (permitting,
standard setting. etc.) which are generally applied untfor .y
nationwide and which are responsible for much of the progress
realized thus far in preventing or controlling pollution.
Continued, or enhanced, use of these traditional tools is a
vital building block for better efforts within targeted
watersheds and more broadly.
4. IXPLZ 2 ?ATIO$ OP T31 k
A. Implementation of the WPA will be through a two”prenged
approach:
j. R.aiønal watirihed ro1.cta (short term goal) Pro;ecs
will be initiated by the Regions and managed by EPA.
Projects will be selected through riskbas.d target -g
and involve integrated, holistic watershed protectLor
solutions (sea Appendices A and 0 for a definition of a
Watershed Protection Project and examples of RegionaL
watershed projects). The purpose of the Regional
projects is to develop methods and tools, develop
credible case studies, and lead by example. The key
ingr’.di•nt in these projects is the desigi atien of a
champien for the selected watersheds who will. act ve:
involve, with management support, the bread scope of
Water Manig•ment Oivision staff and programs in t ’te
fer’mstten and execution of action plans to protect or
enhance the watershed.
ii. Th.titutianal char ces ( longter goal) EPA IfQ and
Regions will undertake specific activities to eflCouta 5
States and ether agencies to move toward integrated.
focused, holistic ater q aality programs. This is a
mid- to Iongterm pr position, and includes:
a. enhancing Statewide assessment and geographic
targeting programs;
—3—
-------
FIGURE 1
Relationship of
the Watershed Protection Approach
to Other Water Progtams
>1
.M
F
z
r
-------
b. br .r.gLrq all e .evart Federal. and State a;a—ces
foc..is tear :n ad :essLr.g targeted atersr eds .r -
Lfltsgrat ed !tanr.er;
c. invol.virtg local. governments and the public in
developing comprehensive watershed protection -
measures: and
d. involving Federal. Stats Indian Tribal, and local.
agencies and the public in developing appropr .ate
educational programs.
8. Scope of Watershed Protsctior Projects Appendix A prcv es
a definition of a watershed protection project (WPP). Figure
2 iLlustrates the scope of WPP5. All. WPPs should be broad
terms of the scope of the environmental issues examined.
Projects that say be appropriate to initiate under the WPA
include pro:jects that focus on traditional pollution sources
such as industrial. facilities and POTVs and on pollution
prevention and controlling pollution from dispersed, non
traditional sources (e.g., urban and rural nenpoint source
discharge of nutrients and toxics, stormwater, cso
discharg.rs, habitat de ruction). These sources constitute,
in aggregate, a significant threat to water quality and te
integrity of the ecosystems in our watersheds.
The scope and complexity of WPPs will be determined by t e
Regions and States on a casebycase basis and should ref .ect
available resources, technical feasibility, and public
support. wfls should focus on geographical areas where
existing resources and activities can be integrated and
brought together to demonstrate success within a reasonable
period of tim.. While WPPs will vary in size and scope, most
projects vii i. not address the entire geographic reach of vsrj
large watersheds, estuaries or aquifers.
C. Results measurement Each aspect of the WPA must have
measurable endpoints. Tracking results viii. be a priority
implementing the WPA. Examples of measures that will, be
trac*4 as part of WPA include measurable water quality
impreviRents, and measurable program institutional changes.
D. For flfl, the WPA will e i tplemented by existing base
resources and by applying portions of any TY9Z increases.
E. EPA HQ will provide flexibility in certain existing praqras
to support implementing t ’e . ?A (see Appendix E).
—5—
-------
I FIgure
2:
Scope of Wat
ershed Protection
Prolects I
Se/cc/ion Level
Slab Loca’
IèilbUed O.M La . . App l* ola iiaii. taites ejg i i v i
P iiil EMUIfl. As5eismId Wabeithed Plait
S . . y. Fl.
I ack aaita
HNO, PA
• Pa i NoiU I .
0 ,
• l .is Study
Monmi Ii p J Soulheiii CA
E uy Psegi U-.- . , 1 W dI . ps
Pd iii Cieek
319 Pto iw.i W .i h.d & jL
Pb.i• CA
DsI. w . S o
Vabl.y. WV _______
Labi. W. Eugene.
Siigl.-meda . -. - E i I Ra iw s, B i Sedlon 604(b) O Il I.ocM W . mJ3
I-
Sedioo 106
-------
S. sPa EQ k R.EGtON4I CC (ITM!W?I
A. eadquarters C t:ents inc .. .ds:
1.. Developing techrucal tools f:r geographic targ.t .rtg
watershed protection (e.g., :od.]s, NPS-orient.d
cr t.ria , monitoring methods, .BMP effectiveness data,
geographic targeting methods):
ii. Mar enizing the priority setting and targeting cit
of currently operating base programs;
iii. Providing flexibility to grant rescurcis for waters e
protection projects;
iv. supporting coordination and technical transfer pat ..a,s
b.tween the Region.; and
setting up r ecessary workshops, visiting project sites,
and evaluating progress.
B. Regional Commitments include:
1.. Ultimat. responsibility for the management of watershe
projects and other related activities (e.g., pro ect
identification, staff dedication);
ii. Preparation of descriptions of planned activities ar
resource. devoted to projects: and
iii. Reporting on measurable indicators of progress.
• • •CUDULI POE ZXPL4)J TA?IOW
A. By Auçast, 1991, Initial Framework and Projects will, be
submitted to EM I(Q. These Initial Regional Plans wilt, at 3
minimum, include: (See Appendix B for a sor. detailed
description.)
£ d.scription of Regional watershd projects the Reg :-
anticipates uorkir.g on in FY 92 and FY 93.
Initial thoughts on a Comprehensive Regional Fras..c “c
B. By September, 1992, RegLor aL offices vi ]] submit a
Com reh.nsive R.cional Fpework for A ticfl . The
Comprehensive Regional Fr ework should explain hew the
Regional offices will work to encourage Federal, stat., a
local agencies to impLer tent r:gra. changes tO achieve t e -
goals. It should incLude: (See Appendix C for a more
detailed description.)
-------
.; a e ‘f 5:.r • a:S a :;ec s;
Ii. A description of t e Req. rt-wLde watersped assass:e-:
and qeograpric tar;et .ig capabLLL / that sPou .d e
co pLsted by Septi er 1.992:
iii. A strategy for tt5titutiOn’ Cbtarlg.s including
:easurable results, e lsstones, and regular progress
reports; and
iv. A plan for transferring lessens learned free the
Regional. watershed pro .cts and prograa Lnitiat .ves
w thjn the Region.
C. In F? 1993 national. wor)cshops on integrated watershed
protection will be conducted.
0. In FT 1995 national. progress to dite will be assessed.
—3—
-------
Strengthened State Nonpoint Source Programs
A. Background
Under §319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). States are required to develop EPA-appro’.ed
nonpoirit source assessments and management programs to address noripoint source
impairments to the Nations aters. Appro%ed State programs are eligible to recer.e EP
izrants and State revolving loan funds for nonpoint source program implementation. From FY
1990 through FY 1993. States received a total of S193 million in §319 grants to implement
approved rionpoint source programs.
States currently employ a mix of voluntary and enforceable approaches to implement their
nonpoint source programs. States are not currently required under §319 to have enforceable
policies to implement the programs. In addition. EPA does not have independent author lr% to
establish nonpoint source controls where a State has failed to develop an approvable program.
nor does EPA have authority to assure that States develop and implement nonpoint source
programs. -
B. Recomniended EIement of Strengthened State Nonpoint Source Programs
Proposed revisions to §319 would fundamentally strengthen the basic structure of nonpoint
source program. In States that do not implement a State.wide watershed management program.
proposed revisions to §319 recommend the following:
Within two years of enactment of CWA reauthorization. States should specificall’.
identify those waterbodies and their watersheds that are impaired or threatened b
rionpoint sources, and identify other special waters, such as Outstanding \ational
Resource Waters and drinking water supplies.
• States should expand their existing nonpoint source programs to implement best
available management measures for categories of rionpoint sources causing or
contributing to water quality impairments or threatened impairments in impaired.
threatened, and special protection areas listed by the State.
• States should have an initial period of two and one half years from the date ot
enac t to develop and submit their revised nonpoint source management programs
to EPA for review and appro%al.
• States should then be allowed c ’ . o consecutive five year periods; the first fi e ‘ .ear
period is for implementation of nonpoint source controls, the second for implementation
of additional nonpoint source controls v here necessary to attain and maintain ‘. ‘ ..iter
quality standards in all waters.
• States should be required to include enrorcemern authorities to assure impLernenut n
of their nonpoint source programs Flexibility should be provided to rely initiall’.
voluntary approaches. however, the enr rceable authority should be in place rror -.
-------
S
outset.
• To promote State adoption ot these strengthened rionpoint source programs. Congress
should provide both iricenti’es and disincenu’.es including
• increased Federal funding of State nonpoint source programs.
• authority for EPA to ‘ . .ithhold §319 grants from States that do not adopt
appros able. upgraded noripoint source programs. or do not implerrient them.
• target other Federal funds for nonpoint source control to be expended in States
that adopt approvable. upgraded nonpoinc source programs.
• States should be specific about the role of Federal facilities as part of the regulated
community and enforcement provisions should apply.
• As a backup to State enforcement of State management programs. EPA should also be
authorized to take enforcement action. Such action should cake place after: 1) EPA has
provided notice to responsible parties of their responsibility to implement program
reqwrements; 2) EPA has aiso informed the State; 3) the responsible parties ha e not
implemented applicable requirements after receiving EPA’s notice; and 4) the State has
not taken timely and appropriate enforcement action.
• EPA should be authorized to establish enforceable minimum nonpoint source controls
where a State fails to develop an approvable program.
Where States undertake a State.wtde atershed protection program as described in :
Administration’s proposal for watershed management (i.e.. developing a comprehensi’.
invernorv of the State’s watersheds and establishing strong, enforceable programs o
expeditiously achieve environmental objectives), such State programs should include
• a process for developing local, tailored nonpoint source management measur
for significant pollutants.
• demonstrate that nonpoinc source controls, in combination with point sourc
controls, would achieve and maintain environmental objectives within titt n
years of enac ent,
• ensure that all source controls. including those for nonpoint sources. are ba .k 1
by necessary implemenuci rn mechanisms and enforcement authonties
-------
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT CR FT
Watershed Management .4pproach
Important Milestones
• Enactmeflc Clean Water Act amendments are enacted by Congress. including
recommended provisions for Watershed Management Approach.
• Two and a half years after enactment : States wishing to substitute their State
watershed program for their revised *319 non-point source program, must submic
their programs to EPA for approval. There is no deadline for State programs, if a
State does not wish to make such a substitution.
• Six months after EPA receives a State program subrnission EPA approves or
disapproves State program submission, after conferring with other Federal agencies.
• Six months after EPA disapproves an initial State program submission : States must
submit a revised State program for EPA review. If disapproved a second time, States
must revise their §319 non-point source program as required by an amended §3 9.
• Each year following State program approval : States must submit a summary status
report.
• Every five years following State program approval : States must submit a revised
State program.
• Ten years after enactment : States must have approved and adopted watercheJ
management plans for all priority watersheds.
• Fifteen years after enactment : State environmental objectives must be met.
• At any time EPA may revoke incentives as it deems appropriate, if a State has n t
met requirements
-------
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DR FT DR p
State Watershed Programs
A. Background:
Substantial reductions have been achieved through the control of point source pollution.
Although these still present an environmental threat in some areas. many ocher types of
activities which cause impairment are not adequately addressed CWA programs. Existing
water pollution control programs can serve as a foundation for a watershed management
approach. Such an approach provides for: (1) recognizizig that all watersheds encompass
interconnected systems of resources, (2) identifying priorities and cailcr.r. solutions to
specific problems, (3) building partnerships between various governmental and private
efforts within watersheds, and (4) building Local commitment to solutions. A State-based
program would provide for an inventory of watersheds, assuring a more consistent, risk-
based approach to selecting priority watersheds, would respect the key role played by States
and would allow for a program authorizing State approval of individual m nagemenc plans
for each watershed.
B. Recommended Elements of State Watershed Programs
The CWA should require EPA approved State watershed programs. It should also make
clear chat nothing in such a provision would alter existing State and local responsibilities.
States should work with representatives from all levels of government during all steps of
program development. There will be no deadline for submitting state programs to EPA:
however, if a State wishes to substitute its watershed program for its revised *319 non-point
source (NPS) pollution control program and permit the application of tailored, innovative.
or alternative NPS management practices, state watershed programs should be submitted
no later than two and a half years after enactment.
State watershed programs would include the foUowing elements:
1. State-wide Environmental Objectives and Schedule : The environmental objectives
must include water quality standards for each watershed and other quantitative
environmental goals. States should devise schedules that provide for a relatively
constant level of effort with the ultimate goal that these environmental objectives will
be met not later than 15 years after enactment. The schedule should provide for
early development of individual watershed plans; plans for priority watersheds must
be approved and adopted within 10 years of enactment. Detailed plans should not
be required for all watersheds v ichin a State.
2. Watershed Boundaries and Criteria for Selecting Priority Watersheds : Watershed
boundaries should be based on the USGS hydrologic cataloging system and should
take ground water features into account. The scale of watersheds should be
determined by each State in cooperation with adjacent States. Criteria for selecting
priority watersheds should include environmental criteria, such as the presence o(
impaired wate(s, especially those impacted by NPS, the need to protect sensitive or
important habitats, and the degree of human health or ecosystem nsk: a d
programrnauc factors, such as v or¼load.
2
-------
DR FT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
3. tershed Management Erititie.i : For atersheds requiring :e si e
management over time, States should be encouraged to designate new or existing
entities to Serve as watershed management tearn.s. These entities should include an
array of interested parties and may include entities administering the National
Estuaiy Programs.
4. Process for Appropriate and Effective Non-Point Source Maia emerit Practices, :
This process should be irnplementable in accordance with the State schedule for
progressively achieving erzviron.merital objectives arid should include one of the
following or combination thereof: (I) best available management practices no less
stringent than estabLished in the Administrator’s guidance issued under CWA §319
that will apply to significant categories and subcategories of NPS pollution; (2)
mechanisms for tailoring identified best management practices to site specific
conditions, provided that they are no less stringent than the Administrator’s guidance
issued under §3 19; or methodologies by which the State or watershed management
teams can explain that Less stringent management practices can be established for
NPS that will meet State and watershed-Level environmental objectives.
5. Wetlands : States should develop a process for identifying major causes of wetland
loss and degradation and for developing and implementing appropriate strategies and
policies for achieving no overall net loss of wetlands and an increase in the quality
and quantity of wetlands.
6. Incentives : State watershed programs should include minimum requirements for
watershed management planning, implementation, monitoring, and reporting which
must be met in order to qualify for incentives.
7. State Roles : Watershed management plans should be approved by the State (in
coordination with adjacent States, as appropriate). States should oversee watershed
planning and implementation etforts. States should involve the public to the
maximum extent practicable; the public should be able to review and comment on
the State watershed program prior to the program’s submittal to EPA. A State must
also demonstrate its legal authorities to implement and enforce its watershed
program. These should be no less stringent than those found in the CWA and other
Federal laws.
8. FederaL State. Tribal Involvement : The State program should include for each
watershed a process for involving Federal agencies with a local interest or natural
resources trust responsibilities in he watershed and States and Indian Tribes whose
land area encompasses a portion ot the watershed.
3
-------
DR DRAFT JRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DR rr DR. jT JR. F
Watershed Management Plans
A. Background
Succ ssfiil management of specific watersheds is critically dependent upon locally-based
efforts. Experience has shown that people are most likely to care about the water near
which they live and depend upon. State-designated watershed entities will:
build on this local commitment; coordinate private sector, regulatory, and voluntary
programs; and comprehensively address cumulative impacts by developing and impLementing
solutions appropriate to the particular watershed.
B. Recommendations
Amendments to the CWA should direct those watershed management entities or State
agencies that have been designated to carry out watershed-leveL management activities under
an approved State watershed program to undertake the following activities:
I. Stakeholder Involvement. Decision-Maldng and Conflict Resolution : Provide for
the participation of all affected or interested parties and establish a protocol for
making decisions and resolving conflicts among members of the watershed
management entity.
2. Local Environmental Objectives and Environmental Indicators : Establish local
environmental objectives that further the goals of the CWA and are consistent with
all applicable statutes and regulations. Identify environmental indicators that will be
used to monitor and report on the attainment of these objectives.
3. Watershed Ecosystem Analyze the causes and sources of point source and NPS
pollution. Inventory, if appropriate, wetlands and other valuable aquatic habitats.
Describe major causes of loss and degradation.
4. Implementation Actions : Identify specific impLementation actions that will attain
and maintain water quality standards and other environmental objectives.
5. Watershed Maria ement Plans (WM P) A WlvfP sets a schedule, specifies wno
will oversee its implementation and the persons responsible for implementing specific
actio under the plan, and identifies existing and potential sources of funding
These plans should be revised as necessary. Watershed management entities
implement the plans, evaluate progress, provide reports to the State, and should
develop monitoring programs. The CWA should require that all watershed
management entities receiving funding carry out some Level of monitoring and
assessment of risks to public health and the environment. Watershed management
entities will also notify all parties o their roles and responsibilities for impLemeruin
the their plans.
6. Enforcement : Develop new or apply existing enforceable policies ,rC
mechanisms. Take enforcement actions as necessary. For the purposes ot V ‘.1 P-
4
-------
:. - T : FT DRAFT DRkFT CRAFT RAIT c —r = a:
F derai faciii::es should be treaced as otner faciiicies are treated.
S
-------
DR.AFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DR-AFT DR.AFt DR..AFr DRAFT DR AFT DR
Federal Role in Watershed Management
. . Background
En this watershed approach. States and watershed management entities would draw upon the
resources, skills, and authorities of all participants, including Federal agencies, to carry out
their respective responsibilities within the watershed planning and management context.
The challenge for Federal agencies is four-fold: first, to participate; second, to provide
Incentives for watershed management; third, to stream-line operations wherever possible:
and, fourth, to provide adequate oversight of Federal expenditures.
B. RecommendatIons
1. Guidance : EPA should issue guidance to States foi the design of their watershed
programs. ThS guidance would describe in detail how to meet the minimum
requirements of the CWA.
2. Approval The CWA should require States to submit their watershed programs
to EPA. EPA would then approve or disapprove the program within 180 days of
receipt, after conferring with other Federal agencies. Incentives would not be
available to States until their program is approved. In the case of disapproval, a
State should have six months to rid its program and resubmit it for approval, If
disapproved a second time, a State would be required to revise its NPS program as
required by an amended §319.
3. Rev tew : Success a State watershed program should be measured in terms oc i:
environmental conditions; (2) programmatic changes; and (3) changes in exposure .
and risks to public health and living resources. Each year following program
approval. States should submit a summary status report. Federal agencies ShOUhJ
allow States to use this report to satisfy other reporting requirements under the CWA
and other Federal programs. Every five years following program approval. Scace
should submit a revised state program, which EPA may disapprove if: (I) mc
program does not meet the purposes of the watershed management provision c.
the State is not meeting the milestones specified in the program schedule; or (3) Inc
State is not making reasonable progress toward meeting its environmental objecti’. c’.
Any disapproval of a State program must be in writing and specify modific turn’
EPA may withdraw financial support or rescind incentives if WMPs are not hc:r .
developed or implemented.
4. Revocation of Incentives If at any time EPA finds that (1) a State program J ‘ ‘
not meet the requirements of the watershed management provision; (2) an apprv :
State program schedule is not being met; or (3) the proposed practices or me1’t: .
in WMPs are not adequate to attain environmental objectives, then EPA shi.i
notify the State of modifications that are necessary in order to continue to re
incentives. The Administrator may revoke incentives as he/she deems apprcpr
if EPA decerr:LL. s that the State has not met requirements.
6
-------
- -
DR. ..FT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
. j rgovernmental Coordination : The CWA should provide for a committee.
including representatives from all levels of govern.rnent. to coordinate and support
watershed activities. Although not recom.mended as a statutory amendment. Federal
agencies should participate in watershed-Level management. promote watershed
management and implement their programs in accordance with WMPs. Where there
s no approved watershed programs. Fede’?’ encies should use a watershed
approach in implementing their programs.
6. Enforcement : Enforcement responsibilities under the CWA will be applicable
within a watershed program through the individual authorities pro’ided under other
CWA sections.
7
-------
DR FT D R A .FT DRAFT DRAFT D RAFT 0 RAFT DRAFT DRAFT D RAFT D R. %.FT — -
Watershed Protection Incentives
A. Funding
1. E1igibi.lit : Clarify that eligible activities under CWA sections 104(b)(3). 106(h),
314(b), 320(g), and SR.F include diagnosis, ‘ lr’uvng, stakeholder involvement, and
follow-up monitoring, in addition to iterative cycles of implementing actions.
assessing results and implementing revised actions. -
2. Pass Through : Allow pass through of 106 grants to watershed management entities
and encourage States to prioritize SRF funding for projects within approved
watershed management plans.
3. Planning : Include specific funding authorization for watershed management
plai ning.
4 N& point Sources : Reserve significant percentage of any future 3 19(h) increases
to support implementation of nonpoint source management measures undcr State.
approved watershed management plans.
B. Nonpoint Source Controls
1. Alternative Nonpoint Source Requirements : Instead of being required to submit
state-wide 319, as amended, plans providing for application of uniform best available
management measures to both existing sources in impaired and threatened
wat:r hec s and new sources in all watersheds, States with approved watershed
management programs would have the option to:
establish management practices only for significant categories and
subcategories of existing nonpoint source pollution identified in
comprehensive watcrshed inventory and for all new nonpoint sources state-
wide, or
- establish mechanisms for developing site specific management practices
- tailored to reflect local soil and climatic conditions, or
- establish methodologies for allowing less stringent management practices for
nonpoint sources where compliance with State and watershed-level objectives
can be demonstrated.
2. Alternative Noripoint Source Imolementation Schedules : Implementation schedules
under 319, as amended, would not apply to nonpoint sources in States with approved
watershed management programs: rather, approved States would be required to
include milestones for implementing nonpoint source controls in the State’s overaU
15 year watershed program for progressively achieving watershed environ.mental
objectives.
8
-------
DR AFT D RAFT D RAFT D RAFT D RAFT D RAFT D RAFT D RAFT DR AFT D R . FT
3. Eligibility Deadljne : States are eligible for alternative nonpoir.t source ce t .es
only if they submit watershed program within two and one half years (30 months
after enactment.
3 “ 4onpoint Source Incentive Revocation If EPA revoked the noripoint source
incentive, a State would be required to submit a revised nonpoint source program in
accordance with 319, as amended, no later than one year after final notice of
revocation.
C. NPDES Permits
1. Administrative Extensions : Allow one time 5 year extension of NPDES permit
terms beyond current expiration date to allow States to sequence watersheds.
However, facilities would still be required to submit timely permit applications and
States would retain authority to immediately reissue permit if permit application
indicates impairment of water quality.
2. 10 Year Permit Terms : Allow 10 year permits for point sources where receiving
water quality standards are being met at time of permit issuance and watershed pLan
provides for maintenance of water quality standards.
3. 5 Year Water Ouality Compliance Deadline Extension Issue permits which defer
compliance with water quality standards for up to 5 years where 1) approved
watershed management plan, 2) the plan specifies enforceable nonpoint source
pollutant load reductions that in combination with point source controls assure
compliance with water quality standards in 15 years, and 3) the point source does not
have a history of signi cant noncompliance.
4. Permit Fee Offset for Matching Funds : The dollar amount of permit fees collected
under mandatory CWA permit fee system may be used to offset matching funds
requirement for 106 &ants.
D. Water Quality Triennial Reviews
1. Extension of Triennial Reviews : The current 3 year period for triennial reviews
may be extended to 5 years in States with approved watershed management programs
E. Federal Cosilitency
1. Expanded Federal c’ncy Consistency : Expand section 401 certification authority
to apply to new federal facility and activity requirements (not otherwise provided for
under sections 301, 302, 303, 306. and 307) where 1) approved water management
plan, 2) federal agency was provided opportunity to participate in planning process.
and 3) federal agency did not object to new requirement.
9
-------
PROPOSA l. 10* D!V!LOPIWO A AT!RIE1D STRATSOT:
*IGZONAL WATER DIVISION DIUCTORS’ Co1aIz)rrs
On October 14, 1993, Michael B. Cook, Director of OWEC, sent
a memorandum to the Regional Water Division Directors requestLng
comment on a proposal for developing an OWEC watershed strategy.
The proposal identified some key issues that must be Considered
as the point source programs move toward a watershed-based
approach.
Four Regions (3,4,6,10) previd d comments on these issues.
Responses ranged from general comments on the overall proposal to
detailed comments on the specific issues. A summary of the key
issues outlined in the proposal, Regional comments, and
conclusions drawn from the Regional comments follow.
BUIOIART OP ISSUIS
Following is a summary of the key issues raised in the
proposal for developing a watershed strategy.
Ov.rall Approach
- Option 1: focus on orioritv watersheds and define base
level program for other watersheds
- Option 2: develop a plan to address everY watershed by
scheduling activities throughout five year management cycles
Changed N.asur.s of Success
- Focus on Fiscal Year 1995 program commitments initially
- Begin to emphasize longer-term measures associated with
environmental improvement (water quality in watersheds)
State/R.glonal Wat.zsh.d Strat.ql.s
- Provide flexibility and Lncentives for States to shift theLr
programs to a watershed approach
- Select States and watersheds for initial efforts and over
the long—term work toward an overall approach by each State
Cheng.s La th Psrztt Prograa
- Synchronize permits by watershed
- Focus more attention on r nors, stormwater, CSO5, sludge.
pollution prevention in watersheds where they cause
significant problems
-------
2
- Look for opportunities to use general permits (e.g.,
rninimil discharges)
- Focus efforts on particularly severe problems in all
watersheds as a baseline
- Develop feedback loop with enforcement to see if enforceable
permi ts are being written for watersheds of concern
Chang.a in the Enfozc.a.nt Program
- Provide flexibility in us. of inspection resources
- Place more emphasis on multi-media inspections
- Conduct enforcement activities ii? early stages of watershed
planning to begin addressing violations in priority
watersheds as they are identified, not just after a plan is
developed
- Consider violations such as non—filers, problems from minor
dischargers, wet weather overflows, discharges from sanitary
sewers, and dry weather overflows
- Investigate watersheds with high compliance rates and
remaining water quality problems to determine the source o
the problems
fJs.a of Data Syst.aa
- Jss the Permit Compliance System (PCS) to identify
priorities within watersheds (especially toxics); track
minors discharging to priority watsrbodies; and map major
and minor discharges in priority watersheds.
- Improve EPA, State, and public access to data
- Invest in data integration to develop better linkages to
existing data
Stat. Revolving Pund
- Work with the Administration to devslop a dedicated fund i nq
source for watershed planning
- Work with States to give increased consideration to pro ec s
under approved watershed management or Section 319 plans
-------
3
azoxo COIOIEITI
Four EPA Regions provided comments on the proposal for a
watershed strategy as summarized below.
Ov.raZ1 Approach
- The Regions generally supported Opti.4ri 2, addressing all
watersheds, as a goal for an overall approach. On. Region
noted that all States may not be able to take this approach
and recommended giving States flexibility to choose the best
approach for their State. Another Region noted that both
options should be pursued simultaneously.
- Offer incentives for State development of modeling,
monitoring, TXDLS by watershed (components of Option 2).
One example is including T?WL development as a grant
condition.
- Consider using non-authorized States as testing grounds.
Changed N.aaur.s of Slzcc.sa
- 4ev measures of success could include measuring loading
reductions for pollutants of concern in a watershed and
measuring use attainment (number of stream miles in full
attainment) on stream reaches below major dischargers and
significant minors.
- One Region noted that loading reductions may not be
considered meaningful measures of success if they cannot be
linked to water quality.
State/Regional Watarah.d Strat.glu
- Define the scop. of the watershed strategy (point sources
only, point and nonpoint sources) and benchmark from
existing State and Regional experiences.
- Address incentives for and impediments to implementing a
watershed protection approach resulting from EPA/State
organizational structures.
- Possible incentives include 10 year permits, trading, and
the flexibility to “rearrange” resources to implement a
watershed approach. This flexibility must extend beyond the
permits program.
- Impediments include a lack of some Regional upper management
support for the watershed protection approach and States
that are unwilling to change the way they do business
without new requlations requ .ring such changes.
-------
—
-p.
4
- Re—orient monitoring and modeling activities on watershed
basis.
- Establish a good educational program and demonstration
projects to show States the benefits of the watershed
protect ion approach.
— Provide analysis of financial, administrative, and
environmental benefits of a watershed protection approach.
Charig.a in th. Psrm.L t Pro gram
- One Region commented that the NPDES program is “the engine
that will pull the watershed train.” If one considers only
the NPDES perspective, however, efforts to move toward a
watershed approach will not be fi11y effective. OWEC and
OWOW efforts to implement a watershed protection approach
must be coordinated.
- One Region stated its agreement with the recommendations in
the proposal.
— An alternative to synchronizing permits by watersheds
proposed by one Region is developing T1 Ls on a watershed
basis and issuing corresponding permits over a year or
several years. This approach gives flexibility in timing of
permit issuance when there are a larg. number of facilities
with problems other than those addressed by the basin TMDL.
- One Region commented that because of time required for up-
f rent work, true watershed permitting would not occur until
at least three years or as many as five years after
development of a watershed protection approach.
- One Region noted that it would be difficult to re-open
permits in off—basin years to include any new statutory
requirements.
- “Yardsticks” are needed for measuring success in converting
a permits program to a watershed approach.
- Pollutant trading guidance is needed.
- One Region questioned the proposal to expand the use of
general permits in watersheds with severe water quality
problems since general permits are usually used to satisfy
administrative and legal needs rather than dealing with a
specific water quality problem.
-------
-
-d
5
Chang.a Lu tb. En!orc .a .flt Progrsa
- Current enforcement guidance is inconsistent with the
watershed approach and should be abandoned if a watershed
approach is adopted.
- Adequate enforcement actions must be undertaken in a
watershed as a watershed study is getting underway. The
results of enforcement actions could impact load allocations
and other decisions in the watershed. Enforcement actions
should be included in any comprehensive action plan and
coordinated with the basin study. One Region commented that
timely and apprQpriate enforcement activities are being
addressed as they are identified for majors, but they need
to occur for minors.
- Without further explanation, one Region commented that
multimedia inspections ar. not very important to the
watershed approach. Another Region stated that directing
enforcement resources toward failing septic tanks (an
exampl. given in the proposal) would be ineffectiv, and
nonproductive.
- One Region stated that directing resources toward watersheds
with high compliance rates would be inefficient since there
are watersheds with both low compliance rates and water
quality problems. The Region recommended tracking average
compliance rates by watershed.
Us. of Data Systems
- Two Regions agreed that incorporating data for minors in PCS
should be a priority, but recognized the need for addit .onaL
resources to do so.
- One Region recommended that a “hydrological smart system” be
developed to cross-reference all water computer systems by
river reach and stated that permits and enforcement need to
make use of GIS, WBS, and STORE?.
- one Rqion commented that there should be a focus on data
quality.
Stat. Revolving Fund
- One Region expressed support for the proposal to give
priority to using SRF funds in areas identified in 319 NPS
management programs.
-------
6
COXCLDB IO U
Several conclusions may be drawn from the Regional comments.
These conclusions represent issues where there appeared to be
some level of agreement among the Regions commenting on the
proposal. Also, in many cases, Regions may have agreed with the
recommendations in the proposal and, therefore, chose not to
comment.
(1.) Option 2 (develop a plan to address ever, watershed by
scheduling activities during five year management
cycles) should be a goal for an overall watershed
protection approach. There were a number of ideas and
suggested methods for reaching this goal.
(2) The NPDES program is a key player in any watershed
protection approach, but efforts and contributions of
other programs (OWOW) must be considered and integrated
into any strategy.
(3) Regions generally agree with the proposal to develop
new measures of suces* such as loading reductions and
attainment of water quality standards.
(4) There are a number of impediments to implementation of
a watershed protection approach that must be addressed.
Some of these impediments ars due to EPA arid State
agency structures.
(5) One of the major incentives for implementing a
watershed protection approach is the flexibility to
reassign resources.
(6) There is a need to define the bsnef its (environmental
and administrative) of implementing a watershed
protection approach.
(7) There are a number of impediments to synchronizing
permits and keeping them synchronized. En some cases,
permit synchronization may not be necessary or
desirable.
(8) Enforcement activities must be an integral part of any
watershed plan and address minors as wel]. as majors.
(9) Minors dati should be included in the Permit compliance
System (PCS).
(10) Better use must be made of STORET, WBS, and 013
applira ions. Water quality data sets should be lLr. e
together.
-------
.
WPA - MSD Opportunities
Advanced Treatment (AT) Revieva
Reviews were originally conducted to assure that investments
in AT for certain construction grant projects would result in
measurable improvement in water quality. Similar technical
reviews could be utilized to measure water quality improvement
resulting from implementation of watershed strategies.
Wet Weather Monitoring Protocol
Development work initiated in FY-93 to establish a baseline
wet weather monitoring protocol to measure the progress of the
storm water and CSO control programs. Similar analysis might
be developed for watershed protection p 1rposes.
Pollutant Matrix
Attempts to illustrate, in a matrix format, ths cost (S/pound)
for removing a variety of pollutants (e.g., SS, SOD, i, p,
metals, celiform bacteria, etc.) by POTWs, CSO controls, Urban
Storm Water management controls, and non-point source
controls. A total of 44 technologies were included.
Municipal storm water management plans
Provide guidance on thà i::egration of municipal storm water
management plans with watershed protection strategies.
?Iaterial could be incorporated into future municipal
workshops.
Ouidanc. in the following areas:
- Targeting Municipal wastewater pollution prevention
(MWPP) efforts on priority watersheds.
- case study materials from the Rouge River demonstration
project on how different programs coordinated and
benefitted from a watershed approach
- public/privat, partnerships to promote stakeholder
involv *Itt in a watershed protection approach
- outreach programs (SCORE) to provide training and promote
stakehold.r involvement
-------
WPA - COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCENENT OPPORT JNITtE5
STAR S• :
- Relax STARS commttments for inspections to allow more
flexibility in targeting inspection resources to highest
priority watersheds
Minor Permits :
- Provide increased focus on minor permittees in targeted
watersheds (especially facilities with compliance
problems), decreased focus on majors with good compliance
- records inside or outside watersheds
Sector Strateaies :
- Expand use of sector strategies (i.e., mining) where
appropriate
P.n<ip :
— Earmark enforcement penalties to support watershed
assessment, planning, or restoration activities
- Decrease number of inspections in low priority watersheds
- During inspections in targetted watersheds, educate
dischargers about watershed planning if forts and
upstream/downstream problems and solutions
UnDermitted D ischar .s :
- Develop stra .e y for identifying unpermitted discharges
in high priority watersheds
-------
UPA - NPDES PERMIT OPPORTUNITIES
Monitoring :
- Rsqv.st upstream/downstream mozutoring and assessment as
part of NPDES application
- Include monitoring requirements in permit o assist in
assessing watershed conditions and sources, setting
TMDLS, and evaluating standards
- Establish group monitoring plans for multiple dischargers
to same watershed to support integrated monitori.ng
approaches and potentially reduced individual monitoring
requirements
— Concentrate review of stormwater plans on facilities in
targeted watershed areas
- Target high risk watersheds for early implementation of
more rigorous stormuater permits
TXDLaIWLAsILAa :
— Write permits that explicitly are based on “shared” load
allocations with nonpoint sources (i.e., compliance with
permit limits will not assure attainment of water quality
standards unless specified nonpoint source improvements
are also made)
- Ensure that T La/WLAs/LAs are developed to support
permit issuance for pollutants of concern in impaired,
threatened, or targeted waters
Svnchronizatiort :
- Administratively extend or write interim permits within
watersheds to get all permits on same planning and
issuanc, timetable
Trading :
- Provid, for trading between point and nonpoint sources
within watershed (stream reach?)
Oversiaht:•
— Revise STARS commitments and emphasis on majors to
provide targeting flexibility and encourage/measure
progress toward implementing watershed approach
- Revise permit output expectations to allow transition t
WPA
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JAN —2 992
OFFCE OF
WATER
SUBJECT: Recent Concerns About USGS Data for_Sele ed Metals
FROM: James F. Pendergast, Acting Chief ‘-. -— \
Water Quality and Industrial Permits Branch ( N-336)
TO: Regional NPDES Permits Branch Chiefs (I-X)
We recently learned that the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)
historical ambient monitoring information for arsenic, boron,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc may be
overstated and are no longer supported by USGS. For this reason,
we recommend that you and the States in your Region do not use
these data in establishing NPDES permit limits.
USGS recently briefed representatives of the Office of Water
on the USGS ambient monitoring program. During the briefing,
USGS explained that it now believes that its historical river
monitoring data for the above listed eight metals are too high
due to trace level contamination of the sampling and field
collection apparatus.
Some investigators have started using ultra-clean samplers,
filters, and containers, and have found much lower ambient
concentrations for some elements than were reported in USGS
reports. I have enclosed a copy of the USGS handout which
compared their data for the Mississippi River to data from other
investigators; this comparison shows that some ambient measure-
ments using ultra—clean methods were considerably lover than
measurements using existing methods. A critique of the USGS data
was also published in the June 3.991 issue of the American Chemi-
cal Society journal Environmental Science and Technoloav .
USGS is now working on protocols for using the newer ultra-
clean methods in its sampling, and will take a closer look at its
database to see if there are similar problems in lakes and with
other compounds or elements.
Attachment
-------
Dav d R cke:: U3 5
DecemDer 12, 199:
CONCERNS ABOUT DISSOLVED TPJCE-ZLZNZNT DATA
About 15 years ago, the oceanographic community began to develop
so-called ultra—clean techniques for cleaning samplers, filter
apparatus, and containers for use in dissolved trace—element
work. In North America, these techniques were then applied to
the Great Lakes, but were not widely implemented in rivers. it
is probable that most dissolved trace-element data collected on
rivers before 1985 include contamination. To date, no large-
scale program in the U.S. has used the ultra-clean technology.
• New research studies by USGS, university scientists, and
Environment Canada suggest that most dissolved trace-element
results in U.S. data bases (and throughout the world) are
contaminated, primarily by sample collection and field processing
activities.
• The new results (see Table 1) show that dissolved trace—element
concentrations are low and in the same range in the Mississippi
River, 13 east coast rivers, the St. Lawrence River, and streams
of the Canadian Shield. The actual concentrations are at the
parts—per-trillion (ppt or nanograms/liter) level:
- 10’s of ppt for cadmium and lead
- High 100’s ppt for zinc and copper
- Around 1,000 ppt (1 part per billion) for nickel
• USGS evaluation of operational methods to collect trace element
data included two 1990 studies: (a) a Blank Sample Study, and
(b) a Mississippi River Methods Comparison Study.
• Data from the two studies were evaluated producing the following
conclusions:
1) Nonconta inat•d or minimally contaminat•d--barium,
calcium, cobalt, lithium, magnesium, molybdenum, nickel,
sodium, silicon, strontium, uranium, and vanadium.
2) Significantly conta inat.d--arsenic, boron, beryllium,
*C I cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. From other
I studies and lines of evidence, the mercury data base is
known to contain contaminated results.
3) Siqnficantly diffsr.nt frog NRP data, but tbs
diffsrsnc•s ay result largely froR filtration
artifacts, rather than conta ination--alumium, iron,
and manganese.
4) As yet undetermined--selenium and silver.
-------
2
As a result, the USGS:
1) Has discontinued the contaminated elements from NASQAN
and Benchmark.
2) Is developing a small capacity for ppt analys s in the
National Water Quality Laboratory.
3) Is evaluating sampling equipment to identify equipment
adequate for ppb level
4) Is developing guidelines for p?’4uiITE J ass è bf
all trace element data.
5) Is writing protocols for ppt and ppb sample collection,
processing and analysis.
6) Is evaluating methods for collection, processing, and
analysis of suspended sediment, bed sediment, and tissue.
7) Is defining experiments to determine if analyte loss.is a
concern for ppt work. /d_ta
8) Will evaluate the historic d ta 5 Pe tb the ext’ nt possible.
Ma. 4 o_4— LaPLD i
The future may include a significantly reduced number of
analyses for dissolved trace elements in operational programs.
1) PPB
2) PPT
REFERENCES FOR TABLE 1
Lum, K.R., Kaiser, K.L.E., and Jaskot, C., 1991, Distribution
and fluxes of metals in the St. Lawrence River from the
outflow of Lake Ontario to Quebec City: Aquatic Sciences,
v. 53, no. 1, 19 p.
Shiller, A.M., and Boyle, E.A., 1987, Variability of dissolved
trace metals in the Mississippi River: Geochimica et
Cosmochimica. Acta, v. 51, p. 3273—3277.
Windom, H.L., Byrd, J.T., Smith, R.G., Jr., and Huan, F.,
1991, Inadequacy of NASQAN data for assessing metal
trends in the nation’s rivers: Environmental Science and
Technology, v. 25, no. 6, p. 1137—1142.
-------
fabis l.--Concentration. of Dissolved Ziements from Selected Investigations e& .& . ikLflq&/W
(Part. per trillion
...M. sm w4srabp.m ta ” St. Sti eami I
P USGS Hiseissippi River Mississippi lastern Lawrence Lake.. Bruce
_ thodn Co.pazfsnn ltu4 .—JLznz-—— fl.LJlzau _l.nz... P ninuJtc
( g ) pIIi AII’S42 4 ’ Shill.r I Nindo. Lum NcCrea
Conetit- Statis- Distr lct Taylor Sh il lerb Boyle .t al et at.
uent tics I N — Il IN-IQI IN- Il IN— lI 1 1 .3 1 1 11.321 IN-3M
Cd median 1.200 <100 11 16 — -
2,600-3.000 d <100 16 13 • 11 17 (100
Cr median 1.100 c200 S3 (200
mean so-i. too 4 40-200 73 • 20-200 d
Cu median 4,600 1,100 1,600 1.300 — 500
mean 4,500-5.600 d i,eoo 1,600 1,500 S 500 9 500
Ni medIan 1.100 1,500 1.400 — <200
mean 1. 500 1.700 1,400 770 9 100-200 d
Pb median c500 dO — — (200
mean 1,900-2,300 10-60 d 23 10 9 10-200 d
Zn median 5.300 900 1 0 240 — —
mean 6. 100-6, 700 4 910 290 200 • 050 550 9
Al median 9.100 1.500
mean 5.500 4,000
I. median 24,000 1,700 1,100
mean 15.000 2,600 1,700•
a) Depth- and width-intigrat.d .ampl.s. The Diet Iict s 1.s were collected and pr.cs.s.d by District crews and
analyzed at the National Rater Ouality Laboratory. Ne sra of Novard Taylor’s USGS National Research Program
project collected, processed, and analyzed the ?aylor samples.
b) Grab sample..
C) Whole water samples with low suspended sediment content.
d) Data base contained less than values. The reported mean was calculated twice, one. with the lsss than vales(s)
set to zero and again with ths ies. than values set at the reporting limit.
a) D Iech.rge weighted mean..
f) Unweighted mean of two sampling campaigns for IS U.S. •ast coast rivers.
g) Estimated mean based on average concentration for each site and the nu eI of samples at each site.
-------
NPDES
Storm Water Program
Question and Answer Document
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Permits Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
March 1992
-------
INDUSTRIAL. PERMIT APPUCAT1ON QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Category I . Facilities subject to storm water effluent guidelines, new source
performanc. standards, or toxic pollutant effluent standards.
What kinds of facilities are Included under cat.gory (I)?
Category (I) includes facilities subject to storm water effluent limitations
guidelines, new source performance standards, or toxic pollutant effluent
standards under litle 40 subchapter N of the Code at Federal Regulations
(CFR)_(except facilities with toxic pollutant effluent standards which are
exempted under category (xi) of the dthiltion of storm water discharge
associated with industhal activity). The term storm water modrnes only
effluent limitations guidellnes. Facilities subject to subcategories with new
source performance standards, toxic pollutant effluent standards, or storm
water effluent limitation guidelines are required to submit a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application for storm water
discharges associated with indus ’iai activity.
2. What kinds of facilities are subject to storm water effluent guidelines?
The following categories of facilities have storm water effluent guidelines for at
least one of their subcategories: cement manufacturing (40 CFR 411); feedlots
(40 CFR 412); fertil er manufacturing (40 CFR 418) ; ps oleum refining (40 CFR
419); phosphate manufacturing (40 CFR 422); steam eiec ic power generation
(40 CFR 423); coal mining (40 CFR 434); mineral mining and processing (40
CFR 436); ore mining and dressing (40 CFR 440); and asphalt (40 CFR 443). A
facility that fails into one of these general categories should examine the effluent
guideline to determine if It is categorized in one of the subcategories that have
storm water effluent guidelines. If a facility is classified as one of those
subcategories, that ia ity is subject to the standards listed in the CFR for that
category, and as such, is required to submit a storm water discharge permit
application.
3. What kinds of facilities are subject to oxIc pollutant effluent standardV?
First, it is important to understand the term toxic pollutant Toxic pollutants
refers to the priority pollutants listed in Tables II and Ill of Appendix D to 40 CFR
part 122 (not 40 CFR Pert 129). If any of these toxic pollutants are limited in
an effluent guideline to which the facility is subject (including pre ’ea em
standards), then the facility must apply for a storm water permit The following
categones of facilities have toxic pollutant effluent standards for at least one
subcategory:
1 March 16, 1992
-------
Textile mills (40 CFR 410)
Electroplating (40 CFR 413)
Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers (40 CFR 414)
Inorganic chemicais (40 CFR 415)
Petroleum refining (40 CFR 419)
Iron and steel manufa jnng (40 CFR 420)
Nonferrous metals manufacturing (40 CFR 421)
Steam electric power generating (40 CFR 423)
Ferroailoy manufa nng (40 CFR 424)
Leather tanning and finishing (40 CFR 425)
Glass manufa ring (40 CFR 426)
Rubber manufacturing (40 CFR 428)
Timber producta processing (40 CFR 429)
Pulp, paper 1 and paperboard (40 CFR 430)
Metal finishing (40 CFR 433)
Pharmaceutical manufacturIng (40 CFR 439)
Ore mining and dressing (40 CFR 440)
Pesticide chemicals (40 CFR 455)
Photographic processing (40 CFR 459)
Battery manufacturing (40 CFR 461)
Metal molding and casting (40 CFR 464)
Coil coating (40 CFR 465)
Porcelain enameling (40 CFR 466)
Aluminum forming (40 CFR 467)
Copper forming (40 CFR 468)
Electrical and eIe ’onic componente (40 CFR 469)
Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders (40 CFR 471)
4. What kinds of facilities irs subject to nsw source performance
standardsl
Most effluent guidelines listed in subchapter N contain New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). A facility that subject to a NSPS as defined
for that particular effluent guideline is required to submit a permit application for
the storm water discharges associated with industrial activity at that site. The
definition of a new source varies based on the publication date of the particular
effluent guideline.
The folowing categories of 40 CFR Subchapter N facilities do have new
source performance standards. All other categories have at least one
subcategory with new source performance standards.
Oil and Gas Extraction (40 CFR 435)
Mineral Mining and Processing (40 CFR 436)
Gum and Wood Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR 454)
2 March 16, 1992
-------
Pesticsde Chemicals (40 CFR 455)
Explosives Manufactunng (40 CFR 457)
Photographic (40 CFR 459)
Hospital (40 CFR 460)
5. If a faculty Is Included under th• description of both cat.gory (I) and
cat.gory (x l), Is that facility required to submit a storm water permit
application If material handling qulpment or activities, raw materials,
intsrmed late products, final products, waste matsrlals, byproducts, or
Industhal machinery ar• not .xpcs.d to storm water?
The anewerdepends onwhythefadhllyiainduded in category 0). if the facility
is included in category (I) because it a sublect to storm water effluent standards
or new source performance standards, the facility is required to apply for a
permit regardless of whether It has exposure or not. Facilities that are induded
in category (I) only because they have to3dc pollutant effluent standards are not
required to submit an application if they indeed have no exposure to matenal
handling equipment or activities, raw materials, intermediate products, final
products, waste materials, byproducts, or industhal machinery.
Cat.gorles II, ill, vi, viii, and
6. What Industrial groups are covered by Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) codes that sri used In th• definition of storm water dlscharg•
associated with Industrial activity?
The following SIC codes and associated industhes are Induded in the indicated
categories of the definition:
Category (ii) __
24 (except 2434) . Lumber and Wood Products (except wood kitchen
cabinets) _
26 (except 265 and 267) - Paper and Allied Products (except paperboard
containers and products) _
28 (except 283 and 285) Chemicals arid Airied Products (except drugs
and paints)
28. Petroleum Refining Industries
311 - Leather Tanning and Finishing
32 (except 323) - Stone/Clay/Glass and Concrete Products (except
glass products made of purchased glass )
33- Primary Metal Industhes
3441 - Fabricated Structural Metals
373 - Ship and Boat Building and Repairing
3 March 16, 1992
-------
category ( ü)
10 - Metal Mining
12- Coai Mining
13- Oil and Gas Extraction
14 - Nonmetallic Minerals
Category (vi)
5015 - Motor Vehides Parts, Used
5093 - Scrap and Waste Materials
Category (v
40- Railroad Transportation
41 - Local Passenger Transportation
42 (except 4221-4225) - Trucking and Warehousing ( except public
warehousing and Storage)
43- U.S. Postal Service
44- Water Transportation
45- TransportatIon by Air
5171 - Petroleuri Bulk Stations and Terminals
Category ( )
- Food and Kindred Products
21 - Tobacco Products
22- Textile MW Products
23- Apparel Related Products
2434 - Wood Kitchen Cabinets Manufacturing
25- Furniture and Fixtures
265 - Paperboard Containers and Boxes
267 - Converted Paper and Paperboard Products
27- Printing , Publishing, and Allied Industries
283-Drugs
285 - Paints, Varnishes, Lacquer, Enamels, and Allied Products
30- Rubber and Plastics
31 (except 311) - Leather and Leather Products (except leather
tanning end finishing)
323- Glass Products
34 (except 3441). Fabricated Metal Products (except fabricated
stru metaQ
35- IndustrIal and Commercial Machinery and Computer Equipment
36 - Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment and Components
37 (except 373) - Transportation Equipment (except ship and boat
buUding and repairing)
38- Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments
4 March 16, 1992
-------
39. Miscellaneous Manufacturing lndusUiee
4221-4225 - Public Warehousing and Storage
Category Hi. Mining and Oil & Gas Opiratlons
7. Ars inactive minis included in the regulation?
Two conditions must be met for an inactive mine to be required to submit a
storm water discharge permit application. First, the facility must have a
discharge of storm water that has come into contact with any overburden, raw
material, intermediate products, finished products, byproducts, or waste
products located on the site of the facility. The second condition depends on
the type of mining activity.
Inactive non-coal mining operations must apply unti such sites are released
from applicable State or Federal reclamation requirements after December 17,
1990. Non.coal mining operations released from applicable State or Federal
requirements before December 17, 1990, must apply far an NPDES storm water
discharge permit if the storm water discharges are contaminated as discussed
above.
inactive coal mining operations must apply unless the performance bond issued
to the facility by the appropriate Surface Mñng Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA) authority has been released.
8. Ars any oil S gas .xpIora Ion, production, procssslng, or sa nsnt
operations, or transmIssIon facUlties classified under SIC cod• 13, exempt
from having to apply for a storm water permit?
Yes, such facilities are exempt unless they have discharged storm water after
November 18, 1987, containing a Reportable Quantity (RQ) of a pollutant for
which notification is or was required pursuant to 40 CFR 117.21,40 CFR 302.6,
or 40 CFR 110.8; or if a storm water discharge from the facility contributes to a
violation of a water quality standard, as set forth in 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(iii).
9. What is a reportabl, quantity for discharges from an oil or gas
operations?
As defined at 40 CFR 110.6, an RO is the amount of oil that violates applicable
water quality standards or causes a film or sheen upon or a discoloration of the
surface of the water or adjoining shorelines or causes a sludge or emulsion to
be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines (40
5 March 16, 1992
-------
CFR part 110.6). The ROs for other substances are listed in 40 CFR 117.3 and
302.4 in terms of pounds released over any 24-hour penod.
10. Are access roads for mining operations covered?
Any construction that disturbs 5 aa’es or more of total land area must apply for
a storm water discharge permit.
After construction, roads for mining operations would riot be induded unless
storm water runoff from such roads mbces with storm water that is corflarninated
by contact with overburden, raw materials, itermediate products, finished
products, byproducts, or waste products. When roads are constructed out of
materials such as overburden or byproducts, an apphcation for an NPDES
storm water discharge permit would be required.
I Category Iv • Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities
11. Is a facility that stores hazardous waits less than 90 days required to
submit an aocUcsflon?
It is EPA’s intent to cover those facilities that are operathig under interim status
or permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle
C. As such, only facilities meeting the definition of a hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facility under RCRA are expressly induded in
this category. A facility that stores hazardous waste less than 90 days is not
considered to be a treatment, storage, or disposal faculty, and therefore is not
required to submit a storm water permit application.
Category v- Landfills, Land Application Sites and Open Dumps
12. Do dosed or Inactive landfills need to apply for a permit?
Yes. Any landiW, active, inactive or dosed, must apply for a permit if it receives,
or has received, wastes from the industrial facilities identified under
t22.26(b)(14)(I)-(xI). To the extent that control measures and best management
practices address storm water, the permit may incorporate those control
measures.
6 March 16, 1992
-------
13. Does a landfill that receives Only the office waste and/or cafeteria waste
from Industrial faculties MV. to apply for an NPDES permit?
No. Only landfills that receive or have received waste from manufacturing
portions of industhai facilities need to apply for a permit
Category vi. Recycling Facilities
14. Are gas stations or repair shops that collect tires or batteries clautfled In
the recycllng category?
No. Only those facilities classified in SIC codes 5015 (used motor vehicle parts)
and 5093 (scrap and waste materials) are in the recycllng category. This
includes facilities such as metal scrap yards, battery reclaimers, salvage yards,
and automobile junk yards.
15. Are municipal waste collection SitS 5 Included In category (vi)?
No. Municipal waste collection sites where bottles, cans, and r wspapers are
collected for recycling purposes are not classified as SIC codes 5015 or 5093.
Category vii. Steam Electric Power Generating Facilities I
16. Are offslt transformer areas regulated under the PIPOES storm water
rule?
No. Upon examination of the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA determined
that the regulation of storm water discharges from these facilities should be
studied under Section 402(p)(5) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (55 FR 48013).
Future regulations may be developed to address these areas.
17. Are storm water discharges from electrical substations included In the
definition of industrial activity?
No. Electrical substations are not covered by this regulation.
7 March 16, 1992
-------
18. Are storm water discharges from coal piles that sri located offs Ite from
the power station included In the definition of Industrial activity?
No. Offsit. coal piles are not covered by this regulation. In order to be
included, a coal pile must be ted on the site of a facility ddned by the
regulation as being engaged in an industhai activity.
19. Ars storm water discharges from cogsnsratlon facilities Included In the
definition of Industrial activity?
A heat capture cogeneratlon facility is not covered under the definition of storm
water discharge associated with industrial activity; however, a dual fuel Co.
generation facility is included and therefore must submit an apphcation for the
storm water discharges associated with indusV vity.
20. Ave university power plants Included In the definition of industrial activity?
Yes. A university steam elecbic power generating facility is required to apply for
a storm water discharge permit.
I Cat.gory viii . Transportation Facilities
21. Are gas stations and automotive repair shops required to apply for an
NPDES storm water discharge permit?
No. These facilities are classified in SIC codes 5541 (gasoline ifihing stations)
and 7538 (automotive repair shops). The storm water rule generalty does not
address facilities with SIC classifications pertaining to wholesale, retail, service
or commercial activities. Additional regulations addressing these sources may
be developed under Se on 403(p)(6) of the CWA If studies required under
Section 402(p)(5) indicate the need for regulation.
22. Doss a vehicis maintenance shop or an .qulpmsnt cleaning facility need
to apply for a permit?
Yes, if the shop is categorized by the SIC codes listed in the transportation
category of faciDtles engaged in industhal activity [ Le., SIC codes 40, 41, 42
(except 4221-25) 43, 44, 45 and 5171]. Only the vehicle maintenance (including
vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication) and
equipment cleaning areas (such as truck washing areas) must be addressed in
the application.
8 March 16, 1992
-------
As explained above, gas statiOnS 8t CIaSsthed in SIC code 5541 and
automotive repair services are classified as SIC code 75, WhiCh are not included
in the regulatory ddniton of iridustriai activity, and therefore are not required to
submit NPDES storm water discharge permit applications.
23. Are municipally owned and/or operated school bus maintenance facilities
required to apply for an NPDES permit?
No. The SIC Manual states that school bus establishments operated by
educational institutions should be tasted as auxilianes to the educational
institution. Since the SIC code assigned to educational institutions is 82, the
municipally operated (La., by a school board, dlstict or other muni pal entity)
school bus establishments would not be required to apply for an NPDES permit
for their storm water discharges. Private conuact school bus seMces are
required to apply for an NPDES permit for their storm water discharges.
24. 1$ SIC cods 4212 always assigned to facilities with dump bucks?
No. The maintenance facility must be primarily engaged in maintaining the
dump tuck to be characterized as SIC cods 4212. Dump tucks used for road
maintenance and consUu on and facilities that main n these tucks are
classified under SIC code 16 (heavy coristuction other than building
constuction) and therefore would not be charaaterized engaging in
industrial activity.
25. How does a municipality determine what typ. of vehicle a particular
maintenance facility Is primarily engaged In servicing?
The SIC Manual recommends using a value of receipts or revenues approach
to determine what is the primary activity of a facility. For example, if a
maintenance facility services both school buses and intercity buses, the facility
would total receipts for each type of vehicle and whichever generated the most
revenue, would be the vehicle type that the facility is primarily engaged in
servicing. If data on r nues and receipts are not available, the number of
vehicles and frequency of service may be compared. If a facility services more
than two types of vehicles, Whichever type generates the most (not necessarily
greater than half of the total) revenue, or is most frequently serviced, is the
vehicle type the facility is pnmanly engaged in servicing.
26. Is a municipal maintenance facility that Is primarily engaged In servicing
garbage bucks required to apply for a permit?
The answer depends on the SIC code assigned to the establishment if the
municipality also owns the disposal facility (e.g., landfill, incinerator) that
9 March 16, 1992
-------
receives refuse transported by the trucks, then the maintenance facility would
be classified as SIC code 4953 and thus would not be required to apply for a
permit unless the maintenance facility was located at a facility covered under
one of the other categones of indusTh activity (e.g., a landfill that receives
industrial waste). If, however, the municipality does not own the disposal
facility, the truck maintenance facility would be classified as SIC code 4212 and
thus would be required to apply for a permit if other vehicles are seMced at
the same maintenance facility, the facility may not be required to submit a
permit application (see question #25 above).
27. Are firs trucks or police cars included in the transportation SIC codes?
No. The operation of fire trucks and police cars are classified under public
order and safety (SIC code 92); therefore, the operator of a facility primarily
engaged n servicing those vehicles would nat be required to apply for a permit.
28. Do all airports need to apply for a storm water discharg• permit?
No, only those airports classified as SIC code 45. Only those portions of the
facility that are either involved in vehicle maintenance (including vehicle
rehaI ion, mechanical repairs, pain g, fueI’ig, and kbi Ion), equipment
cleaning, or airport deicing or which are otherwise ldenufled under
122. (b)(14)Q)-(vli) or (bc- ) are required to be permittot Airports that are not
engaged in such activities do not require storm water discharge permits.
Facilities primarily engaged in performing services that incidentally use airplanes
(e.g., crop dusting and aerial photography) we classified according to the
service performed.
29. Is the d.lcing of airplanes, runways, or both included in airport delcing
operations?
Airports or airline companies must apply for a storm water discharge permit for
locations where deicing chemicals are applid. Thu includes, but is not Umited
to, runways, tadways, ramps, and areas used for the deicing of airplanes. The
operator of the airport should apply for the storm water discharg. permit with
individual airi ’ie companies included as coapplicants.
30. Wh Is responsible for seeking permit coverage at an airport that has
many companies using the facility and discharging storm water?
The operator is responsible for seeking coverage. EPA strongly encourages
cooperation between the airport authority and all operating airlines at that
airport Each operator is responsible for coordinating with the others and they
may act as coapplicants. Please note that under 122.26(a)(6) the Director has
10 March 16, 1992
-------
the discretion to issue indMdual permits to each discharger or to issue an
permit to the airport operator arid have other dischargers to the same
system act as copermittees to the permit issued to the airport operator.
31. Are railroad facilities included?
Railroad facilities, classified as SIC code 40, which have vehicle maintenance
activities, equipment cleaning operations or are otherwise identified under
1fl. (b)(14)W-(vlI) or (lx).(xl) need to apply for a permit
32. Are repairs along a railroad system considered to be vehicle maintenance
and thus regulated?
No. Only nunUaiisler t vehicle maintenance shops are included in the
po on
33. Are tank farms at petroleum bulk storag. stations covered by the rule?
No, unless the storm water decharge from the tank farm area comminglis with
storm water from any vehicle maintenance shops or equipment cleaning
operations located onsite. Hc ier, tank farms located onsite with other
indusüial facilities, as defined in 122.28(b)(14), are included in the regulation.
34. is a parking lot associated with a vehicle maintenance shop Included In
the regulation?
Yes. Under 122. (b)(14)(vlil) vehicle maintenance arid equipment cleaning
operations are considered industhal activity. Parking Iota used to store vehicles
prior to maintenance are considered to be a component of the vehicle
maintenance a vny.
35. Is the fueling operation of a transportation facility (SIC codes 40 through
45) covered If there are no other vehicle maintenance activities taking
place at the facility?
Yes. A nonretali fueling operation is considered vehicle maintenance (see
122.26(b)(14)(vli)] and requires an NPDES storm water discharge permit
application.
36. is a manufa irIng facUltys offsits vehicle malntsnance facility required to
apply for a permit under th• transportation category?
No. An offsite vehicle maintenance facility supporting one company would not
be required to apply for a permit if that company is not primarily engaged in
11 March 16, 1992
-------
providing Vansportation services and therefore would not be classified as SIC
code 42. The maintenance facility would be considered an awdliary operation
to v e maJ acturing facility. For a full discussion on auxiliary facilities see page
13 through 17 Of the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification Manual. if the
maintenance facility is located on the same site as the manufacturing operation,
it would be included in the areas associated with industrial activity and must be
addressed in an application.
37. Is a marina required to apply for a Storm water permit if It operates a retail
fusing operation, but other vehicle maintenance g equipment cleaning
activities are not conducted onsite?
Facilities that are primarily engaged in operating marinas are best classified as
SIC 4493- marinas. These facilities rent boat slips, store boats, and generally
perform a range of other marine services induding boat cleaning and incidental
boat repaw. They frequendy sell food, fue fishing supplies, and may sell boats.
For facilities classified 554493 that are involved in vehicle ( bolt ) maintenance
activities (Including vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling,
and ibrk ation ) or equipment cleaning operations, those portions at the facility
that are involved in su vehicle maintenance actMtles we considered to be
associated with In a1riai SCtMty and are covered under the storm water
regu ons.
Facilities classified as 4493 that are t involved in equipment cleaning or
vehicle maintenance activities (Including vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical
repairs, painting, and lubrication) are not intended to be covered under 40 CFR
Section 122. (b)(14)(viii) of the storm water permit application regulations. The
retail sale of fuel alone at marinas, without any other vehicle maintenance or
equipment cleaning operations, is not considered to be grounds for coverage
under the storm water regulations.
Marine facilities that are prlmarily engaged in the retell sale of fuel and
lubricating oils are best classified as SIC code 5541 - marine service stations -
and are not covered under 40 CFR Section 122.26(b)(14)(vlil) of the storm water
permit application regulations. These facilities may also sell other merchandise
or perform minor repair work.
Facilities primarily engaged in the operation of sports and recreation services
such as bolt rental, canoe rental, and parry fishing, are best classified under
SIC code 7999 - miscellaneous recreational facilities - and are not covered
under 40 CFR Section 122.26(b)(14)(vui).
12 March 16, 1992
-------
Category lx• Sewage Treatment Works
o. Ar. storm water permit applications required for olfslts (i.e., physically
separated from the main treatment works property) pumping stations?
No, storm water permit applications are not required for such sites.
39. Are separate permit applications required for Vehicle malntenanca/
washing facilities (located either onsite or oflslt.) associated with a
wutswater trsatmsnt plant and owned/operated by the wastswatsr
treatment agency?
Offslte vehicle maintenance facilities would not be requfred to submit
applications unless they serve multiple clients since they do not fit the SIC
codes listed in the transportation category of facilities engaged in industrial
activity. Onsite vehicle maintenance/cleaning operations are associated with
industrial a lv$ty and must be included in the application.
40. Do wsstewatsr treatment facilities that coiled their storm water runoff and
treat the storm water as part of the normal inflow that is processed
through th treatment plant have to apply for a permit?
No. If a facility discharges its storm water into the headworks of the treatment
plant, It is essentially the same as discharging to a combined system or to a
sanitary system and is therefore exempt from the requirements of 122.26(c).
41. The definition states that offslts areas where sludge is beneficially reused
are not Included as storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity. How Is beneficial reuse defined?
Beneficial sludge reuse is the application of sludge as a nutrient builder or soil
conditioner. Examples include agricultural or domestic application.
13 March 16, 1992
-------
Category x Construction Activities
42. Is a construction site of live acres or more subject to the same deadline
u other Industrial facilities?
The individual application deadline for all storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity is 10/1/92. If a Construction activity is completed by
10/1/92, an application is not required.
43. What Is the duration of an NPDES permit Issued for a construction
activity?
The permit wiu be effective as long the construction activity continues, but no
longer than five years. If the construction continues beyond five years, the
owner/operator must apply for a new permit.
44. Doss the construction category only Include construction of Industrial
buildIngs?
No. Any construction a vfty, icluding clearing, grading, and excavation, that
resultsinth.distucsofflsacesof l a ndormoeiitotalscoveredbythe
rule. Such activities may include road building, construction of residential
houses, office buildings, or indus iaI buildings, and demolition actMty.
However, this does not apply to agricultural or siMcultural activities, which are
exempt from NPDES permit requirements under 40 CFR 122.4.
45. Doss the rule requir. that storm water discharges after construction be
Yes. The individual application must describe proposed measures to control
pollutants in storm water discharges that will occur after construction operations
are complete, including a description of State and local erosion and sediment
control specifications.
PI ase Note: EPA believes that construction activities should be covered under
a storm water general permit wherever possIble. 40 CFR 122 .21(c)(1) allows the
permitting authority to establish different and shorter submittal dates under the
specific terms of a particular general permit.
14 March 16, 1992
-------
46. The definition statis that the operators of construction activity that disturb
less thafl five acres are not required to apply for a permit WIISU that
construction Is part of a larger common plan of development or sale.
What Is meant by ‘part oi a larger common plan of development or u lv?
‘Part of a larger common plan of development or sale’ is a contiguous area
where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place
at different times on different schedules under one plan. Thus, If a distinct
construction actMty has been identified onsite by the time the application would
be submitted, that distinct actMty should be included as part of the larger plan.
47. Who Is responsible for applying for a storm water permit?
The operator is responsible for applying for the permit as required by 122.21(b).
In the case of construction, the owner may submit an application for a
construction activity If the operators have not yet been identified . However,
once the operators have been identified, they must become sither sole
perrnittees or co-permittees with the owner . The operator is determined by who
has day to day supervision and control c i activities occurring at a site. In some
cases, the operator may be the owner or the developer, at other sites the
operator may be the general contractor.
I Category xl. Ught Industrial Facilities
48. If a category (xl) facility has determined that there is no .xposur. of
certain activities or areas listed In the definition to storm water and th•
operator does not Ills a permit application, how doss the operator prove,
If asked, that he/sh. did not need to apply?
There are no requirements set forth under the November 16, 1990, rule.
However, the operator may want to document the facility evaluation which led to
the conclusion that there no exposure to storm water. This documentation
should be retained onelts. Some States may have specific requirements. A
facility is advised to check with its NPDES permitting authority for additional
requirements.
49. Do moss Industries listed In 122.26(b)(14)(xI) that only have access roads
and rail lines exposed to storm water need to apply for a permit?
No. As stated in in.a (b)(14), facilities in category ( ) do not have to apply
for a permit if storm water only is exposed to access roads and rail lines.
15 March 16, 1992
-------
50. if air pollution Control squlpment Vsnts on the roof are exposed to storm
watir, does this constitute exposure and bigger a psrmlt condition?
No. The exposure of air pollution control equipment vents does not in itself
constitute exposure. ft is possible, however, that even with the use of air
pollution control equipment, significant pollutants may be exposed to storm
water. For example, if a cyclone, a common particulate control device, Is used
alone, only about 80 percent of the potential pollutants would be removed. 20
percent of the pollutants may then come into contact with storm water. In this
case, a permit application is required.
51. If there has been past exposure, can a facility change Its operation to
eliminate exposure, and thus become .x.mpt7
Yes. If a category (ad) facility can change its operation and eliminate all
exposure, the facility may be exempt from the regulation. It is T1portant to
note, however, that eliminating exposure may include clean up as well.
52. Is a covered dumpster containing waste material kept outside considered
sxposur.?
No, as long as the container is completely covered and nothing can drain out
holes in bottom, or is lost in loading onto a garbage truck, this would not be
considered exposure.
General Applicability
53. How Is a storm water outfall from an industrial site defined for the purpose
of sampling?
I
An industrial oudil is the point at which storm water associated with industhal
activity discharges to waters of the United States or a separate stonn sewer .
Separate storm s rs may be roads with drainage systems, municipal streets,
cat basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains.
54. Are tank farms considered to be associated with industrial activity?
Yes, if they are located at a facility desaibed in the definition of storm water
discharge associated with industnai activity. Tank farms are used to store
products and materials used or created by industrial facilities, and therefore are
directly related to manufacturing processes. However, tank farms associated
16 March 16, 1992
-------
with petroleum bulk storage stations, classified as SIC code 5171, at which no
vehicle maintenance or equipment cleaning operations occur , are exempt.
55. Is an offslts warehouse associated with a regulated Indusfrlal facility
requIred to submit an application?
No. As stated on page 48011 of the preamble to the November 16, 1990, rule,
warehouses of either preassembty parts or finished products that are not
located at an industrial facility are not required to submit an application unless
otherwise covered by the rule.
56. if a facility has more than one Industrial acth,lty, how many applications
are requited?
Only one application us required per facility. Permit conditions wil address the
various operations at the facility. The application must reflect all storm water
discharges from areas associated with industrial activity as described in the
definition at 122.Z(b)(14). The activity m which a facility is primarily engaged
determines what SIC code is assigned to that facility. To determine the activity
in which a facility is primarily engaged, The SIC Manual recommends using a
value of receipts or revenues approach. For example, it a facility manufactures
both metal and plastic products, the facility would total receipts for each
operation and the operation that generated the most revenue for the facility is
the operation in which the facility is primarily engaged. If revenues arid recaipts
are not available far a particular facility , the number of employees or production
rate may be compared. If a facility performs more than two types of operations,
whichever operation generat s the most (not necessarily the majority ) revenue
or employs the most personnel, is the operation in which the facility is pnmanty
engaged.
57. Are Industrial facilitIes located In municipalities with fewer than 100,000
residents required to apply for a permit?
Yes. All industrial discharges of storm water through separate storm sewers or
into wars of the United States must apply for an NPDES permit
58. IftheSlccodsforthsact lvltylnwh lchafacilltylspr lmari ly.ngagedls
not Included In the defInItion of storm water discharg. associated with
Industrial activity, but the facility has a s.condary SIC code that Is
Included In the defInition, Is the facility required to submit an NPDES
storm water permit application?
For purposes of this regulation, a facility’s SIC code is determined based on the
primary activity taking place at that facility. In the cas. described above, the
17 March 16, 1992
-------
facility is not required to apply for an NPDES storm water discharge permit.
However, if the facility conducts an activity on the site identified in the narrative
descnotiOfls of categories (i), (iv), (v), (vii), or (x), then the facility would be
required to submit an NPDES storm water permit application for portions of the
facility used for the activities described in those categories.
59. Are mIlitary buss or other Federal facilities rsgulat.d under this rule?
Yes. Indusmal activities identified under 122.26(b)(14)O)-(xi) that Federal, State,
or Municipal governments own or operate are subject to the regulation.
60. Doss the regulation require a permit for storm water discharges to a
publicly owned Vestment works?
No. A discharge to a sanitary sewer or a combined sewer system is not
regulated under the storm water regulation. Storm water discharges either to
Waters of the United States or separate storm sewer systems require a permit if
associated with any of the indus iaI facilities listed in 122 (b)Q) . (xi).
61. Are there any limits or ske rssUlctlons which narrow the scop. of facilities
requiring an application?
The only resthotlons regarding we are for consVuction activities arid sewage
Vea nent works. Ali consVuction activities must apply for permit coverage
except for operations that disturb less then five ease of total lend which are not
part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Sewage Vesmient works
designed to vest one million gallons per day Or more must submit an NPDES
permit application.
62. Do pilot plants or research and development facilities classified within one
of the regulated SIC codes need to apply for a permit?
A pilot plant or research facility classified by an SIC code which is specified
under 122. (b)(14)(I)(xI) would be required to submit an application. A pilot
plant or resewch facility’s operations can be directly related to the
manufacturing operations of the full-scale facility and therefore warrant a permit.
63. Are stockpiles of a final product from an lndusVlal sits that are located
away from the industhal plant Siti, Included under the definition of storm
water discharge associated with Industrial actMty?
Such stockpiles would not be covered because they are not located at the site
of the industhal facility.
18 March 16, 1992
-------
64. If a facility has a NPDES permit for Ite process wistswatir and some, but
not all, of its storm water discharges associated with industrial activity,
doss the operator need to apply?
The operator must ensure that all storm water discharges assoaated with
industrial activity are covered by an NPDES permit The operator may wish to
submit an indMdual application, partzopate in a group application, or seek
coverage under a general permit for any remaining outtalls that are not covered
by an existing NPDES permit The permitting authority may also wish to mo y
the existing NPDES permit to cover the other storm water discharges.
65. A faculty holds a rscsntiy renewed NPDES permit which does not cov•r
storm water dIscharges. Doss that facility riled to apply?
Yes. If the facility is identified in paragraph 122.26(b)(14)Q) through (x i) of the
rule, that facility may wish to submit an individual application, participate in a
group application, or seek coverage under a general permit for any remaining
outfalls that are not covered by an existing NPDES permit . The permitting
authority may also wish to modify or reissue the e ds ’ig NPDES permit to cover
the other storm water discharges.
66. if a regulated company owns and operates a subsidiary which Is oi a
wholesale or commercial nature, would the subsidiary need to apply?
No. Since the subsidiary facliuty’s operations are of a wholesale or commercial
orientation, the operations are not considered to be industrial and therefore
would not be covered by this rule unless they are specifically covered by one of
the SIC codes or narrative descriptions in 122.Z(b)(14).
67. Can an applicant claim confidentialIty on Information contained In an
NPDES permit application?
No. Under 40 CFR 122.7(b), the permitting authority wW deny claims of
confidentiality for the nanie and address of any permit applicant or permittee,
permit applications, permits, and effluent datR
68. Do the November 16, 1990, regulations modIfy the requirements of
existing storm water effluent guidelines?
No. Existing storm water effluent guidelines are still applicable.
19 March 16, 1992
-------
69. WhIch application forms irs Industrlss responsible for submitting?
- For discharges composed entirely of Storm water, operators should
submit Form I and Form 2F.
- For discharges of storm water combined with process wastewater,
operators should submit Form 1, Form 2F, and Form 2C.
• For storm water discharged In combination with nonprocess wastewater,
operators should submit Form 1, Form 2F, and Form 2E.
• For new sources or new discharges of storm water which will be
combined with other non-storm water, operators should submit Form 1,
Form 2F, and Form 2D.
70. Are Supsrfund sites regulated under this rule?
Yes, lfthesiteisassignedanS lCcodeorfltsthedescriptionofonsofthe
categories listed In the definition of storm water discharge associated with
industhal activity. Under the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) section 121(E), Superfund sites are required to “substantively cornpl
with all environmental regulations.
71. Are areas ussd for the disposal of Indusbial wastswaters and sanitary
wutswaters included In th dofinifton of “associated with Indusblal
Yes, the definition includes sites used for process water land application that
are not used for agricultural activities.
72. Do Inactive Industrial facliltiss need to apply?
Yes, if the tacWty is included In the definition of storm water discharge
associated with indusbisi activity and significant materials remain on site and
are exposed to storm water runoff (p.48009 of 11/16/91 Federal Register). The
regulation defines significant materials at 122.26 (b)(13) as including, but not
limited to, raw materials; fuels; materials such as solvents, detergents , and
plastic pellets; finished materials such as metallic products; raw materials used
in food processing or production; hazardous substances designated under
section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act; any chemical the facility is required to report
pursuant to section 313 of title Ill of SARA; fertilizers; pesticides; and waste
products such as ashes, slag and sludge that have the potential to be released
with storm water discharges.
20 March 16, 1992
-------
United States Office of Research and EPA’600/6-91/005F
Environmental Protection Development May 1992
Agency Washington. DC 20460
&EPA Toxicity Identification
Evaluation:
Characterization of
Chronically Toxic Effluents,
Phase I
-------
% ID S74
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
L PRC1 ’
MM 27 i 9 ’L
O PICEOF -
WATER
M 4ORANDUM
SUBJECT: Order Denying Modification Request With Respect to the
Administrator’s 1990 Decision in Star-lUst Caribe, Inc.
(NPDES Appeal No. 88-5)
FROM: Ephraim S. King, Chief % ‘
NPDES Program Branch /
TO: Water Permits Branch Chiefs,
Regions I - X
Attached, for your information, is a copy of the May 26,
1992 decision of the Environmental Appeals Board (Board) which
denies EPA’S request for modification of the Administrator’s
April 16, 1990 decision in this matter. I ask that you provide
this information to your States. (The Administrator’s April 1990
decision had been stayed on September 4, 1990 by the Chief
Judicial Officer pending resolution of the modification request.
Your staff provided us information earlier this Spring to respond
to a request by the Board for a status report on any pertinent
development subsequent to entry of the stay order. For your
- information, I am also attaching the status report and
declaration that was filed on April 3, 1992.)
As indicated on page 2 of the order denying the request for
modification, the Administrator’s April 1990 decision holds that
the Clean Water Act does not authorize EPA to establish
schedules of compliance in the permit that would sanction
pollutant discharges that do not meet applicable state water
quality standards. In my opinion, the only instance in
which the permit may lawfully authorize a permittee to delay
compliance after July 1, 1977, pursuant to a schedule of
compliance, is when the water quality standard itself (or
the State’s implementing regulations) can be fairly
construed as authorizing a schedule of compliance.
We have been working on more specific guidance in this area
in terms of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative. We hope to
be able to provide you more specific guidance on implementation
of the Administrator’s April 1990 decision within the next few
weeks.
R.cythd Papr
-------
—2—
If you have any questions on this matter, please call e at
(202) 260—9541 or have your staff contact Laura Phillips of my
staff at (202) 260—9532.
Attachments
cc: Cynthia C. Dougherty, PD
William R. Diamond, OST
Susan G. Lepow, OGC
-------
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Star-Kist Caribe,
Inc.
)
)
Petitioner
)
)
NPDES Permit No.
PR0022012
STATUS REPORT
On March 12, 1992, Environmental Appeals Judge Ronald J.
McCallum ordered Petitioner (EPA Region II) to submit a status
report on whether the circumstances giving rise to the September
4, 1990 Stay Order still exist and on the steps Petitioner and
the Office of Water have taken to address the issue.
Specifically, Petitioner was directed to submit by April 3, 1992
a:
detailed status report on the Agency’s efforts to develop
guidance for the States respecting implementation of the
Administrator’s Order, and on any subsequent changes in the
laws, policies, and permit programs of the States that would
affect their respective abilities to implement the Order.
A. Status of A encv Guidance
The Supplemental Information submitted on August 24, 1990,
described the progress in developing agency guidance through that
date. Following that date, agency staff continued to work on the
draft guidance. However, the guidance has not yet been issued in
final form, for several reasons.
NPDES Appeal No. 88-5
-------
2
The plan of the Criteria and Standards Division (“CSD,” now
part of the Standards and Applied Science Division, Office of
Science and Technology) in the summer of 1990 was to issue the
guidance (once its terms were final) as part of the preamble to
proposed amendments to the water quality standards regulations.
Those amendments were then going through the clearance process to
go into Red Border review. This procedure offered the advantages
of wide public dissemination of the guidance, an opportunity for
public comment, and an emphasis on the relationship between
schedules of compliance for water quality-based effluent
limitations and State standards programs. Concurrently, .CSD
staff were working with staff from the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (now Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance), to produce a stand—alone version of the guidance for
easy distribution.
However, before that proposed rulemaking or the stand-alone
yersion could be finalized, work on them was temporarily
suspended to make staff available to work on other more pressing
matters pursuant to the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act.
These included the Office of Water’s need to identify States
which had failed to promulgate numerical criteria for toxics as
required under section 303(c) (2) (B) and to propose and promulgate
Federal criteria in their stead. This major undertaking resulted
in a proposal to promulgate water quality criteria for 22 States
on November 19, 1991. 56 Fed. Reg. 58420. That rule is expected
to be promulgated in final form in approximately a month. In
-------
3
addition, the Office of Water has developed application
regulations to implement the storm water program on November 16,
1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 47990), as revised March 21, 1991 (56 Fed.
Req. 12098), November 5, 1991 (56 Fed. Req. 56548) and April 2,
1992 (57 Fed. Reg. 11394). The Office of Water has undertaken
numerous activities to assist the States in implementation of the
storm water program, including assumption of general permits
authority. In addition, the Office was responsible for
developing a complex regulation implementing the 1987 statutory
amendments to the NPDES program, which is likely to be proposed
in the next one to two months, as well as regulations governing
the treatment of Indian tribes as States (final water quality
standards regulation on December 12, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 64876)
and proposed NPDES regulation on March 10, 1992 (57 Fed. Req.
8522). As a result of these competing demands on staff, the
draft guidance remains unpublished.
However, the Office of Water, as well as the Office of
General Counsel and the Regions, in their oversight capacity,
have worked with the States to make clear their intentions with
regard to schedules of compliance, and to modify their standards
or implementing regulations to make those intentions explicit,
where necessary. In addition, as part of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative, EPA has helped draft language which will
ensure that a proper regulatory basis exists for schedules of
compliances for water quality based effluent limitations in the
—
a
-------
4
Great Lakes States. The results of those efforts are described
below, State by State.
B. Chanaes in State laws. policies and permit programs
As explained in the affidavit submitted to the Administrator
on August 24, 1990, following issuance of the March 8, 1989, and
April 16, 1990, Orders in this case, the Office of Water, in
concert with the Regions, took steps to bring those orders to the
attention of their State counterparts. Through their normal
NPDES and water quality standard oversight efforts, the Regions
have continued to work with the States to ensure that the States’
laws, regulations and standards reflect their intentions with
respect to schedules of compliance in NPDES permits for effluent
limitations based on post-July 1, 1977 water quality standards
(hereinafter referred to as “schedules of compliance for post-
1977 standards”). The following sets out our current
understanding of the status of each State in this regard.
Several States have incorporated provisions into their water
quality standards or related regulations which explicitly
authorize schedules of compliance for effluent limitations based
on post—July 1, 1977 standards.’ These States are Arkansas,
Texas, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Mississippi 2 , Alabamaa/,
‘We were not able to reliably determine in all cases whether
these provisions were adopted in response to the Star-lUst Orders
or were pre—existing. Therefore, this Status Report lists States
according to their present status.
2• For certain states which have explicitly authorized
schedules of compliance for post-1977 standards, we have not been
able to verify by the deadline for this Status Report which
regulation(s), NPDES or standards, sets forth the authorization.
(..
-------
5
Florjda /, Georgia /, South Carolinaa/, North Carolina /,
Kentucky /, Tenriessee /, Maryland 3 , West Virginia /, Colorado,
Wyoming /, MontartaZ/, North DakotaZ/, South DakotaZ/, CuamZ/,
Missouri, Arizona, and California.
Several other States have begun, but not yet completed, the
process for changing their standards or implementing regulations
to provide for schedules of compliance. These States include New
Jersey, Puerto Rico, Delaware, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Oregon
(Oregon is only in the preliminary stages of considering such a
change; it has not yet proposed any regulatory change).
A number of States have provisions which, while set out in
their permit regulations programs, nonetheless express a State’s
intention to allow schedules of compliance for post-1977
standards as well as for technology-based requirements. Such
provisions would appear to meet the April 16th Order, if permit
regulations are deemed to be implementing regulations. These
States include New York, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, and
Nebraska. (The States listed in the text at footnote 2 may
actually belong here.)
Some States have no explicit authorization for schedules of
compliance for post—1977 standards, and no plans to add such
authorization. In some cases, this appears to reflect a State
decision not to allow such schedules. States in this category
include Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode
While Maryland and West Virginia believe that they have
such provision, the Region has raised questions about their
adequacy.
-J
-------
6
Island, Vermont, and Illinois (latter has statutory impediment).
In other cases, there is some uncertainty as to the State’s
intentions. Such States include the Virgin Islands, Washington,
Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Louisiana, -
Nevada, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is lands, and the
Pacific Trust Territories.
In sum, the States have made progress in making their
regulations and standards more explicit as to whether, and if so
under which circumstances, schedules of compliance are consistent
with their water quality standards. In the majority of cases, it
appears that States do intend to allow them under at least some
circumstances. Mowever, a number of states still have pending
rulemakings or have not made their intentions clear.
Respectfully submitted,
Cd
Catherine A. Winer
Attorney
Office of General Counsel
Water Division
Dated: April 3, 1992
-------
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
199)4 . .
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Star-lUst Caribe,
Inc.
)
)
Petitioner
)
)
NPDES Permit No.
PR0022012
DECLARATION OF GARY W. HUDIBURGH. JR .
1. I, Gary W. Hudiburgh, Jr., declare that the following
statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief and are based on my personal knowledge, or on information
contained in the records of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) or supplied to me by
current EPA employees within my area of oversight.
2. I am the Chief of the Regulatory Implementation
Section, NPDES Program Branch, in the Permits Division, Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (“OWEC”), a position I have
held since 1989. OWEC is one of four offices that report to the
Assistant Administrator for Water.
3. As part of my responsibilities, I oversee the issue
regarding the question of compliance schedules for water quality-
based effluent limitations in permits issued under section 402 of
the Clean Water Act.
4. The purpose of this declaration is describe the
information obtained for the Status Report requested by Judge
McCallum, and the process used to obtain such information.
NPDES Appeal No. 88-5
-------
2
I. Process Used to Collect Information for Status Report
5. on March 19, 1992, a memorandum signed by Cynthia
Dougherty, Director of the Permits Division, and William R.
Diamond, Director of the Standards and Applied Science Division,
was sent to each of EPA’S ten Regional Water Management Division
Directors, with copies to each of the Regional Water Quality
Branch Chiefs and Regional Water Permit Branch Chiefs, requesting
information for the Status Report. Specifically, the memorandum
requested information on changes to laws, policies and permit
programs of each State which would affect their ability to comply
with the April 16, 1990 Star-Kist Order, to be submitted to my
staff by March 27, 1992.
6. Regional staff responded to this request by sending
written or oral information on a State by State basis. My staff
made numerous phone calls to clarify the information provided and
to fill in gaps. In a number of instances, the information
appears to have been provided by the States without an
opportunity for independent review by EPA of the laws,
regulations, or policies involved. Therefore, the following
State by State information, while representing the best
information available by April 3, 1992, has not been
independently verified.
IX. Information Gathered
A. Status of Agency Guidance
7. The Supplemental Information submitted on August 24,
1990, described the progress in developing agency guidance
-------
3
through that date. Following that date, agency staff continued
to work on the draft guidance. However, the guidance has not yet
been issued in final form, for several reasons.
8. The plan of the Criteria and Standards Division (“CSD,”
now part of the Standards and Applied Science Division, Office of
Science and Technology) in the summer of 1990 was to issue the
guidance (once its terms were final) as part of the preamble to
proposed amendments to the water quality standards regulations.
Those amendments were then going through the clearance process to
go into Red Border review. This procedure offered the advantages
of wide public dissemination of the guidance, an opportunity f or
public comment, and an emphasis on the relationship between
schedules of compliance for water quality-based effluent
limitations and State standards programs. Concurrently, CSD
staff were working with staff from the Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits (now Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
- Compliance), to produce a stand-alone version of the guidance for
easy distribution.
9. However, before that proposed rulemaking or the stand-
alone version could be finalized, work on them was temporarily
suspended to make staff available to work on other more pressing
matters pursuant to the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act.
These included the Office of Water’s need to identify States
which had failed to promulgate numerical criteria for toxics as
required under section 303(c) (2) (B) and to propose and promulgate
Federal criteria in their stead. This major undertaking resulted
-------
4
in a proposal to promulgate water quality criteria for 22 States
on November 19, 1991. 56 Fed. Req. 58420. That rule is expected
to be promulgated in final form in approximately a month. In
addition, the Office of Water has developed application
regulations to implement the storm water program on November 16,
1990 (55 Fed. Req. 47990), as revised March 21, 1991 (56 Fed.
Reg. 12098), November 5, 1991 (56 Fed. Req. 56548) and April 2,
1992 (57 Fed. Req. 11394). The Office of Water has undertaken
numerous activities to assist the States in implementation of the
storm water program, including assumption of general permits
authority. In addition, the Office was responsible for
developing a complex regulation implementing the 1987 statutory
amendments to the NPDES program, which is likely to be proposed
in the next one to two months, as veil as regulations governing
the treatment of Indian tribes as States (final water quality
standards regulations on December 12, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 64876)
and proposed NPDES regulations on March 10, 1992 (57 Fed. Req.
8522)). As a result of these competing demands on staff, the
draft guidance remains unpublished.
10. However, the Office of Water, as well as the Office of
General Counsel and the Regions, in their oversight capacity,
have worked with the States to make clear their intentions with
regard to schedules of compliance, and to modify their standards
or implementing regulations to make those intentions explicit,
where necessary. In addition, as part of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative, EPA has helped draft language which will
-------
5
ensure that a proper regulatory basis exists for schedules of
coinpliances for water quality based effluent limitations in the
Great Lakes States. The results of those efforts are described
below, State by State. -
B. Chanaes in State laws. policies and permit roarams
11. As explained in the affidavit submitted to the
Administrator on August 24, 1990, following issuance of the March
8, 1989, and April 16, 1990, Orders in this case, the Office of
Water, in concert with the Regions, took steps to bring those
orders to the attention of their State counterparts. Through
their normal NPDES and water quality standard oversight efforts,
the Regions have continued to work with the States to ensure that
the States’ laws, regulations and standards reflect their
intentions with respect to schedules of compliance in NPDES
permits for effluent limitations based on post-July 1, 1977 water
quality standards (hereinafter referred to as “schedules of
compliance for post-1977 standards”). The following sets out our
current understanding of the status of each State in this regard.
12. Several States have incorporated provisions into their
water quality standards or related regulations which explicitly
authorize schedules of compliance for effluent limitations based
on post-July 1, 1977 standards.’ These States are Arkansas,
‘We were not able to reliably determine in all cases whether
these provisions were adopted in response to the Star-Kist Orders
or were pre—existing. Therefore, this Status Report lists States
according to their present status.
-------
6
Texas, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Mississippi 2 , Alabama2/,
FloridaZ/, Georgia /, South CarolinaZ/, North CarolinaZ/,
Kentucky2 ./, Tennessee /, Maryland 3 , West Virginia1/, Colorado,
Wyoxning /, MontanaZ/, North Dakota2,/, South DakotaZ/, Guam2./, -
Missouri, Arizona, and California.
13. Several other States have begun, but not yet completed,
the process for changing their standards or implementing
regulations to provide for schedules of compliance. These
States include New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Delaware, Virginia,
Oklahoma, and Oregon (Oregon is only in the preliminary stages. of
considering such a change; it has not yet proposed any regulatory
change).
14. A number of States have provisions which, while set out
in their permit regulations programs, nonetheless express a
State’s intention to allow schedules of compliance for post-1977
standards as well as for technology—based requirements. Such
provisions would appear to meet the April 16th Order, if permit
regulations are deemed to be implementing regulations. These
States include New York, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, and
Nebraska. (The States listed in the text at footnote 2 may
actually belong here.)
2• For certain states which have explicitly authorized
schedules of compliance for post—1977 standards, we have not been
able to verify by the deadline for this Status Report which
regulation(s), NPDES or standards, sets forth the authorization.
While Maryland and West Virginia believe that they have
such provision, the Region has raised questions about their
adequacy.
-J
-------
7
15. Some States have no explicit authorization for schedules
of compliance for post—1977 standards, and no plans to add such
authorization. In some cases, this appears to reflect a State
decision not to allow such schedules. States in this category-
include Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Illinois (latter has statutory impediment).
In other cases, there is some uncertainty as to the State’s
intentions. Such States include the Virgin Islands, Washington,
Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Louisiana,
Nevada, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Pacific Trust Territories.
Signed: il
3 - -- Gary W. Hudiburgh, Jr.,
Chief, Regulatory
Implementation Section
-------
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On the 3rd of April, 1992, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Status Report was mailed postage prepaid to:
John Ciko, Jr.
Dan L. Vogus
H.J. Heinz Company
P.O. Box 57
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0057
and delivered by hand to:
Judge Ronald L. McCallum
Environmental Appeals Board
401 M Street, S.W.
Room 1145 West Tower
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
1 ’ .—
BEFORE THE ENVIRON14ENTA.L APPEALS BOARD
UNITED STATES ENVIRON MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C
In the Matter of
)
)
Star-lUst Caribe, Inc.
)
Permit Applicant
)
)
NPDES Permit No. PR0022012
(Decided May 26, 19923
ORDER DENYING MODIFICATION REQUEST
Before Environmental Appeals Judges Ronald L. McCal.Zum,
Edward E. Reich, and Timothy J. Dowling (Acting).
Opinion of the Board by JUDGE McCA.LL(JM:
This matter concerns a petition by EPA Region II .1 f.or a
substantial modification to the Administrator’s April 16, 1990
decision in this matter. ‘ The Administrator’s decision denied
a request by the petitioner to overturn portions of an earlier
decision by the Agency’s Chief Judicial Officer (“CJO”). / By
separate order dated September 4, 1990, the Administrator’s
decision was stayed pending a ruling on EPA Region II’s petition.
For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied and the stay
is lifted.
In view of the nature of our ruling (a denial of a
modification request) and the fact that the Administrator’s
decision and the CJO’s decision deal comprehensively with the
subject of schedules of compliance as presented in this
controversy, there will be no attempt here to provide a general
overview of the subject or to explain how or why today’s ruling
has come up for consideration. Rather, matters will be addressed
as deemed necessary to dispose of the petition. Accordingly, the
“Petition for Modification of Order on Petition for
Reconsideration,” dated August 13, 1990. The petition is signed
by representatives of the Agency’s Office of General Counsel and
EPA Region II.
ai “Order on Petition for Reconsideration,” dated April 16,
1990 (referred to either as “Administrator’s Decision” or
“Administrator’s decision”).
/ “Order Denying Petition for Review,” dated March 8, 193
(the “CJO’s decision”).
NPDES Appeal No. 88-5
-------
2
reader is advised to consult the petition and the previous
decisions for a complete understanding of the context of the
instant ruling.
The Administrator’s decision holds, inter alia , that:
(T]he Clean Water Act does not authorize EPA to establish
schedules of compliance in the permit that would sanction
pollutant discharges that do not meet applicable state water
quality standards. In my opinion, the only instance in
which the permit may lawfully authorize a permittee to delay
compliance after July 1, 1977, pursuant to a schedule of
compliance, is when the water quality standard itself (or
the State’s implementing regulations) can be fairly
constr zed as authorizing a schedule of compliance. The
Agency’s powers in this respect * * * are no greater than
the States’.
Order on Petition for Reconsideration at 5. The chief objection
to this holding, as stated in the petition, is a single remark in
the decision, where the Administrator said, “If a State does not
provide for compliance schedules in its water quality stai dards,
it may be assumed that the omission was deliberate.”
Administrator’s Decision at 17. Petitioner argues that the
assumption is unwarranted, is unnecessary to ensure that States
are not forced to accept unwanted EPA-imposed schedules of
compliance, and leads to irrational results when considered in
conjunction with section 304(1) of the Act (which provides for
individual control strategies (permits) for point sources located
on certain listed toxic-contaminated stream segments).
Petitioner suggests that the Administrator’s decision should be
modified “so as not to require EPA to interpret a state’s
regulations’ silence on schedules of compliance as a deliberate
statement that none are allowed, unless there is some other
indication of such state intent.” Petition at 6. The practical
effect of granting the modification would be to allow EPA to
establish schedules of compliance as if the Administrator’s
decision had never existed. In other words, the modification
would nullify the decision.
Petitioner’s arguments in support of modification are not
compelling. t’ The remark in the Administrator’s decision that
‘ Petitioner repeatedly refers to the Administrator’s holding as
dicta, claiming that the Administrator “acknowledg(es]” in a
footnote that “the issue of post-1977 standards is dicta (opinion
at 3, n.2.)* * *.“ An examination of the footnote fails to
support petitioner’s contentions; there is in fact no such
“acknowledgement” by the Administrator. Had petitioner instead
stated that the last sentence in the footnote can be read as Lf
(continued...
-------
3
petitioner finds objectionable is a legal presumption, not a
factual observation, and is drawn from a comprehensive analysis
of the entire statutory scheme. Moreover, as a factual
observation, the remark--despite petitioner’s original
assertions-—is amply justified: according to petitioner’s recent
status report, ‘ there are seven States with no explicit
authorization for schedules of compliance because, in
petitioner’s words, “this appears to reflect a State decision -not
to allow such schedules.” In other words, consistent with the
Administrator’s remark, there is factual as well as legal
justification for interpreting a State’s silence on schedules of
compliance in the manner prescribed by the Administrator’s
decision. Also, petitioner’s status report reveals that there
are 12 other States with no explicit authorization, since “there
is some uncertainty as to the States’ intention..” Z’ Combining
these 12 jurisdictions with the previous 7 produces a total of 19
jurisdictions in which it would be either wrong (7 jurisdictions)
or imprudent (12 jurisdictions) for EPA to make a unilateral
assumption that schedules of compliance are consistent with the
States’ wishes.
To the extent the remark in the Administrator’s decision may
not accurately reflect an unwritten practice of a particular
State, the State is on notice to conform ±ts practices to the
(.. .continued)
the Administrator agreed with petitioner that the post-1977
status of the standards was not critical to his determination,
there might be some merit to the assertions. Even so, the
context of the decision as a whole makes it clear that the
sentence obviously was not crafted with that intent in mind.
The water quality standards at issue were promulgated by the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1983. But for petitioner’s
erroneous interpretation of the law——which has forced petitioner
to indulge in the unnecessary fiction of treating “virtually
unchanged” post-1977 standards as if they were really pre—1977
standards——there would be no occasion to question the post-1977
status of the 1983 standards.
Petitioner’s Status Report (filed April 3, 1992).
‘ . at 5.
1’ . (Declaration of Gary W. Hurdiburgh, Jr. at 7).
‘ The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the jurisdiction that gave
birth to the instant controversy, is in the process of amending
its standards or implementing regulations to make express
provision for schedules of compliance. Petitioner’s Status
Report (Declaration of Gary W. Hurdiburgh, Jr. at 6).
-------
4
law. ‘ Thus, it Will be necessary for the State to provide for
schedules of Compliance in a sufficiently prominent way to erase
the legal presumption that otherwise is legitimately drawn from
the State’s silence. The responsibility of States under the law
to make specific provision for schedules of compliance, rather
than leaving it to the word-of-mouth policy of whoever may be in
charge of the State’s permit-issuing desk at any particular -
moment, is unequivocal. As the decision notes, EPA’S regulations
provide that each State is to have a “continuing planning
process” in place that “must” describe “(t)he process for
developing effluent limitations and schedules of comoliance ” and
“for establishing and assuring adequate implementation of new or
revised water quality standards, including schedules of
comDliance * * *.“ Administrator’s Decision at 17, n.h (quoting
40 CFR Sl30.5(b)(l)&(6)). Clean Water Act
S303(e)(3)(A)&(F). In view of the substantial confusion and
uncertainty that the lack of an easily ascertainable policy can
occasion, nothing short of adopting explicit provisions in a
State’s regulations or water quality standards will suffice to
overcome the presumption raised by a State’s silence.
Petitioner’s second argument is based more on practicality
than on law or policy. Petitioner argues that section 401 of the
Act enables States to fend for themselves against EPA-issued
permits that might contain unwanted schedules of compliance,
i.e., schedules which, in the opinion of the States, might
possibly undercut their water quality standards. Petitioner
cites this section of the Act because it allows States to
exercise an effective veto power over any EPA-issued permit if
the permit contains a schedule of compliance that is inconsistent
with water quality standards. This argument also is not
compelling. Although petitioner is correct that section 401 is
available for that purpose, ‘ it is well to keep in mind that
the concerns of States are not the sole matters at stake. First,
there is a matter of adherence to the law as it is written, not
According to petitioner’s Status Report, 29 jurisdictions have
provisions in their laws (water quality standards or related
regulations, including permit regulations) that explicitly
authorize schedules of compliance in NPDES permits. Status
Report (Declaration of Gary W. Hurdiburgh, Jr. at 5—6 (!‘s 12 &
14)). Six (6) others have begun, but not completed, the steps
necessary to provide for such schedules. . (Declaration at 6
( 14)).
i ’ In his decision, the Administrator specifically acknowledged
the States’ right to exercise this power, but he observed that
“EPA’S longstanding practice of adding schedules of compliance
under the aegis of the 1978 legal opinion may have misled the
States into believing they lack this authority insofar as the
schedules are concerned.” Administrator’s Decisi on at 16, n.l .
(-..
-------
5
as petitioner might wish it had been written. Second, the
interests of the public are given important recognition in the
Clean Water Act. Specifically, the Act and implementing
regulations require States to provide for public participation in
setting water quality standards. Administrator’s Decision at
20 (citing CWA S303(c); 40 CFR S 131.20). It is therefore
appropriate to ask whether any purpose is served by inviting the
general public to participate in developing state water quality
standards without concurrently giving equivalent publicity to the
possibility of later allowing individual permit applicants to
bypass those standards, albeit temporarily, pursuant to relaxed
schedules of compliance. Petitioner does not address this
question--or, more importantly, the concern underlying it-—
anywhere in its several submissions. We believe the open
process contemplated by the regulations, which calls for States
to make specific provisions for their policies on schedules of
compliance, makes for a more vigilant and informed public and
thereby serves the greater interests of the policies underlying
the Clean Water Act.
Petitioner’s last argument, that irrational results will
ensue from the Administrator’s decision in the context of section
304(1) of the Act, is actually an effort to reargue and refine
points previously presented in earlier phases of this proceeding.
Those arguments were rejected then L’ and are rejected again now.
Section 304(1) was enacted on February 4, 1987, nearly 15
years after enactment of the principal statutory provisions
U’ Although the public may participate in proceedings for the
ssuance of individual permits, and object to overly generous
schedules of compliance, the absence of a written policy on
schedules of compliance may lull the public into believing that
there are no exceptions to immediate compliance, and therefore
little reason to monitor individual permits. The same effect on
the public is produced if the policy is written but can only be
found in unpublished internal memoranda. . Anthony, Robert A.
“Well, You Want The Permit Don’t You?” Agency Efforts to Make
Nonlegislative Documents Bind the Public, 44 Ad. Law Rev. 31, 33
(Winter 1992) (“If the (nonlegislative] document is an internal
memo to staff that is not published, there is the additional
problem of secret law, whereunder affected parties do not know
the principles by which their affairs are governed unless they
have back-channel sources within the agency.”).
11’ Administrator’s Decision at 6, n.5.
‘ Water Quality Act of 1987, PL 100-4, S308, 101 Stat. 7, 38
(February 4, 1987).
-------
6
construed in the Administrator’s decision. ‘ To argue in the
space of one short paragraph, as petitioner does, that this
subsequently enacted statutory provision should somehow prevail
over the entirety of the comprehensive statutory scheme
interpreted by the Administrator falls short of the task. In any
event, the simple truth is that no “irrational results” ensue
from the Administrator’s decision, as an examination of -
petitioner’s concerns quickly discloses.
According to petitioner, the Administrator’s decision would
give rise to a situation where persons who discharge toxic waste
into designated toxic hot spots would be allowed up to three
years under section 304(1) to come into compliance with water
quality standards, but dischargers who are discharging into
streams not so designated-—presumably less heavily polluted
waters——would be denied similar extenbions. The short answer to
this charge is that it is possible, in some instances, for the
States to modify their water quality standards (including
associated provisions, if any, for schedules of compliance) for
the less heavily polluted streams in order to reduce some or all
of the disparity envisioned by petitioner. ‘ Even if
modification is not feasible or desirable, it must be kept in
mind that eliminating disparities that result from geography
should not be a paramount concern, particularly if the disparity
flows from the structure of the statutory scheme, as is often the
case. Examples of such disparities in the law of pollution
control are not unknown despite the fact that relative economic
advantages or disadvantages may accrue to individual polluters
depending on their location. The Clean Air Act, for example,
draws distinctions between areas close to certain national parks
and wilderness areas and those that are not, with the result that
those close enough to have an effect on those areas are subject
L ’ The principal statutory provisions considered by the
Administrator in his decision are SS1O 1(a) and (b), 301(b) (1) (C),
303(e) (3) (A) and (F), 304(1), 401(a) (1), 402(a)(3), 402(b)(1)(B),
402(k), 502(17), and 510. Except for S304(1), all of these
provisions were first enacted as part of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, Pub. Law No. 92—500, 86
Stat. 816, St seq. (October 18, 1972), and none has undergone any
material change since that time.
I i Petition at 5.
‘ Any modification of water quality standards must be carried
out in accordance with EPA regulations, including applicable
antidegradation policies. See generally 40 CFR Part 131 (Water
Quality Standards). In addition, effluent limitations in any
permits issued pursuant to a modification would have to be
consistent with anti—backsliding requirements or an exception
thereto. See aenerallv CWA SS402(o) & 303(d) (4).
-------
7
to more rigorous requirements. See. e.g. . CAA Sl65(d)(2)(C)(ii)
(protecting “air quality—related values” of such areas in
addition to conventional “increment” protection); 42 USCA
§7475(d) (2) (C) (ii). Finally, petitioner overlooks the fact that
notwithstanding these disparities some States might not want to
relax compliance dates for their less heavily polluted streams.
They might wish instead to see higher standards of compliance
observed for those streams, thereby preserving their relative
purity yj j the toxic hot spots. In our opinion, therefore,
there is nothing irrational about the results of the
Administrator’s decision as construed and applied in the context
of section 304(1).
Accordingly, the petition of EPA Region II is denied and the
stay of the.Administrator’s decision, entered on September 4,
1990, is hereby lifted.
So ordered.
-------
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify th’at copies of the forgoing Order De4tying
Modification Request in the matter of Star-lUst Caribe, Inc.,
NPDES Appeal Mo. 88—5, were sent to the following persons in the
manner indicated:
First Class Mail, Warren H. Llewe]lyn
Postage Prepaid: Regional Counsel’s Office -
U.S. EPA, Region II
20 Federal Plaza
Mew York, NY 10278
Dan L. Vogus
John Ciko, Jr.
H. 7. Heinz Company
P. 0. Box 57
Pittsburgh, PA 5230—0057
By Hand—delivery: Susan G. Lepow
Office of General Counsel
Room 509W LE-132W
Dated: MAY 28
(J Legal Staff Specialist V
-------
CONTROL AUTHORITY PRETREATMENT AUDIT
CHECKLIST AND INSTRUCTIONS
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
May 1992
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
United States Office Of Water EPA 812-8.92.001
Environmental Protection (EN -336) NTIS No P992.173.236
Agency June 1992
I EPA Guidance To Protect P01W
Workers From Toxic And
Reactive Gases And Vapors
-------
DISCLAIMER:
This is a guid.iic, docu” ’t only. Con liance with thees pvocndures w*
gi rante. worker ufoty in all cases. Each P01W naast a u whether
axes ve protective Of Worker health axe ne . ’y at each facility.
Confined-space ontry, worker nghHo-know, and worker health and safety issees
not directly related to toxic or reactive discharges to POTWa axe beyond the
scope of this guidance document and axe not addreusd.
Mditiceal copies of this docii nint and other EPA doc”n ’ts referenced in this
document can be obtained by wnting to the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) at:
5285 Port Royal Rd.
Springfield, VA 22161
Pb I: 703.487-4650
(NTIS charges a fee for each docniwt. )
c __
se
— - —-s—
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
June 1992
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE
This Model Pretreatment Ordinance has been prepared by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Permits
Division. It is intended for use by municipalities operating Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(PO’lWs) that are required to develop pretreatment programs to regulate industrial discharges
to their systems.
A municipality should not adopt the model verbatim. Instead, the model should be used
as a guide for adopting new or revised legal authority to implement and enforce a pretreatment
program that fulfills requirements set out in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The
municipality must consider conditions at its POTW and consult State law to determine what
adjustments may need to be made to the model. Many provisions in the model contain blanks
or brackets; these indicate that the provision must be 2dapted to the POTW’s circumstances.
Also, bracketed notes in bold print are provided for certain provisions, explaining issues the
municipality must consider when crafting its legal authority.
Some provisions in the model are not strictly required by the General Pretreatment
Regulations (40 CFR Part 403); however, they have been included because they may be useful
in ensuring that the municipality has adequate legal authority to implement effectively its local
pretreatment program. These provisions are designated as optional. Where a municipality either
must adopt a provision similar to the one in the model or develop its own means of
accomplishing that section’s objective, the section is preceded by a bracketed note explaining the
municipality’s options. Other provisions, such as the model’s statement of purpose and effective
date, are “necessary” only to the extent that they are typical of any local ordinance.
USEPA Regions and representatives of various States and municipalities provided valuable
comments in helping to prepare this document. Special thanks are extended to members of the
Association of Metropolitan Sewage Authorities for their participation in the document’s
preparation.
This EPA Model PIet [ eatment Ordinance also is available on diskette in Word Perfect 5.1
format. It may be obtained by writing to:
Pretreatment Ordinance Coordinator
Permits Division (EN-336)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
Page
SECTION 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 1
1.1 PurposeandPolicy 1
1.2 Administration 2
1.3 Abbreviations 2
1.4Definitions 2
SECTION 2- GENERAL SEWER USE REQUIREMENTS 8
2.lProhibitedDischargeStandards 8
2.2 National Categorical Pretreatment Standards 10
2.3 State Pretreatment Standards 11
2.4LocalLimits 11
2.5 (City’s] Right of Revision 12
2.6 Dilution 13
SECTION 3- PRETREATMENT OF WASTEWATER
3.1 PretreatmentFacilities
3.2 Additional Pretreatment Measures
3.3 Accidental Discharge/Slug Control Plans
3.4 Hauled Wastewater
SECTION 4- WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION 15
4.1 Wastewater Analysis 15
4.2 Wastewater Discharge Permit Requirement 16
4.3 Wastewater Discharge Permitting: Existing Connections 16
4.4 Wastewater Discharge Permitting: New Connections 16
4.5 Wastewater Discharge Permit Application Contents 17
4.6 Application Signatories and Certification 17
4.7 Wastewater Discharge Permit Decisions 18
SECTION 5- WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCESS 18
5.1
Wastewater Discharge
Permit Duration
18
5.2
Wastewater Discharge
Permit Contents
18
5.3
Wastewater Discharge
Permit Appeals
20
5.4
Wastewater Discharge
Permit Modification
20
5.5
Wastewater Discharge
Permit Transfer
21
5.6
Wastewater Discharge
Permit Revocation
22
5.7
Wastewater Discharge
Permit Reissuance
23
5.8
Regulation of Waste R
eceived from Other Jurisdictions
23
TABLE OF CONTENTS
13
13
13
14
15
—1—
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
SECTION 6- REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 25
6.1 Baseline Monitoring Reports 25
6.2 Compliance Schedule Progress Reports 26
6.3 Reports on Compliance with Categorical Pretreatment Standard Deadline 27
6.4 Periodic Compliance Reports 27
6.5 Reportsof Changed Conditions 28
6.6 Reports of Potential Problems 28
6.7 ReportsfromUnp rmittedUsers 29
6.8 Noticeof Violation/RepeatSampling and Reporting 29
6.9 Notification of the Discharge of Hazardous Waste 29
6.10 Analytical Requirements 30
6.11 Sample Collection 30
6.12 Timing 31
6. l3RecordKeeping 31
SECTION 7- COMPLIANCE MONiTORING 31
7.1 Rightof Entry: Inspection and Sampling 31
7.2 Search Warrants 32
SECTION 8- CON1 wENTIAL INFORMATION 33
SECTION 9- PUBLICATION OF USERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE... 33
SECTION 10- ADMINISTRATWE ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES 34
10.1 Notification of Violation 34
10.2 Consent Orders 35
10.3 Show Cause Hearing 35
10.4 Compliance Orders 35
10.5 Cease and Desist Orders 36
10.6 Administrative Fines 36
10.7 Emergency Suspensions .... 37
10.8 Termination of Discharge 38
SECTION 11-JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES 38
11.1 Injunctive Relief 38
11.2 Civil Penalties 39
11.3 Criminal Prosecution 39
11.4 Remedies Nonexclusive 40
SECTION 12- SUPPLEMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION 40
12.1 Performance Bonds [ Optionall 40
12.2 Liability Insurance [ Optional] . 41
—11—
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
ag
12.3 41
12.4 41
12.5 41
12.6 42
SECTION 13- AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS 42
13.1 Upset 42
13.2 Prohibited Discharge Standards 43
13.3 Bypass 44
SECTION 14- WASTEWATER TREATMENT RATES 45
SECTION 15- MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 45
15.1 Pretreatment Charges and Fees (Optional] 45
15.2 Severability [ Optional] 45
SECTION 16- EFFECTIVE DATE 46
Water Supply Severance [ Optional]
Public Nuisances (Optional]
Informant Rewards (Optional]
Contractor Listing [ Optional]
-U’-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. _____
SECTION 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1 Purpose and Policy
This ordinance sets forth uniform requirements for users of the Publicly Owned Treatment
Works for the [ City of 1 and enables (the City] to comply with all applicable State and
Federal laws, including the Clean Water Act (33 United States Code § 1251 ci seq.) and the
General Pretreatment Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 403). The objectives
of this ordinance are:
A. To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the Publicly Owned Treatment Works
that will interfere with its operation;
B. To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the Publicly Owned Treatment Works
that will pass through the Publicly Owned Treatment Works, inadequately treated,
into receiving waters, or otherwise be incompatible with the Publicly Owned
Treatment Works;
C. To protect both Publicly Owned Treatment Works personnel who may be affected by
wastewater and sludge in the course of their employment and the general public;
D. To promote reuse and recycling of industrial wastewater and sludge from the Publicly
Owned Treatment Works;
E. To provide for fees for the equitable distribution of the cost of operation,
maintenance, and improvement of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works; and
F. To enable [ the City] to comply with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit conditions, sludge use and disposal requirements, and any other
Federal or State laws to which the Publicly Owned Treatment Works is subject.
This ordinance shall apply to all users of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works. The
ordinance authorizes the issuance of wastewater discharge permits; provides for monitoring,
compliance, and enforcement activities; establishes administrative review procedures; requires
user reporting; and provides for the setting of fees for the equitable distribution of costs resulting
from the program established herein.
—1—
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
1.2 Administration
Except as otherwise provided herein, [ the Superintendent] shall administer, implement,
and enforce the provisions of this ordinance. Any powers granted to or duties imposed upon
[ the Superintendent] may be delegated by [ the Superintendent] to other [ City] personnel.
1.3 AbbrevIations
The following abbreviations, when used in this ordinance, shall have the designated meanings:
• BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
• CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
• COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand
• EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• gpd - gallons per day
• mg/l - milligrams per liter
• NPDES -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
• POTW - Publicly Owned Treatment Works
• RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
• SIC - Standard Industrial Classification
• TSS - Total Suspended Solids
• U.S.C. - United St2tps Code
1.4 DefinitIons
Unless a provision explicitly states otherwise, the following terms and phrases, as used in
this ordinance, shall have the meanings hereinafter designated.
-2-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
(Note: Each of the terms and phrases defined below are used at kag once in the
ordinance. When the municipality adopts its final version of the ordinance, it should
delete from this Section all tenns not used.)
A. Act or the Act . The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean
Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. * 1251 et seq.
B. Approval Authority . (Note: Designate the State as the Approval Authority ((the
State has an EPA-approved pretreatment program. Alternatively, designate the
appropriate Regional Adminisirwor of EPA as the Approval Authority in a
nonapproved State.)
C. Authorized Representative of the User .
(1) If the user is a corporation:
(a) The president, secretary, treasurer, or a vice-president of the corporation in
charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs
similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporation; or
(b) The manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operation
facilities employing more than two hundred fifty (250) persons or having
gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding twenty-five (25) million dollars
(in second-quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has been
assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate
procedures.
(2) If the user is a partnership or sole proprietorship: a general partner or
proprietor, respectively.
(3) If the user is a Federal, State, or local governmental facility: a director or
highest official appointed or designated to oversee the operation and
performance of the activities of the government facility, or their designee.
(4) The individuals described in paragraphs 1 through 3, above, may designate
another authorized representative if the authorization is in writing, the
authorization specifies the individual or position responsible for the overall
operation of the facility from which the discharge originates or having overall
responsibility for environmental matters for the company, and the written
authorization is submitted to [ the City].
D. Biochemical Oxygen Demand or BOD . The quantity of oxygen utilized in the
biochemical oxidation of organic matter under standard laboratory procedures for five
(5) days at 200 centigrade, usually expressed as a concentration (e.g., mg/I).
-3-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
E. Categorical Pret atinent Standard or Categorical Standard . Any regulation
containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by EPA in accordance with Sections
307(b) and (c) of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1317) which apply to a specific category of
users and which appear in 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471.
F. ICitvl . [ The City of 1 or [ the City Council of 1 .
0. Environmental Protection Agency or EPA . The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency or, where appropriate, the Regional Water Management Division Director,
or other duly authorized official of said agency.
H. Existing Source . Any source of discharge, the construction or operation of which
commenced prior to the publication by EPA of proposed categorical pretreatment
standards, which will be applicable to such source if the standard is thereafter
promulgated in accordance with Section 307 of the Act.
Grab Sample . A sample which is taken from a wastestreain without regard to the
flow in the wastestream and over a period of time not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes.
J. Indirect Discharge or Discharge . The introduction of pollutants into the P01W from
any nondomestic source regulated under Section 307(b), (C), or (d) of the Act.
K. Instantaneous Maximum Allowable Discharge Limit . The maximum concentration
of a pollutant allowed to be discharged at any time, determined from the analysis of
any discrete or composited sample collected, independent of the industrial flow rate
and the duration of the sampling event.
L. Interference . A discharge, which alone or in conjunction with a discharge or
discharges from other sources, inhibits or disrupts the P01W, its treatment processes
or operations or its sludge processes, use or disposal; and therefore, is a cause of a
violation of [ the City’s] NPDES permit or of the prevention of sewage sludge use
or disposal in compliance with any of the following statutory/regulatory provisions
or permits issued thereunder, or any more stringent State or local regulations:
Section 405 of the Act; the Solid Waste Disposal Act, including Title 11 commonly
referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); any State
regulations contained in any State sludge management plan prepared pursuant to
Subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act; the Clean Air Act; the Toxic Substances
Control Act; and the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act.
M. Medical Waste . Isolation wastes, infectious agents, human blood and blood products,
pathological wastes, sharps, body parts, contaminated bedding, surgical wastes,
potentially contaminated laboratory wastes, and dialysis wastes.
-4-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
N. New Source .
(1) Any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is (or may be)
a discharge of pollutants, the construction of which commenced after the
publication of proposed pretreatment standards under Section 307(c) of the Act
which will be applicable to such source if such standards are thereafter
promulgated in accordance with that section, provided that:
(a) The building, structure, facility, or installation is constructed at a site at
which no other source is located; or
(b) The building, structure, facility, or install2tion totally replaces the process
or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an
existing source; or
(C) The production or wastewater generating processes of the building,
structure, facility, or installation are substantially independent of an existing
source at the same site. In determining whether these are substantially
independent, factors such as the extent to which the new facility is
integrated with the existing plant, and the extent to which the new facility
is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source, should
be considered.
(2) Construction on a site at which an existing source is located results in a
modification rather than a new source if the construction does not create a new
building, structure, facility, or installation meeting the criteria of Section (l)(b)
or (C) above but otherwise alters, replaces, or adds to existing process or
production equipment.
(3) Construction of a new source as defined under this paragraph has commenced
if the owner or operator has:
(a) Begun, or caused to begin, as part of a continuous onsite construction
program
(i) any placement, assembly, or installation of facilities or equipment; or
(ii) significant site preparation work including clearing, excavation, or
removal of existing buildings, structures, or facilities which is necessary
for the placement, assembly, or installation of new source facilities or
equipment; or
-5-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
(b) Entered into a binding contractual obligation for the purchase of facilities
or equipment which are intended to be used in its operation within a
reasonable time. Options to purchase or contracts which can be terminated
or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for feasibility,
engineering, and design studies do not constitute a contractual obligation
under this paragraph.
0. Noncontact Cooling Water . Water used for cooling which does not come into direct
contact with any raw material, intermei1iat product, waste product, or finished
product.
P. Pass Through . A discharge which exits the P01W into waters of the United States
in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or
discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of (the
Clty’sI NPDES permit, including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a
violation.
Q. Person . Any individual, partnership, copartnership, firm, company, corporation,
association, joint stock company, trust, estate, governmental entity, or any other legal
entity; or their legal representatives, agents, or assigns. This definition includes all
Federal, State, and local governmental entities.
R. j. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, expressed in standard units.
S. Pollutant . Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage,
garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, medical wastes, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand,
cellar dirt, municipal, agricultural and industrial wastes, and certain characteristics
of wastewater (e.g., pH, temperature, TSS, turbidity, color, BOD, COD, toxicity,
or odor).
T. Pretreatment . The reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of
pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior
to, or in lieu of, introducing such pollutants into the POTW. This reduction or
alteration can be obtained by physical, chemical, or biological processes; by process
changes; or by other means, except by diluting the concentration of the pollutants
unless allowed by an applicable pretreatment standard.
U. Pietr atment Requirements . Any substantive or procedural requirement related to
pretreatment imposed on a user, other than a pretreatment standard.
V. Prctftatment Standards or Standards . Pretreatment standards shall mean prohibited
discharge standards, categorical pretreatment standards, and local limits.
-6..
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDNANCE (JUNE 1992)
W. Prohibited Discharge Standards or Prohibited Discharges . Absolute prohibitions
against the discharge of certain substances; these prohibitions appear in Section 2.1
of this ordinance.
X. Publicly Owned Treatment Works or POTW . A “treatment works,” as defined by
Section 212 of the Act (33 U.S.C. §1292) which is owned by [ the Cityl. This
definition includes any devices or systems used in the collection, storage, treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature and any
conveyances which convey wastewater to a treatment plant.
Y. Septic Tank Waste . Any sewage from holding tanks such as vessels, chemical toilets,
campers, trailers, and septic tanks.
Z. Sewage . Human excrement and gray water (household showers, dishwashing
operations, etc.).
AA. Significant Industrial User .
(1) A user subject to categorical pretreatment standards; or
(2) A user that:
(a) Discharges an average of twenty-five thousand (25,000) gpd or more of
process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling,
and boiler blowdown wastewater);
(b) Contributes a process wastestream which makes up five (5) percent or more
of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW
treatment plant or
(c) Is designated as such by [ the Cityj on the basis that it has a reasonable
potential for adversely affecting the POTW’s operation or for violating any
pretreatment standard or requirement.
(3) Upon a finding that a user meeting the criteria in Subsection (2) has no
reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW’s operation or for
violating any pretreatment standard or requirement, [ the CityJ may at any time,
on its own initiative or in response to a petition received from a user, and in
accordance with procedures in 40 CFR 403.8(0(6), determine that such user
should not be considered a significant industrial user.
BB. Slug Toad oi Slug. Any discharge at a flow rate or concentration which could cause
a violation of the prohibited discharge standards in Section 2.1 of this ordinance.
-7-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
CC. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC’ Code . A classification pursuant to the
Standard industrial Ckusiflcanon Manual issued by the United States Office of
Management and Budget.
DD. Storm Water . Any flow occurring during or following any form of natural
precipitation, and resulting from such precipitation, including snowmelt.
EE. FSuperintendentL The person designated by (the CltyJ to supervise the operation
of the POTW, and who is charged with certain duties and responsibilities by this
ordinance, or a duly authorized representative.
FF. Suspended Solids . The total suspended matter that floats on the surface of, or is
suspended in, water, wastewater, or other liquid, and which is removable by
laboratory filtering.
GG. User or Industrial User . A source of indirect discharge.
RH. Wastewater . Liquid and water-carried industrial wastes and sewage from residential
dwellings, commercial buildings, industrial and manufacturing facilities, and
institutions, whether treated or untreated, which are contributed to the POTW.
II. Wastewater Treatment Plant or Treatment Plant . That portion of the POTW which
is designed to provide treatment of municipal sewage and industrial waste.
SECTION 2- GENERAL SEWER USE REQUIREMENTS
2.1 Prohibited Discharge Standards
A. General Prohibitions . No user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the
POTW any pollutant or wastewater which causes pass through or interference. These
general prohibitions apply to all users of the POTW whether or not they are subject
to categorical pretreatment standards or any other National, State, or local
pretreatment standards or requirements.
B. Specific Prohibitions . No user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the
POTW the following pollutants, substances, or wastewater:
(1) Pollutants which create a fire or explosive hazard in the POTW, including, but
not limited to, wastestreams with a closed-cup flashpoint of less than 140°F
(60°C) using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21;
(2) Wastewater having a pH less than 5.0 [ or more than 1 , or otherwise
causing corrosive structural damage to the POTW or equipment;
(Note: The municipality should be aware that the GeneroJ Pretreatment
Regulations at 40 CFR 403.5(b) do not set an upper pH limit, although many
-8-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
,,wnicipalities find such a limit ,secessaiy or useful. i/the municipality wishes
to set an upper pH limit, it should insert one in this section. Any pH above
12.5 is considered hazardous under 40 CFR 2 61 .22.1
(3) Solid or viscous substances in amounts which will cause obstruction of the flow
in the POTW resulting in interference [ but in no case solids greater than
______ lncb(es) ( “) or ______ centimeter(s) (____ cm) in any
dlmensionj;
(4) Pollutants, including oxygen-demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.), released in a
discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which, either singly or
by interaction with other pollutants, will cause interference with the POTW;
(5) Wastewater having a temperature greater than F °F (___°C)], or which ‘.vill
inhibit biological activity in the treatment plant resulting in interference, but in
no case wastewater which causes the temperature at the introduction into the
treatment plant to exceed 104°F (40°C);
(6) Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin,
in amounts that will cause interference or pass through;
(7) Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within
the POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety
problems;
(8) Trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by [ the
Superintendent] in accordance with Section 3.4 of this ordinance;
(Note: Discharge prohibitions B. (1) through B. (8) are mandatoiy and mu be uscluded in the
ordinance; discharge prohibitions B.(9) through B.(17) beLow are optional.)
(9) Noxious or malodorous liquids, gases, solids, or other wastewater which, either
singly or by interaction with other wastes, are sufficient to create a public
nuisance or a hazard to life, or to prevent entry into the sewers for maintenance
or repair;
(10) Wastewater which imparts color which cannot be removed by the treatment
process, such as, but not limited to, dye wastes and vegetable tanning solutions,
which consequently imparts color to the treatment plant’s effluent, thereby
violating [ the City’s] NPDES permit;
(11) Wastewater containing any radioactive wastes or isotopes except in compliance
with applicable State or Federal regulations;
(12) Storm water, surface water, ground water, artesian well water, roof runoff,
subsurface drainage, swimming pool drainage, condensate, deionized water,
-9-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT oRDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
noncontact cooling water, and unpolluted wastewater, unless specifically
authorized by [ the Superintendent);
(13) Sludges, screenings, or other residues from the pretreatment of industrial
wastes;
(14) Medical wastes, except as specifically authorized by [ the Superintendent) in a
wastewater discharge permit;
(15) Wastewater causing, alone or in conjunction with other sources, the treatment
plant’s effluent to fail a toxicity test;
(16) Detergents, surface-active agents, or other substances which may cause
excessive foaming in the POTW;
(17) Fats, oils, or greases of animal or vegetable origin in concentrations greater than
F ( mgIlJ; (Note: Numeric limit, for these poll Wants may be
placed us Section 2.4.1 or
(18) Wastewater causing two readings on an explosion hazard meter at the point of
discharge into the POTW, or at any point in the POTW, of more than I
percent ( %)j or any single re ing over 1 percent ( %)] of the
Lower Explosive Limit of the meter.
Pollutants, substances, or wastewater prohibited by this section shall not be processed or
stored in such a manner that they could be discharged to the POTW.
2.2 National Categorical Pretreatment Standards
The categorical pretreatment standards found at 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts
405-471 are herthy incorporated. (Note: State procedures/or incoiporv2ion by reference must
be followed.)
A. Where a categorical pretreatment standard is expressed only in terms of either the
mass or the concentration of a pollutant in wastewater, [ the Superintendent) may
impose equivalent concentration or mass limits in accordance with 40 CFR 403.6(c).
B. When wastewater subject to a categorical pretreatment standard is mixed with
wastewater not re II12tPJd by the same standard, [ the Superintendent] shall impose
an alternate limit using the combined wastestream formula in 40 CFR 403.6(e).
-10-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
C. A user may obtain a variance from a categorical pretreatment standard if the user can
prove, pursuant to the procedural and substantive provisions in 40 CFR 403.13, that
factors relating to its discharge are fundamentally different from the factors
considered by EPA when developing the categorical pretreatment standard.
D. A user may obtain a net gross adjustment to a categorical standard in accordance with
40 CFR 403.15.
2.3 State Pretreatment Standards
[ State pretreatment standards located at [ insert appropriate cite to State statute or
regulation] are hereby incorporated.]
(Note: In the case of an Approved State, the ordinance should incorporate applicable
State pretreatment standards. Even f the State does not have an approved progrwn, the
ordinance should incorporate State pretreatment standards which are more stringera than
the categoi cal pretreatment standards.)
2.4 Local Umits
(Note: Municipalities may need to establich limits for some or all of the pollutants listed
below, and may need to set limits for pollutants not listed below. The municipality must
provide public notice and an oppoitunity to respond to interested pwlies. This
requirement applies whether local limits are set by onJinance or on a case-by-case basic.
The municipality may set limits as instantaneous maximums or for other durations (e.g.,
daily maximums or monthly averages). The municipality should define these durations
in its definition section.)
The following pollutant limits are established to protect against pass through and
interference. No person shall discharge wastewater containing in excess of the following
[ instantaneous m vimum allowable discharge Limits]:
— mg/I arsenic
— mg/i benzene
— mg/i beryllium
— mg/i BOD 5
—11—
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDENANCE (JUNE 1992)
mg/I cadmium
mg/i chromium
mg/I copper
mg/i cyanide
mg/i lead
mg/I mercury
mg/I nickel
mg/I oil and grease
mg/I selenium
mg/I silver
mg/i total phenols
mg/I total suspended solids
mg/i zinc
The above limits apply at the point where the wastewater is discharged to the POTW. All
concentrations for metallic substances are for “total” metal unless indicated otherwise. (The
Superintendent] may impose mass limitations in addition to, or in place of, the concentration-
based limitations above.
2.5 [ CIty’s] Right of Revision
[ The City] reserves the right to establish, by ordinance or in wastewater discharge permits,
more stringent standards or requirements on discharges to the POTW.
-12-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETR.EATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
2.6 Dilution
No user shall ever increase the use of process water, or in any way attempt to dilute a
discharge, as a partial or complete substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with
a discharge limitation unless expressly authorized by an applicable pretreatment standard or
requirement. [ The Superintendent) may impose mass limitations on users who are using
dilution to meet applicable pretreatment standards or requirements, or in other cases when the
imposition of mass limitations is appropriate.
SECTION 3. PRETREATMENT OF WASTEWATER
3.1 Pretreatment Facilities
Users shall provide wastewaler treatment as necessary to comply with this ordinance and
shall achieve compliance with all categorical pretreatment standards, local limits, and the
prohibitions set out in Section 2.1 of this ordinance within the time limitations specified by EPA,
the State, or [ the Superintendent), whichever is more sthngent. Any facilities necessary for
compliance shall be provided, operated, and maintained at the user’s expense. Detailed plans
describing such facilities and operating procedures shall be submitted to [ the Superintendent]
for review, and shall be acceptable to [ the Superintendent) before such facilities are
constructed. The review of such plans and operating procedures shall in no way relieve the user
from the responsibility of modifying such facilities as necessary to produce a discharge
acceptable to [ the City) under the provisions of this ordinance.
3.2 Additional Pretreatment Measures
(Note: These provwions are optional. The municipality may provide legal authodty to
do the foilowlisg.J
A. Whenever deemed necessary, [ the Superintendent] may require users to restrict their
discharge during peak flow periods, designate that certain wastewater be discharged
only into specific sewers, relocate and/or consolidate points of discharge, separate
sewage wastestreains from industrial wastestreams, and such other conditions as may
be necessary to protect the POTW and determine the user’s compliance with the
requirements of this ordinance.
-13-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
B. [ The Superintendent] may require any person discharging into the POTW to install
and maintain, on their property and at their expense, a suitable storage and flow-
control facility to ensure equali bon of flow. A wastewater discharge permit may
be issued solely for flow equ2lizition.
C. Grease, oil, and sand interceptors shall be provided when, in the opinion of [ the
Superintendent], they are necessary for the proper handling of wastewater containing
excessive amounts of grease and oil, or sand; except that such interceptors shall not
be required for residential users. All interception units shall be of type and capacity
approved by [ the Superintendent] and shall be so located to be easily accessible for
cleaning and inspection. Such interceptors shall be inspected, cleaned, and repaired
regularly, as needed, by the user at their expense.
D. Users with the potential to discharge flammable substances may be required to install
and maintain an approved combustible gas detection meter.
3.3 AccIdental Discharge/Slug Control Plans
At least once every two (2) years, [ the Superintendent] shall evaluate whether each
significant industrial user needs an accidental discharge/slug control plan. [ The Superintendent]
may require any user to develop, submit for approval, and implement such a plan.
Alternatively, (the Superintendent] may develop such a plan for any user. An accidental
discharge/slug control plan shall address, at a minimum, the following:
A. Description of discharge practices, including nonroutine batch discharges;
B. Description of stored chemicals;
C. Procedures for immedi2tely notifying [ the Superintendent] of any accidental or slug
discharge, as required by Section 6.6 of this ordinance; and
D. Procedures to prevent adverse impact from any accidental or slug discharge. Such
procedures include, but are not limited to, inspection and maintenance of storage
areas, handling and transfer of materials, loading and unloading operations, control
of plant site runoff, worker training, building of containment structures or equipment,
measures for containing toxic organic pollutants, including solvents, and/or measures
and equipment for emergency response.
-14-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
3.4 Hauled Wagewater
(Note: The municipality mu ensure that hauled industi al wasle Lv adequately regulated
and should consider taldng measures to ensure that haulers of septic tank wane are not
introducing indusirial wane to the POTW. The following Lv one possible means of
regulating hauled wasts.J
A. Septic tank waste may be introduced into the P01W only at locations designated by
[ the Superintendent), and at such times as are established by [ the Superintendent].
Such waste shall not violate Section 2 of this ordinance or any other requirements
established by [ the City). (The Superintendent) may require septic tank waste
haulers to obtain wastewater discharge permits.
B. [ The Superintendent) shall require haulers of industrial waste to obtain wastewater
discharge permits. (The Superintendent) may require generators of hauled industrial
waste to obtain wastewater discharge permits. (The Superintendent) also may
prohibit the disposal of hauled industrial waste. The discharge of hauled industrial
waste is subject to all other requirements of this ordinance.
C. Industrial waste haulers may discharge loads only at locations designated by (the
Superintendent). No load may be discharged without prior consent of [ the
Superintendent). [ The Superintendent) may collect samples of each hauled load
to ensure compliance with applicable standards. (The Superintendent) may require
the industrial waste hauler to provide a waste analysis of any load prior to discharge.
D. Industrial waste haulers must provide a waste-tracking form for every load. This
form shall include, at a minimum, the name and address of the industrial waste
hauler, permit number, truck identification, names and addresses of sources of waste,
and volume and characteristics of waste. The form shall identify the type of
industry, known or suspected waste constituents, and whether any wastes are RCRA
hazardous wastes.
SECTION 4- WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMiT APPLICATION
(Note: The municipality mug control sign cant indust,ial users by permits or equivalent
individual control mechanisms. Sections 4 and S detail one means of fulflWng this
requirement .1
4.1 Wastewater Analysis
When requested by (the Superintendent], a user must submit information on the nature
and chaxacteristics of its wastewater within ( _____ ( )] days of the request. (The
Superintendent) is authorized to prepare a form for this purpose and may periodically require
users to update this information.
-15-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
4.2 Wagewater Discharge Permit Requirement
A. No significant industrial user shall discharge wastewater into the POTW without first
obtaining a wastewater discharge permit from [ the Superintendent), except that a
significant industrial user that has filed a timely application pursuant to Section 4.3
of this ordinance may continue to discharge for the time period specified therein.
B. [ The Superintendent) may require other users to obtain wastewater discharge
permits as necessary to carry out the purposes of this ordinance.
C. Any violation of the terms and conditions of a wastewater discharge permit shall be
deemed a violation of this ordinance and subjects the wastewater discharge permittee
to the sanctions set out in Sections 10 through 12 of this ordinance. Obtaining a
wastewater discharge permit does not relieve a permittee of its obligation to comply
with all Federal and State pretreatment standards or requirements or with any other
requirements of Federal, State, and local law.
4.3 Wastewater Discharge Permitting: Existing Connections
Any user required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit who was discharging wastewater
into the POTW prior to the effective date of this ordinance and who wishes to continue such
discharges in the future, shall, within I (__)] days after said date, apply to [ the
Superintendent] for a wastewater discharge permit in accordance with Section 4.5 of this
ordinance, and shall not cause or allow discharges to the POTW to continue after I
(___)] days of the effective date of this ordinance except in accordance with a wastewater
discharge permit issued by [ the Superintendent].
4.4 Wastewater Discharge Permitting: New Connections
Any user required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit who proposes to begin or
recommence discharging into the POTW must obtain such permit prior to the beginning or
recommencing of such discharge. An application for this wastewater discharge permit, in
accordance with Section 4.5 of this ordinance, must be filed at least I (___)J days prior
to the date upon which any discharge will begin or recommence.
-16-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDENANCE (JUNE 1992)
4.5 Wastewatèr Discharge Permit Application Contents
All users required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit must submit a permit
application. [ The Superintendent] may require all users to submit as part of an application the
following information:
A. All information required by Section 6.1(B) of this ordinance;
B. Description of activities, facilities, and plant processes on the premises, including a
list of all raw materials and chemicals used or stored at the facility which are, or
could accidentally or intentionally be, discharged to the POTW;
C. Number and type of employees, hours of operation, and proposed or actual hours of
operation;
D. Each product produced by type, amount, process or processes, and rate of
production;
E. Type and amount of raw materials processed (average and maximum per day);
F. Site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all
sewers, floor drains, and appurtenances by size, location, and elevation, and all
points of discharge;
0. Time and duration of discharges; and
H. Any other information as may be deemed necessary by [ the Superintendent] to
evaluate the wastewater discharge permit application.
Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be processed and will be returned to the user for
revision.
4.6 Application Slgnntorles and Certification
All wastewater discharge p imit applications and user reports must be signed by an
authorized representative of the user and contain the following certification statement:
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared
under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based
-17-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDNANCE (JUNE 1992)
on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons
directly responsible for gathering the information, the information subrniued is, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
4.7 Wastewater DLscharge Permit Decisions
[ The Superintendent] will evaluate the data furnished by the user and may require
additional information. Within I L )J days of receipt of a complete wastewater
discharge permit application, [ the Superintendent] will determine whether or not to issue a
wastewater discharge permit. [ The Superintendent] may deny any application for a wastewater
discharge permit.
SECTION 5- WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMiT ISSUANCE PROCESS
5.1 Wastewater Discharge Permit Duration
A wastewater discharge permit shall be issued for a specified time period, not to exceed
five (5) years from the effective date of the permit. A wastewater discharge permit may be
issued for a period less than five (5) years, at the discretion of [ the Superintendent]. Each
wastewater discharge permit will indicate a specific date upon which it will expire.
5.2 Wastewater Discharge Permit Contents
A wastewater discharge p&mit shall include such conditions as are deemed reasonably
necessary by [ the Superintendent] to prevent pass through or interference, protect the quality
of the water body receiving the treatment plant’s effluent, protect worker health and safety,
facilitate sludge management and disposal, and protect against damage to the P01W.
A. Wastewater discharge permits must contain:
(1) A statement that indicates wastewater discharge permit duration, which in no
event shall exceed ( __________ (_ )J years (not more than five];
(2) A statement that the wastewater discharge permit is nontransferable without
prior notification to [ the City] in accordance with Section 5.5 of this ordinance,
-18-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
and provisions for furnishing the new owner or operator with a copy of the
existing wastewater discharge permit;
(3) Effluent limits based on applicable pretreatment standards;
(4) Self monitoring, sampling, reporting, notification, and record-keeping
requirements. These requirements shall include an identification of pollutants
to be monitored, sampling location, sampling frequency, and sample type based
on Federal, State, and local law; and
(5) A statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of
pretreatment standards and requirements, and any applicable compliance
schedule. Such schedule may not extend the time for compliance beyond that
required by applicable Federal, State, or local law.
B. Wastewater discharge permits may contain, but need not be limited to, the following
conditions:
(1) Limits on the average and/or maximum rate of discharge, time of discharge,
and/or requirements for flow regulation and equ2Ii7atiOn;
(2) Requirements for the inst2ll2tion of pretreatment technology, pollution control,
or construction of appropriate containment devices, designed to reduce,
eliminate, or prevent the introduction of pollutants into the treatment works;
(3) Requirements for the development and implementation of spill control plans or
other special conditions including management practices necessary to adequately
prevent accidental, unanticipated, or nonroutine discharges;
(4) Development and implementation of waste minimization plans to reduce the
amount of pollutants discharged to the POTW;
(5) The unit charge or schedule of user charges and fees for the management of the
wastewater discharged to the POTW;
(6) Requirements for installation and maintenance of inspection and sampling
facilities and equipment;
(7) A statement that compliance with the wastewater discharge permit does not
relieve the permittee of responsibility for compliance with all applicable Federal
and State pretreatment standards, including those which become effective during
the term of the wastewater discharge permit; and
(8) Other conditions as deemed appropriate by (the Superintendent] to ensure
compliance with this ordinance, and State and Federal laws, rules, and
regulations.
-19-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDENANCE (JUNE 1992)
5.3 Wastewater Discharge Permit Appeals
[ The Superintendent] shall provide public notice of the issuance of a wastewater discharge
permit. Any person, including the user, may petition [ the Superintendent] to reconsider the
terms of a wastewater discharge permit within I ( )] days of notice of its issuance.
A. Failure to submit a timely petition for review shall be deemed to be a waiver of the
administrative appeal.
B. In its petition, the appealing party must indicate the wastewater discharge permit
provisions objected to, the reasons for this objection, and the alternative condition,
if any, it seeks to place in the wastewater discharge permit.
C. The effectiveness of the wastewater discharge permit shall not be stayed pending the
appeaL
D. If [ the Superintendent] fails to act within I ( )] days, a request for
reconsideration shall be deemed to be denied. Decisions not to reconsider a
wastewater discharge permit, not to issue a wastewater discharge permit, or not to
modify a wastewater discharge permit shall be considered final administrative actions
for purposes of judicial review.
E. Aggrieved parties seeking judicial review of the final administrative wastewater
discharge permit decision must do so by filing a complaint with the [ Insert name of
appropriate Court] for [ proper jurisdiction) within [ insert appropriate State
Statute of Timitafloiss].
5.4 Wastewater Discharge Permit Modification
[ The Superintendent] may modify a wastewater discharge permit for good cause,
including, but not limited to, the following reasons:
A. To incorporate any new or revised Federal, State, or local pretreatment standards or
requirements;
B. To address significant alterations or additions to the user’s operation, processes, or
wastewater volume or character since the time of wastewater discharge permit
issuance;
C. A change in the POTW that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or
elimination of the authorized discharge;
-20-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDENANCE (JUNE 1992)
D. Information indicating that the permitted discharge poses a threat to [ the City’s]
POTW, [ City) personnel, or the receiving waters;
E. Violation of any terms or conditions of the wastewater discharge permit;
F. Misrepresentations or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater
discharge permit application or in any required reporting;
G. Revision of or a grant of variance from categorical preueatment standards pursuant
to 40 CFR 403.13;
H. To correct typographical or other errors in the wastewater discharge permit; or
I. To reflect a transfer of the facility ownership or operation to a new owner or
operator.
(Note: Modification for this purpose may not be allowed unless the pennit is
transferable as provided in Section 5.5.1
5.5 Wastewater DLscharge Permit Transfer
Wastewater discharge permits may be transferred to a new owner or operator only if the
permittee gives at least [ ( )) days advance notice to [ the Superintendent) and [ the
Superintendent] approves the wastewater discharge permit transfer. The notice to [ the
Superintendent] must include a written certification by the new owner or operator which:
A. States that the new owner and/or operator has no immediate intent to change the
facility’s operations and processes;
B. Identifies the specific date on which the transfer is to occur; and
C. Acknowledges full responsibility for complying with the existing wastewater
discharge permit.
Failure to provide advance notice of a transfer renders the wastewater discharge permit void as
of the date of facility transfer.
-21-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
5.6 Wastewater Discharge Permit Revocation
IThe Superintendent] may revoke a wastewater discharge permit for good cause,
including, but not limited to, the following reasons:
A. Failure to notify [ the Superintendent] of significant changes to the wastewater prior
to the changed discharge;
B. Failure to provide prior notification to [ the Superintendent] of changed conditions
pursuant to Section 6.5 of this ordinance;
C. Misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater
discharge permit application;
D. Falsifying self-monitoring reports;
E. Tampering with monitoring equipment;
F. Refusing to allow [ the Superintendent] timely access to the facility premises and
records;
G. Failure to meet effluent limitations;
H. Failure to pay fines;
I. Failure to pay sewer charges;
I. Failure to meet compliance schedules;
K. Failure to complete a wastewater survey or the wastewater discharge permit
application;
L. Failure to provide advance notice of the transfer of business ownership of a permitted
facility; or
M. Violation of any pretreatment standard or requirement, or any terms of the
wastewater discharge permit or this ordinance.
Wastewater discharge permits shall be voidable upon cessation of operations or transfer of
business ownership. All wastewater discharge permits issued to a particular user are void upon
the issuance of a new wastewater discharge permit to that user.
-22-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
5.7 Wastewater Discharge Permit ReLssuance
A user with an expiring wastewater discharge permit shall apply for wastewater discharge
permit reissuance by submitting a complete permit application, in accordance with Section 4.5
of this ordinance, a minimum of L ( )J days prior to the expiration of the user’s
existing wastewater discharge permit.
5.8 Regulation of Waste Received from Other Jurisdictions
(Not.: The municipality must ensure that discharges received/rum entities outside of its
juiisdictional bounda, .s are regulated to the swne extent as are discharges/rum within
its Jurisdictional boundaries. How a municipality regulates such discharges largely will
be detensuned by what Li allowed under its State law. The municipality must detensune
the extent of Its authority under State law to regulate users located outside of its
jwisdictional boundaries. 1/the municipality does not have the legal authority to issue
enforceable pennits directly to ertrajurLcdktlonal dischargers and cannot obtain this
authority under State law, it should strongly consider entering into an agreement with
the municipality in which the dischargers are located. The agreement would require that
the contributing municipality either regulate the dischargers within its Jurisdiction directly
or allow the municipality (in which the P01W Li located) to regulate such dischargers.
Following Li one possible means of regulating dischargers located outside of the
municipality’s furisdfrtional boundaries.J
A. If another municipality, or user located within another municipality, contributes
wastewater to the P01W, [ the Superlntendentj shall enter into an intermunicipal
agreement with the contributing municipality.
B. Prior to entering into an agreement required by paragraph A, above, [ the
Superlntendentj shall request the following information from the contributing
municipality:
(1) A description of the quality and volume of wastewater discharged to the POVW
by the contributing municipality;
(2) An inventory of all users located within the contributing municipality that are
discharging to the P01W; and
(3) Such other information as (the Superintendent) may deem necessary.
-23-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
C. An intermunicipal agreement, as required by paragraph A, above, shall contain the
following conditions:
(1) A requirement for the contributing municipality to adopt a sewer use ordinance
which is at least as stringent as this ordinance and local limits which are at least
as sthngent as those set out in Section 2.4 of this ordinance. The requirement
shall specify that such ordinance and limits must be revised as necessary to
reflect changes made to [ the City’s] ordinance or local limits;
(2) A requirement for the conthbuting municipality to submit a revised user
inventory on at least an annual basis;
(3) A provision specifying which pretreatment implementation activities, including
wastewater discharge permit issuance, inspection and sampling, and
enforcement, will be conducted by the contributing municipality; which of these
activities will be conducted by [ the Superintendent]; and which of these
activities will be conducted jointly by the contributing municipality and [ the
Superintendent];
(4) A requirement for the contributing municipality to provide [ the Superintendent]
with access to all information that the contributing municipality obtains as part
of its pretreatment activities;
(5) Limits on the nature, quality, and volume of the contributing municipality’s
wastewater at the point where it discharges to the POTW;
(6) Requirements for monitoring the contributing municipality’s discharge;
(7) A provision ensuring [ the Superintendent] access to the facilities of users
located within the contributing municipality’s jurisdictional boundaries for the
purpose of inspection, sampling, and any other duties deemed necessary by [ the
Superintendent]; and
(8) A provision specifying remedies available for breach of the terms of the
intermunicipal agreement.
INote: Where the contiibuting municipality has primary responsibility for
peimitting, compliance monitoring, or enforcement, the intennunicipal
agreement should specify that the municipality (in which the P07W is located)
has the nght to take legal action to enforce the tenns of the contributing
municipality’s ordinance or to impose and enforce pretreatment standards and
requirements directly against noncompliant dischargers in the event the
contributing jurisdiction Lc unable or unwilling to take such action.)
-24-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (J1JN E 1992)
SECTION 6 - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
6.1 Baseline Monitoring Reports
A. Within either one hundred eighty (180) days after the effective date of a categorical
pretreatment standard, or the final administrative decision on a category determination
under 40 CFR 403.6(a)(4), whichever is later, existing categorical users currently
discharging to or scheduled to discharge to the POVW shall submit to (the
Superintendent] a report which contains the information listed in paragraph B,
below. At least ninety (90) days prior to commencement of their discharge, new
sources, and sources that become categorical users subsequent to the promulgation
of an applicable categorical standard, shall submit to [ the Superintendent] a report
which contains the information listed in paragiaph B, below. A new source shall
report the method of pretreatment it intends to use to meet applicable categorical
standards. A new source also shall give estimates of its anticipated flow and quantity
of pollutants to be discharged.
B. Users described above shall submit the information set forth below.
(1) Identifying Information . The name and address of the facility, including the
name of the operator and owner.
(2) Environmental Permits . A list of any environmental control permits held by or
for the facility.
(3) Description of Operations . A brief description of the nature, average rate of
production, and standard industrial classifications of the operation(s) carried out
by such user. This description should include a schematic process diagram
which indicates points of discharge to the POTW from the regulated processes.
(4) Flow Measurement . Information showing the measured average daily and
maximum daily flow, in gallons per day, to the POTW from regulated process
streams and other streams, as necessary, to allow use of the combined
wastestream formula set out in 40 CFR 403.6(e).
(5) Measurement of Pollutants .
(a) The categorical pretreatment standards applicable to each regulated process.
(b) The results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and
concentration, and/or mass, where required by the standard or by [ the
Superintendent], of regulated pollutants in the discharge from each
regulated process. Instantaneous, daily maximum, and long-term average
concentrations, or mass, where required, shall be reported. The sample
shall be representative of daily operations and shall be analyzed in
accordance with procedures set out in Section 6.10 of this ordinance.
-25-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
(c) Sampling must be performed in accordance with procedures set out in
Section 6.11 of this ordinance.
(6) Certification . A statement, reviewed by the user’s authorized representative and
certified by a qualified professional, indicating whether pretreatment standards
are being met on a consistent basis, and, if not, whether additional operation
and maintenance (O&M) and/or additional pretreatment is required to meet the
pretreatment standards and requirements.
(7) Comnliance Schedule . If additional pretreatment and/or O&M will be required
to meet the pretreatment standards, the shortest schedule by which the user will
provide such additional pretreatment and/or O&M. The completion date in this
schedule shall not be later than the compliance date established for the
applicable pretreatment standard. A compliance schedule pursuant to this
section must meet the requirements set out in Section 6.2 of this ordinance.
_____________ All baseline monitoring reports must be signed and
certified in accordance with Section 4.6 of this ordinance.
6.2 Compliance Schedule Progress Reports
The following conditions shall apply to the compliance schedule required by Section
6.1 (B)(7) of this ordinance:
A. The schedule shall contain progress increments in the form of dates for the
commencement and completion of major events leading to the construction and
operation of additional pretreatment required for the user to meet the applicable
pretreatment standards (such events include, but are not limited to, hiring an
engineer, completing preliminary and final plans, executing contracts for major
components, commencing and completing construction, and beginning and conducting
routine operation);
B. No increment referred to above shall exceed nine (9) months;
C. The user shall submit a progress report to [ the Superintendenti no later than
fourteen (14) days following each date in the schedule and the final date of
compliance including, as a minimum, whether or not it complied with the increment
of progress, the reason for any delay, and, if appropriate, the steps being taken by
the user to return to the established schedule; and
D. In no event shall more than nine (9) months elapse between such progress reports to
(the Superintendent].
-26-
(8)
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
6.3 Reports on Compliance with Categorical Pretreatment Standard Deadline
Within ninety (90) days following the date for final compliance with applicable categorical
pretreatment standards, or in the case of a new source following commencement of the
introduction of wastewater into the POTW, any user subject to such pretreatment standards and
requirements shall submit to [ the Superintendenti a report containing the information described
in Section 6. l(B)(4-6) of this ordinance. For users subject to equivalent mass or concentration
limits established in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR 403.6(c), this report shall contain
a reasonable measure of the user’s long-term production rate. For all other users subject to
categorical pretreatment standards expressed in terms of allowable pollutant discharge per unit
of production (or other measure of operation), this report shall include the user’s actual
production during the appropriate sampling period. All compliance reports must be signed and
certified in accordance with Section 4.6 of this ordinance.
6.4 PeriodIc Compliance Reports
(Note: Murdcipalides may sample and analyze user discharges us lieu of requiring the
use,T to conduct sampling and analysis.)
A. All significant industrial users shall, at a frequency determined by [ the
Superintendent) but in no case less than twice per year (in June and December),
submit a report indicating the nature and concentration of pollutants in the discharge
which are limited by pretreatment standards and the measured or estimated average
and maximum daily flows for the reporting period. All periodic compliance reports
must be signed and certified in accordance with Section 4.6 of this ordinance.
B. All wastewater samples must be representative of the user’s discharge. Wastewater
monitoring and flow measurement facilities shall be properly operated, kept clean,
and maintained in good working order at all times. The failure ofauser to keep its
monitoring facility in good working order shall not be grounds for the user to claim
that sample results are unrepresentative of its discharge.
C. If a user subject to the reporting requirement in this section monitors any pollutant
more frequently than required by [ the Superintendent), using the procedures
prescribed in Section 6.11 of this ordinance, the results of this monitoring shall be
included in the report.
-27-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
6.5 Reports of Changed Conditions
Each user must notify (the Superintendent) of any planned significant changes to the
user’s operations or system which might alter the nature, quality, or volume of its wastewater
at least L ( )) days before the change.
A. [ The Superintendent) may require the user to submit such information as may be
deemed necessary to evaluate the changed condition, including the submission of a
wastewater discharge permit application under Section 4.5 of this ordinance.
B. [ The Superintendent) may issue a wastewater discharge permit under Section 4.7
of this ordinance or modify an existing wastewater discharge permit under Section
5.4 of this ordinance in response to changed conditions or anticipated changed
conditions.
C. For purposes of this requirement, significant changes include, but are not limited to,
flow increases of 1 percent ( %)] or greater, and the discharge of any
previously unreported pollutants. (Note: EPA regulations do not d flne the lena
“significant change.” However, it is recommended that changes of twenty percent
(20%) or greater be considered sign flcant changes.)
6.6 Reports of Potential Problems
A. In the case of any discharge, including, but not limited to, accidental discharges,
discharges of a nonroutine, episodic nature, a noncustomary batch discharge, or a
slug load, that may cause potential problems for the POTW, the user shall
immediately telephone and notify [ the Superintendent) of the incident. This
notification shall include the location of the discharge, type of waste, concentration
and volume, if known, and corrective actions taken by the user.
B. Within five (5) days following such discharge, the user shall, unless waived by [ the
Superintendent), submit a detailed written report describing the cause(s) of the
discharge and the measures to be taken by the user to prevent similar future
occinrences. Such notification shall not relieve the user of any expense, loss,
damage,orotherliabilitywhich may beincurredasaresultofdamagetothePOTW,
natural resources, or any other damage to person or property; nor shall such
notification relieve the user of any fines, penalties, or other liability which may be
imposed pursuant to this ordinance. (Note: This repwt Is not required under the
General Pretreatment Regulations and, therefore, is optional.)
C. A notice shall be permanently posted on the user’s bulletin board or other prominent
place advising employees whom to call in the event of a discharge described in
-28-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
paragraph A, above. Employers shall ensure that all employees, who may cause such
a discharge to occur, are advised of the emergency notification procedure.
6.7 Reports from Unpermitted Users
All users not required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit shall provide appropriate
reports to [ the Superintendent] as [ the Superintendent] may require.
6.8 NotIce of Violation/Repeat Sampling and Reporting
If sampling performed by a user indic t s a violation, the user must notify [ the
Superintendent] within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of the violation. The user
shall also i p at the sampling and analysis and submit the results of the repeat analysis to [ the
Superintendent] within thirty (30) days after becoming aware of the violation. The user is not
required to resample if [ the Superintendent] monitors at the user’s facility at least once a
month, or if [ the Superintendent] samples between the user’s initial sampling and when the user
receives the results of this sampling.
6.9 Notification of the Discharge of Hazardous Waste
(Note: The mwsicipalisy may choose to prohibit the dircharge of hazaidous wastes.)
A. Any user who commences the discharge of hazardous waste shall notify the POTW,
the EPA Regional Waste Management Division Director, and Stale hazardous waste
authorities, in writing, of any discharge into the POTW of a substance which, if
otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261. Such
notification must include the name of the hazardous waste as set forth in 40 CFR Part
261, the EPA hazardous waste number, and the type of discharge (continuous, batch,
or other). If the user discharges more than one hundred (100) kilograms of such
waste per calendar month to the P01W, the notification also shall contain the
following information to the extent such information is known and readily available
to the user: an identification of the hazardous constituents contained in the wastes,
an estimation of the mass and concentration of such constituents in the wastestream
discharged during that calendar month, and an estimation of the mass of constituents
in the wastestream expected to be discharged during the following twelve (12)
months. All notifications must take place no later than one hundred and eighty (180)
days after the discharge commences. Any notification under this paragraph need be
submitted only once for each hazardous waste discharged. However, notifications
of changed conditions must be submitted under Section 6.5 of this ordinance. The
-29-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
notification requirement in this section does not apply to pollutants already reported
by users subject to categorical pretreatment standards under the self-monitoring
requirements of Sections 6.1, 6.3, and 6.4 of this ordinance.
B. Dischargers are exempt from the requirements of paragraph A, above, during a
caiendar month in which they discharge no more than fifteen (15) kilograms of
hazardous wastes, unless the wastes are acute ha ardous wastes as specified in 40
CFR 261.30(d) and 261.33(e). Discharge of more than fifteen (15) kilograms of
nonacute hazardous wastes in a calendar month, or of any quantity of acute hazardous
wastes as specified in 40 CFR 261.30(d) and 261.33(e), requires a one-time
notification. Subsequent months during which the user discharges more than such
quantities of any hazardous waste do not require additional notification.
C. In the case of any new regulations under Section 3001 of RCRA identifying
additional characteristics of hazardous waste or listing any additional substance as a
hazardous waste, the user must notify [ the Supenntendentl, the EPA Regional
Waste Management Waste Division Director, and State h rdous waste authorities
of the discharge of such substance within ninety (90) days of the effective date of
such regulations.
D. In the case of any notification made under this section, the user shall certify that it
has a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of hazardous wastes
generated to the degree it has determined to be economically practical.
E. This provision does not create a right to discharge any substance not otherwise
permitted to be discharged by this ordinance, a permit issued thereunder, or any
applicable Federal or State law.
6.10 Analytical Requirements
All pollutant analyses, including sampling techniques, to be submitted as part of a
wastewater discharge permit application or report shall be performed in accordance with the
techniques prescribed in 40 CFR Part 136, unless otherwise specified in an applicable categorical
pretreatment standard. If 40 CFR Part 136 does not contain sampling or analytical techniques
for the pollutant in question, sampling and analyses must be performed in accordance with
procedures approved by EPA.
6.11 Sample Collection
A. Except as indicated in Section B, below, the user must collect wastewater samples
using flow proportional composite collection techniques. In the event flow
proportional sampling is infeasible, [ the Superintendentj may authorize the use of
-30-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
time proportional sampling or a minimum of four (4) grab samples where the user
demonstrates that this will provide a representative sample of the effluent being
discharged. In addition, grab samples may be required to show compliance with
instantaneous discharge limits.
B. Samples for oil and grease, temperature, pH, cyanide, phenols, sulfides, and volatile
organic compounds must be obtained using grab collection techniques.
6.12 Timing
Written reports will be deemed to have been submitted on the date postmarked. For
reports which axe not mailed, postage prepaid, into a mail facility serviced by the United States
Postal Service, the date of receipt of the report shall govern.
6.13 Record Keeping
Users subject to the reporting requirements of this ordinance shall retain, and make
available for inspection and copying, all records of information obtained pursuant to any
monitoring activities required by this ordinance and any additional records of information
obtained pursuant to monitoring activities undertaken by the user independent of such
requirements. Records shall include the date, exact place, method, and time of sampling, and
the name of the person(s) taking the samples; the dates analyses were performed; who performed
the analyses; the analytical techniques or methods used; and the results of such analyses. These
records shall remain available for a period of at least three (3) years. This period shall be
automatically extended for the duration of any litigation concerning the user or [ the City], or
where the user has been specifically notified of a longer retention period by [ the
Superintendent].
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
7.1 Right of Entry: Inspection and Sampling
[ The Superintendent] shall have the right to enter the premises of any user to determine
whether the user is complying with all requirements of this ordinance and any wastewater
discharge permit or order issued hereunder. Users shall allow [ the Superintendent] ready
-31-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
access to all parts of the premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling, records examination
and copying, and the performance of any additional duties.
A. Where a user has security measures in force which require proper identification and
clearance before entry into its premises, the user shall make necessary arrangements
with its security guards so that, upon presentation of suitable identification, [ the
Superintendent] will be permitted to enter without delay for the purposes of
performing specific responsibilities.
B. [ The Superintendent] shall have the right to set up on the user’s property, or require
install2tion of, such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling and/or metering of
the user’s operations.
C. (The Superintendent] may require the user to install monitoring equipment as
necessary. The facility’s sampling and monitoring equipment shall be maintained at
all times in a safe and proper operating condition by the user at its own expense. All
devices used to measure wastewater flow and quality shall be calibrated [ insert
deaired frequency] to ensure their accuracy.
D. Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the facility to be
inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the user at the written or
verbal request of (the Superintendent] and shall not be replaced. The costs of
clearing such access shall be born by the user.
E. Unreasonable delays in allowing (the Superintendent] access to the user’s premises
shall be a violation of this ordinance.
7.2 Search Warrants
If (the Superintendent] has been refused access to a building, structure, or property, or
any part thereof, and is able to demonstrate probable cause to believe that there may be a
violation of this ordinance, or that there is a need to inspect and/or sample as part of a routine
inspection and sampling program of [ the City] designed to verify compliance with this ordinance
or any permit or order issued hereunder, or to protect the overall public health, safety and
welfare of the community, then [ the Superintendent] may seek issuance of a search warrant
from the [ insert n*me of appropriate Court] of [ the City].
-32-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
SECTION 8- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Information and data on a user obtained from reports, surveys, wastewater discharge permit
applications, wastewater discharge permits, and monitoring programs, and from [ the
Superintendent’s] inspection and sampling activities, shall be availahie to the public without
restriction, unless the user specifically requests, and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
[ the Superintendent), that the release of such information would divulge information, processes,
or methods of production entitled to protection as trade secrets under applicable State law. Any
such request must be asserted at the time of submission of the information or data. When
requested and demonstrated by the user furnishing a report that such information should be held
confidential, the portions of a report which might disclose trade secrets or secret processes shall
not be made available for inspection by the public, but shall be made available immediately upon
request to governmental agencies for uses related to the NPDES program or pretreatment
program, and in enforcement proceedings involving the person furnishing the report.
Wastewater constituents and characteristics and other TM effluent dataw as defined by 40 CFR
2.302 will not be recognized as confidential information and will be available to the public
without restriction.
SECTION 9- PUBLICATION OF USERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE
[ The Superintendent] shall publish annually, in the largest daily newspaper published in
the municipality where the POTW is located, a list of the users which, during the previous
twelve (12) months, were in significant noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards
and requirements. The term significant noncompliance shall mean:
A. Chronic violations of wastewater discharge limits, defined here as those in which
sixty-six percent (66%) or more of wastewater measurements taken during a six- (6-
)month period exceed the daily maximum limit or average limit for the same pollutant
parameter by any amount;
B. Technical Review Criteria (TRC) violations, defined here as those in which thirty-
three percent (33%) or more of wastewater measurements taken for each pollutant
parameter during a six- (6-)month period equals or exceeds the product of the daily
maximum limit or the average limit multiplied by the applicable criteria (1.4 for
BOD, TSS, fats, oils and grease, and 1.2 for all other pollutants except pH);
-33-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
C. Any other discharge violation that [ the Superintendent] believes has caused, alone
or in combination with other discharges, interference or pass through, including
endangering the health of POTW personnel or the general public;
D. Any discharge of pollutants that has caused imminent endangerment to the public or
to the environment, or has resulted in [ the Superintendent’s] exercise of its
emergency authority to halt or prevent such a discharge;
E. Failure to meet, within ninety (90) days of the scheduled date, a compliance schedule
milestone contained in a wastewater discharge permit or enforcement order for
starting construction, completing construction, or attaining final compliance;
F. Failure to provide within thirty (30) days after the due date, any required reports,
including baseline monitoring reports, reports on compliance with categorical
pretreatment standard deadlines, periodic self-monitoring reports, and reports on
compliance with compliance schedules;
G. Failure to accurately report noncompliance; or
H. Any other violation(s) which [ the Superintendent] determines will adversely affect
the operation or implementation of the local p treatment program.
SECTION 10- ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES
(Note: The municipality mu refer to State law to see ((the remedies lisied in Sections 10,
11, and 12 are allowable. The municipality mu. have the authodty to seek i,ijunctive relief
for noncompliance and to seek or assess penalties of at least $1,000 a day for each violation
of pretreatment standards or requvements by industdal usere.J
10.1 NotificatIon of Violation
When [ the Superintendent] finds that a user has violated, or continues to violate, any
provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any
other pretreatment standard or requirement, [ the Superintendent] may serve upon that user a
written Notice of Violation. Within I ( 11 days of the receipt of this notice, an
explanation of the violation and a plan for the satisfactory correction and prevention thereof, to
include specific required actions, shall be submitted by the user to [ the Superintendent].
Submission of this plan in no way relieves the user of liability for any violations occurring
before or after receipt of the Notice of Violation. Nothing in this section shall limit the
authority of [ the Superintendent] to take any action, including emergency actions or any other
enforcement action, without first issuing a Notice of Violation.
-34-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDNANCE (JUNE 1992)
10.2 Consent Orders
[ The Superintendent] may enter into Consent Orders, assurances of voluntary compliance,
or other similar documents establishing an agreement with any user responsible for
noncompliance. Such documents will include specific action to be taken by the user to correct
the noncompliance within a time period specified by the document. Such documents shall have
the same force and effect as the administrative orders issued pursuant to Sections 10.4 and 10.5
of this ordinance and shall be judicially enforceable.
10.3 Show Cause Hearing
[ The Superintendent] may order a user which has violated, or continues to violate, any
provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any
other pretreatment standard or requirement, to appear before [ the Superintendent] and show
cause why the proposed enforcement action should not be taken. Notice shall be served on the
user specifying the time and place for the meeting, the proposed enforcement action, the reasons
for such action, and a request that the user show cause why the proposed enforcement action
should not be taken. The notice of the meeting shall be served personally or by registered or
certified mail (return receipt requested) at least I ( )] days prior to the hearing. Such
notice may be served on any authorized representative of the user. A show cause hearing shall
not be a bar against, or prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user.
10.4 Compliance Orders
When [ the Superintendent) finds that a user has violated, or continues to violate, any
provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any
other pre eatment standard or requirement, [ the Superintendent) may issue an order to the user
responsible for the discharge directing that the user come into compliance within a specified
time. If the user does not come into compliance within the time provided, sewer service may
be discontinued unless adequate treatment facilities, devices, or other related appurtenances are
installed and properly operated. Compliance orders also may contain other requirements to
address the noncompliance, including additional self-monitoring and management practices
designed to minimize the amount of pollutants discharged to the sewer. A compliance order may
-35-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
not extend the deadline for compliance established for a pretreatment standard or requirement,
nor does a compliance order relieve the user of liability for any violation, including any
continuing violation. Issuance of a compliance order shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite
for, taking any other action against the user.
10.5 Cease and Desist Ordez
When [ the Superintendent) finds that a user has violated, or continues to violate, any
provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any
other pretreatment standard or requirement, or that the user’s past violations are likely to recur,
[ the Superintendent] may issue an order to the user directing it to cease and desist all such
violations and directing the user to:
A. Immediately comply with all requirements; and
B. Take such appropriate remedial or preventive action as may be needed to properly
address a continuing or threatened violation, including halting operations and/or
terminating the discharge.
Issuance of a cease and desist order shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any
other action against the user.
10.6 Adminictratlve flnes
(Note: The municipality thould consult State law to determine whether it has the legal
authority to impose admbthirative penoisies.J
A. When (the Superintendent] finds that a user has violated, or continues to violate,
any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued
hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, [ the Superintendent)
may fine such user in an amount not to exceed [ Insert maximum fine allowed under
StateLawJ. Suchflnesshallbeassessedonaperviolation,perdaybasis. Inthe
case of monthly or other long term average discharge limits, fines shall be assessed
for each day during the period of violation.
B. Unpaid charges, fines, and penalties shall, after I (___)J calendar days, be
assessed an additional penalty of 1 percent ( %)] of the unpaid balance,
and interest shall accrue thereafter at a rate of 1 percent ( %)] per month.
-36-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JIJNE 1992)
A lien against the user’s property will be sought for unpaid charges, fines, and
—ties.
C. Users desiring to dispute such fines must file a written request for [ the
Superintendent) to reconsider the fine along with full payment of the fine amount
within [ ( )) days of being notified of the fine. Where a request has merit,
[ the Superintendent] may convene a hearing on the matter. In the event the user’s
appeal is successful, the payment, together with any interest accruing thereto, shall
be returned to the user. [ The Superintendent) may add the costs of preparing
administrative enforcement actions, such as notices and orders, to the fine.
D. Issuance of an administrative fine shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for,
taking any other action against the user.
10.7 Emergency Suspensions
[ The Superintendent] may immediately suspend a user’s discharge, after informal notice
to the user, whenever such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge
which reasonably appears to present or cause an imminent or substantial endangerment to the
health or welfare of persons. [ The Superintendent] may also immediately suspend a user’s
discharge, after notice and opportunity to respond, that threatens to interfere with the operation
of the POTW, or which presents, or may present, an endangerment to the environment.
A. Any user notified of a suspension of its discharge shall immediately stop or eliminate
its contribution. In the event of a user’s failure to immediately comply voluntarily
with the suspension order, [ the Superintendent) may take such steps as deemed
necessary, including immediate severance of the sewer connection, to prevent or
minimize damage to the POTW, its receiving stream, or endangerment to any
individuals. (The Superintendent] may allow the user to recommence its discharge
when the user has demonstrated to the satisfaction of [ the Superintendent] that the
period of endangerment has passed, unless the termination proceedings in Section
10.8 of this ordinance are initiated against the user.
B. A user that is responsible, in whole or in part, for any discharge presenting imminent
endangerment shall submit a detailed written statement, describing the causes of the
harmful conthbution and the measures taken to prevent any future occurrence, to [ the
Superintendent] prior to the date of any show cause or termination hearing under
Sections 10.3 or 10.8 of this ordinance.
-37-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDThIANCE (JUNE 1992)
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as requiring a hearing prior to any emergency
suspension under this section.
10.8 Tervnin tlon of Discharge
In addition to the provisions in Section 5.6 of this ordinance, any user who violates the
following conditions is subject to discharge termination:
A. Violation of wastewater discharge permit conditions;
B. Failure to accurately report the wastewater constituents and characteristics of its
discharge;
C. Failure to report significant changes in operations or wastewater volume, constituents,
and characteristics prior to discharge;
D. Refusal of reasonable access to the user’s premises for the purpose of inspection,
monitoring, or sampling; or
E. Violation of the pretreatment standards in Section 2 of this ordinance.
Such user will be notified of the proposed termination of its discharge and be offered an
opportunity to show cause under Section 10.3 of this ordinance why the proposed action should
not be taken. Exercise of this option by [ the Superintendent] shall not be a bar to, or a
prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user.
SECTION 11- JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES
11.1 Injunctive Rallef
When [ the Superintendent] finds that a user has violated, or continues to violate, any
provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any
other pretreatment standard or requirement, [ the Superintendent] may petition the [ insert name
of appropriate Court] through [ the City’s] Attorney for the issuance of a temporary or
permanent injunction, as appropriate, which restrains or compels the specific performance of the
wastewater discharge permit, order, or other requirement imposed by this ordinance on activities
of the user. [ The Superintendent] may also seek such other action as is appropriate for legal
-38-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
and/or equitable relief, including a requirement for the user to conduct environmental
remediation. A petition for injunctive relief shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for,
taking any other action against a user.
11.2 CivIl Penalties
(Note: The municipality mu have the minimum authority to seek civil or criminal
penalties us the wnou,U of at leasl $1,000 per day per violation.)
A. A user who has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this ordinance, a
wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment
standard or requirement shall be liable to [ the City] for a maximum civil penalty of
[ Insert maximum allowed under State law but not less than $1,000] per violation,
per day. In the case of a monthly or other long-term average discharge limit,
penalties shall accrue for each day during the period of the violation.
B. (The Superintendent] may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, and other
expenses associated with enforcement activities, including sampling and monitoring
expenses, and the cost of any actual damages incurred by (the City].
C. In determining the amount of civil liability, the Court shall take into account all
relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the extent of harm caused by
the violation, the magnitude and duration of the violation, any economic benefit
gained through the user’s violation, corrective actions by the user, the compliance
history of the user, and any other factor as justice requires.
D. Filing a suit for civil penalties shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking
any other action against a user.
11.3 Crimin I Prosecution
(Note: The municipality should enact all criminal authorities authorized under State
law.)
A. A user who willfully or negligently violates any provision of this ordinance, a
wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment
standard or requirement shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by a fine of not more than (insert maximum fine allowed under State
law] per violation, per day, or imprisonment for not more than F ( )]
years, or both.
-39-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDU 4ANCE (JUNE 1992)
B. A user who willfully or negligently introduces any substance into the POTW which
causes personal injury or property damage shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a
(misdemeanor] and be subject to a penalty of at least [ Insert maximum fine
allowable under State law], or be subject to imprisonment for not more than
____ __)]years, orboth. This penalty shall be in addition to any other cause
of action for personal injury or property damage available under State law.
C. A user who knowingly makes any false statements, representations, or certifications
in any application, record, report, plan, or other documentation filed, or required to
be maintained, pursuant to this ordinance, wastewaler discharge permit, or order
issued hereunder, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any
monitoring device or method required under this ordinance shall, upon conviction,
be punished by a fine of not more than [ Insert maximum fine allowable under State
law] per violation, per day, or imprisonment for not more than I ( )1
years, or both.
D. In the event of a second conviction, a user shall be punished by a fine of not more
than (Insert maximum fine allowable under State law] per violation, per day, or
imprisonment for not more than F ( )J years, or both.
11.4 Remedies Nonexciusive
The remedies provided for in this ordinance are not exclusive. (The Superintendent] may
take any, all, or any combination of these actions against a noncompliant user. Enforcement of
pretreatment violations will generally be in accordance with (the City’s] enforcement response
plan. However, [ the Superintendent] may take other action against any user when the
circumstances warrant. Further, [ the Superintendent] is empowered to take more than one
enforcement action against any noncompliant user.
SECTION 12- SUPPLEMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION
12.1 Perform2nce Bonds (Optional]
[ The Superintendent] may decline to issue or reissue a wastewater discharge permit to any
user who has failed to comply with any provision of this ordinance, a previous wastewater
discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement,
unless such user first files a satisfactory bond, payable to [ the City], in a sum not to exceed a
value determined by [ the Superintendent] to be necessary to achieve consistent compliance.
-40-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
j IJ hllIty Insurance [ Optional]
[ The Superintendent) may decline to issue or reissue a wastewater discharge permit to any
user who has failed to comply with any provision of this ordinance, a previous wastewater
discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement,
unless the user first submits proof that it has obtained financial assurances sufficient to restore
or repair damage to the POTW caused by its discharge.
12.3 Water Supply Severance [ Optional]
Whenever a user has violated or continues to violate any provision of this ordinance, a
wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or
requirement, water service to the user may be severed. Service will only recommence, at the
user’s expense, after it has satisfactorily demonstrated its ability to comply.
12.4 Public Nuisances [ Optionall
A violation of any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit, or order
issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement is hereby declared a public
nuisance and shall be corrected or abated as directed by [ the Superintendent). Any person(s)
creating a public nuisance shall be subject to the provisions of [ the City Code) [ Insert proper
citation] governing such nuisances, including reimbursing [ the City] for any costs incurred in
removing, abating, or remedying said nuisance.
12.5 Informant Rewards [ Optional]
[ The Superintendent) may pay up to F dollars (S )) for information leading to
the discovery of noncompliance by a user. In the event that the information provided results in
a civil penalty [ or an administrative fine) levied against the user, [ the Superintendent] may
disperse up to 1 percent (___%)) of the collected fine or penalty to the informant.
However, a single reward payment may not exceed 1 dollars (S )].
-41-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
12.6 Contractor Listing [ Optional]
Users which have not achieved compliance with applicable pretreatment standards and
requirements are not eligible to receive a contractual award for the sale of goods or services to
[ the City]. Existing contracts for the sale of goods or services to [ the City] held by a user
found to be in significant noncompliance with pretreatment standards or requirements may be
terminated at the discretion of [ the Superintendent].
SECTION 13- AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS
(Note: AWiough Federal law allows the affinnative defenses set out in this Section, some
Approved States do not allow for one or mole of th. affirmative defenses listed belowj
13.1 Upset
A. For the purposes of this section, ‘upset” means an exceptional incident in which
there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with categorical pretreatment
standards because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the user. An upset
does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly
designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
B. An upset shall constitute an affirmative defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standards if the requirements of
paragraph (C), below, are met.
C. A user who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate,
through pivperly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence
that:
(1) An upset occurred and the user can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
(2) The facility was at the time being operated in a prudent and workman-like
manner and in compliance with applicable operation and maintenance
procedures; and
(3) The user has submitted the following information to [ the Superintendent]
within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of the upset (If this
information Lc provided orally, a written submkclon must be provided
within five (5) days]:
(a) A description of the indirect discharge and cause of noncompliance;
-42-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
(b) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times or, if not
corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue;
and
(c) Steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
recurrence of the noncompliance.
D. In any enforcement proceeding, the user seeking to establish the occurrence of an
upset shall have the burden of proof.
E. Users will have the opportunity for a judicial determination on any claim of upset
only in an enforcement action brought for noncompliance with categorical
pretreatment standards.
F. Users shall control production of all discharges to the extent necessary to maintain
compliance with categorical pretreatment standards upon reduction, loss, or failure
of its treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative method of
treatment is provided. This requirement applies in the situation where, among other
things, the primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost, or fails.
13.2 ProhIbited DLscharge Standards
A user shall have an affirmative defense to an enforcement action brought against it for
noncompliance with the general prohibitions in Section 2.1(A) of this ordinance or the specific
prohibitions in Sections 2. l(B)(3) through [ (_)J of this ordinance if it can prove that it did not
know, or have reason to know, that its discharge, alone or in conjunction with discharges from
other sources, would cause pass through or interference and that either:
A. A local limit exists for each pollutant discharged and the user was in compliance with
each limit directly prior to, and during, the pass through or interference; or
B. No local limit exists, but the discharge did not change substantially in nature or
constituents from the user’s prior discharge when [ the CItyJ was regularly in
compliance with its NPDES permit, and in the case of interference, was in
compliance with applicable sludge use or disposal requirements.
(Note: The references in Section 13.2 should refer only to spec$c prohibitions actually listed
in the ordinance. Also note that, pureuant to 40 CFR Section 403.5(a) (2), the affinnasive
defense outlined in Section 13.2 cannot apply to the specific prohibitions in Sections 2.B(1)
and (2), and (8).J
-43-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDENANCE (JUNE 1992)
13.3 Bypass
A. For the purposes of this section,
(1) ‘Bypass” means the intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of
a user’s treatment facility.
(2) Severe property damage” means substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be
expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not
mean economic loss caused by delays in production.
B. A user may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause pretreatment standards
or requirements to be violated, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provision of
paragraphs (C) and (D) of this section.
C. (1) If a user knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice
to (the Superintendent], at least ten (10) days before the date of the bypass, if
possible.
(2) A user shall submit oral notice to [ the Superintendent] of an unanticipated
bypass that exceeds applicable pretreatment standards within twenty-four (24)
hours from the time it becomes aware of the bypass. A written submission shall
also be provided within five (5) days of the time the user becomes aware of the
bypass. The written submission shall contain a description of the bypass and its
cause; the duration of the bypass, including exact dates and times, and, if the
bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue;
and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the
bypass. (The Superintendent] may waive the written report on a case-by-case
basis if the oral report has been received within twenty-four (24) hours.
D. (1) Bypass is prohibited, and [ the Superintendent] may take an enforcement action
against a user for a bypass, unless
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage;
(b) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of
auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance
during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not
satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the
exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive
maintenance; and
-44-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE (JUNE 1992)
(C) The user submitted notices as required under paragraph (C) of this section.
(2) (The Superintendent] may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its
adverse effects, if [ the Superintendent] determines that it will meet the three
conditions listed in paragraph (D)(l) of this section.
SECTION 14- WASTEWATER TREATMENT RATES
[ RESERVED)
SECTION 15- MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
15.1 Pretreatment Charges and Fees [ Optional]
[ The City) may adopt reasonable fees for reimbursement of costs of setting up and
operating [ the City’s) Pretreatment Program which may include:
A. Fees for wastewater discharge permit applications including the cost of processing
such applications;
B. Fees for monitoring, inspection, and surveillance procedures including the cost of
collection and analyzing a user’s discharge, and reviewing monitoring reports
submitted by users;
C. Fees for reviewing and responding to accidental discharge procedures and
construction;
D. Fees for filing appeals; and
E. Other fees as [ the City] may deem necessary to carry out the requirements contained
herein. These fees relate solely to the matters covered by this ordinance and are
separate from all other fees, fines, and penalties chargeable by [ the City).
15.2 Severability (Optional]
If any provision of this ordinance is invalidated by any court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions shall not be effected and shall continue in full force and effect.
-45-
-------
EPA MODEL PRETREATMENT ORDNANCE (JUNE 1992)
SECTION 16- EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately following its passage, approval,
and publication, as provided by law.
-46-
-------
Unitid Statsi Otfc. of Water EPA 833-8-92.001
Envvvnm.ntal Prcte on (EPI-336) July 1992
Agincy
EPA NPDES Storm Water
Sampling Guidance
Document
-------
tO 9r
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4 t
JUL 2 1 !992
OFF iCE OF
MEMORANDUM WATER
SUBJECT: Clarification of “Instantaneous Maximum” as Applied to Steam Electric Facilities
Effluent Limitations
FROM: ç c thia C. Dougherty, Director
Permits Division
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance has received several inquiries
about the most correct implementation of the Steam Electric Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
particularly with respect to the discharge limitations placed on once through cooling water.
The following guidance provides clarification on how the Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)
effluent limitation for steam electric facilities (40 CFR 423.13) is to be applied as an
instantaneous maximum. This term refers to a value never to be exceeded at any time. In the
effluent limitations guideline for the steam electric category (40 CFR 423) the term “maximum
concentration” is used to describe a limitation not to be exceeded at any time, the terms
“maximum concentration” and “instantaneous maximum” are intended to mean the same thing
in this instance. Throughout the history of this effluent limitation guideline (see early
preamble language at 39 FR 36185) the chlorine limitation has been distinguished from a
maximum daily discharge or other limitation based on the average of results from sequential
sampling of an effluent. The effluent limitations guideline 0.2 mg/l value was given in terms
of “maximum concentration”, which is distinct from NPDES Part 122.2 regulations defining
maximum daily discharge and (average] daily discharge. The Fall 1980 Proposed Effluent
Guidelines Rulemaking publication states the proposed BAT limitation for once through
cooling water would be a TRC value “not to be exceeded at any time”. Handouts, summary
papers, and briefing notes for Steam Electric Permit Writers Workshops differentiate between
a maximum daily discharge and an “instantaneous maximum”.
In contrast to the term “maximum concentration”, the effluent limitations guidelines
term “average concentration’, as it applies to chlorine discharges, means the average of
analyses made over a single period of chlorination, not to exceed two hours (40 CFR 423.11).
This provides further weight to Permits Division’s position that the “maximum concentration”
as applied to TRC is an “instantaneous maximum” limit, not to be exceeded at any time. This
would apply both to effluents sampled by grab and those continuously monitored using in-
stream probes.
r,nteaor Q 4 .. • ...
-------
-2-
Permits DMsion is currently in the process of developing a contemporary guidance
for steam electric and cooling water discharge permitting issues. While this guidance
document is developed, please direct your questions and issues to Brad Mahanes of the
Permits DMsion at (202) 260-1056.
-------
tO 914%
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
j WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4( p,IØ #’
AWI4 OFFICEOF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarifications Regarding Certain Aspects of EPA’s
Surface Water Toxics Contr94 Re t4.qns
PROM: P Michael B. Cook, Director 5 ) ’ ’
-r Office of Wastewater Enfo 9 ment And Compliance
Robert H. Wayland, III, Director j
Off ice of Wetlands, Oceans and WátershedsJ
TO: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I—X
Attached is a set of clarifications relating to five issues
associated with EPA’S Surface Water Toxics Control Regulations.
Each clarification concerns aspects of EPA’s regulations relating
to section 304(1) and water quality-based effluent limitations.
These clarifications are being issued by EPA in connection
with negotiations between EPA and petitioners in the case of
American Paoer Institute v. EPA (No. 89-1499), which is pending
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In return,
petitioners have agreed not to brief the issues that are subject
to these clarifications in the aforementioned case.
Your offices should refer to these clarifications when
applying the regulations to which they correspond. We also ask
that you distribute these clarifications to the States within
your respective regions.
cc: Regional Counsel Water Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Prwed
-------
CLARIFICATIONS
1. L L : The definition of whole effluent toxicity in 40
C.F.R. S 122.2.
CLARIFICATION :
EPA defined whole effluent toxicity in 40 C.F.R. S 122.2 as
the “aggregate toxic effect of an effluent measured directly by a
toxicity test.” The petitioners were concerned that this
definition, in conjunction with the requirement in 40 C.F.R. S
122.44(d) (1) (iv) and (v) that states implement narrative criteria
by imposing limits on whole effluent toxicity, could be read
expansively to require states to impose whole effluent toxicity
limits prohibiting discharges which evoke any response in test
organisms, no matter how slight, as measured by toxicity tests.
The petitioners stated that such an interpretation could deprive
a state of the authority to define what it considers to be
acceptable levels of toxicity in a discharger’s effluent
consistent with applicable water quality standards. EPA does not
interpret the definition of whole effluent toxicity in section
122.2, or the requirements of section 122.44(d) (1) (iv) and ( V) 1
as imposing any substantive water quality standard for what
constitutes an acceptable level of whole effluent toxicity.
Rather, these sections indicate when the permitting authority
must establish permit limits on whole effluent toxicity for
purposes of achieving water quality standards (either numeric or
narrative water quality criteria).
2. ISSUE : The enforceability of limitations based upon
single toxicity test results, as discussed at 54 Fed. Reg.
23,871.
CLARIFICATION :
In the preamble to the final rule, at 54 Fed. Reg. 23,871,
EPA stated that:
A limit on whole effluent toxicity refers to a numeric
effluent limitation expressed in terms such as toxic units,
no observed effect level (NOEL), LC 50, or percent
mortality. Effluent limitations may be expressed as chronic
toxicity or acute toxicity (or both). Regardless of how the
numeric limitations for whole effluent toxicity are
expressed, any single violation of an effluent limit is a
violation of the NPDES permit and is subject to the full
range of state and Federal enforcement actions.
EPA interprets this paragraph and existing regulations to
provide that violation of an effluent limit for whole effluent
toxicity is enforceable, whether that limit is expressed in terms
of a numeric effluent limit or, where setting a numeric effluent
1
-------
limit is infeasible, best management practices.’ (For example,
some storm water discharges have volumes and pollutant
concentrations that fluctuate wildly with storm events, making it
difficult to document resulting water quality impacts.) The
preamble statement does not address the issue of how permit
limits may be derived. For example, when used appropriately,
permit limits may include averages ( e.g. , monthly averages) which
may be exceeded by an individual measurement so long as the
average of the individual measurements is not above the limit and
any applicable daily maximum is complied with. Permit limits,
however expressed, must be designed to protect water quality
standards.
3. ISSUE : The requirement for limitations on all pollutants
and the use of indicators, as set forth at 40 C.F.R. §
122.44(d) (1.) (i)
CLARIFICATION :
40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d) (1) (i) requires that permits contain
effluent limitations to control pollutants that “are or may be”
discharged at levels having the Itreasonable potential to cause,
or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality
standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality.”
EPA did not intend to require water quality-based permit
limitations on all pollutants contained in a discharge through
the promulgation of the June 2, 1989 regulation; nor do we
believe that the regulation has that effect. The proper
interpretation of the regulations is that developing water
quality-based limitations is a step—by—step process. First, the
permitting authority must evaluate all available information to
determine at what level pollutants are expected to exist in the
current discharge. This determination is governed by 40 C.F.R. S
122.44(d)(l)(ii). The goal of this step is to estimate the
levels of pollutants in the effluent as discharged at the time of
permit application, or with any projected increases in the
discharge.
Under 40 C.F.R. S 122.44(d) (1) (ii), the permitting authority
must take into account the likely variability of the pollutant in
the effluent, other current discharges (from both point and non-
point sources as well as natural background), and (where
appropriate) dilution. At the end of this step the permitting
authority will have estimated an in-stream level of the pollutant
(or pollutant parameter) of concern that has the reasonable
potential to occur as a result of the discharge. (Most of this
The technological or economic feasibility of a
discharger meeting numeric limitations is not relevant to this
determination.
2
-------
step may have already been completed as a part of the total
maximum daily load and wasteload allocation calculation.) If the
estimated in—stream levels (which may occur, but will not
necessarily occur) would exceed any applicable water quality
criterion, including the narrative criteria, then the permitting
authority must go to the next step and establish a water quality-
based limit in accordance with paragraphs 122.44(d) (1) (iii)-(Vi).
EPA does not interpret section 122.44(d) (1) (i) as requiring
that permits contain water quality-based limitations on every
pollutant that may be present in a given effluent. Rather, water
quality—based limits are established where the permitting
authority reasonably anticipates the discharge of pollutants by
the permittee at levels that have the reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to an excursion above any state water quality
criterion, including state narrative criteria for water quality.
40 C.F.R. S 122.44(d)(1)(i). The permitting authority should
evaluate the reasonable potential for an excursion above a water
quality criterion in light of the character of the effluent as
discharged.
4. ISSUE : The use of a state policy or regulation
interpreting state narrative water quality criteria, as set
forth at 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d) (1) (vi) (A).
CLARIFICATION :
The final rule provides that a permitting authority must
establish permit limits using one or more of several options
whenever a specific chemical for which the state has not
established a water quality criterion is present in an effluent
at a concentration that causes, has the reasonable potential to
cause, or contributes to an excursion above a state narrative
criterion. 40 C.F.R. S 122.44(d)(l)(vi). The rule then
prescribes several options for establishing permit limitations,
including “explicit State policy or regulation interpreting (the
State’s) narrative water quality criterion . . . .“ 54 Fed. Reg.
at 23,896, codified at 40 C.F.R. S 122.44(d) (1) (vi) (A)’.
EPA interprets section 122.44(d) (1) (vi) as requiring permit
writers to use a formally adopted state regulation or policy
(including any state waste load allocation approved by EPA or
established by EPA using formally-adopted state regulations or
polices, where available) for deriving a chemical—specific
numeric water quality-based effluent limitation from an
applicable narrative standard in lieu of the other options for
interpreting a narrative standard set forth in that section, if
such a formally-adopted state regulation or policy exists. SUCh
a regulation or policy would typically be part of either a
state’s water quality standards or total maximum daily load for
the water body in question, and would be subject to EPA approval
or disapproval in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 130 or 131. If
3
-------
the state had not formally adopted a state regulation or policy
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Parts 130 or 132., or if it has not been
approved as part of the state PDES program, the permit writer
must develop limits, using any one of the options set forth in
section 122.44(d)(1)(vi). Some of the industry petitioners in
American PaDer Institute v. U.S. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 89—1499) and
consolidated cases do not agree that a formally adopted state
regulation or policy must be subject to EPA approval or
disapproval before permit writers would be required to use the
policy in developing limits. EPA expects this issue to be
litigated in the permit context.
When a permit writer interprets a narrative standard, the
method of interpretation used will be available for public
comment as a part of the permit and typically may be appealed
through administrative and judicial procedures available for
review of NPDES permit conditions.
5. ISSUE : The standards for listing waters on the list of
Clean Water Act (“CWA”) section 304(1) (1) (B), 33 U.S.C. S
1314(1) (1) (B), as set out at 40 C.F.R. S 130.10(d) (5.
CLARIFICATION :
Section 304(1) (1) (B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. S 1314(1) (1) (8),
provides that the state should list waters where an applicable
water quality standard is exceeded “due entirely or
substantially” to point sources. EPA’S final rule requires
listing of a water under section 304(1) (1) (B) where (1) water
quality—based limits on one or more point sources would result in
the water quality standard for a toxic pollutant being achieved,
or (2) discharges from one or more point sources would be
sufficient to cause or are expected to cause an exceedence of the
water quality standard for a toxic pollutant, regardless of any
contribution of the same pollutant from nonpoint sources. 54
Fed. Req. at 23,897, codified at 40 C.F.R. S 130.10(d) (5).
The conditions in 40 C.F.R. S 130.10(d) (5) govern only the
determination of whether or not a given water should be listed
under section 304(l)(l)(B). Section 130.10 (d)(5) does not
dictate the limitations to be included in an individual control
strategy (“ICS”). ICSS may be developed in light of permit
limits and nonpoint source requirements established through the
total maximum daily load (“TMDL”) process. The TMDL is a
quantification of the capacity of a waterbody to assimilate
pollutants based on the applicable water quality standard. The
TMDL consists of the sum of wasteload allocations for point
sources, load allocations for nonpoint sources, and natural
background, with a margin of safety to account for uncertainty.
Subject to EPA approval, if a state determines that reductions in
the discharge of pollutants from a point source would be
inequitable or prohibitively expensive, the state may adopt a
4
-------
TMDL 1 for achieving the water quality standards which relies in
whole or in part upon control requirements on nonpoint sources.
See 40 C.F.R. Section 130.7
5
-------
PA
Offica Of Water
(4204)
EPA 832•R-92•006
September 1992
Unfled States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Storm Water Management
For Industrial ActMties
Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans
And Best Management
Practices
P inted on Rec d Paper
w w w
— —
I I _
-------
United Slates Office Of Water EPA 832.R•92•oos
Environmental Protection (WH.547) Ssptsmor ¶992
Agency
EPA Stomi Water Management
For Constiuction Activities
Developing
Pollution Prevention Plans
And Best Management
Practices
w w w
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC1ION AGENCY
WA$IIINGTON, D.C. 20460
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
O1M Street, SW.
• Washington, D.C 20460
Q CF
Fact Sheet on the WATER
Ninth Circuit Opinion on
the Storm Water Regulations
NiNTH ci curr OPINTONS :
On May 27 and June 4, 1992. the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued two
opinions generally affirming EPA’s November 16. 1990 storm water appfr2tión regulations.
American Minim Coniresa V. , 965 F.2d 759(9th Cir. 1992) ( “AMC’):Naniral Resources Defense Council
v. EPA . 966 F.2d 1292(9th dr. 1992 (“NRDC’).
A FIRMATiONOF THE STORM WATER PROGRAM :
1 m Court in “NRDC”generally affirmed the direction and substance of Agency’s storm water program.
Specifically, the Ninth Circuit upheld EPA’S definmonot muructpahseperaze storm sewer system”, the standards
for municipal storm water controls, the scope of the permit exemption for oil and g p.eranons. and EP
decision not to provide public comment on Part I group industrial permit applications. In “AMC’,the Court
upheld EPA’s regulation of storm water discharges from inactive mines.
All other aapecta of the municipal and industrial scorns water regulations were unchallenged and
unaffected by the Court’s opinions
DEADLINES :
The Court in “NRDC’dedared EPA’s extension of the stacutosy deadlines for storm water applic 1 anon
to be unlawful, but it dedined to strike down the deadline extensions. The Ninth Circuit, l ver, expressly
noted that EPA has no authority to extend permit application deadlines further.
REMANTh
The Court in “NRDC also invalidated and remanded for further proceedings two exemptions from the
definition of storm water discharges “associated with ndustnal activity”: 1) the exemption of construction sues
smaller than S au , and 2) the exemption of certain iight”industnes whose industrial activities are not exposed
to rain water.
In t H)nse to the Courts two remands. the Agency intends to conduct further rulemabig proceedings
on construction activities under S acres and light indusuy without exposure . EPA will not require pernu
applications for cor uctionactivIties disturbing less than S acres or for light induactywithoutexposure until thu
further rulemalung is completed.
If you have questions. pleate call the EPA Storm Water Hotime at (703) 821-4821
Pniva i ii1 SEP 3
v H jlq, 4 4tj\ - —
Micha l ook. Diré tor Date
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Printea : -—
-------
Offc. f Waler
(EN•336)
EPA a33-R•92 cc ’
Oc ooer 1992
&EPA
Storm Water Management
For Constrt on Activities
Developing
Pollulion Preven on Plans
And Best Management
Praclices
SUMMARY GUODANCE
* 1992 *
THE, YEAR CF
QIAN WATER
-
Un sd Slates
Envu’onmentai Pr eacri
Ag.nCY
-------
FOREWORD
This booklet provides summary guidance on the development of storm water pollution
prevention plans and identification of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for for
construction activities. It provides technical assistance and support for construction activities
subiect to pollution prevention requirements established under National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits for storm water point source discharges.
EPA’s storm water program significantly expands the scope and application of the existing
NPDES permit system for municipal and industrial process wastewater discharges. It
emphasizes pollution prevention and reflects a heavy reliance on BMPs to reduce pollutant
loadings and improve water quality. This booklet provides summary guidance in both of these
areas.
The document summarized here was issued in support of EPA regulations and policy initiatives
involving the development and implementation of a National storm water program. The
document is Agency guidance only. It does not establish or affect legal rights or obligations.
Agency decisions in any particular case will be made applying the laws and regulations on the
basis of specific facts when permits are issued or regulations promulgated.
The document and this booklet will be revised and expanded periodically to reflect additional
pollution prevention information and data on treatment effectiveness of BMPs. Comments
from users will be welcomed. Send comments to U.S. EPA. Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance, 401 M Street, SW, Mail Code EN-336, Washington. DC
20460.
-------
Construction Guidance Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Overview of Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements
Figure -- Six Phases for Developing and Implementing
Construction Storm Water Pollution Preventions Plans . 2
Evaluation and Design Development Phase
Collecting Site Information
Develop Site Plan Design
Describe Construction Activity
Prepare Pollution Prevention Site Map
Assessment Phase 5
(A) Measure the Site Area 5
(B) Determine the Drainage Areas . 5
(C) Calculate the Runoff Coefficient 5
Table 1. Typical “C” Values 6
7
7
7
8
9
9
9
10
10
• 11
• 11
11
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
Site
(A)
(B)
(C)
CD)
3
3
3
4
4
Control Selection/Plan Design Phase
(A) Review and Incorporate State and Local Requirements
(B) Select Erosion and Sediment Controls
(C) Select Other Controls
CD) Select Storm Water Management Controls
(E) Indicate the Location of Controls on the Site Map
(F) Prepare an Inspection and Maintenance Plan
(G) Prepare a Description of Controls
(H) Prepare a Sequence of Major Activities
Certification and Notification Phase
(A) Certify the Pollution Prevention Plan
(B) Submit a Notice of Intent
Construction/Implementation Phase
(A) Implement Controls
(B) Inspect and Maintain Controls
(C) Maintain Records of Construction Activities
CD) Update/Change the Plan
CE) Report Releases of Reportable Quantities .
(F) Provide for Plan Location and Access . . .
Final Stabilization/Termination Phase
16
-------
Construction Guidance Executive Summary
Table of Contents (Continued)
Other References 1 7
Construction General Permit Requirements Preconstruction Checklist 18
Construction/lm plementation Checklist 19
Final Stabilization/Termination Checklist 20
Erosion and Sediment Control Selection Checklist 21
Model Plan 22
-------
A BRIEF GUIDE TO REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Storm water runoff is part of the natural hydrologic cycle However, human activities, particularly
urbanization, can alter natural drainage patterns and add pollutants to the rainwater and snowmelt that run
off the earth’s surface and enter our Nation’s rivers, lakes, streams, and coastal waters In fact, recent
studies have shown that storm water runoff is a major source of pollutants impairing our sport and
commercial fisheries, restricting swimming, and affecting the navigability of many of our Nation’s waters
Recognizing the importance of this problem. Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to develop a Federal program under the Clean Water Act to regulate certain high priority storm water
sources. The issuance of storm water discharge permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES iS a ma,or part of the Agency’s efforts to restore and maintain the Nation’s water quality
Discharges of storm water runoff from construction sites which disturb 5 or more acres of land must now
be covered by an NPDES permit. To deal with the thousands of construction projects which are now
required to be covered by storm water permits, EPA strongly encourages the use of general permits.
Under the NPDES program, a general permit authorizes discharges from a number of sources, To
specifically address storm water discharges from Construction sites located in the States and territories
that have not been delegated NPDES permitting authority. EPA issued NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges from Construction Sites in the September 9 and September 25. 1 992, Federal Register
(A complete list of these States and territories to which EPA’s permits apply may be found on page 17 of
this document
The purpose of this document is to describe the steps which must be completed in order for a construction
site to comply with the pollution prevention plan requirements contained in EPA’s general permits A
detailed manual on how to develop and implement your pollution prevention plan is available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS). The manual, titled Storm Water Management for
Construction Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and 8est Management Practices, provides
much more specific information than this brief guide. Instructions for ordering the detailed manual and a
listing of other references that you may find useful can be found on page 1 7 of this guide. It is important
to note that permit requirements will vary from State to State and permit to permit; therefore, you should
read your permit carefully
OVERVIEW OF POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Under the NPDES General Permits for Storm Water Discharges From Construction Sites, EPA requires the
development and implementation of a pollution prevention plan. A pollution prevention plan for
construction is designed to reduce pollution at the construction site, before it can cause environmental
problems. Many of the practices and measures required for the pollution prevention plan represent
standard operating procedure at many construction sites Storm water management controls, erosion and
sediment controls, inspection and maintenance have all been used at a number of Construction projects.
This guide is organized according to the phases of the pollution prevention planning and implementation
process. A set of checklists and a model plan at the end of the document are provided to further clarify
requirements. As shown on the chart on the following page, pollution prevention planning requirements
have been organized to provide you with a stepby-step process for ensuring that pollutants are not making
their way into the storm water discharges from your site. The six major phases of the process are (1) site
evaluation and design development, (2) assessment, (3) control selection and plan design, (4) certification
and notification, (5) construction/implementation, and (6) final stabilization/termination. In addition, all
permit holders must meet a number of general requirements.
October 1992 Page 1
-------
srTE EVALUATiON AND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
• Collect site information
• Develop site alan design
• Prepare pollution prevention site map
ASSESSMENT
• Measure the site area
• Determine the drainage areas
• Calculate the runoff coefficient
CONTROL SELEC11ONIPLAN DESIGN
• Review and incorporate State or local requirements
• Select erosion and sediment controls
• Select other controls
• Select storm water management controls
• Indicate the location of controls on the Site map
• Prepars an inspection and maintenance plan
• Coordinate controls with construction activity
• Prepare sequence of major activities
f
CERTiFiCATiON AND NOTIFICATION
• Certify the plan
• Submit Notice of Intent
• Plan location and public access
II
CONSTRUCTIONI1MPLEMENTA11ON
• Implement controls
• Inspect and maintain controls
• Update/change the plan
• Report releases of reportable quantities
$
FiNAL. STABIUZAflONITERMINA110N
• Final stabilization
:
SIX PHASES FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING CONSTRUCTION STORM
WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
October 1992 Page 2
-------
SITE EVALUATION AND
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
The first phase in a preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for a Construction project is to
define the characteristics of the site and the type of construction that will be occurring. This phase is
broken down into four requirements. (A) collect site information. (B) develop site design, (C) describe
construction activity, and ID) prepare pollution prevention site map.
(A) Collect Site Information
Prior to design, it is necessary to collect information about the existing conditions at the construction site.
The EPA General Permits require that the Pollution Prevention Plan include the following information.
• Existing soils information —Where information exists which describes the soils at the construction
site, this data must be included in the pollution prevention plan. Soils data may include soil type,
depth of the soil layer, soil texture, infiltration (percolation rate), or whether the soils are
susceptible to erosion Sources of soils information could include soil borings or other
geotechnical investigations Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil surveys may also be used, and
SCS surveys typically indicate whether a soil is erodible.
• Existing runoff water quality — If storm water runoff from the proposed construction site has been
sampled and analyzed for the presence of any pollutant (e.g., total suspended solids), then the
results of the analyses must be included in the pollution prevention plan. In most cases, existing
runoff water quality data are not available for a specific site, particularly an undeveloped site.
However, if the construction site is on or adjacent to an existing industrial facility, that facility may
have collected runoff water quality data to satisfy another permit. If there are no existing data on
the quality of runoff from the site, then it is not necessary to collect or analyze storm water
samples for the Construction General Permit. Runoff water quality data may sometimes be
available from your State or local government. e.g.. the local municipal separate storm sewer
authority. You may also be able to obtain runoff water quality information from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), State, or local watershed protection agencies.
• Location of surface waters on the construction site—If the construction site includes or is adjacent
to surface waters then the location and extent of the surface waters must be determined so that
they may be indicated on the pollution prevention site map. Surface waters include lakes, rivers,
streams (both perennial and intermittent), and wetlands.
• Name of receiving water—Identify the name and location of the body of water, e.g., stream,
creek, run, wetland, river, lake, bay, ocean, that will receive the runoff from the construction site.
If the receiving water is a tributary include the name of the ultimate receiving body of water if
possible. If the site drains into a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, identify the system and
indicate the receiving water to which the system discharges. This information is usually available
from county, State, or USGS maps.
(B) Develop Site Plan Design
Once the information on the existing site conditions is collected, it is possible to develop a site plan design.
In addition to the goals and objectives for the facilities being constructed, the designers should also
consider objectives which will limit the amount of pollution in storm water runoff from the construction
site, such as:
Octobr 1992 Page 3
-------
• Disturb the smallest area possible
• Avoid disturbance of sensitive areas such as
- Steep and/or unstable slopes
• Surface waters, including wetlands
• Areas with soils susceptible to erosion
- Existing drainage channels
• Identify areas to be preserved or left as open space
(C) Describe Construction Activity
In preparing your plan, you must (1) describe the purpose or goal of the construction project (e.g., a single
family residential development, a multistory office building, or a highway interchange) and (2) list the soil
disturbing activities necessary to complete the project. (Soil disturbing activities might include clearing,
excavation and stockpiling, rough grading, final or finish grading, preparation for seeding or planting.
excavation of trenches, demolition. etc.).
(D) Prepare Pollution Prevention Site Map
The final step of the site evaluation and design development phase is to combine the information collected
into a comprehensive pollution prevention site map The starting point for the pollution prevention site
map should be the site plan prepared for the construction design. The map for the Construction site should
be drawn to scale with topography. The scale of the map should be small enough so that you can easily
distinguish important features such as drainage swales and control measures that will be added later. In
addition to the location of surface waters, the following information must be included on the site map:
• Slopes after grading—Indicate what the location and steepness of slopes will be after grading.
• Disturbed areas—Indicate the areas of soil disturbing activities or the total area of the site where
soil will be disturbed. Also draw an outline of areas that will not be disturbed.
• Drainage patterns/discharge points—Indicate the drainage patterns of the site after the major
grading activities and the location of the points where storm water will discharge from the site.
• To illustrate the drainage pattern of the site, use topographic contour lines or arrows to indicate
the direction runoff will flow.
- Show the location of swales or channels. If there is a new or proposed underground storm
drain system on the site, this should be indicated on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
site map as well.
October 1992 Page 4
-------
ASSESSMENT PHASE
Once the characteristics of the site and the construction have been defined, the next phase in
developing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is to measure the size of the land disturbance and
estimate the impact the project will have on storm water runoff from the site based on information
collected in Phase 1 Three things should be done to assess the project: (A) measure the site area. (B)
measure the drainage areas, and (C) calculate the runoff coefficient
(A) Measure the Site Area
The General Permit requires that you indicate in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan estimates of the
total site area and the area that will be disturbed. The total site area estimate must represent the size of
the parcel of property or right of way on which the construction is occurring. The disturbed area estimate
must represent the portion of the total site area which will be disturbed over the course of the Construction
project. These values can be measured from the pollution prevention site map which is drawn to scale.
(B) Determine the Drainage Areas
Although the size of each drainage area for each point where concentrated flow will leave the site is not
required to be included in the pollution prevention plan, this information will help you select and design the
sediment control and storm water management measures for your project in the next phase of the plan.
Drainage areas are portions of the site where runoff will flow in one particular direction or to a particular
discharge point. Use the drainage patterns indicated on the site map to determine the drainage areas.
(C) Calculate the Runoff Coefficient
The General Permit requires that you estimate the runoff coefficient of the site after construction is
comp’ete. The runoff coefficient is an estimate of the fraction of total rainfall that will appear as runoff.
For example, the ucu value of lawn area is 0.2, which indicates that only 20 percent of the water that falls
on grassed areas will end up as surface runoff. In contrast, the c value of a paved area can be 0.9 or
higher, indicating that 90 percent of the rain falling on this type of surface will run off. Runoff coefficients
for Sites with more than one land use are estimated by calculating a weighted average (based upon area) of
the runoff coefficients for each land use. Table 1 lists runoff coefficients for various land uses.
October 1992 Page 5
-------
TABLE 1. TYPICAL “C VALUES (ASCE 1960)
Description of Area
Runoff Coefficients
Business
Downtown Areas
Neighborhood Areas
0.70-0.95
0.50-0.70
Residential
Single-family areas
Multiunits. detached
Multiunits. attached
0.30-0.50
0.40-0.60
0.60-0.75
Residential (suburban)
0.25-0.40
Apartment dwelling areas
0.50-0.70
Industrial
Light Areas
Heavy areas
0.50-0.80
0.60-0.90
Parks, cemeteries
0.10-0.25
Playgrounds
0.20-0.35
Railroad yard areas
0.20-0.40
Unimproved areas
0.10-0.30
Streets
Asphalt
Concrete
Brick
0.700.95
0.80-0.95
0.70-0.85
Drives and walks
0.75-0.85
Roofs
0.75-0.95
Lawns - course textured soil (greater than 85% sand)
Slope: Flat. 2%
Average. 2-7%
Steep. 7%
0.05-0.10
0.10-0.15
0.15-0.20
Lawns - fins textured soil (greater than 40% clay)
Slope: Flat 2%
Averag•. 2-7%
Steep. 7%
0.13-0.17
0.18-0.22
0.25-0.35
Octob., 1992 PIg. 6
-------
j CONTROL SELECTION/PLAN __________________________
I DESIGN PHASE
After you have collected the information and made measurements, the next phase is to design a plan to
prevent and control pollution of storm water runoff from your construction site. To complete the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan. (A) review and incorporate State and local requirements. (B) select
erosion and sediment controls, (C) select other controls, (D) select storm water management controls.
IE) indicate the location of controls in the site map, (F) prepare an inspection and maintenance plan. (G)
prepare a description of controls, and (H) prepare a sequence of major activities. The following
subsections explain how the controls you select should be described in the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan.
(A) Review and Incorporate State and Local Requirements
If the construction site is located in a State or municipality which implements its own separate storm water
management or erosion and sediment control programs, then the pollution prevention plan prepared for
compliance with EPA’s NPDES General Permit must also comply with the State or local requirements.
Therefore, prior to designing the pollution prevention plan, you must first determine what requirements, if
any, exist for sediment and erosion site plans, site permits or storm water management site plans, or site
permits. Where these requirements do exist, then they must be carefully reviewed and incorporated into
the plan design
Consideration of State and local requirements in the plan design phase is necessary because the permit
requires that the permittee provide a certification that the pollution prevention plan reflects the
requirements applicable to protecting surface water resources in sediment and erosion site plans or
permits, or storm water management site plans or site permits approved by State or local officials.
(B) Select Erosion and Sediment Controls
The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must include a description of the measures to be used for
erosion and sediment controls throughout the construction project. These controls include stabilization
measures for disturbed areas and structural controls to divert runoff and remove sediment. Erosion and
sediment controls are implemented during the construction period to prevent and/or control the loss of soil
from the construction site into the receiving waters. Your selection of the most appropriate erosion and
sediment controls depends on a number of factors, but is most dependent on site conditions. The
information collected in the Site evaluation, design and assessment phases is used to select controls.
Some controls are discussed below:
• Stabilization—Under the EPA’s General Permit disturbed areas of the construction site that will not
be redisturbed for 21 days or more must be stabilized by the 14th day after the last disturbance.
Stabilization measures include the following:
— Temporary seeding—Temporary seeding is the planting of fast-growing grasses to hold down
the soils in disturbed areas so that they are less apt to be carried offsite by storm water runoff
or wind.
— Permanent seeding — Permanent seeding is the use of permanent vegetation (grass, trees, or
shrubs) to stabilize the soil by holding soil particles in place.
— Mulching—Mulching is the placement of material such as hay, grass, woodchips, straw, or
gravel on the soil surface to cover and hold in place disturbed soils. (Mulching often
accompanies seeding.)
Octob., 1992 Page 7
-------
The EPA General Permit requires that the pollution prevention plan include structural practices to divert
flows away from disturbed areas, to store flows, or to limit the discharge of pollutants from the site. The
following is a list of some of the practices which may be used.
Structural control measures
- Earth Dike—An earth dike is a mound of stabilized soil which is constructed to divert runoff
Earth dikes may be used to either divert uncontaminated runoff away from disturbed areas or to
divert contaminated runoff into a sediment basin or sediment trap.
— Silt fence—A silt fence is a temporary measure consisting of posts with filter fabric stretched
across the posts and sometimes with a wire support fence. The fence is installed along the
downslope or sideslope perimeter of a disturbed area. Runoff passes through the openings in
the fabric, while sediment is trapped on the uphill side.
- Sediment trap—A sediment trap is formed by excavating a pond or by placing an earthen
embankment across a low area or drainage swale. It has an outlet or spillway made of large
stones or aggregate. The trap retains the runoff long enough to allow the silt to settle out.
— Sediment basin—A sediment basin is a settling pond with a controlled water release structure,
e g., a riser and pipe outlet with a gravel filter, which slows the release of runoff. The basin
detains sediment-laden runoff from larger drainage areas long enough for most of the sediment
to settle out.
The EPA General Permit requires that, where it is attainable, a temporary or permanent sediment basin be
installed in any drainage location where more than 10 acres in the upstream drainage area are disturbed at
one time. The sediment basin must provide at least 3.600 cubic feet of storage for every acre of land
which it drains (flows from upland areas that are undisturbed may be diverted around the basin). For
drainage locations with 10 or fewer disturbed acres, sediment traps, filter fences, or equivalent measures
must be installed along the downhill boundary of the construction site.
(C). Select Other Controls
In addition to erosion and sediment Controls, the Pollution Prevention Plan for your project must address
the other potential pollutant sources that may exist on a construction site. These controls include proper
disposal of construction site waste disposal, compliance with applicable State or local waste disposal.
sanitary sewer or septic system regulations, control of offsite vehicle tracking, and control of allowable
non-storm water discharges, as explained in the following bullets:
• Ensure proper disposal of construction site waste materials.
• Treat or dispose of sanitary wastes that are generated onsite in accordance with State or local
requirements. Contact the local government or State regulatory agency.
• Prevent offsite tracking of sediments and generation of dust. Stabilized construction entrances or
vehicle washing racks should be installed at locations where vehicles leave the site. Where dust
may be a problem, implement dust control measures such as irrigation.
• Identify and prevent contamination of non-storm water discharges. Where non-storm water
discharges allowed by the General Permit exist, they must be identified and steps must be taken to
prevent contamination of these discharges.
Octob.v 1992 Page 8
-------
(D) Select Storm Water Management Controls
Storm water management controls are constructed to prevent or control pollution of storm water after the
construction us completed The General Permit requires that the pollution prevention plan include a
description of the measures that will be installed to control pollutants in storm water after construction us
complete For sites in which the development results in runoff flows that are higher than pre-construction
levels, the pollution prevention plan must include a technical explanation of why a particular storm water
management measure was selected These controls include, but are not limited to, one or more of the
following
• Retention pond—A pond that holds runoff in a reservoir without release except by means of
evaporation, infiltration, or emergency bypass.
• Detention pond—A pond that holds or detains runoff in a basin for a limited time releasing it slowly
to allow most of the sediments to drop out.
• Infiltration measures—Measures that allow the percolation of water though the ground surface unto
subsurface soil Specific measures include infiltration trenches, basins, and dry wells.
• Vegetated swales and natural depressions—Grass-lint d ditches or depressions that transport
runoff, filter sediments from the runoff, and enhance infiltration of the runoff.
Selection of the most appropriate storm water management measures depends upon a number of factors
associated with site conditions. EPA expects that most sites can employ measures to remove 80 percent
of the total suspended solids from post-construction runoff. When you select storm water management
measures for a development project, consider the impacts of these measures on other environmental media
(e g . land, air, and ground water).
In addition to pollutant removal, the storm water management portion of the plan must address velocity
dissipation at discharge locations. Development usually means an increase in speed with which the site
will drain because of the addition of paved areas, storm sewers, curbs, gutters, etc. The General Permit
requires that velocity dissipation devices be placed along the length of any outfall where the discharge
from the developed area may erode the channel. The potential for erosion is primarily dependent upon the
velocity of the storm water discharge and the type of material that lines the channel. One velocity
dissipation device is riprap outlet protection, which is stone or riprap placed at the discharge point to
reduce the speed of concentrated storm water flows.
(E) Indicate the Location of Controls on the Site Map
Pollution prevention measures must be shown on the pollution prevention site map, including the location
of each measure used for erosion and sediment control, storm water management, and other controls.
When this has been done, the site map is ready to be included in the Pollution Prevention Plan. Note: It
may not be feasible to indicate some controls on the site map, e.g., waste control measures.
(F) Prepare an Inspection and Maintenance Plan
After the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is prepared and the necessary controls are installed, you
will be responsible for inspecting and maintaining them. The General Permit requires that you prepare a
description of the procedures to maintain the pollution prevention measures Onsite. An inspection and
maintenance checklist for each of the control measures proposed for the Construction site should be
included in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prior to starting construction.
Octobe , 1992 Peg. 9
-------
(G) Prepare a Description of Controls
Once you have finished planning your construction activities and selected the controls, make a list of each
type of control you plan to use on the site. Include a description of each control, describe its purpose, and
explain why it us appropriate in this location The description should also include specific information about
the control such as size, required materials, and methods of installation/use. - Read your permit carefully to
ensure that your plan includes all of the required controls.
(H) Prepare a Sequence of Major Activities
You must prepare a sequence of major activities that includes the installation of all the controls, earth
disturbing activities, all stabilization activities, and the maintenance required for the controls. The
sequence should clearly indicate the order in which each of the activities described takes place. Several
general principles are helpful in developing the sequence of major activities:
• Install downslope and sideslope perimeter controls before the land disturbing activity occurs.
• Do not disturb an area until it is necessary for construction to proceed.
• Cover or stabilize disturbed areas as soon as possible.
• Time Construction activities to limit impact from seasonal climate changes or weather events.
• Delay construction of infiltration measures until the end of the construction project when upstream
drainage areas have been stabilized.
• Do not remove temporary perimeter controls until after all upstream areas are finally stabilized.
Octobe, 1992 Peg. 10
-------
J CERTIFICATION AND -
L NOTIFICATION PHASE
Once the site description and controls portion of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan have been
prepared, you now must (A) certify the pollution prevention plan and (B) submit a Notice of Intent to
the appropriate agency The checklist provided at the end of this document will be very useful in
evaluating whether all the required items are included in your Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
prior to certifying the plan or submitting a Notice of Intent.
(A) Certify the Pollution Prevention Plan
Once a pollution prevention plan is prepared, the EPA General Permit requires that the plan be certified.
The plan should identify an Authorized representative for each operator to sign the plan. The authorized
representative must be someone at or near the top of the management chain, such as the president, vice
president, or a general partner, who has been delegated the authority to sign and certify this type of
document In signing the plan, the authorized representative certifies that the information is true and
assumes liability for the plan. Note that Section 309 of the Clean Water Act provides for significant
penalties where information is false or the permittee violates, either knowingly or negligently, permit
requirements.
In addition to the party or parties considered to be operators, construction activities often have a number
of different shOrt-term contractors and subcontractors coming onsite during each phase of the project
development. The EPA General Permit requires that the contractors and subcontractors responsible for
implementing measures in the Pollution Prevention Plan be listed in the plan with the measures for which
they are responsible and that they sign a certification statement that they understand the permit
requirements.
(B) Submit a Notice of Intent
The General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity from Construction
Activities requires that you submit a Notice of Intent (NOl) at least 2 days before construction activities
begin. The NOl is essentially an application and contains important information about your site, including
site location, owner information, operator (general contractor) information, receiving water(s), existing
NPDES Permit Number (if any), an indication of existing quantitative data, and a brief description of the
project
EPA has developed a one-page form to be used by industrial facilities and construction activities when they
submit NOls. This form indicates all the information that you are required to provide and must be used in
order for the NOl to be processed correctly. NOIs for the EPA General Permit will be submitted directly to
EPA’s central processing center at the following address:
Storm Water Notice of Intent
P.O. Box 1215
Newington, VA 22122
Each party or each of the parties who have day-to-day responsibilities for site operations, and each party or
each of the parties who have control over the designs and specifications necessary to ensure compliance
with plan requirements and permit conditions, must submit an NOl. It is anticipated that there will be
projects where more than one entity (e.g., the owner, developer, or general contractor) will need to submit
October 1992 Page 11
-------
an NOl so that both of the requirements for an operator are met. In this case, those persons will become
co -permi tteeS.
Deadlines—There are different deadlines for submitting NOls depending on whether the construCt;on
starts before or after October 1. 1 992
• Before October 1. 1992— For construction activities that have started before October 1, 1 992.
and plan to continue bevor%d this date, the NOl must be submitted on or before October 1. 1992.
• After October 1, 1992—If construction will not begin until after October 1. 1992. an NOI must be
postmarked at least 2 days before construction begins.
• The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be completed prior to the submittal of an NOI.
Octob*’ 1992 P. 9 . 12
-------
CONSTRUCTION/
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
Once you have prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and filed a Notice of Intent, you may
start construction of the project as early as 2 days after the NOl is postmarked. However, you have
not yet met all requirements of your permit. You must now do the things that you said you would do
in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (A) implement the controls, (B) inspect and maintain the
controls, (C) maintain records of construction activities, (D update/change the plan to keep it Current.
(E) take proper action when there is a reportable quantity spill, and (F) have plans accessible.
(A) Implement Controls
The first action that should be taken is to construct or perform the controls that were selected for the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The controls should be constructed or applied in accordance with
State or local specifications. If there are no State or local specifications for control measures, then the
controls should be constructed in accordance with good engineering practices. The controls must be
constructed in the order indicated in the sequence of major activities. Stabilization measures must be
applied within the timeframe specified in the permit.
To ensure that controls are adequately implemented, it is important that the work crews who install the
measures are experienced and/or adequately trained, Improperly installed controls can have little or no
effect and may actually increase the pollution of storm water. It is also important that all other workers on
the construction site be made aware of the controls so that they do not inadvertently disturb or remove
them.
(B) Inspect and Maintain Controls
As discussed previously, inspection and maintenance of the protective measures that are part of this plan
are as important to pollution prevention as proper planning, design/selection, and installation.
• Inspection—The EPA General Permit requires inspection every 7 days or within 24 hours of a
storm of 0.5 inches or more in depth. All disturbed areas of the site, areas for material storage,
locations where vehicles enter or exit the site, and all of the erosion and sediment controls that
were identified as part of the plan must be inspected. Controls must be in good operating
condition until the area they protect has been completely stabilized and the Construction activity is
complete.
• Maintenancs/repairs—The inspector must record any damages or deficiencies in the control
measures on an inspection report form provided for this purpose. These reports document the
inspection of the pollution prevention measures. These same forms can be used to request
maintenance and repair and to prove that inspection and maintenance were performed. The
operator should correct damage or deficiencies as soon as practicable after the inspection but in no
case later than 7 days after the inspection. Any changes that may be required to correct
deficiencies in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan should also be made as soon as
practicable after the inspection but in no case later than 7 days after the inspection.
Octob, 1992 Page 13
-------
(C) Maintain Records of Construction Activities
In addition to the inspection and maintenance reports, the operator should keep records of the construction
actlvltV on the site In particular, the operator should keep a record of the following information
• The dates when major grading activities occur in a particular area.
• The dates when construction activities cease in an area, temporarily or permanently
• The dates when an area is stabilized, temporarily or permanently.
These records can be used to make sure that areas where there is no construction activity will be stabilized
within the required timeframe
(D) Update/Change the Plan
For a construction activity to be in full compliance with its NPDES storm water permit, and for the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan to be effective, the plan must accurately reflect site features and
operations. When it does not, the plan must be changed. The plan must also be changed if the operator
observes that it is not effective in minimizing pollutant discharge from the site.
If, at any time during the effective period of the permit, the permitting authority finds that the plan does
not meet one or more of the minimum standards established by the General Permit, the permitting
authority will notify the permittee of required changes necessary to bring the plan up to standard.
(E) Report Releases of Reportable Quantities
Because construction activities may handle certain hazardous substances over the course of the prolect,
spills of these substances in amounts that equal or exceed Reportable Quantity (RQ) levels are a possibility
EPA has issued regulations that define what reportable quantity levels are for oil and hazardous
substances. These regulations are found at 40 CFR Part 110. 40 CFR Part 11 7. or 40 CFR Part 302. If
there is a RQ release during the construction period, then you must take the following steps:
• Notify the National Response Center immediately at (800) 424-8802; in Washington, D.C., call
(202) 426-2675.
• Within 14 days. submit a written description of the release to the EPA Regional office providing
the date and circumstances of the release and the steps to be taken to prevent another release.
• Modify ths pollution prevention plan to include the information listed above.
(F) Provide for Plan Location and Access
The General Permit has specific requirements regarding plan location and access.
• Plan location — A copy of the Pollution Prevention Plan must be kept at the construction Site from
the time construction begins until the site is finally stabilized.
• Retention of records—Retention of records requires that copies of the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan and all other reports required by the permit, as well as all of the data used to
complete the NOl be retained for 3 years after the completion of final site stabilization.
October 7992 Page 14
-------
• Access—Although plans and associated records are not necessarily required to be submitted to the
Director, these documents must be made available upon request to the Director, or any State or
local agency who is approving erosion and sediment control plans, or storm water management
plans. If site storm water runoff is discharged to a municipal separate storm sewer system, the
plans must be made available upon request to the municipal operator of the system.
October 1992 Page 15
-------
____________________________ FINAL STABILIZATION! ____________________________
TERMINATION PHASE
Operators o a construction site must continue to comply with permit conditions until: (1) they no
longer meet the definition of an operator of a construction site; or (2) the construction activity is
complete, all disturbed soils have been finally stabilized, and temporary erosion and sediment controls
have been or will be removed. A permittee should submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) to inform EPA
that he/she is no longer an operator of a construction activity.
Final stabilization—Final stabilization is defined by the EPA General Permit as meaning that all soil
disturbing activities at the site have been completed, and that a uniform perennial vegetative cover with a
density of 70 percent of the covet for unpaved areas not covered by permanent structures has been
established or equivalent permanent stabilization measures (such as the use of riprap, gabions, or
geotextiles) have been employed.
Notice of Termination—The NOT is a onepage form which should be completed and submitted to EPA
when a site has been finally stabilized or when an operator of a construction activity changes. Information
to be included on the NOT includes the location of the construction site; the name, address, and telephone
number of the operator terminating coverage; the NPDES general permit number; an indication of why
coverage under the permit should be terminated for the operator; and a signed certification statement.
Note that when there is a change in operators of a Construction activity, then the new operator must
submit an NOl to be covered by the permit at least 2 days before the change in operator.
NOT’s should be mailed to the following address:
Storm Water Notice of Termination
P.O. Box 1185
Newington, Virginia 22122
Record Retention — Following the termination of construction activities the permittees must keep a copy of
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and records of all the data used to complete the Notice of Intent
for a period of at least three years following final stabilization. The record retention period may be
extended by EPA’s request.
October 1992 Page 16
-------
OTHER REFERENCES
In addition to this summary, other documents are available to assist in the preparation and
implementation of pollution prevention plans. These documents include a copy of Storm Water
Management for Construction Activities. Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Manaaement
Practices (EPA 832-R-92-005, September 1992). which is available from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS Order No. PB 922 359 51 at (703) 487-4650).
Other information and guidance available from EPA ’s National Storm Water Hotline (EPA’s National Storm
Water Hotline number - (703) 821-48231 includes:
Draft - Sediment and Erosion Control; an Inventory of Current Practices (EPA. OWEC. April 20.
1990)
£ Draft - Construction Site Storm Water Discharge Control; an Inventory of Current Practices
(Kamber Engineering. June 26. 1991)
You may also obtain copies of the EPA General Permits which apply to your construction site:
September 9. 1 992, Federal Register (57 FR 411 76) - Final NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges from Construction Sites; Notice
- Applicability :
For the States of Alaska, Arizona. Idaho, Louisiana, Maine. New Hampshire. New Mexico,
Oklahoma. South Dakota and Texas; for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; for Indian lands
located in Alaska, California. Colorado (including the Ute Mountain Reservation in Colorado),
Florida (two tribes), Idaho. Louisiana. Maine, Massachusetts. Mississippi. Montana, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada. North Carolina, North Dakota. Oklahoma. Texas. Utah,
Washington and Wyoming; for Federal facilities in Colorado and Washington; and for the
territories of Johnston Atoll, and Midway and Wake Island.
& September 25. 1992. Federal Register (57 FR 44412) - Final NPDES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges from Construction Sites; Notice
- Applicability :
For the States of Florida and Massachusetts; for American Samoa and Guam; for the District of
Columbia; for Indian lands located in New York; and for Federal facilities in Delaware.
Also, please contact your State or local Storm Water Management or Sediment and Erosion Control permit
or plan reviewers for local requirements and additional information.
October 1992 Page 17
-------
EPA CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
PRECONSTRUCTION CHECKLIST
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
A site description, including:
o The nature of the activity
o Intended sequence of major construction activities
o The total area of the site
C The area of the site that is expected to undergo excavation
o The runoff coefficient of the site after construction is complete
o Existing soil or storm water data
O A site map with:
o Drainage patterns
o Approximate slopes after major grading
o Area of soil disturbance
o Outline of areas which will not be disturbed
o Location of major structural and non-structural controls
o Areas where stabilization practices are expected to occur
o Surface waters
o Storm water discharge locations
o The name of the receiving water(s)
2. A description of controls:
2.1 Erosion and sediment controls, including:
o Stabilization practices for all areas disturbed by construction
o Structural practices for all drainage/discharge locations
2.2 Storm water management controls, including:
o Measures used to control pollutants occurring in storm water discharges after
construction activities are complete
o Velocity dissipatioTi devices to provide nonerosive flow conditions from the
discharge point along the length of any outfall channel
2.3 Other controls including:
o Waste disposal practices which prevent discharge of solid materials to waters of
the U.S.
o Measures to minimize offsite tracking of sediments by construction vehicles
O M•asures to ensure compliance with State or local waste disposal, unitary sewer,
or septic system regulations
2.4 0 Description of the timing during the construction when measures will be
implemented
3. 0 State or local requirements incorporated into the plans
4. 0 Inspection and maintenance procedures for control measures identified in the plan
5. 0 Identification of allowable non-storm water discharges and pollution prevention
measures
6. 0 Contractor certification
7. 0 Plan certification ___________________
Octob- 1992 Pag 18
-------
EPA CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT CHECKUST
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
ConstructionhlmplementatiOfl Checklist
Maintain Records of Construction Activities, including:
O Dates when major grading activities occur
O Dates when construction activities temporarily cease on a portion of the site
0 Dates when construction activities permanently cease on a portion of the site
o Dates when stabilization measures are initiated on the site
2. Prepare Inspection Reports summarizing:
0 Name of inspector
O Qualifications of inspector
o Measures/areas inspected
o Observed conditions
o Changes necessary to the SWPPP
3. Report Releases of Reportable Quantities of Oil or Hazardous Materials (if they occur):
o Notify National Response Center 800/424-8802 immediately
o Notify permitting authority in writing within 14 days
o Modify the pollution prevention plan to include:
• the date of release
• circumstances leading to the release
- steps taken to prevent reoccurrence of the release
4. Modify Pollution Prevention Plan as necessary to:
O Comply with minimum permit requirements when notified by EPA that the plan does
not comply
o Address a change in design, construction operation or maintenance which has an
effect on the potential for discharge of pollutants
O Prevent reoccurrence of reportable quantity releases of a hazardous material or oil
Octobv 1992 P 19
-------
EPA CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT CHECKUST
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Final Stabilization/Termination Checidist
1 0 All soil disturbing activities are complete
2 0 Temporary erosion and sediment control measures have been removed or will be
removed at an appropriate time
3. 0 All areas of the construction site not otherwise covered by a permanent pavement or
structure have been stabilized with a uniform perennial vegetative covet with a density
of 70% or equivalent measures have been employed
Octob. 1992 Pap 20
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL SELECTION CHECKLIST
INSTRUCTiONS: TIeS CHECKLIST USTS THE MINIMUM SEDIMENT EROSION CONTROL REQUIRVAENT5 UNDER
THE USEPA GENERAL PERMIT. CHECK (/1 EACH ITEM AND FiLL IN THE SLANK$ BELOW TO EVALUATE
COMPUANCE FOR EACH DRAINAGE AREA AND LOCATiON. NoTE: Tins CHECKLIST WAS PR ARW FOR THE
USEPA g PERMIT. FOR STATE GENERAL PERMITS MAY
Stabilization Practices
O Stabilization will be initiated on all disturbed areas where Construction activity will not
occur for a period of more than 21 calendar days by the 14th day after construction
activity has permanently or temporarily ceased.
Stabilization measures to be used include:
o Temporary Seeding 0 Sod Stabilization
O Permanent Seeding 0 Geotextiles
0 Mulching 0 Other
Structural Practices
o Flows from upstream areas will be diverted from exposed soils to the degree attainable.
Measures to be used include:
Earth Dike 0 Pipe Slops Drain
O Drainage Swale 0 Other
O Interceptor Dike and Swale
Drainage locations serving less than 10
disturbed acres
Drainage locations servIng 10 or more
disturbed acres
o Sediment controls will be installed
Sediment controls include:
O Sediment Basin
O Sediment Trap
O Silt Fence or equivalent
controls along all sideslope
and downslooe boundaries
0 A Sediment Basin will be Installed
0 A Sediment Basin is not attainable on
the site; therefore, the following
sediment controls will be installed:
0 Sediment Trap
0 Silt Fence or equivalent
controls along the sideslope
and downslooe boundaries
SedIment Basin Runoff Storag. Calculation
acres area draining to the sediment basin
x
3.600 cubic feet of storage/acre
cubic feet of storage required for the basin.
Octobe, 1992
Peg. 21
-------
HOMER VILLE APARTMENTS
CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
SITE DESCRIPTION
Project Name and
Location: (Latitude.
Longitude, or Address)
Homervulle Apartments
21 Broadview Avenue
Center City, ANY State
00000
Owner Name and Quality Associates
Address: 11 Main Street
Canter City, ANY State
00000
Description: (Purpose
and Types of Soil
Disturbing Activities )
This project will Consist of three low-rise, attached apartment buildings with adiacent parking facilities.
Soil disturbing activities will include: clearing and grubbing; installing a stabilized construction entrance,
perimeter, and other erosion and sediment controls; grading; excavation for the sedimentation pond, storm
sewer, utilities, and building foundations; Construction of curb and gutter, road, and parking areas; and
preparation for final planting and seeding.
Runoff Coefficient: The final coefficient of runoff for the site will be c — 0.5.
Site Area: The site is approximately 11 .0 acres of which 9.8 acres will be disturbed by
construction activities.
Sequence of Major Activities
The order of activities will be as follows:
1. Install stabilized construction entrance
2. Clear and grub for earth dike and sediment basin
3. Install earth dike
4. Construct sedimentation basin
5. Continue clearing and grading
6. Pile topsoil
7. Stabilize denuded areas and stockpiles within 14
days of last construction activity in that area
8. Install utilities, storm sewer, curb and gutter
9. Apply stone to parking area and road
10. Construct apartment buildings
11. Complete grading and install permanent
seeding and plantings
12. Complete final paving
13. Remove accumulated sediment from basin.
14. When all construction activity is complete and
the site is stabilized, remove earth dike and
reseed any areas disturbed by their removal.
Name of Receiving The entire site will drain into Rocky Creek which is approximately one hundred
Waters: yards from the site.
CONTROLS
I Erosion an Sediment Controls I
Stabilization Practices
Temporary Stabilization - Top soil stock piles and disturbed portions of the site where construction activity
temporarily ceases for as least 21 days will be stabilized with temporary seed and mulch no later than 14 days
from the last construction activity in that area. The temporary seed shall be Rye (grain) applied as the rate of
1 20 pounds per acre. Prior to seeding. 2,000 pounds of ground agricultural limestone and 1000 pounds of 10-
10-10 fertilizer shall be applied to each acre to be stabilized. After seeding, each area shall be mulched with
4,000 pounds per acre of straw. The straw mulch is to be tacked into place by a disk with blades set nearly
straight. Areas of the site which are to be paved will be temporarily stabilized by applying geotextile and stone
sub-base until bituminous pavement can be applied.
Permanent Stabilization - Disturbed portions of the site where construction activities permanently ceases shall
be stabilized with permanent seed no later than 14 days after the last construction activity. The permanent
seed mix shall consist of 80 lbs/acre tall fescue, and 40 lbs/acre kobe lespedeza. Prior to seeding, 4,000
pounds of ground agricultural limestone and 2,000 pounds of 10-10-10 fertilizer shall be applied to each acre
be stabilized. After seeding, each area shall be mulched with 4.000 pounds per acre of straw. The straw
mulch is to be tacked into place by a disk with blades set nearly straight.
Octobe, 1992 Page 22
-------
CONTROLS (Continued)
Structural Practices
Earth Dike will be constructed along the uphill perimeter (north) of the site. A portion of the dike will divert —
runon around the construction site. The remaining portion of the dike will collect runoff from the disturbed area
and direct the runoff to the sediment basin.
Sediment Basin . will be constructed at the common drainage location on the south side of the Construction
site The basin will be formed by constructing an embankment across an existing gully and excavating a
storage pond with a volume of 36.000 cubic feet (0.82) acre feet. The basin will drain through a corrugated
metal riser and outlet pipe to a rip rap outlet apron. Once construction activities are nearly complete, the
accumulated sediment will be removed from the basin.
Storm Water Management
Storm water drainage will be provided by curb and gutter, storm sewer and catch basin, for the developed
areas. The areas which are not developed will be graded at less that 0.5:1 and have permanent seeding or
plantings. Two acres of the site will remain untouched and in its natural Stat.. When construction is complete
the entire site will drain to a wet detention basin. The wet detention basin will be in the location of the
temporary sediment basin. When upslope areas are stabilized, the accumulated sediment will be removed from
the sediment basin, and the areas on the sides of the basin will be planted with vegetation. The wet detention
pond is designed with a permanent pool volume of 0.82 (acre-feet). This is equivalent to one inch of runoff for
the entire drainage area. It is expected that this wet detention pond design will result in an 80 percent removal
of total suspended solids from the site’s storm water runoff. The pond has been designed by a professional
engineer to keep peak flow rates from the two and ten year/24 hour storms at their pre-development rates.
The outlet of the detention basin will be stabilized by a riprap apron.
OTHER CONTROLS
Waste Disposal: I
Waste Materials
All waste materials will be collected and stored in a securely lidded metal dumpster rented from the ADF Waste
Management Company, which is a licensed solid waste management company in Center City. The dumpster
will meet all local Center City and any State solid waste management regulations. All trash and construction
debris from the site will be deposited in the dumpster. The dumpster will be emptied a minimum of twice per
week or more often if necessary, and the trash will be hauled to the Center City Dump. No construction waste
materials will be buried onsite. All personnel will be instructed regarding the correct procedure for waste
disposal. Notices stating these practices will be posted in the office trailer and Mr. Doe, the individual who
manages the day-to-day site operations, will be responsible for seeing that these procedures are followed.
Hazardous Waste
All hazardous waste materials will be disposed of in the manner specified by local or State regulation or by the
manufacturer. Site personnel will be instructed in these practices and Mr. Do., the individual who manages
day-to-day site operations, will be responsible for seeing that these practices are followed.
Sanitary Waste
All sanitary waste will be collected from the portable units a minimum of three times per week by the TIDEE
Company, a licensed Center City sanitary waste management contractor, as required by local regulation.
Offsite Vehicle Tracking: I
A stabilized construction entrance has been provided to help reduce vehicle tracking of sediments. The paved
street adjacent to the site entrance will be swept daily to remove any excess mud, dirt or rock traCked from the
site. Dump trucks hauling material from the construction site will be covered with a tarpaulin .
October 1992 Peg 23
-------
TIMING OF CONTROLS/MEASURES
As indicated in the Sequence of Major Activities, the earth dike, stabilized construction entrance and sedime
basin will be constructed prior to clearing or grading of any other portions of the site. Areas where
Construction activity temporarily ceases for more than 21 days will be stabilized with a temporary seed and
mulch within 1 4 days of the last disturbance. Once construction activity ceases permanently in an area, that
area will be stabilized with permanent seed and mulch. After the entire site is stabilized, the accumulated
sediment will be removed from the trap and the earth dike will be removed.
CERTiFICATION OF COMPUANCE WITH FEDERAL. Stat.. AND LOCAL REGULATIONS
The storm water pollution prevention plan reflects Center City requirements for storm water management and
erosion and sediment control, as established in Center City ordinance 5.188. To ensure compliance, this plan
was prepared in accordance with the Center City Storm Water Management. Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook , published by the Center City Department of Planning, Storm Water Management Section. There are
no other applicable State or Federal requirements for sediment and erosion site plans (or permits), or storm
water management site plans (or permits).
MAINTENANCE/!NSPECTION PROCEDURES
Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection and Maintenance Practices
These are the inspection and maintenance practices that will be used to maintain erosion and sediment
controls.
• Less than one half of the Site will be denuded at one time.
• All control measures will be inspected at least once each week and following any storm event of 0.5
inches or greater.
• All measures will be maintained in good working order; if a repair is necessary, it will be initiated within
24 hours of report.
• Built up sediment will be removed from silt fence when it has reached one-third the height of the fenct
• Silt fence will be inspected for depth of sediment, tears, to see if the fabric is securely attached to the
fence posts, and to see that the fence posts are firmly in the ground.
• The sediment basin will be inspected for depth of sediment, and built up sediment will be removed when
it reaches 10 percent of the design capacity or at the end of the job.
• Diversion dike will be inspected and any breaches promptly repaired.
• Temporary and permanent seeding and planting will be inspected for bare spots. washouts, and healthy
growth.
• A maintenance inspection report will be made after each inspection. A copy of the report form to be
completed by the inspector is attached.
• Mr. Do., sits superintendent, will select three individuals who will be responsible for inspections,
maintenance and repair activities, and filling out the inspection and maintenance report.
• Personnel selected for inspection and maintenance responsibilities will receive training from Mr. Doe.
They will be trained in all the inspection and maintenance practices necessary for keeping the erosion and
sediment controls used onsite in good working order.
Octobsv 1992 Pag 24
-------
MAINTENANCEIINSPECT!ON PROCEDURES (Continued)
Non-Storm Water Discharges
It is expected that the following non-storm water discharges will occur from the Site during the construction
period:
• Water from water line flushings.
• Pavement wash waters (where no spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have occurred).
• Uncontaminated groundwater (from dewatering excavation).
All non-storm water discharges will be directed to the sediment basin prior to discharge .
October 1992 Page 25
-------
INVENTORY FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION PlAN
The materials or substances listed below are expected to be present onsite during Construction:
• Concrete • Fertilizers
• Detergents • Petroleum Based Products
• Paints (enamel and latex) • Cleaning Solvents
• Metal Studs • Wood
• Concrete • Masonry Block
• Tar • Roofing Shingles.
SPILL PREVENTION
Material Management Practices
The following are the material management practices that will be used to reduce the risk of
spills or other accidental exposure of materials and substances to storm water runoff.
Good Housekeeping: 1
The following good housekeeping practices will be followed onsite during the Construction
project.
• An effort will be made to store only enough product required to do the job
• All materials stored onsite will be stored in a neat, orderly manner in their appropriate
containers and, if possible, under a roof or other enclosure
• Products will be kept in their original containers with the original manufacturer’s label
• Substances will not be mixed with one another unless recommended by the manufacturer
• Whenever possible, all of a product will be used up before disposing of the container
• Manufacturers’ recommendations for proper use and disposal will be followed
• The site superintendent will inspect daily to ensure proper use and disposal of materials
onsite.
Hazardous Products: I
These practices are used to reduce the risks associated with hazardous materials.
• Products will be kept in original containers unless they are not resealable
• Original labels and material safety data will be retained; they contain important product
information
• If surplus product must be disposed of, manufacturers’ or local and State recommended
methods for proper disposal will be followed.
Octob.v 1992 Pg 26
-------
SPILL PREVENTION (Continued)
Product Specific Practices
The following product specific practices will be followed onsite:
Petroleum Products: 1 -
All onsite vehicles will be monitored for leaks and receive regular preventive maintenance to
reduce the chance of leakage. Petroleum products will be stored in tightly sealed containers
which are clearly labeled. Any asphalt substances used onsite will be applied according to the
manufacturer’ s recommendations.
Fertilizers: I
Fertilizers used will be applied only in the minimum amounts recommended by the manufacturer.
Once applied, fertilizer will be worked into the soil to limit exposure to storm water. Storage
will be in a covered shed. The contents of any partially used bags of fertilizer will be transferred
to a sealable plastic bin to avoid spills.
Paints: I
All containers will be tightly sealed and stored when not required for use. Excess paint will not
be discharged to the storm sewer system but will be properly disposed of according to
manufacturers’ instructions or State and local regulations.
Concrete Trucks :
Concrete trucks will not be allowed to wash out or discharge surplus concrete or drum wash
water on the site.
Spill Control Practices
In addition to the good housekeeping and material management practices discussed in the
previous sections of this plan, the following practices will be followed for spill prevention and
cleanup:
• Manufacturers’ recommended methods for spill cleanup will be clearly posted and site
personnel will be made aware of the procedures and the location of the information and
cleanup supplies.
• Materials and equipment necessary for spill cleanup will be kept in the material storage area
onsite. Equipment and materials will include but not be limited to brooms, dust pans, mops.
rags, gloves, goggles, kitty litter, sand, sawdust, and plastic and metal trash containers
specifically for this purpose.
• All spills will be cleaned up immediately after discovery.
• The spill agu will be kept well ventilated and personnel will wear appropriate protective
clothing to prevent injury from contact with a hazardous substance.
• Spills of toxic or hazardous material will be reported to the appropriate State or local
government agency, regardless of the size.
• The spill prevention plan will be adjusted to include measures to prevent this type of spill
from reoccurring and how to clean up the spill if there is another one. A description of the
spill, what caused it, and the cleanup measures will also be included.
• Mr. Doe, the site superintendent responsible for th. day-to-day site operations, will be the
spill prevention and cleanup coordinator, lie will designate at least three other site personnel
who will receive spill prevention and cleanup training. These individuals will each become
responsible for a particular phase of prevention and cleanup. The names of responsible spill
personnel will be posted in the material storage area and in the office trailer onsite .
Octob.’ 1992 Page 27
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN CERTIFICATION - __________
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and
evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system.
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is. to the best of
my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Signed:________________________
John R. Quality,
President
Quality Associates
Date:________________________
CONTRACTOR’S CERTIFICATION
I certify under penalty of law that I understand the terms and conditions of the general National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that authorizes the storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity from the construction site identified as part of this certification.
Signature For Responsible for
_______________________________ Center City Const., Inc. General Contractor
Joseph Contractor, President 21 Elm Street
Center City, Any State 00000
______________________ 1123) 399-8765
_______________________________ Green Grass, Inc. Temporary and Permanent
John Planter 4233 Center Road Stabilization
Vice President of Construction Outerville, Any State 00001
(123) 823-5678
Date:__________________________
_______________________________ Dirt Movers, Inc. Stabilized Construction Entrance.
Jim Kay, President 523 Lincoln Ave. Earth Dikes, Sediment Basin
Outerville, Any State 00001
Date:_______________________ (123) 823-8921
October 1992 Peg. 28
-------
‘ ,v ‘ , J jj
I
- \
/
,
t... I
I
/
1,
— ‘
270 ROCKY CREEK - (Approx. 450)
270
:: ;\
EOSflNG TREE UNE
o4’,’urvIIe A ar srts
8ro vW. Av. u.
C.ntv City, Anystat.
Site Ares: 11.0 Acrss
Scale: 1 =100
SoEITyps: SandyLoam
210
I
— 280
/
/
d
.1
F
‘-I
0.
0
280
uc1suIr andGrs* g
• — Prop. 1 i 1 ty L.l
I
)
Ams b.$.sdsd
E th D .
S rm Wst In
Sb n Wat ManMs
S rm Water DraIn
E.zis*ig Tree Un.
R Ra n .
/
Octob* 1992
s \\ H SITEMAP
N
280
Page 29
-------
HOMERVILLE APARTMENTS
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT FORM
TO BE COMPLETED EVERY 7 DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS OF
A RAINFALL EVENT OF 0 5 INCHES OR MORE
INSPECTOR ______________________ DATE:________________________
INSPECTORS QUALIFICATIONS:
DAYS SINCE LAST RAINFALL: AMOUNT OF LAST RAINFALL INCHES
STABILIZATION MEASURES
AREA
DATE SINCE
LAST
DISTURBED
DATE OF
NEXT
DISTURBANCE
STABILIZED?
(YES/NO)
STABILIZED
WITH
CONDITION
BLDG. A
BLDG. B
BLDG. C
PRKNG. 1
PRKNG. 2
GRASS 1
GRASS 2
STABILIZATION REQUIRED:
TO BE PERFORMED BY: _____________________ ON OR BEFORE:_______________________
Octobe, 1992 Page 30
-------
HOMERVILLE APARTMENTS
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT FORM
STRUCTURAL CONTROLS
DATE _______________
EARTH DIKE:
FROM
TO
IS DIKE STABILIZED’
IS THERE EVIDENCE
OF WASHOUT OR
OVER-TOPPING?
BUILDING B
STABILIZED
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
_________________
STABILIZED
CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
SEDIMENT BASIN
BUILDING B SEDIMENT BASIN
MAINTENANCE REQUIRED FOR EARTH DIKE:
TO BE PERFORMED BY: ______________________ ON OR BEFORE:_______________________
Octobr 1992 Page 31
-------
HOMERVILLE APARTMENTS
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT FORM
SEDIMENT BASIN:
DEPTH OF
SEDIMENT IN BASIN
CONDITION OF
BASIN SIDE SLOPES
ANY EVIDENCE OF
OVERTOPPING OF
THE EMBANKMENT’
CONDITION OF
OUTFALL FROM
SEDIMENT BASIN
MAINTENANCE REQUIRED FOR SEDIMENT BASIN:
TOBEPERFORMEDBY ONORBEFORE:_____________________
OTHER CONTROLS
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE:
DOES MUCH
IS THE GRAVEL
DOES ALL TRAFFIC
IS THE CULVERT
SEDIMENT GET
CLEAN OR IS IT
USE THE STABILIZED
BENEATH THE
TRACKED ON TO
FILLED WITH
ENTRANCE TO
ENTRANCE
ROAD’
SEDIMENT?
LEAVE THE SITE?
WORKING?
MAINTENANCE REQUIRED FOR STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE:
TO BE PERFORMED BY: _____________________ ON OR BEFORE:
October 1992 Page 32
-------
HOMERVILLE APARTMENTS
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE REPORT FORM
CHANGES REQUIRED TO THE POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN.
REASONS FOR CHANGES:
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction
or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly
gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information
submitted is. to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment for knowing violations.
SIGNATURE. DATE:____________________
October 1992 Pag• 33
.uS GOVERNMENT PRIWnP4GOFmCE 1992 71S.902190539
-------
Un d S
Enwonme tiI Agency
WesPun ion DC 20160
( P1 33g 1
OMc ,siness
Pen&ty Fo Pnv. Use $300
-------
0
Ofic. :1 Waler
E N•336)
EP.t 333. ;2 :c2
Oc co .r 92
Unitsd Sta e3
Eiwir nrnefltaI P’ .con
Aq•ncy
Storm Water Management
For Industilal Activities
Developing
Pollulion Preven on Plans
And Best Management
P radices
SUWI ARY GUODA CE
* 1992 *
Pnnred on Recycled Paper
-------
FOREWORD
This booklet provides industrial facilities with summary guidance on the development of storm
water pollution prevention plans and identification of appropriate Best Management Practices
(BMPs). It provides technical assistance and support to all facilities subject to pollution
prevention requirements established under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits for storm water point source discharges.
EPA’s storm water program significantly expands the scope and application of the existing
NPDES permit system for municipal and industrial process wastewater discharges. It
emphasizes pollution prevention and reflects a heavy reliance on BMPs to reduce pollutant
loadings and improve water quality. This booklet provides summary guidance in both of these
areas.
The document summarized here was issued in support of EPA regulations and policy initiatives
involving the development and implementation of a National storm water program. The
document itself is Agency guidance only. It does not establish or affect legal rights or
obligations. Agency decisions in any particular case will be made applying the laws and
regulations on the basis of specific facts when permits are issued or regulations promulgated.
The document and this booklet will be revised and expanded periodically to reflect additional
pollution prevention information and data on treatment effectiveness of BMPs. Comments
from users will be welcomed. Send comments to U.S. EPA. Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance, 401 M Street. SW. Mail Code EN-336, Washington. DC
20460.
-------
Industrial Guidance Exicutive Summary
Table of Contents
Overview of Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements 1
Figure -- Seven Phases for Developing and Implementing
Industrial Storm Water Pollution Preventions Plans 2
Planning and Organization Phase 3
(A) Forming Your Pollution Prevention Team 3
(B) Building on Existing Environmental Management Plans 3
Assessment Phase 5
(A) Developing a Site Map 5
(B) Materials Inventory 5
(C) Identifying Past Spills and Leaks 6
(D) Non-Storm Water Discharges . . 6
(E) Existing Monitoring Data 7
(F) Site Evaluation Summary 7
BMP Selection and Plan Design Phase . 8
(A) Good Housekeeping . 8
(B) Preventative Maintenance . 8
(C) Visual Inspections . 9
(D) Spill Prevention and Response . 9
(E) Sediment and Erosion Contvol 10
(F) Management of Runoff 10
Implementation Phase 11
(A) Implementing Appropriate Controls 11
(B) Employee Training 11
Evaluation Phase 12
(A) Annual Site Complianc Evaluation 12
(B) Recordkespsng and Internal Reporting 12
(C) PlanRvlsions 12
GeneralRequiremants 13
(A) Deadlines for Plan Dsvslopment arid Implementation 13
(B) Required Signatures 13
(C) Plan Location and Public Access 14
(0) Director-Required Plan Modifications 14
-------
Industijal Guidance Executive Summary
Table of Contents (Continued)
Special Requirements 1 5
(A) Special Requirements for Discharges Through Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems 1 5
(B) Special Requirements for EPCRA. Section 313, Reporting Facilities 1 5
(C) Special Requirements for Salt Storage Piles 15
Other References 1 6
Worksheet #1 — Member Roster
Worksheet #2 — Developing A Site Map
Worksheet #3 — Material Inventory
Worksheet #3A Description of Exposed Significant Material
Worksheet #4 — List of Significant Spills and Leaks
Worksheet #5 — Non-Storm Water Discharge Assessment and Certification
Worksheet #6 — Non-Storm Water Discharge Assessment and Failure to Certify Notification
Model Plan
-------
A BRIEF GUIDE TO REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS FOR INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
Storm water runoff is part of the natural hydrologic cycle. However, human activities, particularly
urbanization, can alter natural drainage patterns and add pollutants to the rainwater and snowmelt that run
off the earth’s surface and enter our Nation’s rivers, lakes, streams, and coastal waters. In fact, recent
studies have shown that storm water runoff is a major source of the pollutants that are damaging our sport
and commercial fisheries, restricting swimming, and affecting the navigability of many of our Nation’s
waters
The States and many municipalities have been taking the initiative to manage storm water discharges more
effectively Recognizing the importance of this problem, Congress also directed the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a Federal program under the Clean Water Act to regulate certain high-
priority storm water sources. The issuance of storm water discharge permits under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a major part of the Agency’s efforts to restore and maintain the
Nation’s water quality. Discharges of storm water runoff from industrial facilities must now be covered by
an NPDES permit. To deal with the thousands of industrial facilities which are now required to be covered
by storm water permits, EPA strongly encourages the use of general permits. Under the NPDES program, a
general permit authori2es discharges from a number of sources. To address st ’m water discharges from
industrial facilities located in the States and territories that have not been delegated NPOES permitting
authority, EPA issued NPDES General Permits for Storm Wetea- Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity in the September 9 and September 25. 1992. Federal Register . (A complete list of these States
and territories to which EPA’s permits apply may be found on page 16 of this document.)
Under the NPOES Genera! Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity, EPA
requires the development and implementation of a pollution prevention plan — designed to reduce pollution
at the source, before it can cause environmental problems that cost the public and private sectors in terms
of lost resources and expensive environmental restoration activities.
OvERVIEw OF POLL UTION PREVENTiON PLAN REQUIREMENTS
This guide provides background information on pollution prevention planning requirements for permittees
under the general permit. As shown on the chart on the following page, pollution prevention plan
requirements provide you with a step-by-step process for ensuring that pollutants are not making their way
into the storm water discharges from your site. Specifically, the pollution prevention plan requires that you
select and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs include schedules of activities.
prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce
the pollution in runoff from your site. The five major phases of developing a pollution prevention plan are
(1) planning and organization; (2) assessment; (3) BMP selection and plan design; (4) implementation; and
(5) evaluation and site inspection. A set of worksheets and a model plan at the end of th. document are
provided to further clanfy pollution prevention plan requirements. All permit holders under EPA’s NPDES
Genera! Permit For Storm Wata- Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity must meet a number of
general requiremen . In addition, permittees who are subject to reporting requirements under Section 31 3
f the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), (also known as Title 3 of the
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARAI), will have to meet special requirements under
EPA’s general permit. These requirements are listed in boxes throughout this guide, and then elaborated
upon in the final section.
A more detailed manual on how to develop and implement a pollution prevention plan is available at a
modest cost from the National Technical Information Service. The manual, titled Storm Water
Management for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention Plans end 8ese Management
Practices, provides much more specific information than this brief guide. Instructions for ordenng the
det iIed manual and a listing of other references that you may find useful can be found at the end of this
guide.
October 1992 Page 1
-------
PUNNING AND ORGANIZATION
• Form Pollution Prevention Team
• Review other plans
z
BMP IDENTIFICATION PHASE
• Baseline BMPs
a • Select activity- and site-specific
BMPs
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
• Implement BMPs
Train employees
EVALUAT1ONIUONITORING
• Conduct annual site inspection?BMP evaluation
• Conduct recordkeeping and reporting
• Review and revise plan
SEVEN PHASES FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTiNG INDUSTRIAL STORM
WATER POLLUTiON PREVENTION PUNS
ASSESSMENT PHASE
• Develop a site map
• Inventory and descnbe exposed matenals
• List significant spills and leaks
• Test for non-storm water discharges
• Evaluate monitonng data
• Summanze pollutant sources and risks
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
• 0
• ObtaM required signatures
• Follow plan location and public
access requirements
• Modify plan
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
• Plan for discharges through MS4
• Plan for EPCRA. Section 313
facilities
• Plan for salt storage piles
Oetubw 1992
Page 2
-------
- J PLANNING AND _____________________
I ORGANIZATION PHASE
Before you start putting your Storm Water Pollution Prevention P’an together, there are two steps that
will facilitate the development of your plan. These steps are designed to help you organize your staff
and make preliminary decisions: (A) decide who will be responsible for developing and implementing
your Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and (B) look at other existing environmental facility plans
for consistency and overlap.
(A) Forming Your Pollution Prevention Team
As part of developing and implementing your pollution plan, you should (1) designate a specific individual
or team who will develop, implement, maintain, and revise your pollution prevention plan, and (2) identity
these individuals and describe each person’s responsibilities at the sits.
Since facilities differ in size and capacity, the number of team members will also vary. Designating one
person may be appropriate as long as that individual is qualified to design and implement the plan. The
plan should identify those people on site who are most familiar with the facility and its operations; these
people, in turn, should provide structure and direction to the storm water management program. In all
cases, someone in a senior management position must have overall responsibility for the plan.
The pollution prevention team is responsible for the following:
• Implementing all general permit and pollution prevention plan requirements
• Defining and agreeing upon an appropriate set of goals f or the facility’s storm water management
program
• Being aware of any changes that are made in plant operations to determine whether any changes
must be made to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
• Maintaining a clear line of communication with plant management to ensure a cooperative
partnership.
Worksheet #1 (located at th. end of this guide) is an example of an appropriate form on which to list
the team members. To cornplet• this worksheet, list the pollution prevention team members by name,
facility position (title), and phone number; include a brief description of each member’s specific
responsibilities. This list can be directly incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, but it
should also be displayed or posted within the facility so that other plant employees are aware of who is
responsible for storm water management.
(B) Building on ExistIng Environmental Management Plans
The pollution prevention team also must evaluate existing environmental management plans for
consistency and determine which, if any, provisions can be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan.
Other related plans may include the Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency Plan 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265), the Spill Control and Countermeasures requirements (40 CFR Part 112), the National Pollutant
October 1992 ‘U’ 3
-------
Discharge Elimination System loxic Organic Management Plan (40 CFR Parts 413, 433, and 469). and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Emergency Action Plan (29 CFR Part 1910).
Although you should build on relevant portions of other environmental plans as appropriate, it is important
to note that your Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be a comprehensive. stand•alone document.
AODrnONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FAcILiTiES SUIJECT To REP0RnNQ Urioe EPCRA. SecTioN 313, oe Wa,
PRIoRITY CI4EMICALS—EPCRA contains additional reporting requirements for designated hazardous waste
management facilities. EPA’s Baseline General Permit contains the following specific requirements for
such facilities:
• The team must designate a person who will be accountable for spill prevention at the facility
and identify this parson in the plan.
• The designated person is responsible for setting up necessary spill emergency procedures and
reporting requirements to isolate, contain, and clean up spills and emergency :eleas.s of
Section 313 water priority chemicals.
Octob.’ 1992 “ ‘
-------
ASSESSMENT PHASE
After identifying who is responsible for developing and implementing your plan and organizing your
planning process. you Should proceed to this next step—a pollutant source assessment. This is where
you take a look at your facility and determine what materials or practices are (or may be) a source of
contaminants to the storm water running off your site. To complete this phase, you will (A) create a
map of the facility site to locate pollutant sources and determine storm water management
opportunities. (B) conduct a material inventory. (C) evaluate past spills and leaks, (Dl identify non•storm
water discharges and illicit connections (E) collect or evaluate storm water quality data, and
(F) summarize the findings of this assessment. To select the most appropriate and effective control
measures, consider that potential pollutant sources include areas where materials are handled or stored,
outdoor processing areas, loading and unloading areas, and onsite waste management and disposal
areas.
(A) Developing a Site Map
A site map is a complete illustration of site features. At a minimum, the site map must include information
on the following:
• Discharge points (outfalls)
• Drainage patterns
• Identification of the types of pollutants likely to be discharged for each drainage area
• Direction of flow
• Surface water bodies, including any proximate stream, river, lake, or other water body receiving
storm water discharges from the site
• Structural control measures (physically constructed features used to control storm water flows)
• Locations of significant materials exposed to storm water
• Locations of industrial activities (such as fueling stations, loading and unloading areas, vehicle or
equipment maintenance areas, waste disposal areas, storage areas).
Worksheet #2 (located at the end of this guide) provides guidance on completing your site map.
(B) Materials Inventory
Each facility must inventory the types of materials that are handled, stored, or processed onsite.
Significant materials are of particular concern and are defined as follows:
Significant Materials: Raw materials; fuels; materials such as solvents, detergents. and plastic
pellets; finished materials such as metallic products; raw materials used in food processing or
production; hazardous substances designated under section 101114) of CERCL.4; any chemical.
the facility is required to report pursuant to EPCRA, Section 313; fertilizers; pesticides; and
waste products such as ashes, slag, and sludge that have the potential to be released with
storm water discharges (40 CPA 122.26(0)112)1.
October 1992 Page 5
-------
To complete the materials inventory, the facility must do two specific tasks:
• Ust materials that have been exposed to storm water in the past 3 years (focus on areas where
materials are stored, processed, transported, or transferred).
• Provide a narrative description of methods and location of storage and disposal areas, material
management practices, treatment practices, and any structural/rionstructural control measures.
Structural practices are fixed equipment such as berms, detention ponds, or grassed swales.
Nonstructural practices may include regularly scheduled actions such as sweeping or
inspections
Worksheet #3 (located at the end of this guide) will assist you in conducting a material inventory for
your Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. If any of the significant materials on your site have been
exposed to storm water in the 3 years prior to the effective date of your permit, complete Worksheet
#3A and include it in your plan.
(C) Identifying Past Spills and Leaks
Provide a list of significant spills and leaks of toxic or hazardous that have occurred in the past 3 years.
Significant spills includes releases in excess of reportable quantities, defined as follows:
Reportable Quantity (RO) Discharge: An RQ release occurs when a quantity of a hazardous substance
or 0,/is spilled or released within a 24-hour period of time and exc ds the RO level assigned to that
substance under CERCLA or the Clean Water Act. These levels or quantities are defined in terms of
gallons or pounds. Regulations listing these quantities are contained at 40 CFR 302.4. 40 CFR
117.21 and 40 CFR 110.
Permirtees are encouraged to list spills and leaks of nonhazardous materials as well as spills of hazardous
materials in their pollution prevention plans.
Worksheet #4 (located at the end of this guide) can help you organize this list of leaks and spills. The
areas on your site where significant leaks or spills have occurred are areas on which you should focus very
closely when selecting BMPs.
(0) Non-Storm Water Discharges
To certify that your facility has been tested or evaluated for non-storm water discharges, you must:
• Identify potential non-storm water discharges
• Describe the method used and results of any test and/or evaluation for such discharges
• Indicate the location of the onsite drainage points that were checked during the test or evalUation
• Provide the date of the test or evaluation. (If you cannot test or evaluate potential non-storm
water discharges, notice must still be made by certification.)
October 1992 P. 6
-------
Examples f non-storm water discharges include any water used directly in the manufacturing process
(process water), air conditioner condensate. noncontact cooling water, vehicle wash water, or sanitary
wastes.
To check for non-storm water discharges, you can use one of the following three common dry weather
tests: visual inspection; plant schematic review; and/or dye testing.
Worksheet #5 (located at the end of this guide) will assist you in conducting a non-storm water
discharge assessment and certification for outfalls at your site. If you are unable to test and/or provide
certification for the presence of non-storm water discharges, please refer to Worksheet #6.
CE) Existing Monitoring Data
Where existing storm water sampling data are available, the facility must (1) provide a summary of any
existing storm water sampling data and (2) describe the sample collection procedures used.
(F) Site Evaluation Summary
This step is critical, as it will become the foundation for the rest of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan Facilities must fulfill the following requirements:
• Provide a narrative description of activities with a high potential to contaminate storm water at
your site, including those associated with materials loading and unloading, outdoor storage,
outdoor manufacturing or processing, onsite waste disposal, and significant dust or particulate
generating activities
• Describe any pollutants of concern that may be associated with such activities.
Once you have completed the above sseps in your pollutant source assessment, you should have enough
information to determine which areas, activities, or materials may contribute pollutants to storm water
runoff from your site. With this information, you can select the most appropriate BMPs to prevent or
control pollutants from these areas.
Octobv 1992
-------
J BMP SELECTION AND
PLAN DESIGN PHASE
Once you have identified and assessed potential and existing sources of storm water contamination at
your facility, the next step is to select the proper Best Management Practices (BMPs ) that will address
these pollutant sources. To satisfy the requirements of this phase, you must provide a narrative
description of the BMPs you have selected for your site. At a minimum, your plan must incorporat• the
following eight baseline BMPs. (A) good housekeeping, (B) preventive maintenance, (C) visual
inspections. (0) spill prevention and response. (E) sediment and erosion prevention. (F) traditional storm
water management practices, (G) other BMPs as appropriate, (H) employee training, and
(I) recordkeeping and reporting. A number of these BMPs are discussed below.
(A) Good Housekeeping
Good housekeeping practices are designed to maintain a clean and orderly work environment. Often the
most effective first step towards preventing pollution in storm water from industrial sites involves merely
using good common sense to improve the facility’s basic housekeeping methods. The following are some
simple procedures that a facility can consider incorporating into an effective good housekeeping program:
• lmprov. operation and maintenance of industrial machinery and processes.
• Implement careful material storage practices.
• Maintain up•to-date material inventory.
Identify all chemical substances present in the workplace.
- Label all containers showing name and type of substance, stock number. etc.
• Schedule routine cleanup operations.
• Maintain well-organized work areas.
• Train employees about good housekeeping practices.
(B) Preventive Maintenance
Each permittee must develop a preventive maintenance program that involves inspections and maintenance
of storm water management devicss and routine inspections of facility operations to detect faulty
equipment. Equipment (such as tanks, containers, and drums) should be checked regularly for signs of
deterioration.
Octobsv’ 1992 Pig. 8
-------
EPCRA, SacnoN 313. FAC*IJTV PRivmriva MAINTENANce INSPeCTiON REQUIReMENTs—All areas of the
facility must be inspected for the following at appropriate intervals as specified in the plan:
• Leaks or COnditions that would lead to discharges of Section 313 water priority chemicals
• Conditions that could lead to direct contact of storm water with raw materials, intermediate
materials, waste materials or products
• Piping. pumps. storage tanks and bins, pressure vessels, process and material handling
equipment, and material bulk storage areas for leaks, wind blowing, corrosion, support or
foundation failure, or other deterioration or noncontainment.
(C) Visual Inspections
Regular visual inspections are your means to ensure that all of the elements of the plan are in place and
working properly to prevent pollution of storm water runoff from your facility. Consider the following
when conducting visual inspections:
• Designate Qualified, trained plant personnel to regularly inspect the facility’s equipment and areas.
track results of inspections, make necessary changes, and maintain records of all inspections
• Ensure that inspection records note when inspections were done, who conducted th. inspection,
what areas were inspected, what problems were found, and what steps were taken to correct any
problems.
These records should be kept with the plan. EPA’s general permit requires that records be kept until at
least one year after coverage under the permit expires.
(D) Spill Prevention and Response
Areas where spills are likely to occur and their drainage points must be clearly identified in the storm water
pollution prevention plan. You should ensure that employees are aware of response procedures, including
material handling and storage requirements. Also ensure that there is access to appropriate spill cleanup
equipment.
SPILL PREVENTION PLAN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Install leak detection devices.
• Adopt good housekeeping practices. -
• Perform regular visual inspections to identify areas for potential leaks or spills.
• Recycle, reduce, and reuse process materials to minimize waste onsite.
October 1992 Papa 9
-------
SPILL RESPONSE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS:
• Identify a spill response team to implement the spill response plan.
• Identify safety measures.
• Include procedures for notifying appropriate authorities (police, fire, hospital. Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWI, etc) in the event of a spill.
• Describe spill containment, diversion, isolation, and cleanup practices.
EPCRA. SECTION 313. FACIUTY SPILL P EVENT1ON AND RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS—When a leak or spill of a
Section 31 3 water priority chemical has occurred, the contaminated soil, material, or debris must be
removed promptly and disposed of in accordance with Federal. State. and local requirements and as
described in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. These facilities are also required to designate a
person responsible for spill prevention, response, and reporting procedures.
(E) Sediment and Erosion Control
The facility’s pollution prevention plan must identify activities that present a potential for significant soil
erosion and measures taken to control such erosion. More information on sediment and erosion control
BMPs can be found in the reference section of this guide.
(F) Management of Runoff
Permittees must describe existing storm water controls found at th. facility and any additional measures
that can be implemented to improve the prevention and control of polluted storm water. Examples include:
vegetative swales, reuse of collected storm water, infiltration trenches, and detention ponds.
Oetobr 1992 Pag. 10
-------
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
Ai this point, you have designed your Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan arid the plan has been
approved by facility management. Under the implementation phase, you must (A) implement the
selected storm water BMPs, and (B) train all employees to carry out the goals of the plan.
(A) Implementing Appropriate Controls
In implementing the plan, a facility will:
• Develop a schedule for implementation. For example, your schedule might include a deadline for
putting improved housekeeping measures into practice. Some controls may be immediately put
into action; others will be phased in.
• Assign specific individuals with responsibility for implementing aspects of the plan and/or
monitoring implementation.
• Ensure that management approves of your implementation schedule and strategy, and schedule
regular times for reporting progress to management.
(B) Employee Training
Permittees must develop an employee training program that covers such topics as spill prevention and
response, good housekeeping, and matenal management practices.
The goals of a training program are to teach personnel, at all levels of responsibility, the components and
goals of the storm water pollution prevention plan and to create overall sensitivity to storm water pollution
prevention concerns. The plan must in lude a schedule for training programs.
EPCRA. sectioN 313. FAcILiTY Reoumviawrs—There are additional training requirements for employees
and contractor personnel who work in areas where EPCRA, Section 313 water priority chemicals are
used or stored. These individuals must be trained in the following areas, at lssst once per year:
• Preventive measures, including spill prevention and response and preventiv maintenance
• Pollution control laws and regulations
• The facility’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
• Features and operations of the facility that are designed to miniimizs discharges of Section 313
water priority chemicals, particularly spill prevention procedures.
October 1992 Page 17
-------
EVALUATION PHASE
Now that your Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been put to action, you must keep it up-to•
date by regularly evaluating the information you collected in the Assessment Phase and the controls
you selected in the Plan Design Phase. Specifically, you must (A) conduct site evaluations, (8) keep
records of all inspections and reports, and (C) revise the plan as needed.
(A) Annual Site Compliance Evaluation
Qualified personnel must conduct Site compliance evaluations at appropriate intervals, but at least once a
year (at least once in 3 years for inactive mining sites). A3 part of your compliance evaluations, you are
required to carry out the following:
• Inspect storm water drainage areas for evidence of pollutants entering the drainage system.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs (for example, determine if your site cleaner or gauge whether
employees are more familiar with good housekeeping measures and spill prevention/response
practices).
• Observe structural measures, sediment controls, and other storm water BMPs to ensure proper
operation.
• Revise the plan as needed within 2 weeks of inspection, and implement any necessary changes
within 12 weeks of the inspection.
• Prepare a report summarizing inspection results and followup actions, identifying the date of
inspection and personnel who conducted the inspection.
• Sign the report and keep it with the plan.
(B) Recordkeeping and Internal Reporting
Your facility must record and maintain records of spills, leaks, inspections, and maintenance activities for
at least one year after the permit expires. For spills and leaks, records should include information such as
the date and time of th. incident, weather conditions, cause, and resulting environmental problems.
(C) Plan Revisions
Major changes in a facility’s design. construction, operation, or maintenance will nsceuftate changes in
that facility’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
October 1992 Pg 12
-------
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
(A) Deadlines for Plan Development and Implementation
Type of Facility
Deadline for Plan
Development
Deadline for Plan
Implementation
Facilities discharging storm water
associated with industrial activity
on or before October 1. 1 992
April 1, 1993
October 1 • 1993
Facilities beginning to discharge
storm water after October 1,
1 992. but on or before
December 31. 1992
60 days after
commencement of discharge
60 days after
commencement of discharge
Facilities beginning to discharge
storm water associated with
industrial activity on or after
January 1, 1 993
48 hours prior to
commencement of discharge
(upon submittal of NOl)
48 hours prior to
commencement of discharge
(upon submittal of NOl)
Oil and gas exploration.
production, processing, or
storm water after October 1.
1992
60 days after release
60 days after release
Industrial facilities rejected or
denied from the group application
process
365 days after date of
rejection or denial
545 days after date of
rejection or denial
(B) Required Signatures
As with the Notice of Intent (NOl). your plan must be signed by an authorized representative. who is a
person at or near the top of your facility’s management chain (the president, vice president, or a
production manager) who has been delegated the authority to sign and certify this type of document.
This section provides guidance or’ some of the administrative requirements related to organizing and
developing your Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The guidance covers (A) deadlines for plan
development and implementation, (B) equired signatures. (C) requirements for plan location and
access, and (D) Director-required plan modifications.
Scheduls for Plan Development and Implementation
Part IV.A.
Note: The Director may grant a written extension for plan preparation and compliance for new
dischargers (after October 1. 1992) upon showing of good cause.
October 1992
Peg 13
-------
EPCRA. Section 313. Facility Plan Certification Requirements—The plan must be reviewed and certified
by a Registered Professional Engineer arid recertified every 3 years or after the plan is significantly
changed This certification that the plan was prepared in accordance with good engineering practices
does not relieve the facility owner or operator of responsibility to prepare and implement the plan.
however
(C) Plan Location and Public Access
Although all plans are required to be maintained orisite. some NPDES storm water permits may require that
facilities submit copies of their Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans to the Director for review Examine
your permit carefully to determine what submittal requirements apply to your facility. Plans and all
required records must also be kept at least one year after the permit expires.
(D) Director-Required Plan Modifications
Upon reviewing your plan, the permitting authority may find that it does not meet one or more of the
minimum standards established by the pollution prevention plan requirements. In this case, the permitting
authority will notify you of the changes that you must make to improve the plan.
Octobw 1992 14
-------
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the minimum baseline BMP5 discussed in previous sections. facilities may be subject to
additional special requirements. Not all facilities will have to include these special requirements in
their Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Be sure to check your permit closely for these conditions.
In particular. EPAs general permit includes special requirements for (A) facilities that discharge storm
water through municipal separate storm sewer systems, (B) facilities subject to EPCRA. Section 313.
reporting requirements. and (C) facilities with salt storage piles.
(A) Special Requirements for Discharges Through Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems
Industrial facilities that discharge storm water through a large or medium municipal separate storm sewer
system (serving a population of 100.000 or more) must comply with any applicable conditions established
by the municipality’s storm water management program. These facilities will be notified by the
municipality. Examples of conditions could include additional monitoring requirements and/or additional
source control requirements.
(B) Special Requirements for EPCRA. Section 313, Reporting Facilities
In addition to the other special requirements identified in this guide, the following specific control
requirements must be practiced in areas where Section 313 water priority chemicals are stored, handled,
processed, or transferred:
• Provide containment, drainage control, end/or diversIonary strucVlrss (prevent or minimize runon
by installing curbing, culverting, gutters, sewers, or other controls, and/or prevent or minimize
exposure by covering storage piles).
• Prevent discharges from liquid jtorag. areas (store liquid materials in compatible storage
containers and/or provide secondary containment designed to hold the volume of the largest
storage tank plus precipitation).
• Prevent discharges from material storage areas (install drainage and/or other control measures).
• Prevent discharges from loading/unloading areas (use drip pans and/or Implement a strong spill
contingency and integrity testing plan).
• Prevent discharges from handling/processing/transferring areu (use covers, guards, overhangs,
door skirts and/or conduct visual inspections or leak tests for overhead piping).
• Prevent d charg.s from the above areas (use manually activated valves with drainage controls
in all areas, and/or equip the plant with a drainage system to return spilled material to the facility).
• Introduce facilty security programs to prevent sp ls (use fencing, lighting, traffic control, and/or
secure equipment and buildings).
(C) Special Requirements for Salt Storage Piles
Salt storage piles used for deicing or other commercial purposes must be enclosed or covered to prevent
exposure to storm water (except when salt is being added or removed from the pile). Please note that
piles do not need to be enclosed or covered where storm water is not discharged to waters of the United
Sates. Compliance with this requirement must be met as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 3
years after the NOl is submitted.
October 1992 Page 15
-------
OTHER REFERENCES
In addition to this summary, other documents are available to assist in the preparation and
implementation of pollution prevention plans. These documents include the guidance manual Storm
Water Management for Industrial Activities. Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best
Management Practices (EPA 832 -R-92-006. September 1 992). which is available from the National
Technical Information Service [ NTIS Order No. PB 922 359 691 at (703) 487-4650.
For any other information and guidance, please call EPAs National Storm Water Hotlirie at
(703) 821-4823. From the Hotline. you may obtain numerous documents, including:
£ September 9. 1 992. Federal Reaister (57 FR 41236) - Final NPDES General Penyiits for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity; Notice
Applicability :
For the States of Alaska. Arizona. Florida. Idaho, Louisiana. Maine, New Hampshire, New
Mexico. Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas; for Indian lands located in Alaska Arizona.
California, Colorado (including the Ute Mountain Reservation in Colorado). Florida (two tribes).
Idaho. Maine. Massachusetts. Mississippi. Montana, New Hampshire. Nevada. North Carolina.
North Dakota. Utah, Washington and Wyoming; for Federal facilities in Colorado and
Washington; for Federal facilities and Indian lands in Louisiana, New Mexico, Texas, and
Oklahoma; and for the territories of Johnston Atoll, and Midway and Waka Island.
e September 25. 1992. Federal Register (57 FR 44438) - Final NPOES General Permits for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity; Notice
- Applicability :
For the States of Massachusetts and Puerto Rico; for American Samoa and Guam; for Indian
lands located in New Yo& and for Federal facilities in Delaware.
October 1992 Pagis 16
-------
Title: _____
Office Phone:
Members:
(1)
Tide:
Office
Responsibilities:
Phone:
(2)
lids:
Office
Responsibilities:
Phone:
(3)
Tide:
Office
Phon:
Responsibilities:
(4)
Title:
Office
.
Phone:
POLLUTION PREVENTION TEAM
Worksheet
Completed
Title:
Date:
#1
by:
MEMBER ROSTER
Leader: _______
Responsibilities:
-------
DEVELOPING A SITE MAP
Worksheet #2
Completed by:
Date:
Instructions Draw a map of your site including a footpnnt of all buildings, structures, paved areas, and
parking lots. The information below describes additional elements required by EPA ’s General
Permit.
I
EPA’s General Permit requires that you indicate the following features on your site map:
• All outfalls and storm water discharges
• Drainage areas of each storm water outfall
• Structural storm water pollution control measures, such as:
• Flow diversion structures
• Retention/detention ponds
• Vegetative swales
• Sediment traps
• Name of receiving waters (or if through a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System)
• Locations of exposed significant materials
• Locations of past spills and leaks
• Locations of high-risk.
generating areas and activities common on indusalal sites such as:
• Fueling stations
- Vehicle/equipment washing and maintenance areas
Area for unloadinglloading materials
• Above-ground tanks for liquid storage
• Industrial waste management areas (landfills, waste piles, treatment plants, disposal areas)
• Outside storage areas for raw materials, by-products, and finished products
• Outside manufacturing areas
• Other areas of concern (specify:___________________
-------
MATERIAL INVENTORY
Worksheet #3
Completed by: —________
Tide:
Date:
Instructions. List all materials used, stored, or produced onsite Assess and evaluate these materials for their potential to contribute pollutants to
storm water runoff. Also complete Worksheet 3A if the material has been exposed during the last 3 years
Us*.n.l
Pwpos.iLoc.don
Ousnihy
W I tISI
Ou.nisly [ .possd in sat
L*.iihood of conisci with swim w.s.i if
ys.. dsaCnb.
P ... Ssg,ulicwl
Spill o L..k
w
5...
(s.
No
-------
DESCRIPTION OF EXPOSED SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL
Worksheet #3A
Completed by:
Title:
Date:
Instructions: Based on your material mveniory describe the significant mateisals that were exposed to storm waler during the Past iluce yeals
and/of are currently axpoud. For the definition of ssgnificant materials see page 5 of this summary
D..czaption ol Eapossd
Ssen.fscans Matsisal
P.rlod of
P°
Ou.ndty
Eapos.d
unlIsJ
Location
las catsd on ha sit.
mapS
M.thod of Sioeag. oe
Disposal I. . p s. d,um.
tankS
IMsciupiiun ol Maisiiai Msna j.unsiii Piaciiis 5. g. psi.
covsi.d um s..iedl
I
-------
LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SPILLS AND LEAKS
Worksheet #4
Completed by:
Title:
Date:
Directions: Record below all significant spills and significant leaks of toxic or hazardous pollutants that have occurred at ihe facility in the three
years prior to the effective date of the permit.
Definitions: Significant spifls include, but are not limited to. releases of p ! or hazardous substances in excess of renoriahl q nletIeS
la s Y ai Prior
Oat.
(.nonthld.yly...)
Spill
Leak
Location
I.. no
w
O.eciipiion
Rebponbb Piuc idiuu
U
Pieventivo
Me.aweb
Taken
TypS OS U.t.n
Ou.nuty
Sou,c. ii Known
R..son
A,nouni 01
u. ,.,. .
Mscovs..d
M.t. ,,.I No
Long.i
to W.4.,
t ,u.lf.IssI
2nd Yew I ’floi
Oat.
I ,non*hld.yly•s ,I
Spill
L.ak
Location
Isi uidac.tsd on eM.
mapS
Desciupsion
Raeponse Pwcttduie
Meaaiu.o
Taken
Iyp.oI M.twI
Ou.ntcy
..C. U Known
H.s.on
AOWHIU uS
M.i.n.l
R.c.w..
M.I.si.l No
tn . I. .po..d
So SSo,m W.t.,
it ,u.* ..I
—
d Yw Pflor
o...
lmonitild.ylv..ü
Spill
Lick
Location
I.. m —c on us
m.pI
O .ecr nson
R.spon .
Proceckus
Privensive
Ms.suiei.
Tsk.n
lyps OS UMsuel
OuantC
Sowc.. if Known
R..son
Alnouni uS
M.tw
Rscovw.d
Noss No
Lon.w Eepo..d
to sI wa..
lT ,u.ff .. i
-------
NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGE
ASSESSMENT AND CERTIFICATION
Worksheet #5
Completed by:
Title:
Date:
Date of
Test or
Evaluation
Outfall Directly
Observed During the
Test Msnhif a. sn catsd ,
ih. sits m
Method Used to
Test or Evaluate
Discharge
Describe Results from Test for
the Presence of Non-Storm
Water Discharge
Identify Potential
Significant Sources
Name of Person Who
Conducted the Test or
(valuation
CERTIFICATION
I. ______________________________ (responsible corporate official), certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were
prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the
information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or parsons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering
th. information, the information submitted is. to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information. including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations
A. Name & Official Title (type or print)
B. Area Code and Telephone No
C. Signature
D. Date Signed
-------
NON-STORM WATER
DISCHARGE ASSESSMENT AND
Worksheet
Completed
#6
by:
FAILURE
TO
CERTIFY
NOTIFICATION
Title:
Date:
Directions: If you cannot feasibly test or evaluate an outfall, fill in the table below with the appropriate information and sign this form to certify the
accuracy of the included information.
List all outfalls not tested or evaluated, describe any potential sources of non-storm water pollulion from listed outfalls, and state the reason(s) why
certification is not possible. Use the key from your site map to identify each outfall.
Important Notice: A copy of this notification must be signed and submitted to the Director within 180 days of the effective date of this permit
Identify Outfall Not
TestedlEvaluated
Description of Why Certification
Is Infeasible
Description of Potential Sources of Non-
Storm Water Pollution
CERTIFICATION
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system
designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons
who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment I or knowing violations, and that such notification has been made to the Director within 180 days of _________
(date permit was issued), the effective date of this permit.
A. Name & Official Title (type or print)
B. Area Code and Telephone No.
C. Signature
D. Date Signed
-------
Scoop tee CZsa Coapaay
40 leaks Drive
;jytevft, O& 2.2341
Deceabs: 11 2
stora later Polluties Previation Pus
erq.ncy Contact: Cberyl Silas
Work Phone: (2.01) 111 -1234
Title: Plant Manager
ergency Phone: (2.02.) 151—0020
Secondary Contact: Uc el Xey.rs
Work Phone: (101) 511-3023
Title: Inginesriag Supervisor
ergency Phone: (102.) 531-4750
Type of Manufacturer: tee Creaa Manufacturer
Operating Schedule: 5:00 an. — 11:30 pa.
Musber of ployses: The plant has 22 eapleyses, including part
tine staff. Shifts overlap all day.
verage Wastevatsr Discharge: 1,000 gallons per veek
MPD!S Perait Wusber: O 1 341S7
-------
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
TEAM
Wotkihsst si
Cornplsisd by:
lidi:
Diii: wAii# ,‘ j 9g,_
-
MEMBER
ROSTER
- ‘ ‘- -
Offici PliGni: ( io#) ‘ _ ,239
_ ci P f II A 4 u d’
I
e . /AI _‘ — i.. — — —
- - .. —
1 .1
* I,hj , f &r94 4’ , , 1 là
g#’ •ø
Msmbssi:
(1) ‘frJ, h & T i: A II.I
Offics Phins: ‘ai)
Rssportsib td ss: i 5i’ 4€ i 4ii i. , f
J
Tids: 141? Vf ) P 4P J’a Z PPi.,j 6p
OMes Phone:
. . h . ,.. -
J A# A u.4.
Office Phone: ___________________
- ,4.., .
L..dur:
, 4e a/ t /en#2
,
PJ PAa, — S
(2)
r ’—” 4 4 4. d 4
(3) C7P TI e:
Office Phone: (M ) i L..
Res onsIbd )thss: i 1 I/# . d / lfi iW.#P J J i
(4)
ride:
.)4,,,,, 45 #Y
-------
___________ t
I
4c.4s/ /?b .s
I
CS.PV
-------
Do 1e Scoop Ice Cream Company
- Sto * vatir Pollution Prevention Plan
comparison vita $PCC Plan
Double Scoop Ice Cream Plant has an SPCC plan in operation for its
abovegrourtd fuel storage tank. Overlaps are noted below:
• Isaac Feldman is the SPCC Coordinator and reports directly
to Cheryl Glenn. He will be the Storm Water Spill
Prevention and Response Coordinator.
• A complete description of potential for oil to contasinats
stern water discharges including quantity of oil, that could
be discharged.
• Curbing around abov.grourtd fuel storage tank identified on
site map.
• Expanded SPCC schedules and procedures to include Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan requirements.
• Incorporated SPCC plan training into storm water training
programs on spill prevention and response.
• Relevant portions of the SPCC plan will be included in this
plan.
-------
DEVELO NQ A SITE MAP
Instructions. Draw a map of your sits including a footprint of all buildings. structijres, paved arias, and
ar ing lots. The nformation below describes additional elements rsOuired by EPA’s General
Permit (see example maps in Fgures 2 3 and 2 4).
EPA’s General Permit reQuires that you indicate the following features on your site map:
• All outfalli a. .d storm water discharges
• Drainage areas of each storm water outfall
• Stnjctural storm water POllution control measures, such as;
• Flow diversion structures
• R.tention/detsritzon ponds
• Vegetative swales
• Sediment raps
• Name of receiving waters (or if through a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systemi
• Locations of exposed significant matenals (sea Section 2.2.2)
• Locations of past spills and leaks (s.e Section 2.2.3)
• Locations of high.nsk. wuteigenerating areas and activrdis common on industrial sites such as
• Fueling stations
• Veh,cteleQulpment wishing and maintenance arsu
• Area for unloadlnglloading materials
• Above . .ground tanks for liquid storage
• Industrial waste management areas (landfills, waste piles. treatment plants, disposal areas)
• Outside storage areas for nw miteflals. by-products, and finished products
• Outside manufacturing areas
• Other areas of on orn ( apicity :
-------
P.IONKk
9UILPING
— MS*
—
f4 *INC PP
ewu
Ovrra,u.
pJrIpI’ Oti./W#rr 6.PA ATr .
DOUBLE SCOOP IC CREAM COMPANY
PRE.BMP SiTE MAP
MARCH 1, 1 3
-------
WON .I ?EiVE.
Jo
•t411
CuRBS
9UILPNG
,s w rw
Romf ¶.-.—-
- i M fewe ur Wr1 O (W,cr i.
Ovr?M I. 001k
AZS
DOUIL! SCOOP IC! CREAM COMPANY
POST.Bt W SITE MAP
MARCH 1, 1993
-------
MATERIAL INVENTORY
.
Woikahest #3
Completed by: ei e -y/
Title: 7/zJ i’- /fl aiim
Date: ,- / jqq
lnstiucIiOfll: List .1 maisdats vest sisd. w pioducsd onsats. Ausss and svakial I S is .. maisnais I thou potsntoai so cornnbu ls pouutarns to
ssoun wa 1 iunolL Mso coin 5i ts Woikshsst 3A it she maisoat has bssn aspos.d dunn she lass thies yeais
Nu.dd
--- --
- --
-
‘ Li
3 vs_s
‘ --• .1 .ss.u sh .s . s_s.. N
s_
‘as, iji- - i
- —
lI 4 eJ
/12 /
LI /key
ki
a a
c4lfr
a
q L
‘ ‘°
1viir k
a c s,ue .*jc* c &r
i ”i1’ a &znAs.
1/
- -
(%in )i1’ir
£14 11 d A flZb
7u64
ar a d M7# f
fM 1
r•
7, SOD
r’/’
r
1hac th’td 4..
im’gS. .ss L
ai a LI- f frA
f
Z -
Al 0
I’JL’
ty
W ” #0
h1D . -1m2 -D
21v “
—
J 0
Yes. /bssiL ic,v .
L/
-
-------
MATERIAL
7? qe
INVENTORY
2-
Worksheet
Completed
Title
Date:
#3
by:
(“hcs-q/
/o#7 ‘2 ii q
e — —
z fL 2 —
7)e e - /j
hisliuctions: Last all inatisali u d. a asd. ot pioduc.d onsit. Ass.u and ivakiats this. maiwsals ba ih. pot.ius.il to ouuibuls pollutants to
swam wawa nioolt. Also complsl. Workshiss 3A it 5k. matwsal has b..n •xposed duisng sk. last lbs .. yeas S
M.s.s l
Pss,— - -
‘I-
““y Lass
3 V s
L --:: .5 th ss m waii N
P..s Si uUc.si.
--
I—-
s...i
V..
N.
t’I,anse,-:
I
___________
h I
A1 2t D
‘la ’
ç,4y€i hash
ift f1
—
No
-,i I
J
1/
4LJd; -D
C 1
____
j jjc,p . i
f iir/c:
ne
If
ak J1 ju L&irAL
—
—
A)
/
r ‘df .,1
S
* g4(/
__
AVL
/ 1 frJ6 / d HA1 -
L’
Ieiyi!MPA
I
I ui c/ ‘f
/CP,.// iØ1t s. ,‘r ‘ i1III i, r:S
-------
Woikahees 13A
DESCRIPTION OF EXPOSED SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL 1 E” ’ by: 1 jL
Insuucuons: 8usd on yow msisii uwsosoly. dsscnbs ths si nslscani snatonals ihat wits . po&.d 10 SIOHU wSIiI duisfl Ike put Ihtso yoai
and/ct s cuusndy slpoMd. Fe. his dshsnttion oh s ons acant maianals s s Appenth 8 oh the manual
—
.1 ,—
ii hleisiW
.isi . 1
r-
L.c. ,
11 . 5 1
M. sd .151 11.5.
—.
D11 ps.. . .1 M.s..i Uw... .S P,. sM.. I.e —
cv...d ss d
// L 1 rlr
4 r ái
lOyal
$P yw’ p’ s4jrf2
L g4- J 1’t /
“ ‘r” ”
iP4f 1C
, , hzitl ‘ 4 e
& —
-------
p
UST OF SIGNIFICANT SPSLLS AND LEAKS f CompIei.d by:
I ‘
()vc(.ons: Rscod bshow all significant spms and significant saks of to*.c w hazaidous pollutants that hay. occ’.ud at the Sic .hI in I Sis hi..
yesis pnoe so this stIctiv. dat. of this paints.
Definitions: Significant spdls i1r .11 . bi as not liinit.d to. islsasas of of w hazaidous substances in excess of Iei)olIible q !!(g e
is. Y. Pt.,
D ei.
— ---j,..i
SpdI
L..k
Local i
us -•- dis
q 5
0ssa Imn
P,.V.I IV.
Mw.as.s
tmk.n
Ipp. .1
‘°y
5. . N 5a. n
M... oø
. .. ... . .
M .i.n
Ii.i .o .i.i.d
N..
i.o ..d
so s.iio WM..
SIo..iiu i..l
7 I ______
ii V. .. P l o ..
LocsS n
D.sci .sion
_____________
KMpons.
PVos .e 5j ..
Pi.w..iii,.
* m. sit
M.s . .sd ii.
o. . . t
0 .
I . lId.Wv.o.I
i/Li/cl
5
Lss
£“
us MSd l.
4 f
.
I,,. .l-----
LJ3I1ID £ü .4
‘ ‘ss ,
10 a.
-
S.w.. N
f&.
-
I .s.s
/ y a i/ai
M . .s
iS . .ts.sd
/ Ilk!I
“q’,
i_p/if’—
1”anse’.td
.
7 ZL -
Mss.sa.s
e i/
° “ ‘
..W
- V...
Locslo.n
is... I.. .* iN.
. . S 1 .il I - osapi
0.sc4qilo.n
Il.spo .o..
Plui.s4 a.
Piswsii*iv.
Ms.. . 1 ...
I 5k..
I vp. sit M.i..id
Uu .015 5
.sos. N no.n
IMo.osi
Amu.si sit
M.i..,.l
Ns . . s ios..4
N.
lao.i,p—--
S. Moss. w
I u ....l .s
-
-------
NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGE
ASSESSMENT AND CERTIFICATION
Worksheet IS
Co
-
Date of
hit or
Evaluation
Ouif ii
Observed DwIii d l . .
Test —---—
s . .s. . i
Method Used to
Test or Evaluai.
Dsscharg.
Describe llssults from Test for
the Presence of Non-Storm
Waler Discharge
Identify Potential
Significant Sources
Nam. of Person Who
Conducted she Test or
I valuation
i/i
?/s -,*3
t ’/
t J
p, 1iZ/
i 3 thZ
,/
8,’ 7 ’
itd(I
‘____________
.‘
SuI5f’ / ø ,6 -
€/e i s, 1 q r-’l
Z aJ ?:./
‘C. 4 /dI S 4t41lt
J%. ‘oc(Pi!pe—
J%
A’.
v vt’ 4 p’ -
4
i tr* i- a4
rv/
CERTIICATmN
(responsible corporate official), certify under penalty of law that this document and aU asIachii is wets
prepared my dwection or s, rvssion vi accordance with a system designed to sews that qualified personnel properly gather a..ii th .
information siibm.uid. a.wf on my inquu’y of the person or persons who manage the system or thos, persons dusctly responsibl, for gatheruig
th. information. lbs information stibinined ss. so u ’s best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete I am aware that ther, a..
tignihcant psnal*sss for sribniitung false information. including the possibility of line and vnpr.sonmern for knowing v.olàtso
8. Area Cod. grid leisphon . No
/ “} c5 - ,z —
0 Date Signed
3Jz/ 73
A. Name & Official Tide (type or print)
-------
J( e27i4/ _ ,,
,v ’rE 1
, . jdO q “ * th,#,g J l ,
Z .vd óy. d v ’ —
Cai’ /
7Z 1 ., . / g • , ,,.
a , 4 /sfr 4i.s. ./2. mS
4g ,v .d: N , , ,
CV .&iø ’kAi. 11 ’* _ —
4y: £ad,*’ /7 ’
Ca.#’i. ,/,,/qj
7i.. m’. :
77 .ig.. ,‘m cb Pdj. : 5
6 7 M4 ’4 i4 ’ cA /as ’ , ‘,‘
; P 4 Yes
4/ . # 4 ’, ile.w ea/d’
‘s isp ,‘4 s#4 ,;
/d (jxc”a)
d * fa
“ ‘ ‘ 4i e& .4 “ “
7wr ace. ,4 &.
_______________ i, :
b : E m/ 4
*4 : £fr/f I
‘ .re. / •/4 4ew.
$/ ACd. /i.g ” , g4: 9
Q arn44’ A sfr’7*#S: $•
janym.
fl p”, 2 p 4IuP9 )
$ ‘: cWd +’2.i’#)
L4/R’9 .: //( 1ti ‘n
fJq 1 sp’
-------
Double Scoop Ice Cream Company
•iti kaaasIme t 151p•ctioa
?ebriasry 10, 9 3
Ivaluate t e sit, for pollutant..
There are five areas where material handling and storage activl .t .es
take place.
I The storage building contains tanks of corn syrup, liquid
sugar, and the granular cleansers. The tanks were examined
for possible leak.. We found that the valve on the liquid
sugar tank #2 was faulty and had leaked approximately 1.0
gallons of liquid sugar. Although this leak occurred on
1/21/92, the faulty valve was not discovered until now.
All other tanks are secure. Areas around the tanks were
swept clean to determine if leaks or spills were prevalent.
• The milk storage tanks were then examined for leaks or
exposure. Upon closer examination, it was found that the
nUmber 1 tank was leaking a small amount of milk to the
drainage system. This leak may be the reason for the high
concentration of biochemical oxygen demand found in the
sample taken from the storm water discharge. The tank was
temporarily fixed to ensure that no further contamination
would result. A replacement tank was ordered on February
6, 1993, and was expected to arrive within 5 business days.
The milk storage tanks shall be examined on a daily basis
to further prevent possible exposure to the storm water
collection system and receiving stream.
• We inspected the fueling station to i.e if there were any
leaks. The general area surrounding the fueling station
was clean but we observed that gasoline and motor oil falls
during fueling. In accordance with standard operating
conditions, facility personnel hose down the area during
vehicle washing and the drain is connected to the storrn
sever. We detected this connection on 1/19/93 during one
of the non—storm water discharge assessment visual
inspections. Since this discharge is not allowed under our
general permit, we are in the process of submitting a
separate permit application specifically for the discharge
of vehicle wash water.
• We examined the fueling station which is adjacent to the
vehicle washing area. Vehicle washing cleaners are used
here and any empty or open containers were removed from the
area.
-------
• We next looked at the loading and unloading docks where raw
materials and various cleansers are delivered. me
transfer of goods from incoming trucks to storage areas is
a source of pollution. Although no problems were noticed
the pollution prevention team has developed a spill
prevention and response plan to clean U spills quickly and
report them if necessary.
• The last area we inspected was the runoff field below the
employee parking lot. Hers we noticed a significant amount
of erosion resulting from recent construction to expand the
parking lot.
Describe ezistinq management practices.
Crass was lightly planted around the parking lot after recent
construction. The fuel storage tank has curbing around it in
accordance with our SPCC plan. Also, the maintenance crew
regularly picks up trash and empty containers from around the
storage tanks, loading and unloading areas, and the vehicle washing
areas. Used oils are collected in containers and taken to a
recycling facility. In addition, we installed two oil/water
separators at th. drains into our underground store sever leading
to the Rocky River. Thes. separator. are indicated on the sit.
map.
-------
0Ub1• Scoop Ice cream company
gsisting Monitoring Data
Alt tough our NPDES permit for process wastevatar do.. not require
storm water sampling, we sampled our storm water on one occasion i rt
response to a questionnaire we received from the 4ational
Assoc ation of Ice Cream Maker.. They were collecting information
to submit as part of their comments on EPA’S proposed general
permit.
Date of Sampling
8/30/91
Outfall sampled
001
ype of Storm
1 inch light rainfall
(lasted 2 days)
ype of samples
Grab samples taken
during first hour of
f 1ev
Data
Parameter
Sample
BOO -
Grab
TSS
Grab
p0
7.2 s.ia.
Grab
Oil and
grease
5.0 mg/i
Grab
Based upon tho high concentration of DOD
collected, pollution prevention team
potential so*arcea of ROD. We will look
butter fat, milk, and whey solids tanks.
in the storm vater sample.
is considering possible
at storage areas housing
-------
Double SCOOP CS Cream Company
- g ry of Pollutant Sources
Xarcb 3, 1 93
Based on the site assessment inspection conducted on 12/1/92, the
pollution prevention team identified four potential, sources of
pc i lutants:
• O .l and grease stains on the pavement in the fueling area
indicats oil, and grease may bo picked up by storm water
draining to the storm sever. This area drains into t. te
storm sewer leading to the Rocky River.
• Sediment and erosion potential in the field below the
.mployes parking lot because of thi iy planted grass.
• Potential for spills or leaks from liquid storage tanks,
including the fuel storage tank, based on a spill that
occurred on 1./21/92 and the leak that was detected in the
milk storage tank. These pollutants would drain into the
pip.d outfall into the Rocky River.
• Use f a toxic cleaning agent say result in a pollution
problem ‘9 handlsd improperly.
-------
Double Scoop Ice Crean Cospasy
D.script iea..L stog later Kaaagaa.nt Keasur.. Taken
Used ca Site kssisss•nt Ptas•
)ta:ch 5, 553
These measures correspond to the pollutant sources identified on
the preceding page.
Oil and grease fros fueling area.
we installed drip pads around the fuel punps to pick up spilled gas
and oil during truck refueling. These will, be inspected rsqularly
to 5aice sure they are working well.
S.dinent and erosion in the field buoy the ..ploy.. parking let.
We planted grass in this area to reduce potential for erosion.
Leaks/spills ft .. liquid storag. tanks.
U. are in the process of installing curbing around the outdoor
liquid storage tanks that will contain th• volune of he largest
tank in case a spill should occur. The spill response teas has
developed procedures to clean up this area should a spill occur.
We are incorporating spill response procedures tro. our SPCC plan.
Toxic cleaning ag.nt.
We have discontinued the use of this agent and axe replacing it
with a non—toxic cleaning agent.
-------
3• fr/4?ka/ i - 1 m//s 7*4P1 // 4 ’S
Jh Lqr i .*(s Cc 4’ *A,c ,4 /,
1*, / t’m—t A r, .’# ? -‘ “
4. die o/hj , e..Y
,e1 ,. rce ‘Q
, /‘4&4 d.% Iq4- /. ,-, t #2 .
.b—’ a.r ’i d c 0.4 # m1’e tfl 4
r” Iç/M 41 / 1a!2
ije #i i, - r ’xir C/e .7/ Q le ,
POLLUTANT SOUHCE IDENTIFICATION
(SICIIOSI 2.2.6)
Wok.hs.t 97
Complstd by i 4e / r.#vj
ThIs:
kisuuc$ions: List idandind stw wMSf polulant wuicss and dsscnbs s istinO m a na sm.nt piacs •s ih.i ad •ss ihui• soi c•s. ki ulis shed
cokamn. 1st IMP npikpu. dies can Is kicovpovatsd áito (Is plan to ad su Ismanvog sowcss of poMusanss.
$$. Wst Po i$s $i c
£alasIi Man. s.ant Piacticas
D.sc, tion of New IMP Options
1. ,/
,-‘
Dil 1 i’,Jh ti’kd
rn ckw- .v it
/‘ sM//d pa /s
2. E,ps.,,rn 6t i 4 ’
eI.f,v/D 1 e 1 .aa,-,tNg 4,,’-
AéU1IrA4f 4 ..ie f’ LJ- fCdI #?S/fr VC/1A
9 S $e i rv/ v7g
f/a.i i/
a. n , / / £PbV4y 4-
.
a
b. 7 s4 “ / Jfk#,hw d
/ fe 4 4y -
€f*/4Yb4P4IShflCk
4 7 CC
£
7 rnjhif,
,p’w€6 ecS I’
I.
7.
8.
9.
-------
ØMP IDENTIFICATION
(S.cllon 2.3.1)
Workshnst Si.
Complt.d by: j & c/ ck”yi
ThIs.
lnasiuctmns: Ducnb. slis assa Man. smsnt Piacsic.s that you hay. .l.ct.d to iøcka” NI youi plan Foi •ach ol She bdlubne lIMPs.
d.sc ès actions ISM llI bs nco,pwau.d silo (acllfly opsiatsons. Also d.w i. any additional lIMPs lec livsiy specdic
(Chapt 3) and IIN-sp.cdic BMPs IChapt.. 411 that you hays salecuad. Attach additional shaeis ii nec•ssa.y
M s
e.a.i Dssciiption of Activiuu
Good Housahasplig
t!,/ke,’ ad} * UcI ’//, ‘ fScJ - /r pice y,
, 4i,S’c c 4 4an p ed es (S ç4 /?z. £
‘r v efr-)
Pi.vsnusvs Maintenance
tki4 /ie /s’4 , “i ’a ni//A: zu //1/
pn Saw9’ 74(#16 Z; ‘ rp/4 -e /ea.é, ’y ,fl, i 4 g 4 4t
I i i eC s lo n s
£i tc 4, #tf r hiu, #,lIZt 4
fd
Spill hsvsnsion Rsspons.
/ it /zmr cw b/ i , ins/ Ids ,# pads as’ ,frJ #nq Si /u it
S.dsmsnt and (lotion Consiol
/9’a?4 5 4 1 IZ4vf
Mana9smsnt oi Runoff
(s) ‘il/ zs’ei-
1e/D7AF 5 rn5hr,nd.44 , 4’qf7 &#fl
AdiIsIsuiiaI UMP .
IA. liwily peLilsc aiid Sue speC uliL)
)a/e*- MD 7-/DX/ %tlI/,na o1ne tt
/ /
-------
Dou 1e •coop Xc. Cream company
- ploy. . Training Program
flo:
Line Workers
Maintenance Crew
Shipping and Receiving Crew
fl.n:
Employ.. meetings held the first Monday of each month to disc ss:
• Any .nvironn.ntal/h.alth and safety incidents
• Upcoming training sessions
• Brief reminders on good housekeeping, spill prevention and
respons . procedures, and material handling practices
• Announce any changes to the plan
• Announce any new management practices
In-depth pollution prevention training for new employees
Refresher courses held every 6 months (october and March)
addressing:
• Good housekeeping
• Spill prevention and response procedures
• Materials handling and storage
ploy.• Training Program Topiosi
Good Housekeeping
• Review and demonstrate basic cleanup (sweeping -
vacuuming) procedures.
• Clearly indicate proper disposal locations.
• Post signs in materials handling areas reminding staff
good housekeeping procedures.
• Be sure employees knew where routine clean-up equipm.rt
located.
-------
Spill Prevention and Response
• Clear3.y identify potential spill areas and drainage routes
• Familiarize employees with past spill events —— why they
happened and the environmental impact (use slides)
• Post warning signs in spill areas with emergency contacts
arid telephone nu bers
• Introduce Isaac Feldman as the Spill Response Coordinator
and introduce his “team”
• Drill on spill clean-up procedures
• Pest the locations of spill clean-up equipment arid the
persons responsible for operating the equipment
Materials Mandling and Storage
• Be sure employees are aware which materials are hazardous
and where those materials are stored
• Point out container labels
• Tell employees to use the oldest materials first
• Explain recycling practices
• Demonstrate how valves are tig t].y closed and how drums
should be sealed
• Show how to fuel vehicles and avoid “topping off”
-------
Wokah..i t8
IMPLEMENTATION Compl.s.d by:
(Scilon 2.4.1) Te lls; -____
kisltuclaons: Dsvslop a sdssd’Js Ow io IsmsnUn sads BMP Piovsds a twssl dssaipuon ol sach 8MP. Ito ai.p nscsssary so unplsmsn i his SUP
(I.•.. any cons don w dssagnl. ills sdhsdi4s Ow conipisUnO Silos. h.Pi Us$1 dst.sI and Ihs psiannlal aspunsibls Ow
Nuoismsntauon.
SU?S
•
Dssc4Sion .0 Actionls) Nsquásd Ow knpi.msnsasion
&M
Coinpisuon
DassIsi Ow
R.qd. Action
P.ison
H.sponsdI .
Ow Action
‘
tOot s
Good $osaslksspinO
1 . 4 ii p, 7j pi mm
2. j!a fJM€1
3.
hn/4
t/ifl
kii 4
6/ci .
Pisvsnuvs Moinssnancs
1. , 2
2 /#,sk//, ’ i,1t kz A #i
5/i/g
i ./ic/ 7
/ i 4i 4 vi 1
3
InspecIsoos
1 / Z I L) K 44
y/ifr
4, ,,,
3.
SpiI Pv.voiwon and I4ssponis
Ssdsinsni and £soiion ConuoS
1. ,MIk/M ’f
2.j,, ti4iá’ ix,,,
3.
: 1 ’- r’
9/ D/f 3
q /J i
4Vl/%-4ifleliD l9
/a/,a - , ,
iL5-/y
i1k
, L17 1
i iiai
3.
ManaOsmsnt ol Ilunoft
• .1 s IMS
• i.. • •I. .i..J .se j)ULIISL)
1. s4ip 1 i/,-,aJ , / 7p/4r1ce
2.
.
3.
.$i IcAft,hI /€ ‘wpi 1vx’ c/r’ ‘i• i
2
:i
k
$ i c
-------
,1* /t1r4#a ’Ifs ja fr,, zLj
‘ s’wss r€cyc4 jr .
b,vi’ s,*w/aI/hemiWv a n4
fr.dc’,aiq ,4ã , e en4Aq
Iru/h ip/
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
‘
(Sc*Ion 2.4.21
Workahes 19
CompI.isd by:
Oat ,:
ThIs:
kisuucuens. Dswibs lbs aiiloy.. v *ig pro i 1w yaw Iacik ly bslow. Uis piogiam should, at a m mum , addi.u spiN plsvrnson d
isuponas. — P’ s#* . and aislsA mana smsnt piacticss. Piowids a schsdsls 1w lbs liasniog pio sam and kit th.
wsp’oysss ho ansnd u.isise mw1ls.
Tialnis T1p ,
Isf Dssa den .1 Ti --
- -s Is•.. I . aswslstlsr
cauiss l
Sdisdds 1w Trami
(list dat. .)
Astsnd s
SpiN Pwsvsnl i and Rsspons.
Good HOUIdIsupNiO
/Zt* I1WS 6,
y j
as’-
jjg w 4 Is/
I l1,1/r zgz#7 ,/
J/!ft’iiy ‘Ccei
sIv, ,o,,q 4 2’ e4
Neteisal Mana smsnt Piacucss
Oth.i Topics
€ ‘
- J- s5i Nkês .
-------
Sb
Urn d St.t.s
Enwiu.m. ,ni I Pro t,.. Aqency
Wsshsng$an DC 20160
(EN 33 )
OII ci Businpss
Pena’ty Fot Pnviui, U50 $300
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
oCt 21992
Hc CF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Iational Approach to 8.wag. 8lu4 e Implm.ntation
FROM: Michael B. Cook, oirectq! jf ( /,, IP
Office of Wastewater En kt i*’ nd Compliance
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I — X
I wanted to take this opportunity to share my thoughts with
you on the overall direction and thrust of the Agency’s sludge
implementation efforts and to solicit your assistance in a number
of key areas. These observations are based on discussions with
many of you over the last several months as well as on feedback
we’ve received from States, localities, and other group.. With
promulgation of final Part 503 standards for sewage sludge use
and disposal imminent, now is an appropriate time to focus
renewed attention on implementation of the sewage sludge program.
It is our intention, in this time of limited resource., to
establish the sludge management program in a manner that is
creditable and responds to statutory mandates of protecting human
health and/or the environment while supporting beneficial use of
sludge.
Reaional P.rmittina Activities and R.aional Xmmlmantation
t a%.ai S i
Although the final rule is expected to be largely “self-
implementing,” we believe that the Part 503 technical standards
must ultimately be implemented through permits. A permit allows
for the imposition of site-specific permits limits and
operational standards, particularly for such entities as surface
disposal sites and incinerators. It allows monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to be tailored to a
particular site. It clarifies a facilities’ responsibilities and
creates a partial affirmative defense with respect to 503
compliance. Issuance of permits can also serve to reassure the
public in connection with particular use and disposal operations.
Finally, sludge permitting is required by Section 405(f) of the
Clean Water Act.
- eden Qe .ceC 3 e’
-------
2
As you know, agreements with States to conduct sludge
permitting activities under the interim strategy will be invalid
after promulgation of the technical standards. After that date,
only authorized State sludge programs or Regional offices will be
able to issue Section 405(f) sludge permits. Regions need to
prepare to handle this additional workload in the most
administratively workable approach possible and we have suggested
a number of possible approaches in previous correspondence on
Regional Implementation Strategies (copy of 6/22/92 draft
guidance is attached)
In particular, a number of tools exist, including general
permits and “piggy back” individual permits to help ease the
permitting burden. Accordingly, we have convened a workgroup
comprised of Regional sludge coordinators and Headquarters staff
to develop model general permits for use by all Regions. I would
encourage you to offer your full support to your staff for these
activities. Also, we are developing a permit writers guidance
document and a model automated permit to facilitate permit
issuance. Drafts of these permit writers’ tools should be
available for review in the next month; working copies should b
available shortly after prqmulgation of Part 503.
In addition, we have proposed that each Region develop an
Implementation Strategy that would discuss its plans relative to
sludge permitting, enforcement, and outreach. Contrary to
concerns expressed by some, we view such a document as an
opportunity for each Region to develop a comprehensive blueprint
to assist Regions in developing its approach to sludge
implementation, not as an occasion for Headquarters to set up a
new set of performance measures. As with any new program, we all
expect to learn from our collective experiences and improve our
process as we progress. We will issue final guidance on
developing Regional implementation strategies within the next few
weeks.
Rsaional Enforcament of the Technical Standards
To the extent the Part 503 standards are “self
implementing,u we need to respond to noncompliance as it comes to
our attention. As we have previously agreed, the primary
emphasis of our compliance and enforcement activities will be
directed toward Class I Sludge Management Facilities. At this
time, we anticipate that the universe of these entities is
approximately 4,000. Determining the exact number and identity
of these facilities will be an important first step in building a
viable compliance program. In addition, we recently (July 23,
1992) circulated some proposals for designing Regional strategies
to carry out those activities as resources allow. We look
forward to working with you and your staff to develop a sludge
enforcement program which is risk-based, effective in promoting
beneficial reuse of sludge, and as efficient as possible.
-------
3
Status f glud . State Program Activity
I believe we all recognize that the long term effectiveness
of this program will depend, to a considerable degree, on the
willingness of States to become formally approved to administer
the sewage sludge permitting program. Congress intended for
sludge management decisions to occur at the local level and for
the program to be implemented and enforced primarily at the State
level. EPA shares those objectives and has reflected them in its
rulemakings.
I also recognize that States have been unwilling thus far to
develop sewage sludge management program submissions for approval
on the basis that they want to first see the final 503 technical
standards and assess the technical, legal, and resource
ramifications of these standards on their various programs. I
can certainly appreciate their caution in this regard, but I
don’t believe the absence of the final promulgated Part 503
technical standards is sufficient reason for States and EPA
Regional offices to suspend all activity relative to State .eva e
sludge management programs. In addition, I suggest we emphasize
to the States the potential duplicative permitting scheme that
may result with federally issued sludge permits (or direct
implementation of Part 503) and State sludge permits (with, in
certain cases, different requirements).
Where States have elected to await final promulgation before
submitting formal applications, there is still much that can be
done to prepare for formal authorization of State programs.
Preparatory steps include review of existing State program
authorities and technical requirements and development of draft
program submission documents (program description, attorney
general statement, MOA).
The Agency promulgated regulations specifying the
requirements for State program submissions (54 FR 18716, May 2,
1989] and has developed guidance to support this process. (We
are forwarding an additional copy of these documents to your
Regional sludg. coordinator.) The guidance provides examples of
model documents and checklists which can be used to help
facilitate development of State program submission.. We have
provided contract assistance previously to assist Regions and
States in this process and strongly encourage Regions to consider
including such assistance in their FY93 Regional contract plans.
Finally, my staff stands ready to provide whatever assistance it
can to both Regions and States in preparing for State
authorization. We have demonstrated in the last two years, in
dealing with NPDES general permits program modifications, the
success that can result when Headquarters, Regions and States
work together on State program issues.
-------
4
Need for Communication and Centers for Excellence
I believe that the recent flurry of activity regarding
interstate transfer of sewage sludge has underscored the need for
frequent communication at all levels and for well conceived
approaches to our activities. The Agency’s regulations provide a
considerable degree of flexibility. Movever, we need to ensure
that we hay, a well-documented basis for our actions and that we
communicate appropriately with all concerned parties to apprise
them of any decisions or actions which may affect them.
Sludge implementation activities of the magnitude required
by Section 405 of the Clean Water Act are a relatively new
phenomenon for many of us and will result in both expected and
unexpected issues in initiating a new program. We can also
expect the regulated community to have many questions about how
particular sewage sludge practices will measure up under the new
technical standards. As discussed in my August 14, 1992
memorandum, we set aside September 28 and 29 for the initial
meeting to establish Centers of Excellence for sludge management 1 .
The centers will provide advice and assistance on specific
technical aspects of sludge management to States, municipalitie
consulting engineers, and others as they attempt to determine i
existing or proposed sludge management practices comply with the
new technical regulations.
In closing, let me say that I greatly appreciate the
interest and enthusiasm of you and your staffs in developing this
challenging new program area and look forward to working with you
in the future as we chart this new course together. Please r’
hesitate to contact me at (202) 260-5850, Cynthia Dougherty at
(202) 260—9545, Richard Kozlowski at (202) 260—8304, or Michael
Quigley at (202) 260—5859, if you have any questions or comments
on this program.
Attachment
cc: Cynthia Dougherty
Richard Kozlowski
Micha•l Quigley
Regional Permits and Enforcement Branch Chiefs
Regional Sludge Coordinators
-------
United States Oflce Of Water EPA 833 3. -
Environmental Protection (EN-336) Novemoer 1992
Agency
EPA Guidance Manual
For The Preparation
Of Part 2 Of The NPDES
Permit Applications For Discharges
From Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems
- c I
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20480
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
401 M Street, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Fact Sheet on Storm Water Program
Phase II Extension Under the
Waler Resources Development Act
The Water Resources Development Act signed by the President on October 31, 1992,
extends the moratorium on permitting of Phase II storm waxer sources (those sources that did
not recieve a permit prior to February 4, 1987, are not covered by the November 1990 storm
waxer application regulations, and are not designated under 402(p)(2)(E) (see below)) by two
years to October 1, 1994. Under the Act, regulations to cover Phase H sources are required
to be promulgated by EPA by October 1, 1993. These new regulations will cover sources
not addressed in the November, 1990 rule and will establish application requirements. Under
this extension, Phase II storm water discharges will not be required to submit a permit
application until after October 1, 1994, unless they are otherwise designated as discussed
below.
Although Phase H of the storm water program is now postponed, EPA or a State may
designate, under existing Clean Water Act authority (section 402(p)(2)(E)), a storm water
discharge not addressed by Phase I as a significant conthbutor of pollutants to waters of the
U.S. or as a contributor to a violation of water quality standards. EPA may require a permit
application from any source so designated. EPA is presently developing an approach to
implement the storm water program for sources not covered by the current program.
If you have any questions please call the EPA Storm Water Hotline at (703) 821-4823.
( 4 t % . _ ____
Cy hia C. Dougherty, Director J d bate
Pdmits Division
PnntedcnRec, 3:er
-------
United States Office of Research and EPN600/R-921238
Environmental Protection Development January1993
Agency Washington. DC 20460
7EPA Investigation of
Inappropriate
Pollutant
Entries into Storm
Drainage Systems
A User’s Guide
S pje
-------
United States
O i l ce of Wastewater
Wor ng Draft
Environmental Protection
Agency
Enforcement and Compliance
Washington, D.C.
EPA
GUIDANCE FOR WRITING
PERMITS FOR THE USE OR
DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
DRAFT
March 1993
G.n.rsto
-------
Undid Stitis Offuc. Of Wg.r EPA 833& ’93O
Environmintal Pr s ucn (EN-338) i. th
Training Manual’
for NPDES
Permit Writers
* 1 ’ s—p t ’ ,.,
-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVtRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20410
PR i i993
WAIU
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of Metals Criteria
FROM: Martha G. Prothro
Acting Assistant Administrator for Waxer
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
Since the issuance of the May 1992, Interim Metals Guidance (lnterim
Metals Guidance), we have continued to work on the issue of implementation of metals
criteria for the protection of aquatic life. We have also sought the opinion of those outside
EPA. On January 25-27, 1993, EPA held an open meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, to
discuss metals. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overall description of our
activities, and to place the Annapolis meeting in context. I encourage you to share it with
your State and Tribal Water Quality Managers. A subsequent memorandum will provide our
best technical recommendations as shaped by all information gathered since the Interim
Metals Guidance. This memorandum will be submitted to you in draft for comment by the
endofMarch,andweintendtoissueitinfinalbyApri llS.
There were 34 participants at the Annapolis meeting, drawn from academics,
consultants, the reguI2t d community, States, EPA laboratories, EPA Regions, and EPA
H” ’lquarters. Approximately 120 observers attended, and offered comments. Alter this
meeting, the participantsmet on January 28-29, in closed session to discuss short and long-
term recommendations for EPA. They have prepared a document listing their short-term
recommendations (recoinmendations, attached).
The remilts of the meeting and the recommendations e positions of the
participants, and the recommendations were not subject to formal EPA review. They are not
EPA policy, but we will consider them carefully in preparing our guidance.
P ,I,C Rec d Paper
-------
.3-
Metals S ategy - The strategy will address these issues and integrate others, such as
metals in sediments and sludge.
Our long-term goal is to understand fully the toxicity and chemistry, and to develop
appropriate methodologies based on that understanding. We are conducting research in these
areas. In the near term, we will provide the above listed guidance documents on how to
utilize the best present science while the science conunues to evolve. Regions, States, and
Tribes should continue all aspects of their water quality programs, including regulation of
metals, while the additional guidance discussed above is being prepared. We believe this
guidance will be consistent with the concepts expressed in the National Toxics Rule and have
no plans to amend the rule.
If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please telephone me or have
your staff telephone Bob April (202.260-6322). We will also be soliciting public comments
on the recommendations. You may send your comments on the recommendations to
Margarete Heber, Mail Code WH-586, USEPA, Washington, DC 20460, and should inform
any interested parties that such comments should be submitted to her.
Attachment
-------
Workshop on Aquatic Life Criteria for X•tals
Short Tarn & .COSAendet ion.
These are the overall short-term recommendation, of the
experts invited to the Workshop on Aquatic Life Criteria for
Metals held January 25-29, 1993 in Annapolis, Maryland. The
group also recommended that the Agency should fund (or co-fund)
some basic integrated longer term research to determine what
controls the bioavailability of metals. A separate document will
detail the long-term research recommended.
This workshop was organized by EPA, however, the following
short-term recommendations were developed and submitted to EPA by
the experts invited to the workshop. These recommendations
should not be considered EPA’s recommendations or policy. EPA is
in the process of evaluating these recommendations and r.vising
its national policy on metals.
Thi, workshop explicitly excluded mercury and selenium from
discussion because they bioaccumulate and their mod. of action
differs from most other metals.
The following short-term recommendations are meant to
further implementation of the aquatic life criteria for metals.
I. Clean Analytical Chemistry
Most metals data have not been collected using appropriate
clean techniques (both sampling and analytical). Consequently,
values for effluents and receiving waters may be suspect and
should be verified using appropriate clean sampling and
analytical techniques. Metals concentrations in the low parts
per billion range that have been collected in previous years have
been shown to be unreliable due to various types of sample
contamination. This may include effluents, as veil as ambient
water samples. Therefore, modern methods for clean (ultra-clean
techniquei for open ocean and lakes, clean techniques for all
other water body types) collection, sample handling, and
instrumental techniques should be used, and new effluent and
receiving water data should be collected.
EPA EQ should prepar. guidance for the Stats,, regions, and
dischargers to describe clean sampling and analytical laboratory
procedures. Guidance should also be provided to permit writers
on how to handle pending and previously issued permits (ic how
good is the analytical data that was submitted and is being
submitted), and the relationship of clean techniques to existing
Part 136 analytical methods and sample handling requirements.
-------
xv; vat.r-!ff.ct Ratio (VZR)
The water-sf fact ratio is a biologically based method to
estimate the bioayaj]ab].e fraction of a toxic pollutant in a
receiving water. Guidance for this method will be available
shortly. The application of WER can be used as a substitute for
the dissolved fraction by estimating the bioavailabl. fraction.
For this use, both total recoverable metal and dissolved metal
should be measured. If the criteria are expressed as dissolved,
then a dissolved WER should be used. Use of a dissolved WER
should reduce the dependence of the WER of suspended solids
concentrations. If the criteria are expressed as total
recoverable, then a total recoverable WU should be used.
V. List of under and over protective factors
EPA should prepare a list of the under and over- protective
factors and assumptions in the standards-to—permits process as
information for permit writers. This could servs to better
insure that the criteria are applied to achiev, the intended
level of protection. The permit writer should consider both the
over and underprotective factors in limits and in considering
when a WER is appropriate. These factors and assumptions should
at a minimum include:
A. Duration and violation frequency
B. Criteria (applicability of dissolved fraction)
C. Steady state versus dynamic modelling for TXDLs.
D. Permit limits and averaging periods.
V I. Organonetallic compounds
There are classes of compounds, for example metalized dyes,
that contain metals of concern. However, these chemicals may
have characteristics that require additional consideration. Some
metalized dyes are designed so that the metal is tightly bound,
and they will not break down quickly. However, some treatment
processes viii enhance the breakdown of these compounds. If
these chemicals can degrade rapidly, for example in the treatment
plants, then these chemicals would convert to ionic metal, and
would be handled as described in the above discussions. If,
however, they are resistant to decay, then they should be
evaluated as a separate class of chemicals, with specific
properties. (It has not been determined exactly what procedures
or criteria to use to determine resistance to decay.) Data
presented demonstrating the bioavailability or toxicity of these
compounds in the effluent should be used in developing permit
limits for metal.
-------
tO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
4
APR I 6
OcFcE CF
Mr. Robert F. Babcock WATER
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Pretreatment Field Support Unit
Surface Water Quality Division
Lansing, Michigan 48909
Dear Mr. Babcock:
Thank you for your letter of December 16, 1991. Your letter
requests guidance concerning the applicability of categorical
pretreatment standards and when an industrial user (IU) may be
deemed a significant industrial user (SIU) as defined by 40 CFR
Part 403.3(t). This letter first addresses the broad question of
when an industry is subject to categorical pretreatment
standards, since that is one of the criteria for an IU to be
defined as a SIU. If an IU does not meet this criterion, it may
be considered a SIU based on one of the other three criteria
provided in the definition of SIU under 40 CFR Part
403.3(t)(1)(ii). Once defined a SIU, minimum requirements are
established for the control authority (e.g., issuance of an
individual control mechanism).
A SIU includes “All industrial users subject to Categorical
Pretreatment Standards under 40 CFR Part 403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter
I, Subchapter N” (40 CFR Part 403.3(t)(l)). For this purpose, an
IU is deemed to be a categorical industrial user (CIU) when it
meets the applicability requirements for a specific category and
is subject to pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES)
or pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
While there are many industrial categories with promulgated
effluent guidelines and standards, not au. contain PSES or PSNS
requirements. Where an IU falls within a promulgated industrial
category that only provides reference to 40 CFR Part 403 or Part
128 (e.g., the prohibited discharge standards), this alone would
not be considered PSES or PSNS requirements, and therefore, it
would not be considered an IU subject to categorical pretreatment
standards. This position has been articulated in Pretreatment
Bulletin #3 (November 6, 1987) and in a memorandum entitled “Non-
Consent Decree Categorical Pretreatment Standards” from James
Elder, Director, Office of Enforcement and Permits, dated August
24, 1988 (attached).
The following restates the issues of concern to you, as we
understand them, and provides our response. In some cases, we
have reworded your questions to apply to broader situations that
Pnnr€do C..- ‘:er
-------
are encountered throughout the Regions and States.
1. Should the Sugar Processing (40 CFR Part 409) and
Feedlot (40 CFR Part 412) categories be considered
industrial categories with categorical pretreatment
standards?
Answer: Yes. Any promulgated industrial category with
at least one subpart containing either PSES or PSNS
requirements would be considered an industrial category
with categorical pretreatment standards. In short,
Subpart A of the Sugar Processing category and Subparts
A & B of the Feedlots category are considered to have
PSES or PSNS requirements. Therefore, an indus ial
user subject to one of these subparts would be
considered a CIU, and thus automatically a SIU. This
position has been articulated in a memorandum entitled
“Conventional Pollutants Regulated by Categorical
Pretreatment Staiidards”, from James Elder, Director,
Office of Enforcement and Permits, dated February 16,
1989 (attached).
2. Michigan DNR has prepared a list of all industrial
categories with categorical pretreatment standards and
found in Title 40 Chapter I, Subchapter N of the Code
of Federal Regulations. Does EPA concur with this
list?
Answer: We have reviewed this list and find that it is
missing two categories, Sugar Processing (40 CFR Part
409) and Feedlots (40 CFR Part 412). A comprehensive
list of industrial categories with categorical
pretreatment standards (PSES or PSNS) has been enclosed
for your reference. This list was excerpted from EPA’s
“National Pretreatment Program Report to Congress” on
pg. 5—5.
3a. Where an industrial user operates a categorical
process, but no regulated process wastewater is
discharged or has the potential to be discharged to the
publicly owned treatment works (POTW), should the IU be
considered a categorical industrial user, and therefore
a SIU even if they discharge other unregulated process
or sanitary wastes?
Answer: No. If the only wastestream that an
industrial user discharges or could potentially
discharge to the POTW is not subject to PSES or PSNS
requirements, it is not a categorical industrial user
for purposes of that discharge or for purposes of 40
CFR Part 403. An example of this situation would be a
metal finisher that discharges its sanitary wastes to
-------
3
the POTW and all of its regulated process wastewater to
a receiving water under a JPDES per-mit. This facility
would not be considered a categorical industry for
purposes of the SIU definition since no PSES or PSNS
requirements would apply.
Of course, noncategorical lUs are still subject to the
General Pretreatment Regulations and local limits, and
may still warrant periodic inspection and monitoring by
the control authority.
3b. If a categorical pretreatment standard requires testing
or a certification statement (i.e., certification that
a particular pollutant or process is not used, in
the case of paper and pharmaceutical standards) and a
categorical industry certifies that it does not use the
pollutant of concern, is it still a categorical
industrial user?
Answer: Yes. If the IU meets the applicability
requirements of the categorical standard, and is
subject to specific PSES and PSNS requirements, then it
would be considered a CIU and thus a SIU.
Is the certi ication a one-time statement, or is it
required as part of the categorical industry’s
continued compliance report?
Answer: Should the categorical pretreatment standard
require a testing or certification statement, the CIU
must report and certify that they are not using the
pollutant of concern, and this must be done
semiannually as required by 40 CFR Part 403.121,
unless specified otherwise by the categorical
pretreatment standard.
3c. If an ITJ is subject to a categorical pretreatment
standard which provides a requirement of “no discharge
of pollutants”, or similar requirement, is the IU
considered a CIU?
Answer: Yes. There are a number of categorical
pretreatment standards which have PSES or PSNS
requirements that contain such language. An IU subject
‘This certification provision only applies where prescribed
by a categorical pretreatment standard. Any IU that is subject
to categorical pretreatment standards (PSES or PSNS) that does
not contain a certification requirement must sample and report on
all regulated pollutants at least twice per year even if it iS
not using the pollutant of concern.
-------
4
to this particular PSES or PSNS requirement is
considered a CIU, and thus a SIU. However, if the only
wastestream that an IU discharges or could potentially
discharge, to the POTW is not subject to PSES or PSNS
(i.e., sanitary wastes), then the analysis would be as
set forth in question 3a above and the facility would
not be considered a CIU.
This further develops the position articulated in the
memoranda from James Elder, dated August 24, 1988 and
February 16, 1989, referred to above.
3d. If a facility has a regulated process wastestream and
employs a treatment system that results in 100%
recycle, is it considered a CIU?
Answer: The situation here is essentially the same as
in question 3a. If the IU uses a 100% recycle of
regulated procesa wastewater and at no time has or will
discharge regulated process wastewater to the POTW and
does not have the potential to discharge regulated
process wastewater to the POTW, the IU would not be
considered a CIU 2 .
However, CIU5 that employ a 100% recycle or claim
no discharge of regulated process wastewater should be
thoroughly evaluated through an on—site inspection to
determine if there is any reasonable potential for
adversely affecting the POTW’s operation or for
violating any pretreatment standard or requirement, for
example, due to accidental spills, operational
problems, or other causes. If the control authority
concludes that no regulated process wastewater can
reach the POTW, and therefore, the ItJ has no reasonable
potential for adversely affecting the POTW’s operation
or for violating any pretreatment standard or
requirement, the IU need not be designated a CIU and
thus a SIU, as provided by 403.3(t).
As a precaution, however, even if the control
2 An important example to consider here would be a metal
finisher that performs any one of the six primary qualifying
operations for which there is no discharge at any time but also
performs one of the 40 ancillary process operations for which
there is a corresponding indirect discharge. This facility would
be considered a categorical industry because PSES or PSNS
requirements would apply to the regulated wastestream from the
ancillary process. This same position has been articulated in
letter to Grace Scott, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
dated April 28, 3.992, from Baldwin Jarrett, U.S. EPA.
-------
5
authority determines that a facility employing a 100%
recycle is not a CIU, it is suggested the control
authority issue a permit (or equivalent individual
control mechanism) to the facility containing at least
the following conditions:
a) “no discharge of process wastewater is permitted”
b) requirements to notify the POTW of any changes in
operation resulting in a potential for discharge.
C) requirements to certify semi-annually that no
discharge has occurred.
d) notice that the POTW may inspect the facility as
necessary to assess and assure compliance with the
“no discharge requirement”
e) requirements to comply with RCRA and state
hazardous waste regulations regarding the proper
disposal of hazardous waste.
I trust these responses answer all the questions contained
in your letter. If you have any further q’J stions or
clarification is necessary concerning the answers provided here
please let me know. My phone number is (202) 260—9525.
Sin er ours
/ r
Jef e pe,A ng hef
Pretreatment and Multimedia Branch
Enclosures
cc: Permits and Enforcement Branch Chiefs
David Sandalow, OGC
Peter Swenson, EPA Region V
Mark Charles, Enforcement Division
Regional Pretreatment Coordinators, Regions I-X
State Pretreatment Coordinators
-------
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
‘4> j WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAY 13 1S93 ___
OFRCE CF
WATER
Mary Jo M. Aiello, Chief
Bureau of Pretreatment and Residuals
Wastewater Facilities Regulation Program (CN 029)
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy
Trenton, NJ 08625—0029
Dear Ms. Aiello:
Thank you for your letter of January 25, 1993, to
Jeffrey Lape of my staff regarding the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy’s (the Department) proposed
policy on waivers from pH limits applicable to industrial
discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Subject to
the qualifications stated below, your proposed policy is
consistent with the federal regulations.
Your letter relates to the application of 40 CFR 401.17,
which allows facilities that employ continuous pH monitoring to
exceed certain pM limits one percent of the time. Your letter
correctly notes that 40 CFR 401.17 applies only to discharges to
surface waters, but inquires whether an analogous policy could be
applied to discharges to POTWs.
We believe an analogous policy could be applied to
discharges to POTW5 subject to several restrictions. First, the
federal pretreatment regulations contain a specific prohibition
against discharges with a pH below 5.0, from which no waivers are
allowed unless the treatment works is specifically designed to
accommodate such discharges (40 CFR 403.5(b)(2)). Your letter
correctly acknowledges that, except for such specifically
designed treatment works, waivers below this minimum limit would
not be consistent with federal regulations. Second, although
federal pretreatment regulations do not include an upper pH limit
applicable to all discharges, some categorical pretreatment
standards do so. Waivers from the requirements of those
categorical standards would not be allowed unless expressly
permitted by the standards themselves.
Third, a POTW may not grant a waiver from a local limit if
such waiver would cause pass through or interference. Since
local limits are based on considerations at each POTW, it would
not be appropriate to institute a waiver of local limits that
applies statewide regardless of conditions at individual P TWs.
Printed or
-------
—2—
So long as POTWs act consistently with their obligations not to
allow pass through or interference, however, they might implement
waivers that apply either more or less frequently than the 1% you
propose. Of course, if it wishes, the State could cap all
waivers at 1% and thereby be more stringent than Federal law,
which requires no cap.
We note that, if a POTW wishes to provide waivers from pH
limits that are technically-based and are part of the POTW’s
Approved Pretreatment Program, the POTW will have to modify its
Approved Pretreatment Program accordingly. The Department should
consider for each POTW whether the adoption of this policy is a
“change to local limits, which result in less stringent local
limits” and therefore requires a formal modification under 40 CFR
403.18(c) (1) (ii), or whether it constitutes a clarification of
the POTW’s existing local limits.
I hope that this response addresses your concerns. If you
have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please
call me at (202) 260—5850 or Louis Eby at (202) 260—2991.
Sincerely,
ts Division
-------
3:ates ce ‘ .Va:ar
E vurcrme ta1 EN.336 -
Agency
EPA NPDES Storm Water Program
Question And Answer Document
Volume 2
-------
NPDES
Storm Water Program
Question and Answer Document
Volume U
9EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Permits Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
July 1993
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I General Applicability 1
II. Definition of Storm Water Discharge Associated With Industrial Activity . 6
Category (I). 6
Category (iui) 6
Category (iv) 8
Category (v) 8
Category (viii): 9
Category (x) 10
Category (xi) 14
III. Individual Permits 15
IV. EPA General Permits 17
V. Group Applications 26
VI. Sampling 26
VII. Municipal Permit Applications 29
VIII. The Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(Transportation Act) 31
IX. 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Decision 32
X. Phasell 32
Xl. List of Storm Water Contacts 35
XII. State NPDES Program Status 53
XIII. Regulatory Definitions 54
XIV. Industrial Classification of Auxiliary Establishments . . . . 56
-------
USEFUL ACRONYMS
BAT Best Available Technology
BCT Best Conventional Technology
BMP Best Management Practice
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CWA Clean Water Act
CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
FR Federal Register
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NOl Notice of Intent
NOT Notice of Termination
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
0MB Office of Management and Budget
P01W Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RQ Reportable Quantity release
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
TSDF Treatment. Storage or Disposal Facility (hazardous waste)
TSS Total Suspended Solids
WQA Water Quality Act
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
-------
STORM WATER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PART II
L!. General Applicability 1
1. What kinds of storm water discharges are required to obtain an NPDES
permit under Phase I of the storm water program?
A. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water
permit application regulations, promulgated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), require that the following storm water discharges
apply for an NPOES permit: (1) a discharge associated with industrial
activity; (2) a discharge from a large or medium municipal separate storm
sewer system; or (3) a discharge which EPA or the State determines to
contribute to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. The permit
application deadlines are specified in EPA ’s regulations.
2. What is a “storm water discharge associated with indusuial activity?”
A. The term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” means
a storm water discharge from one of the eleven categories of industrial
activity defined at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 122.26(b)(14)(i)
through (xi). Five of these categories are identified by Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) code and the other six categories provide narrative
descriptions of the industrial activity. The complete definition is included
in Section XIII of this document.
If any activity at a facility is covered by one of the five categories which
provide narrative descriptions, storm water discharges from that activity of
facility are subject to storm water permit application requirements. If the
primary SIC code of the facility is identified in one of the remaining six
categories, the facility is subject to the storm water permit application
requirements. Note that only those facilities/activities described above
having faint source discharges of storm water to waters of the United
States or to a municipal separate storm sewer system or other conveyance
are required to submit a storm water permit application. The definition of
“point source” is provided at 40 CFR 122.2. The definition is included in
Section XIII of this document.
3. What are SIC codes and how can a facility find out Its proper SIC code?
A. SIC codes are four-digit industry codes that were created by the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) for statistical purposes. Other
1
-------
governmental organizations sometimes use these codes when classifying
business establishments. To find the correct SiC code, an applicant might
check his or her unemployment insurance forms or contact the appropriate
State unemployment services department. In addition, applicants may
consult the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC Manualh
published by 0MB in 1987. This manual is available in the resource
section of most public libraries. Questions regarding assignment of
particular codes can be addressed to your State permitting authority. A list
of telephone numbers and addresses for State storm water contacts is
provided as an attachment to this document.
4. What SIC code should a facility us. when there are multiple activities
occurring at the sfts?
A. For the purposes of the storm water program, a facility must determine its
orimarv SIC code based on the primary activity occurrIng at the site. To
determine the primary industrial activity, the SIC Manual recommends
using the value of receipts or revenues. If such information is not available
for a particular facility, the number of employees or production rate for
each process may be compared. The operation that generates the most
revenue or employs the most personnel is the operation in which the
facility is primarily engaged. For case-specific determinations, contact the
permitting authority for your State.
5. How is a facility regulated when multiple activities conducted by dIfferent
operators are occurring on the same site (airports, for example)?
A. When multiple activities are conducted by different ooerators at a single
location, each industrial activity is assigned its own SIC code. At an
airport, for example, a passenger airline carrier will receive one SIC code,
but an overnight courier located in the same hanger may receive another
SIC code. Whereas the SIC codes may differ, if both are regulated
industrial aciIvitles . EPA generally encourages these operators to become
co-applIcants (submit storm water permit application forms together) when
they are located at the same site and when industrial areas/drainage basins
are shared. When a permit is issued (or if the operators are filing for a
general permit) the co-applicants will become co-permittees and share
responsibility of permit compliance.
6. If a facility’s primary SIC code is not lIsted In the regulations, but an
activity that occurs on site Is described In one of the narrativ, categories
of industrial activity, does that facility have to apply for a permit?
2
-------
A. if a facility conductS an activity on the site identified in the narrative
descriptions of categories (i), (iv), (v), (Vii), (ix) or (x), then the facility
would be required to submit a storm water permit application for
discharges from those portions of the facility where the activity occurs.
Such narrative activities/facilities include: (i) activities subject to storm
water effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, or
toxic pollutant effluent standards; (iv) hazardous waste treatment storage,
or disposal facilities including those that are operating under interim status
or a permit under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA); (v) landfills, land application sites and open dumps that
receive or have received industrial wastes; (vii) steam electric power
generating facilities; (ix) sewage treatment works with a design flow of
1.0 mgd or more; and (x) construction activity disturbing five or more
acres of land.
7. Do storm water discharges from non-industrial areas at an Industrial facility
(employee parking lots, rental car operations at an airport) have to be
addressed In an NPOES permit?
A. No. Only storm water discharges from those areas that are associated
with industrial activity, as defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) must be
addressed in the permit. However, if storm water runoff from a non-
industrial area commingles with runoff from a regulated industrial area, the
combined discharge would require permit coverage.
8. How are off site facilities (such as distribution centers, storage facilities,
vehicle maintenance shops) regulated under the storm water program?
A. To determine the regulatory status of off site facilities, first the operator of
a facility must determine if that off site operation can be classified
according to its own SIC code. If there is no SIC code which describes the
off site facility independently, then it would assume the SIC code of the
parent facility it supports. However, certain off site facilities that fail
within the categories of auxiliary facilities described in Section XIV of this
document (or which are specifically described in the SIC code description)
would, in most cases, be classified according to the parent facility they
support. Such supporting establishments include central administrative
offices, research and development laboratories, maintenance garages, and
local trucking terminals.
EPA has determined that off site vehicle maintenance facilities that service
trucks used for local transportation of goods or for local services are
generally considered supporting establishments which would not be
assigned a transportation SIC code; rather, such facilities are classified
3
-------
according to the SIC code of the facility they support. Please refer to
Section Ii of this document for a discussion of off-site vehicle maintenance
facilities.
9. Can authorized NPOES States be more expansive In their u e of the
assignment of SIC codes? For example, can they make the rule applicable
to secondary activities?
A. Yes. State storm water regulations can be more expansive and cover mote
activities than the Federal regulations.
10. Are all storm water discharges to sanitary sewers exempt from storm
water permitting requirements? What about discharges to combined sewer
systems?
A. Any storm water discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
or to a sanitary sewer is exempt from storm water permit application
requirements. However, it may be subject to EPA’s pretreatment program
under Section 307(b) of the CWA. Discharges to combined sewer
systems are also exempt from NPDES permitting but may be subject to
pretreatment requirements.
11. Is a storm water permit applIcation required for an industrial facility that
has constructed a holding pond that usually does not discharge storm
water, but could in the event of a large enough storm?
A. All point source discharges of storm water associated with industrial
activity that discharge to waters of the U.S. or through a municipal
separate storm sewer system must be permitted. Therefore, if an
industrial facility does not have a storm water discharge from its holding
pond during typical storm events but has a storm water discharge in the
event of a large storm, that discharge must be covered under an NPDES
permit. In NPOES authorized States (a list is provided in Section Xli of this
document), facilities should consult their permitting authority for State
specific determinations on such poteotial discharges.
12. If a fadity Is gj engaged In industrial activity as defined under 40 CFR
1 22.21(b)(14H 1)-(zl), but discharges contaminated flows comprised entirely
of storm water Into a nearby municipal separate storm sewer system. is
the facIlIty required to obtain a storm water permit?
A. No, unless EPA or the State designates the discharge as contributing to a
violation of a water quality standard or as significantly contributing
pollutants to waters of the United States. However, industrial dlschargers
4
-------
should note that large and medium municipalities (population 100,000 or
more) are currently designing storm water management programs that will
control contaminated storm water discharges from entering their separate
storm sewer systems. Additional storm water discharges may be
regulated under Phase II of the storm water program. EPA is currently in
the process of developing Phase II.
13. Are activities associated with industrial activity that occur on agricultural
lands exempted from storm water permitting requirements?
A. No. If a storm water discharge is associated with industrial activity as
defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). it is subiect to permit application
requirements regardless of the location of the industrial activity. For
example, if a gravel extraction activity occurred on land leased from a
farm, the activity would be classified as mining under SIC code 1442 or
1446 arid therefore would be considered a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity and require a permit.
14. Are NPOES permits transferable from one facility owner to th. next?
A. Individual NPDES permits may be transferred to a new owner or operator if
the permit is modified. These procedures are described at 40 CFR 122.61.
Under the general permits for storm water discharges, issued by EPA in the
September 9. 1992 and September 25. 1992. Federal Raoister notices (57
41176 and 57 ER 44412). the new operator can submit an NOl two
days prior to the change of ownership but must include the facility’s
existing general permit number on the NOl form. Many NPDES authorized
States have similar provisions in their general permits.
15. How does storm wat.r permitting differ In States with approved State
NPOES programs compared to States without NPDES State permit
programs?
A. While Federal storm water regulations (i.e.. the November 16. 1990, storm
water permit application regulations) establish minimum requirements
nationwide. State permitting authorities may impose more stringent
requirements or decide to expand the scope of its program to meet State
priorities. EPA Regional offices are the permitting authorities for 12 States
and most Territories; the remaining 38 States and the Virgin Islands
administer their own storm water programs and issue permits to regulate
municipalities and industries in their States. Regulated facilities in these
States should contact the appropriate State permitting authority for
guidance, application forms, general permits and other materials. Please
5
-------
note that some of the NPDES States do not issue permits for Federal
facilities located in their States.
For regulated facilities in the 1 2 non-delegated States (MA, NH, ME. FL.
TX. OK. LA. NM. SD. AZ, AK. ID), the Territories (all except the Virgin
Islands). the District of Columbia, and for facilities located on Indian lands
(in most. if not all, delegated States and in all non-delegated States), and
for Federal facilities in the States of DE, CO. IA. KS, NH, NY, OH, SC. VT
and WA. the storm water program is administered through EPA Regional
offices. Such facilities may be eligible for coverage under the general
permits issued by EPA in the September 9, 1992, and September 25.
1992, Federa ggister notices (57 EB 41176 and 57 f 44412).
II. Definition of Storm Water Discharge Associated With Industrial Activity
Category (I): Facilitiss subject to storm water sfflusnt imitations guidelines,
new source performance standards or toxic pollutant effluent standards under
40 CFR subchapter N.
16. What are toxic pollutant effluent standards?
A. 40 CFR 1 22.26(b)(14)(i) includes facilities that are subject to storm water
effluent limitations guidelines, new source performance standards, or toxic
oollutant effluent standards . The phrase ‘toxic pollutant effluent
standards’ refers to the standards established pursuant to CWA section
307(a)(2) and codified at 40 CFR Pert 129. Part 129 applies only to
manufacturers of six specific pesticide products which are defined as toxic
pollutants. Please note that the phrase ‘facilities subject to toxic pollutant
effluent standards’ does not refer to those industries subject to effluent
limitation guidelInes for toxics under 40 CFR subchapter N.
Category (s): Mining and oil and gas op.radons classified as SIC cod.s 10-14.
17. What constitutes ‘contamination’ at an oil and gas facility?
A. Oil and gas facilities classified as SIC code 13 are required to apply for a
storm water permit if the facility has had a release of a Reportable
Quantity (RQ) in storm water for which notification has been required any
time since November 16, 1987. or if the discharge contributes to a
6
-------
violation of a water quality standard. RQs for which notification is required
are defined at 40 CFR Parts 110 117, and 302. An RQ for oil is defined
at 40 CFR 110 as the amount of oil that violates applicable water quality
standards or causes a film or sheen upon or a discoloration of the water
surface or adjoining shorelines, or causes a sludge or emulsion to be
deposited beneath the water surface or upon adjoining shorelines. For
other substances, RQ levels are expressed in terms of pounds released
over any 24 hour period and are listed at 40 CFR 117.3 and 40 CFR
302.4. A list of these RQ levels is available from the Storm Water Hotlirie
at (703) 821-4823.
18. Do EPA’S industrial storm water general permits apply to discharges from
mine Sites that are subject to storm water effluent limitatIons guidelines,
but which are not covered by an existing NPDES permit?
A. No, storm water discharges from mine sites that are subject to storm
water effluent limitation guidelines are not authorized by industrial storm
water general permits issued by EPA in the September 9, 1992, and
September 25, 1992, Federal Register notices (57 fB 41176 and 57 f9
44412). In States without NPOES permitting authority, the mine operators
submit an individual application to address those storm water discharges,
or could have participated in a group application prior to October 1, 1992
(note: any facility which did not submit an individual application prior to
October 1, 1992 or participate in a timely group application missed EPA’s
regulatory deadline and may be subject to enforcement action). However.
certain authorized States may issue general permits authorizing such storm
water discharges from mine sites provided that those permits contain the
applicable guideline requirements.
19. Can point source discharges of contaminated ground water from mine adits
and seeps at active or Inactive mini sites be permitted under the storm
water program?
Point source discharges of non-storm water to waters of the United States
must be authorized by an NPDES permit. Point source discharges of either
contaminated ground water from a mine adit or seep that are not related to
specific storm events would not be considered to be storm water.
Discharges that are composed in whole or in part of non-storm water
cannot be addressed solely by the permit applications for storm water
(Forms 1 and 2F). and cannot be authorized by NPOES permits that only
authorize discharges composed entirely of storm water. Rather, Forms 1
and 2C or 2D (and Form 2F if the discharge is mixed with storm water)
must be used when applying for a NPDES permit for non-storm water.
7
-------
Category (iv): Hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilIties. 1
20. If the primary SIC code of a facility Is not covered under the regulations,
but there is a hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility
(TSOF) on sits, is the TSDF subject to storm water permitting
requirements?
A. Yes. If the hazardous waste TSDF is or should be operating under interim
status or a permit under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). regardless of the facility’s primary activity, the
storm water discharges from that portion of the site are subject to the
narrative definition of storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity under category (iv). Even if a facility’s SIC code is not included in
the regulations, any activity described by one of the narrative categories of
windustrial activity that is occurring on the site would be regulated under
the storm water program.
Category (v): Landfills, land application sites and open dumps that receive
industrial waste.
21. At what point does an Inactive, closed, or capped landfill cease being an
industrial activity?
A. An inactive, closed or capped landfill is no longer subject to storm water
permit application requirements when the permitting authority determines
the land use has been altered such that there is no exposure of significant
materials to storm water at the site. For example, if an impervious surface
(such as a parking lot or shopping center) now covers the closed landfill,
the permitting authority could determine that storm water discharges from
the area are no longer associated with the previous landfill activity. These
determinations must be made by the permitting authority on a caseby•
case basis.
22. If consvuctlon of cells at a landfill disturbs greater than five acres of land,
is coverage under EPA’s construction general permits required?
A. No. EPA considers construction of new cells to be routine landfill
operations that are covered by the landfill’s industrial storm water general
permit. However, the storm water pollution prevention plan for the landfill
must incorporate best management practices (BMPs) that address
sediment and erosion control. Where a new landfill is being constructed
8
-------
and five or more acres of land are being disturbed, Such activity would
need to be covered under EPA ’s construction general permit until the time
that initial construction is completed and industrial waste is received.
Please note that NPDES authorized States may address this situation
differently.
Category (viii): Transportation facilities
23. If all vehicle maintenance and equipment cleaning operations occur indoors
at a transportation facility, as defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(viii), is a
permit applIcation required for discharges from the roofs of these
buildings?
A. Yes. Storm water discharges from all areas that are associated with
industrial activity, described at 40 CFR 1 22.26(b)(14), are subject to the
storm water permit application requirements. This would include
discharges from roofs of buildings that are within areas associated with
industrial activity. In addition, storage areas of materials used in vehicle
maintenance or equipment cleaning operations and holding yards or parking
lots used to store vehicles awaiting maintenance are also considered areas
associated with industrial activity.
24. For a facility classified as SIC code 5171 (bulk petroleum storage), is the
transfer of pstrolsum product from the storag. tanks to th. distribution
truck considered fuellng. and therefore an industrIal activity as defined
by the regulations?
A. No. The transfer of petroleum product from the storage tanks to the
tanker truck is not considered fueling and would not require a storm water
permit. However, fueling of the tanker truck itself at the 5171 facility is
considered to be part of routine vehicle maintenance, and storm water
discharges from these areas must be covered under a storm water permit
application.
25. Is a retaIl fueling opsratlon that occurs at an SIC code 5171 petroleum
bulk storag, facility regulated?
A. No. The provisions of 40 CFR I 22.26(b)(14)(viii) apply to fueling
operations conducted at petroleum bulk storage facilities where the
vehicles being fueled are involved with the oetroleum bulk storaae
operation. Retail fueling of vehicles at such sites does not constitute
Nvehicie maintenance (as defined in the November 16, 1990 federal
9
-------
Register page 48066). and a storm water permit is not required for the
discharges from that area. Only those portions of the SIC code 5171
facility where vehicle maintenance operations (including vehicle
rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication) and
equipment cleaning take place are required to be covered under a storm
water permit application.
26. Are off site vehicle maintenance areas required to submit permit
applications for their storm water discharges?
A. As discussed in Section I of this document, to determine the regulatory
status of off site vehicle maintenance operations, the operator of a facility
must first determine if that off site operation can be classified according to
its own SIC code. If there is no SIC code which describes the off site
facility independently, then it would assume the SIC code of the parent
facility it supports. However, please note that off-site facilities that fall
within the nine categories listed on page 17 of the SIC Manual (or which
are specifically described in the SIC code description) would, in most
cases, be classified according to the parent facility they support. See
Section XIII of this document for the complete list. Such supporting
establishments include central administrative offices, research and
development laboratories, maintenance garages, and local trucking
terminals. EPA has determined that off site vehicle maintenance facilities
that primarily service trucks used for local transportation of goods or for
local services are generally considered supporting establishments which do
not assume a transportation SIC code; rather, such facilities are classified
according to the SIC code of the facility they support. Long-distance
trucking centers, on the other hand, are generally classified as SIC code
4213, and are subject to regulation under 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(viii)).
[ Category (x): Construction activity
27. Who must apply for permit coverage for construction activities?
A. Under the NPOES storm water program, the operator of a regulated activity
or discharge must apply for a storm water permit. EPA clarified that the
operator of a co,istruction activity is the party or parties that either
individually or taken together meet the following two criteria: (1) they
have operational control over the site specifications (including the ability to
make modifications in specifications); and (2) they have the day-to-day
operational control of those activities at the site necessary to ensure
compliance with plan requirements and permit conditions (9/9/92 Federal
Register page 41190). If more than one party meets the above criteria,
10
-------
then each party involved must became a Co-permittee with any other
operator(s). For example, if the site owner has operational control over
site specifications and a general contractor has day-to-day operational
control of site activities, then both parties will be co-permittees.
When two or more parties meet EPA ’s definition of operator, each operator
must submit an NOl, and either include a photocopy of the other operators’
NOl(s) or the general permit number that was assigned for that project.
Under EPA’s storm water construction general permits, the co-permirtees
are expected to join in implementing a common pollution prevention plan
prior to submittal of the N0I. and in the retention of all plans and reports
required by the permit for a period of at least three years from the date
that the site is finally stabilized.
For individual storm water discharge permits, applications must be filed 90
days prior to the commencement of construction. If a contractor has not
been selected at the time of application, the owner of the project site
would initially file the application and the contractor should sign on when
selected. Under an individual storm water permit for construction, multiple
operators would have to sign onto the permit, instead of submitting a new
application. Please note that authorized NPDES States may have varying
NOl and/or permit requirements and should be contacted on this issue.
28. What are the responsibilIties of subcontractors at th. construction site
under EPA ’s storm water construction general permits?
A. EPA storm water construction general permits require subcontractors to
implement the measures stated in the pollution prevention plan and to
certify that he/she understands the terms and conditions of the permit
requirements. Under EPA’s general permits, subcontractors are not
required to submit NOls.
29. What is meant by a larger common plan of development or sale?
A. A “larger common plan of development or sale” is a contiguous area where
multiple separate and distinct construätion activities may be taking place at
differ•nt times on different schedules under one plan. For example, if a
developer buys a 20-acre lot and builds roads, installs pipes, and runs
electricity with the intention of constructing homes or other structures
sometime in the future, this would be considered a common plan of
development or sale.. If the land is parceled off or sold, and construction
occurs on plots that are than five acres by separate, independent
builders, this activity still would be subject to storm water permitting
requirements if the smaller plots were included on the original site plan.
11
-------
30. Does Construction activity encompass repaving of roads?
A. Repaving is not regulated under the storm water program unless five or
more acres of underlying and/or surrounding soil are cleared, graded or
excavated as part of the repaving operation.
31. Is clearing of lands specifically for agricultural purposes regulated
construction actIvity (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)) under the storm water
program?
A. NO. Although the clearing of land may be greater than five acres, any
amount of clearing for agricultural purposes is not considered an industrial
activity under the storm water regulations. Section 402(l)(1) of the 1987
Water Quality Act exempts agricultural storm water discharges from
NPOES permitting requirements including storm water permitting. This
exemption only applies, however, if the clearing of land is solely for
agricultural purposes. (See Question 13).
32. If a construction activity that disturbs five or more acres commences on a
site covered by an existing Industrial storm water permit, are the storm
water dIscharges from the construction area covered by the existing permit
or is a separate permit required?
A. If the existing permit is an individual permit, then the operator must either
request a modification of the existing permit to include the construction
storm water discharges or apply for coverage under a separate permit that
specifically addresses that construction activity. If the perrnittee decides
to modify the existing individual permit, permit modifications must be
approved prior to initiating any construction activity. If the existing permit
is an EPA storm water industrial general permit, the operator should submit
an NOl for coverage under EPA’s storm water general permit for
construction activities. States with NPOES permitting authority may have
different requirements.
33. If a construction activity that disturbs less than five acres occurs on site of
a regulated Industrial activity currently covered by EPA’s Industrial storm
wa general permit, does the regulated Industry have to modify Its
pollution prevention plan to include controls for the area of construction?
A. Yes. Regulated industrial activities covered by EPA’s storm water
industrial general permit must revise their pollution prevention plan to
address all new sources of pollution and runoff including those from
construction activities disturbing less than five acres. that occurred on the
site of the regulated industry. However, if less than five acres, a separate
12
-------
storm water permit for the construction activity is not required (see
Question 32).
34. For projects such as a 100-mile highway construction project, what
location should be provided on the NOl?
A The midpoint of a linear construction project should be used as the site
location on EPA’s NOl form. For construction projects that span across
more than one State, the project must meet the application requirements
of each State.
35. Are long-term maintenance programs for flood control channels (such as
vegetation removal) or similar roadside maintenance programs subject to
permitting if five or more acres are disturbed?
A. If grading, clearing or excavation activities disturb five or more acres of
land either for an individual project or as part of a long-term maintenance
plan, then the activity is subject to storm water permit application
requirements.
36. For a construction activity that uses off site borrow pits for excavation
of fill material or sand and gravel, should the number of disturbed acres at
the borrow pit bs added to the number of acrss at the construction site to
determin. the total number of disturbed acres?
A. No, ofl site borrow puts are not considered part of the on site Construction
activity. If a borrow pit is specifically used for the removal of materials
such as sand, gravel, and clay, the pit is considered a mine and is
classified under SIC code 14. Such sites would be regulated as industrial
activity as defined at 40 CFR 1 22.26(bUl4)(iii). However, if the borrow
put is utilized for the removal of general fill material (e.g. dirt) and disturbs
five or more acres of land, the pit would be considered a construction
activity as defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x).
37. Would building demolition constitute a land disturbing activity and require a
storm water construction permit application?
A. The definition of land disturbing activity includes but is not limited to
clearing, grading and excavation. At a demolition site, disturbed areas
might include the site where building materials, demolition equipment, or
disturbed soul are situated, which may alter the surface of the land.
Therefore, demolition activities that disturb five or more acres of land
would be subject to storm water construction permit application
requirements.
13
-------
38. What are the legal responsibilities and liabilities for construction activities
disturbing less than five acres, pursuant to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals decision on June 4, 19927
A. In NRDC s... 966 F.2d 1292. the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
remanded for further rulemaking, EPA’s exemption of construction sites
less than five acres which are not part of a larger common plan of
development or sale. The Agency intends to undergo further rulemaking
proceedings for construction sites less than five acres. Until further
rulemaking is completed, permit applications for such activities need not be
submitted to EPA. However. States with NPOES permitting authority may
have more stringent requirements.
39. Do storm water construction general permits authorize non-storm water
discharges?
A. Under EPA’s storm water construction general permits, issued on
September 9, 1992. and September 25. 1992. the following non-storm
water discharges are conditionally authorized (57 41219) and (57 EE
444 19): discharges from fire fighting activities; fire hydrant flushings;
waters used to wash vehicles or control dust; potable water sources
including waterline flushings; irrigation drainage; routine external building
washdown which does not use detergents; pavement weshwaters where
spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have not occurred (unless all
spilled material has been removed) and where detergents are not used; air
conditioning condensate; springs; uncontaminated ground water; and
foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with
process materials such as solvents. These discharges, except for flows
from fire fighting activities, must be identified in the pollution prevention
plan and the plan must address the appropriate measures for controlling
the identified non-storm water discharges. Other non-storm water
discharges not lIsted above or not identified in the storm water pollution
prevention plan, must be covered by a different NPDES permit.
Category (xl): Ught manufacturing facilities:
40. If c i drums or contained materials are exposed during loading or unloading
at a cetegory (xl) faculty, are storm water discharges from this area subject
to the storm water regulations?
A. The storm water regulations require category (xi) facilities to apply for a
storm water permit where material handling equipment or activities, raw
materials, intermediate products, final products, waste materials, by-
products, or industrial machinery are exposed to storm water. if there is a
14
-------
reasonable potential for leaks or spills from these drums which could be
exposed to storm water, discharges from that area would be subject to
storm water permitting requirements. Completely covering loading and
unloading activities may eliminate exposure. Note that permitting
authorities may have more stringent interpretations with respect to
exposure on industrial sites and should be consulted for case-by-case
determinations. For a discussion on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
decision (June 1992) and future EPA rulemakings on category (xi)
facilities, please refer to Section IX of this document.
41. Does the storage of materials under a roof at a category (xi) facility
constitute exposure?
A. If materials or products at a light industrial facility are stored outside under
a roof and there is no reasonable potential for wind blown rain, snow, or
runoff coming into contact with the materials or product, then there may
not be exposure at that area. However, if materials are stored under a
structure without sides and storm water comes into contact with mater at
handling equipment or activities, raw materials, intermediate products, final
products, waste materials, by-products or industrial machinery, the
discharge from that area must be permitted. The permitting authority
should be contacted for specific issues related to exposure.
Ill. Individual Permits
42. Will Individual permits Include requirements for storm water pollution
prevention plans and monitoring?
A. EPA anticipates that many individual permits will include storm water
pollution prevention plans as a means of satisfying Best Available
Technology (BAT)/Best Conventional Technology (BCT) requirements
established in the Clean Water Act (CWA). With regard to monitoring
requirements under individual permits, such requirements will be
determined by the permit writer on a case-by-case basis. At a minimum.
all facilities with storm water discharges associated with industrial activity
must conduct an annual site inspection as prescribed at 40 CFR
1 22.44(i)(4).
43. Do permitting authorities have the option of subjecting facilities that have
submitted individual storm water permit applications to general permits?
A. Yes, permitting authorities may subject facilities that have submitted
individual permit applications to general permits. Facilities that are covered
15
-------
by a general permit may petition the permitting authority to be Covered
under an individual permit by submitting an individual permit application
with reasons supporting the request to the permitting authority, pursuant
to 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(iii).
44. What are the benefits/drawbacks of pursuing an individual storm water
permit over a general permit?
A. An individual storm water permit may be advantageous, as it is designed
to reflect a facility’s site-specific conditions, whereas general permits are
much broader in scope, particularly in terms of monitoring requirements.
However, the individual permit application is generally more difficult to
prepare than submitting EPA’s notice of intent (NOl) to be covered under a
general permit (in part because the individual permit application requires
sampling and EPA’s NOt does not). General permits may be advantageous
because regulated facilities know, in advance of submitting their NOt, the
requirements of the permit. In addition, coverage under a general permit
may be automatic (depending on how the permit is written), whereas the
individual permitting process takes longer.
45. When does EPA andclpats that IndMdual permits wW be Issued?
A. Issuance of individual permits may vary on a State by State basis, as
permitting priorities and resources allow. The December 18, 1992, Federal
Reciater (57 f 60447) established October 1 • 1993, as the deadline by
which individual permits are to be issued. Many authorized States are
already issuing individual permits.
46. Can a facility that has submitted an individual permit application obtain
genital permit coverage upon issuance of a general permit in Its State?
A. Yes, an eligible facility may opt for coverage under a general permit (by
submitting an NOt) up until the time that the permitting authority issues
such facility its individual permit. Authorized States may require a written
request for withdrawal from the individual permit application process. EPA
recommends submitting such requests to the appropriate Regional office.
16
-------
r . EPA General Permits (issued on 9/9/92 and 9/25/92)
47. What is the difference between EPAS Construction and industrial general
permits?
A. Because the nature of Construction activity varies considerably from other
industrial activities. EPA developed two separate general permits: one
covering storm water discharges from construction activity and one for
other storm water industrial discharges. Whereas the pollution prevention
plan for the construction permit focuses on sediment and erosion Controls
and storm water management, the pollution prevention plan for industry
emphasizes general site management. Note that some authorized States
have industrial general permits that authorize storm water discharges from
construction activity.
EPA’s general permits for storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity, issued on 9/9/92 (57 EB 41236) and 9/25/92 (57 Efi
44438). authorize storm water discharges from all new and existing point
source discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity, as
defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14), to waters of the U.S.. except for
ineligible storm water discharges that are listed at l.B.3. (9/9/92 Federal
Register page 41305) and
(9/25/92 Federal Register page 44444 ) in EPA’s general permits.
EPA’s general permits for storm water discharges associated with
construction activity, which were issued on 9/9/92 (57 Efi 41176) and
9/25/92 (57 Efi 44412). authorize storm water discharges associated with
construction activity, as defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x). except for
ineligible discharges that are listed at B.3 (9/9/92 Federal Register page
41217) and (9/25/92 Federal Register page 44418) in EPA’s general
permits.
48. What is the procedure for applying for coverage under EPA’S Industrial or
construction general permits?
A. Dischergers of storm water associated with industrial activity located in
non .NPOES States must submit a Notice of Intent (NOl) to be authorized to
discharge under the general permit. The NOl form is a one-page document
requesting basic information about the nature of the facility and the
particular storm water discharge under consideration. Under EPA’s general
permits, monitoring is not required for submittal of the NOl. States with
NPDES authority may have different requirements for their NOl and should
be contacted directly.
17
-------
49. Will a facility automatically be covered by an EPA general permit upon
submittal of an NOl or will It have to cease operations until the Agency
provides notification of acceptance?
A Permit coverage begins two days after the postmark date on the NOl,
provided the storm water discharges from the facility are eligible for
coverage as established by the permit conditions (see 9/9/92 Federal
Register page 41305 for limitations on coverage). The permitting authority
can require the submittal of an individual application at any time.
However, the facility may Continue to discharge under the general permit
until an individual permit is issued or denied.
50. What are th. deadlines for compliance with EPAs general permits?
A. Individuals who intend to obtain coverage for a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity that commenced on or before October 1,
1992, were required to submit an NOl by October 1, 1992; however, EPA
is accepting late NOIs. Regulated facilities wishing to obtain coverage
under the general permit that have not yet submitted an NOl should do so
immediately. EPAs storm water general permits require p.rmittees to
develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan. Oead lins
for NOl submittal and development and implementation of plans are listed
in the table below.
Facilities with salt storage or facilities that were not required to report
under Emergency Planning Community Right to Know (EPCRA) Section
313 prior to July 1, 1992, (but must report after that date) must comply
with the special requirements for section 313 facilities and salt storage (if
applicable) within 3 years of the date on which the facility is required to
first report under sectiøn 313. All other conditions in the permit must be
met within the deadlines listed above. Plans do not have to be submitted
to the Agency but must be kept on site and made available upon request.
Type of Discharge
NOl Deadline
Pollution
Prevention Plan
Development
Deadline
Pollution
Prevention Plan
implementation
Deadline
Existing industrIal
activities (other than
construction)
October 1, 1992
April 1, 1993
October 1. 1993
18
-------
Type of Discharge
NOl Deadline
Pollution
Prevention Plan
Development
Deadline
Pollution
Prevention Plan
Implementation
Deadline
Industrial activities
(other than
construction) that
begin between
October 1, 1992
and January 1,
1993
2 days prior to the
start of industrial
activity
Within 60 days of
commencement
of operations
Within 60 days of
commencement
of operations
Industrial activities
(other than
construction) that
begin on or after
January 1, 1993
2 days prior to the
start of industrial
activity
Within 60 days of
commencement
of operations
Upon
commencement
of operations
Oil and gas facilities
previously not
required to be
permitted that have
an RQ after
October 1. 1992
Within 14 days of
first knowledge of
the release
Within 60 days of
first knowledge of
the release
Within 60 days of
first knowledge
of the release
Municipally-owned
or operated
industrial activities
that were rejected
or denied from a
group application
Within 180 days
of the date of
rejection or denial
Within 365 days
of the date of
rejection or denial
Within 545 days
of the date of
rejection or denial
Construction sites in
operation on
October 1, 1992
October 1, 1992
October 1 1992
October 1, 1992
Construction sites
that begin operation
after October 1 •
1992
2 days prior to the
start of
construction
Prior to the
submittal of the
NOl
With the initiation
of construction
activities
19
-------
51. Is here a fee for NOI applications?
A. EPA’S general permits do not require fees at this time. However.
authorized NPOES States may levy fees and should be Contacted directly.
52. Where should NOls be submitted?
A. Facilities in States and Territories where EPA is the permitting authority
submit NOls to the central processing center at the following address:
Storm Water Notice of Intent
P.O. Box 1215
Newington, VA 22122.
All permirtees in States with NPDES authority submit the NOI to their State
permitting authority except those in New York. who submit to the
processing center at the above address. Note that authorized NPDES
States may develop NOl forms that are different from EPA’s NOI form.
Under EPA’s general permits, the operator of any industrial activity that
discharges storm water through a municipal separate storm sewer system
in a medium or large municipality must also submit a copy of the NOl to
that municipality. In addition, operators of construction activities must
provide a copy of all applicable NOls for a site to the local agency
approving sediment and erosion plans or storm water management plans.
53. Is an operating regulated industrial facility required to submit a separate
NOl for each outfall that discharges storm water associated with Industrial
activity at the site?
A. Under EPA’s general permits, one NOl is generally sufficient for the entire
site, provided there is one operator. In this case, the pollution prevention
plan must address all discharges of storm water associated with industrial
activity from the sita. if there are multiple operators at the site, each
operator must submit an NOl. In addition, if a facility that is covered under
EPA’s industrial storm water general permit undertakes a construction
activIty disturbing more than five acres of land, then the facility must
submit an NOl for those construction-related storm water discharges for
coverage under EPA’s construction general permit (or submit an individual
permit application).
20
-------
54. Will a facility receive any notification from EPA after submitting an NOl
under EPA’s general permit?
A. Yes, EPA confirms the receipt of NOIs and will provide the applicant wrth a
permit number and explains how to get a summary of the guidance on
preparing storm water pollution prevention plans.
55. Is an entire facility excluded from coverage under EPA’s general permits if
a single discharge at the site is excluded from coverage?
A. No. Eligibility under EPA’s general permits should be applied on a
discharge-specific basis. Thus, a site with multiple discharges can be
covered under two different permits: a general permit for some discharges
and a separate NPDES permit for any discharges excluded from coverage
under the general permit. NPDES States should be contacted for additional
guidance on this issue.
56. Does an industrial facility operating under an EPA industrial general permit
have to apply for a separate permit for all on site construction activitIes
that disturb more than five acres of land?
A. Storm water discharges from construction activities that disturb five or
more acres of land must be covered under a separate NPDES permit that
specifically addresses storm water discharges from construction activity.
EPA’s industrial storm water general permits do not provide coverage for
storm water discharges from regulated construction activities.
Construction activities that disturb less than five acres of land do not
require a storm water permit at this time. The pollution prevention plan for
the industrial facility must be modified to address Site changes due to that
amount of construction activity.
57. Can a facility submit one NOl for similar but separately located industrial
facilities which are owned by the same corporation?
A. No. One NOl must be submitted by the operator of each individual facility
that intends to obtain coverage undera general permit, regardless of
common ownership.
58. Doss an asphalt/concrete batch plant have to submit a new NOt each time
it changes location?
A. Under EPA’s general permits, an NOl must be submitted each time the
plant moves to a new site of operation. However, some authorized States
may have different requirements with respect to asphalt/concrete batch
21
-------
plants and, therefore, facilities in suCh States Should contact their
permitting authorities.
59. Who is required to monitor under the conditions of EPA’s storm water
general permits?
A. EPA established tiered monitoring requirements in its final industrial storm
water general permits based on the potential to contribute pollutants to
storm water (4/2/92 Federal Recister page 11394). Six classes of facilities
are required to monitor semiannually and report annually, ten classes of
facilities are required to monitor annually and keep the data on site, and all
other classes of facilities are not required to monitor. All facilities
authorized by general permits (including those facilities not otherwise
required to monitor) must still conduct an annual site inspection, except for
inactive mining sites where this may be impractical due to remote location
and inaccessibility of sites (inspection no less than once in three years).
The sixteen classes of facilities that are required to monitor are specified in
EPA’s industrial general permits (9/9/92 Federaiflegi ter page 41248),
which are available from the Storm Water Hothne. EPA ’s construction
storm water general permits require periodic inspections in lieu of
monitoring.
60. If an lndusvla l facility that Is required to monitor under EPA’s Industrial
storm water general permits does not have any exposure of materials or
activities to storm water, doss It still have to conduct sampling?
A. Under EPA’s industrial storm water general permits, industrial facilities can
provide a certification in lieu of monitoring results for a given outfall, that
materials and activities are not presently exposed to storm water and will
not be exposed during the certification period (see 9/9/92 Federal Register
page 41314 for a more detailed description). This determination should be
applied on outfall-by-outfall basis (e.g., permittees may elect to monitor
certain outfalls while providing certification for othsrs). The certification
must be updated on an annual basis and retained In the pollution
prevention plan. Thi six classes of facilities that are required to report
monitoring results annually must submit this certification to the permitting
authority in lieu of the Discharge Monitoring Report (OMR).
61. WIthin one drainage aria leading to a single outfall, if a facility conducts
two separate industrial activities that are subject to both semiannual and
annual monitoring requirements, which set of monitoring requirements will
apply?
A. If the discharges cannot be segregated, the combined discharge would be
subject to both sets of monitoring requirements. In effect, a combined
22
-------
discharge could be subject to annual monitoring requiremen for certain
parameters and semi-annual monitoring for others, If a facility can
segregate the discharges from the different activities, separate monitoring
requirements would apply to each discharge.
62. Is it possible to sample only one of several identical outfalls under the
provisions of EPA’s general permits?
Yes. To reduce the monitoring burden on the facility, the permit allows an
operator to sample one outfall where it is substantially identical to the
other outfalls. Permittees that intend to use this provision must justify and
document in writing why one outfall is substantially identical to the others.
Criteria for making this determination are presented in the NPOES Storm
Water Sampling Guidance Document. Facilities using this provision must
include the written justification in their storm water pollution prevention
plan. Facilities that are subject to semiannual monitoring requirements
must submit the justification of why an outfall is substantially identical to
the others with the Discharge Monitoring Report. Other facilities required
to monitor under the permit are not required to submit the justification
unless it is requested by the permitting authority.
63. If a facility had to report under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) when its NOl was submitted but
no longer uses the quantity of water priority ch.mlcals that makes such
reporting necessary, is that facility still subject to special requirements in
EPA’s industrial storm water general permits for facilities that handle
EPCRA section 313 water priority chemicals?
A. No. Such facilities are no longer subject to the special EPCRA requirements
contained in EPA’s industrial storm water general permit and should
accordingly modify their pollution prevention plan to indicate the changes
in industrial activity at the facility.
64. Under EPA’s general permits. when and where must Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMR) be submitted for semi-annual monitoring facilities?
A. DMRs must be submitted to the permitting authority according to the
following schedule: a) certain EPCRA section 313 facilities and wood
treatment facilities monitor from January to June and July to December
and report no later than January 28 following the second monitoring
period; b) Primary metal facilities, facilities with coal pile runoff, and
battery reclaimers monitor from March to August and September to
February and report no later than April 28; and C) land disposal facilities
monitor from October to March and from April to September and report no
later than October 28. For facilities in non-NPDES States, DMRs must be
23
-------
submitted to the EPA Regional office (Section Xl of this document includes
storm water list of contacts for addresses). In States with approved
NPOES permit programs. DMRs must be sent to the location specified in
the State’s general permit. The general permits in such States may also
have different schedules for submitting DMRs than the one specified
above.
65. Under the industrial general permit. coal-fired steam electric facilities have
annual monitoring rsqulrsments for storm water discharges from coal
handling sites (other than from coal pile runoff). Are access roads
considered coal handling sites?
A. Coal handling sites include those areas of the facility where coal is either
loaded or unloaded. Therefore, those portions of access roads where
loading/unloading operations do not occur are not considered to be coal
handling sites and, therefore. are not subject to annual monitoring
requirements under EPA’s general permits.
66. Are there specific numeric effluent limits in EPA’s storm water general
permits?
A. EPA’s general permits establish pollutant discharge limits for total
suspended solids (TSS) and pH in coal pile runoff. In most other
situations. EPA’s industrial storm water general permits focus on storm
water management and the implementation of facility-specific pollution
prevention plans; however. EPA’s industrial general permits also include
State-specific conditions that may include additional numeric effluent
limits.
67. What Is a storm water ubest management practlceu (BMP)?
A. A BMP (defined at 9/9/92 Federal Register page 41319) is a technique,
process, activity or structure used to reduce the pollutant content of a
storm water discharge. BMPs include simple. nonstructural methods such
as good housekeeping and preventive maintenance. Additionally. BMPs
may include sophisticated, structural modifications such as the installation
of sediment basins. The focus of EPA’s general permits is on preventative
BMP which limit the release of pollutants into storm water discharges.
EPA has published guidance materials to assist in the selection of
appropriate BMPs in the preparation of storm water pollution prevention
plans, including: Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities:
Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices (PB•
92-235969J and Storm Water Management for Constauction Activities:
Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and 8est Management Practices (PB-
24
-------
92.235951). These Manuals are available from NTIS at (703) 487-1650
and the Office of Water Resource Center at (202)260-7786.
68. What should a facility do when the nature of its activities changes?
A. When the nature of a facility’s activities changes, the facility must modify
the pollution prevention plan accordingly. If the facility is subject to new
monitoring requirements as a result of the changes, sampling must begin at
the start of the next monitoring period.
69. Is there a procedure for notifyIng EPA when a storm water discharge
associated with industrial activity covered by EPA ’ . general permit has
been eliminated?
A. Yes. EPA’s general permits include procedures for filing a Notice of
Termination (NOT) form when there is no longer a potential for storm
water discharges associated with industrial activity to occur. Operators of
construction activities can submit an NOT once they have finally stabilized
all areas that were disturbed. For construction activity, final stabilization
means that all soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed,
and that a uniform perennial vegetative cover has been established or
equivalent permanent stabilization measures (such as the use of riprap,
gabions. or geotextiles) have been employed with a density of 70% of the
previously existing/background cover for unpaved areas and areas not
covered by permanent structures. A copy of the NOT can be found in
Federal Register notices dated September 9, 1992 (57 f 41232 and
41341), and September 25, 1992 (57 EB 44434 and 44469).
70. If a NPDES authorized State has general permitting authority but has not
yet finalized an appllcabis general permit, can a facility still submit an NOl
and assume general permit coverage?
A. No, a facility cannot submit an NOl to obtain coverage under a general
permit until that permit has been finalized. Furthermore, a facility located in
an NPDES State cannot seek coverage under one of EPA’s general permits.
71. Will Stats general permit requirements vary and to what extent?
A. General permit requirements for authorized NPOES States may vary
considerably because these States develop and issue permits
independently from EPA. However, all NPDES permits must meet
minimum technical and water quality-based requirements of the Clean
Water Act. Permittees in NPDES authorized States should consult with
their permitting authorities regarding particular State conditions. Under
EPA’s storm water general permits. State-specific requirements vary
25
-------
because Of different water quality concerns in different States. Each of
the 12 non-authorized States and Territories provided certification that
EPA’s general permits comply with State water quality standards, and
added permit requirements where necessary to achieve compliance with
those standards in the final general permits.
72. Can discharges from industrIal areas at a construction sitS such as portable
asphalt plants and/or concrete batch plants be coveted under EPA’s
construction general permits?
A. No. EPA’s construction general permits only authorize discharges from the
construction area; these permits do not authorize storm water discharges
from industrial activities other than construction that are located on the
construction site. Portable asphalt plants and/or concrete batch plants are
considered to be Industrial activity, as defined 40 CFR 1 22.26(b)(14)(ii).
Therefore, storm water discharges from such industrial activities must be
in compliance with a general or individual storm water permit for industrial
storm water discharges other than construction. At a Construction site
which disturbs less than 5 acres of land (and which is, therefore, not
subject to storm water permit application requirements for the construction
activity), the operator of the mobile asphalt or concrete plant still would be
required to obtain storm water permit coverage for discharges from the
plant. Please note that States with approved NPDES permit programs may
allow portable asphalt plants and/or cement batch plants to be covered
undir the State’s construction general permit.
I v.
Group Applications
I
73.
How will group applicants be permitted?
A.
EPA is currently developing a model permit using information from Part I
and Part II group applications, and other sources. This model permit will
have sections which address a particular type of Industrial actIvity. When
the model permit Is completed, the permitting authority (EPA or NPOES
States) then has the option to propose and issue final permits to cover
group members within their state based upon the model permit.
Vi.
Sampling
I
74. For what parameters does a facility have to sample under th• individual or
group application?
26
-------
A. Applicants are required to obtain quantitative data from samples Collected
during storm events from all outfalls that discharge storm water associated
with industrial activity for the following parameters: (1) any pollutant
limited in an effluent guideline to which the facility is subject; (2) Any
pollutant listed in the facility’s permit for its process wastewater (if the
facility is operating under an existing NPDES permitj; (3) Oil and grease,
pH, B005. COD, TSS. total phosphorous, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and
nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen; (4) certain toxic pollutants listed in Tables I I
and lii of the Appendix 0 to 40 CFR Part 122 (also listed as Tables 2F-2
and 2F3 in the instructions for Form 2F) that are expected to be present in
the storm water.
75. For an individual or group application, how many allquots (portions) of
storm water are needed to obtain a flow-weighted composite?
A. A flow-weighted composite may be taken as a combination of a minimum
of 3 sample aliquots taken in each hour of discharge for the entire event or
for the first three hours of the event, with each aliquot collection being
separated by a minimum of 15 minutes. If the storm event lasts less than
three hours, aliquots should be collected for as long as there is sufficient
flow. Large and medium municipalities may use a different protocol with
respect to time duration between collection of aliquots with approval of
the permitting authority. EPA’s NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance
Document discusses several ways to estimate flows. (This manual is
available from the Storm Water Hotline (703) 821-4823) and the Office of
Water Resource Center (202)260-7786).
76. How does a facility measure flow if there are numerous small outfalls?
A. Applicants may provide either measurements or estimates of storm water
flows. One possible method for estimating flow is to create a conveyance
that would combine flows from many of the outfalts. Alternatively, where
flows are similar, the flow at one outfall may be measured to calculate
flows at the other outfalls, provided that the method of measurement is
indicated to the permitting authority. EPA’s NPDES Storm Water Sampling
Guidance Document discusses several ways to estimate flows. (This
manual is available from the Storm Water Hottine (703) 821-4823) and the
Office of Water Resource Center (202)260-7786.1
77. For what parameters Is only a grab sample appropriate?
A. When collecting storm water samples, grab samples are required for the
following parameters: pH, temperature, cyanide, total phenols, residual
27
-------
chlorine, oil and grease. fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus. Both grab
and composite samples are required for all other pollutants.
78. Do both a grab and a composite sample have to be taken from a 24.hour
holding pond?
A. No. Only a minimum of one grab sample is required to be taken.for
effluent from holding ponds or other impoundments with a retention period
of greater than 24 hours for the representative event.
79. Can composite and grab samples be taken from s.parat. events?
A. Grab and composite samples for a given outfall should be taken from the
same storm event to provide a basis for comparing the data. If this is
impossible, information describing each storm event used for sample
collection should be recorded and submitted with sampling results.
However, applicants are advised that the permitting authority may request
data to be collected from only one storm event.
80. Is a facility required to sample all of Its outfalis during a single storm
event?
A. No. Unless otherwise specified by the permitting authority, a facility may
sample outfalls during different events provided that the storms meet the
criteria established in the application regulations or in the applicable permit
language. Information describing each storm event used for sample
collection should be recorded and submitted with sampling results.
81. If a facility has two conveyances that join and leave the sits as one
combined discharge, where should a sample be collected?
A. If the discharge is composed entirely of storm water, the sampling point
should be at the outfall as it leaves the property. if the discharge is a
combination of process wastewater and storm water, the storm water
component of the discharge should be sampled before it commingles with
the process waste water discharges. if sampling at an outfall at the
property boundaries is impossible because of safety reasons,
inaccuibility, or a poor conveyance, sampling may be done closer to the
discharge source.
82. How long of a ‘dry’ period does a facility need before sampling?
A. A ‘dry’ period needs to be at least 72 hours. More specifically, all samples
must be collected from the discharge resulting from a storm event that
28
-------
occurS at least 72 hours from the previously measurable (greater than 0. 1
inches) storm event.
83. If two or mor• outfalls at a facility have identical discharges, does each
outfall have to be sampled?
A Where a facility has outfalis that discharge Nsubstantially identical
effluent.” the permitting authority may allow the applicant to test only one
outfall and report that the quantitative data are representative of the
substantially identical outfalls. EPA’s NPOES Storm Water Sampling
Guidance Document (available from the Storm Water Hotline (703-82 1-
4823)) provides information on how to prepare this petition, or the
applicant should contact their permitting authority to determine what
information is required.
84. Do analyses for storm water need to b. done by a certified lab?
A. There is no Federal requirement to use a certified lab. However, certain
States may require that a certified lab be used. Please note, analyses must
comply with the analytical procedures set Out in 40 CFR Part 136, as
discussed below.
85. What analytical methods must be used for the pollutants for which
sampling is required?
A. EPA-approved methods must be used where a method for a pollutant has
been promulgated. 40 CFR Part 136 discusses required methods. If there
is no approved method, the applicant may use any suitable method, but
must provide a description of the method in its application. Additional
information on general sampling issues can be obtained through the EPA’s
NPOES Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document. The manual is
available from the Storm Water Hotline (703.821-4823).
VII. Municipal Permit Applications
86. Once a municipal separate storm sewer system (MM) has submitted Part
2 of Its storm water permit application, when does the term of the permit
actually begin?
A. The term of the permit begins when a permit is issued by the permitting
authority. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1 22.26(e)(7), storm water permits for
discharges from MS4s are to be issued with in one year after submission
of a complete application. Since applications for medium and large
29
-------
municipal separate storm sewer systems were due on May 1 7, 1993 and
November 16, 1992. respectively, this results in permit issuance by
November 16, 1993 for large municipalities and by May 1 7, 1994 for
medium municipalities.
87. How is EPA incorporatIng 1990 census data into the storm water
program?
A. Most of the municipalities that meet the definition of either a large or
medium MS4 based on the results of the 1990 Census have already begun
to seek an NPOES permit. Headquarters is working with the Regions and
States to determine the best way to incorporate the remaining municipal
entities into the program.
88. How does EPA envision the relationship between erg and medium M$4
operators and NPDES permitting authorities in terms of addressing
industrial storm water discharges to MS45?
A. EPA envisions a partnership between NPOES permitting authorities and
operators of large and medium municipal separate storm sewer systems in
controlling pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity through MS4s. In addition, NPOES storm water permits provide a
basis for enforcement actions directly against the owner or operator of the
storm water discharge associated with industrial activity.
A second NPOES permit will be issued to the operator of the large and
medium MS4. This permit will establish the responsibilities of the
municipal operators in controlling pollutants from storm water associated
with industrial activity which discharges through their municipal system.
Under this approach, municipal operators will be able to:
• Assist EPA in identifying priority storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity through their system;
• Assist EPA in reviewing and evaluating storm water pollution prevention
plans that industrial facilities are required to develop; and
• AssIst EPA in compliance efforts regarding storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity to their municipal system.
A more complete description of this policy is provided in the August 16,
1991 Federal Register (56 f.fi 40973).
30
-------
Tviii. The
Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(Transportation
Act)
89. How did the Transportation Act affect permitting requirements for
municipalities under 100,0007
A. Storm water discharges from certain industrial activities owned or operated
by municipalities with a population of less than 100,000 people were
granted a moratorium from the October 1, 1992 deadline for storm water
permit applications. Exceptions to this moratorium include discharges from
powerplants. airports and uncontrolled sanitary landfills.
90. How does the Transportation Act Impact privately owned or operated
industrial activities located in municipalities under 100,000?
A. The provisions of the Transportation Act specifically address publicly
owned or operated industrial activities. Privately owned facilities that have
storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, as defined at 40
CFR 1 22.26(b)(14), must submit a permit application regardless of the size
of the population of the municipality in which they are located.
91. What is an uncontrolled sanitary landfihl?
A. An uncontrolled sanitary landfill (discussed in the 4/2/92 Federal Register ,
page 11410) is a landfill or open dump, whether in operation or closed,
that does not satisfy the runon/runoff requirements established pursuant to
subtitle 0 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. However, landfills closed prior
to October 9, 1991 are not subject to RCRA runon/runoff requirements,
and therefore need not submit storm water permit applications if they are
located in municipalities of less than 100,000 population. Landfills closed
after October 9, 1991 and others that meet the above definition would be
subject to the storm water permit application requirements.
92. If a municipally-owned sewage treatment plant Is located In a municipality
with a population of than 100,000 people, but the service population
is gci p.c than 100,000 people, is the facility subject to the permitting
requirements?
A. Yes, because service populations are used in determining population for
publicly-owned treatment works (POIW5I (April 2. 1992 Federal Recister
page 11394). AdditIonally, where one sewer district operates a number of
POTWs, the entire service population of the district will be used to
determine the applicable population classification of all the POTWs
operated by the distTict. For example, if a district with a cumulative
31
-------
service population of 160,000 operates two sewage treatment plants, one
of which serves 1 20,000 and the other which serves 40.000, both plants
will be Considered to be owned or operated by a municipality with a
population of 100,000 or more.
93. If a construction operation disturbing five or more acres is owned by a
small municipality (a population of ia than 100.000 people)but operated
by a private contractor, is the activity regulated?
A. No. If the construction activity is either owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of less than 100.000 it would not be
required to obtain a storm water permit during Phase I of the storm water
program. Some States, however. may require that an application be
submitted.
J IX.
9th CIrcuit U.S. Court of Appeals Decision
94.
What Is the current status of light manufacturing facilities without
exposure and construction activities under five acres, pursuant to the 9th
Circuit Court d•clslon7
A.
The 9th Circuit Court decision remanded two exsmptions provided in the
NPOES storm water permit application regulations for light manufacturing
facilities without exposure and construction activities under five acres
(11/16/90 Federal Recister page 48066). Both exemptions were
remanded for further proceedings. In response to these two remands, the
Agency intends to conduct further rulemakings on both the light
manufacturing and construction activities under five acres. In the
December 18. 1992. Federal Recister. the Agency stated that it is x
reouirina permit applications from construction activity under five acres or
light industry without exposure until this further rulemaking is completed.
I x.
Phass II of the Storm Water Prograni
I
95. What Is the difference between Phase I and Phase II of the NPDES storm
water program?
A. In the Water Quality Act of 1987. Congress mandated that EPA establish
storm water control programs in two phases. While the first Phase I was
defined on November 16. 1990. Phase II regulations were to be
promulgated by October 1 • 1992. However, the Water Resources
Development Act (WROA) of 1992 extended deadlines for Phase Ii of the
32
-------
storm water program as follows: 1) EPA must issue Phase II regulations
by October 1, 1993; and 2) permits for Phase II Sources may not be
required by EPA or the State prior to October 1. 1994. EPA is currently
developing regulations that will implement Phase I I of the storm water
program. (See Question #1 for more information on Phase I).
96. Will all storm water discharges that are not regulated under Phase I be
regulated under Phase II of the storm watOr program (e.g.. service stations.
retail and wholesale businesses, parking lots, municipalities with
populations of less than 100.000)?
A. Not necessarily. Statutory provisions require that EPA, in consultation
with State and local officials, issue regulations that designate additional
Phase II sources for regulation to protect water quality. EPA is currently
developing approaches to identify and control high risk Phase II sources.
EPA requested initial public comments on a variety of Phase II issues oi
September 9, 1992 (57 Efi 41344). As part of this process, EPA is
considering all sources of storm water not regulated under Phase I for
potential coverage under Phase II.
33
-------
34
-------
STORM WATER
LIST OF CONTACTS
May 1993
35
-------
a s
This
Tdepboo
.jj StOp
‘J ncy C nningMm
B iolo is&
202-260.9535
EN-336
Eswuonmeio,i Specialim
202-2604321
EN-336
Ephrain King
Chief. NPCES Pro ’nm Biiec
Pen ws Division
202-260.9541
EN -336
%licltael
Envizonm I !ngii’
202-2604929
EP4 .336
B&U Swictlà
C)ucf Storm Water Secri,n
Peim Divmoo
202-260.9529
EM-336
Bull Taie
Envinairal Engineer
202-2604963
EN-336
Dan Weeec
Envuonmattel Engio
202-2604109
EN-336
Kevin Weiss
Cbeeücsl Enguir
202-260.9524
Et4-331
Carmetita Wh ts
vgrsm Analyio
202-2604053
EN-331
EPA Heedquaruri
Addzms U.S. Eevroseeral Prot&t . A1 y
Oflic, of W g Perm Divisms
401 M Sb’eio. SW
W$3 Vo., DC 20460
Fez (202) 260.1440
36
-------
same
TiL l .
Te4ipboa.
Mail Stop
C yJe Snufeil
Chief
617-565-3560
WCP
NPOES Pi grim Operazione Section
hv Broi&n
EnvwonmaiEniu iecs
617.563-3590
WMM
ShetIv Ptileo
Envuonmcntal Pvccction Specialig
617-565-3525
wCp
OIgi Vcrgars
Envuonmectal P cection Specialid
617-565-3525
wcp
Stat. Ofllos
La EPA 11o. I
Name sad lid.
Add, .
Telepboa.
Dick i1ason
Pruicapal Engineer
Conncci c Dqstunent of Eavuonm a1 Proiecuoa
Watr Msziag ma Bureeu
165 Capiol Avenue
Harifo,tCT 06106
203-566-7167
FAX 203-5664650
Norm M3rcocte
N npo&ni PTogram Coordinator
Paul Hogan
‘4PDES Coordinator
icif j rewg
Supervisor. Industrial Permits Section
Magic D sNnaiL of Eavuciunental Protection
Diviaton of Licensing
Stat. House. Station t17
August., ME 04333
Mauachusena Department of Environmental Protocuon
Suthcs Water Pwint Program
Divisioc of Water PoUutaon Convol
1 W Sijent. 8th Floor
Boewn.MA 0210$
New Haanpsiwe Department of Envvon” ’ Servicen
6 Haze. Dnvs
Concord, NH 03301
07-239-3901
FAX 207-:sg .78:6
508-792-7470
FAX 508-839-3469
603-271-2457
FAX 603-271.2367
C .nnic Cirey
S niur EnvixonmenLal Sc’ ’
Rhode Island Department of Envuonnientil Management
Divisioc of Watg Resourcen
291 Promenade Stient
Providence. RI 0 90$
401-2774519
FAX 40l-52142.30
AngeLo Libern
Supervisuig Sanitary Engi
Rhoda liland Department of Envuonmaual Managsmaz
Division of Water Resources
291 Promenade Sirent
Providence. RI 090$
401-277-6519
FAX 401-521-3i0
Brian Koiker
Chief Director. Permits Secuon
Conservation Comm.
Permits, Compliance, and Protection
Annea Building
103 South Main Street
Waterbury, VT 05671-0405
802-244-5674
FAX 8022*4-5 ii
EPA R. ioc I
Address U.S. EPA - ReLa I
JFK Federal BuiM ’&a
Boston, MA 02203
Faz 617-565-4940
37
-------
—
a e
a@d Tids
Addr s
Tel,p oQ.
802•244.5674
FAX O2-2’4.5 1.11
ry ScfluL
Direclor of Permga.
-
Compli n .
Comm.
permiu. CompIiaa , and Pro’e aon
Proceciion
&jtJ%CZ 8Ut1din
t03 Sou&h Msi
Wawrbury. VT 05671-04.05
38
-------
“iaote
Th Is
IdephoQe
a rine Reynolds
Environmental Scientist
212-264.7674
1.. e Rivera
Sior n W*ter Regional Coo,duiator
212-264-1859
Stat. O(&.
la EPA Regio. II
4a e sad Title
Addies
Barry Chalo (sky
Manager. Waitewater Planswig and Swim
Walcr eroiaauig
New Jersey D srunen& of EaVIIW iJOCnIaI P vteioios and !ner
(CN423) OffIce of Regulatory Policy
401 B. State Str
Trecton, NJ 08625
609-633-702k
FAX 609-984-2147
Ed Frankel
Section Chief
New Jersey Depsz m of Envizonm l Pmaesioa and Eaer
(CN-423) O flcs of Regulatory Policy
401 B. State Strom
Tmiton. NJ 08625
609.633-7021
FAX 6099$4-2147
Janet Jessel
Bnsn McLcndon
New Jersey Depsitso of Eavvun l Protection and Ener
OfScs of Regulatory Policy, CN029
401 B. Stats Strom
Trecton, NJ 08625
609-633-7021
FAX 609-984.21.17
General ln(or nazion
New Jersey Depsztniom of Eavuoti’ ’ Protection and Bner
Ot5cs of Regulatory Policy CN029
401 B. State Strom
Trenton, NJ 08625
609633-7026
FAX 609-984-21.17
N G Kaul
Director. Division of Water
New York Stare Dopstanom of Eavvsnmmmal Conservation
50 Wolf Road
A soy. NY 12 3-3505
518-437 -6674
FAX 518-437-1088
Ken Stevens
Chief. Physical Systems Section
Now York State Depsi mom of Eavironm l Conssrvsaaon
Bwenia of Wutewiztr Facilities and Desi
30 Wolf Road -.
A zay. NY 122.33-3505
311-457-1157
511-437-1067
FAX 518 -485-T736
Wanda Carvia -HentA1i en
Chief. Permits & Engua . Division
Puerto Rico Envuoitmeiual Qualky Board
P.O. Boa 11411
Sa uvs, PR 00910
809-767-8731
FAX 809-767-1962
Carlot lrizarry
Director. Wager Quality Control Burecu
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
P0. Boa 11481
Saatiuos, PR 00910
809-767-8731
FAX 109-767-1962
4arc Pacifico
Environmental Specialist [ U
Virgin Islands Plasuwig and Natural Resources
Division of p—ion
111$ Wstergur Homes. Chntuansted
st Crota. VI 00120-5065
109-773-0565
FAX 80977393 O
EPA Region I!
ddrms U.S. EPA - Reg n 11
Wage Permitu and Coerpliance Braneb
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY l02
Fax 212.264.9597
39
-------
Name
T iLls
Teispbo..
— Mail Step
Kcvui Magerr
Storm Water Coord nazor
215-597-1631
(3WM53)
Akzsnder SUniky
Etwuowuiatv.1 Engvi’
215-5974463 —
(3WM53)
S W. O
ia EPA R lss 111
Name s.d Thi.
Addt.i
Telepbos.
Chuck Scha4s
Envuonmenv.1 Engineer 11
Ocliwu, Depsttmein of Nanuil Rmsutvis aed Enviivmes 1
Coatml
Div ios of Wat R ou IMion Co o1 Bmac
19 Kisp Hihwny
08 19900
302-739-3731
P*.X 302-739-1491
1. rnca CuUier
Program Manager for Waz Hygmes
DC Depaztmm of Consumsr and R.gia sy At g,
2100 Maav . Linlisi K ag. Jr. AvmesSB
Wai ggten• DC 20020
202-404-1120
FAX 202-404.1141
Br ian Clcvatger
Director of Sediment & Storm Water
Adnunutration
Matyland Depsatm ia of s Envu
2300 Breening Highwiy
9a ng MD 21124
410431-354)
FAX 41043 1-4*83
Edward C jeg
Chic(. Cnduianal Point Source Dmsaoo
Matyland Dapsrim of d i . EnvirseniW
2300 Beesning Higy
D ’ r..MD 21124
410431-332)
FAX 410431-4*83
Stu GasteeU
Ctuef of Perinas & Comphw.
sy1vsnia D sttm of Enviroa 1 Ranoum.
400 Markia Sume State O lE.. B’ ’ ’g 1 Floor
Hur wg. PA 17101-2702
717-717-3481
FAX 717-717-2802
R B Patel
Chief of Pernuts S mnI
Sanitary Engineer LV
ytvsnia Depsrima of Envv,me 1 Rmewvea. BWQM
D1v ioa of Permits and Complisees
P.O. Boa 1465
400 Maikia Sired Stat. 0(11.. Bmi 1L LOdi Floor
Han abutg.PA 17 105-1465
717-7174114
FAX 717-713.2802
Button Tuaford
Envixonmental Engineer
Vit nM Depstuncnt of Eavj,eiti’1 l Qual y
P.O. Boa 11143
PLhnLnnd.VA 32)G .1143
804.527-5083
FAX 804.527-524
Cathy BOaLWrIg II
Storm Water Progrun Manager
Virginia Department of Envuonmenial Qua y
P.O. Boa 11143
Richmend,VA 330-1143
104-327-5316
FAX 804.527-5293
Jim Muon
Engineer. Storm Water Coordinator
Wed Virginia Office of Water Resources
Divisme of Environmental Protection
1201 Grvenbrter Sired
Charleston. WV i)11
304-558- lU 1
FAX 304.34S O5
EPA Rrgme U I
Address U.S. EPA. 1 e III
841 Chestnut Building
Pbilidil$ii, PA 19107
F a* 215-597454 1/215.3974241/21 5.597.33 59
40
-------
aod T 1 .
Addr a
TeIepboQ.
I _
Jcryv Ray
istsunc Chie(. PerTT%& I
WCI& VLIgUUI 001cc of Ws er Reiourcci
o( Envizorimcn& .I PTot uon
3O4.34g 375
FAX 3O’-348-5 o5
1 01 Gresnbner Suem
Chutcuon. WV 2.5311
A ‘ C 3
West Vi,guui Office of Waigr Resources
3045534855
Erg ccr SLorm Wicer Coordu aWr
Division of Envi nmenia Presccuon
1201 GrwtbnerS&ze
FAX 304348-5905
ChMtcscon. WV 25311
.
41
-------
4 a ne
Th i s
TeIepbsas
Roosevelt Chddrvsa
Chief
404-347-2391
Storos Water & Mwucipsl Psrm Ue*
FAX 404.347-1739
Water Managess ta Divutos
Chns Thomu
Staae. Contad
404347 -2391
FAX 404-347-1739
Sass om .
i s EPA Rqsos IV
Na
m aid ThiS
Add,
TeIepbo i.
Larry Bryani
Alabama Dcçsstmsn& of Eaviaviii I Masar mI
205-271.7806
Chief. Perm a/C
omptiasce S.etieo
Wazst DiVIIIOO
FAX 205-271-7950
Muaatipsl Brsacb
1751 0ie saoo 0th.
Moiqomary, AL 36130
Tim Fot sszer
Alabama Dcpsttma of Esvuc ” ’ MaMg
205-271-7736
Chief. Mining an
d Noapouts Source ¶ect o
Water Divteios
FAX 203-271-7950
1751 D nr’e Driv.
Mo gamsry, AL 36130
John Poole
Alabama Depsrcnaus of Enviroomegual Manageinad
205-271-7852
Chicf. lnduwinl
Brancb
W.L1t Diviaton
FAX 205-271-7950
Induatrial Branch
1751 Congressman Dickineon Drw.
Montgomery, AL. 36130
Aubray White
A sma Department of Env goii i Maaga’n
205-271-7811
Engineer
Wa Oivismn
FAX 205-270-5612
1751 D kinaon Onve
M.ntjOIIIST P,AL 36130
Eric Liv uig son
-
FIor Department of Envvoam aI Reguhi on
904-483-0782
Environmental Admini r
2600 BIa Stens Eoad
FAX 904-438-6379
T flai’ ”es. Ft 3399-2400
Dave BuUard
C.org Depsitmens of Naiwal Resources
404-342-2680
Program Manager
Envucemenial Protection Diviama - Municipal
FAX 404 -362.654
4244 Isiiernational Par wsy. Suits 110
GA 30354
Liwrence W Hedges
Program Manager
Gesrgut Deparunent of Natural Resources
Envucnmciual Protection Divijion - Industrial
404-656-4887
FAX 404-362-654
205 B imhsr Strom. SE. Suite 1070
Atlanta, GA 30334
EPA g e IV
Address U.S. EPA - Regmi IV
345 Coiutlasd SUant, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Faz 104.347.1739 or 1791
42
-------
I ‘4a e a d TtI.
Addr J I Telep zooe
Vu ill Salter
Environmental Speciatiac
Georgia Depasuncsn of Na u 1 Resourcee
Envuonmcmal Protection Divuson. l nduw ia l
205 Butler SIZ . SE. Siuti 1070
AUanta. GA 30334
4 0 4 - 45 6 -48*7
FAX 404 -43 1-;4.5
)ou as Alige:er
lnduscr.i1 Section Supervuor
Depamnenz of Environmental Protection
Kentucky Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfos , KY 40601
502-564-3410
FAX 502 -564.-a:.i5
Ic Hippe
Pc rnit Writer
Department of Environmental Protection
Kentucky Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frvtkfoit, KY 40601
502-564.3410
FAX 502-564-4245
Herb Ray
Environmental Engineer (Munzcip li ’ )
Depsruneni of Envixonmaual Proc ioit
Kentucky Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frnnkfort, KY 40601
502-564-3410
FAX 502-564.4245
ierr t C ui
Chief. Indusutal Wuiewaier Branch
Miuiuippi Dcpsttmees of Environmental Quality
Office of PoUuuon Convol
Industrial Wutgwa gr Branch
P0. Boa 10385
Jackson. MS 392*9.03*5
601-961-5073
paj 60135’ 61’
L uas Lavallcs
Chief. Storm Water Section
Miaaiuippt Department of Eavironm ” i Quality
0111cc of Pollution Control
P0. Boa 103*5
Jackson. MS 39289.03*5
601-961-5074
FAX 601-354-6612
Kenneth LaFleur
Assistant. Storm Water Sect
Miuiaatpps Department of Environmental Quality
Offics of Pollution Control
P0. Boa 103*5
Jackson. MS 39219-0385
601-961-5192
FAX 601-354-6612
Br dlcy Bennen
Environmental Engineer
Noith Carolina Division of Environmental Managisnu
P0. Boa 29535
Raleigh. NC 27626-0535
919-733-50*3
FAX 919-733-9919
Bill Mills
Environmental Engineer
P4oith Carolina Dspartmei* of Envuocm . Heüh * Nanaral
Resoiunm
P.O. Boa 29535
Raleigh. NC 27626-0535
919-733-5083
FAX 919-733-9919
uro Ovalics
Storm Water Manager
lomb Carolina Department of Hcahk and Envuenmenial Control
Busenia of Water PoUutioa
2600 Bull Strcnt -
Columbia. SC 901
*03-734.5300
FAX 803-734-5:16
Robert Haley. III
E wironmcnial Engineer
T’”-.ee Water Poliution Control
L*C Mnea. 6th Poor
401 Chinch Strvnt
Nuhvills. TN 37243.1534
615-532 . 062.5
FAX 615-532-0614
43
-------
Name ThIs TeIspbo.. M Stop
lrv Ozikows a ChisfofUn l PSIIMI ¶‘ S 3124864100 WQP.16
Peter Swenson Envuonmmttal Enginr 312-816.0236 WQP.16J
Sieve Jann Envwonmcnial Sc ’ 312-886.2446 WQP.161
SW O
in EPA R m. V
and This Addrus Te lsØos.
Thnothy Kiugs Wioni. EPA 217-7124610
Manager. Industr ial Psmi Un 2300 Churchill Road FAX 217-712-9*91
P.O. Boa 19276
Spong6s . 0.. 62794-9276
Lonme Bntmficld Dsps of Envi Management 317-2324705
Section Clucf 105 Soi Meridian S cst, P.O. Boa 6015 FAX 317.232.8637
ith.iiip,Ija, IN 462064015 FAX 317-232-5539
C chcnns Ann Hans n ’ Dspstcnent of Eavirc L Manage 317-232-8704
Storm Watec Coordinazor/Eavuonmenntl 105 South Meridian Stiser. P.O. Boa 6015 FAX 317-232-8637
Manager tlithm’i.poIia, IN 462064015
Guy Boerseri Miohipo Dcpss of Na ucl Raowv 517-373-1982
Chief. Storm Water Permits Unit Suthcs Water Quality Dwisms FAX 517-373-9958
P.O. Boa 30021
f. u ig, MI 4*909
Dave Dn4li ger Miehipa D srim of Na ua1 Rmecrcas 517-333-4117
Environmental Quality Analyst SiirBos Wager QuaImy Division FAX 517-373-9958
P.O. Boa 3002$
tian ’g. M X 41909
Gene Soder eck M A _4. PoUuuoii Control Apacy 612-2964280
En g inceriSupsrv isor 520 La y . Road FAX 612.297-8683
St. Paul, MN 55155-3898
Scou Thompson Mwt* ia PoUuuon Control Ag y 612-296-7203
Pollution Control Sp cialist/Storm Ws 520 L .a ysos Road FAX 612-2974683
C,ord&naior St. Paul. MN 55155-3895
John Morrison Ohio EPA 614-644-2017
Supervisor. Storm Water Uiua 1500 Watermark Drive. P 0 Boa 1049 FAX 614 44 39
Columbus.OH 43266-0149
Robert Phelps Ohio EPA. Water PoUution Control 6I44 4 O34
Section Manager 1800 Watermark Drive. P 0 Boa 1049 FAX 614b1 .
Columbus. OH 43266-0149
EPA Ranjon V
Addrnts U.S. EPA. R isa V
77 W. SL’d.
MaU Cod. WQPI6J
Cb qo, IL 60604
Fix 312486.7*04
44
-------
im. and Thi. (
Addr 3 I
Anne M uCL
Environmernal Sp Lan/SI Zs Sioim
Water Coordinacot
—
Wuconi Ocpaz menI o( t4a ur I Reacurccu
OL S W gr. P 0 Bo 7921
Madison. WI 53707
-
FAX 608...67. 664
45
-------
Name
I Th IS
Te4epb ou
Mail Scop
P ulc&Zc lohriiey
Envwonmaiial Scisaug
Municipal Permits Section
1445S.7 175
(6W-PM)
Brcni Urien
Environmaisal Scisec&m
Mwucipsl Permgs ¶ trs
455 -7523
(6W-PM)
%lonica Spruül
Eavuonm aI Eagw i .
Municipal Peimits 5-’ tioo
214435 .7190
(6W-PM)
Astrtd Larsen
Enforcaneig Btwich
214455-7 1$ 5
Nicole Carter
214-635-2116
S W. 0 .
is EPA RIS V I
Nam sod This
Addrus
Tdspboos
Mark Bradley
Pcrmiu Section Chief
Atksosu Depsitineis ( PoIhai s Ccntrcl aad Ecology
8001 NaMocal Dnvs
P0. Boa $913
Lois Rock. AR 72219-1913
S01-562-74M
FAX 50L-562- .s632
Tom K l1ccn
Program Manager
Louisiana Waler Depsitmag of Envio w i Quality
P 0. Boa $2213
Rio. Rouge, LA 70814.2215
504.765-0523
504-763-0634
FAX 504-765-0635
________________________________
K4 en Viiditi
Envuonmcntal Coordinator
Louliana Waist Degszensec of Envigvamsalal Quality
P.O. Boa 82215
Rio. Rouge. LA 70114.2215
504.765-0523
504.765-0634
FAX 504-765-0635
Glen Scums
Health Progrein Manager. Suthcs Wiag
Section
New Msaiso Envvonmci* Dcpss
Ssath.s Waist Quality Bwsau
P.O. Boa 26110
SsioPs. NM 37502
505427-2*27
FAX 503427-2*36
Brooks K&rl in
Environmenial Enginsur
0 ma Waist Re.o ucs Board
Wsio Quality Division
P.0. Boa 150
0kis omaC ty.OK 73117-0150
405-231-2345
FAX 405-231-2600
lcd Wi mson
Environmental Engineer Supervisor
Oklahoma Department of Health
1000 NE 10th Si.rent WQS 0207
Oklahoma City. OK 73117-1299
405-271-7335
FAX 405-271-7339
Thoma.i W Weber
Head of Municipal Unit
Manager. Permi uig Section
Watershed Management Division
Twa Water Commission
P.O. Boa 13017
Aualin. TX 71711-3017
512-463-7743
FAX 5L2 46344C8
EPA R a VI
Addreia U.S. EPA - Regis. VI
1445 R Arecue. SuE. 1200
Dalla,, TX 75202-2733
Fax 214455.6490
46
-------
Tide Telepbos.
R Iph Summer, NPDES Pernuis Coordinator 913451. 1418
Stat. Of&es
1. EPA l ioa VII
Name sod -ru.
Address
Tel.pbooe
Monica Wnuk
Iowa Dqsstmces of Nantral Resources
515.281.7017
Siorm Water Coordu aior
Eavvonmcn&aI Presemaoo Dwiaios
900 E. Ctand Avenus
Des Moines. IA 50319.0034
FAX 513-231-8895
Don Cartson
Depsrimces of Heskk and Eevvanm
913-296 .5547
Envu nmentaI Engineer V
Budding 740. Forbes Field
FAX 913-296-6247
Industrial Permiti Chief
Topeka. KS 66620
Marian Musoth
Kansas Dcpsstma* of Heskk sod Eovircnm
913-296-5556
Envtoruneaual Engineer
Building 740- Forbes Field
Topeka. KS 66620
FAX 913-96-647
K3r1 Feu
Missouri Depss m of Na ua1 Resources
314-526-2928
Environmental Speciahas
P.O. Boa 176
Jefferson City. MO 65102
FAX 314-751-9396
TLIfl StaUman
MiuounDmm o(NamnAR e sowv
316-751-6825
Environmental Specialist
P.O. Boa 176
ieffersooCity.MO 65102
FAX 314-751.9396
Linda Vogt
Miuoun Depszim of Ns im1 Rouzces
314-7514125
Envtzonmental SpeciiJ st
P.O. Boa 176. 205 Jef .oo5ts
Ief rson City. MO 65102
FAX 3L4-7ZL fl96
Ron AIC i
N iuka Dep.rtmcec of Eovuoe 1 ComM
402.471-4239
NPDES Permit Wrtt r
5u s 400
1200 N Strem. The Atrium
P0. Boa 98922
LincOln. NE 68509
FAX 402471 • O9
David Ihne
NthFUkI D.parvnenz of Eavitofta,l al Quality
402-471-4239
4POES Permit Wr
Suit. 400
1200 N Scram. The Atrium
P0. Box 98922
LinCOln. NE 68509-8922
FAX 402-471 O9
c:a t Smith
Supervisor. Permits & Compliance Section
N ruka Department of Envvo” ”-i Coiurvl
Wager PoUution Division
301 Centennial MaU South. P 0. Boa 98922
Lincoln, NE 68507
402 -4714 2 3
FAX 40-”% :)oq
EPA Regios VII
Address U.S. EPA. R . V I I
726 NGsaesotg
Kassas CIty, KS 66101
913-551.7765
47
-------
same
T OhPbOo.
Ross N..
Mrni Stop
v on Berry
Storm Water Coordu ator
U S. EPA. Rcpon $
999 18th Sta . SwLI 500
Denver. CO 10202-2446
303-293-1630
—
($W14.C)
Paul Montgomery
Eivuronmctnal Engineer
U S. EPA. Repon $
999 18th Street. 3i d 500
Denver. CO 80202-2466
10 6 -449.54 86
(Mootans
que ns only)
StM. Offlees
is EPA Rs s VIII
Nas asd Th
Addrss
Kathy Doles
Engu eenng Tectuucias
Color.ds Depsstm of Hs
W Quality Cootrol Dmsiss
WQCD.PR .S2
Peem e
4300 Cherry Cieek On ,. Sot
Dosver. CO 10222-1530
300-492.3590
FAX 300-712 0390
Sarah Plocher
Storm Water Und Lender
Co rsdo Depstvnas of Hskh
Weter Quality COntrol Dmsaos
WQCD-P!.92
4300 Cherry Creek Drive Soi
Denver. CO 10222.1530
303-692.3590
FAX 303.712.0390
Fred Shcwmnn
Supcrvieor of Permits
Mo ea Depatunas of Hs a Eov ionm I Sc— -
W Quality Swiss
Copisil Buüdia . RM-X6
H. , MT 59626
406-444-2406
FAX 406-444-1374
Ro .inn Lgicoln
Environmental Spec*lim
MisSes Department .f Kes s Eavisvss l 3 ’
W. Quality Buresu
CopveLl Bwldmg. RM .206 .
Helees, MT 59626
4C 2406
FAX 1374
Jim Collini
Environmental Scienuari rs Wntu
Coordinator
She ila McClcna&ahan
NPDES Program Manager
North Dakota Dcpartm of Hshk
Division of Quality
P.O. Boa 5520
Bismuck. ND 58502-5520
North Dakota Department of Hesith.
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Boa 5520
Bismarek. MD 58502-5520
701.221-5210
FAX 701-221-5200
70 122152 10
FAX 701-221-3200
EPA Re 5 VIII
Addrea U.S. EPA. Re VIII
999 18 1k S&rent. Suite 500
Den m, CO 802024464
_!u 303-294.1386
48
-------
“ame and Thi. I Addr a
T Iepboae
Glcnn Pternz
J.uura1 Resourcea Enginesr
South Dakota Depanmci of Enviivnancn& and N
Point Sourci Con o1 Dtvia n
Jo. Foss Budding
PierTe. SD 57501-3LS1
605..773.335
FAX 6Q5 .T73. 35
Harry CampoeU
Er. ;ronrnencaL E gu ccriSIorTfl Watar
CjorUuialor
Ulali Department of E vitonmental Quality
Division of Wsier Quality
P 0 Boa 44170
SaftLikeCity.UT 84114-4170
8O1-53$4 1nd
FAX 801-538-6016
J..,Irn W ncr
Tc hrt ica Support Supervisor
Wyoming Department of EnvuonmentaI Quality
Hcrschler Building
122 Weg 25th Stiect
Cheyenne. WY $2002
307-777-7082
Fa.x 307-777-5973
%12l -isa L.aiady
Environmental Analyst
Wyoming Depa.rtma of EavijonmenLIl Quality
Henchle, Budding
122 W 25th Str
Ch.ycnn.. WY $2002
3 07.777-75 8$
FAX 3O7-77 -7.s;7
49
-------
Name
ThIS TeIepboa. Mail stop
Eugene Bromley (W.5-1) —
SIOmI Wam Coordin.t&or 415-744.1906 (w-5 .1)
SWA O ISS
ix EPA Iq I S. LX
dame sad Title
Addt
Telepho uts
Robert Wilson
Storm Water Coordinator
Arirxu Depssunen& o( Eavt,ouumaital Quality
Plea. Riview aII4 PWII&$ SeCII
2003 North Central
PhosutiL AZ $5
5-207.4574
FAX 602-207-4674
Mtke Ada kapsra
Senior Water Rosoutces Control Engia
‘ alikrnia Staa Water Resources Qusl y Co ol Bosid
5a Au Rs nal Board
2010 lows Avsnua SudS 100
Rivsn s. CA 925072409
714.7*24130
FAX 714791421$
Randy Eckauvn
Senior Engineer
Cali 1riua S w . . Water Resources QuaI y Co ol Board
Lshouesa Regional Board
2092 Laho Tahoe Boulevard
SOIOhLakSTIIIOS.CA 96150
916.544.3411
FAX 916.544-2271
Brad Hagemana
Associate W&tgr Resources Control
Engu cer
Calitbrnia Stat. Witer Resources Qual y Control Board
Ceuntal Coant Regional Board
$1 Higusra Strent. Swim 200
Sax Luis 0bhp .. CA 93401-5247
*05-549-3697
FAX *05-543-0397
Deborah Jayne
Environmental Specialist II I
( aM nua S W. Water Resources Qually Co ot Board
Sam Diego Regional Board
9771 Clarienoni Muon Boulevard. Su s B
Sax Diego. CA 92124-1331
619 -467-29fl
FAX 619-571-6972
Betsy Jenningu
Senior St.aff Counsel
Californ i a S w .. Water Resources Quality Cotwol Board
P.O. Boa 100
Sscrsmuoo.CA 95*12
916457 .2421
FAX 916457-138*
Mohammed Kline
Associate Water Resources Control
Engineer
California State Ws*er Resources Qus1 y Cosool Board
COloradO River Baste Regional Board
75-271 Highway 111. Suit. 21
Palm Desert. CA 92260
619-346-7491
FAX 619-341-6120
Atchic Mathews
Supcr’vuu g Engineer
California State Water Resources Quality Control Board
Central Valley Regional Board
P0. Boa 944213
Sacrament.. CA 94244-2130
916-657-0523
FAX 916 .6S7- JSS
EPA Region IX
Addzess U.S. EPA - Regme IX
75 Hawthorn. Su
Sax FraM , CA 94105
Fax 415-744.1235
50
-------
L flu.
Addrea I
Alex McDonald
Asociate W*tCt Resources Contrcl
Engineer
California Slate Water Resources Quality Con&nl Board
CCOU%L VaUey ft gional aoar
3443 Rouucr Road
Sacramento. CA 95827-3098
9 1 6 -36 1.56’6
FAX 916.361-5686
tjin Lmkv
Storm %Vater Coor u .acor
California Sute Water Resources Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Regional Board
2101 Webstef Sing, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
310-286 .0962
..x 510-286.1380
Don Pxmn
Chici ot Regulation Unit
California Slate Water Resources Quality Control Board
Central Valicy Regional Board
Division of Water Quality
P0. Boa 944213
Sacramento. CA 94244.2130
916457-1:88
FAX 9 16457-2358
Xavier Swamikannu
Wacr Resources Control Engineer
California Stats Water Resources Quality Control Board
Los Mgale. Regional Board
101 Ccnir Plaoa Dnv.
Monterey Park. CA 91754.2156
213-266-7592
FAX 213-266-7600
Al WeW
A ociatc W r Resources Control
Engineer
California State Water Resources Quality Control Board
Noith Coast Regional Board
1440 GuerneviUs Road
Santa Rosa. CA 95403
707-576.22:0
FAX 707-523-0135
Sieve Chang
Supervisor- Engmecnng Section
Hawaii Department of Hoa h
Clese Water Branch
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
5 Wa g ’fj gij Plea. Suiti 230A
Honolulu, HI 96113
50$-586 .4309
FAX 808.586.4370
Denis R Lau
Chief
Hawaii Department of Heskh
Clean Wsze ’ Branch
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
S Wstcrfr ng Plan. Suits 230A
Honolulu, HI 96113
808-586-4309
FAX 808-586-4370
Rob Saunders
Envuonmenial Engineer. Division of
Conservation and Naomi Resources
Division of Envuonm tesl P,vc os
Capital Complea
123 Wag Ny. La os
Canon City, NV 89720
702-6874670
FAX 702-885-0868
51
-------
‘ 4 ame
ThIS
Telepbon
Ntsil Stop
St vc Bubnic
Hydl o $ologUt
:06.533-8399
(WD 134)
K Lhy CoLlins
Environmental Engmect
206453-2io$
(WD 137)
Rcgion X Hoibne
0 6 .5534214
S t o t o
i x EPA Bogus
same and Tills
Addtua
Te lspbo n.
M tchael Mange
Director
Alaa Depsttmm* of EaVUVSmcotaI Qual y
410 WWougbby Avenus
iu,istu. AK 99801
907.465-5260
FAX 907.465.5274
Jarry Yodcr
Chief
Pegin u and Enkic ’
1410 Noith Hi as Slz
Boiss. ID $3706
208-3345$9$
FAX 208-3344 117
Ratici Nomurs
Storm Water Coorthnazor
Otegon Depsi of Envvco l QuaJ y. Witar Qual y
Divisuse
Ill SW 6th Avenus
Portland, OR 91204.1309
503-229-52S6
FAX 503.229.6124
Pe cr Birch
Supervuorof Uthan Non-Point
%1aru cmcnI Unit
Wub o Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
P.O. Boa 47600
Olympia. WA 98504-7600
:06.438.7076
FAX 206-438-7490
EdO Enen
Ertvircrimental Engineer 3
Wsthiigtoe Department of Ecology
M ii i Slop PV-L 1
P.O. Boa 47696
Olym,.a. WA 98504-7696
206.438-7037
FAX 206-438.7490
EPA R s X
Addrma U.S. EPA. Rqjox X
1200 6th A’e ijs
SeaW., WA 98101
Fix 206-553-0165
52
-------
STATE NPOES PROGRAM 5TATI S ) /27i9Z
Appr,ved State
NPOES Peres
Pvo r.e
AppeQeed to
Reulats Fedeol
Facilitle
Approved Stas.
Pro ie
G geJ
pe
A a:arna
10/19179
10/19/79
10/19179
06/26/91
i runsas
11/01156
11/01/56
11/01/56
11/01/56 —
C Laornia
05/14173
05/05/75
09/22/89
09I22/89
C,Iorido
03/27/75
—
03/04/83
C,nnccucui
09 126 /73
01/09189
06/03/ 81
03/10/92
Delaware
04/01174
—
—
10/23/92
Georgia
06/28/74
12/08/80
03/12151
01/28/91
Hawau
11/28/74
06/01/79
08/12/53
09 130/91
Illino is
10/23(77
09120/79
—
o l/od/a4
Indiana
01/01/75
12/0917$
—
o4/ov91
Iowa
08110/78
08/10(7*
06/ 0 3/ 51
08/12/92
Kanw
06/28/74
08 1 28/ 85
—
Kentucky
09/30/53
09/30/13
09 130/*3
09/30/53
Maryland
09/05/74
11/10/57
09 /30185
09/30/9 %
Michigan
10/17/73
12/09/7$
06/07/U
Minnesota
06/30(74
12/09/7*
07/16179
12/15/97
Mississippi
05/01/74
01/2 1/ * 3
05/1312
09/27/91
Missourt
10130174
06126/79
06/0311
12/12/85
Montana
06110/74
06/23/*1
-
04129/53
Nebraska
06/12/74
11/02/79
09/07l84
07/20/59
Nevada
09/19/75
08131/7$
—
07127/fl
New Jersey
04113/82
04/13/12
04 /1312
04/13/12
New York
10128 /75
06/13/80
—
10115/92
North Carolina
10119/75
09/21/84
06/14/82
09/06/91
North Dakota
06/13 / 75
01/22/90
-
01/22/90
Ohio
03/11 / 74
01/21/83
07/27/U
08117/fl
Oregon
09/26/73
03/02/79
03/12181
02/23/82
Pennsylvania
06/30/78
06/3017$
-
0L 2/91
Rhode Island
091 17/*4
09/17/k
09/17/84
09/17/84
South Carolina
06110/75
09/26/80
04/09/82
09/03/92
Tennessee
12/28/77
09/30/86
08/10113
04/18/91
Utah
07107 / 17
07/07/57
07107/17
07/07/87
Vermoiis
03/ lts’74
-
03 /16182
-
Virgin Islands
06/30176
—
—
—
Virginia
03131 / 75
02/09/12
04 /14 /89
05/20/91
Washington
11114/73
-
09130/86
09/26/89
Weg Virginia
05/101*2
05/10/82
05/10152
05/10/82
Wiscoesin
02104/74
11/26/79
12/24/10
12/19/86
Wyom ing
01/30/75
05/18/81
—
09/24/91
Totals
39
34
27
35
Number of FuUy AwMnznd Piv ,vns (Federal Facthucs. Pruresunent. General Perinas) - 24
53
-------
I Regulatory Definitions I
Point source means any discernible, confined, and discrete Conveyance, including but not
limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling
stock, concen ated animal feeding operation, landfill leachate collection system, v 1 or
ocher floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not
include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural storm water runoff. (Sea
122.3).
Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity means the discharge from any conveyance
which is used for collecting and conveying storm water and which is directly related to
manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant. The term
does not include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the NPDES program.
For the categories of industries identified in paragraphs (i) through (x) of this definition, the
term includes, but is not limited to, storm water discharges from industrial plant yards;
immediate access and rail lines used or traveled by carriers of raw materials,
manufactured products, waste material, or by-products used or cr ”ed by the facility;
material handling sites; refuse sites; sues used for the application or disposal of process
waste waters (as defined at 40 CFR 401); sites used for the storage and maintenance of
material handling equipment; sites used for residual treatment, storage, or disposal; shipping
and receiving areas; manufacturing buildings; storage areas (including tank farms) for raw
materials, and intermediate and finished products; and areas where industrial activity has
taken place in the past and significant materials remain and are exposed to storm waxer. For
the categories of industries identified in paragraph (xi) of this definition, the term includes
only storm water discharges from all areas (except access roads and rail Lines) listed in the
previous sentence where material handling equipment or activities, raw materials,
intermediate products, final products, waste materials, by-products, or industhal machinery
are exposed to storm water . For the purposes of this paragraph, material handling activities
include the: storage, loading and unloading, transportation, or conveyance of any raw
material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product or waste product. The term
excludes areas located on plant lands separate from the plant’s industrial activities, such as
office buildings and accompanying parking lots as long as the drainage from the excluded
areas is not mixed with storm waxer drained from the above described areas. Industrial
facilities (including industrial facilities that are Federally, State or municipally owned or
operated that meat the description of the facilities listed in this paragraph (i)-(xi) of this
definition) include those f2 ilities designated under 122.26(a)(1)(v). The following categories
of facilities are considered to be engaging in industrial activity for purposes of this
subsection:
(i) Facilities subject to storm waxer effluent limitations guidelines, new source
performaacs standards, or toxic pollutant effluerit standards under 40 CFR subchapter N
(except facilities with toxic pollutant effluent standards which are exempted under
category (xs) of this definition);
(ii) Facilities cI2qjfld as Standard Industrial Classifications 24 (except 2434), 26 (except
265 and 267), 28 (except 283), 29, 311, 32 (except 323), 33, 3441, 373;
(iii) Facilities classified as Standard Industrial Classifications 10 through 14 (mineral
industry) including active or inactive mining operations (except for areas of coal mining
operations no longer meeting the definition of a reclamation area under 40 CFR 434.11(1)
because the performance bond issued to the facility by the appropriate SMCRA authority
has been released, or except for areas of non-coal mining operations which have been
released from applicable State or Federal reclamation requirements after December 17,
1990) and oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations, or
54
-------
transmission aci1iues chat discharge storm water contaminated by contact with or that ras
come intO COfltaCt with, any overburden 1 raw material, intermediate products, rinished
products, byproducts or waste products located on the site Of such operations; inactive
mining operations are mining sites that are not being actively mined, but which have an
identifiable owner/operacor
(iv) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, including those that are
operating under interim status or a permit under Subtitle C of RCR.A;
(v) Landfills, land application sites, and open dumps that have received any industrial
wastes (waste that is received from any of the facilities described under this subsection)
including those that are subject to regulation under Subtitle D of RCRA;
(vi) Facilities involved in the recycling of materials, including metal scrapyards, battery
reclaimers, salvage yards, and automobile junkyards, including but limited to those
classified as Standard Industrial Classification 5015 and 5093;
(vu) Steam eLectric power generating facilities, including coal handling sites;
(viii) Transportation facilities classified as Standard Industrial Classifications 40, 41, 42
(except 4221-25), 43, 44, 45 and 5171 which have vehicle maintenance shops, equipment
cleaning operations, or airport deicing operations. Only those portions of the facility that
are either involved in vehicle maintenance (including vehicle rehabilitation, mechanical
repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication), equipment cleaning operations, airport deicing
operations, or which are otherwise identified under paragraphs (i)-(vü) or (ix)-(xi) of this
subsection are associated with industrial activity;
(ix) Treatment works treating domestic sewage or any other sewage sludge or
wastewater treatment device or system, used in the storage treatment, recycling, and
reclamation of municipal or domestic sewage, including land dedic2red to the disposal of
sewage sludge that are located within the confines of the facility, with a design flow of
1.0 mgd or more, or required to have an approved pretreatment program under 40 CFR
403. Not included are farm lands, domestic gardens or lands used for sludge
management where sludge is beneficially reused and which are not physically located in
the confines of the facility, or areas that are in compliance with 40 CFR 503;
(x) Construction activity including clearing, grading and excavation activities except:
operations that result in the disturbance of less than five acres of total land area which
are not part of a larger common plan of development or sale;
(xi) Facilities under Standard Industrial Classifications 20, 21, 22, 23, 2434, 25, 265,
267, 27, 283, 285, 30, 31 (except 311), 323, 34 (except 3441), 35, 36, 37 (except 373),
38, 39, 4221-25, (and which ale not otherwise included within categories (i)-(x))’.
1 On June 4, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
remanded the exclusion for manufacturing facilities ri category (xi) which do not have
materials or activities exposed to storm water to the EPA for further rulemaking. (Nos.
90-70671 and 91-70200).
55
-------
L Industrial Subclassiflcation of Auxiliary EstabUstiment I
(From Standard Industrial Classification Manual 1987, Office of Management and
Budget, p. 17]
Central Adminictrative Offices
Auxiliary establishments primarily engaged in performing management and other general
administrative functions centrally for other establishments of the same enterprise.
Accounting offices Financial offices
Advertising offices Head offices
Buying offices Legal offices
Central offices Lobbying offices
Computer operations facilities
Marketing research offices
Corporate offices Public relations offices
Data processing facilities Purchasing offices
District administrative offices
Recordkeeping offices
Executive offices Regional administrative offices
Research, Development, and Testing Laboratories
Auxiliary establishments primarily engaged in performing laboratory or other physical or
biological research, development, and testing for other establishments of the same enterprise.
Biological research facilities Industrial laboratories
Chemical laboratories Laboratories, testing of products
Engineering laboratories Research laboratories
Food research/testing facilities
Testing facilities
Waretiou
Auxiliary establishments primarily engaged n storing raw materials, finished goods, and
other products to be used or sold by other establishments of the same enterprise.
Storage yards Warehouses
Auxiliaries, Not Elsewhere Claesifled
Auxiliary establishments primarily engaged in providing support services, not elsewhere
classified, for other establishments of the same enterprise.
56
-------
Advertising sales ofrices Repair shops
Computer maintenance facilities
Security offices
Garages: maintenance, repair,
Showrooms, without sales
motor pools Stamp redemption centers
Milk receiving stations Trading stamp scores
Recreation centers Trucking terminals
57
-------
P4%
( uN TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
J WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE CF
WATER
JUL 2 2 I9
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: 40 CFR 403.18 Pretreatment Program Modifications
FROM: .Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director jc , .. .
Permits Division
TO: Regional Permits Branch Chiefs
Attached is guidance on the implementation of
40 CFR 403.18 procedures for approving changes to Approved
Pretreatment Programs. It provides suggestions on how State and
EPA Approval Authorities might reduce the effort necessary to
comply with 40 CFR 403.18, especially its public notice
requirements. We believe that we have incorporated the consensus
comments that you and others provided on previous drafts and at
last year’s National Pretreatment Meeting.
We will continue to consider the need for a rulemaking to
revise 40 CFR 403.18, as several of you have recommended. If you
would continue to supply up—to-date evidence of the resource
requirements of complying with this rule, it would help to
support a decision whether to modify it.
Thank you for the comments that many of you provided on
drafts of this document. Please contact Louis Eby, (202) 260-
2991, if you have questions or would like to discuss this
guidance.
Attachment
cc: Regional Pretreatment Coordinators
State Pretreatment Coordinators
Printed on P y a e’
-------
GUIDANCE ON PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
MODIPICATION REQUIREMENTS OP 40 CPR 403.18
I. BACKGROUND
This guidance addresses issues related to compliance with
procedures for modifying approved publicly owned treatment works
(POTW5) pretreatment programs under 40 CFR 403.18. It provides
guidance on what types of program changes are “substantial” and,
therefore, trigger the section 403.18 public notice requirements,
and what forms of public notice satisfy those requirements.
POTWs that meet certain requirements under the Clean Water
Act (CWA) are required to develop pretreatment programs to
regulate industrial discharges into their systems. These
programs must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or the State (in States that have been approved by EPA to
act as the pretreatment program “Approval Authority”). Due to
changes in circumstances or legal requirements, these Approved
Pretreatment Programs may need to be modified from time to time
to ensure that they comply with the minimum pretreatment program
requirements specified in 40 CFR 403.
Prior to the October 17, 1988, amendments (the “PIRT” rule),
the federal regulations did not address the procedures for
modifying Approved POTW Pretreatment Programs. Many programs
were not being kept up to date. EPA promulgated the program
modification procedures in section 403.18 in order to make sure
that program changes are consistent with the requirements of
Part 403. Section 403.18 requires that “substantial
modifications” to approved POTW pretreatment programs be adopted
following the procedures in 40 CFR 403.11(b)—(f). The intent of
section 403.18 is to assure consistency by requiring Approval
Authorities to review “substantial modifications” and to provide
opportunity for public comment. Another objective of section
403.18 is to assure that changes are considered part of the
Approved Pretreatment Program and, therefore, are enforceabXe.
Section 403.18 is Summarized in an attachment.
Early in 1992, EPA solicited comments on section 403.18 from
EPA Region and State Pretreatment Coordinators. Perhaps the
single most dominant theme of their comments was that the public
notice requirements impose a substantial cost but generate almost
no response from the public. Many commenters suggested limits on
what should be considered a “substantial modification”, while
others proposed limits on the need to publish a public notice of
both the proposed and final adoption of pretreatment program
modifications.
Several of the recommendations would require changes to the
regulations. Those changes cannot be implemented at this time.
EPA will continue to consider whether it is necessary to amend
-------
section 403.18. It is unlikely, however, that the rule will be
amended in the near future. In the interim, program
modifications must be in compliance with the minimum requirements
of section 403.18. This memo is intended to help delineate those
minimum requirements.
II. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
A. Adequacy of Notice at the Local Level
Section 403.18 requires that public notice of a request for
pretreatment program modification be issued. (See 40 CFR
403.18(b) (1) (ii); 403.11(b) (1)). Many Approval Authorities have
complained about the cost of providing this notice, especially in
light of the fact that it frequently duplicates notice that was
already given by POTWs in the process of making changes to their
programs.
To eliminate duplication of notice, POTWs and Approval
Authorities should consider jointly issued public notices.
Notice given by the Approval Authority either alone or jointly
with a POTW best satisfies the requirements of section 403.18.
Approval Authorities do, however, have some discretion to
consider public notices provided solely by POTWs adequate for
purposes of 403.11(b)(1). As noted in the preamble to the
rulemaking that adopted 403.18:
“EPA agrees that where public participation in the process
of amending the ordinance is equivalent to that required
under 403.11, additional public notice and comment for the
program modification procedures would be duplicative.
However, because not all municipalities may have equivalent
public participation procedures for amending their
ordinances, the Agency has concluded that it would be
inappropriate to allow a blanket exemption from the S403.ll
procedures for program modifications that involve amendments
to local ordinances.” 53 FR 40580.
Although EPA still does not believe that a blanket exemption
would be appropriate, the Agency’s experience with administering
the rule has confirmed that Approval Authorities should be able
to deem public notice given at the local level to be sufficient
to satisfy the notice requirement for requests for program
modification.
Public notices performed at the local level may be
considered to fulfill the obligations of 403.11(b) (1) only in
certain narrow circumstances. Any such local notice, at a
minimum, should contain language such as the following:
2
-------
“This notice is intended to serve as the notice of request
for approval of pretreatment program modification required
by 40 CFR 403.18(b) (1) (ii) and 403.ll(b)(l)(i). Anyone may
submit Comments to ( 3 within 30 days. If there is
significant public interest in this proposal, a public
hearing will be held by (State or U.S. EPA] pursuant to 40
CFR 403.11”
In advance of providing notice, POTWs should work with their
Approval Authorities to make sure that the changes are approvable
and to determine what notice will be deemed adequate. Approval
Authorities should agree in advance to provide the hearing
required by 40 CFR 403.11(b) (2) if there is significant public
interest.
EPA Regions acting as Approval Authorities also have the
flexibility to work out arrangements by which POTWs provide
notice that satisfies the requirements of 403.11(b)(1). This may
or may not be desirable, depending on whether or not the Region
is willing and able to get involved in early stages of changes to
the POTW’s program. It also should be noted that the Regions
cannot require the POTWs to give the notice required by the
federal regulations.
B. Need for Tvo Notices
Section 403.18 requires public notice of both the request
for approval of a substantial program modification and the
Approval Authority decision to approve or deny the request. Many
colnlnenters have criticized this requirement. EPA believes that,
in limited circumstances, a single notice might satisfy this
requirement. Such notice could serve as the notice of both the
request for approval and the decision to approve if:
1.) the notice states that, if no comments are received, the
proposal will be adopted as proposed and without further
notice,
2) no substantive comments are received, and
3) the request is approved without changes.
Interested parties should be given the opportunity to request
individual notice of the final decision. The public notice
should include a statement such as the following:
Anyone may submit written comments or request a public
hearing on this proposal within 30 days of this notice. If
no comments to this notice are received, the proposed
Pretreatment Program modification will be approved as set
forth herein without changes and without further public
3
-------
notice. In such event, this notice shall constitute the “notice
of approval or disapproval” required by 403.11(e) and no
additional notice shall be provided; the approved modification
will be noted in (the POTW’s] NPDES permit file at (insert NPDES
permitting office]. Anyone who wishes to be sent a notice of the
approval of the modifications should send a request for such
notice to (
If this procedure is followed, the need to expeditiously modify
the POTW’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit to incorporate the approved changes becomes all
the more important. The permit modification provides a record
that the changes have in fact been adopted.
This procedure may be used only by Approval Authorities;
notices of requested changes given solely by a POTW as discussed
in the preceding section should not also serve as the Approval
Authority’s notice of approval.
C. Joint Notice With Revision of POTW’s NPDEB Permit
Another way to reduce the cost of 40 CFR 403.18 public
notice requirements is to combine the notice of pretreatment
program modifications with notice of renewal of the POTW’s NPDES
permit. EPA has acknowledged that the public notice and comment
process f or modifications to a POTW’s NPDES permit and Approved
Pretreatment Program may be combined. (See 53 FR 40578]. If a
POTW’s pretreatment program modification happens to occur shortly
bef ore the time a POTW’s NPDES permit is being renewed, the
Approval Authority may consider combining the notices of request
for and approval of pretreatment program modifications with the
notices of the draft and final NPDES permits.
When a POTW is strengthening its authorities in a way that
goes beyond what is required by its NPDES permit or its Approved
Pretreatment Program (as incorporated in the permit), it could
elect not to submit the change for approval under 403.18 and
thereby not make the change part of its Approved Pretreatment
Program until its NPDES permit is modified. The POTW could still
enforce those requirements at any time under local law, although
EPA and States could only enforce approved program requirements.
If a POTW weakens its Approved Pretreatment Program, it will
probably be in violation of its NPDES permit unless it follows
the procedures for modifying the Approved Program and the permit.
4
-------
III. WKAT CONSTIT TE8 A SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION
A. Gen•ral
Section 403.11(b) notice requirements are triggered by
section 403.18 only if the modification to the pretreatment
program is considered substantial under section 403.18(c). Many
of the commenters suggested that Approval Authorities need
guidance on what is considered a substantial modification.
Some contmenters took an unduly restrictive interpretation of
what modifications must be treated as substantial under section
403.18(c). Substantial modifications generally do not include
changes to the requirements of a single industrial user, but
rather modifications to the POTW’s program. Changes to specific
details of a POTW’s pretreatment program should not be considered
substantial modifications if they are more specific than the
level of detailthat is required when a program is initially
submitted for approval. The approved program should not be so
specific that an amendment to the program and the NPDES permit is
needed for every action taken by the POTW, nor stiould it be so
vague that it fails to clarify the POTW’s responsibilities to run
an effective pretreatment program.
For example, the program description that is part of a
POTW’s approved program must include a general description of the
control mechanisms, not a description of the actual control
mechanism that will be issued to each individual significant
industrial user (SIU). Therefore, a substantial modification
under 40 CFR 403.18(c) (1) (iii) does not include the addition of a
single SIU to the system or the issuance of a control mechanism
to that SIU, provided that the action is consistent with the
existing approved POTW program. A decrease in the frequency with
which one facility is inspected is not a significant change under
403.18(c) (1) (vi), provided that it is consistent with the
approved program. The same analysis would apply to a change to
one SIU’s self—monitoring requirements under 403.18(c) (1) (v).
B. Enforcement R.apona. Plans
Whether or not the adoption of an Enforcement Response Plan
(ERP) is a substantial modification is left to the discretion of
the Approval Authority under section 403.18(c)(2). Approval
Authorities should promptly notify POTWs whether the modification
might be considered substantial; this will avoid confusion that
might stem from the fact that non-substantial modifications are
deemed to be approved if the Approval Authority does not act
within a certain time. It has been the experience of many
Approval Authorities that ERPs frequently have to be revised
between their initial submittal and final approval.
5
-------
If the ERP merely restates and consolidates existing
authorities and procedures, it might not constitute a substantial
modification to the approved program. Even if it is not
considered a substantial modification, however, it must be
processed as a non-substantial modification so that it is made an
enforceable element of the POTW’s program.
C. Legal Authority
Most changes to local ordinances that are necessary for
POTWs to have the minimum authority necessary for an approved
program will be considered substantial. Substantial
modifications would not include the correction of typographical
errors or amendments of authorities that are not mandatory
requirements of approved programs. Many substantial legal
authority changes will be merely the adoption of provisions
required by State and Federal law. The burden of providing
public notice of such changes, however, should be minimized since
they are unlikely to result in changes between request for
approval and approval of the changes. They should, therefore,
qualify for the single combined notice procedure outlined in
Section 11.3. above.
D. Local limits
Section 403.18(c) (1) (ii) defines “changes to local limits
which result in less stringent local limits” as a substantial
modification. The Preamble to the PIRT rule indicates that all
such changes are substantial and that regulators have very little
flexibility in this area. As initially proposed, the public
notice requirements would have only applied to local limits that
were contained in municipal ordinances. The final rule clarified
that t applied to all changes which result in less stringent
limits, “not only those contained in ordinances”. 53 FR 40579.
New local, limits and revisions to local limits that make
them more stringent are not defined as substantial mgdifications
under Part 403.l8(c)(1)(ii). Part 403.5(c) (3) does require that
notice of local limit development be given to persons or groups
who have requested such notice, and 403.5(e) specifies that these
changes are federally enforceable.
IV. NPDEB P.rmit Modifications to Incorporate Pr•tr.atm•nt
Program Modifications
Regardless of what procedures are used to process a program
modification, the approved modifications must be incorporated
into the POTW’s NPDES permit. POTWs are legally required to
implement their existing program until the modifications are
6
-------
approved and placed in their permit. An enforcement action
cannot be brought against a P0TW for failure to implement the
modifications to an Approved Pretreatment Program until the
modifications are incorporated into the POTW’s NPDES permit.
In addition, when program modification procedures have not
been followed, it creates uncertainty about the requirements to
which industrial dischargers are subject under federal law. The
industrial user could be subject to state or federal enforcement
action for the “old” requirements that are still part of the
Approved Program, while also being subject to enforcement for
modifications that have been put into effect under the POTW’s
local authorities. Note, however, that modifications that result
in new or more stringent local limits on industrial users that
are developed pursuant to 40 CFR 403.5(c) are immediately
enforceable under 40 CFR 403.5(e) regardless of whether 40 CFR
403.18 procedures have been commenced or completed.
Modifications to NPDES permits may be processed as minor
permit modifications under 40 CFR 122.63(g) once they have been
approved pursuant to section 403.18. To perform a minor
modification, the NPDES permit issuing authority may simply
attach an amendment to the permit in its files and send a copy to
the permittee and, if a State is the permit issuing authority, to
EPA.
The Approved Program should be incorporated by reference in
the POTW’s NPDES permit. Because the Approved Program may be too
long to include in the permit, it may be referenced by title and
date in the permit. The Approved Program should be described in
one document, which might incorporate other documents by
reference. After the Approved Program is modified, the reference
to the Approved Program might be changed to “POTW XYZ’s Approved
Pretreatment program as modified through (date of most recent
modification].”
This process may prove more difficult if the POTW’s Approved
Pretreatment Program has not been kept up to date so that it
cannot be identified and incorporated by reference in the p rmit.
If that is the case, the POTW should be required to resubmit its
program. A good time to require a POTW to do this is when it is
in the process of developing its Enforcement Response Plan. Once
a program is up to date and well documented, future modifications
will be greatly facilitated.
7
-------
ACRMEN
SOXMARY 0? 40 CYR 403.18
A. Section 403.18 requires that program changes that are
considered “substantial modifications” undergo the following
procedures prior to their being put into effect:
1) porw must submit necessary documents.
2) Approval Authority reviews.
3) Approval Authority determines whether the modificationis
substantial.
4) If substantial, the Approval Authority approves or
disapproves the proposed change under procedures in 403.11(b)-
(f):
(b) (1) public notice including mailing and publication in
paper, 30 day comment period, etc.;
(b) (2) opportunity for public hearing;
(c) Approval Authority decision within 90 days;
(d) EPA opportunity to object where a State is the Approval
Authority;
(e) Notice of decision in same newspaper; and
(f) public access to submission.
5) NPDES permit amended in accordance with 122.63(g) (minor
modification, which requires no further public notice.).
B. Non-substantial modifications are reviewed under simpler
procedures:
1) POTW must submit 30 days before they go into effect.
2) They are deemed to be approved unless, within 90 days, the
Approval Authority determines that they were in fact
substantial (in which case the process for substantial
modifications is commenced).
3) NPDES permit amended in accordance with 122.63(g).
Approval Authority can deny a non-substantial modification only
if the Approval Authority first deems the modification to be
substantial and then denies it.
-------
COPY FOR oua
1D INFORMATIOM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECr1ON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
t J. a tG’
QX3 25 gg
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Results of SNC Study
II’ ‘-
FROM: Michael B. Cook, Direct ; ‘ (
Office of Wastewater Enforcement’ and Com tiance
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I - X
During our F? 1992 aid-years, we found a significant number
of State permits that did not contain monthly average limitations
f or toxic parameters. This is inconsistent with EPA’s
regulation, 40 CFR S122.45(d)’, which requires average monthly
discharge limitations for all permittees unless impracticable.
We have studied this issue and have found significant
ramifications for permits and enforcement. The findings of this
study and my recommendations to you follow.
From the enforcement standpoint, the lack of monthly
averages in permits presents a problem since the regulatory basis
for determining Reportable Noncompliance (RNC) and Significant
Noncompliance (SNC) is dependent upon the monthly average (40 CFR
5123.45). As you know, regulations require we publicize RNC on
the Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR). We report national
SNC rates as a key indicator of the status of the program, and
use SNCS to drive our “timely and appropriate” enforcement
system. The absence of monthly averages skews our compliance
1 5122.45 Calculating NPDES permits conditions (applicable to
State NPDES programs, see 5123.25). “(d) Continuous d.ischa.rges.
For continuous discharges all permit effluent limitations,
standards, and prohibitions, including those necessary to achieve
water quality standards, shall unless impracticable be stated as:
(1) Maximum daily and average monthly discharge limitations for
all dischargers other than publicly owned treatment works; and (2)
Average weekly and average monthly discharge limitations for
POTWs.”
-
g — . __
-------
J ( !1 yr,I,3
I.. a ite .. a 1:
2
picture and our enforcement response program, and presents
inequities in assessing penalties. In assessing penalties for
monthly average violations, we assume violation for each day of
the month, while daily maximum penalties are based on one day of
violation. This can create significant inequity in the penalty
amounts assessed for facilities with similar violations where the
only difference is the use of monthly average limits versus daily
maximum limits.
We conducted a study to determine if the absence of monthly
averages is a national or local issue. Using the PCS database,
we looked at the current effluent limits and determined that
nationally approximately 45 percent of the major permits were
issued without monthly average numeric limits for fl parameters
with numeric limits. Of greater concern is that 15 percent of
the major permits were issued without monthly average limits for
half of the limited pollutant parameters.
Since effluent RNC/SNC is dependent upon monthly averages,
we investigated the impact on the effluent RNC/SNC rate by
applying the RNC/SNC criteria to daily maximums. The study
period was from April 1992 to September 1992. Applying these
criteria beyond just monthly averages, the national RNC/SWC rate
would have more than doubled from 6 percent (445 major
facilities) to 15 percent (1,080 major facilities).
The study also examined whether or not the daily maximum
violations identified were already addressed by formal
enforcement actions. In each region, we looked at the state which
showed the greatest increase in the RNC/SNC rate after applying
the criteria beyond monthly averages. For each state we
identified the facilities with violations and looked at all
enforcement actions in PCS against those facilities. Our
analysis indicated that very little formal enforcement was taken
to address these violations.
As a result of this study, I recommend that you consider
both the importance of getting monthly average effluent limits
into all permits where practicable, and increased enforcement
attention on violations of non-monthly average limits. The
existing NPDES rul. at 40 CFR 122.45(d) requires monthly averages
unless impracticable. I ask you to ensure that the permits you
issue and State permits you review include a monthly average
limit for all pollutants limited, except for those where the fact
sheet explains that monthly average limits are impracticable. In
my May 14, 1993 memorandum entitled, “Review of Mid—year
Enforcement Activity,” I stated that facilities with violations
of “Non—SNC” effluent limits (daily maximums, etc.) should be
high priority candidates for enforcement. I hope you give strong
consideration to identifying “nonSNC” effluent violations and
taking enforcement action, especially in priority watersheds or
geographic areas of concern.
-------
3
To aid you in identifying these “Non-SNC” violations, we
will make available for national use, a program that was
developed by Region II for New York State for this purpose. The
program is being modified for national use and should be
available within the next month.
I would appreciate your immediate attention to this key
issue. If you have any questions, please contact me or Richard
Kozlowski at (202) 260—8304.
cc: Richard Kozlowski
Cynthia Dougherty
-------
I ’
United States
Environmentai Protection
Agency
I 7 : -
Office of Wastewater Enforcement Seplembe’r 1993
and Compliance -
Washington. DC
EPA The Report of the EPA/State
Feedlot Workgroup
714.1
-------
United States Office of Research and EPAI6OO4 -92/080
Environmental Protection Development September 1993
Agency Washington DC 20450
PEPA Methods for Aquatic
Toxicity Identification
Evaluations
Phase II Toxicity Identification
Procedures for Samples
Exhibiting Acute and Chronic
Toxicity
-------
iJriiled Slates Office of Research and EPA,600,R-g2 081
Environmental Protection Development Septemoer 1993
Agency Washington DC 20460
6EPA Methods for Aquatic
Toxicity Identification
Evaluations
Phase Ill Toxicity
Confirmation Procedures for
Samples Exhibiting Acute and
Chronic Toxicity
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Dear Environmental Advocate:
OCT I 5 I9 3
On October 1, 1993, 1 signed a memorandum regarding the Office of Water’s Policy
and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals
Criteria. This memorandum covers a number of areas including the expression of aquatic
life criteria, total maximum daily loads, National Pollution Discharge Eliminatio.i System
permits and enforcement, effluent monitoring, and ambient monitoring. The policy and
guidance in this document considers comments received from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Offices, recommendations made to EPA by the
participants in a meeting held in January 1993 in Annapolis, Maryland, and public comments
in the June 8, 1993, Federal Register notice requesting general public comments on the
Annapolis meeting recommendations. As Lated in the enclosed memorandum, we will
continue to issue guidance as more information ‘ecomes available.
OFFICE OF
WATER
Enclosure
Martha CL
Acting Assistant
ø,w,ia , x .a—,
a s f l
-------
,•t S.,
.‘gIk
t i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
r ’- WAS 4INGTON. 0 C 20460
‘L
OCT 1 93
OflcE cc
WATER
‘ rEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria
FROM: Martha G. Prothro ç’ cJ . . t
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I-X
Introduction
The implementation of metals criteria is complex due to the site-specific nature of
metals toxicity. We have undertaken a number of activities to develop guidance in this area,
notably the Interim Metals Guidance, published May 1992, and a public meeting of experts
held in Annapolis, MD, in January 1993. This memorandum transmits Office of Water
(OW) policy and guidance on the interpretation and implementation of aquatic life criteria for
the management of metals and supplements my April 1, 1993, memorandum on the same
subject. The issue covers a number of areas including the expression of aquatic life criteria;
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), permits, effluent monitoring, and compliance; and
ambient monitoring. The memorandum covers each in turn. Attached to this policy
memorandum are three guidance documents with additional technical details. They are:
Guidance Document on Expression of Aquatic Life Criteria as Dissolved Criteria
(Attachment #2), Guidance Document on Dynamic Modeling and Translators (Attachment
#3), and Guidance Document on Monitoring (Attachment #4). These will be supplemented
as additional data become av iIab1e. (See the schedule in Attachment #1.)
Since metals toxicity is significantly affected by site-specific factors, it presents a
number of programmatic challenges. Factors that must be considered in the management of
metals in the aquatic environment include: toxicity specific to effluent chemistry; toxicity
specific to ambient water chemistry; different patterns of toxicity for different metals;
evolution of the state of the science of metals toxicity, fate, and transport; resource
limitations for monitoring, analysis, implementation, and research functions; concerns
regarding some of the analytical data currently on record due to possible sampling and
analytical contamination; and lack of standardized protocols for clean and ultraclean metals
analysis. The States have the key role in the risk management process of balancing these
factors in the management of water programs. The site-specific nature of this issue could be
perceived as requiring a permit-by-permit approach to implementation. However, we believe
t Recyc .eyci. i.
S’ .
• 5%
-------
2
that this guidance can be effectively implemented on a broader level, across any waters with
roughly the same physical and chemical characteristics, and recommend that we work with
the States with that perspective in mind.
pression of Aquatic Life Criteria
o Dissolved vs. Total Recoverable Metal
A major issue is whether, and how, to use dissolved metal concentrations (dissolved
metal) or total recoverable metal concentrations (N total recoverable metal) in setting State
water quality standards. In the past, States have used both approaches when applying the
same Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria numbers. Some older criteria
documents may have facilitated these different approaches to interpretation of the criteria
because the documents were somewhat equivocal with regards to analytical methods. The
May 1992 interim guidance continued the policy that either approach was acceptable.
It is now the policy of the Office of Water that the use of dissolved metal to set and
measure compliance with water quality standards is the recommended approach, because
dissolved metal more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in the water
column than does total recoverable metal. This conclusion regarding metals bioavailability is
supported by a majority of the scientific community within and outside the Agency. One
reason is that a primary mechanism for water column toxicity is adsorption at the gill surface
which requires metals to be in the dissolved form.
The position that the dissolved metals approach is more accurate has been questioned
because it neglects the possible toxicity of particulate metal. It is true that some studies have
indicated that particulate metals appear to contribute to the toxicity of metals, perhaps
because of factors such as desorption of metals at the gill surface, but these same studies
indicate the toxicity of particulate metal is substantially less than that of dissolved metal.
Furthermore, any error incurred from excluding the contribution of particulate metal
will generally be compensated by other factors which make criteria conservative. For
example, metals in toxicity tests are added as simple salts to relatively clean water. Due to
the likely presence of a significant concentration of metals binding agents in many discharges
and ambient waters, metals in toxicity tests would generally be expected to be more
bioav2il2hile than metals in discharges or in ambient waters.
If total recoverable metal is used for the purpose of water quality standards,
compounding of factors due to the lower bioavailability of particulate metal and lower
bioavailability of metals as they are discharged may result in a conservative water quality
standard. The use of dissolved metal in water quality standards gives a more accurate result.
However, the majority of the participants at the Annapolis meeting felt that total recoverable
measurements in ambient water had some value, and that exceedences of criteria on a total
recoverable basis were an indication that metal loadings could be a stress to the ecosystem,
particularly in locations other than the water column.
-------
3
The reasons for the potential consideration of total recoverable measurements include
risk management considerations not covered by evaluation of water column toxicity. The
ambient water quality criteria are neither designed nor intended to protect sediments, or to
prevent effects due to food webs containing sediment dwelling organisms. A risk manager,
however, may consider sediments and food chain effects and may decide to take a
conservative approach for metals, considering that metals are very persistent chemicals. This
conservative approach could include the use of total recoverable metal in water quality
standards. However, since consideration of sediment impacts is not incorporated into the
criteria methodology, the degree of conservatism inherent in the total recoverable approach is
unknown. The uncertainty of metal impacts in sediments stem from the lack of sediment
criteria and an imprecise understanding of the fate and transport of metals. EPA will
continue to pursue research and other activities to close these knowledge gaps.
Until the scientific uncertainties are better resolved, a range of different risk
management decisions can be justified. EPA recommends that State water quality standards
be based on dissolved metal. (See the paragraph below and the attached guidance for
technical details on developing dissolved criteria.) EPA will also approve a State risk
management decision to adopt standards based on total recoverable metal, if those standards
are otherwise approvable as a matter of law.
o Dissolved Criteria
In the toxicity tests used to develop EPA metals criteria for aquatic life, some fraction
of the metal is dissolved while some fraction is bound to particulate matter. The present
criteria were developed using total recoverable metal measurements or measures expected to
give equivalent results in toxicity tests, and are articulated as total recoverable. Therefore,
in order to express the EPA criteria as dissolved, a total recoverable to dissolved correction
factor must be used. Attachment #2 provides guidance for calcul2ting EPA dissolved criteria
from the published total recoverable criteria. The data expressed as percentage metal
dissolved are presented as recommended values and ranges. However, the choice within
ranges is a State risk management decision. We have recently supplemented the data for
copper and are proceeding to further supplement the data for copper and other metals. As
testing is completed, we will make this information avaiI hle and this is expected to reduce
the magnitude of the ranges for some of the conversion factors provided. We also strongly
encourage the application of dissolved criteria across a watershed or waterbody, as
technically sound and the best use of resources.
o Site-Specific Criteria Modifications
While the above methods will correct some site-specific factors affecting metals
toxicity, further refinements are possible. EPA has issued guidance (Water Quality
Standards Handbook, 1983; Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-Specific Water
Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria, EPA-600/3-H4-099, October 1984) for three
site-specific criteria development methodologies: recalculation procedure, indicator species
procedure (also known as the water-effect ratio (WER)) and resident species procedure.
Only the first two of these have been widely used.
-------
4
In the National Toxics Rule (57 FR 60848, December 22, 1992), EPA identified the
WER as an optional method for site-specific criteria development for certain metals. EPA
committed in the NTR preamble to provide guidance on determining the WER. A draft of
this guidance has been circulated to the States and Regions for review and comment. As
justified by water characteristics and as recommended by the WER guidance, we strongly
encourage the application of the WER across a watershed or waterbody as opposed to
application on a discharger by discharger basis, as technically sound and an efficient use of
resources.
rn order to meet current needs, but allow for changes suggested by protocol users,
EPA will issue the guidance as interim. EPA will accept WERs developed using this
guidance, as well as by using other scientifically defensible protocols. OW expects the
interim WER guidance will be issued in the next two months.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
( NPDES) Permits
o Dynamic Water Quality Modeling
Although not specifically part of the reassessment of water quality criteria for metals,
dynamic or probabilistic models are another useful tool for implementing water quality
criteria, especially for those criteria protecting aquatic life. These models provide another
way to incorporate site-specific data. The 1991 Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD) (EPA/505/2-90-O0l) describes dynamic, as well as static
(steady-state) models. Dynamic models make the best use of the specified magnitude,
duration, and frequency of water quality criteria and, therefore, provide a more accurate
representation of the probability that a water quality standard exceedence will occur. In
contrast, steady-state models make a number of simplifying, worst case assumptions which
makes them less complex and less accurate than dynamic models.
Dynamic models have received increased attention over the last few years as a result
of the widespread belief that steady-state modeling is over-conservative due to
environmentally conservative dilution assumptions. This belief has led to the misconception
that dynamic models will always lead to less sthngent regulatory controls (e.g., NPDES
effluent limits) than steady-state models, which is not true in evesy application of dynamic
models. EPA considers dynamic models to be a more accurate approach to implementing
water quality criteria and continues to recommend their use. Dynamic modeling does require
commitment of resources to develop appropriate data. (See Attachment #3 and the TSD for
details on the use of dynamic models.)
o Dissolved-Total Metal Translators
Expressing water quality criteria as the dissolved form of a metal poses a need to be
able to translate from dissolved metal to total recoverable metal for TMDLs and NPDES
permits. TMDLs for metals must be able to calculate: (I) dissolved metal in order to
ascertain attainment of water quality standards, and (2) total recoverable metal in order to
achieve mass balance necessary for permitting purposes.
-------
EPA ’s NPDES regulations require that limits of metals in permits be stated as total
recoverable in most cases (see 40 CFR §122.45(c)) except when an effluent guideline
specifies the limitation in another form of the metal, the approved analytical methods
measure only dissolved metal, or the permit writer expresses a metals limit in another form
(e.g., dissolved, valent, or total) when required to carry out provisions of the Clean Water
Act. This is because the chemical conditions in ambient waters frequently differ substantially
from those in the effluent, and there is no assurance that effluent particulate metal would not
dissolve after discharge. The NPDES rule does not require that State water quality standards
be expressed as total recoverable; rather, the rule requires permit writers to translate between
different metal forms in the calculation of the permit limit so that a total recoverable limit
can be established. Both the TMDL and NPDES uses of water quality criteria require the
ability to translate between dissolved metal and total recoverable metal. Attachment #3
provides methods for this translation.
Guidance on Monitoring
o Use of Clean Sampling and Analytical Techniques
In assessing waterbodies to determine the potential for toxicity problems due to
metals, the quality of the data used is an important issue. Metals data are used to determine
attainment status for water quality standards, discern trends in water quality, estimate
background loads for TMDLs, calibrate fate and transport models, estimate effluent
concentrations (including effluent variability), assess permit compliance, and conduct
research. The quality of trace level metal data, especially below 1 ppb, may be
compromised due to contamination of samples during collection, preparation, storage, and
analysis. Depending on the level of metal present, the use of cleans and ultraclean
techniques for sampling and analysis may be critical to accurate data for implementation of
aquatic life criteria for metals.
The magnitude of the contamination problem increases as the ambient and effluent
metal concentration decreases and, therefore, problems aic more likely in ambient
measurements. Clean techniques refer to those requirements (or practices for sample
collection and handling) necessary to produce reliable analytical data in the part per billion
(ppb) range. uUltracleane techniques refer to those requirements or practices necessary to
produce reliable analytical data in the part per trillion (ppt) range. Because typical
concentrations of metals in surface waters and effluents vary from one metal to another, the
effect of contamination on the quality of metals monitoring Gata vanes appreciably.
We plan to develop protocols on the use of clean and ultra-clean techniques and are
coordinating with the United Slates Geological Survey (USGS) on this project, because USGS
has been doing work on these techniques for some time, especially the sampling procedures.
We anticipate that our draft protocols for clean techniques win be available in late calendar
year 1993. The development of comparable protocols for ultraclean techniques is underway
and will be available in 1995. In developing these protocols, we will consider the cOStS of
these techniques and will give guidance as to the situations where their use is necessary.
Appendix B to the WER guidance document provides some general guidance on the use of
-------
6
clean analytical techniques. (See Attachment #4.) We recommend that this guidance be used
by States and Regions as an interim step, while the clean and ultra-clean protocols are being
developed.
0 Use of Historical Data
The concerns about metals sampling and analysis discussed above raise corresponding
concerns about the validity of historical data. Data on effluent and ambient metal
concentrations are collected by a variety of organizations including Federal agencies (e.g.,
EPA, USGS), State pollution control agencies and health departments, local government
agencies, municipalities, industrial dischargers, researchers, and others. The data are
collected for a variety of purposes as discussed above. . -
Concern about the reliability of the sample collection and analysis procedures is
greatest where they have been used to monitor very low level metal concentrations.
Specifically, studies have shown data sets with contamination problems during sample
collection and laboratory analysis, that have resulted in inaccurate measurements. For
example, in developing a TMDL for New York Harbor, some historical ambient data showed
extensive metals problems in the harbor, while other historical ambient data showed only
limited metals problems. Careful resampling and analysis in 1992/1993 showed the latter
view was correct. The key to producing accurate data is appropriate quality assurance (QA)
and quality control (QC) procedures. We believe that most historical data for metals,
collected and analyzed with appropriate QA and QC at levels of 1 ppb or higher, are
reliable. The data used in development of EPA criteria are also considered reliable, both
because they meet the above test and because the toxicity test solutions are created by adding
known amounts of metals.
With respect to effluent monitoring reported by an NPDES permittee, the permittee is
responsible for collecting and reporting quality data on a Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR). Permitting authorities should continue to consider the information reported to be
true, accurate, and complete as certified by the permittee. Where the permittee becomes
aware of new information specific to the effluent discharge that questions the quality of
previously submitted DMR data, the permittee must promptly submit that information to the
permitting authority. The permitting authority will consider all information submitted by the
permittee in determining appropriate enforcement responses to monitoring/reporting and
effluent violations. (See Attachment #4 for additional details.)
Summary
The management of metals in the aquatic environment is complex. The science
supporting our technical and regulatory programs is continuing to evolve, here as in all
areas. The policy and guidance outlined above represent the position of OW and should be
incorporated into ongoing program operations. We do not expect that ongoing operations
would be delayed or deferred because of this guidance.
-------
7
If YOU have questions concerning this guidance, please contact Jim Hanlon, Acting
Director, Office of Science and Technology, at 202-260-5400. If you have questions on
specific details of the guidance 1 please contact the appropriate OW Branch Chief. The
Branch Chiefs responsible for the various areas of the water quality program are: Bob April
(202-260-6322, water quality criteria), Elizabeth Fellows (202-260-7046, monitoring and data
issues), Russ Kinerson (202-260-1330, modeling and translators), Don Brady (202-260-7074,
Total Maximum Daily Loads), Sheila Frace (202-260-9537, permits), Dave Sabock
(202-260-1315, water quality standards), Bill Telliard (202-260-7134, analytical methods)
and Dave Lyons (202-260-8310, enforcement).
Attachments
-------
ATTACHMENT l
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR METALS
Schedule of Upcoming Guida.nce
Water-effect Ratio Guidance - September 1993
Draft C1eanN Analytical Methods - Spring 1994
Dissolved Criteria - currently being done; as testing is completed, we will release the
updated percent dissolved data
Draft Sediment Criteria for Metals - 1994
Final Sediment Criteria for Metals - 1995
-------
AUACHMENT #2
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
ON DISSOLVED CRITERIA
Expression of Aquatic Life Criteria
October 1993
-------
10—1—93
Percent Dissolved in Aquatic Toxicity Tests on Metals
The attached table contains all the data that were found
concerning the percent of the total recoverable metal that was
dissolved in aquatic toxicity tests. This table is intended to
contain the available data that are relevant to the conversion of
EPA’S aquatic life criteria for metals from a total recoverable
basis to a dissolved basis. (A factor of 1.0 is used to convert
aquatic life criteria for metals that are expressed on the basis
of the acid-soluble measurement to criteria expressed on the
basis of the total recoverable measurement.) Reports by Grunwald
(1992) and Brungs et al. (1992) provided references to many of
the documents in which pertinent data were found. Each document
was obtained and examined to determine whether it contained
useful data.
“Dissolved” is defined as metal that passes through a 0.45—pm
membrane filter. If otherwise acceptable, data that were
obtained using 0.3-pm glass fiber filters and 0.1—pm membrane
filters were used, and are identified in the table; these data
did not seem to be outliers.
Data were used only if the metal was in a dissolved inorganic
form when it was added to the dilution water. In addition, data
were used only if they were generated in water that would have
been acceptable for use as a dilution water in tests used in the
derivation of water quality criteria for aquatic life; in
particular, the pH had to be between 6.5 and 9.0, and the
concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) and total suspended
solids (TSS) had to be below 5 mg/L. Thus most data generated
using river water would not be used.
Some data were not used for other reasons. Data presented by
Carroll et al. (1979) for cadmium were not used because 9 of the
36 values were above 150%. Data presented by Davies et al.
(1976) for lead and Holcombe and Andrew (1978) for zinc were not
used because “dissolved” was defined on the basis of
polarography, rather than filtration.
Beyond this, the data were not reviewed f or quality. Horowitz et
al. (1992) reported that a number of aspects of the filtration
procedure might affect the results. In addition, there might be
concern about use of “clean techniques” and adequate QA/QC.
Each line in the table is intended to represant a separate piece
of information. All of the data in the table were determined in
fresh water, because no saltwater data were found. Data are
becoming available for copper in salt water from the New York
1
-------
Harbor study; based on the first set of tests, Hansen (1993)
suggested that the average percent of the copper that is
dissolved in sensitive saltwater tests is in the range of 76 to
82 percent.
A thorough investigation of the percent of total recoverable
metal that is dissolved in toxicity tests might attempt to
determine if the percentage is affected by test technique
(static, renewal, flow—through), feeding (were the test animals
fed and, if so, what food and how much), water quality
characteristics (hardness, alkalinity, pH, salinity), test
organisms (species, loading), etc.
The attached table also gives the freshwater criteria
concentrations (CXC and CCC) because percentages for total
recoverable concentrations much (e.g., more than a factor of 3)
above or below the CXC and CCC are likely to be less relevant.
When a criterion is expressed as a hardness equation, the range
given extends from a hardness of 50 mg/L to a hardness of 200
mg/L.
The following is a summary of the available information for each
metal:
Arsenic(IIfl
The data available indicate that the percent dissolved is about
100, but all the available data are for concentrations that are
much higher than the CXC and CCC.
Cadmium
Schuytema et al. (1984) reported that “there were no real
differences” between measurements of total and dissolved cadmium
at concentrations of 10 to 80 ug/L (pH — 6.7 to 7.8, hardness
25 mg/L, and alkalinity — 33 mg/L); total and dissolved
concentrations were said to be “virtually equivalent”.
The CXC and CCC are close together and only range from 0.66 to
8.6 ug/L. The only available data that are known to be in the
range of the CXC and CCC were determined with a glass fiber
filter. The percentages that are probably most relevant are 75,
92, 89, 78, and 80.
Chrornium(IIfl
The percent dissolved decreased as the total recoverable
concentration increased, even though the highest concentrations
reduced the pH substantially. The percentages that are probably
2
-------
most relevant to the CMC are 50-75, wherear the percentages that
are probably most relevant to t e CCC are 86 and 61.
Chromium ( Vfl
The data available indicate that the percent dissolved is about
100, but all the available data are for concentrations that are
much higher than the CMC and CCC.
CooDer
Howarth and Sprague (1978) reported that the total and dissolved
concentrations of copper were “little different” except when the
total copper concentration was above 500 ug/L at hardness = 360
mg/L and pH = 8 or 9. Chakoumakos et al. (1979) found that the
percent dissolved depended more on alkalinity than on hardness,
pH, or the total recoverable concentration of copper.
Chapman (1993) and Lazorchak (1987) both found that the addition
of daphnid food affected the percent dissolved very little, even
though Chapman used yeast-trout chow-alfalfa whereas Lazorchak
used algae in most tests, but yeast—trout chow—alfalfa in some
tests. Chapman (1993) found a low percent dissolved with and
without food, whereas Lazorchak (1987) found a high percent
dissolved with and without food. All of Lazorchak’s values were
in high hardness water; Chapman’s one value in high hardness
water was much higher than his other values.
Chapman (1993) and Lazorchak (1987) both compared the effect of
food on the total recoverable LC5O with the effect of food on the
dissolved LC5O. Both authors found that food raised both the
dissolved LCSO and the total recoverable LC5O in about the same
proportion, indicating that food did not raise the total
recoverable LC5O by sorbing metal onto food particles; possibly
the food raised both LC5Os by (a) decreasing the toxicity of
dissolved metal, (b) forming nontoxic dissolved complexes with
the metal, or (C) reducing uptake.
The CMC and ccc are close together and only range from 6.5 to 34
ug/L. The percentages that are probably most relevant are 74,
95, 95, 73, 57, 53, 52, 64, and 91.
Lead
The data presented in Spehar et al.. (1978) were from Holcombe et
a]., (1976). Both Chapman (1993) and Holcombe et al. (1976) found
that the percent dissolved increased as the total recoverable
concentration increased. It would seem reasonable to expect more
precipitate at higher total recoverable concentrations and
3
-------
therefore a lower percent dissolved at higher concentrations.
The increase in percent dissolved with increasing concentration
might be due to a lowering of the pH as more metal is added if
the stock solution was acidic.
The percentages that are probably most relevant to the CMC are 9,
18, 25, 10, 62, 68, 71, 75, 81, and 95, whereas the percentages
that are probably most relevant to the CCC are 9 and 10.
Mercury
The only percentage that is available is 73, but it is for a
concentration that is much higher than the.-cMC.
Nickel
The percentages that are probably most relevant to the CNC are
88, 93, 92, and 100, whereas the only percentage that is probably
relevant to the CCC is 76.
Se len i urn
No data are available.
Silver
There is a CMC, but not a CCC. The percentage dissolved seems to
be greatly reduced by the food used to feed daphnids, but not by
the food used to feed fathead minnows. The percentages that are
probably most relevant to the CMC are 41, 79, 79, 73, 91, 90, and
93.
Zinc
The CXC and CCC are close together and only range from 59 to 210
ug/L. The percentages that are probably most relevant are 31,
77, 77, 99, 94, 100, 103, and 96.
4
-------
RecomntendedValues (%)A and Ranges of Measured Percent Dissolved
Considered Most Relevant in Fresh Water
Metal CMC CCC
Recommended Recommended
Value (% ( Ranae %) Value (%) 1Ran e % )
Arsenic(III) 95 100—104’ 95 100—104’
Cadmium 85 75—92 85 75—92
Chromium(III) 85 50—75 85 61—86
Chromium(VI) 95 100’ 95 100’
Copper 85 52—95 85 52—95
Lead 50 9—95 25 9—10
Mercury 85 733 NA’ NA’
Nickel 85 88—100 85 76
Selenium NA’ MAC NA’ NAC
Silver 85 41—93 yyD yyD
Zinc 85 31—103 85 31—103
A The recommended values are based on current knowledge and are
subject to change as more data becomes available.
‘ All available data are for concentrations that are much higher
than the CNC.
C NA No data are available.
D A CCC is not available, and therefore cannot be adjusted.
‘ NA Bioaccumulative chemical and not appropriate to adjust to
percent dissolved.
5
-------
th SpeciesD SRF Food Hard. Alk . PH Ref .
Lima et al. 1984
Spehar and Fiandt 1986
CADMIUM (Freshwater: CCC = 0.66 to 2.0 ug/L; CMC = 1.8 to 8.6 ug/L)
COflCfl.A
1u IL )
Percent
Dies. ’
ARSENIC(IIfl
600—15000 104
12600 100
(Freshwater: CCC 190 ug/L; CMC = 360 ug/L)
5
3
FM
? ?
F No
48 41
44 43
7.6
7.4
0.16
0.28
41
75
?
?
DM
DM
R
R
Yes
Yes
53
103
46
83
7.6
7.9
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
0.4-4.0
92°
?
Cs
F
No
21
19
7.1
Finlayson and Verrue 1982
13
89
3
FM
F
No
44
43
7.4
Spehar and Fiandt 1986
15-21
42
96
84
8
4
FM
FM
S
S
No
No
42
45
31
41
7.5
7.4
Spehar and Carison 1984
Spehar and ar1son 1984
10
35
51
78
77
59
?
?
7
DM
DM
DM
S
S
S
No
No
No
51
105
209
38
88
167
7.5
8.0
8.4
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
Chapman 1993
6—80
80
8
7
S
No
47
44
7.5
Call et al. 1982
3—232
90”
5
7
F
?
46
42
7.4
Spehar es.. al. 1978
450—6400
70
5
FM
F
No
202
157
7.7
Pickering and Gast 1972
6
-------
CHROMIUM(IIfl (Freshwater: CCC = 120 to 370 ug/L; CMC = 980 to 3100 ug/L)’
5—13 94 SG F ? 25 24 7.3 Stevens and Chapman 1984
19—495 86 SG F’ ? 25 24 7.2 Stevens and Chapman 1984
>1100 50—75 ? SG F No 25 24 7.0 Stevens and Chapman 1984
42 54 DM R Yes 206 166 8.2 Chapman 1993
114 61 0 1 4 R Yes 52 45 7.4 Chapman 1993
16840 26 DM S No <51 9 6.3’ Chapman 1993
26267 32 0 1 4 S No 110 9 6.7 Chapman 1993
27416 27 ? DM S No 96 10 6.0’ Chapman 1993
58665 23 ? OH S No 190 25 6.2’ Chapman 1993
CIIROMIUM(Vfl (Freshwater: CCC = 11 ug/L; CMC = 16 ug/L)
>25,000 100 1 FM,GF F Yes 220 214 7.6 Adelman and Smith 1976
43,300 99.5 4 FM F No 44 43 7.4 Spehar and Fiandt 1986
COPPER (Freshwater: CCC 6.5 to 21 ug/L; CMC = 9.2 to 34 ug/L)
10—30 74 ? CT F No 27 20 7.0 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
40—200 78 CT F No 154 20 6.8 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
30—100 79 CT F No 74 23 7.6 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
100—200 82 CT F No 192 72 7.0 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
20—200 86 ? CT F No 31 18 8.3 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
40—300 87 CT F No 83 10 7.4 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
10-80 89 CT F No 25 169 8.5 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
7
-------
300—1300 92 CT F No 195 160 7.0 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
100—400 94 CT F No 70 174 8.5 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
3-4’ 125—167 2 CD R Yes 31 38 7.2 Carison et al. 1986a,b
12—91’ 79—84 3 CD R Yes 31 38 7.2 Carison et al. 1986a,b
18—19 95 2 DA S No 52 55 7.7 Carison et al. 1986b
20’ 95 1 DA R No 31 38 7.2 Carison et al. 1986b
50 96 2 FM S No 52 55 7.7 Carlsonet al. 1986b
175’ 91 2 FM R No 31 38 7.2 Carlson et al. 1986b
5—52 > 82 k FM F YesL 47 43 8.0 lAnd et al. 1978
6—80 83° Cs F No 21. 19 7.1 Finlayson and Verrue 1982
6.7 57 7 DM S No 49 37 7.7 Chapman 1993
35 43 ? DM S Yes 48 39 7.4 Chapman 1993
13 73 ? DM R Yes 211 169 8.1 Chapman 1993
16 57 ? DPI R Yes 51 44 7.6 Chapman 1993
51 39 ? DPI R Yes 104 83 7.8 Chapman 1993
32 53 DM S No 52 45 7.8 Chapman 1993
33 52 DPI S No 105 79 7.9 Chapman 1993
39 64 DPI S No 106 82 8.1 Chapman 1993
25—84 96 14 FM,GM S No 50 40 7.0 Haiomermeister et al. 1983
17 91 6 DPI S No 52 43 7.3 Hammermeister et al. 198)
120 88 14 SG S No 48 47 7.3 Hammermeister et al. 1983
15—90 74 19 ? S No 48 47 7.7 Call et al. 1982
12—162 F Ye& 45 43 7—8 Benoit 1975
28—58 85 6 DPI R No 168 117 8.0 Lazorchak 1987
26-59 79 7 DPI R YesM 168 117 8.0 Lazorchak 1987
56,101 86 2 DPI R Yes’ 168 117 8.0 Lazorchak 1987
8
-------
96 86 4 FM F No 44 43 7.4 Spehar and Flandt 1986
160 94 1 FM S No 203 171 8.2 Geckler et al. 1976
230—3000 >69—>79 ? CR F No 17 13 7.6 Rice and Harrison 1983
LEAD (Freshwater: CCC = 1.3 to 7.7 ug/L; CMC = 34 to 200 ug/L)
17 9 ? DM R Yes 52 47 7.6 Chapman 1993
181 18 ? DM R Yes 102 86 7.8 Chapman 1993
193 25 DM R Yes 151 126 8.1 Chapman 1993
612 29 DM S No 50 -- --- Chapman 1993
952 33 DN S No 100 -- --- Chapman 1993
1907 —38 DM S No 150 -— —-— Chapman 1993
7-29 10 EZ R No 22 -- —-— JRB Associates 1983
34 62” BT F Yes 44 43 7.2 Holcombe et al. 1976
58 68” 7 BT F Yes 44 43 7.2 Holcombe et al. 1976
119 71” ? BT F Yes 44 43 7.2 Holcombe et al. 1976
235 75” ? BT F Yes 44 43 7.2 Holcombe et al. 1976
474 81” BT F Yes 44 43 7.2 Holcombe et al. 1976
4100 82 H ? BT F No 44 43 7.2 Holcombe et al. 1976
2100 79 7 FM F No 44 43 7.4 Spehar and Fiandt 1986
220—2700 96 14 FMGM,DM S No 49 44 7.2 Hammermeister et al. 1983
580 95 14 SG S No 51 48 7.2 Hammermeister et al. 1983
MERCURY(II1 (Freshwater: cMC = 2.4 ug/L)
172 73 1 FM F No 44 43 7.4 Spehar and Fiandt 1986
9
-------
NICKEL (Freshwater: CCC 88 to 280 ug/L; ePIC = 790 to 2500 ug/L)’
21 81 ? DPI R Yes 51 49 7.4 Chapman 1993
150 76 ? DM R Yes 107 87 7.8 Chapman 1993
578 87 ? DN R Yes 205 161 8.1 Chapman 1993
645 88 DPI S No 54 43 7.7 Chapman 1993
1809 93 ? DM S No 51 44 7.7 Chapman 1993
1940 92 DM S No 104 84 8.2 Chapman 1993
2344 100 DM S No 100 84 7.9 Chapman 1993
4000 90 PK R No 21 -- JRB Associates 1983
SELENIUM (FRESHWATER: CCC = 5 ug/L; CMC = 20 ug/L)
No data are available.
SILVER (Freshwater: CMC = 1.2 to 13 ug/L; a CCC is not available)
0.19 74 DPI S No 47 37 7.6 Chapman 1993
9.98 13 DPI S Yes 47 37 7.5 Chapman 1993
4.0 41 DPI S No 36 25 7.0 Nebeker et al. 1983
4.0 11 ? DPI S Yes 36 25 7.0 Nebeker et al. 1983
3 79 ? FM S No 51 49 8.1 UWS1993
2—54 79 FM S Yes° 49 49 7.9 UWS 1993
2—32 73 FM S No 50 49 8.1 UWS1993
4—32 91 ? FM S No 48 49 8.1 UWS1993
5—89 90 ? FM S No 120 49 8.2 UWS 1993
6—401 93 ? FM S No 249 49 8.1 UWS 1993
10
-------
ZINC (Freshwater: CCC = 59 to 190 ug/L; CMC 65 to 210 ug/L)F
52 31 ? DM R Yes 211 169 8.2 Chapman 199)
62 77 ? OH R Yes 104 83 7.8 Chapman 1993
191 77 ? DM R Yes 52 47 7.5 Chapman 1993
356 74 OH S No 54 47 7.6 Chapman 1993
551 78 ? DM S No 105 85 8.1 Chapman 1993
741 76 DM S No 196 153 8.2 Chapman 1993
7’ 71—129 2 CD R Yes 31 38 7.2 Carison et al. 1986b
18—273’ 81—107 2 CD R Yes 31 38 7.2 Carison et al. 1986b
167’ 99 2 CD R No 31 38 7.2 Carison et al. 1986b
180 94 1 CD S No 52 55 7.7 Carison et al. 1986b
188—393’ 100 2 FM R No 31 38 7.2 Carison et al. 1986b
551 100 1 FM S No 52 55 7.7 Carleon et al. 1986b
40-500 950 ? CS F No 21 19 7.1 Finlayson and Verrue 1982
1940 100 AS F No 20 12 7.1 Sprague 1964
5520 83 AS F No 20 12 7.9 Sprague 1964
<4000 90 FM F No 204 162 7.7 Mount 1966
>4000 70 FM F No 204 162 7.7 Mount 1966
160—400 103 13 FM,GMDM S No 52 43 7.5 Hammermeister et al. 1983
240 96 13 SG S No 49 46 7.2 Hammermeister et al. 1983
A Total recoverable concentration.
a Except as noted, a 0.45-pm membrane filter was used.
11
-------
C Number of paired comparisons.
D The abbreviations used are:
AS Atlantic salmon DM = Daphnia magna
BT Brook trout EZ Elassoma zonatum
CD Ceriodaohnia dubia FM = Fathead minnow
CR Crayfish GF = Goldfish
CS Chinook salmon GM = Gammarid
CT — Cutthroat trout PK = Palaemonetes kadiakensis
DA — Daphnids SG = Saimp gajrdneri
E The abbreviations used are:
S — static
R renewal
F flow-through
E The two numbers are for hardnesses of 50 and 200 mg/L, respectively.
a A 0.]-im alass fiber filter was used.
H A 0.10-pm membrane filter was used.
The pH was below 6.5.
‘ The dilution water was a clean river water with TSS and TOC below S mg/L.
K Only limited information is available concerning this value.
L is assumed that the solution that was filtered was from the test chambers that
contained fish and food.
N The food was algae.
N The food was yeast-trout chow-alfalfa.
° The food was frozen adult brine shrimp.
12
-------
References
Adeitnan, I.R., and L.L. Smith, Jr. 1976. Standard Test Fish
Development. Part I. Fathead Minnows ( Pimephales oromelas ) and
Goldfish ( Carassius auratus ) as Standard Fish in Bioassays and
Their Reaction to Potential Reference Toxjcants. EPA-600/3—76-
061a. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Page 24.
Benoit, D.A. 1975. Chronic k’ffects of Copper on Survival,
Growth, and Reproduction of the Bluegill (Lepomls macrochirus).
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104:353—358.
Brungs, W.A., T.S. Holderman, and M.T. Southerland. 1992.
Synopsis of Water-Effect Rati’s for Heavy Metals as Derived for
Site—Specific Water Quality Criteria.
Call, D.3., L.T. Brooke, and D.D. Vaishnav. 1982. Aquatic
Pollutant Hazard Assessments and Development of a Hazard
Prediction Technology by Quantitative Structure—Activity
Relationships. Fourth Quarterly Report. University of
Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI.
Carison, A.R., H. Nelson, and 0. Hammermei ter. 1986a.
Development and Validation of Site-Specific Water Quality
Criteria for Copper. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:997—1012.
Carlson, A.R., H. Nelson, and 0. Hammermeister. 198Gb.
Evaluation of Site—Specit Criteria for Copper and Zinc: An
Integration of Metal Addition Toxicity, Effluent and Receiving
Water Toxicity, and Ecological Survey Data. EPA/600/S3-86-026.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Carroll, 7.3., S.J. Ellis, and W.S. Oliver. 1979. Influences of
Hardness Constituents on the Acute Toxicity of Cadmium to Brook
Trout (Salvelinus fontinelis).
Chakoumakos, C., R.C. Russo, and R.V. Thurston. 1979. Toxicity
of Copper to Cutthroat Trout (Salmo cZarki) under Different
Conditions of Alkalinity, pH, and Hardness. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 13:213—219.
Chapman, GA. 1993. Memorandum to C. Stephan. June 4.
Davies, P.M., J.P. Goettl, Jr., 3.R. Sinley, and NP. Smith.
1976. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Lead to Rainbow Trout Salino
gairdneri, in Hard and Soft Water. Water Roe. 10:3.99—206.
Finlayson, B.J., and K.M Verrue. 1982. Toxicities of Copper,
Zinc, and Cadmium Mixtures to Juvenile Chinook Salmon. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 111:645—650.
13
-------
Geckler, J.R., W.B. Horning, T.M. Neiheisel, Q.H. Pickering, E.L.
Robinson, and C.E. Stephan. 1976. Validity of Laboratory Tests
for Predicting Copper Toxicity in Streams. EPA-600/3—76-116.
National. Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. Page
118.
Crunwald, D. 1992. Metal Toxicity Evaluation: Review, Results,
and Data Base Documentation.
Hammermeister, D., C. Northcott, L. Brooke, and D. Call. 1983.
Comparison of Copper, Lead and Zinc Toxicity to Four Animal
Species in Laboratory and ST. Louis River Water. University of
Wisconsin-superior, Superior, WI.
Hansen, D.J. 1993. Memorandum to C.E. Stcphan. April 15.
Holcom e, G.W., D.A. Benoit, E.N. Leonard, and J.M. McXim. 1976.
Long-Term Effects of Lead Exposure on Three Generations of Brook
Trout (Salvelinus fontlnalis). J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 33:1731-
1741.
Holcom e, G.W., and R.W. Andrew. 1978. The Acute Toxicity of
Zinc to Rainbow and Brook Trout. EPA—600/3-78—094. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and M.R. Colberg. 1992. The Effect
of Membrane Filtration Artifacts on Dissolved Trace Element
Concentrations. Water Res. 26:753-763.
Houarth, R.S., and J.B. Sprague. 1978. Copper Lethality to
Rainbow Trout in Waters on Various Hardness and pH. Water Res.
12:455—462.
JRB Associates. 1983. Demonstration of the Site-specific
Criteria Modification Process: Selser’s Creek, Ponchatoula,
Louisiana.
Lazorchak, J.M. 1987. The Significance of Weight Loss of
Daphnia maana Straus During Acute Toxicity Tests with Copper.
Ph.D. Thesis.
Lima, A.R., C. Curtis, D.E. Hammermeister, T.P. Markee, C.E.
Northcott, L.T. Brooke. 1984. Acute and Chronic Toxicities of
Arsenic(IZI) to Fathead Minnows, Flagfish, Daphnids, and an
Amphipod. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 13:595-601.
Lind, D., IC. Alto, and S. Chatterton. 1978. Regional Copper-
Nickel Study. Draft.
Mount, D.I. 1966. The Effect of Total Hardness and pH on Acute
Toxicity of Zinc to Fish. Air Water Pollut. hit. 3. 10:49-56.
14
-------
Nebeker, A.V., C.K. McAuliffe, R. Mshar, and D.G. Stevens. 1983.
Toxicity of Silver to Steelhead and Rainbow Trout, Fathead
Minnows, and Daphnia magna. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2:95-104.
Pickering, Q.P., and M.H. Gast. 1972. Acute and Chronic
Toxicity of Cadmium to the Fathead Minnow (Pirnephales promelas).
3. Fish. Res. 3d. Canada 29:1099-1106.
Rice, D.W., Jr., and F.L. Harrison. 1983. The Sensitivity of
Adult, Embryonic, and Larval Crayfish Procambarus clarkii to
Copper. NUREG/CR-3133 or UCRL-53048. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Schuytema, G.S., P.O. Nelson, K.W. Malueg, A.V. Nebeker, D.F.
Krawczyk, A.K. Ratcliff, and J.H. Gakstatter. 1984. Toxicity of
Cadmium in Water and Sediment Slurries to Daphnia magna.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:293-308.
Spehar, R.L., R.L. Anderson, and J.T. Fiandt. 1978. Toxicity
and Bioaccuinulation of Cadmium and Lead in Aquatic Invertebrates.
Environ. Pollut. 15:195—208.
Spehar, R.L., and A.R. Carison. 1984. Derivation of Site-
Specific Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium and the St. Louis
River Basin, Duluth, Minnesota. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:651—
665.
Spehar, R.L., and J.T. Fiandt. 1986. Acute and Chronic Effects
of Water Quality Criteria-Based Metal Mixtures on Three Aquatic
Species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:917—931.
Sprague, J.B. 1964. Lethal Concentration of Copper and Zinc for
Young Atlantic Salmon. 3. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 21:17—9926.
Stevens, D.G., and G.A. Chapman. 1984. Toxicity of Trivalent
Chromium to Early Life Stages of Steelhead Trout. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 3:125—133.
University of Wisconsin-Superior. 1993. Preliminary data from
work assignment 1—10 for Contract No. 68-C1-0034.
15
-------
ATTACHMENT #3
GUIDANCE DOCU NT
ON DYNAMIC MODELING AND TRANSLATORS
August 1993
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLS and Permits
o Dynamic Water Quality Modeling
Although not specifically part of the reassessment of water quality criteria for metals,
dynamic or probabilistic models are another useful tool for implementing water quality
criteria, especially those for protecting aquatic life. Dynamic models make best use of the
specified magnitude, duration, and frequency of water quality criteria and thereby provide a
more accurate calculation of discharge impacts on ambient water quality. In contrast, steady-
state modeling is based on various simplifying assumptions which makes it less complex and
less accurate than dynamic modeling. Building on accepted practices in water resource
engineering, ten years ago OW devised methods allowing the use of probability distributions
in place of worst-case conditions. The description of these models and their advantages and
disadvantages is found in the 1991 Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxic Control (TSD).
Dynamic models have received increased attention in the last few years as a result of
the perception that static modeling is over-conservative due to environmentally conservative
dilution assumptions. This has led to the misconception that dynamic models will always
justify less stringent regulatory controls (e.g. NPDES effluent limits) than static models. In
effluent dominated waters where the upstream concentrations are relatively constant,
however, a dynamic model will calculate a more stringent wasteload allocation than will a
steady state model. The reason is that the critical low flow required by many State water
quality standards in effluent dominated streams occurs more freqyently than once every three
years. When other environmental factors (e.g. upstream pollutant concentrations) do not
vary appreciably, then the overall return frequency of the steady state model may be greater
than once in three years. A dynamic modeling approach, on the other hand, would be more
stringent, allowing only a once in three year return frequency. As a result, EPA considers
dynamic models to be a more accurate rather than a less stringent approach to implementing
water quality criteria.
The 1991 TSD provides recommendations on the use of steady state and dynamic
water quality models. The reliability of any modeling technique greatly depends on the
accuracy of the data used in the analysis. Therefore, the selection of a model also depends
upon vhe data. EPA recommends that steady state wasteload allocation analyses generally be
used where few or no whole effluent toxicity or specific chemical measurements are
available, or where daily receiving water flow records are not av ilahIe. Also, if staff
resources are insufficient to use and defend the use of dynamic models, then steady state
-------
models may be necessary. If adequate receiving water flow and effluent concentration data
are available to estimate frequency distributions, EPA recommends that one of the dynamic
wasteload allocation modeling techniques be used to derive wasteload allocations which will
more exactly maintain water quality standards. The minimum data required for input into
dynamic models include at least 30 years of river flow data and one year of effluent and
ambient pollutant concentrations.
o Dissolved-Total Metal Translators
When water quality criteria are expressed as the dissolved form of a metal, there is a
need to translate TMDLs and NPDES permits to and from the dissolved form of a metal to
the total recoverable form. TMDLs for toxic metals must be able to calculate 1) the
dissolved metal concentration in.order to ascertain attainment of water quality standards and
2) the total recoverable metal concentration in order to achieve mass balance. In meeting
these requirements, TMDLs consider metals to be conservative pollutants and quantified as
total recoverable to preserve conservation of mass. The TMDL calculates the dissolved or
ionic species of the metals based on factors such as total suspended solids (TSS) and ambient
pH. (These assumptions ignore the complicating factors of metals interactions with other
metals.) In addition, this approach assumes that ambient factors influencing metal
partitioning remain constant with distance down the river. This assumption probably is valid
under the low flow conditions typically used as design flows for permitting of metals (e.g.,
7Q10, 4B3, etc) because erosion, resuspension, and wet weather loadings are unlikely to be
significant and river chemistry is generally stable. In steady-state dilution modeling, metals
releases may be assumed to remain fairly constant (concentrations exhibit low variability)
with time.
EPA’s NPDES regulations require that metals limits in permits be stated as total
recoverable in most cases (see 40 CFR *122.45(c)). Exceptions occur when an effluent
guideline specifies the limitation in another form of the metal or the approved analytical
methods measure only the dissolved form. Also, the permit writer may express a metals
limit in another form (e.g., dissolved, valent, or total) when required, in highly unusual
cases, to carry out the provisions of the CWA.
The preamble to the September 1984 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit Regulations states that the total recoverable method measures dissolved metals plus
that portion of solid metals that can easily dissolve under ambient conditions (see 49 Federal
Register 38028, September 26, 1984). This method is intended to measure metals in the
effluent that are or may easily become environmentally active, while not measuring metals
that are expected to settle out and remain inert.
The preamble cites, as an example, effluent from an electroplating facility that adds
lime and uses clariflers. This effluent will be a combination of solids not removed by the
clariflers and residual dissolved metals. When the effluent from the clariflers, usually with a
-------
high pH level, mixes with receiving water having significantly lower pH level, these solids
instantly dissolve. Measuring dissolved metals in the effluent, in this case, would
underestimate the impact on the receiving water. Measuring with the total metals method, on
the other hand, would measure metals that would be expected to disperse or settle out and
remain inert or be covered over. Thus, measuring total recoverable metals in the effluent
best approximates the amount of metal likely to produce water quality impacts.
However, the NPDES rule does not require in any way that State water quality
standards be in the total recoverable form; rather, the rule requires permit writers to consider
the translation between differing metal forms in the calculation of the permit limit so that a
total recoverable limit can be established. Therefore, both the TMDL and NPDES uses of
water quality criteria require the ability to translate from the dissolved form and the total
recoverable form.
Many toxic substances, including metals, have a tendency to leave the dissolved phase
and attach to suspended solids. The partitioning of toxics between solid and dissolved phases
can be determined as a function of a pollutant-specific partition coefficient and the
concentration of solids. This function is expressed by a linear partitioning equation:
CT,
1 Kd 7 SiO’
where,
C = dissolved phasc metal concentiation,
= total metal concentration,
TSS = total suspended soLids concentration, and
K 4 = partition coeffic:ent.
A key assumption of the linear partitioning equation is that the sorption reaction
reaches dynamic equilibrium at the point of application of the criteria; that is, after allowing
for initial mixing the partitioning of the pollutant between the adsorbed and dissolved forms
can be used at any location to predict the fraction of pollutant in each respective phase.
Successful application of the linear partitioning equation relies on the selection of the
partition coefficient. The use of a partition coefficient to represent the degree to which
toxics adsorb to solids is most readily applied to organic pollutants; partition coefficients for
metals are more difficult to define. Metals typically exhibit more complex speciation and
complexation reactions than organics and the degree of partitioning can vary greatly
depending upon site-specific water chemistry. Estimated partition coefficients can be
determined for a number of metals, but waterbody or site-specific observations of dissolved
and adsorbed concentrations are preferred.
-------
EPA suggests three approaches for instances where a water quality criterion for a
metal is expressed in the dissolved form in a State’s water quality standards:
1. Using clean analytical techniques and field sampling procedures with appropriate
QA/QC, collect receiving water samples and determine site specific values of K.d for
each metal. Use these l d values to translate between total recoverable and
dissolved metals in receiving water. This approach is more difficult to apply because
it relies upon the availability of good quality measurements of ambient metal
concentrations. This approach provides an accurate assessment of the dissolved metal
fraction providing sufficient samples are collected. EPA’s initial recommendation is
that at least four pairs of total recoverable and dissolved ambient metal measurements
be made during low flow conditions or 20 pairs over all flow conditions. EPA
suggests that the average of data collected during low flow or the 95th percentile
highest dissolved fraction for all flows be used. The low flow average provides a
representative picture of conditions during the rare low flow events. The 95th
percentile highest dissolved fraction for all flows provides a critical condition
approach analogous to the approach used to identify low flows and other critical
environ mental conditions.
2. Calculate the total recoverable concentration for the purpose of setting the permit
limit. Use a value of 1 unless the perrnittee has collected data (see #1 above) to show
that a different ratio should be used. The value of us conservative and will not err
on the side of violating standards. This approach is very simple to apply because it
places the entire burden of data collection and analysis solely upon permitted
facilities. In terms of technical merit, it has the same characteristics of the previous
approach. However, permitting authorities may be faced with difficulties in
negotiating with facilities on the amount of data necessary to determine the ratio and
the necessary quality control methods to assure that the ambient data are reliable.
3. Use the historical data on total suspended solids (TSS) in receiving waterbodies at
appropriate design flows and 1 d values presented in the Technical Guidance Manual
for Performing Waste load Allocations. Book II. Streams and Rivers. EPA -440/4-
84-020 (1984) to ‘tzanslate between (total recoverable) permits limits and dissolved
metals in receiving water. This approach is fairly simple to apply. However, these
Kd values are suspect due to possible quality assurance problems with the data used to
develop the values. EPA’s initial analysis of this approach and these values in one
site indicates that these Kd values generally over-estimate the dissolved fraction of
metals in ambient waters (see Figures following). Therefore, although this approach
may not provide an accurate estimate of the dissolved fraction, the bias in the estimate
is likely to be a conservative one.
EPA suggests that regulatory authorities use approaches #1 and #2 where States
express their water quality standards in the dissolved form. In those States where the
standards are in the total recoverable or acid soluble form, EPA recommends that no
-------
translation be used until the time that the State changes the standards to the dissolved form.
Approach #3 may be used as an interim measure until the data are collected to implement
approach #1.
-------
Msa.urd w a. ode1ed Diaaolvsd Coppsr Concentrationa
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 t—— -----
Sampling Station
0
5
10
30
35
40
45
I Modeled
L- - Measured
-J
,ci 0
-------
M.aaur.d v a iiod.1.d Diaaolv.d Cadaiu Conc.ntratiOna
5 10 15
Sainpièng Station
B
—— I )
Modeled
Measured
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
-J
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
-------
Maaured va Modeled Diaaolved Lead Concentration.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Sampling Slalion
45
r-
U Measured
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
c ,0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
— F— 4
40
-------
M.a.ured v a Modeled
Diaaolved Mercury Concentrations
• Modeled
I) Measured
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
40 45
0.12
0.1
0.08
-J
. ‘ 0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0
Sampling Station
-------
Msasurd vs. Modsl•d Dia.olv.d Nicksi Coxcentrationi
—S
--
Modeled
Measured
5 10 15
20
30
- -
40 •45
1
7
6
5
3
4
2
H- i
-F
25
-t
35
Sampftng Station
-------
xu.ur.d ye. H t.e1.d Dieaolv.d Zinc Conc.ntr*tiona
U..
(-I
-I I I
35 40 45
U Modeled
4 Measured
-j
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
a
-L
5 10
I - ___ .- . -
20
25
30
SampUng Station
-------
M.a.ur.d v a Mo4.lOd DiBsolVed AreaniC concentrations
(( \ i
“Ii
---— ---- i
10 i 20 25 30 35 40 45
Modeged
I I Measured
3
2.5
2
-J
a 15
1
0.5
0
zT
0
5
Sampftng Station
-------
AUACHMENT #4
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
ON CLEAN ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND MONITORfl ’1G
October 1993
Guidance on Monitoring
o Use of Clean Sampling and Analytical Techniques
Appendix B to the WER guidance document (attached) provides some general guidance
on the use of clean techniques. The Office of Water recommends that this guidance be used
by States and Regions as an interim step while the Office of Water prepares more detailed
guidance.
o Use of Historical DMR Data
With respect to effluent or ambient monitoring data reported by an NPDES perrnirtee
on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR), the certification requirements place the burden on
the permittee for collecting and reporting quality data. The certification regulation at 40
CFR 122.22(d) requires permittees, when submitting information, to state: “I certify under
penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly
gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons
who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,
the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Permitting authorities should continue to consider the information reported in DMRs
to be true, accurate, and complete as certified by the permittee. Under 40 CFR l22.41(l)(8),
however, as soon as the permittee becomes aware of new information specific to the effluent
discharge that calls into question the accuracy of the DMR data, the permittee must submit
such information to the permitting authority. Examples of such information include a new
finding that the reagents used in the laboratory analysis are contaminated with trace levels of
metals, or a new study that the sampling equipment imparts trace metal contamination. This
information must be specific to the discharge and based on actual measurements rather than
extrapolations from reports from other facilities. Where a permittee submits information
-------
In addition to submitting the information described above, the perimttee also must
develop procedures to assure the collection and analysis of quality data that are true,
accurate, and complete. For example, the permittee may submit a revised quality assurance
plan that describes the specific procedures to be undertaken to reduce or eliminate ace
metal contamination.
-------
10—1—93
Appendix 3. Guidance Concerning the Use of “Clean Techniques” and
QA/QC in the Measurement of Trace Metal.
Recent information (Shiller and Boyle 1987; Windom et al. 1991)
has raised questions concerning the quality of reported
concentrations of trace metals in both fresh and salt (estuarine
and marine) surface waters. A lack of awareness of true ambient
concentrations of metals in saltwater and freshwater systems can
be both a cause and a result of the problem. The ranges of
dissolved metals that are typical in surface waters of the United
States away from the immediate influence of discharges (Brulartd
1983; Shiller and Boyle 1985,1987; Trefry et al. 1986; Windom et
al. 1991) are:
Metal Salt water Fresh water
( u /L1 ( ua/L )
Cadmium 0.01 to 0.2 0.002 to 0.08
copper 0.1 to 3. 0.4 to 4.
Lead 0.01 to 1. 0.01 to 0.19
Nickel 0.3 to 5. 1. to 2.
Silver 0.005 to 0.2
Zinc 0.1 to 15. 0.03 to 5.
The U.S. EPA (1983,1991) has published analytical methods for
monitoring metals in waters and wastewaters, but these methods
are inadequate for determination of ambient concentrations of
some metals in some surface waters. Accurate and precise
measurement of these low concentrations requires appropriate
attention to seven areas:
1. Use of “clean techniques” during collecting, handling,
storing, preparing, and analyzing samples to avoid
contamination.
2. Use of analytical methods that have sufficiently low detection
limits.
3. Avoidance of interference in the quantification (instrumental
analysis) step.
4. Use of blank. to assess contamination.
5. Use of matrix spikes (sample spike.) and certified reference
material. (cRM.) to assess interference and contamination.
6. Use of replicates to assess precision.
7. Use of certified standards.
In a strict sense, the term “clean technique.” refers to
techniques that reduce contamination and enable the accurate and
precise measurement of trace metals in fresh and salt surface
waters. In a broader sense, the term also refers to related
issues concerning detection limits, quality control, and quality
assurance. Documenting data quality demonstrates the amount of
confidence that can be placed in the data, whereas increasing the
sensitivity of methods reduce the problem of deciding how to
1
-------
interpret results that are reported to be below detection limits.
This appendix is written for those analytical laboratories that
want guidance concernina ways to lower detection limits, increase
precision, and/or increase accurpcy . The ways to achieve these
goals are to increase the sensitivity of the analytical methods,
decrease contamination, and decrease interference. Ideally,
validation of a procedure for measuring concentrations of metals
in surface water requires demonstration that agreement can be
obtained using completely different procedures beginning with the
sampling step and continuing through the quantification step
(Bruland et al. 1979), but few laboratories have the resources to
compare two different procedures. Laboratories can, however, (a)
use techniques that others have found useful for improving
detection limits, accuracy, and precision, and (b) document data
quality through use of blanks, spikes, CRI4s, replicates, and
standards.
In general, in order to achieve accurate and precise measurement
of a particular concentration, both the detection limit and the
blanks should be less than one—tenth of that concentration.
Therefore, the term “metal-free” can be interpreted to mean that
the total amount of contamination that occurs during sample
collection and processing (e.g., from gloves, sample containers,
labware, sampling apparatus, cleaning solutions, air, reagents,
etc.) is sufficiently low that blanks are less than one—tenth of
the lowest concentration that needs to be measured.
Atmospheric particulates can be a major source of contamination
(Moody 1982; Adeloju and Bond 1985). The term “class—100” refers
to a specification concerning the amount of particulates in air
(Moody 1982); although the specification says nothing about the
composition of the particulates, generic control of particulates
can greatly reduce trace-metal blanks. Except during collection
of samples and initial cleaning of equipment, all handling of
samples, sample containers, labuars, and sampling apparatus
should be performed in a class—100 bench, room, or glove box.
Nothing contained or not contained in this ao endix adds to or
subtracts from any reaulatorv requirements set forth in other EPA
documents concernina metal analyses . The word “ust” is used in
this appsndix merely to indicate items that are considered very
important by analytical chemists who have worked to increase
accuracy and precision and lower detection limits in trace-metal
analysis. Some items are considered important because they have
been found to have received inadequate attention in some
laboratories performing trace-metal analyses.
Two topics that are not addressed in this appendix are:
1. The “ultraclean techniques” that are likely to be necessary
when trace analyses of mercury are performed.
2. Safety in analytical laboratories.
2
-------
Other documents should be consulted if these topics are of
concern.
Avoidina contamination by use of t c1ean techniaues ”
Measurement of trace metals in receiving waters must take into
account the potential for contamination during each step in the
process. Regardless of the specific procedures used for
collection, handling, storage, preparation (digestion,
filtration, and/or extraction), and quantification (instrumental
analysis), the general principles of contamination control must
be applied. Some specific recommendations are:
a. Nort talc latex or class-IQO polyethylene gloves must be worn
during all steps from sample collection to analysis. (Talc
seems to be a particular problem with zinc; gloves made with
talc cannot be decontaminated sufficiently.) Gloves should
only contact surfaces that are metal-free; gloves should be
changed if even suspected of contamination.
b. The acid used to acidify samples for preservation and
digestion and to acidify water for final cleaning of labware,
sampling apparatus, and sample containers must be metal-free.
The quality of the acid used should be better than reagent-
grade. Each lot of acid must be analyzed for the metal(s) of
interest before use.
c. The water used to prepare acidic cleaning solutions and to
rinse labware, sample containers, and sampling apparatus may
be prepared by distillation, deionization, or reverse osmosis,
and must be demonstrated to be metal—free.
d. The work area, including bench tops and hoods, should be
cleaned (e.g., washed and wiped dry with lint—free, class-iOO
wipes) frequently to remove contamination.
e. All handling of samples in the laboratory, including filtering
and analysis, must be performed in a class—lOO clean bench or
a glove box fed by particle-free air or nitrogen; ideally the
clean bench or glove box should be located within a class-lOO
clean room.
f. Labware, reagents, sampling apparatus, and sample containers
must never be left open to the atmosphere; they should be
stored in a class-lOO bench, covered with plastic wrap, stored
in a plastic box, or turned upside down on a clean surface.
Minimizing the time between cleaning and using will help
minimize contamination.
g. Separat. sets of sample containers, labware, and sampling
apparatus should be dedicated for different kinds of samples,
e.g., receiving water samples, effluent sample., etc.
h. To avoid contamination of clean rocms, samples that contain
very high concentrations of metals and do not require use of
“clean techniques” should not be brought into clean rooms.
i. Acid-cleaned plastic, such as high-de sity polyethylene
(HOPE), low-density polyethylene (LOPE), or a fluoroplastic,
must be the only material that ever contacts a sample, except
possibly during digestion for the total recoverable
3
-------
measurement. (Total recoverable Samples can be digested in
some plastic containers.) Even HDPE and LDPE might not be
acceptable for mercury, however.
j. All labware, sample containers, and sampling apparatus must be
acid-cleaned before use or reuse.
i. sample containers, sampling apparatus, tubing, membrane
filters, filter assemblies, and other labware must be
soaked in acid until metal-free. The amount of cleaning
necessary might depend on the amount of contamination and
the length of time the item will be in contact with
samples. For example, if an acidified sample will be
stored in a sample container for three weeks, ideally the
container should have been soaked in an acidified metal-
free solution for at least three weeks.
2. It might be desirable to perform initial cleaning, for
which reagent—grade acid may be used, before the items are
allowed into a clean room. For most metals, items should
be either (a) soaked in 10 percent concentrated nitric acid
at 50°C for at least one hour, or (b) soaked in 50 percent
concentrated nitric acid at room temperature for at least
two days; for arsenic and mercury, soaking for up to two
weeks at 50°C in 10 percent concentrated nitric acid might
be required. For plastics that might be damaged by strong
nitric acid, such as polycarbonate and possibly MDPE and
LDPE, soaking in 10 percent concentrated hydrochloric acid,
either in place of or before soaking in a nitric acid
solution, might be desirable.
3. Chromic acid must not be used to clean items that will be
used in analysis of metals.
4. Final soaking and cleaning of sample containers, labware,
and sampling apparatus must be performed in a class—lOO
clean room using metal-free acid and water. The solution
in an acid bath must be analyzed periodically to
demonstrate that it is metal—free.
5. After labware and sampling apparatus are cleaned, they may
be stored in a clean room in a weak acid bath prepared
using metal—free acid and water. Before use, the items
should be rinsed at least three times with metal-free
water. After the final rinse, the items should be moved
immediately, with the open end pointed down, to a class-100
clean bench. Items may be dried on a class —lOO clean
bench; items must not be dried in an oven or with
laboratory towels. The sampling apparatus should be
assembled in a class-lao clean room or bench and double-
bagged in metal—free polyethylene zip—type bags for
transport to the field; new bags are usually metal—free.
6. After sample containers are cleaned, they should be filled
with metal-free water that has been acidified to a pH of 2
with metal-free nitric acid (about 0.5 m l . per liter) for
storage until use. At the time of sample collection, the
sample containers should be emptied and rinsed at least
twice with the solution being sampled before the actual
4
-------
sample is placed in the sample container.
k. Field samples must be collected in a manner that eliminates
the potential for contamination from the sampling platform,
probes, etc. Exhaust from boats and the direction of wind and
water currents should be taken into account. The people who
collect the samples must be specifically trained on how to
collect field samples. After collection, all handling of
samples in the field that will expose the sample to air must
be performed in a portable class—lOO clean bench or glove box.
1. Samples must be acidified (after filtration if dissolved metal
is to be measured) to a pH of less than 2, except that the pH
must be less than 1 for mercury. Acidification should be done
in a clean room or bench, and so it might be desirable to wait
and acidify samples in a laboratory rather than in the field.
If samples are acidified in the field, I etal—free acid can be
transported in plastic bottles and poured into a plastic
container from which acid can be removed and added to samples
using plastic pipettes. Alternatively, plastic automatic
dispensers can be used.
m. Such things as probes and thermometers must not be put in
samples that are to be analyzed for metals. In particular, pH
electrodes and mercury-in-glass thermometers must not be used
if mercury is to be measured. If pH is measured, it must be
done on a separate aliquot.
n. Sample handling should be minimized. For example, instead of
pouring a sample into a graduated cylinder to measure the
volume, the sample can be weighed after being poured into a
tared container; alternatively, the container from which the
sample is poured can be weighed. (For saltwater samples, the
salinity or density should be taken into account when weight
is converted to volume.)
o. Each reagent used must be verified to be metal—free. If
metal-free reagents are not commercially available, removal of
metals will probably be necessary.
p. For the total recoverable measurement, samples should be
digested in a class—lOO bench, not in a metallic hood. If
feasible, digestion should be done in the sample container by
acidification and heating.
q. The longer the time between collection and analysis of
samples, the greater the chance of contamination, loss, etc.
r. Samples must be stored in the dark, preferably between 0 and
4°C with no air space in the sample container.
Achieving low detection limits
a. Extraction of the metal from the sample can be extremely
useful if it simultaneously concentrates the metal and
eliminates potential matrix interferences. For example,
ammonium 1-pyrrolidinedithiocarbamate and/or diethylammonium
diethyldithiocarbamate can extract cadmium, copper, lead,
5
-------
nickel, and zinc (Bruland et al. 1979; Nriagu et al. 199)).
b. The detection limit should be less than ten percent of the
lowest concentration that is to be measured.
Avoiding interferences
a. Potential interferences must be assessed for the specific
instrumental analysis technique used and each metal to be
measured.
b. If direct analysis is used, the salt present in high-salinity
saltwater samples is likely to cause interference in most
instrumental techniques.
c. As stated above, extraction of the metal from the sample is
particularly useful because it sizultaneously concentrates the
metal and eliminates potential matrix interferences.
Using blanks to assess contamination
a. A laboratory (procedural, method) blank consists of filling a
sample container with analyzed metal-free water and processing
(filtering, acidifying, etc.) the water through the laboratory
procedure in exactly the same way as a sample. A laboratory
blank must be included in each set of ten or fewer samples to
check for contamination in the laboratory, and must contain
less than ten percent of the lowest concentration that is to
be measured. Separate laboratory blanks must be processed for
the total recoverable and dissolved measurements, if both
measurements are performed.
b. A field (trip) blank consists of filling a sample container
with analyzed metal-free water in the laboratory, taking the
container to the site, processing the water through tubing,
filter, etc., collecting the water in a sample container, and
acidifying the water the same as a field sample. A field
blank must be processed for each sampling trip. Separate
field blanks must be processed for the total recoverable
measurement and for the dissolved measurement, if filtrations
are performed at th. site. Field blanks must be processed in
the laboratory the same as laboratory blanks.
Assessing accuracy
a. A calibration curve must be determined for each analytical run
and the calibration should be checked about every tenth
sample. Calibration solutions must be traceable back to a
certified standard from the U.S. EPA or the National Institute
of Science and Technology (NIST).
b. A blind standard or a blind calibration solution must be
included in each group of about twenty samples.
6
-------
c. At least one of the following must be included in each group
of about twenty samples:
1. A matrix spike (spiked sample; the method of known
additions).
2. A cR2 1, if one is available in a matrix that closely
approximates that of the samples. Values obtained for the
c must be within the published values.
The concentrations in blind standards and solutions, spikes, and
cRMs must not be more than 5 times the median concentration
expected to be present in the samples.
Assessina orecision
a. A sampling replicate must be included with each set of samples
collected at each sampling location.
b. If the volume of the sample is large enough, replicate
analysis of at least one sample must be performed along with
each group of about ten samples.
Special considerations concernina the dissolved measurement
Whereas the total recoverable measurement is especially subject
to contamination during the digestion step, the dissolved
measurement is subject to both loss and contamination during the
filtration step.
a. Filtrations must be performed using acid—cleaned plastic
filter holders and acid-cleaned membrane filters. Samples
must not be filtered through glass fiber filters, even if the
filters have been cleaned with acid. If positive-pressure
filtration is used, the air or gas must be passed through a
0.2—tim in—line filter; if vacuum filtration is used, it must
be performed on a class-lOO bench.
b. Plastic filter holders must be rinsed and/or dipped between
filtrations, but they do not have to be soaked between
filtrations if all the samples contain about the same
concentrations of metal. It is best to filter samples from
low to high concentrations. A membrane filter must not be
used for more than one filtration. After each filtration, the
membrane filter must be removed and discarded, and the filter
holder must be either rinsed with metal-free water or dilute
acid and dipped in a metal-free acid bath or rinsed at least
twice with metal-free dilute acid; finally, the filter holder
must be rinsed at least twice with aetal— res water.
c. For each sample to be filtered, the filter holder and membrane
filter must be conditioned with the sample, i.e., an initial
portion of the sample must be filtered and discarded.
The accuracy and precision of the dissolved measurement should be
7
-------
assessed periodically. A large volume of a buffered solution
(such as aerated 0.05 N sodium bicarbonate) should be spiked so
that the concentration of the metal of interest is in the range
of the low concentrations that are to be measured. The total
recoverable concentration and the dissolved concentration of the
metal in the spiked buffered solution should be measured
alternately until each measurement has been performed at least
ten times. The means and standard deviations for the two
measurements should be the same. All values deleted as outliers
must be acknowledged.
Re ortin results
To indicate the quality of the data, reports of results of
measurements of the concentrations of metals m ast include a
description of the blanks, spikes, CR14 5, replicates, and
standards that were run, the number run, and the results
obtained. All values deleted as outliers must be acknowledged.
Additional information
The items presented above are some of the important aspects of
“clean techniques”; some aspects of quality assurance and quality
control are also presented. This is not a definitive treatment
of these topics; additional information that might be useful is
available in such publications as Patterson and Settle (1976),
Zief and Mitchell (1976), Bruland at al. (1979), Moody and Beary
(1982), Moody (1982), Bruland (1983), Adeloju and Bond (1985),
Berman and Yeats (1985), Byrd and Andrea. (1986), Taylor (1987),
Sakamoto-Arnold (1987), Tramontano at al. (1987), Puls and
Barcelona (1989), Windom et al. (1991), U.S. EPA (1992), Horowitz
at al. (1992), and Nriagu at a]. (1993).
References
Adeloju, S.B., and A.M. Bond. 1985. Influence of Laboratory
Environment on the Precision and Accuracy of Trace Element
Analysis. Anal. Chem. 57:1728—1733.
Berman, S.S., and P.A. Yeats. 1985. sampling of Seawater for
Trace Metals. CRC Reviews in Analytical Che nistry 16:1—14.
Bruland, E.W., R.P. Franks, G.A. Knauer, and J.H. Martin. 1979.
Sampling and Analytical Methods for the Determination of Copper,
Cadmium, Zinc, and Nickel at the Nanogram per Liter Level in Sea
Water. Anal. Chim. Acta 105:233—245.
8
-------
Bruland, K.W. 1983. Trace Elements in Sea-Water. In: Chemical
Oceanography, Vol.. 8. J.P. Riley and R. Chester, eds. Academic
Press, New York, NY. pp. 157—220.
Byrd, J.T., and 14.0. Artdreae. 1986. Dissolved and Particulate
Tin in North Atlantic Seawater. Marine Chemistry 19:193—200.
Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and M.R. Colberg. 1992. The Effect
of Membrane Filtration Artifacts on Dissolved Trace Element
Concentrations. Water Res. 26:753-763.
Moody, J.R. 1982. NBS Clean Laboratories for Trace Element
Analysis. Anal. Chem. 54:1358A—1376A.
Moody, J.R., and E.S. Beary. 1982. Purified Reagents for Trace
Metal Analysis. Talanta 29:1003—1010.
Nriagu, 3.0., G. Lawson, M.1C.T. Wong, and 3.14. Azcue. 1993. A
Protocol for Minimizing Contamination in the Analysis of Trace
Metals in Great Lakes Waters. 3. Great Lakes Res. 19:175-182.
Patterson, C.C., and D.M. Settle. 1976. The Reduction in Orders
of Magnitude Errors in Lead Analysis of Biological Materials and
Natural Waters by Evaluating and Controlling the Extent and
Sources of Industrial Lead Contamination Introduced during Sample
Collection and Processing. In: Accuracy in Trace Analysis:
Sampling, Sample Handling, Analysis. P.D. LaFleur, ed. National
Bureau of Standards Spec. Publ. 422, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Puls, R.W., and 14.3. Barcelona. 1989. Ground Water Sampling for
Metals Analyses. EPA/540/4—89/O01. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Sakameto-Arnold, C.M, A.K. Hanson, Jr., D.L. Huizenga, and D.R.
Kester. 1987. Spatial and Temporal Variability of Cadmium in
Gulf Stream Warm—core Rings and Associated Waters. 3. Mar. Res.
45: 201—230.
Shiller, A.M., and 2. Boyle. 1985. Dissolved Zinc in Rivers.
Nature 317:49—52.
Shifler, A.M., and E.A. Boyle. 1987. Variability of Dissolved
Trace Metals in the Mississippi River. Geechim. Cosmochim. Acta
51:3273—3277.
Taylor, J.R. 1987. Quality Assurance of chemical Measurements.
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Tramontano, J.M., 3.2. Scudlark, and T.M. church. 1987. A
Method for the Collection, Handling, and Analysis of Trace Metals
in Precipitation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21:749—753.
9
-------
Trefry, J.H., T.A. Nelsen, R.P. Trocine, S. Metz., and T.W.
Vetter. 1986. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. i. Explor. Her.
186:277—288.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4—79-020.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.3, and 4.1.4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Methods for the
Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples. EPA-600/4—91-
010. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Evaluation of
Trace-Metal Levels in Ambient Waters and Tributaries to New
York/New Jersey Harbor for Waste Load Allocation. Prepared by
Battelle Ocean Sciences under Contract No. 68-C8-0105.
Windom, H.L., 3.1. Byrd, R.G. Smith, and F. Huan. 1991.
Inadequacy of NASQAN Data for Assessing Metals Trends in the
Nation’s Rivers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:1137—1142. (Also see
Comment and Response, Vol. 25, p. 1940.)
Zief, N., and J.W. Mitchell. 1976. Contamination Control in
Trace Element Analysis. Chemical Analysis Series, Vol. 47.
Wiley, New York, NY.
10
-------
, ,?d .
( UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
j WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
--—
‘ --I
CFFCE CF
WATER
MENORANDUM
SUBJECT: OWEC State Sewage Sludge Management Program
FROM: Michael B. Cook, Director : £ •
Of f ice of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
The Office of Water is focusing its programs to protect
watershed-based ecosystems. Emphasis is shifting to the
management of diffuse sources of pollution, habitat changes,
nutrients, and ecological effects of toxics. To achieve such a
holistic approach, the fullest range of tools needs to be
available to enable essential assessments of ecological
conditions, evaluation of alternative management strategies, and
implementation of decisions. Consistent with these new
directions, the Strategic Plan of the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) calls for high priority to be
placed on developing and approving effective State sludge
management programs and issuing sewage sludge permits. The
specific five-year objectives for the sludge program are:
o To work with the States to get quality programs in place
that promote the beneficial use of sewage sludge.
o In the first round of sludge permitting, to rely on the
self-implementing aspects of the Part 503 technical
standards. Permits will be issued to those “treatment works
treating domestic sewage” (TWTDS) in one of the following
high priority categories:
- Sludge incinerators because they will need site-
specific permits.
‘p
- Facilities designated by the permitting authority as
posing a threat to human health or the environment
• and/or which need to be fully evaluated in the context
of permit development.
- Facilities for which a permit is deemed to be necessary
in order to fully support or promote beneficial use and
the use and disposal requirements under our national
sludge regulation.
-------
2
— Facilities whose NPDES permit comes up for reissuance
during the normal permitting cycle.
o To issue a large number of “sludge-only” permits in the
first permit cycle following promulgation of the technical
standards to TWTDS that are not also NPDES permittees. Such
perxni.ttees will be prioritized according to the permitting
authority’s determination of the threat they pose to human
health and the environment.
o To provide implementation guidance and training for Regional
and State permitting authorities.
o To provide outreach to POTWs and the rest of the regulated
community in order to foster understanding of the Part 503
regulation and to facilitate compliance with the self-
implementing and permitting requirements of the regulation.
o To provide implementation guidance and training for Regions,
States, and POTWs in order to: (1.) allow a common
understanding of the Part 503 regulation; and (2) allow
municipalities the ability to meet the self-implementing
requirements prior to obtaining a permit.
o To develop and issue general permits to broad categories of
TWTDS.
o To provide guidance to septage haulers so that they can
comply with the regulation in the absence of a permit.
Accomplishing this will require resources. In order to best
use our limited resources, our work with the States to assume
authority under the Federal sewage sludge management program is
the major objective of EPA’S sludge permitting program
activities. In addition, many States already have effective
sludge management programs in place; and States obtaining program
approval will eliminate overlapping Federal/State permits, allow
States to maintain primacy, and assure national standards are
met.
The Permits Division is committed to assisting States obtain
authorization for sewage sludge management programs. The State
Sludge Management Program Guidance Manual was issued in December
of 1990 to provide a centralized source of information on the
steps to be taken to obtain sewage sludge management authority.
However, many States chose to wait for publication of the final
“Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge” before
pursuing authorization. The regulation was published on
February 19, 1993, and many States are now starting to take the
necessary steps toward authorization. This process has brought
up additional questions and requests for assistance. The
attached State Sewage Sludge Program Summary and Status describes
-------
3
the background of the program, steps that States must take when
seeking program approval, tools and activities to assist States
and Regions, and answers to the most frequently asked questions
about program submissions.
We appreciate the work that you have done so far to
encourage your States. The Multi-media section of the Permits
Division has begun working with States in several Regions and is
available to help in any way that is needed. If you have any
questions regarding the sewage sludge program authorization
process, please call me or have your staff contact Elaine
Brenner, Chief of the Pretreatment and Multi-media Branch at
(202) 260—4933.
Attachment
cc: Regional Permits Branch Chiefs
Regional Sludge Coordinators
-------
OWEC STATE SEWAGE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY AND STATUS
OCTOBER 1, 1993
I. BACKGROUND
A. 1987 kMENDMENTS TO THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
In the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress determined
that standards for sewage sludge use and disposal should be
implemented through permits issued either by the U.S. EPA or
by a State under a Federally approved program.
B. MAY 2, 1989, REGULATIONS
o Established requirements for developing sewage
sludge permit conditions in NPDES permits (and for
sludge-only permits).
o Established requirements for State program approvals
either as a modification to an existing NPDES program,
or as a separate program (e.g., under a State solid
waste program).
C. OCTOBER 1990, STATE SLUDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GUIDANCE
MANUAL PUBLISHED
o This document presents the steps towards program
approval, the minimum statutory and regulatory
authority needed by a State, the detailed contents of a
program submission, and the Memorandum of Agreement
between a State and EPA. (See item II below for a
summary of the necessary State steps and program
submission requirements.)
D. OCTOBER 2, 1992, NATIONAL APPROACH TO SEWAGE SLUDGE
IMPLEMENTATION MEMORANDUM
o Regional permitting activities and Regional
implementation strategies
o Regional enforcement of the technical standards
o State sludge program activity
o Need for communication and Centers of Excellence
E. FEBRUARY 19, 1993, REGULATIONS
o Part 503 technical standards for the use or disposal
of sewage sludge were promulgated.
o Revisions were made to the May 2, 1989, regulationS
to require permit applications in phases.
-------
2
Ii. STEPS TOWARDS PROGRAM APPROVAL
A. STATE CONDUCTS SELF-EVALUATION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND
RESOURCES
B. STATE MEETS WITH EPA REGIONAL STAFF TO SEEK INPUT AND
ASSISTANCE ON DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAM SUBMISSION
C. STATE SUBMITS DRAFT PROGRAM TO REGION
D. REGION AND HEADQUARTERS COMMENT ON DRAFT
E. STATE REVISES DRAFT AND FORMALLY SUBMITS PROGRAM, WHICH
MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS, TO REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR
1. Governor’s letter requesting program approval
2. Program description
3. Attorney General’s statement indicating the
existence of adequate authority
4. Memorandum of Agreement between the State and EPA
5. Statutes and Regulations
F. REGION AND HEADQUARTERS REVIEW AND DETERMINE IF
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED
G. PROPOSED APPROVAL IS PUBLICLY NOTICED BY REGION
H. EPA CONSIDERS COMMENTS AND EITHER REQUIRES REVISIONS OR
PUBLICLY NOTICES APPROVAL
III. TOOLS & ACTIVITIES
A. DISTRIBUTION OF GUIDANCE MATERIALS TO REGIONS AND TO
THEIR STATES
To make the approval process as easy as possible, we
have generated various items to assist States, including:
1. State Sludge Management Program Guidance Manual
2. Model documents on disk
3. Regulations on disk (Part 501 is currently
available and Parts 122 and 123 will be available soor.,
4. CWA Section 104(b) (3) Guidance
-------
3
5. Interim Application Guidance
6. Interim Sewage Sludge Permit Application Form
7. Question and Answer Notebook Series
The State program guidance document was distributed
when published, but we redistributed it along with the model
documents on disk and the guidance on CWA Section 104(b) (3)
grants in October 1992. The Interim Application Guidance
was distributed in July 1993. The Interim Sewage Sludge
Permit Application Form is currently undergoing 0MB review.
We are still working on the getting the Part 122 and 123
regulations on disk and compiling the Question and Answer
Notebook Series. These last items will be distributed in FY
94.
B. CONTRACTOR ASSISTANCE
We have surveyed the Regions to determine existing, on-
going, and planned activities. Many Regions have already
begun to work with their States. Some have provided
contractor assistance to perform preliminary statutory and
regulatory reviews for consistency with the Federal program.
Attached is a preliminary inventory of activities by State.
This inventory will be updated periodically.
C. WORI( WITH INTERESTED STATES ON AN AD-HOC BASIS
We have conunitted to working through the Regions with
those States showing current interest in receiving program
approval. We will try to provide staff from headquarters to
perform site—visits to these States to assist them in
developing their programs for submission.
0. SEND OUT LETTER FROM THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
To encourage States to seek program approval, we have
drafted a letter to be sent from the Assistant Administrator
f or Water to the States addressing the sewage sludge
program. We will continue to work with the Regions to
determine specific State recipients and appropriate
contents. We expect the new Assistant Administrator to sigr.
these letters in the first quarter of Fl 1994.
E. CWA SECTION 104(b) (3) GRANTS
We have provided oversight and guidance (July 14, 1992
memorandum from Michael B. Cook to Regional Water Manageme”
Division Directors) to the Regions for approving CWA SectLc-
104(b) (3) grants for sewage sludge projects.
-------
4
IV. FLEXIBILITY ISSUES IN DETERMINING ADEQUATE PROGRAM
SUBMISSIONS
In approving State programs, we are trying to balance
the need to provide detailed guidance with the need to allow
maximum flexibility. Our regulations set out to provide
flexibility by enabling States to choose to implement
approved sewage sludge management programs as part of their
NPDES programs or as a separate program. Many States
already have a sewage sludge program and wish to blend the
Federal program with their existing program. This leads to
many issues that must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
In October 1990, we published the State Sludge
Management Program Guidance Manual. This manual details the
different components of a State Program submission and
provides model documents. There is still room, however, for
flexibi.lity.
There are three common issues that arise in addressing
flexibility. First, will all legal authorities need to be
spelled out in the statutes and regulations, or will EPA
accept broad authorities with a corresponding statement from
the State’s Attorney General? EPA generally prefers to have
authorities specified in the statutes and regulations so
that authorities are clear. However, on a case-by-case
basis, we will consider broad authority provided the
Attorney General makes the determination that such authority
is adequate to implement the program.
Second, will EPA approve a program where all of the
statutory and regulatory changes have not yet been
promulgated? Our regulations are very clear that all
authorities must be in effect (i.e., promulgated) at the
time of program approval. States are, however, encouraged
to submit other components of the program submission so that
EPA can review and comment on them while statutory or
regulatory changes are being promulgated.
Finally, when a State intends to implement the sewage
sludge program as part of its NPDES program (i.e., under
Part 123), will the entire NPDES program be reviewed or only
the portions related to implementing the sewage sludge
program? EPA does not intend to use this opportunity to
reopen and evaluate a State’s entire NPDES program.
However, where there are NPDES authorities that directly
impact the sewage sludge program (e.g., appropriate
enforcement authority), EPA must ensure that they are
adequate.
-------
Stat. Activities for Sewage Sludge Program Approval
October 19. 1993
R.gion
State
ActIvities 7
I
CT
Statutory and regulatory review underway.
RI
Statutory and regulatory review underway.
VT
Statutory and regulatory review underway.
i
NJ
Statutory and Regulatory review will begin shortly for approval under Part
123 and 501. State is currently doing program “self evaluation.’ State is
considenng pursuing authonzation under 123 and 501 so it can keep its
.
current regulatory structure. Region II and the state are holding monthly
••
meetings— Region II and NJ attorneys are involved. NJ submitted CWA
•
5104 (b)(3) grant proposal. State is hoping to have program approved by
2/94.
• —‘
NY
NY is still working Out which State program will be the lead. Statutory and
regulatory review will begin shortly. NY submitted CWA S104 (b)(3) grant
.
proposal.
Ill
-WV,
Statutory and Regulatory review for approval under 123 completed
..
1/24/92. Region and HO reps. met with State in October 1992. State
- .
agency met with State Legislators. WV filed an emergency rule with the
Legislative rulemaking review committee. West Virginia’s CWA Si 04(b)(3)
.
,
. grant proposal has been approved.
DE
Statutory and regulatory review for approval under Part 123 and Delawares
;
land treatment regulations completed 9/24/92. Region and HO met with
.
Delaware on 7/2193 to discuss program authonzation. DE submitted a
CWA 5104(b)(3) grant proposal.
PA.
Statutory and regulatory review for approval under Past 501 completed
• .
12/5/91. EPA Region Ill met with PADER Bureau of Water Ouality and
.
Bureau of Air and Waste Management on 6/29/93 to discuss program
authorization. PA submitted a CWA 5104(b)(3) grant proposal.
,
MO
Statutory and Regulatory review for approval under Part 501 completed
9/6/91. Statutory and Regulatory review for partial approval under Part 123
completed 5/18/93. MD submitted a CWA 51 04(b)(3) grant proposal.
VA
EPA reviewed VA draft VPDES regulations and provided comments. VA
appears to be adopting 503 as is except possibly incineration.
-------
Statutory and regulatory review for approval under Part 123 completed
1/6/92. Completed draft of program description.
Statutory and regulatory review for approval under Part 123 completed
12/5/91. State has establisheda task force to work on program
authorization. KY submitted a CWA s104(b)(3) grant proposal.
On-going development of program description.
Has expressed interest in program.
Has expressed interest in program. AL submitted a CWA SI 04(b)(3) grant
proposal.
Started regulatory review.
Started regulatory review. SC submitted a CWA 5104(b)(3) grant proposal .
Statutory and regulatory review for approval under Part 123 completed
6/26/92. Met with State and HO reps. 12/92. Draft schedule has been
established for authorization in 7/95. WI submitted a CWA 5104(b)(3) grant
proposal.
Statutory and regulatory review for approval under Part 501 completed
7/3/91. State working internally to develop regulations. IN submitted a
CWA 5104(b)(3) grant proposal.
On-going statutory and regulatory review for program approval. Draft
review submitted to regional sludge coordinator. OH submitted a CWA
s104(b)(3) grant proposal.
Due to a lack of resources. Ml is considering ending State program and
saying compliance with Part 503 is compliance with State laws.
On-going statutory and regulatory review. State and Region have met to
discuss issues. MN submitted a CWA 5104(b)(3) grant proposal.
IV
GA
KY
NC
TN
AL
MS
Sc
V
WI
IN
OH
Ml
MN
VI
AR
TX
Internal uIegalravjew (self-evaluation). Will probably not pursue program
approval due to lack of resources.
Has proposed new sludge regulations but no action is likely in the near
future.
VII
KS
MO
NE
IA
Statutory and regulatory review currently in draft form. Region expects
program approval submission spring 94.
Statutory and regulatory review currently in draft form. Region expects
program approval submission spring 94. MO submitted a CWA S104(b)(3)
grant proposal.
Statutory and regulatory review currently in draft form.
Statutory and regulatory review is being drafted. Region is optimistic that a
program approval application will be submitted in 94.
-------
viu
CO
UT
Statutory and regulatory review for program approval under Part 123
Completed fall 1989. On-going internal amendmentartd review of NPOES
program to include sludge. CO is wotling under the presumption that if
NPDES program is acceptable the sludge program will be acceptable.
Is interested in program. but is balking because of a lack of federal money
to administerthe approved State program.
IX
t
. -
x
HI
AZ
‘
NV
.
WA
-
-OR
On-going statutory and regulatory review for program approval. Hawaii’s
CWA SI 04(b) (3) grant proposal has been approved.
The Region is not currently willing to consider program submissions from
Anzona until State receives NPOES program approval. This is not currently
an issue because AZ has not shown interest in sludge. and its NPDES
submission has already been rejected once.
Nevada’s CWA s104(b)(3) grant proposal has been approved.
1
Legiilature passed law requiring WA DOE to look into program
authoniation. Washington’s CWA S104 (b)(3) grant has been approved.
Consultation between regulated community and State agency to determine
if OR wants to pursue authorization.
------- |