Permits Division
Policy and Guidance
Volume IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Washington, D.C.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC TION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C 20460
'GfrFICE OF
FEB 2 2 IOOC 'WATER
MEMORANDUM
„' '
SUBJECT: 1990-1995 Updates tto the Permits-Division Policy and
Guidance Compendium
FROM: Jame's F.- Pendergast, Acting Director ,j o/*i*-^T - \ &~
Permits Division (4203)
TO: State Directors
EPA Regional Counsels
EPA Region Permit Branch Chiefs
•»
Attached for your information and, use-are materials-which
update the Permits Division Policy and Guidance compendium.
This is -a collection of policies and guidance'issued for. the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System- program-.by the
Permits Divas ion of the Office of Wastewatei* . Management^. The
documents are listed in reverse chronological.' order* --We"-'
recommend that they be placed in-two binders .tit le.d Volumes III
and IV respectively. Volume III should contain document's" dating
from T990 through 1993. Volume IV should contain the-,.later
documents. Binder covers'for Volumes III and -IV are."-a.ttached.
Also attached are-^chronological listings and a 'subject ^matter
outline. The chronological listings cover only Volumes-I-II and
IV while the subject matter outline applies to Volumes I through
IV.
While most of the documents are included in their,entirety,
some were too large to include in the compendium. In those -
cases, only the title page is provided.; ... A full copy qary>Jpe •
obtained by contacting Permits Division-staff who will'.either
provide a copy to the reguester or whe're appropriate,^ d-ire'ct the
requester to other providers such as the Office ofJWa'ter Resource
Center, the National Technical Information Service,/ or the
Educational Resource Information Center. Documents^ jthat are not
included in their entirety are marked with a double asterisk in
the chronological listings and the subject matter outline. Where
applicable, an EPA document number is provided.
Recycled/Recyclable -Printed with Vegetable Oil Based inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
—2—
Finally, some minor errors were made when these materials
were printed. A correction sheet is attached to enable users to
correct those errors. Please be aware that the chronological
listings reflect the correct order of documents.
We hope these materials prove to be helpful. Please call
Tom Chariton of my staff at (202) 260-6960 if you have any
questions regarding these updates.
Atta hments
cr.
cc: Robert Percdasepe
Michael Cook
Susan Lepow
-------
1
NPDES POLICY COMPENDIUM
VOLUME IV
CHRONOLOGICAL LISTING
Title Date
“Waters of the United States” Determination for a
Proposed Cooling Pond Site in Polk County, Florida,
Perciasepe 12/13/93
Storm Water Enforcement Strategy 01/12/94
Interim ‘Sewage Sludge Permit Application Form 01/31/94
Monitoring of Total Hydrocarbons by Sewage Sludge
Incinerators - 02/17/94
Interim Guidance on Determination and Use of Water-
Effect Ratios for Metals (EPA-823-B-94-OOl) 02/22/94
NPDES Watershed Strategy 03/21/94
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy (59 FR 18688) 04/19/94
Guidance for the Determination of Appropriate Methods
for the Detection of Section 313 Water Priority Chemicals
(EPA 833-B-94-001) 4/94
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
Regional Guidance for Development of State-by-State
Watershed Protection Assessments and Action Plans 05/12/94
Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Programs - Guidance Manual
(EPA 833-B-94-005) 6/94
THC CEM Guidance for Part 503 Sewage Sludge Incinerators
(EPA 833-B-94-003) 06/94
= Complete copy available upon request.
-------
2
EPA Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Control Policy
(EPA 833-B-94-002) - 7/94
NPDES and Sewage Sludge Program Authority: A Handbook for
Federally Recognized Indian Tribes (EPA 833-B-94-004) 07/94
Authorization of Partial State Sewage Sludge Programs 07/28/94
Policy Statement on Scope of Discharge Authorization
and Shield Associated with NPDES Permits, Perciasepe 07/01/94
Storm Water Pollution Abatement Technologies
(EPA/600/R-94/129) 09/94
The Watershed Approach: Our Framework for Ecosystem
Protection 10/07/94
Policy for End of Moratorium for Stormwater Permitting 10/18/94
National Biological Survey - Data Needs for Aquatic
Threatened and Endangered Species - - 10/21/94
Moving the NPDES Program to ‘a ‘Watershed Approach 10/25/94
Interpretation of Industrial Wastewater Discharge
Exclusion from the Definition of Solid Waste 02/17/94
Office of Wastewater Management - Catalog of Publications
(EPA 830/B-95-001) 3/95 **
Combined Sewer Overflows - Questions and Answers on Water
Quality Standards and the CSO Program 3/95
Consent Dec ree in Natural Resources Defense Council
Inc. v. Browner, Civ. No. 95-634 PLF (storm water
Phase II litigation) 04/24/95
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Nine Minimum
Controls (EPA 832-B-95-003) 5/95 **
= Complete copy available upon requeu.
-------
3 --
National Policy Regarding Whole Effluent Toxic Enforcement 8/14/95
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Long-Term
Control Plan (EPA/832-B-95-002) 8/85 **
Combined Sewer Overflows - 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 *t
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Permit Writers
(EPA/832-B-95-008) “8/95
** = Complete copy available upon request.
-------
1 -i “
/ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
‘C • 0 lV•
DEC13 1 3
OFFICE OF
. A TEA
M !ORANDLTM
SUBJECT: “Waters of the United States” Determination for A
Proposed Cooling Pond Site in Polk County, Florida
FROM: 11 , 1 .Li
TO: W. Ray Cunningham, Director
Water Management Division
This memorandum responds to your March 5, 1993, request for
assistance in making the decision whether a cooling pond proposed
for construction in Polk County, Florida, by the Florida Power
Corporation (FPC), will be a “water of the United States” and
thus subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA), including National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. t
After reviewing this question, I have concluded that due to
ambiguities in the existing regulation and apparent lack of
national consistency, EPA should begin rulemaking development to
air the policy issues and clarify the jurisdictional status of
steam electric cooling ponds. In the interim, EPA Region IV may
continue to conform its permitting decisions to its past
practice.
In the last six months, EPA Headquarters and Region IV have
held a series of meetings on this topic. We have gathered
information concerning the proposed FPC cooling pond as well as
EPA’S jurisdictional treatment of cooling ponds across the
Regions. We also received additional information and expressions
of interest in this matter from the State of Florida, the utility
industry, selected environmental groups, and members of the
public. This information, however limited, has suggested a need
to clarify the jurisdictional status of steam electric cooling
ponds throuqh rulemaking development and input from all
interested persons.
‘A second smaller cooling pond is also proposed for
construction in Polk County, Florida, by the Tampa Electric
Company (TECO). EPA Headquarters’ information on this cooling
pond is limited; however, the directions provided in this
memorandum would also apply to the TECO cooling pond.
-------
2
Prooosed FPC Coo lina Pond
Based upon the information currently available, it appears
that the Florida Power Corporation proposes to construct a 3000-
megawatt steam electric generation plant in Polk County, Florida,
on 8000 acres currently used for phosphate mining operations.
The plant site will include a proposed four—square mile (2600-
acre) steam electric cooling pond which will likely be
established partially on existing wetlands that are located
within clay treatment ponds currently used for mining operations.
The proposed site was selected over other possible sites through
a consensus approach including local environmental groups.
The mining companies presently operating the proposed site
have requested State approval of a reclamation plan under which
approximately 80% of mining operation areas would be reclaimed to
uplands; the remainder would include wetlands. Our latest
information is that the utility company has requested
modification of the reclamation plan under which 100% of the site
could be converted to uplands. Once mining use ceases, EPA and
the Corps must decide whether to assert jurisdiction over
existing wetlands and whether a CWA section 404 permit may be
needed for discharges associated with construction of the cooling
pond, among other activities.
Florida Power plans to design the cooling pond to allow no
point source discharges from the pond to other surface waters of
the U.S. The power company represents that the cooling pond will
be an isolated artificial water body that will not be open for
any recreational purposes. The company also indicates that
construction of a steam electric cooling pond rather than a
cooling tower will consume less water and may be significantly
less costly for the utility.
Make-up water for the proposed steam electric cooling pond
is expected to include cooling water blowdown of approximately
four MGD and commercial wastewater (including probable effluent
from citrus growers) of approximately two MGD. The proposed
steam electric cooling pond is also expected to receive
approximat.ly 20,000 gallons of secondary sewage effluent and
three milliøn gallons of tertiary-treated municipal effluent
daily frog local publicly owned treatment works.
Polk County contains many wetlands. This part of the State
is inhabited by endangered species and is regarded as a pathway
for migratory bird overflights. An EPA wetlands biologist and a
Corps field inspector have observed the presence of endangered
species, vegetated wetlands, and migratory waterfowl on the
proposed plant site. Areas adjacent to the proposed cooling pond
site may also attract birds/species and contain wetlands. The
Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act may also
-------
3
provide some environmental protection for the birds and other
species in the area.
Relevant NPDES Reaulations
40 C.F.R S122.2 establishes criteria for determining whether
a given waterbody is a “water of the United States.” For
example, paragraph (C) of S122.2 provides that “(a]l1 other
waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), audflats, sandflats, ‘wetlands,’ sloughs,
prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the
use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could
affect interstate or foreign commerce . . .“ are “waters of the
United States.” Since 1980, S122.2 has excluded from the
definition of “waters of the United States” “(w)aste treatment
systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet
the requirements of CWA (oth.r than cooling ponds as defined in
40 CPR 423.11(m) which also meet the crit.ria of this definition)
• . . (emphasis supplied).”
Thus, under the definition of “waters of the United States”
as revised in 1980, steam electric cooling ponds as defined under
S423.11(m) that met the requirements of S122.2 were “waters of
the United States” and could not be considered to be excluded
waste treatment systems. In making the decision as to whether a
given steam electric cooling pond is a “water of the United
States,” the permitting authority, however, determined on a case-
by-case basis whether the S423.1l(m) steam electric cooling pond
otherwise met the definition of “waters of the United States.”
Under paragraph (C) of S122.2, for example, a permitting
authority could determine that the use of the cooling pond would
or could affect interstate commerce. There were, and are,
various ways to establish a nexus to interstate commerce. Such
findings can be highly fact-specific. 2
In 1982, when the national effluent limitations guidelines
for steam electric generating facilities were revised, the
2 For example, based on Commerce Clause authority, EPA may
extend CWA jurisdiction to waters used by migratory birds and
endangered species, including the habitat which is essential to
maintaining then. Last summer, in Hoffman Homes. Inc . v.
Administrator , No. 90—3810, slip op. at 8—10 (July 19, 1993), for
example, the Seventh Circuit upheld the validity of the migratory
bird nexus for asserting CWA jurisdiction over isolated waters.
Though disagreeing with EPA on the application of the particular
facts under this standard, the court agreed that EPA could
reasonably interpret the definition of “water of the United
States” to include waters based on potential connection to
interstate commerce. The court also agreed that bird use could
provide the connection between a water and interstate commerce.
-------
4
definition of “cooling pond” at 40 C.F.R. S423.11(m) was deleted.
EPA did not, however, revise the regulatory definition
at 40 C.F.R. S122.2, with the cross reference to S423.ll(m steam
electric cooling ponds.
Jurisdictional Treatment of Existing Cooling Ponds
EPA’s Regional Offices recently provided us with readily
available information concerning the jurisdictional treatment of
steam electric cooling ponds. This limited information suggests
that many steam electric cooling ponds are not currently
considered to be “waters of the United States.” We believe this
result could be due to several factors. On a case-by-case basis,
the Regions may have made the determination that specific steam
electric cooling ponds do not meet the criteria for a “water of
the United States” as required under S122.2. It also appears,
however, that this result could reflect the age of the cooling
ponds relative to the evolving definition of “waters of the
United States” (some cooling ponds were first permitted in the
early 1970’s before EPA revised the definition of “waters of the
United States” to provide the steam electric cooling pond
exception to the waste treatment system exclusion); or confusion
over the continuing validity of the cooling pond exception to the
waste treatment exclusion due to the deletion of the definition
of “cooling pond” at 40 C.F.R. S423.Ll(m).
Additional Considerations for the Rulemakina Proceedina
Through a rulemaking proceeding designed to clarify the
definition of “waters of the United States,” EPA may also obtain
the public’s views as to whether policy or technical factors
should affect the jurisdictional status of steam electric cooling
ponds. A rulemaking proceeding may also facilitate consideration
of whether any changes to the CWA are necessary to address such
concerns. EPA may also consider whether it is appropriate to
“grandfather” the status of existing cooling ponds. In addition,
EPA may wish to consider whether other clarifications to the
regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” are
necessary.
Interim NPD!S Permittina Determinations
Developing a rule which clarifies the jurisdictional status
of cooling ponds will take tim.. In the meanwhile, given the
deletion of the definition of steam electric cooling ponds from
EPA’s regulations, the past practice in Region IV, and the
ambiguity in the regulation as reflected in the apparently
inconsistent national practice, you have some discretion in
instances where you have to make NPDES decisions concerning
particular facilities. Specifically, while it would be
appropriate to regulate as “waters of the United States” a steam
electric cooling pond based on an actual or potential connection
-------
5
to interstate commerce, you also have the option, given the
deletion of the steam electric cooling pond definition, of
interpreting the waste treatment system exclusion as encompassing
all steam electric cooling ponds or of taking into account the
fact that a particular pond has a dual purpose of cooling and of
treatment of other wastes. 3 When additional rulemaking is
completed, permitting authorities such as Region IV will need to
consider what effect the new regulation has upon existing steam
electric cooling ponds. Finally, you should also continue to
conform all interim permitting decisions to the requirements of
section 404 of the CWA, where applicable.
I would be happy to discuss this matte - further with you.
In the meantime, my staff is available to work with your office,
on any aspect of this issue that would be helpful.
cc: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I-Ill, V-X
Water Permits Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Michael Cook
Robert Wayland
Tudor Davies
Susan Lepow
3 Based on the available facts regarding the proposed FPC
steam electric cooling pond, it would appear that this particular
cooling pond, once created, may meet one or more of the current
criteria for demonstrating an actual or potential connection to
interstate commerce, e.g., since it would or could be used a.
habitat by migratory birds and/or endangered species. However,
given the current ambiguity regarding the applicability of the
waste treatment system exclusion to steam electric cooling ponds,
the Region would have the discretion ultimately to determine that
NPDES permitting requirements do not apply to the FPC pond based
on the application of such exclusion.
-------
itO 37i,
(2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHIr4GT 4. D.C. 4IO
o, Ic1 OF
WAT
•:v 6 I9 3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on EPA’s NPDES and Sludge Management Permit
cedur a on Fe ral Indian Reservations
FROM: 6 üg y,irer
TO: Water Management Division Director.
Regions I and II, and IV - X
Introduction
Until Tribe. qualify for the NPDES or sludge management
programs, EPA will administer those programs on Federal Indian
Reservations (FIRS or reservations); i.e., within the exterior
boundaries of a reservation as defined by Clean Water Act (CWA)
section 518(h). 1
The purpos. of this memorandum is to articulat. key points
for EPA’S implementation of the NPDES and sludg. management
programs on FIRa. Federal Indian Reservation (in th. case of
NPDES and sludge programs) means all land within th. limits of
any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United
States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent,
and including rights-of-way running through the reservation.
This guidance memorandum pertains to EPA issuance of permits
to all permitted facilities on FIRS and situations where EPA is
the permit authority upstream of the FIR. The memorandum
addresses three primary areas:
1 EPA regulations contemplate that States may be able to
demonstrate authority to issue NPDES or sludge permits on Federal
Indian Reservations. However, the threshold for such a
demonstration is very high, and, absent explicit Congressional
authorization, it is unlikely that EPA would authorize a State to
do so. We are unaware of any State for which we have made such
an explicit authorization.
-------
2
1) EPA ’s role and responsibilities where:
a) Tribes are the authorized permitting authority for
activities on the reservation
b) States have, in fact, issued permits for activities on
the reservation
2) Applicable Water quality standards and certification
considerations for EPA permitting activities in:
a) Situations where Tribe is CWA section 303-approved and:
i) The discharge is on the FIR
ii) The discharge is upstream of the FIR
b) Situations where the Tribe has not obtained EPA
approval of water quality standards and the discharge
is on the FIR
3) Rol. of permits other than authorized NPDES or sludge
management permits issued by Tribes on FIRs
Discussion
1) EPA’s role and resiorisibilities where :
a) Tribes are the authorized permitting authority for
activities on the reservation
EPA is in the process of finalizing regulations to allow
authorization of NPDES and sludge management programs for
Federally-recognized Indian Tribes which mast th. statutory
criteria for EPA recognition contained in section 518 (e) (2). The
draft proposed regulation is published at 57 8522, March 10,
1992. Th. final regulation has cleared 0MB and will be published
shortly.
At present, EPA is aware of interest on the part of several
Tribes in NPDES and/or sludge program authorization. Upon EPA
approval, the Tribe would take over responsibility for issuance
of permits and administration of the NPDES and/or sludge programs
on the reservation. Existing regulations already contain
provision, addressing transition from EPA—issued permits to
State—issued permits. 40 CFR 123.1(d); 123.24(b); 501.1(f) and
501.14(b)(1). Onc. the regulation is finalized, these
regulations should also enable the transition of permitting
authority from EPA to an Indian Tribe.
After approving Tribal authorization, EPA:
-------
3
o evaluates and oversees the Tribe’s NPDES or sludge
program,
o provides enforcement as necessary, including
accepting referral of criminal enforcement cases
involving nonmembers of the Tribe,
o oversees grant programs, and
o continueö to provid, administrative and legal
support plus technical assistance and training.
b) States have, in fact, issued permits for activities on
the reservation
Under 40 CPR 123.23(b) and 501.13, in order to be authorized
by EPA to issue permits on Indian lands as part of a State NPDES
or State sludge management program, the State seeking to carry
out either the NPDES or sludge management programs on Indian
lands must provide a specific analysis of its authority to do so
in the Attorney General’ s statement supporting its program
submission, We are not aware of any cases where EPA has approved
a State’s demonstration of NPDES permit authority on FIRS,
although some have asserted such a claim.
In a number of cases, a State has operated as the
NPDES permitting authority on FIRS in that it has issued permits
to sources on the reservation and EPA has not issued a separate
permit to these sources. EPA will, whenever possible, assume,
without deciding, that such existing permits on FIRs issued by
States without specific authorization under SS123.23(b) or 501.13
contain enforceable limits. EPA’s preliminary position on this
issue waà expressed in a September 9, 1988 letter from EPA’S then
General CDuns.l, Lawrence Jensen, to Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney
General for the Stats of Oregon. That letter provides:
EPA is aware that some states have issued NPDES
permits to certain dischargers on reservation lands.
Until the NPDES program is delegated to a tribe, or
until EPA otherwise determines in consultation with a
state and tribe that a state lacks jurisdiction to
issue NPDES permits on Indian lands, we will assume
without deciding that those permits contain applicable
effluent limits, in order to ensure that controls on
discharge. to reservation waters remain in place.
Additionally, the Office of Water issued a memorandum to the
Regional Administrators on October 26, 1988 reiterating this
position.
In several proposed CWA rulemakings, EPA received comments
on the interim statements made in Jensen’s letter. Note that
-------
4
this policy is not an assertion that all State permits for
reservations are necessarily valid as a matter of law. Rather,
it is a mere recognition that fully implementing a role for
Tribes under the CWA will require a period of transition. Were
EPA simply to ignor. all previously issued State permits in the
interim period before the Tribes develop NPDES or sludge
management programs (or EPA issues a federal permit), there would
be a regulatory void which EPA believes would not be beneficial
to preservation of water quality. -
In the absenc. of State—Tribal agreements regarding
permitting, EPA Regions must ensure in th• futur. that NPDES
States which are not authorized by EPA on Indian lands are not
acting as the NPDES permit authority on reservations for any
discharges (whether Tribally-owned or not). Prior to Tribal
assumption of the NPDES or sludge management program. where a
State had previously issued permits on th. reservation, only EPA
should issu. or reissue permits to discharger. on FIRs. In most
cases, application of 40 CFR Part 503 regulations is appropriate
for sludge management activities.
2) Aonlicabl. water quality standards and certification
considerations for EPA oermittina activities
EPA must establish permit conditions necessary to achieve
compliance with the Clean Water Act whether permits are issued on
or of f FIRs. NPDES regulations require NPDES permits to include
any limits which are necessary to ensure compliance with
applicable State or Tribal water quality standards established
under section 303 (40 dR 122.44(d) (1)), plus limits contained in
a State or Tribal certification under section 401 (40 CFR
122 • 44(d) (3)), and applicable water quality requirements under
section 401 (a) (2) where a discharge affects States or Tribe.
other than the certifying State or Tribe (40 CFR 122.44(d) (4)).
A number of different considerations apply depending upon
whether a Tribe has obtained EPA approval for its water quality
standards under section 303, as discussed below.
a) Situations where Tribal standards ar. approved and:
i) The discharge is on the FIR
In som. cases, there may be a discharge on the FIR for which
the Tribal water quality standards have been approved by EPA.
The Agency will apply EPA-approved section 303 Tribal water
quality standards to develop permits. Tribes qualified under the
section 303 program’ar. also qualified to provide water quality
certification under section 401(a). EPA then sends th. permit to
the Trib, for certification.
-------
5
Under section 401(a) (1), EPA may not issue th. permit unless
the 303-approved Tribe certifies conformance with its water
quality standards, or waives it. authority to act on a request
for certification (40 CFR Parts 121.16, 124.53(a), and
124 .55(a) (1) . ]
ii) The discharge is upstream of the FIR
In some cases, there may be a discharge upstream of the FIR,
and reason to believe that water quality on the FIR may be
affected. If EPA is the permitting authority, EPA must include
limits necessary to achieve compliance with any applicable State
or Tribal 303 water quality standards at the Stat. or reservation
boundary.
In situation. where a State is the upstream NPDES permitting
authority and downstream FIR Tribal water quality standards have
been approved by EPA, the State wil1 provid. notic. of the
preparation of a draft permit to the aff.ct.d Trib, pursuant to
CWA section.. 401 and 402. Under CWA sections 402(b) (3) and 40
CFR 124 • 12(a), the upstream NPDES Stat, must provid, an
opportunity for public hearing on the issuanc, of the draft
permit where ther. is significant public interest in so doing.
Under CWA section 402 (b) (5), the affected Tribe may submit
written recommendation. to the permitting State and EPA, and the
permitting State must notify the affected Tribe and EPA of it.
failure to accept the recommendations and the reason. for doing
so • EPA can object to the upstream State permit where EPA
believes that the reasons for rejecting the recommendations are
inadequate (40 CYR 123.44(c) (2)).
b) Sit iations where the Tribe has not obtained EPA approval of
water quality standards and the discharge is on the FIR
Regions are encouraged to meet with Tribe, and encourage
adoption, at least as a matter of Tribal law, of some initial
water quality standards, even if based in part on preexisting
State standards. In the absence of approved Tribal water quality
standards, EPA will establish permit conditions necessary to
achieve water quality standards as discussed below..
Some States hay, issued standards for waters located on
FIRS, although such standards may not apply as a matter of law to
Indian lands. Nevertheless, unles. and until the Tribe adopt.
its own standards or EPA promulgates standards for the waters,
EPA will use such preexisting State standards (including the
narrative “no toxics criteria) case—by—case a. the starting
point in developing water quality-based limitations for
discharges on FIRs.
Until a Tribe is authorized under section 303, EPA is the
certification authority (40 CFR 121.1(e)]. Tribes not approved
-------
6
under CWA section 303 have no section 401(a) (2) right to object.
However, a Tribe can comment to the permit authority, arguing
that limits are not adequate to assure compliance with Stat.
water quality standards at the State/reservation boundary, or
preexisting State standards (including the narrative criteria.)
In addition, Regions should work with Tribes who have adopted
water quality standards not yet approved by EPA to ensure that,
to the extent practicable, NPDES permits issued on the
reservation achieve compliance with those standard..
3) Role of nermita other than authorized NPDES or sludge
manaaement nermits issued by Tribes on FIRs
Tribes which are not authorized NPOES and/or sludge
management authorities may undertake Tribal surface water
discharge or sludge management permitting activities on the FIR.
Such permits may be authorized under Tribal law and/or
regulation, but are not considered Federal NPDES permits. In
this. case, to develop the NPDES permit, the EPA Region should
work closely with the Tribe to apply Tribal permitting
consideration. and conditions (e.g., monitoring and reporting
frequencies, terms, etc.) as much as possible, as long as these
meet or exceed Federal requirements.
We hope that this guidance is helpful. Please l.t us know
if you have any questions.
cc: Al Morris, Region III
OGC
OST
OFA
ORC Indian Attorneys
Regional Indian Coordinators
-------
I ____ t ir srAiES VRCNM T . 0:—c Z\C-
( 2J AS I IGiC I c z eo
‘i” I 1004
MQRANDLM
SUBJECT: Storm Wa Enforcem S ara
FROM: MichamlB.Cock.Dir.ctCq I
Office of Wastwger Enforcenw” and Compli
Freder ick F. Stiehi “Lc..W 4s4-14_.. d: h..’éCC.I.
Enforc,m Cowi ,l for Waxer
TO: Waxer Management Division Directors
Regions 1-X
Regional Counsels
Regions l.X
Attached is the Storm Water Enforcement S ategy for FY 1994-1995. This s r itc is
incorporates comments e eived from Regions and S s on t draft versions as v eU s ‘n uz
an EPA/S tate Storm Wa Workgroup. The Workgroup mesnng in Febnisey included
representanves from Hesdqusetas, three Regions, and t S’’,
The suixegy focunes on gemng regulated duea ineo the sy by idesmfytng
raking action againat Municipal Separate Storm Scw Syi m (MM) cutatiCS and facitiuc, ‘
have oi filed a paiw z appli cn. While the approach to Ii g with MM universe s
relatively sueieh cgw d_, sip reniaining rn ber of regulated facili es requires that ae
thff 1 & qproac wa have in the paat to deal with omph. tr Some approacPw
uuli swssp? w coecean’ acuvity in a watershed or geographic Locasion. Such ties
may be ni iI ig. tolaplions canvassing or inspections and t publicatuim of th acu ues i
order to give visibility to the program. Regions will also want to review any ac ve judica
to determine whc a facility is subject to the storm water regulasions, coor’ginar, wnIl
municipalities regarding facilities within its jurisdiction, and inquire as to the stafli of
permit application during rot1 n. NPDES inspections. Cin n compl intt and contact v.it
sediment/erosion conn ol programs will also be an important source of informanon for
sites.
-------
-2-
Three poi &vw the mzegy are worth highIigh ng: I) Section 301 Ieu , may be used
to reque the u i L Of a NOUpe iuat appliCation from more th nina ed±ema aatioaw dg;
2) a storm ws di gs riced t be obsm’ved in or to de i haon in the proçam
(but evidence of a conveyance far a discharge mu exim). Ia& 3) fai1i e to apply for a p uut ti a
violation of Section 30$ , asthi3 ICCUOn requ ice epor or 0t InfOfUliflon to carry out Section
402.
Although this ? WU dev.kp.4 for u by EPA Ragioce, Stases may w z to adopt a
simila ? appro h to enfoccm - Several Ragionc hive begim cUcep 1 cefOrC nent activities
and w 4 o shge informa cn about Regional 1 — S dvi ii . The National Storm
Waxer Coori4i,iimrs’ Mes ng. scheduled for Fc y 24, 1994 in WaiA, DC, will be an
excellent oppornwisy to ctcb ge idm and ii m ce about Gompii iItafenfotve ncn Issues
of the pro am
Finally, we want to th iik Gerty Levy of Region I for a pti ip on as teader of the
Storm Water Workçoup. If you have any qj cna regarding er gy, co t D*V d Lyons
ax (202)-260.$310 or John Lyon at (202).260r$177.
cc: CompIi il s Branrh ChIth, Regiona I.X
Permits Branch Chieñ, Region I.X
Waxer Branch Chiefs, ORC, Regions IX
Storm Waxer Coardingon, Regions I•X
-------
STORM WATER EYTORCL ff.NT STRATEGY
FY 1994-l9 5
Summary
The goal of this enforcement suiXe ’ is: Equitable and consi.nenz enforcement gainst
non-complying ptwñty storm waxer dischvgers used in combinarron with inceonve measures to
achieve comph e. Full perucipanon and comp e by tha enurs regulated communny ‘a the
Long term goal of this gy, as it is far all the Ag y’s enfurc .-’nx ategies. Although this
sniw was deve1 pad for uss by EPA Re oes, approved NPDES States may w no adopt a
iri tI IppTO h when developing thc enforc’ment
Ou each has been primmY h thIs f achieve comp ’ e. To p rjvi
for a nationally cc rdinr’ed effort. s ung in FY 1994, wa will üs iws the use of compliance
monitoring and enforcement to obtein compIivve The ccmp’wci/enfuciiij.nt prtorrnes for the
proçam in FY 1994-1995 us id’ntific an of and acuca apanax 1) mimicipsl separate storm
sewer systems (MS4s) enu cs that have failed to abmit a meIy omplere permit applicanon
2) reyI. id (adili es which failed to apply for a permit and us o’ dt the jurisdiction of a
reguLated MS4; and 3) regulated facilinas which failed to apply far a p . t and are wtthin
jurisdic on of a reguLated MS4.
The way the Ageacy “ t ’ to manage its storm w proçem is bawl on three
principLes 1) intepanon of storm w comp n n 1 enforc ment activities into NPDES and other
media inspection acuv des 2) use of publicity to m ” ’ the impact of any enforcement
actions; and 3) expediting the AdminA mive Penalty Order/Mmini ve Order issuance process.
The size of the regulated imivuss far exceeds that of the uidi cnal NPDES p!V 1w . Therefore.
Regions and S taxes us encouraged to mak. u of naw approac to enforcement and share
information with each o about whiz works and what docen’t.
This su*xegy discuaw the compIienforc tn ’t acuvides to i 4” ”fy non-fliert use of
local/S tate sediment/erosion co trul pru Ims to manage regulated co tion tes. and ways to
expedite the tuua of the Admini snve Penalty Order and A inian ve Order.
-------
STORM WATER E ITORcL%Wrr STRATEGY
F? 1994.1995
1. Storm Water Pro ’sa Backponsd
A. General
Pollutants in norm waxer discharges from flY sowces ire largely u on oUed. The
Naüonal Waxer Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to Congress provi les a general enx of
water quality baird 00 bWIIUII Or sUbmaUed by Staxes U required by Sec oa 305(b) of the
Clean Water ACt (CWA). The report indicates thstappro,ri” .a”,iy 30% of d— of waxa
quality mpiirrn ’ US a! tbU bli tO stO W diachargU States j 1 ii of
sotgccs of storm wg nmoff thst c’ w quality ixh’4ing sepmsa storm sewes
SYV ffiL and COOVC000. wa disp.oial . and resowos unacdoa stses.
Tb. Federal Water PoUuucn Convol Act of 1972 prohibise tha discharge of any pollutant t
wa s of tha United St I from a point IowCS wik the discharge is st rized by $ Nanonal
Poll” ” Discharge EHmiil on Syiiwui (NPDES) psmit Effom to improve w quality iin er
the NPDES prop adidonally have focuaed on reda iag poLluI_.r- In discharges of ind sn,a&
p nç wa wat and from mimicipsi sewage ( r IBfl1 p 1 Effom to ess storm waxer
discharges w.der the NPDES progr have ge rally bam limited to catmin indu isl categories
with eftb Limite for storm w . -.
In re ows to tha need for COmprehanniVe NPDES N I&.m.n . tO, discharges of storm
ware, Conp amended CWA in 19*7 to reqime EPA to ombli a two.phassd NPDES
permamng approach to address swam Waxer discharges. To impI tneii ‘ et izemen , On
November 16, 1990 EPA publishad ini al pnuiit qpli cs reqiaremom for ces’ in categories o
storm waxer discharges associated with indussial acüvtty discharges from mimicipsi separate
storm sewer syp n (M54a) ! o at1 in municipslides with a populmion of 100,000 or more.
Storm waxer discharge permito will provide a mecI1a . 1 for monitoring tha discharge of poliutant
to waxers of the United S . and for e ta ii hbig toi c anuI where eseded.
The foUow ing g am w discharges are covered P [ of the
1) A discharge which b been parwAued pror to Fehuiy 4. 19*7’;
2) Storm w disc ’ges u ciaxed with i ial vizy om 11 i ial
caeg@ri .es j4iri 4 axxvely and by S’up4’d Indi iaL C1’ cancs (SIC)
3) Diic fr Large MS4s (systems serving a populmion of 250.000 or more az d
‘EPA has ombI’ d effluent guideline limitedoea for storm wa discharges for :ert
subcategories of induss’iaI discbargers: cement manu uning, mineral ‘ iiiii g and processuig.
feedlots, feroli manufactwing, peu oleum ret nii g , phesphate manu 0 ing, steam e ectric.
coal rlifl Pi ore r”””9 and dressing. and asphalt. Most of the exisong facilities Lfl these
subcategor ies already have a permit which addresses storm water discharges.
FL’4AL
-------
edA MS4s (syr.’ ’ . serving apopuia on of 100,000 or more bi teas tba 5O.oOo:
4) Disc which are desi azed by the per z’ ng aIIth ,r ty be s the discharge
con t to a v o1aüoo of a wazer quality standard or
waxers of r Uni Stun-
OthCT d1SChN f Pha S U of the proç . A September 1992
Federal RegL Nodce wu issued req riflng conim te o whit Phase [ I sotacas should be
selected as pnonnes, bow to con ol so and wb the Phase’ II prowsw should be
B. Psr.* fse’ Musialpal Sspsrs Storm Sewer Syut.s (M54)
A municipal sepu wm se sy m (M54) is efln.d as any conveymos or system of
conveyances thu is ow d or operased by a Stan or local IOV en ty d igT d for
coilecung and ,eyi.ng w which is n pt of $ Publically Owned Trca eaz Works
(P01W). As of November 1993, approv 4 ”t ly 790 MS4 - ‘ 1 ke have b. i mjfied a havtng
to apply for a permit. Na onwids, thus will be approximately 265 permate to sss the MS4
unzvuse qi so permim will cover more than o puuüu.s. The regul oes do not apply to
dis barges from combised sy s or MS4 2 (serving a popul ca 100,000).
Pu 2 permit applicedoes for Large MS4 s to be i d by Novemb 16, 1992 and
by M y 17, 1993 for moditso MS4. Permit. us to be isetud oes ye from the Part 2 pumzs
applicadon “ ‘ In non-approved NPDES S’ Rejoes pro applicadcm The tir
sup”I thu the parmias mu 1) effeodvely prohibit noo rm ws diuchuies into storm
sewers and 2) require co ols to reduce the discharge of poll”—’- to the Maximum Extent
Prscncable (MEP), tul”ling comp”-” s with w quiuity
MS4 parmitte.ri will also have tesponnbility for e blisbing and a isiuaing storm water
m n gemcnt proçams to convol discharges (i l”4ing discharges aaociusd with induswtai
activity from regulated facilids.). prohibtung illicit discharges, requiring pii iia e and carrying
out inspec os., sigveillmoe, monitoring. EPA prumulgif-4 regulations on November 16.
1990 requiring MS4 pumiu uI to nabmit an rinn 1 r” n report by the anniverany of the daze of
the iuumoe of the p wit to r sct the deve1opm s. of their aw w masag proçam.
The reportu will be uied by the puuiathng 2irtIi nty to aid in SVI1IL&I I4 c mpItw . with permit
condidons and wbms oncsy, to modify the permit to ad h l gsd conditions, The annual
report will coi i i at 1e she following informancs she -‘w of imp IL 1n!g she components
of the proçom us eotebU ”d as permit condidons prupowl changes to po am
revisions to ‘ of cils and fiscal analysis s’”’i” y of “ s . inoiwihig monitoru g
ta . accum”i eu sz year annual expendiu es and budges foe ipco.vthig yew a
su itwy 4recrib g naxure of en(orcem w ecncm, inspections, and public
ed”anon pro ”. of water quality improv rw” or depedadon.
Z Some it 1I MS4 entities have been desi azed as storm wa pciiiiittces either
individually or as co-permAnent
FL’4AL 2
-------
C. Fsøl*l7 Per . .jto for Store Water Dtsckarg. Associated wlt 1adus j,j Acti i ,
The tg w r dixharge assOciated wtth indusu’iaj acd’,uy’ is 4fl
discharge & w y v,yax . which is used for COUCCnng and conv,yiag o m wa and which
S d1Z CtiY V 1 4 to D th& PflCC Ifl& 0? LIW iL iili orige g
plant. Eleven c o es of fscili thnt have a point soiace storm w diseh g. 1aocgp
us j acuvuy dix n to waxers of the US mu apply for coverage. A)
The applicañon de &ii fo mo*p inzs applicanons was October 1. 1992. Facilities thar
discharge into a t iiiII dJ, or large MS4 are considered dfreçt discharger. and are aLso
required to submit signed copies of the permit applicasion to operai of DUCh
w to a combined Se or P01W axe excI 1et
The NPDES reguL sy sc provided three po’ inia1 ru for fscili es to apply for
permit coverage for M rm w dxscbmiss s.s.ct d with iiI dvity
1) Individuel Permit. qplicmione for the.. permito ax, pr&: _ :1 in Regions for
non-approved NPDES SI IM :
2) Group Appliondo.. provided an altcraadve for oiçs with a suffic iently
3 i,,iitsi discharge to apply for permit coverag A . 750 group a licatio .a b.t’ve
been submi d to Heedç e representing 40,000 cilid in 31 indu ’iaL iactor
a seper gc a1 permit to cover facilities in the aco-approved NPDE.j Stares will be
issued by EPA
3) General Permit- intended to ni ally cover the majority of , w discharges
as .oci d with induial acdvtty in non-approved NPDES S’ - ’ a 5 iwr-”1y 60.000
facilides have submined a Nosior Of tn’-m (NO!) to be covered und ’ general permits
issued by NPDES Stifri and pro i tat.Iy 25,000 facilid.. have submined NOls to be
covered in the non-approved NPDES Steui facilids. submit NO! to an EPA
connwcr for prvc ng to obtein coverage the federal general permit
General permit ax a mimanan, require devsloVIn of a w poUudon prevenuon
plan (SWPPP) to rel’ ’t poth Loedinga ax a ility’s sine an “ i 1 compliance evaiuazion
of the SWPPP. Facilides . . reqithed to prepue tbi SWPPP by April 1,1993 implement
it by October 1, 1993. C focilides are reqiEed to manitor w discharges semi-
annually and epost ndly whil other’s axe reqtársd to manitor ally bt* o submit a
discharge momuing eport (DMR). It is e iii ’ l thax 3,100 ilid.s in 12 non-appro ved
NPDES S 12,000 ilides in approved NPDES Sw axe requited to monitor.
0. ?s PiiW for Storm Water Dhebsrg. Frees Cs v s. Sits.
A subw of regul d facilities is con. scuoa sues for which a sep. g al permit h s
been issued. The NO! requires certificanon th aSWPPP ban been *epaxed for the site. and such
plan complies with approved Stone and/or local sediment and erosion p1 or permits andior itomi
waxer management plane or permito.
Ow 1Opaix*rs of reguLated con.ln’ucdon sites ( di t wes over 5 acres ) were req u&red to
obtain coverage ‘ md an individual or general penuat by October 1, 1992 where ditrurbances
FL’4AL 3
-------
comme ed befoti October 1, 1992. For isnibances commencing aft Octob 1. 1992 a
owner/operator is required to apply for Vneral permit coverage g Lean 4$ bows prior to the start
of cons ucton VItse or 90 days prtor to the stan of coo non ac v for cove
an LndjVlduaL p iiüL
IL Compliance ACtI’IfIse and Program Pr$.rttls
A. General
Fundamal to tho norm waxer proçem is the fi1 g of * permit applicanon, as failure to
do so allows a fecilizy or MS4 ty to escape regulatory Iot ny. Therefore, coance l
enforcem t priortues in the early gss of tho crm w pro an-through FY 1994 -I 995-- aie
the identification of:
1) MS4s that have failed to submit a timely or compft Part 2 psrm application (or
Pan I application for MS4 that are d ignr.id at a flinis d
2) regulated feciliuse that have failed to apply for a pumit and are o”tmls of the
jurs.sdic on of a regulated MS4, and
3) regulated feciliucs that hive failed to apply for a permit are within the
juudienon of a regulated MS4.
Review of DMRa, SWPPPI, and ot permit reqinr for every facility is riot a gh
priority acuvixy for FY 1994 and 1995. Mowavur. ibme may be carc nn cs &er which
Regions and S’ e will want to closely monitor a facility’s c mpI’ , with storm water
permit and to take action far faihie to comply with that permiL Usitelly, this would be a case
where rion.compI’ nc, is conetbming to an envito L problem.
Given the Level of f” ”g av i1 hl. for siorm w utc. ”-’ wa will need to be
efficient and innovative in ow monitoring and enforcem apprcsc To that end, every effort
should be made to inte .s. P ian w c0mpIi Il activthcs iteo em ng prov s within and
outside of the NPDES pro em.
The goal far FY 1994 again in 1995 is that sek Region md k. at leaat one “sweep
in each ycat. to dcsñI ? and sefrece apinat regulated facilities hive failed to apply for a
permit The gaol of this c rt is to persuade other non-flee to vo1’ ...’..rUy submit permit
appLications l to solve c ironmental probl . Tha Ragionel sppro should be
described ins S Wat Work Plan. This Storm W r Work Plan can be ineorporated to the
S azegic Plan to be sul .” 4 by each Region for FY 1994.
The Regio l s ap mi nsgcr high pnorüy waterthsdu 1 gso Lacedaus. or a
category of facalrncs to id..wify us a-filers 1 The decision of whi h specific arem to target and the
type and scope of ac vity is left to the Regions. although soma prefeenee should be given to
addressing storm waxer problems in high priorny watersheds. Where all the States in a Region
have approved NPDES prov s, the Region should work with at Less one Stat. to conduct a
storm waxer effort in that Region.
FL’4AL 4
-------
3 important to look for and widely publicize si azw
enforcem u in early s ea of the proçam. The use of a sweep..w ej •
par cu1ar acnvtty or combicanon of suggested acdvnies—off s an excellent opporomgy for
publlc’2mg the Ag y’s and St.t i’ enforcement eftbrts i tho area of storm
mi sWIse do not drese the tana of d colle on and iint ’ Ho iover, a
long term goal of the enforcement pvoçam will be development of of
feg1JI2! by cM pro m. The C snpli.nc. Informanon and Ev usnon Branch has completed £
Draft Feasibility Study which will be sent to the Regions f review. The proposed system
solunon is coa nuad use of PCS to pack the storm warar inventory.
One final compo of tho seatogy is to provide posdve ennvea for complza ce to
compliment the enforcr ” pro, . T . already cm a N cnaL Storm Wager Awards
PToVam to recogrn M54 ennuec 4 fa ilj with W acthfty th ne responsibly
addressing thejr storm waxer oblig ons. The Regions S might consider adopting such
opams a their levels as welL In addido., Regions S ea u1d cocd ue to take
opporninaty to explain the reqidremeom of the storm wanr p’vvem to the regujage com n ty.
B. MunIcipal Seor Sewer Systems
Part 2 appLications for Large MS4 were required to be mbmi d by November 16, 1992
and for medh MS4s by May 17, 1993. Regions should be menitoring the MS4a for pUa
with the appropriate 4 1i Where the eunty r ondble for sub111 . on ofa MS4 appU on
has not compiled with a 4e” 1 in , the Region should ad ms this nonsomph111. ! . as a top
enforcement priority in the storm ws puv ms. Regions may begin with an informal ac on b g
should esr ” to formal action if complianse is not achieved wi n 90 days.
To 4 t . no MS4 permite in non-approved NPDES S hew been iseurt It a
anticipated that compi c. monitoring of thse inite will be m difficult adiuo nil
NPDES permite dus to the nownese of the storm w pro em in general , uniqyneti of each
MS4 permit..’ a approach to storm wa manag and tack of easily evaluated quantitative
reqwremente of the permat. Because of these difficult impi _ ‘u-’-i,’n i *a Regional
compIi n e/enfotc&in ff ar oiaaged to work with pau&it staff to ensi e the
enforceability of MS4 permies
Annual reporte abminmd by MS4s should provide pw ”ing ai rity inform os on
succe ,es. failiges and of enfarc’ns.’w actividea. It is recogr .. .4 that some MS4s are n he
process—and may be for some dma-of developing the lepi ai tty to imptstn.nt a local
enforcement peo em for iii w discbargea from facilidss. Asesming oomplianc . with MS4
permits Will be 1 for FY 1995 and beyond. However, it is stiggs that w deflciei iea are
identified in .1 report that will take over one year to coereot, a dmeteble for co be
embodied in - 1 mbis rhe 4 u1e . Discretion is Left to the Regime as to whither to
these problame in FY 1994-1995.
C. Facludes with Starm Water Dbchergea AssecIctsd 41k Lsd l Acttv y
Ou esch acnvrnes by the Headquarters Permits Division and Regions have been
primary method of en oiwaging faciliües to comply with the permit appLicmion process arel ut
requirements in the non-approved NPDES States. Examples of ongoing otareach activities. ‘n
Regions and Stain include: Storm Waxer Workshops conducted in coordinadon with or o ’th ed
FL’4AL
-------
v ia wad . org ” oes M ai1i g 1 of Fact Sheets, Ca eral Permit. and/or Guidance Dc ie t s
followed up wtth pho calls or siss to the sue; and the EPA Nanonal Storm Water ROIL r’ t
at quat of FY 1994. compliance and ethrvem n staff should incres e their
focus oa iocati regulated facilities that have failed to file a permit ucatio ol an t g are
outside of the juristh ot of a reguI d MS4. To the extant poenbie, the Regions should
inte aze these effor with oc NPDES comphwe activities and multi -media pro
operations.
se sources that can be used to 4 evelop * hat of facili es that are
potentially subject to reguLations. Some soutces ere:
Toxics Release En wry to ideed SARA This III faeilrne
State Depar ans of Labor 4a’ 1nL
Star. ind* ial reurdz
Liats of NPDES or o anvironmental regulatory pso puen
Telephons books
Municipal pre es cat recordz
Trade Association membership Lists
Job Ser’vicslEmployuiiMtt Service Lipifly ; and
Local ainborinas which i a buillings perwa .
EPA Reedquarters provides a hat of NO! subminsla for nan-approved NPDES States on a
monthly bW to tho Regions and has an incluswe hat of F ilides tbm perncip d in the coup
application process. The po ap application hat identifies both øjs ... & parti ipani , (40,000
facilities). as well an ilid.s that US 50 longer using the pmo applicedo. rn h ni,iti (5Q
flines). The gioup applicanon hat will be av,ds he wbm the ganerul permit becomes tinai.
Data from the NO! hat and paup application hat can be compered to that of a compiled List of
facilities that potentially are subject to the regulations from the above mentioned information
sources.
The Regions should conald for FY L994 and 1995, the vidas below to identify
facilities that have failed to uply with the ptuiii applic process and should publicize
compliance and enfor at actions after they have bean concledsd to give visibility to the storm
waxer’ enforcemect pfogi’am.
Maili p It EPA bm ceuiin to believe that a regulated facility bat failed to apply for a permit.
(for eviai pL., a reg’ 1 l n y’s name does not apps on any permit applicedcs hat) a Section
30$ Lester can ho to ‘ ilisy along with a Fact Shut and NOVpm it application. The
Lester should ‘ p wit application be filled our by a d crte n if rho regulations
apply. 3 If a facility 1 o de in 4 ,ing that there is no point sor dischgs and therefore riot
A Section 30$ 6uer reqr s1ing that more than mat ad4z,um nationwide flu o ’
anything other than a NOl/parmix application form may requit. approval from 0MB per
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). For example. EPA cannot request
‘certification of non-applicability’ from more that rune addressees nationwide. Thc e
FL’iA.L 6
-------
subject to ihi regulations, that inforin 5nOn sb uld becon firmed az a 1a daze in a site nspect.
Judicial Case R., Municipal’ and non-municipal judicial cases that e active or ase being
developed for OO rm ws NPDES violations should be reviewed to determine whither or not
the facility needs a NPDES permit for storm w diachergee aed if se, wbg - a
application has been ubmiusd. If it is de mined that thi facility failed to fi1 i applzcano the ’
the mplaint can be amended to-include faihne to apply for a permit’ d i h ge w thoin a
pez at’. The decinon to amend thi easong complains or i i,sspm’ace AO requmng
compii e or APO should be m s on a case.by-caae hUES. Howeym’, considering these facilities
are familiar with EPA regulalosy provams, r ’ 4 ing an cxi ng compI’i ’ y be appropriate
action.
Telephone Cuvsuiaç Phone cilia to facilidee potondally subject to regulations explaining
the storm waler program with q anone to de ’m Inchanon In p1v am or as a foLIow.up to
a r’i iling s iZc ? C be m V. Information requnat leners can be s based o the
facility’s response.
Field lupecdow For pwposes of identifying ilides that hive failed to apply for a storm wazez
permit Regions may choose to focun thee inspection activity within wacersheds, or in aieea with
water quality-related probt s due in pact to storm w sowess. If a ility ’4 applied for a
permit, thi inspector should requeat to see thi SWPPP to verify ite is’ and implemen on.
NP DES compliance laapsetlssslMu$sedia iaap.rC i To thi po bIe, NPDES
inspectors or inspc ctors from o media should cQmpl a storm water screening checklist hi1e
in the field to verify whether the facility is covered by w riom The storm water
res ictions do not apply if the PRA enforcam ” exception applise. Also, the O con oI
number for NPDES permit applications is 2040.0016 ( pirUEon date August 31, 1995) and
should be displayed on Section 30$ letrs requessag suhminsl of a storm water permit
applicanon.
‘Category (ix) of facilidse which must submit applicmions for storm wazer permits:
Treamisat work nesting 4o c sewage or any o wage sludge at wa wazer nea ent
device or sy , i sd in the storage, ne” ’t recycling. and reclamation of municipal or
dom siIc ssw , inchalhngI ddedksrr1 to the disposed of sewage sludge that are located
w thi c of the ility, with a denge flow of I MOD or mote, or required to h.a e
an approved pro am under 40 CFR Pact 403. Noi inc1” 4 axe farm lands.
domc c gacd at’ wad for sludge manag n u where sludge ii beneficially reused and
which ate not phytically Lorited in the confm of the facility, or atom that axe in compliance
with Section 405 of the CWA.
Telephone swveys ate subject to the ‘ ame OMB/PRA approval as Section 308 tenets.
Questions requiring mote than nine sw’veyees na onwide provide more information than r ac
is necessary to fill out an MOE/permit application may require ap wval.
FL’4AL 7
-------
checkIi to the uiU-(TIIdlI saeeniflg tflSpeCflons can be used for th s pwpo s . NPDES p i
staff nay cond’ in-depth storm water evaluat ion while they are az the facility for other
purposes.
Rouda. Eafo, aWat Co.tset Whan macDog with a facility for other afoicem nt itsues .
Compliance OMcers can inquire as to the of the facility’s comphiiic, with the storm wazgr
reguLations. A field nspectar ca mI inquiries withe a going through a detailed checklist of the
need fora permit or coinphw . tth th per JL If 1511 de i E a facility Should obca n
storm wa covaige or is t complying with a paa (for evmv p1s , the facility has not
developed a SWPPP) enforc n ” iheuld procu i1 on a cs .by-cas. beaia.
Mu.ic*pal Coordliat*sv The Pm 1 permit appli on reqidred a MS4 amy to provide the
locanon and NPDES permit “ saber of any wu IC to system (40 CFR
122.26.d.l.1ii .3.(4)). Also, t Pm 2 permit ipplicedon reqired a N’ 4 dty to provide an
inventory, org” d by wataE he& of the n d laeci4pdos ( sch a SIC code of the
principal producta or services provided by each facility which may dl charg. aoe wg
aisociated with indusu a1 acuvity to the system (40 CVR 122.264.2.11).
All facilities with discharges of w u.oia.d with i isl acdvfty through a
M54 will be stzbj.ct to local oe ’ es implm—-’iii m emem — eji as to the
terms of a federal permit. The 11* of ilities di x i a M54 em be ru afched with a List
of NOhlpawAt applkWes reesived to verify cumpiimr , with li cn procem. Although
the MS4 entity does -: have MIth.arity to aforos federal iiiuiit pli on requirements or
federal permit, umplian . eefot dvid of local will be done by the
M54 etinty. However, it shouid be need t the P454 Lt , may net be able to enforce tu ii
PTOV f ____ • ft I ,!b i — , local legal aa rfty os—in the case ot
medjum si mtmicipalides - permit will be eff , tadi May 17, 1994.
An MS4 entity can refer a Ca. of a facility th failed to apply far a federal penTut or
suspected non.compks It s with a federal permit to EPA. Al ugb oapliaii . and enforcement
efforta for this poup of facilides is net tap priority, the Region may w include them for
targeted acnvities bia, should coordina. scnvttics with the amicipality to avoid dupLication of
efforta.
D. Cosm cd.s SI
The conwiacdon ii .¾ y in general is regulatod at S ed local Level. A May I
Survey by the t. y1 of EnVIIOnme’IteI Resoweus ( At hm nt B) indi iI. that
thirteen S” meda.iy iw . l?Jeroaion con al pro ’ or rm w manageriem
prov’ams, twe 3 have prv for portions of S , and a tiomi am. Sian Pi&
developed gi far local gove use. Moat large ermicipalides, which will evennatlly
include all medii large M54s, have some type of s ni ’eroaion and storm water coiweE
provam. The general approach, tii.t for coosoucnon sites will be to defer to local or St
agencies where there are effecdve and equivalent proçams in place .
Generally, conm dcn sites are highly sible, capital ini ve opermions that ha’e a
potential for environmental degrededom. Because of their high vicibility, ci” ’ camplairm m
expected more than with ot types of induswiai activities and ate usefol as a sowc. for
FINAL g
-------
identifying pOt lft 1 violaloti. Regions should either refer CO pI iiif to local pro a s or foI1o
up directly. Wbs. State or effec ve local proçams do i e u Regtoee should pnonu
unperiniued con* on sites the same way at other regulated fatdj t i . Again. fal1 .
pemut requu—enat be addressed at the Regions’ discredon diwing F? 1994-1995.
EU. Enforcement Approach
A. £ abUskan..t of a Violadsa
Two CXUCS1I mug hi at (Of * ( I1II hi subisat to the im wa regulations:
I) the ndusthal activity g$ (silty m be ‘ 1 nbed (twteily by SIC code) in 40 CFR 122.:6 of
the regulaüons and 2) tha facility m’ have a point sotacs discharge to waters of the
States eit directly or through a sspar s em sy , Tha q on of whether a storm
water discharge mum be obun ed by an inI(i* uT to 4 tsciii ,i ianh ain in the pro am has been
rthrt Tha Office of Enfoec ban advised that $ ‘ ility’s ixltadon in the pro am is not
dependant on wbe r a discharge from a poi ‘OWOS b* ob’vsd. Section 502 of the
CWA de ” any point sotgvs to be ‘any discernible, codand. and di conveyance.
from which poutiw ate or may be discharged’. Tharefors, an ernal discharge aced not be
observed b,g there mi be evid s of so convey for poU’ — . when a siorm event
occwI s.
A second qu on fr .q tly ratsdis How ‘faiheetoapplyfcrspermit’ asa
vioLa on? Section 30$ of i CWA requires an ow opsesor eta potan sowos to ‘make such
reports or provide sisch informañon’ tha adminimesot t qv I to y a i m Section 402 or any
requirement emabIi ‘“‘ S.cticn 402. Tha paiuüt app1i ’ii n guledoan e promulgated
p u uant to both Sectices 30$ 402 and thias the permit applicedon is considered information
required to ixnp1em n Section 402 of thi Clean Wat Act. Since tha permit application
regulations have been publishad in tha November 16, 1990 Fedeml Regimer, any regulated facility
that (ailed to submit a permit applicanon is ateomatically in violation of Section 30$. Wording of
any notice of violation, AO. or APO should th. .Joro cite ‘faihEe to apply for a permit’ as a
vio1a osi of Section 301.
As an alternedve to a violadon of Section 30$, a ilily canbs in violatico of Section 301
f or ‘discharge withoim a permit’ providing there is evid e of a coavu cs for pollutants front
the industi a1 activity sitar of facility and an scn dirhirgs (Li., a *S iy 0si event
causmg a discharge) ban
B. O’irmI 3 u ____ __
As iniir iu4jar in this megy, thi ofoicem- ” priorities for siuim waxer program
for F? 1994 199 at, to addrem MS4s that have applied for a in w permit on a
tunely beds, to il -”fy esforcs as nie ’y , w e (siliti with imb ial actw tv ttave
failed to apply for a permit—with priority given to facilin owsids jwisdiction of a regulated
MS4. The level of actvity with regard to tho wsw of compl ’w. with exiwng permits will
be left to the discretion of Region. __
As a SUtZCV? for addressing industital facilities which have failed to apply for a pc mit as
required, each Region is asked to i ertake some activity annually in 1994 aM again in I9 5
FL 4AL 9
-------
e -cse r . ..i’. . c::.:z’. s ocotd-- o r ss ron.r e u. ;t t .tj :o
‘.ehzc e or pUOILCLZWg EPA S commitment Co enforcing storm azer reqwremertts. thu.s ;?eating
deterrent to aoacompüa ce. The dezi and scope of actvitics is Left to the IUCt tOfl of the
Region. It could be org’ i”d on a waterthed basis or it might ad e s a category of faciIj
which is of con asu ha&ever the design. 1 should be sj iflcant SOOU$k tO SCIVS U vehicle for
pubLict ng Regie i flY in the storm waler area threugh n h means as a pse re ss
briefing, wade publicanons or other means the Region may choose.
As a gen i1 n ile, the E forcement Management Sy em bbdi.i the principl, of
escalation of enforcement response for conunuilig, uncorrected noocomplis q This storm wat
s acegy, in fact. recommends begi ining with informal enforcement and escalating the seve of
the response When an MS4 entity fails to submit COmplele P pplicWans 001 timely t— .
However, because of the Limited resources available to addiese regulated facilities. ons of the
principles on which this somegy is built is thas the ma • ”. pouibls effect be achieved
with any single enfosceiiw” action. For that InasUG , this so gy . reco ii nñs but does not
require, the uss of penalties as a sanction w a fmacilihy has failed to apply for a permit. Of
course, any enforcement acuon is initiated should teke into a cot the circums es
swyounding the violation, for eqinteble ue’ of viol #a , D this anal phase of the
storm water enforcement proçem. when any facility submite a permit applic cn volimazily,
without having EPA inveat resources to find facility, the Regicea may choose to forego or
reduce penalties on $ case-by-cue basis thereby providing inc muve to os ilines to
comply with permit application requiremente.
C. EzpedIt.d APO
Field citations’ ate cw’rently being titiui by o environmental pro ’ on the
Federal. State, and local levels and usthl in addr g UIMY prevalent, clue-cut violations
that are relatively easy to coueuct . While the W Pro 11 .m does sot cwrendy have field cicanon
authority, the basic ‘ ‘-t .iive compIt mce and penalty order “tthes can be used in more
efficient ways.
There are several ways to mak, the APO more efficient—to e cpedire the APO:
I)isseAPOsforfacUiti e swththePviotationaLappro1d ly s h e mn m esothgaszng1e
30-day public notice can be used 7 ; 2) issue a complaint and a proposed consent order at the same
time: and 3) standardize penalty amoimta to be u d, based 00 the i ic benefit for
failure to submit a permit application’, to avoid recalc” for each Fieility ’. Existing
‘‘Field citation’ as used in this soategy is an APO iasusd in field tmencianbered by a 30-day
pubLic notice period, For this soasegy. the term ‘Expedited APO’ will be uset P auth ri non of
the CWA may macdud. Field Ci ao authority.
When t i e penalty complaint is firat Lwi.d , an i ii ii r.Liv, record should be
simultaneously opd at she Regional Office pursuant to proposed 40 CFR Section 2$.16.
S Headquarters may develop a manut which could be used to determine the economic benefit and
aviry component of the penalty “ ing a smalL medit . and Large facility. In the interim. o
FL’4AL LO
-------
deleganoos of aiWrny Ii at the 5Ua 5 of APOs to the Branch Chief Level. Ass result.
LflSpectOlI eWfl i b. aI OIt d to ssta APOs unV 4 l that delegancn is changed. Thai, are.
howevor. other wiye to speed up the APO and AO mancs prucese These mi 1 11 5 1 : f ’ 1
of v OI5flOfl pip #k to the office by inspector for required ngnana or pbonlug.tn of
‘.10 Iauona by tnip.a t i for tmmediam pesalty iwiance from the office . A ccmbinanoa of ose o
more of the above approanbee should re lt n a lese r wos eicte efflC1 t penalty
tssuance process.
Actached for yo information is a copy of a public odcs used by ose Raglan to cover
multiple v oI”ng fncilites, as well u the uI ota issuance of a complaint and a proposed
consent d u . (At chm ” C) A liu to the compI*i” _would specify that consent order
will beco final after sigsianis by both peruse wi nt fisher ag y ca, if no public
commente are received. The isuer would explñ the a inise vs proce . t r e en to
publish the p )Ied order (Or public comm , d 0 M ’ 5 righe within 30 days to either
reuwn the signed consent order with psy or reqi a be.W.
If the 1 upondmt apses to PSY penalty and v” i a hack before the consent order
can be signed by EPA. EPA can held the respoM .’s pJ.i. Iiy peym if ch,ck W
prohibited by Law, the check should be poeidd to 45 days aft dais of issuance of the
complaint to allow time for publication of the public sense requ c nmpnte within 3Odayt
If no public commente are received, the proposed ord would become final a r ag y signaaue
and EPA would process the penalty payment. If co en received, the Ragiocal
AdminL ator or designee would follow e bh411.d Agmey prosedwse for resolving public
co”nis - If the respondent chooses to convM the imdal *eip’ EPA would adjudicate the
mat ’- - the hesring proceth
[ V. Allocadol of RaspoeelbWdss
The tin below provides a si y of ongoing and fain nviues to implement this
s ate .
Headquarter, Psrmlis Dte Iss
Conunus Storm War HOThD 4E
Conunue monthly update of NOt submissions to the Regime (ocgo j
Provide Regioie a hat of po apphicante. ct t as well as cri l perucipinu (upon final
approval of g n al p.uwit )
Hesdqurtun f n.st Support Braeck
Lpdazc the w mpunei of NPDES in .spe wr guid and a ”g (ongoing)
Develop g ñdeiv, o #m w data elements and reporung reqiut for Regions and
States (mid F? 1994)
settlement should normally be less than S500 for failure to submit an apphicsuon and the :rcocsed
asses ent should rou’ ’ ’ly be $1000 or more. .aking into coi economic benefit and ri .’zy
FL’4AL IL
-------
Act as a clearL $ uss (Or s I ce IfailuTe Of approacbas w e force en ptiance tssue of
the storm w (ongoing)
Pursue a I”n9 efforts of the APO proce such as deleganon of “t nty below DD
Level
Mesdqwters Cospliasice InforTados Bruc
F11L1Ii the Storm Wsx Fessibilisy Study Mission Needs Analysis to develop a storm waz
racking sy (aid F? 1994)
R.g oss
Conunus ouueeeh efforts
Review MS4 Permi for osforcesbility
FoUow.up on lags or incomplete MS4 p wit applicenoos
Investigate local proç s that m gs norm wa di%harges from con ucnoa sites
Undertake o sweep in FY 1994 and again %fl F? 199 i ” ’y regul d facilities thai have
failed to apply for a permit
FI 4AL 12
-------
Iidi r 1 T.cWtls ThM M Ssb Apç
for Stois Witi,’ (P1w D
PwiI — . —. I - -l _ - — — - i iS ,
— ___ A _ . — , $ N I- T •‘- — %4 M I
.— ‘i( I .
I.- — — •- •
•
.
C t . —.
• r r- — c
. ‘ ——r- jr---j
UCI2( P )
• £r ,M I l_..
•
15. r• a
Ci
IS 14, —n _ —
-
—-
— — -
•
C IS. M 1 M
sIc 11. A M
3 1C12. C IM
s IC13 .
sIC14. i Mi .
—
(iv)
— u u1 Ja fl
,.....* a Ii C .f L_-- ...l. 1..-..., A (1CSAL
( )
Li. .dfl , • -— -. - - -._L_ — .t i — .* u.
1 — D. P AI
(vi)
r- i ..JSILJ a ._,-u. .( , — . ‘UI— ‘UM•
- - -
_Is • MV I u,U
•
(v i )
_ ._-_ uu.ig 1 I : —•
(v
TJi_. - —. - — i —. —
. — .,_ • Ouly su. , ..... .1 IusIuu.I I -
- (g 14 -ri - • I • fl__
•1i ———_ws1t %_ . -. —-
—
acm. *ii l Yr
L IIMSLLIL..T .
sIC 43 (p 4Z ) .... Miui F,U
SIC 43. U.S. Pvi.I L.r L
. WsgTr .
SIC 45. 1i.,. .... l AW
sic irn .
-------
Iid iaI F” ’ — mm M Su * e
far Stars Wmar Pe’s (F s D
1 - - -L I _ __r—’--- ___,___
i . -p.- — — -. d •• s-
Pt . . — ____ —
- . -— - — —-- u_ p —_
- - ___
- d CWA.
c ______ I ___ ,* 1” _ -
J l d 3 — d - — — s — — — d $ _
L.. -
— _____ — c i — — . m — -. — j— —
— — ____tI - .- ___t_u_. — — - --
- 17 ‘-I _____
U.
U.
U
— z,
— —
1sc 310
- 1).
— — .
_ U....
U....
— U........
........
— — . . . . S S
TIN _ fr
T fr
Afl f
a-
C - _ I P P It
— —- =
—
I p—
I
- -
1- -
f _ ——1J __ -- -
- __
k —- —
ir - • — .-- —
I— - - - —
- - - —- - —
* . .p. . IL ...L. 1 t US
- ____ -
- —,- - - — S —_._• . _. -
o m wi * .t . i - - —. —--
____ - Is. I _ lI —
I S — — — — _ .* — — — I _ l __ , -
_t —_.I
-------
£TfA*WSUIT I
1550 5ii v.y of lists 5tor st., (IN) Naasg t sad Isd’sst c tro1 gc Progrs ’
Stats
Stats
P sa7
C Is
Alabaca
No
locuas bar’d lsd by local 9ov.rossnt..
Alaska
No
3 oLt*ss awaitinq IRA rs9ulat*ons r.visioca.
Ax I zona
No
lsrs br’l.d by local gov.,.wt..
Arkansas
No
NaXu1 LdSr at t•r IRA r.gulat ion. r.v*sioo.
California
No
locus. hs.ilsd by local 5ov.rl ta.
Colorado
No
isa as a ttosal IN nodal for local qovsr —nts.
Ucul
Toc SC
N D, IN
Nsa atss&4s IC tbras Soil Matsr -arvat1os Cnusctl. Mu no SN proira..
Oslaware
V... SC
No SN
Has stat.wids IC progras. tbrougk SC districta. Also has prapo..d isgislattos to
adçt stats IN prcgr.
District of
ColumI i
Vs .. SC
Vs .. SN
Has district wids SN/IC progra L al”tid by Lb. pars.sat of (ussr and
Hagulatoiy Affairs.
ilug ida
NO. SC
V... SN
Mu slatswtda SN program. t.pl—rL.d by Lbs Osport— t of SovLgr nta1 Isgulat ion.
Gao r j is
V... IC
No, SN
Maa staiswids SC progr £ LISL4 by Lbs Sopartwt of Natural urcss.
Hmwail
No
No stats SN/IC proqr.
-
Idaho
No stats IN/IC pr r but ha statuts Os prot.mIaq outitasding rssc.srcs watars.
Illinois
No
lash.. —1l.d by local govs.—- -is.
Indiana
No
lashis. ‘l.d by local owar --ts.
Iowa
N D
No stats IN/PC progr.
Stats advi..i local govsrI aq s . jg r,? t.4.
lantucky
No
loss eousti. hays SC PrOir lsr Soil asssrvatios Districts. Luau £01
r.gu lat loss r.vlslos to str t iw
louisiana
No
Son, local gov.a- ta hay. IN prograss. Iiargs scala projscts can ha (“4.4 via Plood
Control Proqr...
No
la9islat icn for SC short. is sapsct.d Lu J ’uary 15 ,1. A Stats II ounicipal policy is
also baing dratt.d.
A&L pted Iron
a Nay $9 O aurvey cnnducted by the rnreh.n.Ii,. II..sI ri .
-------
lists
lists
.! ! !_
CL r I O
- W y —
Naiy lafld
Y•l. BC
V. 0SW
.
Mao st .iswidS 8W/BC progwa . 1 lr”L .d by lbs Dspartwlt of NDvtrossnt.
Na.sachu.etts
No —
Bn locs gOvsr nts isv. SW programs.
Michigan
V.a . BC
No, SW
mato IC program i l —’t.4 by Osparcamni of Natural Iaaourcsl. Awaiting IRA
gp,J!iLmss rsviaton to str.mgtbsn IN ragulation..
Minossota
No
Nas str U 8W Ogr (or N 0.s.pOl t•-St. Paul ar.a and sons oowat i.o. Mao opt Lpaa IC
IeB .
MississippI
No
No stats l i/ IC program. -
Missouri
ND
stat. •ocovra ss Local goveg ta to adopt IC ordi ’ esa. stat, is waitiog now IRA
rogulationi iou. for Ii r.gvlat ions.
No
s’— local go v• ...&t . have IN prosr.... BC activitias ars ‘ r Lbs liata Nosipoiqt
lonrcs Pollution lbatsssnt progra..
Nebraska
V... SC
No, N
Na. statswids BC program iop1 ’ t.4 by ..vera l stats agsncisa. Program s.a.ntimlly
appli.s to agriculturs activities but local gov.r—t t adopt.4 program aust be in
conlornoocs with state.
Mcwel
No
No •tat. 8W/SC program.
New
ys., ac
Is., SN
Singi. state program c’ ios bulb SN/SC. Nowsvsr law only subject to dsv . 1o 1 —.t.
over 100.000 aq. ft.
New J.rssy
V... BC
V.. • —
ltatswids — program is o otd to fsmdiog availabiUty. $1015 5 t5 5 1 ”,gds for SC
PrOBr
New Moat Co
No
No stat• IN/IC programs.
New Work
N
c Policy s at—t. Int.xvamtic. a. triggar.d only csz taia permit.
---- --rags, i’ ’trial plants stc ars r. air.d.
North
Carolina
leo BC
IS O. Ii
Na. statauld. IC progra.. Mao a pba..d-i. IN program ubich is 4ato y (or coasta’
regions and watersheds with watar quality standards for watar ly. man pending (or
.tat.wids program.
North Dakota
No
No state IN/IC progra..
Ohio
No
Mao optional stat. BC program. A stats SW p ogra. 1. ant icipatd at iSi IRA regulation.
r.vision.
okI twaii
No
No stat. 8W/SC pogg .
4).e JI II
No
Was a cosètn.d stats SW/SC pro ra. but i i only cuvcra a portion of th. state.
Mao siatewids SW/SC progra.. iSplsno- 4 by the D.part.c.it of &ivira Ib .fl1al RssOu-c..
Icluisy I wail Ie
V... SW
V... SC
-------
LITACISSENT t
lists
Stats
—-—Is
Ibuds Island
No
Has optional stats SC progra.. Has on stats S W program 1 but has issusd SN manual for
gu idSWI..
South
Carol ma
No
Has SptL aI stats SC program. Has on stats SN program.
South I)akota
Tsnnaasss
No
No
Ms t*I . IN/IC programs.
Sons local gov.r t. bays SC programa. Stats swatting SP& r.gulatiosi rsvi.ios to: -
stuaathss IN rogra..
Ts*as
No
Stats providsa logislat tan to for. Conssrvat ion Districts to ls SC concarns.
Utah
No
No stats SN/SC progrq.
v.r nt
No
Has optional stats IN/IC programa.
Virginia
No. SW
Vs.. IC
Has stat.wids IC program. iop l..snt.d by Dspart.snt of Cns.rvation and Iacrsation.
Ths stats IN program is optional for local gOv5r t5 but tory for stats
projects.
W..hangton
No
Has stats SN/SC program for tbs Pugst Sound arsa. Aiming for statswids SN/SC
Isgislatton aftsr 1* 51.
.____________
ws.t Virginia
No
Has optional stats SC program. Soma local gov.r ts have owa program. Stats is
sssking tory SC isgislation.
Wisconsin
No
Has optional stats SN/SC pragrana.
Nyo.ing
No
No stats SN/SC pro grana.
-------
ZT n*na vz m P ,ic,o* &m cT
aeioIfl st I
naz O .s L.-. .....4
1 I OP 7 NI U1 V &CT U
3fl (I) OZ *1 I?W * , OP Zfl TO
U VDI* S*I ZOI $ (I) OP m tarn
, 33 V.3.0. flail(S). TO I CZVfl P In .
, vz as rn flUOP TO VU p
N1U p & VU OPTO fl 10$ I S. & IPVU
Pu 32IS ImIUT maus PV$&U fl0$ OP VU
Pm T 2 I P I’- .no vvm TO ZTO ZU .
UUU Ucfl $ as• (I ) . n us tzi
OZ1 & T 5 & VZMI fl , ‘ *01* T I
ZI $301 Ill OP VU lOP, 33 VLS i I.. Is t
UWIID I C2VZT. V I VP TO $33,100 IT
an s a t tn’ es 10* si an OP c urn
a a a ac a & tZn e oauo’ us uus ow
VI&OTZ IS, VU aaiz tseuem II1 OP S I CV1L
n LflU 1*03* VU tarn . (‘fl $$•) • 3 UU
m&uus m us wm& usueu. ae so no. us. as.ss•
(JILT 2, 2101) • VU P*0S3a& MilItia II a azwza U *0it zz.wxzi
-------
TU i cuS U
& P PS $ 2 P U $1U ii
c i z nu t &U rnP* is at sass C I)
1_ UI.U(I). PJQS ? To (2) ISSLaR a a
TO & I S (I) I ?
vx . (3) PSS m vm a ue u
m m u s 10$ svuze Niszs -
PI010S C $ 2 O 2$ 31) 1S . — 2U
,nLza 1z .
t us vans TO ins a so m
£ CT’ I %R- lZ15I&w v . SPLU PV$1To To flU.a C I)
as • a., aasz u unam i zs a suvans - -
50 U$ .
IS fl 2 311 (I) 4) 50 n ih . $3
I.S. O. $&3&I(I) (4) 21 PsuSTIZ s zs z 1
10LZ i S S S aM ZUIUZ Pm MiIUh Ii
uI 0,s,
-------
&&Lii
iuzss 0* &CTZ 2fl 0
ua s’ PD
i
$
U? U OP I&LI VTO&IT!01 1*Z tS S I
DU SP O* U fl—’Q &zv
aun* u iS iii
s om PUI&fls i,s•i
ocue Ws m. —zz• a•io , us, 21$, as, ai, 2at, us
134
D&fl IZUI VZ USOfl& $
& TW OP
aLms
—4 4 I.
•_lt
nuc vz is u zvs a
OP P1 $ Ui in C L2Z CI __________ flL IT in
a fizi ___cii, coso i s l in PNiSflI PUI&fl
uua , is i e is uii ,
in uszo & nuns etan uza ann.
-------
us o zaa • TU PVI&ZC e P CU :s
LO XW YW U$ aa: SflZ U$C Z S tg £
U CPU m&Z UP$ ICI I* S U$ZUU UO .
flU * $I??L l i la
Si,... — _ _ P Lt a a u. a .
Pu &:i --9 m vn& ?&ø
e • p .* O t ($1) I&
:asv*acz 0 , S ICIZU.
5&TI $
-------
,?b0 9•Pd, ,
TI
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
L g 0 t
‘ N 3 I 1994
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMO
SUBJECT: IntprimS age, udge Application Form
FROM: Cy 1 1xa ougherty,
Permi s Division (42
TO: Water Management Division Directors
EPA Regions I - X
Attached is the Environmental Protection Agency’s Interim
Sewage Sludge Permit Application Form and its associated
instructions. The form is to be used, on an interim basis, by
applicants for sewage sludge use or disposal permits under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Collection of application information using this form has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(c) require publicly owned
treatment works and other treatment works treating domestic
sewage to apply for permits containing applicable sewage sludge
use or disposal standards. Sewage sludge use or disposal
standards were published February 19, 1993 (58 FR 9248) at 40 CFR
Part 503.
Currently, the sewage sludge permit program regulations at
40 CFR Parts 122 and 501 require applicants to submit the generic
permit application information listed at S501.15, including
“information required to determine the appropriate standards for
permitting under 40 CFR Part 503” (S501.15(a) (2) (xi)).
Facilities required to have (or requesting) site-specific permit
limits (including all sewage sludge incinerators) were required
to submit permit applications by August 18, 1993. So—called
“sludge-only” facilities without NPDES permits must submit
limited screening information by February 19, 1994. Other
treatment works treating domestic sewage must submit sewage
sludge applications upon renewal of their NPDES permits.
To achieve consistency with the new Part 503 requirements,
EPA will amend the application regulations through a separate,
future, rulemaking and the development of a new application form
(Form 2S). Many facilities, particularly sewage sludge
incinerators and so—called “sludge-only” facilities, are required
to submit sewage sludge permit applications before the
application regulations will be amended, however. The interim
application form is intended for use during this period, to
ensure that permitting authorities collect the necessary
application information and develop permits that implement
c:c.
a
-------
2
Part 503 in a manner appropriately tailored to facilities’
individual sewage sludge use and disposal practices.
The interim application form is in a modular format,
enabling information collection to be tailored as precisely as
possible to the applicant’s sewage sludge generation, treatment,
use, or disposal practices. Part 1 of the form collects limited
screening information from “sludge-only” (non-NPDES) facilities
that are not applying for site-specific pollutant limits and are
not otherwise required to submit a full permit application.
Part 2 pertains only to facilities that are submitting full
permit applications, and is divided into six sections, as
follows:
• Section. A and P request general information from all
applicants.
• Section B pertains to facilities that generate or derive
a material from sewage sludge.
• Section C pertains to facilities whose sewage sludge is
applied to the land.
• Section D pertains to owners/operators of surface
disposal sites.
• Section B pertains to owners/operators of sewage sludge
incinerators.
Applicants need only submit the sections of the form that pertain
to the sewage sludge management practices actually employed.
I recommend that you distribute the form for use by permit
applicants. If you need further information, please call Ross
Brennan at (202) 260—6928.
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
FEB I 7 1994
OFFCE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Monitoring of Total Hydrocarbons by Sewage Sludge
Incinerators
FROM: Michael B. Cook, Direct
Office of Wastewater Enforc ent d Comp iance
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I — X
This memo addresses the February 19, 1994, date for
compliance with the total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limitation
for sewage sludge incinerators. The Clean Water Act requires
compliance with the sewage sludge regulations issued pursuant to
section 405, no later than one year after publication of the
regulations (February 19, 1994), unless compliance requires the
construction of new pollution control facilities, in which case
the date is extended for no more than one year.
The sewage sludge regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 503 Standards
for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge) require that the
monthly average concentration for THC emissions from a sewage
sludge incinerator stack not exceed 100 ppm “when measured using
the instrument required by section 503.45(a).” Section 503.45(a)
requires monitoring of THC emissions using an instrument that is
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained “as specified by
the permitting authority.” Consequently, until the permitting
authority (EPA or an authorized State) specifies the section
503.45(a) conditions for a ThC monitor, compliance or non-
complianc. with the mc emissions limitation cannot be
determined.
A permit or a rulemaking is required to make specific
section 503.45(a) conditions binding on the regulated community.
This office plans to propose a rule soon that would specify ths
conditions for installing, calibrating, operating, and
maintaining THC monitors. EPA will also propose a deadline for
how quickly facilities must comply with this requirement. Givsn
the fact that operators have had almost a year now to purchase
THC monitors, we are considering a period of less than a year for
facilities to come into compliance.
o r j- 1L
-------
This office recently sent each Region a draft of a
Headquarters continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) document for
comment. This document will serve as the basis of the proposed
federal register notice.
If you have any questions please call Cynthia Dougherty .
(202) 260—9545 or have your staff contact Wendy Bell at (202)
260—9548.
cc: Regional Permits Branch Chiefs
-------
United States
Environmental Prote on
Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science & Tethnology
(Mail Code 4305)
EPA
Interim Guidance
on Determination and Use
of Water-Effect Ratios
for Metals
ww w
February 1994
EPA-823-8-94OO1
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
- -h- t -i -
9
&C- #‘ EPA—823—B—94—00].
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Use ot the Water-Effect Ratio
Standards
FROM: Tudor T. Davies, Director
Office of Science and Technology
TO: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
State Water Quality Standards Program Directors
PURPOSE
There are two purposes for this memorandum.
The first is to transmit the Interim Guidance on the
Determination and Use of Water-Effect Ratios for Metals . EPA
committed to developing this guidance to support implementation
of federal standards for those States included in the National
Toxics Rule.
The second is to provide policy guidance on whether a
State’s application of a water-effect ratio is a site-specific
criterion adjustment subject to EPA review and
approval/disapproval.
BACKGRc D
iiPb. early 1980’s, members of the regulated community
expressed concern that EPA’S laboratory—derived water quality
criteria might not accurately reflect site—specific conditions
because of the effects of water chemistry and the ability of
species to adapt over time. In response to these concerns, EPA
created three procedures to derive site—specific criteria. These
procedures were published in the Water Oualitv Standards
Handbook. 1983 .
FEB 22 94
WAT
pruned e Recyc’ed Pape
-------
2
Site-specific criteria are allowed by tegulation and are
subject to EPA review and approval. The Federal water quality
standards regulation at section 131.11(b) (1) provides States with
the opportunity to adopt water quality criteria that are
“...modified to reflect site—specific conditions.” Under section
131.5(a) (2), EPA reviews standards to determine “whether a State.
has adopted criteria to protect the designated water uses.”
On December 22, 1992, EPA promulgated the National Toxjcs
Rule which established Federal water quality standards for 14
States which had not met the requirements of Clean Water Act
Section 303(c)(2)(8). As part of that rule, EPA gave the States
discretion to adjust the aquatic life criteria for metals to
reflect site-specific conditions through use of a water-effect
ratio. A water-effect ratio is a means to account for a
difference between the toxicity of the metal in laboratory
dilution water and its toxicity in the water at the site.
In promulgating the National Toxics Rule, EPA committed to
issuing updated guidance on the derivation of water-effect
ratios. The quidance reflects new information since the
previous guidance and is more comprehensive in order to provide
greater clarity and increased understanding. This new guidance
should help standardize procedures for deriving water—effect
ratios and make results more comparable and defensible.
Recently, an issue arose concerning the most appropriate
form of metals upon which to base water quality standards. On
October 1, 1993, EPA issued guidance on this issue which
indicated that measuring the dissolved form of metal is the
recommended approach. This new policy however, is prospective
and does not affect the criteria in the National Toxics Rule.
Dissolved metals criteria are not generally numerically equal to
total recoverable criteria and the October 1, 1993 guidance
contains recommendations for correction factors for fresh water
criteria. The determination of site—specific criteria is
applicable to criteria expressed as either total recoverable
metal or as dissolved metal.
DISCUSSION
Existing guidance and practice are that EPA will approve
site- specific criteria developed using appropriate procedures.
That policy continues for the options set forth in the interim
guidance transmitted today, regardless of whether the resulting
criterion is equal to or more or less stringent than the EPA
national 304(a) guidance. This interim guidance supersedes all
guidance concerning water-effect ratios previous .y issued by the
Agency.
-------
3
Each of the three options for deriving a final water-effect
ratio presented in this interim guidance meets the scientific and
technical acceptability test for deriving site—specific criteria.
Option 3 is the simplest, least restrictive and generally the
least expensive approach for situations where simulated
downstream water appropriately represents a “site.” It is a
fully acceptable approach for deriving the water-effect ratio
although it will generally provide a lower water—effect ratio
than the other 2 options. The other 2 options may be more costly
and time consuming if more than 3 sample periods and water-effect
ratio measurements are made, but are more accurate, and may yield
a larger, but more scientifically defensible site specific
criterion.
Site-specific criteria, properly determined, will fully
protect existing uses. The waterbody or segment thereof to which
the site-specific criteria apply must be clearly defined. A site
can be,defined by the State and can be any size, small or large,
including a watershed or basin. However, the site-specific
criteria must protect the site as a whole. It is likely to be
more cost-effective to derive any site-specific criteria for as
large an area as possible or appropriate. It is emphasized that
site—specific criteria are ambient water quality criteria
applicable to a site. They are not intended to be direct
modifications to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit limits. In most cases the “site” will be
synonymous with a State’s “segment” in its water quality
standards. By defining sites on a larger scale, multiple
dischargers can collaborate on water-effect ratio testing and
attain appropriate site—specific criteria at a reduced cost.
More attention has been given to water—effect ratios
recently because of the numerous discussions and meetings on the
entire question of metals policy and because WERs were
specifically applied in the National Toxics Rule. In comments on
the proposed National Toxics Rule, the public questioned whether
the EPA promulgation should be based solely on the total
recoverable form of a metal. For the reasons set forth in the
final preamble, EPA chose to promulgate the criteria based on the
total recoverable form with a provision for the application of a
water—effect ratio. In addition, this approach was chosen
because of the unique difficulties of attempting to authorize
site-specific criteria modifications for nationally promulgated
criteria.
EPA now recommends the use of dissolved metals for States
revising their water quality standards. Dissolved criteria may
also be modified by a site—specific adjustment.
-------
4
While the regulatory application of the water-effect ratio
applied only to the 10 jurisdictions included in the final
National Toxics Rule for aquatic life metals criteria, we
understood that other States would be interested in applying WER5
to their adopted water quality standards. The guidance upon
•which to base the judgment of the acceptability of the water-
effect ratio applied by the State is contained in the attached
Interim Guidance on The Determination and Use of Water-Effect
Ratios for Metals . It should be noted that this guidance also
provides additional information on the recalculation procedure
for site—specific criteria modifications.
Status of the Water-effect Ratio (WER in non-National Toxics
Rule States
A central question concerning WERS is whether their use by a
State results in a site-specific criterion subject to EPA review
and approval under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act?
Derivation of a water-effect ratio by a State is a site-
specific criterion adjustment subject to EPA review and
approval/disapproval under Section 303(c). There are two options
by which this review can be accomplished.
Option 1: A State may derive and submit each individual
water-effect ratio determination to EPA for review and
approval. This would be accomplished through the normal
review and revision process used by a State.
Option 2: A State can amend its water quality standards to
provide a formal procedure which includes derivation of
water-effect ratios, appropriate definition of sites, and
enforceable monitoring provisions to assure that designated
uses are protected. Both this procedure and the resulting
criteria would be subject to full public participation
requirements. Public review of a site—specific criterion
could be accomplished in conjunction with the public review
required for permit issuance. EPA would review and
approve/disapprove this protocol as a revised standard once.
For public information, we recommend that once a year the
Stat. publish a list of site-specific criteria.
An exception to this policy applies to the waters of the
jurisdictions included in the National Toxics Rule. The EPA
is not required for the jurisdictions included in the
National Toxics Rule where EPA established the procedure for the
State for application to the criteria promulgated. The NationaL
Toxics Rule was a formal rulemaking process with notice and
comment by which EPA pre-authorized the use of a correctly
applied water-effect ratio. That same process has not yet taken
place in States not included in the National Toxics Rule.
-------
5
However, the National Toxics Rule does not affect State authority
to establish scientifically defensible procedures to det rmjne
Federally authorized WERs, to certify those WERs in NPDES permit
proceedings, or to deny their application based on the State’s
risk management analysis.
As described in Section 131.36(b) (iii) of the water quality
standards regulation (the official regulatory reference to the
National Toxics Rule), the water-effect ratio is a site—specific
calculation. As indicated on page 60866 of the preamble to the
National Toxics Rule, the rule was constructed as a rebuttable
presumption. The water—effect ratio is assigned a value of 1.0
until a different water-effect ratio is derived from suitable
tests representative of conditions in the affected waterbody. It
is the responsibility of the State to determine whether to rebut
the assumed value of 1.0 in the National Toxics Rule and apply
another value of the water-effect ratio in order to establish a
site-specific criterion. The site-specific criterion is then
used to develop appropriate NPDES permit limits. The rule thus
provides a State with the flexibility to derive an appropriate
site-specific criterion for specific waterbodies.
As a point of emphasis, although a water-effect ratio
affects permit limits for individual dischargers, it is the State
in all cases that determines if derivation of a site—specific
criterion based on the water-effect ratio is allowed and it is
the State that ensures that the calculations and data analysis
are done completely and correctly.
CONCLUS ION
This interim guidance explains and clarifies the use of
site-specific criteria. It is issued as interim guidance because
it will be included as part of the process underwap for review
and possible revision of the national aquatic life criteria
development methodology guidelines. As part of that review, this
interim guidance is subject to amendment based on comments,
especially those from the users of the guidance. At the end of
the guidelines revision process the guidance will be issued as
“final.”
EPA is interested in and encourages the submittal of high
quality datasets that can be used to provide insights into the
use of these guidelines and procedures. Such data and technical
comments should be submitted to Charles E. Stephan at EPA’S
Environmental Research Laboratory at Duluth, I*. A complete
address, telephone number and fax number for Mr. Stephan are
included in the guidance itself. Other questions or comments
should be directed to the Standards and Applied Science Division
(mail code 4305, telephone 202-260-]315).
-------
6
There is attached to this memorandum a simplified f],ow
diagram and an implementation procedure. These are intended to
aid a user by placing the water-effect ratio procedure in the
context of proceeding from at site—specific criterion to a permit
limit. Following these attachments is the guidance itself.
Attachments
cc: Robert Perciasepe, OW
Martha G. Prothro, OW
William Diamond, SASD
Margaret Stasikowski, HECD
Mike Cook, OWEC
Cynthia Dougherty, OWEC
Lee Schroer, OGC
Susan Lepow, OGC
Courtney Riordan, ORD
ORD (Duluth and Narragansett Laboratories)
ESD Directoçs, Regions I — VIII, X
ESD Branch, Region IX
Water Quality Standards Coordinators, Regions I - X
-------
WER Implementation
Preliminary Analysis
Site Definition
Study Plan Development
• Effluent Considerations
Receiving Water Considerations
Lab Procedures
Testing Organisms
Chemistry
WER Calculation
Implementation
Site Specific Criteria
Permit Limits
Monitoring Requirements
Sampling Design
-------
WATER-EFFECT RATIO IMPLEMENTATION
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS & PLAN FORMULATION
- Site definition
• How many discharges must be accounted for? Tributaries?
See page 17.
• What is the waterbody type? (i.e., stream, tidal river,
bay, etc.). See page 44 and Appendix A.
• How can these considerations best be combined to define
the relevant geographic “site”? See Appendix A @ page
82.
- Plan Development for Regulatory Agency Review
Is WER method 1 or 2 appropriate? (e.g., Is design flow
a meaningful concept or are other considerations
paramount?). See page 6.
Define the effluent & receiving water sample locations
Describe the temporal sample collection protocols
proposed. See page 48.
Can simulated site water procedure be done, or is
downstream sampling required? See Appendix A.
Describe the testing protocols — test species, test
type, test length, etc. See page 45, 50; Appendix I.
• Describe the chemical testing proposed. See Appendix C.
• Describe other details of study - flow measurement,
QA/QC, number of sampling periods proposed, to whom the
results are expected to apply, schedule, etc.
SAMPLING DESIGN FOR STREAMS
- Discuss the quantification of the design streamflow (e.g.,
7Q10) - USGS gage directly, by extrapolation from USGS
gage, or ?
- Effluents
• measure flows to determine average for sampling day
collect 24 hour composite using “clean” equipment and
appropriate procedures; avoid the use of the plant’s
daily composite sample as a shortcut.
- Streams
. measure flow (use current meter or read from gage if
available) to determine dilution with effluent; and to
check if within.acceptable range for use of the data
(i.e., design flow to 10 times the design flow).
• collect 24 hour composite of upstream water.
-------
LABORATORY PROCEDTJRES (NOTE: These are described in detail in
interim guidance).
— Select appropriate primary & secondary tests
— Determine appropriate cmcWER and/or cccWER
- Perform chemistry using clean procedures, with methods
that have adequate sensitivity to measure low
concentrations, and use appropriate QA/QC
- Calculate final water-effect ratio (FWER) for site.
See page 36. -
IMPLEMENTATION
- Assign FWERs and the site specific criteria for each metal
to each discharger (if more than one).
- perform a waste load allocation and total maximum daily
load (if appropriate) so that each discharger is provided
a permit limit.
- establish monitoring condition for periodic evaluation of
instream biology (recommended)
- establish a permit condition for periodic testing of WER
to verify site—specific criterion (NTR recommendation)
2
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204S0
\ ..o ,
MAR 21 1994
oFcCE O
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: NPDES Watershed Strategy / f / r 41
FROM: Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
TO: Water Management Division Directors (Regions l-X)
The purpose of this memorandum is to build upon the discussion about the
Watershed Protection Approach at our January meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico. and
to provide more detail on key action items agreed to in connection with integrating the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program into the Approach.
The Watershed Protection Approach is an Office of Water (OW) wide initiative
which promotes integrated solutions to address surface water, ground water, and habitat
concerns on a watershed basis. The Approach is a decision-making process that reflects a
common strategy for information collection and analysis and a common understanding of
the roles, priorities, and responsibilities of all stakeholders within a watershed. Its
implementation is critical for the improvement of water quality in the United States, and it
is therefore an essential priority for EPA’s water program.
Several Statn have adopted a watershed protection approach ahd have been
implemen watershed protection activities for some time. A number of other States have
more receady begun to develop watershed protection frameworks, and still others are
consideringbowtheymightdosointhexiearfuture. WelooktotheseStatestosharetheir
knowledge and practical experience in watershed protection implementation. The challenge
for EPA is to support and facilitate this process.
There are already a number of significant Watershed Protection and related efforts
being led by offices within OW, including the Office of WetIani , Oceans, and Watersheds
(OWOW) and the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW). OWOW has
worked extensively with EPA Regions and within EPA Headquarters to develop a
comprehensive approach to watershed protection and has worked with both the States and
P l l k,.Cvos * __
S
-------
Regions to champion hundreds of individual watershed pilot projects. OGWDW’s !fforts
to protect vital ground water and drinking water supplies, most notably Its support c’f
Comprehensive State .Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) and its propo-ed
Source Water Protection Program, reflect important related concepts. These concepts
include stakeholder involvement, integrated solutions to environmental problems, and
geographically based actions.
OW’s goal is to fully integrate the NPDES program into the Watershed Protection
Approach. While the NPDES program in several Regions has taken significant steps to
implement watershed protection activities, the program nationally is as yet a largely
untapped resource. The NPDES program occupies a unique position within the overall
water program, since it is both a key customer and an essential partner in supporting other
OW program activities and achieving many of our broader water quality goals. In order to
take advantage of the NPDES program’s knowledge and experience to support the
Watershed Protection Approach, EPA’s FY 1995 budget submittal includes a substantial
and far-reaching redirection of water personnel and resources.
In the context of the larger OW Watershed Protection Approach, the Office of
Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) has been working over the past several
months with States, EPA Regions, and Headquarters offices to develop a specific stiategy
for a closer integration of the NPDES program into the lai er OW Watershed Protection
initiative. This s ategy reflects the emphasis on watershed protection within the ongoing
Clean Water Act Reauthorization process and is consistent with key elements of Senate Bill
S. 1114 as well as the President’s Clean Water Initiative. The key themes of the NPDES
Watershed Strategy are refocusing permit issuance, providing technical assistance,
continuing oversight activities, working with other key OW programs to build a stionger
watershed partnership, and supporting new and ongoing State watershed protection efforts.
pj .
Over the past 20 years, the NPDES program has achieved significant reductions in
pollutant discharges to surface waxers by focusing on technology-based, chemical-specific
standards and waxer-quality based permit requirements. More recently, the NPDES program
has included whole effluent toxicity monitoring requirements and limits, as well as an
emphasis on 304(1) assesaments and action plans. In addition to these activities, there are a
number of w initiatives including: stormwater, sewage sludge, combined sewer
overflows, impleni ntation of additional national effluent guidelines, incorporation of
sediment criteria and biocnteria, and others. The challenge for the NPDES program is
managing new and existing efforts within the context of both limited resources and
environmental impacts that vary from State-to-State and Region-to-Region. The Watershed
Protection Approach provides an environmental management framework within which
baseline program requirements and newer initiatives can be integrated to cost-effectively
address remaining point source environmental impacts within a State’s watersheds and
support other surface water and ground water activities.
-------
The attached Strategy addresses EPA actions that will ensure that the NPDES
program supports, facilitates, and implements this Approach. While the Strategy focuses on
key action items for the NPDES program, it aiso emphasizes critical areas in which the
NPDES program must coordinate its point source control activities with the efforts of other
OW offices. The Strategy reflects the recognition that, while the NPDES program will play
a central environmental protection role in a number of watersheds, in many other
watersheds, point sources will not represent the primary stressors. The NPDES program’s
main task in the latter watersheds will be to support and facilitate effective implementation
activities for meeting environmental objectives (e.g., monitoring, permitting, public
participation).
As outlined ax the Albuquerque meeting, the NPDES Watershed Strategy consists of
four parts: (I) an introduction; (2) a set of guiding principles for the Watershed Protection
Approach; (3) the purpose and objectives of the NPDES Watershed Strategy; and (4)
detailed strategy components. The Strategy components address State-wide coordination,
NPDES permits, monitoring and assessment, progranmiatic measures and environmental
indicators, public participation, and enforcement.
Key FY 1994 Refional Actions
There are several key Regional actions which need our attention during FY 1994. I
would like to take this opportunity to provide more detail on three specific actions which
the Regions must complete by September 1, 1994, to begin implementation of the NPDES
Watershed Strategy in FY 1995. These actions include:
Regional State-by-State Assessments and Action Plans - Completing
assessments of Watershed Protection activities and needs in each State and, in
the context of that assessment, developing Regional action plans for
FY 1995 that identify how the Region will support and :.icilitate each Scates
movement toward the Watershed Protection Approach;
• State/EPA Workplan Agreements - Including specific activities within
State/EPA workplans for FY 95 which will promote the central components
of Watershed Protection;
• Internal Coordination - Developing integrated Regional strategies which
will describe the Regional decision-making processes, oversight role, and
internal coordination efforts necessary to ensure support for the Approach.
In assessing State watershed protection efforts, the Regions should evaluate the
status of each State’s watershed protection approach in the context of the NPDES
Watershed Strategy and identify actions that the Region will undertake to support and
facilitate the development or implementation of a comprehensive watershed protection
approach in each State. EPA recognizes that many States, particularly those which have
3
-------
oniy recently begun to consider developing a watershed protection framework. i11 mo’.e
toward implementation of the Watershed Protection Approach in an incremental fashion.
We intend to work with each State in whatever way we can to ensure progress in each of
the Watershed Protection component areas outlined in the attached Strategy and to provide
each State the support necessary to achieve successfi.il implementation of the Watershed
Protection Approach.
To assist the Regions in this effort, OWEC has been working with both the Regions
and ASIWPCA to compile and analyze available information about the status of individual
State watershed protection efforts. We are providing this prelimin2iy information as an
attachment to this memorandum. It includes a State watershed protection approach status
and component matrix and fact sheets for each State about which OWEC has been able to
acquire State watershed protection approach information. In addition to the OWEC State
assessment effort, OWOW has assessed watershed protection projects throughout the Nation
and has developed project-specific fact sheets for each State; the purpose of these fact
sheets is to support the exchange of watershed protection information and promote
technology transfer. This information will be provided to the Regions under a separate
cover.
An appendix to the Strategy outlines a range of suggested activities for the Regions
to consider in developing their action plans to support Sta.. watershed protection
approaches and in negotiating their State /EPA agreements. This document is organized
according to the specific NPDES Watershed Strategy components. As additional assistance
to the Regions in supporting their States, OWOW is currently developing a manual which
will provide guidance on developing State watershed protection programs. We will
disn-ibute this guidance as soon as it is completed. -
To assure overall consistency and coordination, I am requesting that each Region
provide a copy of their internal strategy, State-by-State asses ents, and FY 95 NPDES
Regional action plans for supporting States to OWEC by September 1, 1994. 1 am asking
OWEC to work with other HQ offices to review the Regional internal strategies and action
plans in terms of their level of specificity, interim milestones, and how well they reflect and
can be expected to implement the NPDES Watershed Strategy. If you have questions or
need further information about the NPDES Watershed Strategy, please do not hesitate to
contact me or Mike Cook. You should feel free to contact other OW Office Directors if
you have questions relating to other areas.
Attachmen
4
-------
March 1994
WATERSHED
PROTECTION
WATERSHED
STRATEGY
-------
NPDES WATER3HED STRATEGY
I.VTRODUCTION
Overview of the Watershed Protection Approach
Watershed Protection Successes and Challenges
NPDES Program Role
GUIDING PRiNCIPLES
III. LVPDES STRATEGY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
Program Integration
Support for State-wide Basin Management Approaches
IV .VPDES STRATEGY COMPONEI VTS
State-wide Coordination
NPDES Permits
Monitoring and Assessment
Programmatic Measures and Environmental Indicators
Public Participation
Enforcement
A PPE.VDIX
Regional Action Items
-------
I. LVTRODUCTIO [ Y
The Clean Water Act (CWA) sets forth the goal of restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical, and bioLogical integrity of the Nation’s waters. The CWA also
establishes a number of programs designed to achieve this goal. These programs address
water quality criteria and standards, establishment of TMDLs, monitoring, technology-based
and water quality-based point source permits, noripoint source control, and wetlands
protection.
The challenges faced by these CWA programs are great. There are more than
200.000 point sources (including stormwater) requiring discharge permits. An even greater
number of nonpoint sources significantly contribute to pollution problems. Safe drinking
water supplies must be maintained and aquatic habitats must be restored and protected. In
a time of Limited resources, these challenges require innovative solutions and cooperation
among all stakeholders. The Watershed Protection Approach provides the necessary
framework for meeting these challenges.
Overview of the Watershed Protection Aooroach
The Watershed Protection Approach represents EPA’s renewed emphasis on
addressing all stressors within a hydrologically defined drainage basin instead of viewing
individual pollutant sources in isolation. It is not a new program competing with or
replacing existing programs rather, it provides a m n gement framework within which
baseline CWA program requirements, related public health concerns, and newer initiatives
can be integrated to cost-effectively address restoration and protection of aquatic
ecosystems. By focusing on the hydrologic basin, the Watershed Protection Approach
emphasizes all aspects of waxer quality, including chemical and physical water quality.
habitat quality, and biodiversity.
The Watershed Protection Approach emphasizes the involvement of all affected
stakeholders in a drainage buin Those concerned about the watershed and those able to
take action to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems are involved in decision-mAking
processes together. The Watershed Protection Approach also provides a framework in
which to implement the principles of environmental justice. Environmental justice must be
considered simultaneously with other environmental goals and objectives in a particular
basin.
Finally, the Watershed Protection Approach focuses on taking comprehensive,
integrated ac ona to address environmental priorities. The approach stresses the need for
teamwork at the Federal, State, and Local levels to achieve the greatest environmental
improvements with the resources available.
Watershed Protection and Challenaes
Within the Office of Waxer (OW) there are a number of significant ongoing
watershed protection efforts. The Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW)
has the OW lead in promoting a national Watershed Protection Approach. This approach
-------
stresses coordination between EPA and other key stakeholders to address watershed
protection in a comprehensive and integrated fa.shion. OWOW also works ith States and
EPA Regions to champion hundreds of individual watershed pilot projects. En March 1993.
OWOW co-sponsored the highly successful ‘Watershed ‘93” conference in ‘icxan n&
Virginia. This conference featured numerous opportunities to exchange information on
proven and emerging watershed management techniques. OWOW’s National Estuary
Program employs a watershed approach for protection of estuarine waters and serves as a
model for promoting the long..terrn involvement of all watershed stakeholders.
The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) is aggressively
pursuing a complimentary approach through its Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program (CSGWPP), Welihead Protection Program and proposed Source-Water
Protection Program. The NPDES Strategy will be implemented in conjunction wnh these
programs.
En addition to EPA’s watershed protection activities, a number of States have
adopted State-wide watershed protection approaches and have been implementing them for
some time. Many other States are in the process of developing such approaches, and still
others are considering how they might do so in the near flange. EPA Looks to these States
to share their knowledge and practical experience in watershed protection implementation.
The challenge for EPA is to support and facilitate this process.
OW’s goal is to fully integrate the NPDES program into the Watershed Protection
Approach, support development of State watershed protection approaches, and coordinate
watershed protection efforts with other Federal agencies, States, Indian Tribes, and local
communities. The full benefit of watershed protection can only be realized with the
cooperation and coordination of all key stakeholders.
NPDES Proaram Role
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program occupies a
unique position within the overall water program, since it is both a key customer and an
essential partner in supporting and achieving many of EPA’s broader water quality goals.
The NPDES program traditionally has focused on chemical-specific technology-based and
water quality-based permit Limits or requirements. More recently, NPDES permits have
mcluded whole effluent toxicity monitoring requirements and limits. In addition to these
baseline activities there are a number of new initiatives underway including: stormwater
permitting; wage sludge permitting; combined sewer overflow (CSO) permitting;
implementatica of CWA §304 (l); implementation of additional national effluent guidelines.
and incorporation of sediment criteria and biocriteria.
The broad range of NPDES functions and activities gives the NPDES program a key
role in implementing the Watershed Protection Approach. NPDES program staff are an
important source of “on the ground” knowledge about the environmental impacts in many
watersheds. The NPDES Watershed Strategy discusses integration of NPDES program
-------
ñincuons tnto the broader Watershed Protection Approach and areas for coordination ith
other stakebolders to promote implementation of the Approach.
The NPDES Watershed Strategy is divided into four sections. This introduction to
the Strategy comprises Section 1. Section II discusses principles that are common to any
watershed strategy and Section III states the purpose and objectives of the NPDES Strategy
The heart of the NPDES Strategy is Section LV, which identifies six major watershed
strategy components. These components outline specific areas in which the NPDES
program can support the Watershed Protection Approach.
II. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Development and implementation of any watershed strategy, whether at the national
or State level, should be based on certain common principles. Six guiding principles are
listed below. The NPDES Watershed Strategy is based upon these principles.
1. Watershed protection approaches may vary in terms of specific elements,
timing, and resources, but all should share a common emphasis and insistence
on integrated actions, specific action items, and measurable environmental
and progran ni ric milestones.
2. ReLated activities within a basin or watershed must be coordinated to achieve
the greatest environmental benefit and most effective level of stakeholder
involvement.
3. Actions relating to restoration and protection of surface water, ground water.
and habitat within a basin should be based upon an integrated decision-
making process, a common information base, and a common understanding of
the roles, priorities, and responsibilities of all stakeholders within a basin.
4. Staff and financial resources are limited and must be allocated to address
environmental priorities as effectively and efficiently as possible.
5. Program requirements that interfere or conflict with environmental priorities
should be identified and revised to the extent possible.
6. Accurate information and high quality data are necessary for decision-malung
and should be collected on an incremental basis; interim decisions should be
made based on available data to prevent fi.arther degradation and promote
restoration of natural resources.
3
-------
III. .VPDES STRATEGY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the NPDES Watershed Strategy is to outline national objectives and
imp lemernation activities for the NPDES program to I) integrate program functions into the
broader Watershed Protection Approach and 2) support development of State-wide basin
management approaches. The Strategy will be implemented consistent with CWA
requirements and is not intended to supersede or impede existing watershed protection
efforts; rather, it is intended to support ongoing State initiatives and supplement the efforts
of other environmental programs by identifying areas to which the NPDES program can
contribute and, thus, build a stronger watershed partnership.
Program Inte2ration
A major challenge facing the NPDES program is managing its new and existing
efforts within the context of both limited resources and environmental impacts and priorities
that vary from State-to-State and Region-co-Region. By integrating its program ti.inctions
into the broader Watershed Protection Approach, the NPDES program can effectively meet
this challenge. Success in this process, however, will require program flexibility with an
emphasis on environmental priorities.
Program oversight, administration, and regulations are principal areas of the NPDES
program where flexibility is important for successt al integration into the Watershed
Protection Approach. Oversight and administrative requirements and regulations that
impede such integration should be revised or e1irnii ted , where possible.
A focus on environmental priorities allows the NPDES program to achieve the
greatest environmental benefit with the maximum efficiency in use of resources. This focus
allows the resources dedicated to issuing and reviewing NPDES permits to vary depending
oct the environmental impacts of each source. In addition, the compliance monitoring and
enforcement program, in conjunction with the permitting program, can be used to address
environmental priorities and further the objectives of the Watershed Protection Approach.
Suonort for State-wide Basin Mana2ement Aooroaches
In addition to program integration, another key goal of the NPDES Watershed
Strategy is to promote ecosystem protection by supporting the development of State-wide
basin management approaches wherever possible. The first step in building such a State-
wide appro h is developing a basin management framework. A State-wide basin
management framework is simply an operaung structure that:
• Identifies the roles and responsibilities of participating programs;
• Identifies long-term programmatic and environmental goals as well as key
interim milestones;
• Divides the entire State into basins in order to focus and coordinate
management activities on a geographic basis (watersheds or sub-basins
4
-------
f .VPDES STRATEGY COMPONENTS
The following components identify six essential areas which must be addressed to
fulfill the objectives and purpose of this strategy. Suggested Regional action items to
support these Components are included as an appendix to this strategy. Where the NPDES
program is not the lead program for a particular component, the action items identify
specific areas where the NPDES program must coordinate with and support other OW
programs to further the development and implementation of the Watershed Protection
Approach.
1. State-wide Coordination
EPA will work in partnership with States to support the development of
State-wide basin m riagement frameworks; these frameworks should reflect
existing experience with programs such as 303(d), 303(e), 319, NPDES,
Clean Lakes, and the National Estuary Program
• Coordinate Office of Water grants application and reporting processes to
facilitate financial support for the Watershed Protection Approach
• Reference the delineated basin in which a facility is located or an activity
occurs on all documents (e.g., permits, grants)
• Coordinate interstate basin efforts as appropriate
2. NPDES Permits
• Implement a methodology for issuing NPDES permits on a watershed basis
(i.e., decisions about point source controls are based on an overall assessment
of environmental priorities and concerns within a basin) by developing a
basin management plan and:
1) synchronize permit issuance within basins, or
2) assure that permits are issued in accordance with the basin
management plan
• Emphasize u ining on the concepts of watershed protection at the local, State
and Federal levels
• Empk ’i1e permit development for minors and majors that pose a si uficant
environmental threat to a basin or watershed
6
-------
• Streamline the NPDES permit development. issuance, and review process.
implement key permit streamlining recommendations developed in support of
the Nauona Performance Review
• Support development of phased TMDLs as part of the permit development
process as information becomes available for snessors of concern in a
particular basin/sub-basin
• Support the development of NPDES permit conditions as the basis for t .iture
pollutant trading, where appropnate
• Develop and implement pollution prevention initiatives to reduce point source
Loadings within watersheds
• Consider the use of general permits within basins or sub-basins/watersheds
where appropriate
• Target high risk basins or sub-basins for storm water industrial pollution
prevention plan reviews and early implementation of more rigorous storm
water permits, as necessary
• Coordinate municipal storm water and CSO permits where feasible
• Focus prenea ent resources for program development or modification.
technical assistance, local Limits development, and compliance actions in
priority basins
• Coordinate sludge management and permitting with watershed planning arid
implementation activities, where feasible
3. Monitoring and Assessment
• Develop a State-wide monitoring strategy to assure the most effective
targeting of limited monitoring resources and coordinate collection and
analysis of NPDES, rionpoint source, and other watershed data
• Establish point source ambient monitoring requirements where appropriate to
support assessment of watershed conditions; this action may provide
opportunities for group monitoring plans for multiple discharges to the same
basin
• Promote comparable data collection, analysis, and un1i rio by all
stakeholders (e.g., NPDES, 303(d), 304(1), and 319) through revisions to
information collection and management systems (e.g., permit applications arid
compliance monitoring, PCS, TMDL development, 305(b), NEP, STORET.
and water body systems)
7
-------
4. Proerammatic Measures and Environmental Indicators
Revise existing national accountability measures to facilitate unplernentauon
of the Watershed Protection Approach
- Focus on minors and majors which pose an environmental threat
• Revise permit output expectations to facilitate permit synchronization
and development of basin management plans
• Allow more flexibility to target inspection resources on high priority
sub-basins
• Establish new measures of success that reflect assessment of progress to’ ard
short-term and long-term watershed protection goals (should reflect public
health concerns where appropriate); these should be realistic and should
include both interim environmental milestones and specific program activities
5. Public Particioaxion .
• Utilize existing NPDES public participation process and development of
basin-wide management plans to encourage informed participation by
watershed stakeholders including permittees, environmental groups, and the
general public
• Educate dischargers, interest groups, and the public about watershed planning
efforts, including ups eam and downs eam problems and solutions
• Seek broad public participation in identifying local environmental goals for
each basin and request information from diachargers, interest groups, and the
public on problems and historic trends
6. Enforcement
• Within the base national enforcement program, include emphasis on minor
facilities which are discharging to a priority basin.,
- Enforcement activities in priority basins will include compliance
assurance, compliance monitoring, and r2king adminis azive/judiczal
actions for non-compliance
• Use 308 authorities, inspections and supplemental environmental projects.
where appropriate, to support watershed assessment, planning , and restoration
activities and to promote pollution prevention
S
-------
• Identify pnority categories of unperrrntted dischargers where there is e’ idence
of potential wide-spread water quality problems in priority basins
• Modify the scope and operation of the Permit Compliance System (PCS) to
include minors in priority basins arid other data fields required to support
information management within the watershed
9
-------
Appendix (Suggested Regional Action Items) to NPDES Watershed Strategy
Regional action plans for facilitating State watershed protection approach (WPA)
development must be based on State program assessments. A separate Regional action plan
should be tailored for each State based on the State’s status and needs to support progress
in each of the SIX Strategy component areas.
The recommended action items listed below are specific tasks that can be included in a
Regional pLan. Regions should carefully consider each of these recommendations and
choose those that are most appropriate for a given State or develop others based on the
results of their State assessments. This State-specific approach will lead to a more rapid
and effective implementation of the Watershed Protection Approach.
The list of recommended Regional action items is organired according to NPDES
Watershed Strategy components, with the addition of a Funding Administration section.
Within each component area, these recommendations are grouped into three categories
which describe the status of State watershed programs: (I) States Without a State-wide
Watershed Protection Approach; (2) States Developing a State-wide Watershed Protection
Approach; and (3) States Implement ing a State-wide Watershed Protection Approach.
Action items that are Listed in an earlier status category may be appropriate actions for
States with more developed State-wide WPAs, as well.
State-wide Coordination
States Withow a State-wide WPA:
• Conduct educational workshops for States as well as other stakeholders using
information from other States that have developed and are implementing watershed
protection approaches.
• Meet with the State to identify impediments to implementing a WPA.
• Iilmfy and describe the areas in which program coordination will enhance water
quality management activities (e.g., development of TMDLs, NPDES permit
i iance efficiency).
States Developing a State-wide WPA:
• Provide a forum to States to share information on the development and
implementation of a WPA (e.g., newsletter, conference c 11 ’ , conferences).
• Work with States to delineate basin boundaries and estabLish inter-basin priorities.
A-I
-------
ensuring that wellhead protection and exlstLng Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program (CSGWPPs) priorities are considered in the decision making
process. Where appropriate, utilize existing analysis reflected in the 319. 303(d),
303(e), Clean Lakes, NEP. and NPDES programs.
• Assist States with the identification of stakeholders in basins (NE Ps may be of
assistance in coastal areas).
• Assist States with the development of agreements/memoranda of understandings
with other Federal and State agencies for the purpose of supporting the States
watershed protection approach.
• Provide technical assistance for the development of a State-wide watershed
protection approach framework document; such a document includes a program
description for all participating programs, agencies, and the general public.
• Assist States with the identification and recruitment of other agencies to serve as
parmers for the State-wide basin rn nagement framework.
• Identify the mechanisms developed to implement the State WPA (e.g., policies,
regulations).
• Describe the process for involving Federal agencies, Indian tribes, and local
governments.
Stares Implementing a State-wide WP.4:
• Conduct reviews of State program.s which take into account the scope and schedule
of State’s programs and basin plans to the extent possible.
NP DES Permits
States Without a State-wide WPA:
• Work with States to identify the number and types of dischargers in each basin.
• Work with States to sequence basins, ensuring that the permit workload is evenly
disthbuted in any given year.
• Work with States on scheduling issues associated with synchroni2tng permits by
basin, or on issues associated with permit issuance under the basin management
plan.
A-2
-------
• Provide guidance on mechanisms and approaches for modifying Lnd lvlduai permits
(e.g., short-term permits administrative extensions, expedited renewal procedures,
basin general permits).
States Developing a State-wide WP.4:
• Assist States in developing a strategy that defines the criteria and approach for
issuing permits consistent with the basin plan.
• Provide technical assistance to States for evaluating and assigning priorities to
permits within a basin. These procedures will help determine the appropriate le’el
of effort and scrutiny that should be devoted to each permit.
• Support States in assuring that Best Management Practices (BMP) established in
NPDES permits are designed to prevent contan inanon of the State’s priority
ground water.
States Implementing a Stoic-wide WPA:
• Support the development of automated permitting systems.
• Assist with the development of innovative permits that use the full potential of the
basin-wide approach (e.g., trading, monitoring, pollution prevention and
conservation, basin-wide general permits).
• Expand public notification to include information on permits in the basin plan.
Monitoring and Aueumant
States Without a Stoic-wide WPA:
• Help to develop a State-wide monitoring strategy involving State resources,
discharger monitoring consorriums, and other Federal agencies. Assist with
negotiations for shared monitoring resources.
• A s with the development of assessment methods (consider biological and
ecological criteria) and record keeping for targeting and rnking water quality
problems. When assessing the status of a watershed, surface water, ground water,
coastal waters, wetlands, sediments, and habitat axe all factors that should be
considered. The asses ” nt of the watershed should determine if the waxers are
meeting their desigaaxed use, and also provide information on critical areas,
endangered species habitats, and areas needing special protection.
A-3
-------
• Identify how NPDES ambient rnorutoring can be incorporated with other
montorng efforts.
States Developing a State-wide WPA
• Permits will contain ambient monitoring requirements as appropriate to support the
ba.sin monitoring plan.
• Support upgrades of information management systems, especially the use of
geographic information analysis systems which facilitate analysis and display of
environmental information in a geographic format.
• Help to refine and consolidate the monitoring objectives and reports of the CWA
programs requirinj monitoring resources (e.g., 305(b), 303 (e), CSGWPPs) to
promote the targeting and ranking objectives of the watershed approach.
• Work with States to develop a State monitoring s ategy that allows regions to
Mfill cross program requirements through a single integrated monitoring system
(e.g., stormwater, 319, TMDL, drinking waxer.)
Stares Implementing a State-wide WPA:
• Provide technical assistance to develop improved environmental indicators and
monitoring strategies.
• Provide support for the development of a citizen/volunteer monitoring program
• Participate m basin waxer quality assessments and contribute to targeting and
ranking of environmental issues.
• Design pollution prevention and restoration programs relying, where appropriate,
on total maximum daily Loads or permits to address impaired ecosystems. Design
monitoring programs to gather additional data to allow program and project design.
Program Msaa rea and Environmental £ndicators
Stares Without a State-wide WPA:
• Identify areas of flexibility with existing program measures.
A-4
-------
Stares Developing a State-wide WPA:
• Nego ate a consolidated reporting format for the State to satisfy CWA reporting
requirements.
• Establish tracking measures to monitor implementation schedule for various
components of the Watershed Protection Approach including: delineation and
sequencing of basins, rescheduling of NPDES permits, development of a State- tde
framework document.
• Establish key environmental indicators that will be used by State to measure
progress toward achievement of both CWA and local goals and environmental
objectives.
States Implementing a State-wide WPA:
• Evaluate State basin plans in a manner that is consistent with each State’s
watershed framework and also ensure that the plans support the goals and
objectives of the CWA.
• Develop a strategy to use basin plans to implement phased TMDLS in all States.
• Develop an assessment approach for regional oversight that is geographically
targeted which measures the success of watershed protection activities and pro’ ides
information to the decision makers when updnting basin plans.
• Encourage the development of innovative environmental indicators for each basin.
Public Particinatlen
States Without a State-wide WPA:
• IA,uitify and develop more efficient means of notifying the public.
States Developing a State-wide WPA.
• Promote outreach to educate the public about the NPDES program and the
components of the WPA. Provide tr2ining on the inter-relationship between habitat
protection, ground water contamination, drinking waler source protection, nonpoint
source impairment, and the point source program.
A-S
-------
• Work with the State to establish a forum in which the public can help to tdentit
water quality problems and establish goals for the preservation of high quality
waters.
States !mplemerning a State-wide WPA:
• Encourage State linkages with local land use planning authorities to facilitate the
use of water quality inforrnauon in the planning process (e.g. EPA Region IX
North Bay Initiative).
• Ensure that basin plans are written as educational documents that can be read by
the lay public and which promote environmental stewardship in the basin.
• Target water quality standards hearings to watersheds.
Enforcement
States Without a State-wide WPA:
• To supplement the current information on major facilities, conduct an inventory of
each priority watershed, as necessary, using uiditional enforcement authorities (e g.
308 letters or inspections) to identify minor facilities which will be required to
have a permit.
States Developing a State-wide WPA:
• Use enforcement to correct violations at facilities which are causing the greatest
degradation of a basin.
• Assist State in developing a State inspection swategy to support WPA. The
Regions and States should develop criteria to evaluate which facilities should be
inspected in a given year.
States lwçlementlng a State-wide WPA:
• For majors and minors in priority watersheds, focus attention during report revie . s
and complinnce screening on the completeness of the ambient quality information
submitted by the permittee, as required by the permit.
• Use PCS to ttack loadings of poLlutants in priority watersheds.
-------
Fuiidini Adinistraft
States Without a State-wide WPA:
• Conduct an assessment of the funding sources. Develop plans to reduce the
overhead” burden to States in a minstering grants.
States Developing a State-wide WPA:
• Utilize flexible authorities to support the WPA.
States Implementing a State-wide WPA:
• Determine if basin r2nking and priority setting criteria are effectively administered
and allow for focusing the appropriate level of program resources to remediace the
highest risk environmental problems.
A-?
-------
Tuesday
April 1 , 1994
Part VII
Environmental
Protection Agency
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control
Policy; Notic.
S
-------
18688
Federal Regiater / Vol. 59. No. 75 I Tuesday. April 19. 1994 / Notices
ENVIPONMENTAL pqOTEC ’flON
GENCY
Combined Sawer Overflow (CSO)
Con Policy
AQ8NCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final policy.
suweAsY: EPA has issued a national
policy statement entitled “Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy.”
This policy establishes a consistent
national approach for controlling
discharges from CSO to the Nation’s
waters through the National Pollutant
Discharge “ tion System (NPDES)
permit program.
F0 FUNTI’t PIFO ATICN CONTACT:
Je ey Laps. Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance. MC—
4201. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW.. W hington.
DC 20460. (202) 260—7301.
JP U ITARY IIFOweATION: The main
purposes of the CSO Control Policy are
to elabor .t. on th. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National
CSO Control Strategy published on
September 8. 1989. at 54 FR 37370. and
to expedite compliance with the
equizements of the Clean Water Ad
CWA). While implementation of the
1989 Strategy has resulted in progress
toward controlling CSO. significant
public health and water quality risks
remain.
This Policy provide, guidance to
permittees with CSOs, NPDES
authorities and State water quality
standards authorities on coordinating
the planning, selection, and
implementation of CSO controls that
meet the requirements of the CWA and
allow for public involvement during the
decision.mmklng process.
Contained in the Policy are provisions
for developing appropriate. site-specific
NPDES permit requirements for all
combined sewer systems (CSS) that
overflow as a result of wet weather
events. For example. the Policy lays out
two alternative approaches—the
“demonstration” and the
“presumption” approaches—that
provide communities with targets for
CSO controls that achieve compliance
with the Act, particularly protection of
water quality and designated uses. The
Policy also Includes enforcement
initiatives to require the immediate
eliminAtion of overflows that occur
during dry weather and to ensure that
he remaining CWA requirements are
. oinplied with as soon as practicable.
The permitting provisions of the
Policy were developed as a result of
extensive input received from key
stakeholders during a negotiated policy
dialogue. The CSO stakeholders
included representatives from States.
environmental groups. municipal
organizations and others. The negotiated
dialogue was conducted during the
Summer of 1992 by the Office of Water
and the Office of Water’s Management
Advisory Group. Th. enforcement
initiatives, including one which is
underway to address CSO during dry
weather, were developed by EPA’s
Office of Water and Office of
Enforcement.
EPA issued a Notice of Availability on
the draft CSO Control Policy on January
19. 1993, (58 FR 4994) and requested
comments on the draft Policy by March
22. 1993. ApproxImately forty-one sets
of written comments were submitted by
a variety of interest groups including
cities and municipal groups.
environmental groups. States.
professional organizations and other,.
AU comments were considered as EPA
prepared the Final Policy. The public
comments were largely supportive of
the draft Policy. EPA received broad
endorsement of and support for the key
principles and provisions from most
commenters. Thus, this final Policy
does not Include significant changes to
the major provisions of the draft Policy.
but rather, it includes clarification and
better explanation of the elements of the
Policy to address several of the
questions that were raised in the
comments. Persons wishing to obtain
copies of the public comments or EPA’s
summaI.y analysis of the comments may
write or call the EPA contact person.
The CSO Policy represents a
comprehensive national strategy to
ensure that municipalities. permitting
authorities, water quality standards
authorities and the public engag. In a
comprehensive and coordinated
plalining effort to achieve cost effective
CSO controls that ultimately meet
appropriate health and environmental
objectives. The Policy recognizes the
site-specific nature of CSOs and their
impacts and provides the necessary
flexibility to tailor controls to local
situations. Major elements of the Policy
ensure that CSO controls ais cost
effective and meet the objectives and
requirements of the CWA.
The major provisions of the Policy are
as follows.
CSO permittee. should immediately
undertake a process to accurately
characterize their CSS and CSO
discharges. demonstrate implementation
of minimum technology.based controls
identified in the Policy. and develop
long-term CSO control plans which
evaluate alternatives for atikining
compLiance with the CWA. including
compliance with water quality
standard_s and protection of designated
uses. Once the long-term CSO control
plans are completed. permittees will be
responsibLe to implement the plans’
recommendations u soon as
practicable.
State water quality standards
authorities will be involved in the long.
term CSO control pLenning effort as
well. The water quality standards
authorities will help ensure that
development of the CSO permattees’
long-term CSO control plans are
coordinated with the review and
possible revision of water quality
standards on CSO-Impacted waters.
NPDES authorities will issue/reissue
or modify permits. as appropriate, to
require compliance with the technology-
based and water quality-based
requirements of the CWA. After
completion of the long-term CSO
control plan. NPDES permits will be
reissued or modified to incorporate the
additional requirements specified in the
Policy. such as performsnce standards
for the selected controls based on
average design conditions, a post-
construction water quality assessment
program, monitoring for compliance
with water quality standards. and a
reopener clause authortnng the NPDES
authority to reopen and modify the
permit if It is determined that the CSO
controls fell to meet water quality
standards or protect designated uses.
NPDES authorities should commence
enforcement actions against permattees
that have CWA violations due to CSO
discharges during dry weather. In
addition. NPOES authorities should
ensure the implementation of the
minimum technology-based controls
and incorporate a schedule into an
appropriate enforceable mei”kan jam ,
with appropriate milestone dates, to
implement the required long-term CSO
control plan. Schedules for
implementation of the long-term CSO
control plan may be phased based on
the relative importance of adverse
impacts upon water quality standards
and designated uses, and on a
pelmittee’s financial capability.
EPA is developing extensive guidance
to support the Policy and will announce
the availability of the guidances and
other outreach efforts through various
means. as they become available. For
example. EPA is preparing guidance on
the nine minimum controls,
characterization and monitoring of
CSOs, development of long-term CSO
control plans, and financial capability.
Peimittees will be expected to comply
with any existing CSO-related
requirements in NPDES permits.
-------
F.d.ral RaØmsr / Vol. 59. No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19. 1994 / Notices
18689
3flISflt decrees Or COWl orders unj
.evlsed to be consistent with this Policy.
The policy is organined as follows:
1. Introduction
A. Purpose and Principles
8. Application of Policy
C. Effect on Current CSO Control Efforts
0. Small System Considerations
E lmplemantatlon R.sponsibthtles
F Policy Dsvelopniont
U. D’A Othecnv,s for Pesmdtses
A. Overview
B. Implementation of the Nine Minimum
Controls
C. Long -Term CSO Control Plan
I arectsrlntion. Monitoring, and
Modeling of the Combined Sewer
Systomi
2. Public Participation
3. ConsideratIon of Sensitive Areas
4. EvaluatIon of Alturastives
S. COStIPsT manCU Consideration
o OperatIonal Plan
7 M minng Tr,sOnsnt at the ELating
POTW Treatment Plant
8. lmplamen!atlOn Schedule
9. Post.Consou’ctkon Compliance
Monitonag Progrom
UL Comdinattoo With Slat. Water Quality
Standards
A. Overview
8. Wstsr Quality Standards Reviews
TV. Expectations for Pesmittiug Authorities
A. Overview
B. NPDES Permit Rsquuomsnts
1. Phus I Permits—R.qwnments for
Demonstration of th. Nine Minimum
Controls and Development of the Long.
Term CSO Control Plan
2. Phase U Pennit .—R.quirements for
Implementation of a Long-Term CSO
Control Plan
3. Phasing Considerations
V Enforcement and Compliance
A Overview
8. Enforcement of O Dry Weather
Discharge Prohibition
C. Enforcement of Wet Weather CSO
Requirements
1 Enforcement for Compliance With Phase
I Permits
2. Enforcement for Compliance With Phase
I I Permits
0 Penalties
List of Subjects in 40 ai Part 122
Water pollution controL
Authority: Clean Water Act. 33 U s:c. 125%
el seq.
Dated: April 8. 1994.
Carol M. Browner.
Admuustrv .tor.
COInbUI.d Sewer Overflow (( O)
Control Policy
1. Introduction
A. Purpose and Principles
The main purpose. of this Policy ire
to elaborate on EPA ’. National
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Control Strategy published on
September 8. 1989 at 54 FR 37370 (1989
Strategy) and to expedite compliance
with the requirements of the Clean
Water Act (CWA). White
implementation of the 1989 Strategy hu
resulted in progress toward controlling
CSOe. significant water quality risks
A combined sewer system (CSS) is a
wutewater collection system owned by
a State or municipality (as defined by
section 502(4) of the CWA) which
conveys sanitary wastewaters (domestic.
commercial and Industrial wastewatars)
and storm water through a sthlJe.pip.
system to a Publicly Owned Tre.tment
Works (P01W) Treatment Plant (as
defined In 40 ‘R 403.3(p)). A CSO Is
the discharge from a CSS eta point prior
to the POTW Treatment Plant. CSOs SI.
point sources subject to NPDES permit
requirements Including both
technology.based and water quality-
based requirements of the CWA. CSO.
are not subject to secondary treatment
requirements applicable to POTW.
CSO consist of mixtures of domestic
sewage. industrial and commercial
waatewaters. and storm water runoff
CSOs often contain high levels of
suspended solids. pathogenic
microorganisms, toxic pollutants.
floatable., nutrients. oxygen-dem.’dlng
organic compounds, oil and grease, and
other pollutants. CSO can cause
exceedances of water quality standards
(WQS). Such exceedances may pose
risks to hiin n health. threaten aquatic
life and its habitat, and impair the use
and en)oyznent of the Nation’s
waterways.
This Policy is intended to provide
guidance to permittees with CSOs.
National Pollutant Discharge
Eflinin tlon System (NPDES) permitting
authorities. State water quality
standards authorities and enforcement
authorities. The purpose of the Policy is
to coordinate the plenning, selection.
design and unplementation of CSO
management practices and controls to
meet the requirements of the CWA and
to involve the public fully during the
decision making process.
This PoLicy reiterates the objectives of
the 1989 Strategy:
1. To ensure that if CSOs oocur. they are
only as a result of wet weather’.
2. To bring all wet weather CSO
discharge points into compliance with
the technology-based and water
quality-based requirements of the
CWA; and
3. To mininlize water quality. aquatic
biota, and human health impacts from
CSOa.
This CSO Control Policy represents a
comprehensive national strategy to
ensure that municipalities, permitting
authorities, water quality standards
authorities and th. public engage in a
comprehensive and coordinated
planning effort to achieve cost-effective
CSO controls that ultIniss ly meet
appropriate health and environmental
objectives and requirements. The Policy
recognizes the site-specific nature of
CSOs and their impacts and provides
the necessary flexibility to tailor
controls to local situations. Four kay
principles of the Policy ensure that CSO
controls are cost-effective and meet the
ob ect1ves of the CWA. The key
principles are:
1. ProvIding clear levels of control that
would be presumed to meat
appropriate health and environmental
objectives;
2. ProvIding su cient flexibility to
municipalities. especially financially
disadvantaged communities, to
consider the site-specific nature of
CSOs and to determine th. most cost-
effective means of reducing pollutants
and meeting CWA objectives and
requurementE
3. AllowIng a phased approach to
implementation of CSO controls
considering a community’s financial
capability; and
4. Review and revision. as appropriate.
of water quality standards and their
implementation procedures when
developing CSO control plans to
reflect the site-specific wet weather
impacts of CSOs.
This Policy is being iuued in support
of EPA ’ . regulations and policy
initiatives. This Policy is Agency
guiImw. only and does not establish or
affect legal rights or obligations. It does
not establish a binding norm and is not
anally determinative of the issues
addressed. Agency decisions in any
particular case will be made by applying
the law and regulations on the basis of
specific facts when permits are issued
The Administration has recommended
that the 1994 amendments to the CWA
endorse this final Policy.
B. Application of Policy
The permitting provisions of this
Policy apply to all CSSs that overflow
as a result of storm water flow.
including mow melt runoff (40 CFR
122.26(b)(13)). Discharges from CSSs
during dry weather are prohibited by
the CWA. Aocordlngly. the permitting
provisions of this Policy do not apply to
CSOs during dry weather. Dry weather
flow is the flow In a combined sewer
that results from domestic sewage.
groundwater infiltration, commercial
and Industrial wastewaters, and any
other non-precipitation related flows
(e.g., tidal infiltration). In addition to
-------
18890
Federal RegiMer / Vol. 59.No. 75 I Tuesday. April 19. 1994 / Notices
‘he permitting provisions, the
nlorcement and Compliance section of
ais Policy describes an enforcement
initiative being developed for overflows
that occur during dry weather.
Consistent with the 1989 Strategy. 30
States that submitted CSO permitting
strategies have received EPA approval
or. in the case of one State. conditional
approval of its strategy. States and EPA
Regional Offices should review these
strategies and negotiate appropriate
revisions to them to implement this
Policy Permitting authorities are
encouraged to evaluate water pollution
control needs on a watershed
management basis and coordinate CSO
control efforts with other point and
rionpoint source control activities.
C. Effect on Current CSO Control Efforts
EPA recognizes that extensive work
has been done by many Regions. States.
and municipalities to abate CSOs. As
such, portions of this Policy may
already have been addressed by
permittees’ previous efforts to control
CSOs. Therefore. portions of this Policy
may not apply. as determined by the
permitting authority on a case-by-case
basis. under the following
circumstances:
1 Any permittee that. on the date of
ublication of this final Policy. has
ompleted or substantially completed
construction of CSO control facilities
that are designed to meet WQS and
protect designated uses, and where it
has been determined that WQS are
being or will be attained, is not covered
by the uutial plAnning and construction
provisions in this Policy; however, the
operational plan and post-construction
monitoring provisions continue to
apply If. after monitoring. it is
determined that WQS are not being
attained, the permittee should be
required to submit a revised CSO
control plan that, once implemented.
will attain WQS.
2 Any permittee that, on the date of
publication of this final Policy. has
substantially developed or Is
implementing a CSO control program
pursuant to an existing permit or
enforcement order, and such program is
considered by the NPDES permitting
authority to be adequate to meet WQS
and protect designated uses and is
reasonably equivalent to the treatment
objectives of this Policy. should
complete those facilities without further
pl*niiing activities otherwise expected
by this Policy. Such programs, however.
should be reviewed and modified to be
onsistent with the sensitive area.
?inancial capability, and post-
construction monitoring provisions of
this Policy.
3.Any permittee that has previously
constructed CSO control facilities in an
effort to comply with WQS but has
failed to meet such applicable standards
or to protect designated uses due to
remAining CSO5 may receive
consideration for such efforts in future
permits or enforceabl, orders for long.
term CSO control planning, design and
implementation.
in the case of any ongoing or
substantially completed CSC control
effort. the NPDES permit or other
enforceable me haniain, as appropriate.
should be revised to include all
appropriate permit requirements
consistent with Section IV.B. of this
Policy.
D. Small System Considerations
The scope of the long-term CSO
control plan. including the
characterization, monitoring and
modeling. and evaluation of alternatives
portions of this Policy may be difficult
for some small CSSs. At the discretion
of the NPDES Authority. jurisdictions
with populations under 75,000 may not
need to complete each of the formal
steps outlined in Section U.C. of this
Policy. but should be required through
their permits or other enforceable
mea-h nisms to comply with the nine
minimum controls (U.B). public
participation (lI.C.2), and sensitive areas
(1I .C.3) portions of this Policy. In
addition, the permittee may propose to
implement any of the criteria contained
in this Policy for evaluation of
alternatives described in IIC.4.
Following approval of the proposed
plan. such jurisdictions should
construct the control projects and
propose a monitoring program sufficient
to determine whether WQS are attained
and designated uses are protected.
In developing long-term CSO control
plans based on the small system
considerations discussed in the
preceding paragraph. permittees are
encouraged to discuss the scope of their
long-term CSO control plan with the
WQS authority and the NPDES
authority. These discussions will ensure
that the plan includes sufficient
information to enable the permitting
authority to identify the appropriate
CSO controls.
E. Impis
—
NPDES authorities (authorized States
or EPA Regional Offices, as appropriate)
are responsible for implementing this
Policy. It is their responsibility to assure
that CSO permittees develop long-term
CSO control plans and that 4PDES
permits meet the requu’emeots of the
CWA. Further, they are responsible for
coordinating the review of the long-term
CSO control plan and the development
of the permit with the WQS authority to
determine if revisions to the WQS are
appropriate. En addition. they should
determine the appropriate vehicle (i.e.
permit reiuuance, information request
under CWA section 308 or State
equivalent or enforcement action) to
ensure that compliance with the CWA is
achieved as soon as practicable.
Permittees axe responsible for
documenting the implementation of the
nine Yninimum controls and developing
and implementing a long-term CSO
control plan. as described in this Policy
EPA recognizes that financial
considerations are a major factor
affecting the Implementation of CSO
controls. For that reason. this Policy
allows consideration of a permittee’s
financial capability in connection with
the long-term CSO control planning
effort. WQS review, and negotiation of
enforceable schedules. However, each
permittee is ultimately responsible for
aggressively pursuing financial
arrangements for the implementation of
its long-term CSO control plan. As pan
of this effort, communities should apply
to their State Revolving Fund program.
or other assistance programs as
appropriate, for financial assistance.
PA and the States will undertake
action to assure that all permittees with
CSSs are subject to a consistent review
in the permit development process.
have permit requirements that achieve
compliance with the CWA. and are
subject to enforceable schedules that
require the earliest practicable
compliance date considering physical
and financial feasibility
F. Policy Development
This Policy devotes a separate section
to each step involved in developing and
implementing CSO controls. This is not
to imply that each function occurs
separately. Rather, the entire process
surrounding CSO controls, community
planning. WQS and permit
development/revision. enforcementi
compliance actions and public
participation must be coordinated to
control CSOs effectively. Permittees and
permitting authorities are encouraged to
consider innovative and alternative
approaches and technologies that
achieve the objectives of this Policy and
the CWA.
In developing this Policy. EPA has
included Information on what
responsible parties axe expected to
accomplish. Subsequent documents will
provide additional guidance on how the
objectives of this Policy should be met.
These documents will provide further
guidance on: CSO permit writing, the
nine minimum controls. long-term CSO
-------
Fsdsl b Mer I Vol. 59, No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19. 1994 / Notices
18891
control plans. finandal capability.
sewer system charactIri O fld
reoslvt.ng water monitaileg and
modeling, and application of WQS to
CSO-Lmpacted waters. Fm most CSO
control efforts however. suffident detail
has been included in this Policy to
begin immediate implementation of Its
provisiOns.
II. EPA Objectives for hnnsttees
A. Overview
Permittees with CSSs that have CSOs
should Immediately undertake a process
to accurately characterize their sewer
systems. to demonstrate implementation
of the nine n nimum controls, and to
develop a long-term CSO control plan.
B. Implementation of the Nine
Minimum Controls
Permittees with CSOs should submit
appropriate documentation
demonstrating implementation of the
nine minimum controls. including any
proposed schedules for completing
minor construction activities. The nine
minimum controls are:
1. Proper operation and regular
inaintenanos prcgiams for the sewer
system and the CSO;
2. Maximum use of the collection
system for storage;
3. Review and modification of
pretreatment requirements to assure
CSO impacts are minirni, d ;
4. Maximization of flow to the P01W
for treatment;
5. Prohibition of CSO during dry
weather.
0. Control of solid and floatable
materials in CSO;
7. Pollution prevention;
8. Public notification to ensure that the
public receives adequate nofl t1 ’n
of CSO occurrences and CSO lmpsctL
and
9. Monitoring to effectively characturtes
CSO impacts and the effimy of CS0
controls.
Selection and i.mpL.ii i .imtation of
actual control mesmues should be hived
on site-specific C tf is Including
the specific CSS’e charecteetatic.
discussed under the sewer system
characterization and monitoring
portions of this Policy. Documsn’.’ 4 on
of the nine minimum controls may
include operation and maint.na
plans. revised sewer use ordinances foe
industrial users, sewer system
inspection reports. inflltratio&tnflaw
studies, pollution prevention programs.
public notification plans. and facility
plans for maxima, ng the capacities of
the existing collection. storage and
treatment systems. u well as contracts
and schedules for minor construction
programs for Improving the existing
system’s operation. The perminee
should also submit any information or
data on the degree to which the nine
minimum controls achieve compllinca
with water quality standards. These data
and information should Include results
made available through monitoring and
modeling activities done In conjunction
with the development of the long-term
CSO control plan deea’ibed in this
Policy.
This documentation should be
submitted as soon as practicable, but no
later than two year, alter the
reqwrement to submit such
documentation is Induded In an NPDES
permit or other enforceable mechanism.
implementation of the nine minimum
controls with appropriate
documentation should be completed as
soon as practicable but no later than
January 1. 1997. These dates should be
Included in an appropriate enforceable
mr 4 lsnism.
Because the CWA requires immediate
compliance with technology-b.sed
controls (section 301(b)), which on a
Best Professional Judgment basis should
include the nine minimum controls, a
compliance schedule for implementing
the nine minimum controls, If
nel uuy, should be included In an
appropriate enforceable mei’h snI.m
C. Long-Term CSO Control Plan
Permittees with CSOs are responsible
for developing and implementing Long-
term CSO control plans that will
ultimately result In comp’i nc, with the
requirements of the CWA. The long-
term plans should consider the site-
specific nature of CSOs and evaluate the
cost e ctiveness of a rang. of control
options/strategies. The developm” of
the long-term CSO control plan and Its
subsequent implementation should also
be coordinated with the NPDES
authority and the State authority
responsible for reviewing and revising
the State’s WQS. The selected controls
should be designed to allow cost
effective expansion or cost effective
retrofitting if additional controls are
subsequently determined to be
n ’y to meet WQS, including
existing and designated uses.
This policy identifies EPAs major
oblectives for the long-term CSO control
plan. Perrnittees should develop and
submit this long-term CSO control plan
as soon as practicable. but generally
within two years after the date of the
NPDES permit provision. Section 308
information request, or enforcement
action reqwring the permittee to
develop the plan. r .PDES authorities
may establish a longer timetable for
completion of the long’ierm CSO
control plan on a cas..by.caes basis to
unt for site-specific factors which
may Influence the complexity of the
pLunning process. Once aeresd upon.
these dates should be Included In an
appropriate enforceable mechanism.
EPA expects each long-term CSo
control plan to utilize appropriate
Information to address the following
minimum elements. The Plan should
also include both fixed-date project
implementation schedules (which may
be phased) and a financing plan to
design and construct the project as soon
as practicable. The minimum elements
of the long-term CSO control plan are
de. ibed below.
1. arscterLzation. Monitoring, and
Modeling of the Combined Sewer
System
In order to design a CSO control plan
adequate to meet the requirements of
the CWA. a permattee should have a
thorough understanding of Its sewer
system. the response of the system to
various precipitation events, the
chazacterLstice of the overflows, and the
water quality Impacts that result from
CSO. The permittee should adequately
characterize through monitoring,
modeling, and other nmani as
appropriate, for a rang, of storm events.
the response of Its sewer system to wet
weather events including the number,
location and frequency of CSOs.
volume, concentration and mass of
pollutants discharged and the impacts
of the CS on the receiving waters and
their designated uses. The permittee
may need to consider information on
the contribution and importance of
other pollution sources in order to
develop a final plan designed to meet
water quality standards. The purpose of
the system characterization, monitoring
and modeling program Initially is to
assist the peemittes in developing
appropriate measures to Implement the
nine minimum controls and, if
nr .-a1y , to support development of
the long-term CS0 control plan. The
monitoring and modeling data also will
be used to evaluate th. expected
effectiveness of both the nine minimum
controls and. If nsm.svy . the long-term
CSO controls, to meet WQS.
The major elements of a sewer system
chazacterisst lon are de ibsd below.
a. Pain fall Recorde—.The permatee
should mmi the complete ruinfall
record for the geographic area of its
existing CSS using sound statistical
procedures and best available data. The
permittee should evaluate flow
variations in the receiving water body to
correlate between CSOs and receiving
water conditions.
-------
18892
Federal R .e ster / Vol. 59. No. 75 I Tuesday. April 19. 1994 I Notices
b. Combined Sewer System
haractenzatiOn—The permittee should
.svaluate the nature and extent of its
sewer system through evaluation of
available sewer system records. field
inspections and other activities
necessary to understand the number.
location and frequency of ,verflows and
their location relative to sensitive areas
and to pollution sources in the
collection system, such as indirect
significant industrial users.
c. CSO Monitoring—The permittee
should develop a comprehensive.
representative monitoring program that
measures the frequency. duration, flow
rate, volume and pollutant
concentration of CSO discharges and
assesses the unpact of the CSOs on the
receiving waters. The monitoring
program should include necessary CSO
effluent and ambient in-stream
monitoring and, where appropriate.
other monitoring protocols such as
biological assessment, toxicity testing
and sediment sampling. Monitoring
parameters should include, for example.
oxygen demanding pollutants. nutrients.
toxic pollutants, sediment
contkmin.nts. pathogens.
bacteriological indicators (e.g..
Enterococcus. E. Coli). and toxicity. A
representative sample of overflow
oints can be selected that is sufficient
o allow characterization of CSO
discharges and their water quality
impacts and to facilitate evaluation of
control plan alternatives.
d. Modeling—Modeling of a sewer
system is recognized as a valuable tool
for predicting sewer system respons. to
various wet weather events and
assessing water quality impacts when
evaluating different control strategies
and alternatives. EPA supports the
proper and effective use of models,
where appropriate, in the evaluation of
the nine minimum controls and the
development of the long-term CSO
control plan. It is also recognized that
there are many models which may be
used to do this. These models rang.
from simple to complex. Having
decided to use a model, the p.rmlttes
should base its choice of a model on the
characteristics of its sewer system, the
number and location of overflow points.
and the sensitivity of the receiving
water body to the CSO discharges. Us.
of models should include appropriate
calibration and verification with field
measurements. The sophistication of the
model should relate to the complexity of
the system to be modeled and to the
information need., associated with
evaluation of CSO control options and
water quality impacts. EPA believes that
continuous simulation models. using
historical rainfall data. may be the best
way to model sewer systems. CSOs. and
their impacts. Because of the iteretlvs
natu.re of modeling sewer systems.
CSOs. and their impacts. monitoring
and modeling efforts are complementary
and should be coordinated.
2. Public Participation
In developing its long-term CSO
control plan. the permattee will employ
a public participation process that
actively involves the affected public in
the decision-making to select th. long-
term CSO controls. The affected public
includes rate payers, industrial users of
the sewer system. persons who resid.
downstream from the CSOs. persona
who use and enjoy thes. downstream
waters, and any other interested
persons.
3. Consideration of Sensitive Areas
EPA expects a permittee’s long.term
CSO control pLan to give the highest
priority to controlling overflows to
sensitive areas. Sensitive areas, as
determined by the NPDES authority in
coordination with State and Federal
agencies, as appropriate, include
designated Outstanding National
Resource Waters, National Marine
Sanctuaries, waters with threatened or
endangered species and their habitat.
waters with primary contact recreation.
public drinking water intakes or their
designated protection areas. and
shellfish beds. For such areas. the long-
term CSO control plan should:
a. Prohibit new or significantly
increased overflows;
b. I. I1minAte or relocate overflows
that discharge to sensitive areas
wherever physically possible and
economically achievable, except where
elimination or relocation would provide
less environmental protection than
additional treatment; or
11. Where elimination or relocation is
not physically possible and
economically achievable, or would
provide less environmental protection
than additional treatment, provide the
level of treatment for remaining
overflows deemed necessary to meet
WQS for full protection of existing and
designated uses. In any event, the level
of control should not be less than those
described in Evaluation of Alternatives
below: and
c. Where elimination or relocation has
been proven not to be physically
possible and economically achievable.
permitting authorities should require.
for each subsequent permit term, a
reassessment based on new or improved
techniques to eliminate or relocate, or
on changed ctrcu.stances that
influence economic achievabiLity
4. Evaluation of Alternatives
EPA expects the Long-term CSO
control plan to consider a reasonable
range of alternatives. The plan should.
for examoie, evaluate controls that
would be necessary to achieve zero
overflow events per year. an average of
one to three, four to seven, and eight to
twelve overflow events per year.
Alternatively, the long ’term plan could
evaluate controls that achieve 100%
capture. 90% capture. 85% capture.
80% capture. and 75% capture (or
treatment. The long-term control plan
should also consider expansion of
POTW secondary and primary capacity
in the CSO abatement alternative
analysis. The analysis of alternatives
should be sufficient to make a
reasonable assessment of cost and
performance as described in Section
IIC.5. Because the final long-term CSO
control plan will become the basis for
NPDES permit limits and requirements.
the selected controls should be
sufficient to meet CWA requirements.
In addition to considering sensitive
areas, the long-term CSO control plan
should adopt one of the following
approaches:
a. ‘Presumption” Approach
A program that meets any of the
criteria listed below would be presumed
to provide an adequate level of control
to meet the water quality-based
requirements of the CWA. provided the
permitting authority determines that
such presumption is reasonable in light
of the data and analysis conducted in
the characterization, monitoring. and
modeling of the system and the
consideration of sensitive areas
described above. These criteria are
provided because data and modeling of
wet weather events often do nat give a
clear picture of the level of CSO controls
necessary to protect WQS.
i. No more than an average of four
overflow events per year. provided that
the permitting authority may allow up
to two additional overflow events per
year. For the purpose of this criterion.
an overflow event Is one or more
overflows from a CSS as the result of a
precipitation event that does not receive
the minimum treatment specified
below: or
LI. The eIImln .tton or the capture for
treatment of no less than 85% by
volume of the combined sewage
collected in the CSS during
precipitation events on a system-wide
annual average basis; or
ill. The elimination or removal of no
less than the mass of the pollutants.
identified as causing water quality
impairment through the sewer system
-------
Federal Register / VoL. 59. No. 75 / Tuesday, April 19. 1994 / Notices
18693
‘iaracterizatton. monitoring, and
.iodeling effort. for the volumes that
would be eliminated or captuzed for
treatment under paragraph u. above.
Combined sewer flows remaining after
implementation of the nine mhv li,lum
controls and within the criteria
specified at IIC.4.a.i or u. should
receive a minimum of:
• Primary clarification (Removal of
floatable. and settleable solids may be
achieved by any combination of
treatment technologies or methods that
are shown to be equivalent to primary
clarification.):
• Solids and floatable. disposal; and
• Disinfection of effluent. if
necessary. to meet WQS. protect
designated uses and protect human
health. including removal of harmful
disinfection chemical residuals, where
necessary.
b. “DemonstratIon” Approach
A permittee may demonstrate that a
selected control program. though not
meeting the criteria specified in ll.C.4.a.
above is adequate to meet the water
quality-based requirements of the CWA.
To be a successful demonstration, the
permittee should demonstrate each of
the following:
I. The planned control program is
£dequate to meet WQS and protect
designated uses. unless WQS or uses
cannot be met as a result of natural
background conditions or pollution
sources other than CSOs;
u. The CSO discharges remaining
after implementation of the planned
control program will not preclude the
attainment of WQS or the receiving
waters’ designated uses or contribute to
their impairment. Where WQS and
designated uses are not met in part
because of natural background
conditions or pollution sources other
than CSO. a total ma dmum daily load.
including a wasteload allocation and a
load allocation, or other should
be used to apportion pollutant loads;
Lu. The planned control program will
provide the maximum pollution
reduction benefits t, muh1y attainable;
and
iv. The planned control program Is
designed to allow cost effective
expansion or coat effective retrofitting If
additional controls are subsequently
determined to be necessary to meet
WQS or designated uses.
5. Cost/Perfor n.nc, Conilderatloag
The perimttee should develop
appropriate cost/performance curves to
demonstrate the relationships among a
comprehensive set of reasonable coca’ol
alternatives that correspond to the
different ranges specified in Section
UC.4. This should Include an analysis
to determine where the increment of
pollution reduction achieved in the
receiving water diminishes compared to
the increased costs. This analysis. often
known as knee of the curve, should be
among the considerations used to help
guide selection of controls.
6. Operational Plan
After agreement between the
permittee and NPDES authority on the
necessary CSO controls to be
implemented under the long-term CSO
control plan. the permittee should
revise the operation and maintenance
program developed as part of the nine
minimum controls to Include the
agreed-upon long-term CSO controls.
The revised operation and maintenance
program should ma rnn, . the removal
of pollutants during and after each
precipitation event using all available
facilities within the collection and
treatment system. For any flows in
excess of the criteria specified at
ILC.4.a.i.. ii. or iii and not receiving the
treatment specified In n.C.a.a. the
operational plan should ensure that
such flows receive treatment to the
greatest extent practicable.
7. Ma,dmimng Treatment at the E dsting
POTW Treatment Plant
In some communities, POTW
treatment plants may have primary
treatment capacity in excess of their
secondary treatment capacity. One
effective strategy to abate pollution
resulting from CSOs is to ma,ei1ni, the
delivery of flows during wet weather to
the POTW treatment plant for treatment
Delivering these flows can have two
significant water quality benefits: First.
Increased flows during wet weather to
the POTW treatment plant may enable
the permittee to eliminate or minimi
overflows to sensitive areas: second, this
would maidmize the use of available
POTW facilities for wet weather flows
and would ensure that combined sewer
flows receive at least primary treatment
prior to discharge.
Under EPA regulations, the
intentional diversion of waste streams
from any portion of a treatment facility.
Including secondary treatment, is a
bypass. EPA bypass regulations at 40
CFR 122.41(m) allow for a facility to
bypass some or all the flow from its
treatment process under specified
limited circumstances. Under the
regulation, the permittee must show that
the bypass was unavoidable to prevent
loss of life, personal injury or severe
property damage. that there was no
feasible alternative to the bypass and
that the permittee submitted the
required notices. In addition, the
regulation provides that a bypass may
be approved only after consideration of
adverse effects,
Normally. it is the responsibility of
the permittee to document, on a case-by.
base basis, compliance with 40 CFR
122.41(m) in order to bypass flows
legally. For some CSO-related permits.
the study of feasible alternatives in the
control plan may provide sufficient
support for the permit record and for
approval of a CSO-related bypass in the
permit itself, and to define the specific
parameters under which a bypass can
legally occur. For approval of a CSO-
related bypass, the long-term CSO
control plan. at a minimum, should
provide justification for the cut-off point
at which the flow will be diverted from
the secondary treatment portion of the
treatment plant. and provide • benefit-
cost analysis demonstrating that
conveyance of wet weather flow to the
POTW for primary treatment is more
beneficial than other CSO abatement
alternatives such as storage and pump
back for secondary treatment, sewer
separation, or’ satellite treatment. Such a
permit must define under what specific
wet weather conditions a CSO-related
bypass Is allowed and also specify what
treatment or what monitoring, and
effluent limitations and requirements
apply to the bypass flow. The permit
should also provide that approval for
the CSO.’related bypass will be reviewed
and may be modified or terminated if
there is a substantial Increase in the
volume or character of pollutants being
introduced to the POTW. The CSO.
related bypas. provision In the permit
should also make it clear that all wet
weather flows passing the he.dworks of
the l’W treatment plant will receive
at least primary clarIfication and solids
and floatable, removal and disposal.
and disinfection, where necessary, and
any other treatment that can reasonably
be provided.
Under this approach. EPA would
allow a permit to authorize a CSO-
related bypass of the secondary
treatment portion of the POTW
treatment plant for combined sewer
flows In certain Identified
circumstances. This provision would
apply only to those situations where the
POTW would ordinarily meet the
requirements of 40 C R 122.41(m) as
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, there must be sufficient data
in the adnth itradve record (reflected in
the permit fact sheet or statement of
basis) supporting all the requirements in
40 G’R 122.4 l(m)(4) for approval of an
anticipated bypass.
For the purposes of applying this
regulation to CSO permattees. “severe
property damage” could include
-------
18694
Federal R.egi er / Vol. 59. No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19. 1994 / Notices
situation.s where flows above a certain
level wash out the POTW’s secondizy
treatment system. EPA further believes
that the feasible alternatives
requirement of the regulation can be met
if the record show, that the secondary
treatment system is properly operated
and maintained, that the system has
been designed to meet secondary Limits
for flows greater than the peak dry
weather flow, plus an appropriate
quantity of wet weather flow, and that
it is either technically or financially
infeasible to provide secondary
treatment at the existing facilities for
greater amounts of wet weather flow.
The feasible alternative analysis should
include. for example, consideration of
enhanced primary treatment (e.g..
chemical addition) and non.biological
secondary treatment. Other bases
supporting a finding of no feasible
alternative may also be available on a
case-by-case basis. As part of its
consideration of possible adverse effects
resulting from the bypass. the
permitting authority should also ensure
that the bypass will not cause
exceedances of WQS.
This Policy does not address the
appropriateness of approving
anticipated bypasses through NPDES
permits in advance outside the CSO
:ontext.
8. Implementation Schedule
The permittee should include all
pertinent information in the long term
control plan necessary to develop the
construction and financing schedule for
implementation of CSO controls.
Schedules for implementation of the
CSO controls may be phased based on
the relative importance of adverse
impacts upon WQS and designated
uses. priority projects identified In the
long-term plan. and on a permitte.’.
financial capability.
Construction phasing should
consider:
a. Eliminating overflows that
discharge to sensitive areas as the
highest priority;
b Use impairment;
c. The permittee’s Rnmnd.J capability
including consideration of such factor.
as:
i. Median household income;
ii. Total annual wastewater end CSO
control costs per household as a pe.c t
of median household Income;
iii. Overall net debt as a percent of
full market property value;
iv. Property tax revenues as a percent
of full market property value;
v. Property tax collection rate:
vi. Unemployment; and
vii Bond rating;
d Grant and loan availability:
e. Previous and current residential.
commercial and industrial sewer user
fees and rate structures; and
f. Other viable funding mechanisms
and sources of financing.
9. Post-Construction Compliance
Monitoring Program
The selected CSO controls should
include a post-construction water
quality monitoring program adequate to
verify compliance with water quality
standards and protection of designated
uses as well as to ascertain the
effectiveness of CSO controls. This
water quality compliance monitoring
program should include a plan to be
approved by the NPDES authority that
details the monitoring protocols to be
followed, including the necessary
effluent and ambient monitoring and.
where appropriate, other monitoring
protocols such as biological
assessments. whole effluent toxicity
testing. and sediment sampling.
III. Coordination With State Water
Quality Standards
A. Overview
WQS are State adopted. or Federally
promulgated rules which serve as the
goals for the water body and the legal
basis for the water quality-based NPDES
permit requirements under the CWA.
WQS consist of uses which States
designate for their water bodies, criteria
to protect the uses. an anti-degradation
policy to protect the water quality
improvements gained and other policies
affecting the implementation of the
standards. A primary objective of the
long-term CSO control plan is to meet
WQS, Including the designated uses
through reducing risks to human health
and the environment by eIivnhi .ting.
relocating or controlling CSO . to the
affected waters.
State WQS authorities, NPDES
authorities. EPA regional offices,
permittees. and the public should meet
early and frequently throughout the
long-term CSO control plAnning
process. Development of the long-term
plan should be coordinated with the
review and appropriate revision of WQS
and implementation procedure. on
CSO.impacted waters to ensure that the
long-term controls will be sufficient to
meet water quality standards. As part of
these meetings. participants should
agree on the data, information and
analyse. seeded to support the
development of the long-term CSO
control plan and the review of
applicable WQS, and implementation
procedures. if appropriate. Agreements
should be reached on the monitoring
protocols and models that will be used
to evaluate the water quality impacts of
the overflows, to analyze the
attainability of the WQS and to
determine the water quality-based
requirements for the permit. Many
opportunities exist for permittees and
States to shaie information as control
programs are developed and as WQS are
reviewed. Such information should
assist States in detern’n’ng the need for
revisions to WQS and implementation
procedures to better reflect the site-
specific wet weather impacts of CSOs.
Coordinating the development of the
long-term CSO control plan and the
review of the WQS and implementation
procedures provides greater assurance
that the long-term control plan selected
and the limits and requirements
included in the NPDES permit will be
sufficient to meet WQS and to comply
with sections 301(b)(1)(C) and 402(a)(2)
of the CWA.
EPA encourages States and permittees
jointly to sponsor workshops for the
affected public in the development of
the long-term CSO control plan and
during the development of appropriate
revisions to WQS for CSO-impacted
waters. Workshops provide a forum for
including the public in discussions of
the implications of the proposed long.
term CSO control plan on the water
quality and uses for the receiving water
B. Water Quality Standards Reviews
The CWA requires States to
periodically, but at least once every
three years. hold public hearings for the
purpose of reviewing applicable water
quality standards and, as appropriate.
modifying and adopting standards.
States must provide the public an
opportunity to comment on any
proposed revision to water quality
standards and ill revisions must be
submitted to EPA for review and
aporoval.
PA regulations and guidance provide
States with the fle,dbility to adapt their
WQS. and Implementation procedures
to reflect site-specific conditions
including those related to CSOs. For
example. a State may adopt site-specific
criteria for a particular pollutant if the
State determines that the site-specific
criteria fully protects the designated use
(40 CFR 131.11). In addition, the
regulations at 40 R 131.10(g), (h). and
(9. when and how a designated
use may modified. A State may
remove a designated use from as water
quality standards only if the designated
use is not an eidstlng use. An existing
use is a use actually attained In the
water body on or after November 28.
1975. Furthermore. a State may not
remove a designated use that will be
attained by implementing the
-------
Federal RaØ t .ri Vol. 59. No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19. 1994/ Notices
18695
nologybasid effluent Limits
iquired under sections 301(b) and 30S
f the CWA and by implementing cost-
effective and reasonable b
management prectices for nonpoint
source controls. Thus. ifs Stats has a
reasonable basis to determine that the
current designated use could be attained
after unplementatlon of the technology-
based controls of the CWA. then th. us.
could not be removed.
In d.turn inLng whether a use is
attainable and prior to removing a
designated use. States must conduct and
submit to EPA a use ati.in.hllIty
analysis. A us. atsiin h1lity analysis Is
a structured scientific a !nent of the
factors affecting the use, including the
physical. che” ’. biological. and
economic factors described In 40 ‘R
131.10(g ). As part of the analysts. State.
should evaluate whether the designated
use could be attained If CSO controls
were Implemented. For exempt.. States
should ,t mirie if sediment lcaiHng .
from CSO. could be reduced so as not
to bury spawning beds, or If
biochemical oxygen demanding material
in the effluent or the toxiaty of the
effluent could be corrected so as to
reduce the acute or chronic
hyslological stress on or
ioaccumulatlon potential of aquatic
rnamsms.
to reviewing the at ii h1lity of their
WQS and the applicability of their
implementation procedures to CSO-
impacted waters. Stats. are encouraged
to define more explicitly their
recreational and aquatic life uses and
then, if appropriate, modify the criteria
accordingly to protect the designated
uses.
Another option Is for Stats. to adopt
partial uses by defining when primary
contact reasation such as swimming
does not emst. such as during certain
seasons of the year in northern aIim*t . .
or during a particular typ. of storm
event. In making such ad uatments to
their uses. States must e ue that
downstream uses are t.t! d . and that
during other seasons or aftur th. storm
event has passed, the use Is filly
protected. _____
In addition to defining eatlonal
uses with peater specificity. Slates are
also encouraged to define the aquatic
uses more preasely. Rather than
“aquatic life use protection.” States
should consider defining the typ. of
fishery to be protected such as a cold
water fishery (e.g.. trout or salmon) or a
‘arm weather fishery (e.g.. bluegill or
rge mouth bass). Explicitly defining
ie type of fishery to be protected may
assist the permittee in enlisting the
support of citizens for a CSO control
plan.
A water quality standard variance
may be appropriate. In limited
dicu_mitanCeS on CSO. impacted waters.
where the State Is uncertain as to
whether a standard can be attained end
time is needed for the State to conduct
additional analyses on the attainability
of th, standard. Variances are short-term
modifications In water quality
standards. Subject to EPA approval,
States, with their own statutory
authority. may grant a variance to a
specific discharger for a specific
pollutant. The justification for a
variance Is similar to that required for
a permanent change in the standard.
although the showings needed are less
rigorous. Variances are also subject to
public participation requirements of the
water quality standards and permits
progi’arns and are revlewable generally
every three years. A vailance allow, the
CSO permit to be written to mast the
“modified” water quality standard as
analyses are conducted and as progress
is made to improve water quality.
Justifications for var4ance. are the
same as those identified In 40 ‘R
131.10(a ) for modifications In uses.
State. must provide an opportunity for
public review and comment on all
variances. If State. use the permit as the
vehicle to grant the variance, notice of
the permit must clearly state that the
variance modifies the State’s water
quality standards. If the variance Is
approved, the State appends the
variance to the State’s standards and
reviews the variance every three years.
IV. Expectations for Permitting
Authorities
£ Overview
CSOs are point sources subject to
NPDES permit requirements Including
both technology-based and water
quality-based requirements of the CWA.
CSOs are not subject to secondary
tres ent regulations applicable to
publicly owned treatment works
(Montgomery E,wzronmentoi Coalition
vs. Costle, 848 F.2d 588 (D.C. Cl ,.
1980)).
All permits for CSOs should require
the nine minimum controls as a
‘ ‘ um best available technology
economically achievable and best
conventional tachnotogy (BAT/BCF)
established on a best professional
judgment (BPJ) basis by the permitting
authority (40 C R 125.3). Water quality-
based requirements are to be estabUsh d
based on applicable water quality
standards.
This policy establishes a uniform,
nationally consistent approach to
developing and issuing NPDES permits
to pumittees with CSOs. Permits for
CSOs should be developed and issued
expeditiously. A ‘ Ingle . system-wide
permit generally should be issued for all
discharges, including CSOs. from a CSS
operated by a single authority. When
different parts of a single CSS are
operated by more than one authority,
permits issued to each authority should
generally require joint preparation and
implementation of the elements of this
Policy and should specifically define
the responsibilities and duties of each
authority. Permittees should be required
to coordinate system-wide
implementation of the nine minimum
controls and th. development and
implementation of the long-term CSO
control plan.
The Individual authorities are
responsible for their own diwhirges and
should cooperate with the permittee for
the POTW receiving the flows from the
CSS. When a CSO is permitted
separately from the POTW, both permits
should be cross-referenced for
informational purposes.
EPA Regions and States should
review the CSO permitting prioritie.
established In the State CSO Permitting
Strategies developed In response to the
1989 Strategy. Regions and States may
elect to revise thee. previous priorities.
In setting permitting priorities. Regions
and States should not just focus on
those permittess that have Initiated
monitoring programs. When setting
prioritiss. Regions and State. should
consider, for example. the known or
potential Impact of CSOs on sensitive
areas, and the extent of upstream
Industrial user discharges to the CSS.
During the permittee’s development
of the Long-term CSO control plan. the
permit writer should promote
coordination between the permittee and
State WQ$ authority in connection with
possible WQS revisions. Once the
permittee has completed development
of the long-term CSO control plan and
has coordinated with the permitting
authority the selection of the controls
nsw’wy to meet the requirements of
the CWA, the permitting authority
should Include In an appropriate
enforceabl, mechanism, requirements
for implementation of the long-term
CSO control plan. Including conditions
for water quality monitoring and
operation and malntmn ce.
B. NPDES Permit Requirements
Following are the major elements of
NPDES permits to implement this
Policy and ensure protection of water
quality.
-------
18696
Fedes’nl l si ’ / VoL 59,No. 75 I Tuesday. April19. 1994 I Notices
1. Phase I Permltb.—RaquLremSflts for
DemonstratiOn of lmpl.eatation of the
Nine Min rnum Conttvls and
Development of the Long-Term CSO
Control Pla.n
En the Phase I permit issued/modified
to reflect this Policy, the NPDES
authority should at least require
permittees to:
a. Immediately implement BAT/BC ! ’.
which at a minimum includes the tune
minimum controls. as determined on a
BPJ basis by the permitting authority:
b. Develop and submit a report
documenting the implementation of the
rune minimum controls within two
years of permit issuance/modificatIon:
c. Comply with applicable WQS. no
later than the date allowed under the
States WQS. expressed in the form of a
narrative limitation; and
d. develop and submit, consistent
with this Policy and based on a
schedule in an appropriate enforceable
mechanism, a long-term CSO control
plan as soon as practicable. but
generally within two years after the
effective date of the permit iuuance/
modification. However, permitting
authorities may establish a longer
timetable for completion of the long-
term CSO control plan on a case.by-case
basis to aocount for site-speafic factors
that may influence the coxnpleidty of the
planning process.
The NPDES authority should include
compliance dates on the fastest
practicable schedule for each of the nine
minimum controls in an appropriate
enforceable mechanism Issued in
conjunction with the Phase I permit.
The use of enforceable orders is
necessary unless Congress amends the
CWA. All orders should require
compliance with the nine minimum
controls no later than January 1, 1997.
2. Phase II Permits—Raqulrenients for
Implementation of a Long-Term CSO
Control Plan
Once the permittee has completed
development of the l 4slm CSO
control plan and the i 11on of the
controls necessary to st CWA
requirements has been coordinated with
the permitting and WQS authorities, the
permitting authority should Lnclud, In
an appropriate enforceable merh n4.mn .
requirements for Implementation of the
long-term CSO control plan as soon U
practicable. Where the permittee has
selected controls based on the
“presumption” approach described In
Section II.C.4, the permitting authority
must have determined that the
presumption that such level of
treatment will achieve water quality
standards is reasonable in light of the
data and analysis conducted under this
Policy. The Phase II permit should
contain:
a. R.quuements to ‘implement the
technology-based controls including the
nine f,iinim ium controls determined on
a BPJ basis:
b. Narrative requirements which
insure that the selected CSO controls are
implemented, operated and maintained
as described in the long”term CSO
control plan;
c. Water quality-based effluent Limits
under 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) and
122.44(k). requiring, at a mnmimum.
compliance with, no later than the date
allowed under the State’s WQS, the
numeric performance standards for the
selected CSO controls, based on average
design conditions specifying at least one
of the following:
i. A maidmum number of overflow
events per year for specified design
conditions consistent with fl.C.4.a.l ; or
ii. A minimum percentage capture of
combined sewag. by volume for
treatment under specified design
conditions consistent with lI’C.4’a.il; or
iii. A minimum removal of the mass
of pollutants discharged for specified
design conditions consistent with
ll.C.4.a.iii; or
iv. performance standards and
requirements that are consistent with
II,C.4.b. of the Policy.
d. A requirement to Implement. with
an established schedule, the approved
post-construction water quality
assessment program including
requirements to monitor and collect
sufficient information to demonstrate
compliance with WQS and protection of
designated uses as well as to determine
the effectiveness of CSO controls.
e. A requirement to reassess overflows
to sensitive areas in those cases where
eii!!tmfl Stton or relocation of the
overflows is not physically possible and
economir lIy achievable. The
reassessment should be based on
consideration of new or improved
techniques to eiimin te or relocate
overflows or changed circumstances
that influence economic achievability;
f. Conditions establishing
requirements for maiaminng the
treatment of wet weather flows at the
POTW treatment plant. as appropriate.
consistent with Section Il,C.7. of this
Policy;
g. A reopener clause authorlaing the
NPDES authority to reopen and modify
the permit upon determination that the
CSO controls fail to meet WQS or
protect designated uses. Upon such
determination, the NPDES authority
should promptly notify the permnittee
and proceed to modify or reissue the
permit. The permrnee should be
required to develop, submit and
implement. u soon as practicable, a
revised CSO control plan which
contains additional controls to meet
WQS and designated uses. If the initial
CSO control plan was approved under
the demonstration provisina of Section
IIC.4.b.. the revised plan. at a
minimum, should provide for controls
that satisfy one of the criteria in Section
EIC.4.a. unless the permittee
demonstrates that the revised plan is
clearly adequate to meet WQS at a lower
cost and It is shown that the additional
controls resulting from the criteria in
Section ILC.4.a. will not result In a
greater overall Improvement in water
quality.
Unless the permittee can comply with
all of the requirements of the Phase II
permit. the NPDES authority should
include, in an enforceable mechanism,
compIl nc dates on the fastest
practicable schedule for those acuvtties
directly related to meeting the
requirements of the CWA. For major
permittees, the compliance schedule
should be placed in a judicial order.
Proper compliance with the schedule
for Implementing the controls
recommended in the long-term CSO
control plan constitutes compliance
with the elements of this Policy
concerning planning and
Implementation of a long term CSO
remedy.
3. PhasIng Considerations
Implementation of CSO controls may
be phased bused on the relative
Importance of and adverse impacts
upon WQS and designated uses. as well
as the permittee’. nancial capability
and Its previous efforts to control CSOs.
The NPDES authority should evaluate
the proposed Implementation schedule
and construction phasing discussed in
Section fl.C.8. of this Policy. The permit
should require compliance with the
controls proposed In the long-term CSO
control plan no later than the applicable
deadline(s) under the CWA or State law.
Ucompl’ with the Phase U permit
is not possible. an enforceable schedule,
consistent with the Enforcement and
CompI’an’ e Section of this Policy,
shou ld be Issued In conjunction with
the Phase II permit which specifies the
schedule and mila.tones for
Implementation of the long-term CSO
control pun.
V. Enforcement and Compliance
A. Overview
It is important that permittees act
immediately to take the necessary steps
to comply with the CWA. The CSO
enforcement effort will commence with
-------
Federal Ra$iatm’ / Vol. 59. No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19, 1994 / NOtiCeS
18697
ui uutiatlve to address CS that
Jscharge during dry westh. followed
oy an enforcement effort In njUnCtIon
with permitting CSO. discuisid esrlisr
in this Policy. Success of the
enforcement effort will depend In huge
part upon expeditious action by NPDES
authorities in issuing enforceable
permits that include requirements both
for the nine minimum controls and for
compliance with all other requirements
of the CWA. Priority for enforcement
actions should be set based on
environmental impacts or sensitive
areas affected by CSO.
As a further inducement for
permittees to cooperate with this
process. EPA is prepared to exercise its
enforcement disa et.ion in determining
whether or not to seek civil penalties for
past CSO violations if petmittees meet
the objectives and schedules of this
Policy and do not have CSOs during dry
weather.
B. Enforcement of CSO Dry Weather
Discharge Prohibition
EPA intends to commence
immediately an enforcement initiative
against CSO perinittees which have
CWA violations due to CSO5 during dry
weather. Discharges during dry weather
‘iave always been prohibited by the
‘WOES program. Such discharges can
cieate serious public health and water
quality problems. EPA will use Its CWA
SectIon 308 monitoring. reporting, and
inspection authorities, together with
NPDES State authorities, to locate these
violations, and to determine their
causes. Appropriate remedies and
penalties will be sought for CSO during
dry weather. EPA will provide NPO
authorities moie specific guIdan on
this enforcement initiative separately.
C. Enforcement of Wet Weather CSO
Requirements
Under the CWA. EPA can use several
enforcement options to address
permittees with CSOs. T s options
directly applicable to this Policy are
section 308 Information Raqus
section 309(a) Admlnistrtd,s dsrs,
section 309(g) AdmInistrative Penalty
Orders. sectIon 309 (b) and (d) Qvtl
Judicial Actions, and section 504
Emergency Powers. NPDES States
should use comparable means-
NPDES authorities should —t
priorities for enforcement bs d on
environmental impacts or sensitive
areas affected by CSOs. Permittees that
have voluntarily initiated monitoring
and are progressing expeditiously
toward appropriate CSO controls should
be given due consideration for their
efforts.
1. Enforcement for Compliance With
Phase I Permits
Enforcement for compftsnce with
Phase I permits will focus on
requirements to implement at least the
nine minimum controls, and develop
ks long-term CSO control plan leading
to compliance with the requirements of
the CWA. Where immediate compLiance
with the Phase I permit Is infeasible, the
NPDES authority should issue an
enforceable schedule, In concert with
the Phase I permit. requiring
compliance with the CWA and
imposing compliance schedules with
dates for each of the nine 1 unirnum
controls as soon as practicable. All
enforcement authorities should require
compliance with the nine minl!,ium
controls no later than January 1, 1997.
Wher, the NPDES authority is issuing
an order with a compliance schedule for
the nine minimum controls, this order
should also include a schedule for
development of the long-term CSO
control plan.
If a CSO permattee falls to meet the
final compliance date of the schedule,
the NPDES authority should Initiate
appropriate judicial action.
2. Enforcement for Compliance With
Phase II Permits
The main focus for enforcing
compliance with Phase II permits will
be to incorporate the long-term CSO
control plan through a civil judicial
action, an a’l’ ’n’strative order, or other
enforceable mechanism requiring
compliance with the CWA and
imposing a compliance schedule with
appropriate milestone dates uecswy to
implement the plan.
In general. a judicial order is the
appropriate me1 4 .n4*rn for
incorporating the above provisions for
Phase U. Adm , istrative orders.
however, may be appropriate for
pel ’mittees whose long-term control
plans will take less than five years to
complete. and for minors that have
complied with the final date of the
enforceable order for complian’ with
their Phase I permit. If nec ary, any of
the nine minimum controls that have
oat been implemented by this time
should be included in the terms of the
juA4 ’4mI order.
0. PenaltIes
EPA Is prepared not to seek civil
penalties for past CSO violations, if
permittem have no discharges during
dry weather and meet the oblectives and
schedules of this Policy
Notwithstanding this, where a permutes
has other significant CWA violations for
which EPA or the State is taking judicial
action, penalties may be considered as
part of that action for the following:
1. CS( during dry weather-,
2. VioLations of CSO-related
requirements In NPDES permits:
consent deaess or court orders which
predate this policy; or
3. Other CWA violations.
EPA will not seek penalties for past
CSO violations from permittees that
fully comply with the Phase I permit or
enforceable order requiring compliance
with he Phase I permit. For perrnittees
that fall to comply. EPA will exercise its
enforcement discetion in determining
whether to seek penalties for the time
period for which the compliance
schedule was violated. If the milestone
dates of the enforceable schedule are riot
achieved and penalties are sought.
penalties should be calculated from the
last milestone date that was met.
At the time of the iudicial settlement
imposing a compliance schedule
implementing the Phase U permit
requirements. EPA will not seek
penalties for past CSO violations from
permittees that fully comply with the
enforceable order requiring compliance
with the Phase I permit and if the terms
of the judicial order are expeditiously
agreed to on consent. However.
stipulated penalties for violation of the
judicial order generally should be
included in the order, consistent with
existing Agency policies. Additional
guidanc, on stipulated penalties
concerning long-term CSO controls and
at$ inn ,nt of WQS will be issued.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Information collection
requirements in this policy have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq
and have been assigned 0MB control
number 2040-0170.
This coUectlon of information has an
estimated reporting burden averaging
578 hours per’ response and an
estimated annual recordkeeping burden
averaging 25 hours per recordkeeper
These estimates Include time for
revl.wing Instructions, searching
mdstlng data sources. gathering and
maln’. 4 ”ng the data needed. and
compLeting end reviewing the collection
of information.
Send comm”ts regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of Information, including
suen ions for redur(ng this burden to
Chief. Information Policy Branch; EPA.
401 M Street SW. (Mall Code 2136);
Washington. DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs. Office of Management and
-------
18698 FedirsI Ear / Vol. 59. No. 75 / Tuesday. April 19. 1994 / Notic
Budget. Wa ington, DC 20503. .uked
AtteQt1OQ: Deek Officer for A.
tFR Doc. 94-4295 FiI.d 4- 15—14: 5:43 em)
-------
EPA
Office of Water
4203
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
GUIDANCE FOR THE
DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE
METHODS FOR THE DETECTION OF
SECTION 313 WATER PRIORITY
CHEMICALS
EPA 833.8-94-001
April 1994
- I----------
-------
GUiDANCE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
APPROPRIATE METHODS FOR THE DETECTION OF
SECTION 313 WATER PRIORiTY CHEMICALS
INTRODUCTION
Facilities covered by EPA’s baseline NPDES general permit for storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity which are subject to reporting requirements
under EPCRA Section 313 for chemicals classified as ‘water priority chemicals’ must
monitor their storm water discharges for those compounds. This document lists the Water
Priority Chemicals and corresponding methods of analysis. The list conr2in c 234
compounds. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 122 facilities required to sample their
storm water discharges must use an approved method described in 40 CFR Part 136
(Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollut2nt ). These EPA
approved methods are indicated by bold and italicized text. In many cases methods other
than 40 CFR Part 136 methods will also be listed, or there may not be an approved method
for a particular compound. Methods listed under 40 CFR Part 136 mu be used except as
provided in 40 CFR part 136.4 (Application for alternate test procedures for the analysis of
pollutants). No specific methods are identified for 110 of the compounds. Of these, 105
disassociate in water and may be detected through methods which test for total composite
ions or total metals. For example, calcium cyanide may be analyzed as ‘total cyanide’.
Methods for some ions that were not included in the water priority chemical list have been
added at the end. These include sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, nitrite, flouride, and chloride.
In choosing an appropriate method for a particular compound, follow the directions given
below.
USING ALTERNATE METHODS TO 40 CFR PART 136.
Where a pollutant has an approved test method under 40 CFR 136 that method must
be used unless the applicant obtains prior approval to substitute an alternate test method.
The request for approval must be submitted (in triplicate) to the EPA Regional Administrator
to to the State age y responsible for issuing NPDES Permits. The applicant must:
• Provide the n m and address of the responsible person or firm m*king the discharge
(if not the applicant), the applicable identification number of the existing or pending
permit, the issuing agency, the type of permit for which the alternate test procedure is
requested, and the discharge serial number;
• Identify the pollutant or parameter for which approval of an alternate testing
procedure is being requested;
-------
• Provide justification for using testing procedures other than those specified in 40 CFR
Part 136;
• Provide a detailed description of the proposed alternate test procedure, together with
references to published studies of the applicability of the alternate test procedure to
the effluents in question;
• Provide comparability data (for applicant applying for nationwide approval of an
- alternate test procedure).
The permitting authority will notify the applicant within 90 days regarding the approval of
the alternate method. -
LACK OF METHOD IN 40 CFR PART 136
If a specific pollutant that must be tested does not have a corresponding analytical
method in 40 CFR Part 136, the applicant must submit information on an appropriate method
to be used. The permitting authority must approve its use prior to collection and analysis of
sampling data. The laboratory should be consulted for suggestions and information about
analytical methods that can be used . All information justifying the alternate method should
be sent to the permitting authority prior to use.
NO AVAilABLE METHODS
There were an additional 5 compounds for which no methods were identified in this
listing. These are indicated by the statement ‘No available methods.’ No monitoring is
required for these compound-c.
-------
DOCUMENT KEY
REGULATORY NAMES, SYNONYMS and COMMENTS:
The compound name (as it appears in the Water Priority Chemical listing) along with
any synonyms or other relevent information for identifying the specific compound of interest.
CAS NUMBER and BASE NUMBER:
There is an individual Chemical Accounting. System (CAS) number for every
chemical compound. If a particular compound on the list is similar to a related group of
compounds these may also have a Base Number assigned to the group as a whole. The CAS
numbers presented in this listing are not presented in the usual format which should appear
as follows; 7654-32-1. That is, the rightmost digit by itself, the next two digits together, and
all remaining digits to the left.
ORGANIZATION:
The organization responsible for each method on the list is idicated by one of the
following acronyms:
AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemists
APHA American Public Health Association
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
CLP EPA Office of Emergency Response Contract Laboratory Program
EAD EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and
Analysis Division
EMSLC EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Cincinatti
FISON FISON Instx iments
ISWSD Illinois State Water Survey Division
NCASI National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ODW EPA Office of Drinking Water
OSW EPA Office of Solid Waste
USGS United States Geological Survey
METHOD, SUFFIX and APPARATUS:
Some methods may be applicable to a number of different compounds with slight
variations in detectors or apparatus used. In these cases, a suffix and/or the appropriate
apparatus has been included with the method number to indicate specific aspects of the
method to be used.
METHOD OF VALIDATION:
This field offers more specific information regarding statistical validity of methods
listed but is not in use at this time.
-------
APP6I 6410
M 6630
thM 6630
cLP J 1
LAD 1618
LAD 1656
LISSLC SOS
LNSLC 508
EMSLC 525
061C 608
ENSLC 617
(?6K 625
IMSLC 680
osu 8080*
OSu 82S0
W6 M I
a wa
C WMI
ii coa cROL
CGCNW MDL
NW CGCNSD MDL
cOcLOD MDL
CG EOD LW
COONS MDL
a:iw in
GCEOD MDL
606
CGOSS ROL
GCE D MDL
G NS MDL
1.9 ugiL
ngIL
0.0840 wjlL
1.0 npIL
0.050 i JL
8.0 I /L
8.0 /L
0.0070 ugJL
0.075 /L
0.10 ug/L
0.0040 ugiL
0.0090 ugIL
1 9 iqlL
0.60 ugIL
0.0060 ug/L
1.9 ug/L
REONLATORT WAItS. STNONTNS AI COIUtNTS
O lGA
CAS NO NIZA APP*A
BASE NO lION NETN00 SUFFIX ATUS DETECTION LIMIT
METHOD OF VALIDATION
NVA ONC REC IS O NOTE
Acetaldthyde
Ethanel
75070
ASIM 03695
EMSLC 554
GCFID DL
NPLC MDL
1.0 /L
46 UIJL
Ethyl •ldthyde
0 5W 0315
NPLC MDL
170 JL
Acetic .ldeliyde
Acetone cynah ,th1n
15865
No .v.IlthIe
nethods.
2 1 1thy 1 1.cetonitrite
Pr 1 .. ,itrIl., 2-hydroxyZuethyl-
.Ipha-Nythoiiyisobutyronitri I.
Acrotein
2 -Prcpen.l
Acrylic aldehyde
Acryleldellyde
Acralde liyde
‘
107028
ASTM 03695
LAO 1624
1161C
ENSIC 626S
ENSLC 626
0 5W 8030*
OSU 8240*
0 5W 8316
GCFID DL
U 606 Il.
GUID MI
GOSS MDL
GCFID MDL
GCFID MDL
U GCMS LOL
NPLOJV MDL
1.0 /L
50 ugiL
0.70 .rJIL
lL
1.0 neJL
0.70 ue/L
uglL
30 iqjL
603.
1624
Acrylonhir ste
2 -Propenenstrile
Cyonocihylene
Finsgr.in
Ventox
Vinyl cyinide
107131
ASTN 03371
ASIM 03695
(At) 1624
ENSLC 524.2
fl6LC 603
(I6LC 624
LNSI.C 626
C I V 8030*
OSU 8240*
CIV 0316
GCFID EDL
GCFID DL
U It
CG S MDL
WIt) M l
SCFID MDL
GCFID MDL
U IONS EIL
NPLQN MDL
1.0 neJL
1.0 /L
SO *FjIL
0.22 JL
0.50 i jlL
1.0 /L
0.50 IS/L
I*/L
20 i IL
603;
1624
Atdr in
1•4:5,8-0ineth uuni MhaliflS. 1,2.3,4.10, 10-heA.ctsloro-
I ,4,4. ,S ,8 ,8-h.jiaro-sndO.e*0
1,2,3,410, 10-Nuachloro l.4 ,4e.S.8.8.hUshydro1.4:
S A. ejo.dithiuni ikthIins
309002
-------
0 8W 8270*
USGS 03104
A(MC 913.49 1
AOIC 913.49 F
mu 4S00- VG C
mu 4500- ø 0
mu 4598-LI C
mu 4 598-Nfl F
AI *% 4500- 10 6
AM*I 4500-NO H
AS71l 01426 A
AS1M 01426 8
(1 tC 350.1
(161C 350.2 A
116LC 350.2 8
116LC 350.2 C
fl61C 350 3
MOM NITRO-1
MOM 1 1 1 10 -17
MOM 11110-2
NOAA 11110-23
rim
rim
151.-NI
&-NI
SIIC7R a
isi-ai a
MIW NI
151-N,
av a N,
rim
1Sf-NI L
AUTO RICE
SPECTS URGE
COLOR RICE
FPIIOTO RICE
agit
.jIL
20 qIL
ugiL
IL
0.030 JIL
0.80 mglL
0.020 agiL
agiL
o so agiL
0.010 11glL
0.050 IL
0.050 .gIL
1 0 flL
0.030 ugh
0.010 /L
0.10 ug/L
0.020 ft
0.050 JL
U CGCNS CCL u 5/L
GCEal RICE 0.010 ug/L
Ally1 chloride
3 -ch lorapropen.
1-Propene. 3-chloro
101051
(Al) 1624
ENSLC 524.2
0 8W 8240*
H
U
G (a
CGOIS MOL
Gals £01.
10 U91L (it RI
0.13 ug/L
5.0 I JL
ChioroMlyisne
Al lalaa
at
.
1429905
A0*C 920.198
mu 3111
mu 3113
APHA 3120
mu 3500-sQ
mu 3598-AL
ASTN 01976
ASIII 04190
ASTN 0057
*51 1 0057
C I ) 11.1101
LAD 1620
fl&C 2 1W.?
(URIC 200.8
INSLC 200.9
v iczoz.i
(I&C 202.2
115 (14 AfS-0029
08W 6010*
08W 7020
USGS F-SPEC
USGS F-SPEC
USGS 11051
USGS 11052
USGS 11056
A
A
a
(
A
8
U
A
N
U
CNPX
PRCP
U
CMV
FLM
IiM (a
ICP £01.
s cm ia
AU1O
ICP C D L
XAPS
FLU DL
FLU DL
ICP CR01
I CDL
1(2 M l.
ICPNS URL
ISUM URL
FIN a
a
XP a
ICP £101
FLU DL
C-SPEC RIGE
(-SPEC RICE
FLAA DL
FLU DL
OWl DL
enJL
5.OighL
3.OughL
40 iig/L
6:0 i gL
1.OwjhL
65 iigbL
çIL
0.10 /L
0.010 JL
200 ug!L
45 uglL
20 wjlL
1.0 i IL
7.8 ugIL
0 loop/ I
3. OuvjhL
0.0020 .gIL
45 ug/L
0.10 IL
11 i/L
11 i /L
100 ug/L
10 101/1
10 USJL
NItrogu . iIa
7664417
-------
NOAA NITRO-24 ISE-NN RNGE 0.030 , /L
USGS 11520 SPECTR DL 0.010 neJL
USGS 11524 ISC-NII DL 0.10 /L
USGS 12521 COLOR DL 0.050 JL
USGS 12522 U MITO DL 0.010 /L
USGS 2523 U AUTO DL 0.010 JL
Aniline
62533
(AD 1625
8
(a
10 laVjIL £ C HF
knzenine
OSU 5250
GaIS L
ug/L
PhenyIIn.
OSU 0270A
U
CGOIS CDL
i JL
A Il uLudCflS
A.’—
yaioI
.
Anthr.cene
120127
130493292
APNA 6060
AAM 6410
M 6440
AS1IF D166?
CLP 01.1101
(40 1625
ENSLC 525.1
ENSLC 550
ENSLC 550.1
(76LC 610
( 161C 625
0 5W 5100
0 5W 5250
05W 82705
05W 8310
USGS 03113
USGS 03118
I
8
U
U
0015 IDL
606
WLCFL lIZ
FtWV
CGOIS CROL
CG06
CGOIS L
IIPLCFL 1101.
IIPLCIL L
M’LCFL
606
CGCFID
GaSS 1 1 0L
COOlS EQL
MPLCFL L
IIPLON INGE
COOlS CDL
SO neJL
1.9 wjIL
0.66 wjIL
iaqlt
10 1/L
10 wj!L
0.040 i JL
0.079 ug/L
0.14 uoJL
0.66 wjlL
i9wj!L
USIL
1.9 I lL
10 i/L
0.66 UQJL
1.0 ueJL
5.0 IWI
AntI ny
Sb
IneIu ss *nd Co aoia ;
Not
.
Otherwis.
Specif led”
7440360
AMM 31 11
#J 1M3113
AIYI% 3120
A im 01976
ASTI 03697
OP 11.1101
CAb 1620
CAD 1620
(I6LCZ(10.F
EISSI.C 200.5
ENSLC 200.9
O6LC 204.1
(16LC 204.2
05W 6010*
0011 7040
0011 7061
USGS [ -SPEC
USGS C-SPEC
USGS 11055
A
A
U
A
I
W
V
NPK
PRCP
U
FL.4A
gM (a
ICP (
ICP CDL
FLAA DL
ICP CR01.
ICP [ DL
GFU [ DL
ICP lIZ
ICPIIS 30L
TSGFAA L
FIN 13.
tiM 13.
ICP EIDL
FLU D I.
GFAA DL
C-SPEC RNGE
E-SPSC 11111
HYDU DL
1.0 i9lL
3.O ,gL
30 ugiL
32 i IL
1.0 i IL
60 I /L
32 1/L
3.0i IL
8.OugIL
0.40 I /L
0.80 UIL
0.Z0.IL
3OuglL
32 uV/L
0.20 /L
3.0 ug/L
11 ug/L
5.0 u /L
1.0 ug/L
-------
Antimony pentachloride 7647189 Nay be analyzed as Total Antimony.
7440360
Antimony potassiia tartrate 28300745 Nay be analyzed as Total Anti.ony.
Tarter east Ic 7440360
Tsrtr.ted antimony
Potusiuo ant imonyl d-tartrat.
*nti y tribronide 7189619 Nay be analyzed as Total AntI.ony.
7440360
Antimony trlchlorids 10025919 Nay be analyzed as Total Antimony.
luf for of antimony 7440360
Antimony tell luorids 7183564 Nay be onalyze as Total *nt l.ony.
AntImony fluorIde 74403 60
AntIuo, trimoids 1309644 Nay be enslyzed as Total Antimony.
Dlontimonv trloxide 7440360
Flowers of antimony
Arsenic 1440382 AGAC 920.205 SPLCTR
As AFIM 3114 B M 4 11 OOOZOagIL
Inck es “And Capo s s; Not Otherwise Specified” AFN4 3120 I C? (IL 50 WIt
APIM 3509. 43 C SFICJ’RIW 1.0ia
4 M 3509 AS U C(L( NX1 1.0W
ASTN 01976 I P (DL 53 i/L
ASH! (Q972 A SKC1RW 5.0 ag/C
ASh! W972 B 1 1 ) 1*4 1.0 ag/C
ASh! W972 C gM W SOng/C
CLP 11.1101 U GFAA 10 iIL
LAD 1620 A ICP (DL 53 iIL
LAD 1620 S GIU (DL 1.0 1101L
LIISLC 200.1 GVAA GIM (DL 0.90 i /L
LNSLC 200.1 UP ICP (DL 0.030 asJL
06CC 209.7 W I C ? IU BOng/C
LISSLC 200.8 V ICPNS (DL 1.4 sAIL
LISSLC 200.9 TWA (DL 0.50 Is/L
fl6LC2%.2 M IL 1.0 ag/C
B6CCZfI6.3 ism a 2.0 up/C
06LCZ%.4 C1RIL 10 wjIL
OSU 6010* UP (IOL 53 uWL
05W 7060* GFU DL 5.0 uoJL
05W 7061* NTDAA DL 0.0020 /L
USGS (-VEC O Il E-SP(C NNGE 50 i /L
USGS E-WLC PSCP (-SPLC 1 1 1G( 11 1/L
USGS 11060 U SPECTI DL 5.0 uWL
USGS 11062 U NYDU DL 1.0 US/I
USGS 12062 U NTDAA DL 1.0 US/L
dI UUIOS 1303328 Nay be analyzed as lotal Arsenic.
SIbIflSC 1440362
-------
C.I. Pi ent Yellow 39
Arsenic pentoslde
1303282
Nay be analyzed as total Arsenic.
Arunlc(V) oxide (As205)
7440382
Arsenic acid ardtydride
Arsenoi trichloride
7784341
Nay be analyzed as Total Arsenic.
Arsenic chloride
7440382
Buffer of arsenic
Arsenic trloiiid.
1327533
Nay be analyzed as Total Arsenic.
Arsenous oxide
7440382
Arunlc(Ill) oxide (A.203)
hut. arsenic
Arsenic trisutfide
1303339
Nay be analyzed as Total Arsenic.
Arsanious sulfide
7640382
Yellow arsenic sulfide
Asbestos
1332216
EPA L I I. Athena enthod available.
B.rius cyanide
542621
57125
Nay be analyzed as Total Cyanide.
Beniene
71432
APUI 6210 8 G I(Z 44ug/L
Cyctabexslr ,ene
AFIM 6220 8 GCPIO It 0.20 ugiL
Benzot
APHA 6220 C GCPID 0 110L 0.050 uaJL
ASTN 03695 GCFID DL 1.0 /L
ASIN 03871 GC DL I IL
ASTN 04763 FLUOB DL 6.0
CLP 011101 U 601S CIOL 10 iq/L
(AD 1624 W W6 It 10 ugiL
LIISLC 502.2 Pl O CG ID L 0.010 i /L
ENSLC 503.1 G ID L 0.020 i IL
EJSSLC 524.1 GOIS ISL 0.10 e./L
EIISLC 524.2 CGOSS t. 0.060 ugIL
116LC 602 &PID 0.20 ugiL
( C624 W6 M 4.4uglL
05W 8020A G ID L 0.20 usJL
05W 8021 PlO CGCPID L 0.0090 ‘ /L
05W 82404 U 601$ SQL 5.0 telL
05W 8260 CGOIS i. 0.040 te/L
USGS 03115 GalS RUGS 3.0 ue/L
u
low ug/L
lena ldine
92875
APPM 641w IU 44 wjlL
(1.V-Siphenyt)4.4’ diine
£40 1625 It 50 uvJlL
SNSLC 553 ILL UPLOSS L 2.5 ug/L
ENSLC 553 LSE IIPLOIS UGL 5.3 telL
ENSIC 605 NPLC(L UGL 0.080 uglL
( 161C 625 G( N*. 44 ugIt
OSW 8250 GCNS ISL 46 telL
OSU 8270* U CGCIS EQL ug/L
cartridge
605. 1625
-------
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Dichloroethyl ether
Lihane, 1 ,1’-oayhistZ-chloro
USGS 03118
Benionutrile 100470 ASIN 03371 GCFID £DL
Cy&iabsnzene
Phenyl cyanide
CG NS LOL 5.0 ug/L
1.0 JL
Nitrites in a pieous solution
Senzoyl chloride
genienecarbonyl chloride
98864
No available anthods.
enayl chloride
S.nhens (chlcrenettiyl)
100467
0511 WHOA GCEL )L u glL
OSII 8120 GCE N)L u g/L
Osli 8240A 11 GOSS £01 100 Iig/L
I
kryllka
g
Inclides “Aid C oia 1s; Not
Otherwise
•
Specified”
7460411
.
MM 3111 A FLU O.050j1L
AFIM 3113 A tIM (11 0.2OugIL
M 3120 ICI ’ E l I. 0.30 w’jIL
AIVi% 3500-& 0 S C1R NC 5.0 ugiL
ASTN 01976 ICP [ D L 0.30 Ug/L
ASJII W645 A FLU a 10 ugiL
ASIN 03645 B GFU DL 10 ug/L
ASIM 04190 LCAPS
CLP ulNOl U ICP CIOL 5.Oug!L
(AD 1620 A ICP [ DL 0.3Oug/L
FJ6LC 200.7 W UP Ni 0.30 wjIL
EISSLC 200.8 I I ICPNS I L 0.30 ug/L
£NSLC 200.9 ISOFU L 0.020 ug/L
(16LC 210.1 FLU & 0.OOSOagIL
116LC 210.2 tIM a 0.20 ugiL
115w AfS-0029 a 3JL-4 j1L
0511 6010A ICP EIDL 0.30 uglL
0511 7090 FlU DL 0.0050 /L
0511 7091 0 188 DL 0.20 I*L
USGS [ -SPEC PICP (-SPEC hOE 0.23 IigJL
USGS 11095 I I FLU DI 10 ugIL
USGS 11412 ICP LI 0.50 1/L
.
krylliuo chloride
7787415
7460417
Nay be lyzed as Total Ioryllisa.
Boryllluo fluoride
7707697
7440617
Nay be analyzed as Total I.rylliuo.
Uryllha nltr.t• trihvdrate
Nitric acid beryllha salt trihydrat.
7787555
135919%
N .y be analyzed as Total Ierylliuo.
B
111444
APHA
6040
GCISS
IOL
1.0 rig/I
0-070
APN%
ASIN
CLP
(AD
(ASIC
6410
03695
OLNOl
1625
611
V
8W
G
GCFID
CGCNS
CGCI6
WG)
Ni
DL
CR01
It
Ni
5.7uglL
1.0 /L
10 ug/L
10 uqiL
0 30 ugiL
-------
lfl6LC 625 606 DIN 5 1 IL
05W 8110 GCHSD POL 0.30 ug/L
OSM 8250 GCNS L 5.7 ug/L
05W 8270A U CG S SQL 10 U9/L
USGS 03118 CGaIS (DL 5.0 u9/L
Src.ofor. 15252 APIIA 6040 B GO S IOL 1.0 rs ,L
TrIbr ethane 0-193 M 6210 8 ( PIN 4 1 ugiL
Nethan. tribra.o m. 6230 8 G LW MN 0.20 w)IL
APHA 6230 C GCEL ) QUIlL 0.050 uØ/L
APHA 6232 8 CGC(CD L 0.SOuB/L
ASTN 03973 GCECD RIGS 1.0 ueJL
CLP CUIO 1 U GOSS CRQL 10 u/L
(AD 1624 W It 10 ugiL
(NSLC 502.1 GCELCD L 0.050 ugJL
(JSSLC 502.2 (LCD CGCELD NDL 1.6 i /L
ENSLC 524.1 GOSS L 0.70 ugIL
(NSLC 524.2 G SS L 0.12 ug/L
£NSLC 551 CGCECD SIlL 0.012 i /L
(16tC 601 6060 MN 0.20 .qlL
(I6LC 624 606 MN 4. lug!L
W PART_I GCHSD RIGS 0.50 uglL
CDW PAII_2 GCECD RIGS 0.50 ugIL
0 5W 8010* GCELCD L 0.20 u9/L
05W 0021 (LCD CGC(LD lIlt 1.6 ug/L
05W 8240* U GOSS SQL 5.0 ugh
05W 0260 CGOSS L 0.12 .IIL
USGS 03115 GOSS RIGS 3.0 ugh
Brcmo thane 74839 M 6210 8 MN iqhL
ISethyt bi sde 0-193 mu 6230 8 WLWNN 1.ZugIL
Nechane, brc.o APIA 6230 C GCRL GISt. 0.050 ugJL
CLP 05.5501 V GOSS COOL 10 ug/L
(AD 1624 W D I. 50 ugiL
(NSLC 502.1 GCOLCD ISL i IL
ENSLC 502.2 (LCD CGCOLD ISt . 1.1 ‘IlL
EIISLC 524.1 GOSS 001 u gJL
ENSI.C 524.2 CGDSS 001 0.11 IIIL
(161C 601 6060 MN 1.EwjlL
(J6LC 624
05W 8010* OCELCO ISL 0.30 ug/L
OSU 8021 (LCD CGCELD ISL 1.1 ‘ IlL
05W 8240* U GOSS SQL 10 uglL
05W 0260 CGOSS 001 0.11 I/L
USGS 03115 GOSS RUGS 3.0 ugh.
Sutyl benzyt piih.Iate 85687 4PM 6410 MN 2.5 ugIL
I ,2-Senzenedicarboaytic acid 1 butyt plienylmethyl ester 0-303 CLP 015501 U CG S COOL 10 ug/L
FAD 1625 8W CGD6 It 10 ugiL
£NSLC 506 CGCPID 001 2.7 ug/L
ENSLC 525.1 CGaSS SIlL 0.30 ‘ I/L
1 16LC 606 a) Iii 0 34 ugIL
-------
116LC 625 GIJ6 N . 2.5ugIL
05 14 8060 E GCE05 ml 0.3!. u/L
0514 8060 FID GCFID L 15 ug/L
0514 8250 GOSS 81)L 2.5 ug/L
0511 8270* 14 CGOIS (St. 10 u9IL
USGS 03118 CGOSS (DL 5.0 ug/L
c. k. 74401.39 AOIC 974.27 FLA4 1 0 10 agIL
M 3111 A tIM 0.050.g!L
Includes As Cc otmde; Not Otherwlu SpscIfl. mM 3113 A GM (II . 0.10 ugiL
thM 3120 ftP ía 4.Oug!L
mM 3500-W 0 WCIR M 33 ugiL
ASTN 03557 A FLAA IIIGE 0.050 IL
ASTN 03557 S FLU SGG( 5.0 uglL
ASIN (33551 C AR 1.OugIL
ASIN 03557 0 GFU 81508 0.50 uaJL
ASIN 011% IWS g,)IL
CLP ILNOI V I CIOL 5.0 uaJL
LAD 1620 A I (DL 4.0 /L
ENSLC 200.1 FLAA FLA* (DL 0.0050 /L
LNSLC 200.1 GFU GFAA (DL 0.050 u 5/I.
ENSLC 200.1 ICP ICP (DL 0.020 /L
(NSLC 200.10 ICffiS NOL 0.01.1 I /L
I.I6LCZOO.1 11 1.Oiq!t
(NSLC 200.8 U ICONS NOL 0.50 u/L
LNSLC 200.9 TSGFAA NOL 0.050 I*L
E16LC 213.1 tIM a 0.0150.glL
fl6tC 213.2 GM a 0.10 ugIt
0811 6010* I (IDL 4.0 ISt/L
0DM 7130 ILAA DL 0.0050 1L
0DM 7131* GIN DL 0.10 u 5jL
USGS ( -P LC aIP* (-UP(C uSE 1.1 sSt/L
USGS F-PLC PSCP (-P lC 815SF 5.0 11L
USGS 11135 11 FLU DL 10 !S
USGS 11136 FLU DL 1.0 ISt/L
USGS 11137 GIN DL 0.020 USJL
USGS 11152 U FLU DL 0.010 JL
( 11472 1(P U 1.0 ugiL
543908 Nay be anatyzad as TotaL C ii.
74401.39
Cadel.a brulde 7789426 Nay be 1yzsd as To a(
74401.39
Cadeha chloride 10108642 Nay be Iyzsd as total Cadeli..
Caddy 74401.39
C.lcsi. arsenate 7778441 Nay be analyzed as l;tal Arsenic.
Arsenic acid (II3A O4). calcii salt (2:3) 7640382
tricalcius orthoar enaIe
-------
Calcka arsenste 52740166 Nay be analyzed as Total Arsenic.
7460382
Calcite chrowste
13765190
Nay be analyzed as
Total Chrownas.
Chrosic acid 1 c.tclia salt
7440413
Calcka chre yellow
Geblin
Yellow ultr rIne
Calcka cyamde
592018
57125
Nay be analyzed as
Total Cyanide.
caplan
4-Cyclohexene-1.2-dicsrboxi.ide N(trichloromethyl)thlo-
Orthoc Id . 406
133062
AIIM 6630 8
AS1N (0086
[ AD 1618
GOW 11 ng/L
1.0 ngIL
CGCNSD MDL iiglL
s5406
[ AD 1656 (CD
CGCECD MDL 100 ng/L
Vanclde-59
ENSLC 617
OSU 6270* U
GCICD MDL L JL
COOlS [ DL 50 tagjL
Carb.ryl
Carboslc acld aethyl-. 1-naphthyl ester
Sevin
63252
ENSLC 531.1
ENSLC 553 LIE
ENSLC 553 LSE
IIPLCFL [ DL 2.0 Ug/L
HPLOlS MDL 9.8 ueJL
HPLOIS MDL 5.7 ug/L
cartridge
1-Nailhthyl irthylcarbanate
ENSLC 632
05W 8270* U
05W 8318 U
USGS 03107
IIPLQJV MDL 0.020 ug/L
CGOSS [ DL 10 ug/L
NPLCrL MDL 1.7 ug/L
MPLQIY INGE 2.0 tag/I
Carbon disulfsde
75150
CLP CINOl U
GOIS CR01. 10 ug/L
Carbon busulisde
(Al) 1624 U
It 10 ugIt
(tt RI
Dtlhtocarbornc arthydride
[ NSLC 524.2
OSU 6240* U
COOlS MDL 0.093 iag /L
Gals (DL 100 .agJL
Carbon tetrachlorids
56235
AIIM 6210 B
2.8 iig!L
Tetrachlorosethsns
0193
AIIM 6230 B
LW 0.12 ,*L
Methane 1 t.trachloso-
P.rchlor thw.
APU 6230 C
Cl) 01.1101 U
(AD 1624 U
ENSLC 502.1
(JSSLC 502.2 (LCD
EISSLC 524.1
£NSLC 524.2
[ NSLC 551
EJ6LC 601
EI6LC 624
05W 8010*
OSU 5021 (LCD
05W 5240* U
05W 8260
USGS 03115
OCELOl OL 0.050 iqJL
DOSS CROL 10 tqJL
It 10 ugiL
GCELCD MDL 0.0030 iag/L
CGCELD MDL 0.010 sag/L
DOSS MDL 0.30 ugJL
COOlS MDL 0.21 ig/L
CGCECD MDL 0.0040 tag/I
WG) 0.12 ugiL
W6 Ift 2.Bug/L
GCSLCD MDL 0.12 tag/I
COCELD MDL 0.010 iag/L
GOSS CDL 5.0 ug/L
COOlS MDL 0.21 ug/L
GalS RNGE 3.0 ug/L
Ch lordane 51749 APM 6410 ___ ugh
6 7NeIhano 1H sr Jene I 2 6 5 .6 1 7 .8 1 8ociachloro-2 1 3.3a. 12189036 API 4 6630 C f ((I) OOl4ught
-------
4 7 7a-hexahydro- ASPI 93086 GC(W 50 riglL
4 7 -Neth oii .n. 1 1 2 1 6 5 6,? 8 1 8-octathloro-3a,4 1 7 1 (NSLC 505 CGCECR 11)1 0.14 1011L
7a-tetrahydro- [ NSLC 508 CGC [ W (01 ug/L
Toiiichtor 06IC 608 WIll NI 0 014 iag/L
see also al tha-Chlordans: CAS 5103791 ar flSLC 625 W6
0 -Chlordie: CAS 5103742 0511 0080* GCECR 80L 0.014 UQJL
0511 0250 GOIS 80L ugIL
0511 8270* U CGOSS £01. ugJL
USGS 03106 GCECR lOGS 0.010 IL
CMor lns 7782505 AIWI 4500-CL 8 I i JR — 40 ugiL
AF M 4500-CL C lIPI gIL
M 4500-CL 0 111k jIL
*PNA 4500-ct TITI lOGS 10 I JL
- MNI 4508-CL F I l JR 18 WJIL
mu 4508-CL 6 C1 08 N 10 iqlt
*PN* 4500-CL H COLOR ISC 0.10 /L
APHA 4500-CL I 15 5-CL
ASPI 01253 rim .g!t
fl6LC 3301 (ilk aglL
(JS IC 330.2 (Ilk agiL
06tC 3303 fIR 0 10.glL
(I6LC 330.4 111k 0.10JlL
(J6LC 330.5 5MC1R 020.gIL
0511 9022* 01* 1100 5.0 p b
p-Chloro•.-crelol
4-Chloro5.ethy1 Oienol
Phcnol 1 4-chloro-3 thyl-
Chloraçlisnol 1 4- .ethyl.
3-
59507
0-068
•
6I 6410
mu WV
AI9M 6420
CLP 011101
(AD 1625
EI6LC 604
06tC 604
LC 625
0 0040*
O 8060*
0811 8250
00110270*
USGS 03117
M
09
11
AN
A
8
[ 00
lID
11
606
(1110
W
COOlS
1D
W
OCECR
OClID
0 (115
COOlS
COOlS
NI
NI
NI
CR01
It
NI
NI
NI
801
101$
80$.
LOt
(DL
3.0 WJIL
0.36 ugiL
1.8 wjIL
10 ilL
10 ugh
0.36 ugiL
1.8ugIL
3.Oug!L
1.8 i IL
0.36 11L
3.0 i JL
20 ugIL
3.0 i JL
chlorcbsnzene 100907 APIIA 0040 8 0015 IOL 10 nsIL
Iiz chloro- 68411450 mu 6210 8 NI 6.0 ugiL
u.nz chloride APPII 6220 8 ID NI 0.21) ugiL
N . 1 iI c hloIC hsflZCfle 1PM 6220 C GCPID O01I . 0.050 ui/I.
mu 6230 B LWNI 025.ight
*PNA 6230 C GC [ L00 0011 0.050 uII.
ASIN 03871 GC DL 1 1L tow u 5/L
CLP 01001 11 0015 CR01 10 ugh
LAD 1624 U 606 it 10 light
EIISLC 502.1 GCELCD MDL 0.0050 ugIL
(NSLC 502.2 ELCO CGCLLD MDI. 0.010 ugIL
EMSLC 502.2 PlO CGCP ID MDL 0.010 1(1/ I
-------
[ IISLC 503.1 OCPIO *)L 0.0060 ug/L
ENSLC 524.1 G01S 50L 0.10 uglL
ENSLC 524.2 CGCMS )L 0.060 ugh.
06W 601 GCIG) DIN. 0 25 ugh
176LC 602 IXP IO DIN. 0 20 wilt
Fi6LC 624 MN. 6 0 w)IL
05W 8010* GCELW L 0.25 ug/L
05W 8021 ELCO CGCEID L 0.010 uglL
0 5W 8021 P l O CGCPID *)L 0.0030 ug/L
05W 8240* U GOIS SQL 5.0 ug/L
05W 8260 COOlS 50L 0.040 usJL
USGS 03115 001$ RIGS 3.0 ueJL
Ch loroethane 75003 AM 6210 8 MN. wilt
Ethane. chloro 60411723 M 6230 8 W tW 0.52 wjlL
Ethyl chloride APM 6230 C GCELCO OSL 0.050 ug/L
OP 0 1.1 101 U 001$ CROL 10 ug/L
£40 1624 U It SO wjlL
EIISLC 502.1 GCELCO )L 0.0010 u lL
EIISLC 502.2 ELCO CG ELD IOL 0.10 uglL
ENSLC 524.1 G01S L
EMSLC 524.2 CG01S L 0.10 ugjL
fl6LC601 &J60 DIN. 0.52wjlL
1161C 624 ___
05W 8010* GCELCO IOL 0.52 ug/L
05W 5021 ELCO CGCEID 50L 0.10 ug/L
05W 8240* U GOIS SQL 10 i Jl
8260 COOlS 501 0.10 ug/L
.USGS 03115 GOIS RIGS 3.0 ugJL
Ch lorofor. 67663 thM 6210 8 W6 MN. 1 6 wjlL
Methane Irlchioro- 0193 A l liS 6230 8 LW 0.050 WJIL
trIchlor 1h.ns *PIA 6230 C GCRLCO OIIL 0.050 ug/L
APU 6232 I COCECO 50L 0.50 IS/L
M 03871 GC DL ug/L lowug/L
AIIM D3973 OCECO RIGS 1.0 ug/L
OP OUIOI U 001$ ClOt 10 ug/L
LAO 1624 U It 10 wJlL
ENSLC 502.1 GCELCO 501 ugFL
LISSIC 502.2 5101 COCELD 501 0.020 uglL
EISSLC 524.1 001$ ISSL 0.20 i/L
£MSLC 524.2 COOlS 50L 0.030 ug/L
ENSLC 551 C 01 501 0.0020 ug/L
(161C 601 W60 ?ft 0.O5OuglL
fl6LC 624 W6 MN. 1.6 wilL
COW PART_I GCNSO RIGS 0.50 ug/L
COW PAkT_2 GCSCO RIGS 0.50 ug/L
OSW 5010* GCLLCO 501 0.050 ug/L
OSW 8021 ELCO CGCELD 50L 0.020 uglL
05W 8260* W GCRS SQL 5.0 ug/L
Osu 8260 CGCMS 50L 0.030 ug/L
USGS 03115 G 11S RIGS 3.0 ug/L
-------
Phui l. 2-thioro
AIMC 9/4 21
AIIM 3111
Chlor ethwie
Nethyt chloride
Nethane 1 chloro
74873
AIIM 6210
8
Ni
iaglL
0-193
AIIM 6230
APIIA 6230
CLP 011101
(ALl 1624
EISSLC 502.1
IMSLC 502.2
(NSLC 524.1
FNSLC 524.2
1 16tC 601
( 16LC 624
0 5W 8010*
05W 8021
05W 8240A
05W 8260
USGS 03115
8
C
U
U
ELW
ELal
U
GWWNZ
GCRal
GalS
G(36
GCELal
CGCEID
GalS
GOSS
(ZIG)
GCEL
CG L0
GalS
CGals
0015
OISL
CROL
It
80L
80L
80L
80L
Ni
801
801
SQL
801
11105
0.080ugIL
0.050 u IL
10 ug/L
50 sqiL
0.010 ug/L
0.030 u /L
ugJL
0.13 t /L
0.O8Oug!L
.
0.080 i /L
0.030 iL
10 i JL
0.13 i /L
3.0 i !L
95578
AIIM 6410
G06
Ni
3.3 ugiL
0-068
AIIM 6420
AIIM 6420
ASIN 02580
UP QLI111
(AD 1625
( 161C 604
(16LC 604
f161C 625
SI cP-86.01
8040*
a ti .040*
05W 8250
0511 8270*
USGS 03117
84
80
U
AU
A
8
F
lID
11
IO
G( W
GCHD
CGalS
GCFID
W
W6
G0 IS
OCE01
GCIID
G 15
COflIS
COAlS
Ni
Ni
EDL
C11QL
It
Ni
Ni
Ni
801
801.
L
SQL
(DI.
0.31 ugiL
0.58 ugiL
1.0 /L
10 uSIL
10 wjIL
0.31 uqiL
O58uqlL
3.3 ugiL
0.58 uS/L
0.31 uSIL
3.3 ug/L
10 i IL
3.0 uq!L
4 -Chlorc isnoL
106489
0-068
ASTN 02580
*5111 *4763
FAD 1653
NCMI CP-86.01
GCI ID ( D L
AUCU DL
COOlS 801.
COOlS
1.0 /L
1.1 t IL
ChrSIIc acetsis
1066306
7640473
Nay be istyzed as Total Oiras li.
thrctc acid
chr Ic thydr Ida
Chr..Isa tçsa ide
This CAS Ii obsolete;
see
7738-94-5
11115745
7738945
hay be .ualyaed as Total OhrcjI•.
S
Chrasic sulfate
10101538
7440473
May be alyzed as Total Cbroalia.
7640473
Chr uia
Cr
FLM 1 0 vijiL
A FLA4 ira 02Ogw lli
-------
Incliales “And Co oia ds; Not Otherwise Specified”
mu 3113
A
17U
(U
• 2 0 ugh
mu 3120
ICP
(U
lOugit
AFE44 3500-CR
0
SFFCIR
IHJIL
AS1H 0168/
M 01681
8
C
flM
M
I t
0 10 j1L
S.OugIL
ASTN 01976
ICP
EDL
7.0 ug/L
M 0 1190
IWS
twjfl
CLP ILNO 1
W
ICP
CIOL
10 UQJL
EAD 1620
A
ICP
EDL
7.0 it
EMSLC 200.1
FLU
FLU
FDL
0.050 agIL
ENSLC 200.1
GFAA
GEM
EDL
0.20 ug/L
ENSLC 200.1
ICP
ICP
£01
0.0070 saJL
fl6LC ZOO.?
W
ICP
M
4.OugIL
ENSLC 200.8
U
ICPISS
NIL
0.90 ug/L
ENSLC 200.9
ISGFU
NIL
0.10 uoJL
(161C 2181
FLU
DL
0.050 .gIL
(161C 218.2
&U
U
lOugiL
U61C 218.3
FLM
U
1.OuvjlL
FISIa A1S -0029
U
0 0020 agiL
05W 6010A
ICP
£101
7.0 i /L
05W 7190
ELM
DL
0.050 /L
05W 7191
GEM
DL
1.0 u.JL
USGS F-SPEC
OWN
F-SPEC
INGE
1.1 s/L
USGS I-SPEC
PRCP
F-SPEC
INGE
0.50 t /L
USGS 11235
GEM
DL
0.20 uelL
USGS 11236
U
ELM
D I
10 uaJL
USGS 11236
FLU
DL
1.0 IN/L
425 i
Chro.i (3’) h *oaIde
thro.ic hydroxiob
Chrosha trihydrosids
Incorrect CAS r.*sr
in WOC..
lists.
See
CA
l6W5 I31
1306141
Nay be
analyzed as Total
Chra.iia.
Clirosous chlorIde
10049055
7440473
Nay b.
analyzed as Total
throsha.
cobal bus broside
Cobalt dlbrcsldS
Cobalt brosids
7789437
Nay be
analyzed as Total
Cbrosiia.
Cabaltous I orsats
Cobalt forast.
544183
Nay be
analyzed as Total
Cobalt.
.
Cabaltous sulf ts
Cobalt sulf ts
14017415
Nay be
analyzed as Total
Cobalt.
Cu
Coppar 7440508
AIMC 914 2/
mu 3111
mu 3113
I1M RM 0 10 JhL
A FLU a: 0 20 awjIL
A &M (DL lOug/L
Includes “And C Tpou dS; Not Otherwise Specified”
-------
API44 3120
ARM 3500W 0
APPII 3500-W (
ASm D1688 A
*srn 01688 S
ASIN 01655 C
ASIN 01976
* 5 17 1 041w)
CLP ILIIOI
1*0 1620
CNSLC 200.1
ENSLC 200.1
ENSLC 200.1
£NSLC 200.10
LI6LC 200.1 N
£NSLC 200.8 V
ENSLC 200.9
ENSLC 220.1
INSLC 220.2
FIS(II MS -0029
0 5W 6010*
05W 7210
0511 7211
USGS £IPEC
USGS E-SDIC
USGS 1270
USGS 11271
uSGS 1272
US $ 11672
ic ía
S C7R ?0
WCIR Ill:
FLU
FLU 1551
GFAA INGI
I P £01
U IC, CR01
A ICP £01
FLU FLU £01
GFU GFU 10$.
ItP IcP (DL
ic iss 101
lcP Ia
I PNS 101
TSGFU 101
FLU DL
GFU DL
t’ :p a
IC, EIDL
FLU DL
GFU DL
OIPX (-SPEC RIGS
PRCP (-SPEC 11101
U FLU DL
FLU DL
GFAA DL
IG LL
6.0 tq!L
O6 Oug
2OugIL
0.020 .qIL
2.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
6.0 ug/L
ugh
25 ug/L
6.0 ughL
0.020 /L
1.0 i /L
0.0030 JL
0.023 ug/L
3.0 ugiL
0.50 ughL
0.70 UQJL
0.020 /L
1.0 UQJL
0.0020 wjlL
6.0 ug/L
0.020 hL
1.0 u9/L
23 u IL
5.0 u9/L
10 I lL
1.0 u 5/L
0.20 iqJL
10 Is/L
Trealnont technI Je reed red to ed 5011* NCL.
-creso l
3 Nethy1phunoI
Pheno1 3.sthyt-
ICRA_U r.1er s Is In 40
C I I
302.4
not
60 CII
261.33.
10539
1319773
ASTN
0 5W
02580
0270*
U
GCFID 101.
CW 10*
1.0 lL
10 i lL
o-CrsoI
Z-N,thyII* IsnoI
oCresylic .c ld
Pilenol. 2thyl
105*_U refereEs Is In 40
CFR
302.4
not
40 CII
261.33.
95487
1319175
ASTN
*5TH
CLP
(AD
08W
C IV
02550
04763
011101
1625
8250
8270*
U
U
GCFID (DL
FLUOR DL
COOlS COOL
L II.
001$ 101
COOlS 10*
1.0 JL
0.040
10 I JL
20 iqlL
imJL
10 l IL
(*1
p-Cre.ot
6-DsthyIp ienoI
PhenoI 4- thyI
IdA_U reference Is in 40
CII
302.4
not
40 CFR
261.33.
100645
1319773
*5TH
CLP
(AD
0511
0511
02580
011101
1625
8250
5270*
U
AN
U
GCFID [ DL
COOlS COOL
CG06 (II.
GOlD ISL
COOlS EQL
1.0 /L
10 UD/L
20 INJIL
U9IL
10 uSIL
( f Id
1319173
osu
8040*
lID
GCFID ISL
ug/L
C(,bOI I
C’ebvIsI acid
Pnsnol noihyl
-------
Diçticated at SAkA11O entry 218
C ric acetate
Capper acetate
Crystal lied verdigris
142712
7440508
Slay be analyzed as
total Capper.
Ci4wlc acetoarsenite
Ci piv.ent green 21
Paris green
Capper ac.toarseni te
C sr assists aruni is
12002038
7440508
May be analyzed as
total Copper or as total
Arsenic.
C çrIc chloride
Capper chloride
7441394
7440508
Nay be analyzed as
total Copper.
C .çric nitrate
Capper nitrate
3251238
7440508
Nay be analyzed as
total Copper:
Capric ojiatate
Ethandioic acid copper salt
5893663
7440508
Slay be analyzed as
total Copper.
Ciiçrlc sulfate
C er sulfate
7158987
7440508
May be analyzed as
total Copper.
C .qir.c suIfaie nuated annotlydrate
Copper(Z.). letrs sne- sulfate (1:1).
*onsaied capper sulfate monobydrate
monohydrale
10350297
7440508
Nay be analyzed as
total Copper.
C çrlc tarirats
Copper tarirace
815527
7440508
Nay be analyzed as
Total Copper.
Cyanide.
Includes SoliMs salts and co le*es;
Specified
Not Otherwise
57125
.
AMII 4508 C l C
AFPM 4508-Cl 0
m i t 4500-Cl F
APP.A t
NUt 4500-Cl 6
ASIN W036 A
ASilf L V36 8
ASIN 02036 C
ASTN 02036 0
ASTN 04282
ASIN 04374
CLP 111101 I I
£MSLC 335.1
CMSLC 335.2
EMSLC 335.3
O SV 9010* A
0 5W 9010* B
0 5W 9012*
USGS 51300 W
USGS 12302 W
FWENT jlL
TIER t05 0.10 lL
C 00 glt
U-cal 1108 0.050 /L
1 -Cl 0.050 wjIL
C7R C 0. 0aglL
II1R C 0.40 WilL
lU-CM MC 0.030 WilL
WE Cl i lL
WECII INGE 10 uglL
AUTO LLD 0.50 ap/L
CML0i CIOL 10 iig/L
SPECTI ING [ 1.0 WilL
SPECTI FOL 0.020 Wi/L
COSCi l ICE 5.0 I /L
COLC1 hOE 0.020 WilL
Till hUGE 0.10 Wi/L
COLOR ug/L
SPECTI DL 0.010 Wi/L
AUtO DL 0.010 Wi/L
-------
D.chlolCb efllcfleS
benzene. dichloro
0. cMor.c,de
506774 APIIA 4500-CM J
57125 ASIN 04165
25321226
68411650
Cyano en chloride
Chlorine cv%Ide
SPECIR m !L
SPICIR LID 0.0050 lL
Cyc lc l leaane
Benzens 1 huahydro-
.
110821
No avail le
methods.
IIes thyIene
2.4 -D
Z.6-D lchloroFhenoxyacettc acid, salts
Acetic acid (2 ,4-dichtorcç .Itenoiiy)-
m d esters
94157
APM 6640 GC(W a
ASIN 03478 GCLCD DL
(AD 1618 CGCNSD L
CAD 1658 850 CGCNSD 80L
CMSLC 515.1 CGCE [ DL
MSLC 515.2 cccs neL
FISSLC 555 NPLON L
ENSI.C 615 GCE L
FDA 221.1 GCE
OSM 8150* GCE ISL
10 nglL
20 ngIL
100 nQ/L
100 i /L
0.20 uQJL
0.28 ji
1.3 i JL
1.2 1011L
sI .
1.2101!L
USGS 03105
USGS 07105
GC1 SIlOS
GCE SIlOS
0.010 i JL
0.010 i JL
1 ,2-0Ibr .thans
Ethylme. dibraside
[ DO
[ thins. 12-dibrass-
106936
•
.
*PM 6060
APIIA 6230
APIIA 6231
(40 1624
ENSLC 502.1
£MSLC 502.2
CMSLC 506
ENSLC 524.1
CISsIC 526.2
CNSLC 551
£NSLC 618
O 8011
0511 8021
0511 8240*
0511 8260
0 GOSS IDL
C GCEL GIst
0 CGCE 80L
W (a
GCEL L
EL CGCELD 80L
CGC [ ISIL
GOIS IsL
CG IS IsL
CGC [ ISIL
GCE IsI.
CGCS IsL
EL CGCSLD IsL
11 GDIS 101
COOlS 1 5$.
2.0 ng/L
0.050 i /L
0.010 ug/L
10 uglL
0.040 ug/L
0.80 uO/l.
0.010 ug/L
0.40 uglL
0.060 UaJL
0.0060 . JL
0.20 i IL
0.010 selL
0.80 uslL
5.0 i /L
0.060 I*L
(at RF
Di-n- atyl phthalat.
DI ityl th.lat.
1.2 -S.nunsdicarbsaylic acid dibutyl
.st.r
84742
0303
APP6I 6410
OP OLNOI
LAO 1625
CNSLC 506
CMSLC 525.1
O6LC 666
(16tC 625
0511 8060
0511 8060
0 5W 8250
OSU 8270*
USGS 03118
G(J6
V COOlS ClOt.
I
CG ID i.
COOlS NIL
M l
- Ml
EOl OCECO 151.
[ ID GCFID NIL
GOSS NIL
11 COOlS SQL
CGCNS CDL
2.5 ugiL
10 01/L
10 wjlL
1.2 /L
0.30 i /L
0.36 ugiL
2.SugIL
0.36 /L
14 ../L
2.5 u S/I
10 u /L
5.0 . 0 1/I
No available
methods.
-------
See sndiv;d.ial d$chlorotienzenes (e.g.. 1 2-dichloro-
beniene).
5*5*110 indsvi ial dicklorobenzenes already listed.
l .2-D chlorcbenzene 95501 APHA 6060 B GCMS IOL 0.10 ng/L
Senzene 1 1 1 2dichloro 25321226 APIM 6210 B G Ill ugiL
o-Dlcblorcbmnzene APKA 6220 B GCPIO NI 0.40 uqiL
APNA 6220 C GCPID OMDL 0.050 ugh.
mu 6230 b GCELWNZ 0.15 ugiL
APHA 6230 C GCLL L 0.050 ugA
AI M 6410 G06 NI 1.9ugIL
CLP OLNO1 V CGCMS CROL 10 ugIL
(AD 1625 8 W16 15. 10 ugiL
EISSLC 502.1 GCEL MDL uQJL
£NSLC 502.2 EL CGCELD MDL 0.020 ug/L
ENSLC 502.2 P lO CGCPIO MDL 0.050 wj/L
EMSLC 505.1 GCPID MDL 0.020 ugJL
£ISSLC 524.1 GalS MDL 1.0 uaJL
ENSLC 524.2 CGOIS MDL 0.030 ug/L
fI6LC 601 WGJ NI 0.15 wjhL
(I6LC 602 GCPID NI 0 40 ugiL
(I6LC 612 G W NI 1.IwJ!L
D6LC 624 GD6
(J6LC 625 NI 1.9ugIL
OSU 5010* GC€L MDL 0.15 ug/L
0 5W 5020* GCPID MDL 0.40 ug/L
0 5W 5021 EL CGCRLD MDL 0.020 ug/L
05W 5021 PlO CGCPID MDL 0.050 wjhL
05W 5120 GCE MDL 1.1 ugJL
05W 5250 GDSS MDL 1.9ugIL
0 5W 0260 COOlS MDL 0.030 ugjL
0 5W 5270* V CROSS SQL 10 ug/L
USGS 03115 COOlS LOL 5.0 ug/L
I 5•D lcbLornzes 541731 APHA 6060 B GOSS lOt 10 neJL
lenun. 13-dkhloro 25321226 mu 6210 8 NI ugiL
.-Dlchtorobenzene *PNA 6220 B 1D NI 0.40 tight
APIA 6220 C GCPIO L 0.050 ug/L
mu 6230 b 1WNI 0.32ughL
*PM 6230 C OCELOS CMDL 0.050 ug/L
mu 6410 NI 1.9 tight
CLP OIJSO1 V COOlS COOL 10 ug/L
(AD 1625 - ____ It 10 ugh
ENSLC 502.1 GCELCD MDI.
CNSLC 502.1 ILCO CGCELO MDL 0.020 ug/L
ENSLC 502.2 PID CGCPID MDL 0.020 ugJI.
INSLC 503.1 GCPID MDL 0.0060 uhL
EMSLC 524.1 GalS MDL ughL
IMSLC 524.2 COOlS MDL 0.12 ug/L
1 161C 601 GOB) NI 0.32 ugiL
(P61 C 602 GCPID NI 0 40 ugIt
1161 C 612 GCW) IU 1 2 ugiL
-------
(I6LC 624 GO6
(J6LC 625 G06 1.9uglL
05W 8010* GCEL MDL 0.32 ug/L
05W 8020* GCPID MDL 0.60 u /L
0 5W 8021 EL CGCSLD MDL 0.020 ug/L
05W 8021 PlO CGCPID MDL 0.020 i JL
0 5W 8120 GCS08 MDL 1.2 i /L
05W 8250 GOIS MDL 1.9u/L
05W 8260 CGCMS MDL 0.12 I*L
osw 8270* w CG IS SQL 10 i JL
USGS 03118 CG IS SQL 5.0 u 5/L
1 1 6- Olth lorcbenzene 106467 1PM 6040 8 601$ IDL 10 i’/l.
Ssnzsns. 1 1 4-dlthloro- 25321226 A YM 6210 B - ugiL
pDldi lorcbmnzene 1PM 6220 B 1D 0.30 uglL
Par th - *PII* 6220 C G ID OL 0.050 ug/L
M 6230 b WLW 0.24 ugiL
8PM 6230 C GCEL01 CMDL 0.050 u JL
ARM 6410 ia 4.4 wjIL
CLP 01.1101 U COOlS CIQL 10 i lL
EAt) 1625 It JO ugiL
SIISLC 502.1 GCELCO MDL i JL
SNSLC 502.2 ELCO COCRO MDL 0.010 ug/L
EMSLC 502.2 P lO CGCPIO MDL 0.010 iIL
EIISLC 503.1 GCPID MDL 0.0060 ugIL
£ISSLC 524.1 GalS MDL 2.0 i JL
ENSLC 526.2 COOlS MDL 0.030 ugIL
06LC 601 WG) S 0.24 ugiL
176LC 602 WIt) SU 0.3OuglL
fl6tC 612 1.3uglt
EI6LC 624 -
U LC&IS R 4.4uglL
0 5W 8010* G LCO MDL 0.26 uglL
08W 8020* Q IO MDL 0.30 IL
0 5W 8021 ELCO 050110 MDL 0.010 I lL
0 5W 8021 PlO CWID MDL 0.0010 i*L
05W 8120 00105 MDL 1.3 1*1.
05W 8250 601$ MDL 6.6 ugiL
08W 8260 COOlS MDL 0.030 JL
05W 8210* U COOlS SQL 10 ugjL
USGS 03118 CGCIID SQL 5.0 ug/L
3 1 5’-O lchlorabenhld ln. 91961 MM 6410 NZ 11 ugiL
1 .1’IIphsnyI4.4-dIIne. 3 1 3’-dichloro- 1331471 CLP 01.1101 U COOlS CSQL 10 iqJL
(AD 1625 - It 50 wj!t
EMSLC 553 LLE IIPLOIS MDL 2.6 a/L
£MSLC 553 LSE NPLOIS MDL 1.6 u$/L
IIISIC 605 NPLCEL MDL 0.13 uQ/L
( 161C 625 17 ugiL
05W 8250 601$ MDL 17 u /L
Osw 82108 U COOlS SQL 20 ug/L
• GS 03118 COOlS EDL 5.0 I /L
-------
Brcmodlchloro.elhans 75274 APIIA 6040 8 GCNS IOL 5.0 ng/L
Methane 1 bromodichloro- 0-193 APH.4 6230 8 W6 N . 22uqlL
Dich1orobrom thane APIM 6230 b GC(LG) ?E . 0 10 uglL
APHA 6230 C GCELCD (1L 0.050 ug!L
APHA 6232 B CGCECD )L 0.50 ug!L
ASIM 03973 GC(CD RNGE 1.0 uB/L
CLP OLNO1 U GCMS CR01. 10 ugIL
(At) 1624 W GG6 It 10 iaglL
ENSLC 502.1 GC (LW IGL 0.0030 i JL
ENSLC 502.2 (LCD CGC(LD IGL 0.020 ug/L
IMSLC 524.1 GOIS IGL 0.50 uO/L
£NSLC 524.2 CGOSS ISL 0.080 ug!L
(NSLC 551 CGCFCD IGL 0.0060 ug/L
( 161C 601 W60 0.lOwjlL
f16LC 624 G06 2 2 wjIt
CDV PA ll_I GCHSD RNG ( 0.50 us/L
CDV PAII_2 GCECD RIGS 0.50 ugIL
0 5W 0010* GCELCD 101L 0.10 u9/L
0 5W 8021 (LCD CGCELD N)L 0.020 ug/L
0 5W 8240* U COtS (01. 5.0 ug/L
05W 8260 CGOI$ IGL 0.080 uoJL
USGS 03115 GUtS BIlGE 3.0 i JL
1 1 2-Dichtoroelhane 107062 API6* 6210 8 GCI6 ?ft 2.Owj/L
Ethylene dichlorude 68411723 AF$ M 6230 11 G LW 0.O3Oug!L
CDC APHA 6230 C GCELCD CIlsI. 0.050 ugIL
(than . 1 1 1 2-dschloro- ASIN 03695 GCFID DL 1.0 /L
CLP 011101 V GUtS OtOL 10 .dlL
LAO 1624 W G06 It 10 uqiL
EJISIC 502.1 GCELCD L 0.0020 i01/L
ENSIC 502.2 (LCD CGCELD 101. 0.030 Is/L
EJISIC 524.1 GUtS 101. 0.20 uqjL
EMSLC 524.2 CGUIS 101. 0.060 101/L
D6LC 601 W60 0.030ugIL
DELC 620 9 )6 Z.8iig!L
0 8W 8010* GCELCD 10L 0.030 tAIL
05W 802* (LCD CGCEID 101. 0.030 UBIL
0 5W 8240* U GUtS (01. 5.0 uqJL
05W 8260 COOlS 10* 0.060 i /L
USGS 03115 GUtS RIGS 3.0 uqjL
12-DlcMorosthy lene 540590 C I ? 011101 V GUtS CROL 10 101/L
2.4- Dlchtoro l*leno I 120832 A# M 6410 2 1 ugiL
Phenol 1 2 1 4-dlchloro- 0-068 APIM 6420 84 &F1O Ift 0.39 l,)IL
M 6420 88 GC(C1J M . O68uqlL
ASIM 02580 GCEID (DL 1.0 /L
CLP OlNOl U CGCNS ClOt. 10 ug/L
tAt) 1625 AW C&?IS It 10 ugh
lAD 1653 CGCIIS *011. 0.15 U9/L
-------
LMSLC 552
( LC 604
fl6LC 604
(16tC 625
NCASI cP-85.01
NCASI cP-86.O1
0 5W 8040*
05W 8040*
8250
05 1 1 8270*
USGS 03117
CGCEtD MDL
A WID sa
B WQINZ
GO6N 1
cocs LDL
CG05S
L D G ECD MDL
FID GCFID MDL
GOSS MDL
U CGDSS SQL
cGOIS CDL
0.32 u /L
0 39 wjIL
0 68 iaglt
2.1 ugiL
3.0 i IL
0.66 UQJL
0.39 URJL
i JL
10 a/L
3.0 I /L
78815 AIYI% 6210
26638197 AFN% 6230
APSA 6230
urn 01695
ctP cusol
£41) 1624
EISSLC 502.1
LISSLC 502.2
LMSLC 524.1
LMSLC 524.2
(I6LC 601
(ISLC 624
0515 8010*
05W 8021
0511 8240*
0511 8260
USGS 01115
£80 1618
SAD 1656
CMSLC 617
B GO6 a 6.0uglL
b LWN1 0.OlOirjIL
C GCELCD L 0.050 aJL
GCFID DL 1.0 /L
U 005$ CIOL 10 I IL
N It 10 i j!L
GCELCD MDL iS/L
15.05 CGCLLD MDL 0.010 I IL
00 5$ MDL 0.20 jgIL
CGOSS MDL 0.040 ug/L
W ) Ni 0.040 uvjIL
W6 Ni 6.0.,jIL
GCSLCD MDL 0.060 i/L
£10) CGCCLD MDL 0.0060 /L
w 005$ SQ l. 5.0 IQl/L
l$ MDL 0.040 iq/L
005$ 1 105 3.0 i JL
I 1 2-Dichloraprop. s
Prapylans dichiorids
Prcp.rius 1 2-dlchloro-
I 1 3D lchlorcprcpSns
Prapsns. 1 1 3-dic6loro
l.a cis- 5 tr - 1 3-Dichlorcp sn. (CGS 10061026
542756
26952238
No
.v.llthl.
.sthods.
a, 10061015)
D lch iorvus
62737
LAD
1616
CGCFPD MDL
4.0 IWL
Phos *ioric acid 2 2-dIthtoroviny1 dinsthyl sitar
DOW
LAD
£PSSLC
1657
507
CICFPD MDL
05CII CDL
4.0 IWL
LI 1*1
V.pon.
CMSLC
0511
0511
0511
011
422
8140
8141
8270*
8321
U
I I
GCNPD (MDL
GCFPO MDL
CGCFPOMDL
(8055 SQL
UPLOSS MDL
0.10 i JL
0.10 IQl/L
0.80IQl/L
10 i JL
4.0 rqJit
.
115322
OicofoL
1.lthis
4 .thLoro-a1phs-(4-chlorc 5 heflyI)-atg4Is•(trichlorametI yl)
benzenmnsth ol
lsniens.athanol • 4-chioro- sl is- (6-chlorcçhenyt ) -alpha-
(lrIcIs lorc.sihvl)-
O,(p CIltor .nht) trschlor thyIc.rbsnol
o i
CGCIISD MDL
MMD CGCNMD MDL
GCICD MDL
ng/L
-------
Di-(2-ethylhe*v1) plithaIsle
117817
APM 6410
G06 M M.
2 5 WJIL
bIs(2-EthylheMyt) çhIhaIate
1 1 2-RenaenedlcarboAylic acid 1
bls(2-ethylheAyl)
ester
0-303
CLP OLISOl
[ Al) 1625
11
8*
CGCMS CR01.
N.
10 ug/L
10 ugiL
EMSLC 506
CGCPID PSI.
2.3 ‘ /L
EMSLC 525.1
CGOSS PSI.
0.60 u JL
(J6LC 606
(161C 625
600) Ni
G06 Ni
2.OugIL
2 5 wjlL
.
0511 8060
ECO
G 0) PSL
2.0 ug/L
0511 8060
110
GCFID PSI.
20 ug/L
0511 8250
aass PSL
2.5 uR/L
0511 8270*
11
CG S LOt
10 I IL
USGS 03118
CGOIS £01.
5.0 I /L
Dietliyt itha1ate
1 1 2-Senzenedic.rbaaylic acid
disihyt aster
84662
0-303
.
APIIA 6040
AIIM 6410
ASIN 04763
CLP OLNOI
(AD 1625
LNSLC 506
ENSLC 525.1
06LC 606
(I6LC 625
0 511 8060
0511 8060
0511 8270*
USGS 03118
B
11
8*
ECO
lID
11
G S 101.
606 Ni
RUOR DL
COOlS COOL
N.
CGCPID PSI.
COOlS PSL
GC(W Ni
606 Ni
GCECO 151.
GCFID PSI.
COOlS EOL
COOlS EDL
100 fl5/L
1.9 ugiL
p
10 /L
10 WJIL
0.84 ug/L
0.80 ug/L
0.49 ugiL
1.9ugIL
0.49ugIL
ii ug/L
10 tat/I.
5.0 tat/I.
24-D, thy I p9ienoI
Ptienot, 2 4-dimethyI-
*05679
AIIM 6410
AIIM 6420
AIIM 6420
OP OulOl
fAD 1625
(361C 604
(16LC 604
(I6LC 625
0511 80406
0511 00406
86
80
U
8*
A
8
ECO
lID
606 Ni
WID Ni
G W Ni
COOlS CR01.
It
1D Ni
WW Ni
Ni
GCECO PSL
OCIID 151.
2.lugIL
0.32 ugiL
0.63uglL
10 s JL
10 wjIL
0.32 ugiL
0.63 ugiL
2.7ug/L
0.63 t /L
0.32 tat/I.
‘
0511 8270*
USGS 03117
11
COOlS Eat
COOlS E DL
10 ug/L
3.0 ugJL
DtthyI ilh.late 131113 AIIM 6410 MM. 1.6 U9IL
1 1 2-BsnzensdIcsrbsAytic acid dI.sthyt aster 0-303 CLP OLNOI 11 COOlS (SQL 10 ug/L
(AD 1625 8* N. 10 ugiL
EIISLC 506 CGCPID PSI. 1.1 4/L
ENSLC 525.1 CGOSS PSL 0.040 uR/L
061C 606 600) Ni 029ug/L
1?61C 625 606 Ni 1 6 ugiL
OSU 8060 (CD GCECO NOL 0.29 ug/L
OSIJ 8060 lID (CuD 151. 19 ug/L
OSU 8270* 11 CGCMS £01. 10 ug/L
-------
USGS 03118 CGClS LOL 5.0 uaJL
,6Dinitroo-cresol
N.thyl 4 6 dinitrcphenol
enol 2•.ethyl46 dinitro
ioc
Given In several lists as ...
salts
.swrs•
534521
4PM 6410
MVM 6420
CLP 01.101
(AD 1625
(I LC 604
(I6LC 625
84
V
4W
A
GO6
GCFID
CGCISS
WJ6
&F1D
Ift
Ni
CRQL
If
Mi
M i
24 ugiL
16 ugiL
25 ug/L
20 ugiL
16 ugiL
24 ugiL
‘
10* 221.1
GCtW
giN..
OSII 8060*
LW
GCEW
101.
ug/L
OSU 8040*
lID
GCFID
IQL
16 USJL
0 5W 8270*
U
CGQIS
SQL
50 • ugiL
USGS 03117
COOlS
501.
3.0 uaJL
.6-DInItrc iIenol
mole 2 1 4-dlnltro
51285
25550587
AA4* 6410
mM 6420
CLP 01.1 101
(AD 1625
(ISLC 604
O6LC 625
0 5W 8060*
OSU 8060*
OSU 8250
0 5W 8270*
USGS 03117
Li
U
4W
4
LW
lID
U
GGS
W1D
COOlS
(GaS
6ff ID
GCLW
GCIID
0CN$
COOlS
COOlS
Ni
Ni
CR01.
It
Ni
Ni
10L
11)1
10L
SQL
EDt
42 wjiL
13 ugiL
25 ug/L
50 ugiL
13 ugh
42 ugiL
imJL
13 .iiul.
42 ugiL
50 ugiL
3.0 ugh
•
.
V.D,n,IrotoIuene
lenzene 1- ihyl 2.4-dtnitrq
121142
25321166
AGAC 956.22
AIYM 6410
CIP OLNO1
(AD 1625
OSLC 609
DSLC 609
(J6LC625
05W 8090
05W 8090
05W 0250
U
-
4
8
LCD
lID
IIPIQN
6 (26
COOlS
W D
WID
GClCD
OCFID
GOSS
AOL
Ni
C li i
It
Ni
Mi
Mi
10L
10$.
10L
10 FL
5.lugiL
10 ugh
I D iqiL
0.O2OugiL
wjiL
S.lughl
0.020 ugh
u gJL
5.7 ugh
.
05W 8270*
OSW 8330
USGS 03118
U
ii
COOlS
I.Lajv
COOlS
Lii.
SQL
L i i .
10 u/i
5.7 ugh
5.0 u giL
2.6D ln ltrotoluene 606202 APM 6410 — ,.9ugiL
$snzene 2 tbyli.3dInhtro 25321146 CIP 01.1101 U CGOIS Clii. 10 t ilL
[ 40 1625 OW If 10 ugiL
(ISLC 609 A WW Ni 0.010 ugh
(16LC 609 B WID Mi ugiL
( . I6LC 625 6(26 Mi 1.9ugiL
0 5W 0090 lCD GCEW NOL 0.010 11 5/L
OSW 8090 lID GCFID L i i u glL
OSU 8250 GOIS 80L 1.9UgiL
OSU 8270* U COOlS SQL 10 ugh.
OSU 8330 U NPLOJV Li i. 9.4 ug/L
USGS 03118 COOlS CDI. 5.0 ugh.
-------
Din-octyl ithalate
117840
APM 6410
G06 Ml
2.5 iagIL
Dsoctyl phth.Iate
1 2-Benzenedicarbo ylic acids dioctyt ester
0-303
CIP 011101
LAD 1625
INSLC 506
U
-
CGCMS CROL
CG(16 D l.
CGCPID L
10 ugh.
10 ugiL
6.4 ugIL
D6LC 606
G W N M
3.0uqIL
(?61C62 5
G06 M l
2.5wjIL
0 5W 8060
LCD
GCEW II)L
3.0 ugh.
0 5W 8060
FID
GCHD L
31 ug/L
0 5W 8250
0085 N)L
2.5 t aB/I
0SW 8270*
U
CD IS 801
10 ug/L
USGS 03118
COOlS EDL
5.0 ug/L
1,2-D ipheny lhydraalne
Ilydr.zine. 1 2dig tenyl
Nydrazobenzens
122667
38622183
APIIA 6040
(AD 1625
05W 8250
05W 8270*
B
U
GOSS IOL
Dl.
GOIS L
COOlS SQL
1.0 nuJL
20 uØL
tag/ I.
ugh
Spich lorhydrin
Epichioraitydrin
106898
*5111 03695
OSU 8240*
U
OCIID DL
0CN$ SQL
1.0 /L
uoJL
1-chloro-2 3-epoxypropane
0*Irte 2-(chlor ethyl)-
Treatment technique required to achieve SDUA
IICL
Ethylbeniene
Benaene. ethyl
Phenylethone
i-
100414
APISA 6040
APM 6210
APItA 6220
APNA 6220
ASTN 03695
ASIN 03871
CLP OLNOI
(AD 1624
ENSIC 502.2
ENSLC 503.1
LNSLC 524.1
ENSIC 524.2
(I6LC 602
(16LC 624
08W 8020*
05W 8021
05W 8240*
05W 8260
USGS 03115
B
8
8
C
U
N
P lO
PID
U
GCNS IOL
G 6 N M
GCPID MM
GCPID 0I L
GCFID DL
GC DL
GCNS CIOL
G 6 D I.
CGCPID NOL
GCPI O NOL
0085
COOlS NOL
WID M l
G 6 MM
GCPID NOL
CGCPID NOL
005$ SQL
COOlS NOt.
GalS BIlGE
50 ng/L
1.2 uqiL
0 20 u91L
0.050 ug/L
1.0 /L
u g/L
10 uaJL
10 ugiL
0.010 ug/L
0.0020 ug/L
ug/L
0.060 ug/L
020 ugiL
7.2iq/L
0.20 ug/L
0.0050 ug/L
5.0 laB/I
0.060 ugIL
3.0 IaB/L
I
tow
ug/L
106934
Ethylene dibrmesde
I 2-Oibrmeoethane
COB
Ethane 1 2-d,brome-
ApII* 0
APHA 6230
APHA 6231
(AD 1624
ENSLC 502.1
ENSLC 502.2
ENSLC 504
ENSLC 524.1
B GOSS IDL
C GCSLtD 0101
B CGCECD 101
N G176 (Il
GCELcD IOL
ELCD CGCELD SOL
CGCE O IOL
GCNS NOL
2.0 ng/L
0.050 ug/L
0.010 ug/L
10 ugiL
0.040 ug/L
0.80 ug/L
0.010 ug/L
0.40 ug/L
L*t RI
-------
.pI III . ”—
N C R
Sinzsns hsxschloro-
118761 APNA 6040
oa .;145O M 6410
cLP Jls1
£40 1625
£IISLC SOS
£IISLC 508
[ IISLC 525.1
17&C 612
(16LC 625
8120
$250
08W 8270*
USGS 03118
8
SaSS 501. 1.0 nglL
MR i.OiaglL
v cGaSS alas. 10 ; /L
— Il. 10 lag/I
alalal 001 0.0020 USJL
CRalal [ DL 0.OOT1 JL
CROSS 001 0.10 iag/L
MR 0.050iag!L
— MR 1.9 lI
G ECR last 0.050 Iag!L
6055 001 I.9ug/L
U CROSS S QL 10 u 5/L
CROSS [ DL 5.0 u9/L
81683 APIIA 6060 8 GOSS 501 2.0 ng/L
APIIA 6220 C GCPID 55SL 0.050 ug/L
ENSIC
524.2
CGQSS
ISSL
0.060 u 5/L
ENSLC
551
CGC [ CD
001
0.0060 ug/L
ENSLC
618
GCECR
001
0.20 UQJL
05W
8011
CGCECR
ISSL
0.010 tag/L
0 5W
8021
ELCR
CGCEI.D
00L
0.80 ugJL
0 5W
8240*
V
GalS
SQL
5.0 u 5/L
05W
8260
CROSS
001
0.060 uØ/L
Forldetiyde
M.th .i
50000
ENSLC 554
0 5W 8315
NPLC 00L
HPLC 1St
6.2 ugJL
7.2 JL
Nsthyl.ns oxide
ForstSn
Will not •lute trno volatile coli
Neptathlor
6 1 7-lSsth.noIN-i.41ne. 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 8-hept.chIoro-3a.4.7,
7.-t.tra iiydro-
V.lsIcol-10 4
76448
8-605
AFN* 6410
AI IS 6630
AIVM 6630
AS1I( 1*3006
B
C
006 MR
W L i
W MR
1.9 wjIL
r ag/ I
0.0030 ug/L
1 0 rag/I
Drinox
CLP OLNO I
U
CGCECR CR01.
0.050 1 15/1
I leptagran
[ *0 1618
[ *0 1656
ENSLC 505
ENSLC 508
[ MSLC 525.1
1J6LC 608
ENSLC 617
625
EJISIC 680
05W 0*
05W 8250
0V4 8270*
1150
V
CGCIIW 00L
CGCISSD 005
CGCECR 001
CGC [ CR [ DL
CGCRS 005.
Ga O ? MR
GC [ CR 00L
MR
COOls 005
OCECR 001
0055 005
COOlS SQL
5.0 flS/L
5.0 ng/L
0.0030 u5/L
0.010 u/L
0.040 u /L
0.0030 ugiL
0.0040 119/1
1.9i a glL
0.40 is/I
0.0030 iag /L
1.9 1 5 /1
1 5 /L
.
.
•
USGS 03104
Salal RUSE
0.010 15/ I
N.ael IIIOr AaI S eVW
1.1 • I.i.w• *•I•2 .3.4 .4 f leaaChIoro-
-------
APM 6410
CLP 01.101
£40 1625
ENSLC 502.2
EJISIC 502.2
ENSLC 503.1
ENSIC 524.2
(161C 612
O6LC 625
OSU 6021
O SU 8021
O SW 6120
o i 6250
O SU 8260
05W 6270*
.11(88 03118.
G06 N i
U CG S CROL
8 WJ6?t
EL1 D cGCEL.D L
PID CGCPID L
GCPID L
CGOIS lIM.
Ni
6 176 Ni
ELcO CG EL0 80L
PlO CG PIO 1L
GCEcO L
GOSS L
CGOSS 80L
U CG S SQL
coass [ DL
o 90 ugiL
lo ug/L
10 ugli
0.020 ug/L
0.060 ug/L
0.020 I /L
0.11 ug/L
0 34 ugiL
0.90 ugh
0.020 i FL
0.060 ughL
0.34 uajt.
0.90 uglL
0. 1 u /L
10 ug/L
5.0 uoJL
Neiiachlorocyctopentadiene
13-Cyclcpsntsdicne. 1,2 1 3 4 5 1 S-heiiachIoro
17474
AMi4 6410
AS W0
Ni wjht
GaW .—— 1.0 nghL
p
CLP 01.101 11
CGQSS CR01. 10 ug/L
Perth lorocyclopcntadiene
‘
(AD 1625 B
EIISLC 505
ENSLC 525.1
(361C 612
FJ6LC 625
0 5W 8120
05W 6250
0511 8270* U
USGS 03116
6 It 10 ugiL
CGCECD L 0.13 ugJL
CGOSS )L 0.030 ug/L
GC(W Ni 0.40 ugiL
6176
GCEcO ISL 0.60 ug/L
GOIS IOL
CGaSS SQL 10 I IL
CROSS (DL 5.0 i JL
I
612:
1625
Neiiachloroethane
67721
*PN* 6040 S
G SS IDL 20 rFL
Ethwie heAachloro-
68411723
APPM 6410
CLP 01.101 11
(AD 1625
ENSLC 524.2
(JSLC 612
fl6LC 625
0 (11 6120
0 1 1250
0 (11 8270* U
1188$ 03118
NI 1.6 ugiL
COOlS CROL 10 11L
6 It 10 .aglL
COOlS 101. 0.057 u 5IL
Ni 0.030 iagIL
Ni l.6ugIL
GCOCO ROL 0.030 uoJL
001$ ROL 1.6 i lL
COOlS £01 10 10111.
COOlS (DL 5.0 ugJL
l lydrochlorlc acid
7647010
Nay be Lyzed as
Total Chloride.
Iiydro un chloride
Ihirlatic acid
Nydrogen Cyanide
NydroCyafliC acid
74908
57125
Nay be analyzed as
Total Cyanide.
Prussic acid
7664393 Nay be analyzed as Total fluoride.
ilydrOllUOriC acid
Nydro efl fluoride
-------
7439921 AIMC 914.21
mu 3111 A
AlMa 3113 A
mu 3120
mu 3500-18 0
ASIMOJSS9 A
ASIHO3SS9 B
AS1HWSS9 C
ASIN 03559 0
ASP I 04190
CLP ILNO 1 U
EU 1620 A
EU 1620 8
ENSLC 200.1 FLAA
ENSLC 200.1 ICP
ENSLC 200.10
(I6LCZOO.7 W
EISSLC 200.5 U
ENSIC 200.9
FJ6LC 239 1
(I&C 239.2
0 5W 6010*
05W 7420
05W 7421
USGS FIPEC 0X
USGS LIPEC PEP
USGS 11399 U
USGS 11400
USGS 11401
USGS 11472
301842 Nay be analyzed as
74Y 9921
7714409 Nay be u alyzcd as
7645252
7645252 Nay be analyzed as
7439921
10102484 Nay be tyzed as
7645252
7758954 Nay be analyzed as
7439921
13814965 Nay be analyzed as
7439921
11.44
FIN
1144 (a
ICP (a
SF! C R ?
FLU
FIN
GFU SHOE
GIM CR0 1.
I P EDt
GFU EDt
FLU (DL
ic (D I.
ic s is a.
ic N
I PISS ISL
ISOFU isL
FIN a
gMa
ICP EIDL
FLU DL
G FU DL
(-SPEC RNGE
E-SPEC HuGE
FLU DL
N.M DL
GFAA DL
IGP LL
Total Lead.
Total lead J Total Arsenate.
Total Lead and Total Arsenate.
Total Lead . Total Arsen ne.
Total lead.
Total Lead.
Fluohydric acid
HF
Lead
Pb
Incli ss “And C oi,ids; Not Otherwise Specified”
Treatnt technnpa reqired to enet Wl PCI..
1 0 jIL
1 0 ‘ijiL
1 0 ugIL
40 ugIt
1.0 ijlL
1.0 r,j!L
100 ugiL
1.0 ugiL
5.0 u /L
ugiL
3.0 ug/L
42 ug/L
1.0 ugJL
0.10 /L
0.030 /L
0.076 ug/L
10 ug/L
0.60 ug/L
0.70 u9/L
0 10 aijiL
1 0 ugh
42 ug/L
0.10 hL
1.0 u/L
2.3 i /L
5.0 isJL
100 ugJL
5.0 u /L
0.30 u /L
10 IWL
Lead acetate
Acetic acid, lead (2.) salt
Lead acid arsenate
Arsenic acid, leadCZ•) salt (1:1)
Lead arsa ate
Arsenic acid, lead salt
Lead arsenate
Arsenic acid, lead(1. .) salt (3:2)
Lead chloride
Lead ll Doraie
-------
Lead fluoride
Lead dilluoride
Pli fluoride
7783662
7439921
Lead Iodide
Lead nitrate
Lead stearate
Stearic acid 1 lead salt
Octadecanoic acid 1 l.ad salt
L.ad(2•) stearate
Octadanoic acid 1 lead(Z•) salt
Stearuo acid 1 lead(2•) salt
Lead st.arat. dibesic
Lead bls(octadecanoato)dloilodi
Octadecanoic acid, lead salt. dibesuc
Obsolete CAS rs er; see 56189096
Lead sulfate
Sulfuric acid, lead(2•) salt (1:1)
Cl. Pi nt taut. 3
Ililk idlile
Lead sulfide
Galens
Lead thiocyanate
Lead sulf yiats
LI. .s
g -SNC
Mesacluloroc laIisaans ( )
a-$snzsmhexac hlor Id .
Cycloheiius 1 ,2 3 ,4 ,S .6-he&achLoro-. (1-alia . 2-alpha.
3-beta 4-alpha. 5-alpha. 6-beta)
10101630
7639921
10099748
7439921
7428680
7439921
1072351
7428480
52652592
7428680
Nay be analyzed as Total Lead or Total Fluoride.
Play be
analyzed as
Total
Lead.
Nay be
analyzed as
Total
Lead.
Nay be
analyzed as
Total
Lead.
Nay be analyzed as Total Lead.
Nay be analyzed as Total Lead.
7446142 Nay be analyzed as Total Lead.
7439921
#
1314870
Nay be acislyzed as
Total Lead.
7639921
592870
Nay be analyzed as
Total Lead ar Total Cyanide.
7439921
50899
AAM 6410
ugiL
608751
AFPM 6630 8
M 6630 C
AS1K 1fl
CLP OLNO1 II
EaD 1618
LAD 1656 lISO
ENSLC 505
LNSLC 508
ENSLC 525.1
O6LC 608
INSLC 617
(?61C 625
EISSLC 680
OSW 8080A
Osw 8250
G W 1 10 ngIL
& W NZ ugiL
1.Ong!L
CGCE CNOL 0.050 ug/L
CGCNSD MDL 11 nelL
CGC6 MDL 5.Ong/L
CGCE MDL 0.0030 Lq/L
CGCL ) LOL 0.015 ug/L
coats MDL 0.10 ug/L
6 (1W NZ 0.0040 ugh
GCECD MDL 0.0020 ug/L
CGCPIS L 0.50 ug/L
GCECO MOs. 0.0040 ug/L
GUts MDI iig/L
&csi poses
-------
Lithka chrc..te
Daub iithydride
2 S-rur.nd lcns
cIs-Sut.nsdbolc acid *iydrids
Tosilic t)*Ids
Mercury cyanide
Mercuric cyanide
Nircuric nitrate
Nercurlc sulfate
Mercuric thiocyanate
Mercuric sulfocy.nide
Nsrciaoia nitrate, aoriobydrate
Nitric aCid, .ercury(1s) salts imnohydrate
Mercury
Na
Inoludes “As Cc oisds; Not Otherwise Specified”
4 ..
14301258
108316
OSW 8270* U CGOIS IQL ug/L
USGS 03106 GCE RUGS 0.010 ug/L
Nay be analyzed as Total Chrosit..
OSu 8270* U CGOIS [ DL 14/L
C
I’
C
N
592041
Nay be analyzed as
Total Cyanide and Total Mercury.
7439976
10045940
Nay be analyzed as
Total Mercury.
7439976
7783359
Nay be analyzed as
Total Mercury.
7439976
592858
Nay be analyzed as
Total Nercury and Total Cyanide.
7639976
7782867
Nay be analyzed as
Total Mercury.
10415155
743997k,
MMC 977.22
CVAA 0 20 ugiL
AF’d4 3112
APN* 3500-sG
ASllf W
ASTN 04190
CLP ILNO I
£60 1620
EI6LC Z80.7
fl6LC 245.1
fl6LC 245.2
FIISLC 265.3
OIU 7470*
OS U 7471*
USGS 11462 U
USGS 12462
CVM ugiL
SPECTI 1C 2.0 u IL
CIM 0.20 ugiL
DCAPS iIL
CVU QL 0.20 uaJL
CYM EDL 0.20 i/L
IC? 7.0 iigIL
CIM a 0.20 ugh
tIM 0.20 wjIt
It L D l 1.8 i /L
CVU Dl. 2.01-4 anJL
CVU DL 2.01-6 osJL
CVU DL 0.50 i /L
CVM Dl 0.10 iWL
N &I 0 8
*511 1 _.
ASTN 04763
CLP DlJmi I I
FAD 1618
FAD 1656 NW
£NSLC 505
£MDLC 508
£NSLC 525.1
£NSLC 606.2
ENSLC 617
W Ii. nglL
a w 1.OngIL
FLUOR DL 0.80
CGCE CROL 0.50 sAIL
CGCNSD WL 30 I /L
CGCNSD MDL 30 WL
CGC [ CR MDL 0.96 i lL
CGCECR MDL 0.050 u /L
cSnIf •u. 0.040 ug/L
G(Z [ DL 0.060 uS/L
GcE i. 0.18 ugIL
Nsthacychlor
sunsu* 1 ,1’-(2,2 ,2-trichloro.thyt ldsns)bist4 -anthOsy-
1.1-(2.Z.2-Trichl.roethyl iden.)bis16-.ethoz tenzsne1
£tha , 1 ,1 ,1-tricIiloro-2 ,2-bis(p-anthasy 0ienyl)-
72435
-------
A! M 3111
A M 3113
A M 3120
M 3500-NI
*PN* 3500-NI
AS1H D I 006
AS11 D18
ASTN 01M6
ASIN D1976
ASIH 04100
CLP ILNO1
LAD 1620
ENSLC 200. O
1161C 200.1
ENSLC 200.8
EMSLC 200.9
U6IC 249 1
IM5AC 249 2
I.IS(Xd A(S-0029
OSU 60)0*
A FLM
A M
“P
o 5Ff CIR
£ L0I
A FLU
O FLU
C GFAA
W ic
A icP
lcpNS
w ia ’
U ICPNS
ISGFAA
ILM
eju
I CP
0.30 agiL
ta 1.0&iq!L
ta 15 sijiL
IL
IL
0.10.gIL
10 wjIL
1N08 5.0 ug/L
LOL 15 /L
wjIL
RQL 40 iIL
LOL 15 ug/L
L 0081 ug/L
Ia. 5OugIL
L 0.50 u9/I .
L 0.60 u IL
a 0040 flL
a bug/I
a 000ZOnJ/I
EIDL 15 ug/L
ENSLC
680
CGOIS
leL
0.20
/L
0 8W
8080A
GC( )
ICL
0.18
UQJL
05W
6250
GCNS
)L
ug/L
08W
8270* U CGCIIS
LOL
10
uaJL
USGS
03104
GCE
RNGE
0.010 ugJL
Methyl
2-Prapenoic
th.cryl.te
acid
Z- thyl- thyl ester
80626
(AD
08W
1624
8240*
W
U
(
GOIS LOt
10 uglL
5.0 ug/L
(.1 RI
Naplithalene
91203
APHA
6040
B
GCNS IOL
100 ngIL
lAilte tar
130498292
APHA
6220
C
GCPID CISL
0.050 ug/L
Tar c Iior
APIM
6410
G06 NI
1.6 ugiL
N.phth.l in
APIM
AS1N
ASIM
CI.P
(AD
LIISIC
ENSLC
£MSLC
EMSLC
£NSLC
t 161C
1J6LC
0 5W
OSU
08W
0 5W
08W
08W
USGS
USGS
6440
04657
04763
OulOl
1625
502.2
503.1
526.2
550
550.1
610
625
8021
8100
8250
8260
8270A
8310
03113
0311$
8
U
Pl O
PlO
U
I LCUVNI
I1 ’tWV
FLUOR DL
CGOSS CR01.
It
CGCPID )L
GCPID L
CGDSS L
HPLQJV L
NPLQJV L
II I WYNI
76 NI
CGCPID L
CGCFID
GCRS L
CGCRS L
CRaSS £01.
NPLQN 1011.
NPLQJV UNGS
COOlS [ DL
i,8ugIL
ugiL
0.020 •
10 IS/L
10 ugiL
0.060 I /L
0.040 ug /L
0.060 ug/L
3.3 ug/L
2.2 ug/L
1.8ugII
1.6uq/I
0.060 ug/L
u9/L
1.6 u9/L
0.040 ug/L
10 ug/L
18 ug/L
1.0 UgIL
5.0 us/L
I
lack es Ai C ais s; Not Otherwise Specified TM
7440020
341 liD
-------
2 Nitrsv l
oNi tri l
Phe, l. 2n$tro-
Nay be t.lyzed as
Nay be .‘.lyzed as
May be ialyzed as
My be iatyzed as
A1 I% 6410
CLP 01.1101
(AD 1625
£II .C S24.2
06LC 609
116LC 609
96LC 625
0 5W 8090
1090
05W 1250
osu ano*
USGS 03118
801 55 APNI 6410
25154556 AFH% 6429 8 .1
AAM6420
o ousol ii
(AD 1625 AW
(?61C 604 A
(161C 604 8
(161C 625
05W 804OA LCD
OSW 8040A HO
U
—
A
8
E05
lID
V
0.040 .gIL
11 ti9/L
0.50 ug/L
1.0 ug!L
100 ug/L
1.0 u /L
Total Nickel.
total Nickel.
total Nickel.
total Nitrate/Nitrite.
Ni 1.9wjIL
GGOIS 1OL 10 iqIL
N. 10 ugiL
coass 1.2 /L
Ni 14 wjlL
WID N i 3.6ugIL
Mi 1.9iqlL
G01 L 16 i*/L
80118 1St 3.6 11L
GOIS 80L 1.9IWL
cGOIS cat 10 JL
csass IDI. 5.0 . JL
M i 3.6 iq!L
WID li i 0.45 ugiL
EW NI Oil ugiL
CG05S cIQL 10 ug/L
N. 20 iq/L
Gif ID NI 0.45 isjlt
GCIaI NI 0 11 ugiL
M i 36uq!L
GC(05 1SL 0.17 ugIL
GCFID 1SL 0.65 uaJL
05W 1520 FLU DL
USGS 5-SPEC CNP* EIPEC RNGE
USGS 5-SPEC PRCP (SPEC INGE
USGS 11500 1 LU DL
USGS 11499 U FLU DL
USGS 11501 GFAA DL
Nay be lslyied as total Nickel.
Nay be ortalyzed as total Nickel.
Nay be islyzed as total Nickel.
Nickel iii sulfate
A111 11 nickel sulfate
Nickel chloride
Nickel chloride (NiCl2I
Nlckelota chloride
Nickel (II) chloride
Nickel hydroaide
Nickel nitrate
Nickel sulfate
Nitric acid
A p1s fort is
Ni trobenzene
Ienzene nitro-
Oil of .irbeas
15699180
7660020
37211055
7718549
7711549
7440020
12054417
7440020
14216752
7660020
7786816
7460020
7691372
91953
-------
OSU 8250 GCISS L 3.6 ug/L
0 5W 8270A U CGCMS EOL 10 Us_IL
USGS 03117 CGOSS CDL 3.0 us_/L
4-u ltrcçhenol 100027 AI%4 6410 GO6 Ifl 2 4 ugiL
p-N ltrc thenoI 25154556 APP*4 6420 84 WID l i z 28ugIL
Phenol 1 4-nitro- AIIM 6420 88 GaO) M I 0.10 uqIL
Parathion degradation pro Jct (01L) CLP 0(801 U CG S CROL 25 us_/L
( . 40 1625 . 4W (Z06 I t 50 uqIt
CNSLC 515.1 CG EW CDL 0.13 us_/L
ENSLC 555 NPLC*N 50L 6.0 us_/L
D6LC 604 A WID 118. 2.8ugIL
F161C 604 8 WO) MI 0.10 ugIL
116LC 625 G I a 2.4wjII.
058 8040* E GCE ) II)L 0.70 i /L
058 80404 FID GCFID 50L 2.8i /L
Os_U 5250 GQSS 50L 2.4 iIL
0585270* U CGasSFaL 50 uqjL
USGS 03117 COaSS CDL 3.0 iJL
N-Nltrosodlthyline
DI.ethyln iirosen lne
Wethenine. N-sethyI-N nhiroso-
Nethan tne 1 I-thylNnhlraso
62159
35576911
M 6410
(.40 1625
(I6LC 601
(ISLC 625
—
M I
Il.
M I
-
ugiL -
50 .qIL
0.15 ugiL
use 601
058 8070
GC8PO L
0.15 ug/L
058 8250
GOSS 1011.
1*1
Os_U 8270*
U
CG S £01.
iIL
USGS 03118
CGOSS CD I
5.0 ugJL
U-Nitrosodi ienylenine
86306
AIIM 6410
M I
1.9 iig!L
enzensne 1 N-nitroso-N-phenyl
35576911
.
C I ) OLNOI
fAD 1625
(I6LC 607
(16LC 625
058 8070
Os_U 5250
Os_U 8270*
USGS 03118
U
8
COOlS ClOt.
It
MI
- MI
GCUPO 50L
0055 1011.
COOlS 101
COOlS CD L
10 i /L
20 iqlL
0.81 ugiL
1.9wj/L
0.81 /L
1.9 us_/L
10 /L
S.D ugJL
(161C 607
i-NltrosodI-n-pr ylins 621U7 APN* 6040 I 0055 101 5.0 noJL
DI-nprcpvlnltros ns 35576911 1* 6410 MI wjlL
1-Pruganlns. U-nitro.o-n-propyl C I ) OUSDI U COOlS CR01 10 I.JL
(AD 1 11 20 ugiL
II6LC 607 __ 0.46 ugiL
(1 C 625
058 8070 GOWO 50L 0.46 us_/L
058 8250 GCNS IL us_/L
Os_U 8270* U CG05S CDL 10 Us_/L
USGS 03118 CGCNS CDL 5.0 Us_/L
56382 CAD 1618 CGCFPO 101L 10 ng/L
P.. .i sen •Sh I LAD $657 CGCFPO ISL 10 ng/L
-------
Phos *iorothioic cid. 0 .0-diethyl 0-(4-nitrc *ieny1) ENSIC 614 GCFPD 80L 0.015 ug/L
ester 05W 8141 U CGCIPO 80L 0.060 Ug/L
Diethyl 4-nitrc 4ienyl *iospIiorothIoat. 05W 8270* U CGOSS 101. 10 ugh.
DRIP USGS 03104 GCLCR 1 101 0.010 UIIL
Niran
Pentachtorq ienol 87865 4PM 6410 916 M M. 3.6 IL
PCP 0068 APVM 6420 *4 9110 ?ft 1.4ugIL
Ptienol • pentathioro- 4PM 6420 91W NI 0.59 iijlL
Penta tIP OUSOI U COOlS CR01. 25 ugh.
ICR*U r.ferencs Is in 60 CFI 302.6 nat 40 C I I 261.33. LAD 1626 AW * 50 ugiL
1*0 1653 COOlS 80L 0.28 UghL
ENSLC 515.1 COCE05 £01. 0.0)6 ugJL
£NSLC 515.2 CGCE05 801. 0.16 ug/L
£NSLC 525.1 COOlS 801. 0.30 uaJL
FISSLC 555 NPLQJV 801. 5.2 ug/L
(J6LC 604 4 9110 M M . 1.4 iqlL
EJ6LC 604 B 91W NI 0.59 iiglL
IJ6LC 626 NI 3.6u9lL
NC*SI -85.01 CGCE05 101. 0.60 ug!L
UCASI CP86.01 COCIIS
0 5W 8040* ICR GCECR 801. 0.59 ug/L
05W 8060* lID GCFID ISL 7.4 ug/L
05W 8250 GalS 80L 3.6 ug/L
OSU 8270* U CGCRS 101. 50 ug/L
USGS 03117 COOlS £01. 3.0 ugiC
Phenol 108952 4PM 6410 - NI 1.5 u9IL
Carbol Ic acid AFM 6420 *4 9110 NI D.l4uglL
Ienzens• hydrosy- 4PM 6420 91W M M . 2.2 .qIL
Phenyl hydroxide ASIa 02580 GCIIO £01. 1.0 !L
Uydroxybsnzens . CLP 01.101 U COOlS CR01. 10 I IL
0z tenzeno LAO 1626 V It 10 1J9!L
FJ6LC 604 A 9110 NI 0.14 ugiL
DSSLC 604 B 91W NI Z.2iqlL
(16LC 625 NI 1.5ugIL
08W 8060* 1CR GCECR 801. 2.2 ug/L
08W 8060* lID GCFID 80L 0.16 uglL
08W 8250 GalS 1St 1.5 ug!L
05W 8270* V CGOISSQL 10 ugIL
USGS 03117 C*tlI$ 801. 3.0 0411.
Phosguns
75445
No
ava
Il 1e ssthods.
Carbonic dicMoride
Carbonyl chloride
Clilorofor.yl chloride
.
PhosI %orIC acid
76M382
Nay
be
analyzed as Total Orth *iosphate.
0rSho iiOqIior IC acid
-------
Phosphorus
P
B lack phosphorus
alt. phosphorus
Red phosphorus
Velim. phosphorus
Violet phosphorus
Se. also Phosphate (CAS 14265442)
Pcs 1 s
Aroc lore
Polycklorinated blphenyl. NOS
As dsc.chlorobiphenyl for SOWA NCL and BIOACQ List
Potass lia arsenate
Potassk. arseni I.
Arsenic acid, potassli. salt
Arsenlous acid
Potasska .etaarsefl. to
Potasska bichromate
PoCus jul dichrcmste
Potqsssia chrenste
Polassius cyanide
Propylene aside
Propane aside
Out not ins
I -Isniazios
Bsnzo(b)pyridlns
Leucot ins
chlno l.lns
Leucol
Sel.nkm
S.
Includes •Ais Coopossids; Not Otherwise Specified”
7723140 [ AD 1620 0
tJ6LC200.1 U
OSU 6010*
USGS 11600
USGS 12599
USGS 12600 U
ICP LTL 1.0 1r6/L
i ?fN. 60 ugiL
ICP EIDL 51 ug/L
SPECIR DL 0.020 u /L
COLOR DL 0.010 /L
AUTO DL 0.010 r/L
1336363 USGS 03104 GCE ) ONCE 0.010 u9/L
7784410
Ray
be
analyzed as Total
Arsenic.
7440362
10124502
Nay
be
analyzed as Total
Arsenic.
7460382
7778509
7440473
Nay be analyzed as Total Chrcmius.
7789006
7440473
Nay be analyzed as Total Chrasiia.
-
151506
57125
Nay be analyzed as Total Cyanide.
15366
ASTN D3665
GCEID DL
1.0 /L
91225
ASTIS 04763
FLUOR DL
7782492 M 3113
A
&M EI
2.0 wjIL
APIIA 3114
B
NTDAA DL
0.0020 lL
APNA 3114
C
IITDAA
/L
AFfM3I2O
it? (l It
15 wjIL
APISA 5500-SE
0
SPECTI SOC
10 ug!L
APIIA 3500-SE
E
FLUOR
ug/L
APNA 3500-SE
F
COLOR
ug/L
APHA 3500-SE
G
SPECIR
ug/L
ASEN 01976
ICP [ DL
75 ug/L
ASIN 113859
A
HPU%4
1 0 UgIL
ASIN 03859
B
GFAA ONGE
2.0 U 5/L
-------
7631892
7440382
7784465
7440382
CLP ILISO1
U
GIAA CRQL
5.0 ug/L
(AD 1620
a
ICP CDL
75 ug/L
(AD 1620
8
GFAA CDL
2.0 u9/L
[ 16LCZEJO.7
V
ICP Ia
20 ugiL
CNSLC 200.8
V
ICPISS ISI.
7.9 ug/L
(NSLC 200.9
TSGFAA NIL
0.60 ugFL
fl6LC 210.2
( 16LC 210.3
&M a
FIM a
2.OugIL
2.OuqFL
08W 6O1QA
ICP EIDL
75 unJL
08W 7740
G AA DL
2.0 ugh.
08W 7741*
NYDU DL
0.0020 JL
USGS 11667
U
NYDU DL
1.0 ug/L
USGS 12667
U
ISTD*A DL
1.0 ugJL
Setsnka oxide
S.lsnh dioxIde
B A_U r.f.r s is in 40 Cr1
302.4 not
40 CCI 261.33.
7646084
7712492
av be analyzed as Total Selenii.
Silver
ag
Includes And C oitids; Not
Otherwise
SpecifsedN
7440224
A()IC 914.21 FLU
AIMS 3111 A FLU
APr15 3113 A M ((1.
mis 3120 ICP (a
APNA 3500-AG D 895C1 1 imc
ASTN 01976 I P CDL
ASIN 03866 A ILAA 118€
ASIN 03866 B FLAA 1188
ASTIS 03866 C GIAA 1 10€
CLP ILNO 1 U ICP CR0 1.
(AD 1620 A ICP CDL
fl6LCZOO.1 N lIP I a
ENSLC 200.8 V ICONS NIL
ENSLC 200.9 TSGCAA NIL
F161C 272.1 FLU a
fl6LC 272.2 gu a
FIS( AfS- 29 a
08W 6010* ICP CIOL
08W 7760* CLAA DL
08W 7761 GIU DL
USGS (- 50CC 0* C-SPEC BIlGE
USGS (-SPEC PEP (-SPEC 110€
USGS 11720 ILM D I.
0.10 eaglL
0.10.gIL
0.20 ugiL
7.OughL
0.20 /L
7.0 ug/L
1.0 ug/L
0.10 /L
1.0 wj/L
10 ug/L
7.0 ughL
2.Owj!L
0.10 ug/L
0.50 ug/L
o.o,o agiL
0.20 ugiL
o.oo.o .gIL
7.0 ug/L
0.010 /L
0.20 ugJL
0.20 s/L
0.23 ug/L
1.0 ugIL
Silver nitrate
7761128
Nay be analyzed as Total Silver.
Nitric acid, silver (1.) ult
7440226
Liaw c.astlc
Sodis srs t.
Arsenic acid (13* 1W.), sodlia salt
Disodkm arsenate
SudI . ai’ ensie
Asb( f .csd• bodI .a sail
. Iia enloxriensle
Nay be analyzed as Total Arsenic.
May be analyzed as Total Arsenic.
-------
Sodha blchro.ste
Sodka dichro.ste
10588019
Nay be analyzed as
Total Chro.n .
Sodita chrate
7775113
7440473
Nay be analyzed as
Total Chromiiai.
Sodiaa cyanide (Na(S)
143339
57125
Nay be analyzed as
Total Cyanide.
S.diia selenite dlsodiia salt
10102188
Nay be analyzed as
Total Soleniia.
SlsnIoi acid (N2S t3). dlsadii
salt
7782492
.
Dlsadiua s.lsnlts
Sodh. salenite, msnosodiim salt
7782823
Nay be analyzed as
Total Seleni a.
Sslsnioi acid .snoaodh. salt
10102188
Strcntha chro t•
7789062
7440473
Nay be analyzed as
Total Chro.iia.
Styrene
100425
*PIIA 6220 C
GCPID OSL 0.050 u /L
.
I
Benzene ethenyl-
ASTN 03695
GCFID DL 1.0 JL
Vinylbeozene
CLP OLNOI U
GC$S CR01 10 u9/L
Phenylethylene
•
(AD 1625 8*
N. 10 ugh.
Slyrol
£NSLC 503.1
GCPID NOL 0.0080 ueJL
Slyrolene
csanan ene
CNSLC 524.1
EISSLC 524.2
GOIS NOL 0.20 ug/L
COOlS NOL 0.040 /L
Ctm t
08W 8021 PlO
0 5W 8240* U
05W 8260
CGCPID R0L 0.010 i JL
C D I I (CL 5.0 ugJL
CR0 15 R0L 0.040 i JL
Sulfuric acid
.
7664939
Nay be analyzed as
p1 d Total Suifat..
Oil .t vitriol
0l.i
.
1 1 1 2 1 2•T.tradiloro.thans 79345 *PK* 6040 I CDII IDL 50 IWL
Ethans 1 1 •1•Z •2t.tractiloro- 25322207 AMM 6210 8 NI 6.9ug!L
mu 6230 b 1WNl 0.O3OuglL
APISA 6230 C OCELDI OPeL 0.050 telL
CLP CUIOI U CDII CR01 10 te/L
(AD 1624 V N. 10 ugIt
IIISLC 502.1 GC(L08 901 0.010 i /L
ENSLC 502.2 (LOl CGCELD NOL 0.010 te/L
INSLC 524.1 COIl 801 0.40 t /L
£NSLC 524.2 CGOSS 901 0.040 u9/L
U6LC 601 WG) ia 0 (*30 stjll
( 6LC 624 NI 6 9 iq/L
0 5W 8010* GCSLCD 901 0.030 ug/L
osu 8021 FLCD CGC(LD R0L 0.010 ug/L
OSU 8240* U GDSS (CL 5.0 ug/L
OSW 8260 COOlS 90L 0.040 ug/L
-------
GOSS INGE 3.0 ugIL
Ietrachloroethene
letrach loroethylens
Perch loroethylene
Ltliene tetrachioro-
127184 APHA 6040
M 6210
APHA 6220
APP*I 6230
ASTN 03975
cip mimi
(AD 1624
LMSLC 502.1
LNSLC 502.2
EMSLC 503.1
EMSLC 524.1
ENSLC 524.2
LNSI.C 551
(?6tC 601
(161C 624
OOW 8010*
0511 8021
0 511 8021
0511 8240*
0 511 8260
USGS 05115
8 GOIS IOL
8 G 6 NI
GCPID CMDL
b tW NI
G E RUGS
11 GalS cRol
w it
GCEL MDL
LL CG LLD MDL
GcPID MDL
GOSS MDL
COalS MDL
CG ECO MDL
NI
W6NI
G04LO MDL
EL cGCOLD MDL
Pl O CG PID MDL
U GCISS SQL
COOlS MDL
Gals
100 ng/L
4.1 wjlL
0.050 ug/L
0.030 wjlL
1.0 ug/L
10 ug/L
10 u9!L
0.0010 ug/L
0.040 u /L
0.010 i /L
0.30 ugJL
0.14 uO/L
0.0060 ug/L
0.030 uqiL
4 1 ugiL
0.030 u9/L
0.040 ./L
0.050 ugIL
5.0 ug/L
0.11. u IL
3.0 i FL
2 3.S,6-letrachloroØ%enoI
935955
0-068
0511 8250
GCNS MDL
u/L
tetr .ethy lIead
78002
N.y be lyzedas
total Lead.
Pk .ne. tetreethyl-
7439921
Lead tetraethyt
ILL
ThsllI i
7440200
AFNI 3120
ftP ía
40 wjIL
ii
ASIN D1fl6
ic EDL
40 i !L
lncti s “V C oii ;
Not Oth.rwls.
Specified”
.
‘
CLP ILNO1 V
LAD 1620 a
560 1620 8
FJ6LC 200.7 U
LNSLC 200.8 11
LNSLC 200.9
(I6LC 219.1
fl6LC 219.2
0511 6010*
0511 7840
0511 7841
USGS 11866
GFAA COOL
icp EDL
0186 LOL
ILP NI
ICPNS MDL
TSGFM MDL
FIN a
GM a
ICP LIOL
FLAA DL
GIAA DL
0 186 DL
10 uO/L
40 UgIL
1.0 uglL
20 ugiL
0.30 s /L
0.70 u/L
0.10 uqiL
1. Oug!L
40 s FL
0.10 fS/L
1.0 .aJL
1.0 i JL
lhallka sulfate
10031591
Nay be anslyzed as
Total ThsllIia.
Sulfuric acids lhaltsiai(I)
salt
7640280
Ih.llous sulfate
Ilils CAS v er is alternate; CAS prefers 7440280
USGS 03115
-------
lolurne 108883 thM 6210 8 4V6 ?ft 6.0 wjIL
Benzene .eihyt APIIA 6220 8 CICPIO Ift. 0 20 wjlL
Toluot APHA 6220 C GCPID OI)L 0.050 ug/L
Ileihylbeniene ASIN 03695 GCFID DL 1.0 en /L
Phenyl.elhwie CLP OLNO1 V G S CROL 10 ugIL
Ne ihecide (AD 1624 U G06 P8. 10 U9IL
ENSLC 502.2 P lO CGCPID MDL 0.010 UgIL
ENSLC 503.1 GCPID MDL 0.020 uaJL
£NSLC 524.1 G S MDL 0.10 ueIL
ENSLC 524.2 CGCMS MDL 0.11 ug!L
(161C 602 GCPID ?ft 0.20 ugiL
EJ6LC 624 G 6 PU 6 0 ugIL
0 8W 8020A GCPID MDL 0.20 ‘NFL
08W 8021 Pm CGCPID MDL 0.010 u fl
08W 8240A U G S (DL 5.0 UQJL
08W 8260 CGOIS MDL 0.11 I /L
USGS 03115 GaiS INGE 3.0 ue/L
loz.Ølen. 8001352 AAM 6410 PU ug/L
Cechlor APH4 6630 C G O) PU 0 24 ugiL
C iiene 1 ociechioro- AS1M 03086 GaW 50 vigiL
ASIN 04744 808 RNG8 5.0 ug/L
CLP CLNOI V CGC( CROL 5.0 IIg/L
LAD 1618 CGCNSD MDL 910 vig/L
LAD 1656 IlSO CGCIISO MDL 910 vig/L
ENSLC 505 CW MDL 1.0 ug/L
ENSLC 508 CGC [ (DL i i g/L
ENSLC 525.1 COOlS MD I ug/L
(J6LC 608 WW M l. 0.24 ugiL
ENSLC 617 GCLCD MDL ug/L
061C 625
08W 8080A GCE08 MDL 0.24 ug/L
08W 8250 8011 MDL ugiL
0 8W 8270A U COOlS (DL I/L
USGS 03104 80801 ShOE 0.010 MDJL
Tr lctilorfon 52686 LAD
1618
CGCfPD MDL
150
i JL
Trid ulorofon
(80
1657
CGCFPD MDL
150
vig/L
0 1 0-Dl.sthyI -(14)drony-2.Z.Z-trIduIOFOSihyL)
f*Io ion.i.
Pho. ionlc acid 1 (2 1 2 1 2-trlctlLoro-1 -hydroeyeihyl ) .•
di thyI nt11
Dylox
1 .2 1 4 -irlchlorobsnvene 120821 APHA 60 1.0 S GCNS IDL 10 vigiL
Senzene 1 1 1 2 1 4-ir.chloro• 12002481 APNA 6220 C GCPIO 0I)L 0.050 Ug/L
AF!6i 6410 Ml. 1.9iqiL
CLP OUIO1 lJ COOlS COOL 10 ug/L
(AD 1625 - It 10 • ViL
ENSLC 502.2 (LCD CGC(LD MDL 0.030 ug/L
ENSLC 502.2 PlO CGCPID MDL 0.020 ug/L
-------
EI4SLC 503.1 GCPIO 80L 0.050 ug/L
ENSLC 524.2 CGOIS 80L 0.040 ug/L
(J6LC 612 GCIW NZ 0.050 uv)It
06LC 625 G 6 I 9 uqiL
05W 8021 £L CGCELD 801 0.050 ug/L
05W 5021 P lO CGCPIO 801 0.020 u /L
0 5W 8120 GCE 801 0.050 wj/L
0 5W 8250 6015 80L 1.9 ugIL
05W 8260 COOlS 801 0.040 ug/L
05W 8270* U COOlS [ 01. 10 i iJL
USGS 03118 CGOSS [ D L 5.0 ug/L
I 1 1 1-TrIch1oro.th e 71556 APHA 6040 I 6015 lOt 2.0 rig/I
N.thyl ch lorofoi 68411723 mu 6210 8 NJ. 3.8 i it
Ethwe 11 1 1-trlcIiIoro- mu 6230 b GaiwNi 0.O3Oug!L
APIA 6230 C OCEL01 O I. 0.050 ug /L
*518 03973 GC [ 01 SlICE 1.0 iig /L
CIP 01.1101 U GOIS CR01. 10 I i gJL
(AD 1624 N G06 I l. 10 wJ!L
[ NSLC 502.1 GC [ L01 801 0.0030 ugJL
CNSLC 502.2 £101 CGCRD 801 0.030 ug/L
CNSLC 524.1 GalS 801 0.30 uq/L
£MSLC 324.2 COOlS 801. 0.050 i i g/L
[ NSLC 551 CGCECR 801. 0.0050 igJL
1161C 601 GOG) Ni 0.O3OwjIL
116LC 624 G06 Ni 3 8 ugiL
05W 8010* GC [ L01 801 0.030 ug/L
OSW 8021 [ 101 CGC [ L0 80L 0.030 iig/L
0 5W 8240* U GalS [ 01. 5.0 uq/L
05W 8260 COOlS 801 0.050 iig/L
USGS 03115 501$ 1805 3.0 hg/I
1 .1 2-1rlchtoroethans 79005 APNA 6040 8 501$ IOL 2.Ofg/L
[ thi. 1 1 1 1 2-trlthloro- 68411723 mu 6210 8 Ni 5.OWJIL
mu 6230 b LWNi 0.OZtIuglL
APISA 6230 C OC [ L01 018 0.030 hg/I
OP OlilOl U Gall C II I ID tg/L
(AD 1624 N N 10 ugiL
EIISLC 502.1 801. 0.0070 igIL
[ IISIC 502.2 [ 1.01 COCELD 1St 1$ /I
EIISIC 524.1 801$ 801. g/L
[ lIlaC 526.2 COOlS 801. 0.10 ugh
f C 601 Ni 0.02OiqlL
OSLC 624 Ni 5.Owj/L
8010* GCELCI 15 1. 0.020 ughL
0 5W 8021 £101 CGC [ LD 801 I g hL
05W 8240* V 601$ [ 01 5.0 uVhL
05W 8260 COOlS 801 0.10 ugh
USGS 03115 GOIS SlOE 3.0 hg/I
Iricluloroethylene 79016 APHA 6060 8 GalS 101 100 r ag/I
Iruthioroethene thM 6210 8 G06 Ni 1.9iq/L
-------
(then . 1 trichloro
(thylene trichioride
ICE
APHA 6220
AFP I 6230
AP IIA 6230
CLP 01. 1 101
(40 1624
£IISLC 502.1
ENSLC 502.2
ENSLC 502.2
EMSLC 503.1
£ISLC 524.1
£NSLC 524.2
ENSLC 551
061C 601
FJ6LC 624
CIV 8010*
: - 8021
8021
CIV 8240*
CIV 8260
USGS 03115
C GcPIO OOL
b GJILW PU
C GCELal 0 1L
U 6015 C*aL
U W6 It
G (Lal ( DL
(LW G ELD (DL
P lO CGcPID (DL
G PID (DL
601$ (DL
COOlS (DL
CG LW (DL
PU
W6 IU
GcELW (DL
(LW G (LD (DL
PlO CGCPID (DL
U GOIS £QL
COOlS (DL
6015 lEE
A
0.050 iiglL
0.12 ugh
0.050 ugJL
10 u /L
10 ugiL
0.0010 ug/L
0.010 u IL
0.020 1011L
0.010 ug/L
0.40 usIL
0.19 uaJL
0.0020 ugIL
0)2 iqhL
1.9 ugiL
0.12 I IL
0.010 uaJL
0.020 ug/L
5.0 u !L
0.19 ug/L
3.0 ugh.
2.0.glL
8.0 1q11
1.9 .a/L
8.0 /L
10 ug/L
ugh
2 1 4 5-1rschtorcØisnol
Phenol 1 2 1 6 S -trichloro-
IdA_U relerenci is in 60 C II 302.6
60 CII 302.4 aiso says to see ICRA
not 60 CII
1027.
261.33.
95956
25167822
CI.P OUIOI
(AD 1625
(AD 1653
NCASI P-8501
U
AU
COOlS
(16
CGOIS
GCEW
CR01.
It
(DL
LOt
25 usJL
10 1q11
0.57 uI/L
1.2 USJL
I
Also on LAO list as se aencs iuber
1006
NCASI CP86.01
0 5 W 8270*
V
COOlS
COOlS
(01
10 ueJl
? 1 6 1 6-Ir,ch lorcØieno l
Phenol 1 2 1 6 1 6 -trichloro-
ICIA_U referonci Is In 40 CII 302.4
40 CII 102.4 also says to as 101*
not 40 CII
1027.
261.33.
88062
25167822
‘
AFNI 6410
m I S 6420
APWI 6420
CLP CLIlDI
LW 1625
LAD 1453
£NSLC 552
(161C 604
(I6LC 604
U6LC 625
ICASI -80.01
ICASI CP-16.01
C IV 80 50*
CIV SOiM
0 5W 8250
05W 8270*
USGS 03117
M
V
AU
A
8
£01
HO
U
1D
WW
01018
COOlS
COCIW
ID
W
010101
COOlS
@0101
SCuD
@015
COOlS
COOlS
PU
PU
PU
CR01
It
( DL
( DL
PU
PU
PU
181.
( DL
1St
( DL
(CL
(DL
2.lugIL
0.64 ugll
0.58 iaglt
10 uglL
10 iqlL
0.71 ugIL
0.022 ug!L
0.64 ugIL
0.5.8 wjlL
2.FugIL
1.2 iIL
0.58 iqIL
0.64 uglL
2.7 cmJL
10 i*/L
3.0 Is/L
I
V
Vanadk 7640622
thIS
3111
FIM
thiS
3120
liP
Ill.
APNA
3500-V
0
SPICIR
(DC
ASIN
01976
ic
tot.
ASIN
03313
GFAA
USE
*5114
04190
(LiPS
-------
CLP ILISOI
Ii
ICP
CRQL
50 ugh
EAO 1620
A
ICP
LOL
8.Oug/L
£NSLC 200.10
ICPISS
L
0.014 ug/L
(161C200.1
U
ICP
NI.
3.OugIt
£ISSLC 200.5
U
lUllS
MDL
2.5 ug/L
( 161C 286.1
TIM
I I.
0.20 egIL
(16tC 286.2
FIS( AIS -0029
gu
I I.
a
4.Ouvjhl
0.0020 .‘j!L
05 W 6010*
ICP
£IDL
8.0 ugjL
05W 7910
FLAA
DL
0.20 MDIL
05W 7911
GF*A
DL
4.0 ug/L
USGS E-SPIC
aix
E-V C
5805
1.1 ugIL
USGS 11472
ICP
LL
6.0 uDJL
USGS lIMO
051.01
DL
0.50 ug!L
USGS 12180
*100
DL
1.0 ugji.
309 t
Vinyl acetst•
*cstlc acid 1 .thunyl
*c.tic acid .thyl
sitar
.th.r
108054
*511 03695
(AD 1624
05W 5240*
U
U
GCFID DL
(11.
Gall S QL
1.0 n.JL
50 iijlt ( i
50 ugJL
Vinyl chloride
Lilian. cMoro
15014
AFH% 6210
AFNI 6230
*PHA 6230
UP OLilli
(Al) 1624
LMSLC 502.1
8
b
C
U
U
LW
GCLLW meL
00 (5 CR01.
006 It
GCELCD MDL
r jIL
0.18 ugh
0.050 ugjL
10 uaJL
10 wjIL
0.010 uQjL
.
.
1
‘
EIISLC 502.2
£NSLC 502.2
EMSLC 524.1
LISSIC 524.2
F36LC 601
061C 62’I
05W 5010*
0 1W 5021
eel 5021
05W 5240*
0 5W 5260
USGS 03115
£1.05
PID
5105
P lO
V
CGCftD MDL
CGCPID MDL
00 1$ MDL
cGQIS MDL
W ) Ill
GCRL05 MDL
050510 let
05CPID MDL
GUll [ D L
CGaIS MDL
sUe. meL
0.0*0 i IL
0.020 ugIL
0.30 ugJL
0.17 ughL
0.18 ugh
0.15 ugIL
0.040 ugJL
0.020 ugiL
10 ielL
0.17 uglL
3.0 IJL
1 1-0ic hloro .thsn.
I • I-Dicldoro.thyl.n .
Vinyl (din. chloride
[ thins 1 1 1-d lchloro-
75354
AIVM 6210
8
2.8rjit
25323302
M 6230
APII* 6230
ctp ouuoi
(Al) 1624
LNSLC 502.1
BISLC 502.2
EMSLC 524.1
EMSLC 524.2
( I6LC 601
(?61C 624
OSIJ 0010*
OSV 0021
b
C
ii
U
EL05
ILCD
LW
G05105 aet
s CROL
It
GCEL05 MDL
05051.0 MDL
GUll MDL
CGCllS MDL
0060
006 MI.
GCLL05 MDL
CGCLLD MDL
0.13 wjlL
0.050 uglL
10 ug,L
10 ugiL
0.0030 ug#L
0.070 uglL
020 ug!L
0.12 ughL
0.13 r ight
2.8 i i ght
0.13 ug/L
0.010 iig/L
-------
ADSC 974.27
M 3111 A
AFNI 3120
8PM 3500-ZN D
m * 3500-ZN 1
thil 3500-ZN F
AS1M 0169) A
AS M 01691 8
ASIN 01976
Asm on o
CLP ILISO1
(AD 1620
Ie IC 200 /
(NSLC 200.8
RM -
RU
ic ía
SPtCTI ISC
S C1R
SIWN m
FLU
FLU
ICP (DL
XAPS
U ICP CROL
A ICP (DL
W S(
U ICPISS 1.1
0.10 wjlt
0.160 j!L
2.OugIL
1.0 i
IL
0.020 .jIL
0.010 IL
1.0 i IL
2.0 ug/L
uqiL
20 ug/L
2.0 ug/L
2 0 ugiL
1.8 ii9/L
OSU 8021
0 5 W 8240A
05W 8260
USGS 03115
P lO
U
CGCPID
GOSS
CG S
GQIS
L
CDL
L
RICE
ugIL
5.0 ug/L
0.12 ug/L
3.0 u /L
1.3•0i.ethvlbenzene
UC lA U reference a In 40 C I I
302.4
not
60
C l i
261.33.
108383
133020?
APHA 6220
ENSLC 502.2
ENSLC 503.1
ENSI.C 524.1
ENSLC 526.2
0 5W 8021
0 5W 8260
C
P10
Pl O
GCPIO
CGCPID
GCPIO
GOSS
CGOIS
CGCPID
CWSS
01L
L
L
II)L
*)L
L
801.
0.050 ug/L
0.010 i /L
0.0040 Wj/L
uq/L
0.050 ug/L
0.010 14/L
0.050 uU/L
o-xylene
1 2OIthyIbenzene
UClA_U reference I. In 40 CI I
302.6
not
40
CI I
261.33.
95476
1330207
8PM 6060
8PM 6220
ASIN 04763
(Al) 1624
CNSLC 502.2
CNSLC 503.1
(NSLC 526.1
ENSLC 524.2
05W 8021
05W 8260
B
C
U
PlO
Pl O
GClS
GCPIO
FLUOR
CGCPIO
GCPID
GalS
CGOSS
CGCPID
CGOSS
IDL
CIOL
DL
It
ISL
80L
801.
NDI.
80L
ISL
50 rig/L
0.050 uqIL
1.0 .
10 ugiL
0.020 ug/L
0.0040 uqlL
0.20 uaJL
0.11 ug/L
0.020 uB/L
0.11 uglL
p- IvIene
UClA_u reference ii in 60 C 1R
302.4
not
60
CI I
261.33.
10U23
133020?
8PM 6220
ASTN 03695
ENSLC 502.2
EISSLC 503.1
ENSLC 524.1
ENSLC 524.2
05W 8021
0 5W 8260
C
PlO
PlO
GCPID
GCFID
CGCPIO
GCPID
GalS
(4055
CGCPID
COOlS
CIL
DL
80L
80L
801.
80L
801.
801.
0.050 ug/L
1.0 /L
0.010 ugIL
0.0020 uqlL
0.30 i*/L
0.13 i jL
0.010 uqiL
0.13 IWL
i
Total xylenes
Senzene dI.sthyl -
Sylenes
Nyisne, (total)
1330207
.
CLP 05801
05W 8020*
05W 8240*
U
U
0055
GCPID
0055
CUOL
ISL
SQL
10 ISIL
uqJL
5.0 i JL
ZInc
Zn
7660666
Includes At C oimde; Not OtherwIse Sp.clf led”
-------
ENSLC 200.9 ISGFAA L 0.30 unJL
(JSLC 289.1 tIM a ( 00S0.jIL
D6LC 2892 GFU a OO5OugIt
fIS(Il MS -0029 a 0.0060 gIL
osw 60101. ICP EIDL 2.0 u9/L
08W 7950 FLU DL 0.0050 /L
0 5W 7951 GFM DL 0.050 uoJL
USGS I-SPEC CNPX I-SPEC ONGE 11 ug/L
USGS [ -SPEC PSCP I-SPEC lEE 2.3 I /L
USGS 11472 ICP LL 3.0 /L
USGS 11900 V FLU DL 10 U9IL
USGS 11901 GFA* DL 0.50 uglL
Nay be analyzed as Total Zinc.
Nay be analyzed as Total Zinc.
Nay be analyzed as Total Zinc.
202 ID
Zinc acetate
Zinc onluo chloride
Z lncat.(2-). tetrachloro- 1 dioni.a 1 (T-4)-
Zinc niua chloride
Zinc trinhia pentachloride
Zincate(3-) pentachloro-. trioniia
Zinc aniuo chloride
Zinc borate
Zinc bromide
Zinc carbonate
Zinc chloride
luSter of zinc
Zinc cyanide
Nay be analyzed as Total Zinc.
Nay be .nalyzed as Total Zinc.
Nay be analyzed as Total Zinc.
Nay be analyzed as Totel Zinc.
Nay be lyzed as Total Zinc.
557346
7460666
1 1 .6399 T h
52628253
14639986
52623253
52628258
7440666
1332076
7460666
7699458
7440666
3486359
7440666
7646357
7440666
557211
57125
77834%
7440666
557415
7440666
7’.40666
1779886
Zinc fluoride
Zinc foromte
Zinc hydrosullita
Zinc nhtraie
Nay be lyzed as Total Zinc w Total Cyanide.
Total fluoride.
Nay be analyzed as
Nay be lyzed as
Nay be analyzed as
Nay be analyzed as
Total
Total
Total
Total
Zinc —
Zinc.
Zinc.
Zinc.
-------
7440666
A C
A0
APHA
APHA
APHA
913 55
913 56
6110
6500-P
6500-P
4500-P
mw
I08CNR MDC
COLOR MDC
COLOR MDC
C1100 I
0.010 j/L
IL
0.10 /L
200 u9IL
3.0 m9IL
10 wj!L
zinc p-phenclsultonste
p-Mydroz benzeflesUIfOflic
1-Pbenol-6-sulfonic acid
acid
zinc
zinc salt
salt
127822
7460666
Nay be analyzed as
Iot•l Zinc.
Phenoz In
Zinc sulfocarbolate
Zinc o.phIde (Z113P2)
1316847
7440666
Nay be . tyzed as
Total Zinc.
Zinc sllicofluorlds
16871719
N .y be analyzed as
Total Zinc.
Zinc fluosllicate
7440666
Zinc sulfate
7733020
Nay be lyzed as
Total Zinc.
Ililte vItriol
7440666
Zinc vitriol
lldt. cwceras
Sulfate
.
14808798
AOIC 925.54
80AC 973.57
APHA 4110
WYM 4500-SOd C
APNI 4500-SOd 0
*PNA 6500-S06 S
APIIA 654)0-SO F
ASTN 06327
ASTN 05015
AS11( %16
FNL 68 101-01
EIISLC 300.0
E I6LC 315.1
EIISLC 3752
fl6LC 315.3
f C 375.4
10150 300.6
10150 375.6
a si a 9035A
0511 903U
0511 9038*
USGS 11120
USGS 12057
USGS 12058
USGS 12822
USGS 2823
GMV
NEPHEL
lUNCh MDC
( M
(Z4V
TUSSID MDC
AUTO RISE
lUNCh RUGS
ICNCNR MDL
fl 1O W
lUNCh LID
lUNCh MDL
AWO
AUTO hISS
9L4V 1 .
fl ID a
lUNCh MDL
AUTO MDL
COLOR RIGS
AUTO RISE
TIUID StI RS
TITI DL
lUNCh NC
lUNCh NC
AUTO DL
FPNOTO DI.
/L
0.10 /L
10 agiL
10 glL
1.0 /L
10 /L
2.9 rq/L
0.030 naJL
1.0 1IL
0.020 .. I..
0.21 ncJL
10 jIL
030 JL
10 gIL
IL
0.030 JL
0.050 IL
10 ncJL
0.50 ncJL
1.0 JL
0.50 /L
0.20 JL
0.010 spJL
5.0 IL
0.10 lt
At.os
At i
Atnca
dsp
dsp
dsp
Phosp hate
Total orthophiospbete
Orthiosphate total
Phosphiorus (as phlosphiate)
total Phosphiorus
16265442
C
0
C
-------
mM 4580-P
ASTN 04327
AS1M 1615
ASIN 0515
ENL ANION-UI
EIISLC 300.0
FJ6LC 365.1
(16LC 365.2
(161C 365.3
ENSIC 365.4
15UsD 300.6
15USD 365.6
MOM P110 5-I
101A P1105-2
N01A P 1 10 5-3
1101* P1105-4
MONA P111 5-S
USGS 11601
USGS 11602
USGS 12057
USGS I2 58
USGS 12598
USGS 12601
USGS 12602
F AUTO 10.0010,gIL
ICICHi 111GB L69 IL
A F JO 1 0.010.gIL
B AUTO MICE 0.10 MOJL
1011CM LLD 0.020 uoJ .
lUNCh MOL 006 1 IWL
AUIO 0.010 .glL
FAVTO 0.010 DJIL
FF 1010 0.010 .jlL
AUTO 1 1 1GB 0.010 Jl.
lUNCh MOL 0.020 MOJL
AUTO MOL 0.020 JL
AUTO 111GB 0.010 MOJL
AUTO BIlGE 0.0010 MOJL
AUTO ‘ Ikg
COLOR ug!kg
AUTO RICE 0001l MOJL
00101 DL 0.020 MOJL
SPECTI DL 0.020 /L
101 1C11 1 MC 0.060 JL
IONCNI MC 0.010 MOJL
AUTO DL 0.010 MOJL
AUTO DL 0.010 MOJL
AUTO DL 0.010 MOJL
Atu s dep
Atmos dep
Stir It. 14197650
APHA 4110
IONCNR MOC
0.10 MOJL
A I i M 4580- B
10 u p/ I
*5111 D4327
ENSLC 300.0
IONCHR 11105
1011 (111 MOL
0.36 JL (lHscw,tlnwaed
0.0040 MOJL
thad DIZ$4 e çroved)
(J6LC 354.1
S C7R
0.010 jIL
MONA IITRO-14
00 100
6.014 /L
MOM 111110-20
00101 lICE
0.010 Is/L
USGS 11540
SPECTI DL
0.010 /L
USGS 12057
1011011 MC
0.020 /L
USGS 12539
USGS 12540
00101 DL
AUTO DL
OOIO JL
0.010 /L
Ni trot.
5*8*110 lists this CAS ni sr for Nitr.1.s/hitrit .sN
14797555
AIMC 913.50
WC7R
ag/I
APIIA 4110
l0k( IBIC
0.10 MOJL
*PNA 4500-1103 B
SPECTI
ag/L
APIA 4S00-N03 0
mM 4&0-M1J f
AIiM 4500- F
APIIA 4500-N03 0
mM 4580-0 )3 H
lIE•U0 111GB
(R
AU1O
POTENT BIlGE
AUIO
0.14 ag/L
0.010 ag/I
0.SO a g/L
0.10 FL
0.010 ag/I
ASIN 04321
1011CM 11105
0.42 ag/L
ASIM 05065
IONCMI MOL
0.030 ag /L
ENL ANION-Ui
IONCNR LLD
0 020
ENSLC 300.0
IONCIR IBIL
0.013 /L
1 16 1C 3521
SFfC15 E
0. lOag/L
ISUSO 300.6
1011CM ML
0.030 /L
505* 111110-19
COLOI tUGS
0.050 I L
Ataos dep
At s dsp
-------
OSu 9200 SPECTU RNGE 0.10 mg/L
USGS 12057 UONCIIR NC 0.050 rO/L
USGS 12056 IONCIIR MC 0.010 rO/L
Fluoride 16986688 AOAC 939.11 COLOR
APN* 4500-F C 1St-F
AI IM 4500-F 0 SPCC7R . 9IL
AIIM 4500-F 1 C1 (t 1 0.10 rOIL
AS1N 01119 A 1St-F 0.10 rOIL
ASIH 01119 8 1St-F 0.10.j!L
ASIN 04327 ICNCNR RUGE 0.26 rO/L
Em. ANION-Ol IONCHI LLD 0.010 ug/ .
ENL 1-01 ISE LLD 5.0 ug/g
ENSLC 300.0 IONCNR IOL 0.0050 JL
116LC 340.1 0.10.gIL
(J6LC 340.2 151-F 0.10 rOIL
06LC 340.3 CW 0.050.jIL
1 5uSD 340.6 USE-F PUlL 00030 rOIL At.os dep
USGS 11325 SPECTR DL 0.10 rOIL
USGS 11327 ISE-F DL 0.10 /L
USGS 12057 IONCNR MC 0.010 rO/L
USGS 12056 IONCIIR MC 0.010 rOIL
USGS 12327 SI-F DL 0.10 rO/L
Chloride 16887006 A(MC 913 51 TUR j 11
APHA 6110 101 1CM i.c 0.10 rO/L
AIIM 4500-a - 8 rIIR rOIL
thM 4500-Ct- C FuR J 1L
APHA 6500-ti- 0 POTENT rOIL
*011* 6500-CL- E COLOI rOIL
ASTN 06327 IONCI* RUGE 0.76 rO/L
* 5TH 05065 100CM ML 0.030 JL Ataos dep
ASP I ($12 A FuR (1. 8.0ugIL
ASIPI ($12 B UPI (1. 5.OwjIL
ASIM ($12 C I5f-(L(1. 2.0 rOIL
L III MION-Ol 1011CM LID 0.010 iO/ .
ENSLC 3000 10 1CM ML 0.015 rOIL
EI6LC 325.1 AU1T) 1.OrOIL
D6LC 325.2 AUTO 1.0 aJIL
C325.3 FUR jIL
15uSD 300.6 imscui ML 0.030 rOIL Atos dsp
USUSO 325.6 AUTO ML 0.030 rO/L
OSU 9250* AUTO INGE 1.0 rOIL
05W 9251* AUTO INGE 1.0 rOIL
05W 9252 TUTU rOIL
USGS 11183 TUTU DL 10 rO/L
USGS 11184 liii DL 0.10 rO/L
USGS 11181 OL0R DL 0.10 rOIL
USGS 12057 IOUCNR NC 0.20 rO/L
USGS 12058 u cnR MC 0.010 mgIL
USGS 1218? AUTO DL 0.10 rO/L
USGS 12188 COLOR DL 0.10 rO/L
-------
Off of Water
(4 3)
EPA 833-B-93- 2
Aprtt 1994 (Rev)
EPA
GUIDANCE FOR THE PREPARATION OF
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS:
FACILITIES REQUIRED TO REPORT
SEMI.ANNUAL MONITORING RESULTS
UNDER NPDES STORM WATER
GENERAL PERMITS
Pnnteii on Recyclea PaQer
Un,t d Stetea
Envvwvnentel Pr te on
Agency
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 2
2. GENERAL INFORMATION 2
2.1 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2
2.2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 3
3. STEP-BY-STEP INSTRJJJCFIONS FOR RECORDING MONITORING RESULTS 7
3.1 PREPARING A DMR 7
4. STATE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS . 11
4.1EPAREGIONI 11
4.1.1 MAINE 11
4.2 EPA REGION II Ii
4.2.1 PUERTO RICO 11
4.3 EPA REGION III 12
4.3.1 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 12
4.4 EPA REGION VI 12
4.4.1 LOUISIANA 12
4.4.2 NEW MEXICO 12
4.4.3 OKLAHOMA 12
4.4.4 TEXAS 13
4.5 EPA REGION VIII 16
5. REGIONAL MAILING ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS 17
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-I: LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE GENERAL PERMITS ARE APPLICABLE 1
EXHIBIT 2-1: MONITORING PERIODS AND REPORTING DEADLINES 4
EXHIBIT 2-2: GENERAL PERMIT PARAMETER REQUIREMENTS 5
EXHIBIT 2-3: ALTERNATIVE TO WET TEST PARAMETERS 6
EXHIBIT 3-1: SAMPLE DMR 9
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1: LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE GENERAL PERMITS ARE APPUCABLE
The conditions outlined in this guidance document aie
applicable only to facilities covered by EPA-issued permits. If
you are located in a NPDES-authorized State, you must consult
your State-specific storm water aeneral oermit or Your State
oennithng authonty for snecific Dermit conditions . The EPA-
issued general permits are to Industrial dlschargers in
the following Stares and TelTitolies:
• All lands (including Indian and Federal) 1n
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
District of Columbia
Florida
Guam
Idaho
Johnston Atoll
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Midway and Wake Islands
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Puerto Rico
Texas
• Indian lands in:
California
Colorado
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
• Federal Facilities in:
Colorado
Delaware
Washington
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance Page 1
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has iseued general permits tbr storm
water discharges associated with industrial a vity in
States and territories that have not been delegated
NPDES permitting authority. See Exhibit 1-1 on d
opposite page for a list of these locations. The
permits were ib1ished on September 9 and
September 25, 1992, in the Federal RegIster (57 FR
41297 and 57 44438).
The permits require certain categories of facilities to
report semi-annual monitoring results for storm water
discharges. This booklet:
• clarifies which industrial activities axe required
to report their storm water discharge monitoring
results (Section 2.1);
• identifies the parameters to be monitored, and
when and where to report (Sections 2.1, 2.2);
• provides instructions on how to record
monitoring results on a Discharge Monitoring
Report (DMR) (Section 3); and
• lists additional State-specific requirements that
facilities, depending on where they ate located,
must meet in addition to the EPA requirements
in preceding sections (Section 4).
If you have any questions regarding the storm water
program, please call your permitting authority.
Permitting authority addresses and phone numbers are
listed in Part 5 of this guidance. If you would like to
obtain guidance on procedural methods for conducting
storm water sampling, the guidance manual titled
NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document
(EPA #833-B-92-0OI, July, 1992) can be obtained by
contacting the EPA Office of Water Resources Center
at (202)260-7786.
This booklet will be revised and expanded as
necessary to reflect changes in the reporting
requirements in storm water general permits.
Comments from users are welcome. Send comments
to: U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewaxer Enforcement and
Compliance, Mail Code 4203, 401 M Street, S.w.,
Washirtgton, D.C. 204 0.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION
This section reviews the requirements for reporting
semi-annual monitoring results in EPA’s storm waler
general permits. The numbers in brackets below refer
to the section of the general permits In which the
iequlremast can be found. In addition to the
listed In this section. facilitIes must
comply with specific State and Regional requirements,
which can be found in Section 4 of these instructions.
For r ore details, please refer to the State and Region
specific requirements in the permit under which the
faeillty is covered (Section X I in 57 41297 and 57
44438).
2.1 MONiTORING REQUIREMENTS
Facilities That Must Report Semi-Annual
Monitoring Results
Certain storm waler discharges from the Industrial
activities listed below must be monitored twice per
year, with the results reported annually (see Exhibit 2-
I for monitoring periods and reporting dates). If a
facility has storm water discharges associated with
Industrial activity from multiple and separate
activities, only those discharges where the
requirements apply must be monitored.
Section 313 of Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA )
facilities :
Storm water that is discharged from the facility
that comes into contact with any equipment,
tank, container or other vessel or area used for
storage of a Section 313 water priority chemical,
or located at a truck or rail car loading or
unloading area where a Section 313 water
prfl)rity chemical is handled. (Part Vl.B.2.a]
• Wood treatment facilities :
Storm water discharges from areas that are used
for wood treatment, wood surface application or
storage of treated or surface-protected wood at
any wood preserving or wood surface facilities.
(Part VI.B.2.d]
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance
Page 2
-------
Discharges Under More Than One Category
Facilities with discharges that fall under wore than
one reporting category. where the discharges are on-
mingled, must monitor and report by the earliest
applicable daze and then annually by that date. If
discharges under different categories are not co-
mingled, then monitoring and reporting can be
performed either together, according to the earliest
date, or separately according to the dales for the
applicable categories. (Coal pile runoff may not be
co -mingled prior to sampling because of the effluent
limitations contained in the permits — see Section 3.1
of these insmictlons.) (Parts VLB.2.a-f VI.D.l.a-d]
How to Report
A separate DMR form is required for each storm
event and for each outfall sampled . DMRs must be
signed and mailed to the appropriate EPA Region.
and must be postmarked by the date specified in
Exhibit 2-1. The pennittee should retain a copy. See
Section 5 for a list of Regional mailing addresses and
phone numbers. [ Part VI.D.1]
Substantially Identical Discharges
If there is reason to believe that the discharges fror
two or more outfalls are substantially identical, or c.
the outfalls may be monitored and that data submitted
for afl substantially Identical outfalls. A description
of the location of the outfalls, an explanation of why
the outfalls have substantially identical discharges,
and the size of the drainage area and runoff
coefficient must be submitted as an attachment to the
DMR. (Part VLB.6]
EXHIBIT 2-1: MONITORING PERIODS AND REPORTING DEADLINES
Monitoring and Reporting
Dates
Section 313
of EPCRA
Wood
Treatment
Primary
Metal
Coal P11.
Runoff
Battery
Reclaimers
Land
Disposal
Mozutonng Periods
Jan-June
July-Dec
Jan-June
July-Dec
Mu-Aug
Sept-Peb
Mar-Aug
Sepi-Feb
Mar-Aug
Sept-Feb
Oct-Mar
Apr-Sepr
DMR postmark deadlines
January 28
Januaz ’ 28
April 28
April 28
April 28
Oct. 28
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance
Page 4
-------
• Pnmary metal indusmes
Storm water discharges from industrial activities
classified as Standard Industrial Cbssification
(SIC) 33. (Part VLB.2.b]
• Coal piles :
Coal pile runoff. (Part Vl.B.2.e]
Battery reclaimers :
Storm water discharges from areas used for
storage of lead acid batteries, reclamation
products, or waste products, and areas used for
lead acid battery reclamation. (Part VI.B.2.f)
• Land disoosal unitsilncfncrators/Boilers and
Industhal Furnaces ( BIFs) :
Storm water discharges from any active or
inactive landfill, land application sites, or open
dumps without a stabilized final cover that has
received any industrial wastes (other than wastes
fmm a construction site) and incinerators,
including BIFs that burn hazardous waste and
operate under interim status or a permit under
Subtitle C of RCRA. (Pan VLB.2.c]
Parameters to Monitor
Exhibit 2-2 Lists the specific parameters (pollutants)
that must be monitored for each industrial category.
If more than one of these categories applies to a
particular discharge, the discharge must be monitored
for parameters listed in each category. (Parts
VI.B.2.a-fl
WET Test Alternative
Facilities that must monitor for whole effluent toxicity
(WET), instead may monitor for those pollutants
identified in Tables II and Ill of Appendix D of 40
CFR 122 (see Exhibit 23) that are known or believed
to be present at the facility. Facilities should
determine which of these pollutants may be present in
or absent from the discharge through a reasonable
best effort to identify significant quantities of
materials or chemicals present at the facility. [ Part
VLB.8 1
Storm Event Characteristics
The following information must be provided on the
DMR for the storm event that produced the discharge:
• the date and duration of the storm,
• tbe duration between the storm Sampled and the
end of d previous measurable storm of greater
than 0.1 inch,
• a measurement or estimate of the amount of
rainfall (in in ’Ji ) , and
• an estimate of the total volume of the discharge
sampled (in gallons). [ Pan VLB.2]
Adverse Weather Waiver
If samples cannot be collected due to adverse weather
conditions, a description of why samples could not be
collected must be submitted in lieu of a DMR. A
waiver because of adverse weather cannot be
submhred more than once In any two-year period.
(Part VLB3]
Exemption to Monitoring Requirements
As an alternative to monitoring an outfall, an annual
certification may be made that material handling
equipment or activities; raw or waste materials;
intermediate, final, or by-products; industrial
machinery or operations; and significant materials
from past activity are not presently exposed to storm
water and will not be exposed for one year. The
certification should be made at the start of each one-
year reporting period and kept with the facility’s
storm water pollution prevention plan. This
certification Is tben submitted in lieu of the DMR at
the appropriate time (see Exhibit 2-1). [ Part VI.B.7]
2.2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
When to Monitor and Report
Samples must be collected and analyzed at least once
during each six-month monitoring period. Monitoring
results must be submitted annually. See Exhibit 2-1
for monitoring periods and reporting dares. Results
do not have to be submitted until the facility has been
covered by the permit for a full 6-month monitoring
period. (Pails VLBI.a-f V1.D.I.a-cJ
More Frequent Monitoring
If sampling is conducted more frequently than semi-
annually, j sampling results must be submitted. A
separate DMR is required for each storm event
sampled. (Pan V1.D.l.a-c]
NPDES Storm Waler General Permit DMR Guidance
Page 3
-------
EXHIBIT 2-2: GENERAL PERMIT PARAMETER REQUIREMENTS
Facility Type -ø
Parameter to be Monitored (unIts) 4.
Section 313
of EPCRA
Wood
Trea ent
Primary
Metal
Coal PU.
Runoff
Battery
Reclaimer,
Land
Disposal
oil&greue(mgfl)
X_—
X
X
X
X
x
Sdiy o. oxygen dem. (BOD5) (mg/i)
X
ch ical oxygen d nand (COD) (mg/I)
X
X
X
X
x
cciii aasp.nded solids (TSS) (mg/I)
X
X
X
X
X
total kjeldakd m ogen (TKN) (mg/i)
X
X
total pimaphonts (mg/I)
X
pH(s.u.) -
X
X
X
X
X
x
a 1zewboleeffl. coL(WET)
X
X 3 ”
X
-- X
Section 313 water priorny eb.micals’
X
pencachiorophenol (mg /I)
X 3
total recoverable arsenic (mg/I)
X 5
X
X
total recoverable duoniium (mg/i)
X’
X’
X
tocal.recoverablecopper(mg / i)
Xs
X
X
X
total recoverable lead (mg/i)
X
X
X
total recoverable C dinium (mg/I)
X’
X
effluent guidelinc pollutants 2
X
total recoverable nickel (mg/I)
X
total recoverable zinc (mg/I)
X
total recoverable magnesium (mg/i)
X
dissolved magnesium (mg/I)
X
total dissolved solids ( DS) (mg/i)
X
total organic carbon (TOC) (mg/i)
X
total recoverable barium (mg/I).
.
X
total cyanide (mg/I)
X
total m uury (mg/i)
X
total recoverable selenium (mg/I)
X
total recoverable silver (mg/I)
X
1 Pentdaues are reçñzed to —l’ . - for acy S” m 313 water lmcrfly chcodcal (or wthcb fasility Is subject to iep ag ui i s t5 imdor
,e on 313 of the Ei .cy “ 1 ”g sod Community Right to Know Act of 1986. (See the general perodz. Addeodum B, (or a list of
Sec oe 313 Water Pdorrty Cbenücsla.)
2 Perrinuess are required ir ’4tr . for any poilutent United in an effluent gui J4’ to wbith the facility’s i’ wastewa is subject (See
40 CFR Subchapter N).
3 Required for wood eamaat (edli cs that um chloropbcnthc feemulaices.
4 Required for wood ueamant fedilurs that use atonote fonnu1a ons.
S Required (a wood v t ,vnt fauiliiea that use chtoniwn-azsenic (amuIsri ii
6 Facilides that are dunned as SIC 33 only be ” they imnufactat pure silicon and/or .enscoedoaor grede silicon are not required
to n tWor for WET, r.r. arsenic. U. chtoaium. t.r. or t.r. ondnium. but muet ‘ “ (or other parenwutre listed.
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance Page 5
-------
EXrnHIT 2.3: ALTERNATIVE TO WET TEST PARAMETERS
See WET Test Alternative In Section 2.2)
Federal Raglater I VoL 57.No. 175 / Wednesday. September 9. 1992 I Notices
41331
Table II—Ozgsalc Toxic Pollutaeta In
Eich of Four Frs ons In Analysis by
Gas ,vmatopipbylMau Sp. o. .
copy (GSIMS)—Contlnued
Tabis li—Orgs Ic Toxic PolluLcata In
Lath of Foot FtICtiOOS lo Analysis by
Gas zuwatotrapby/Mass Spectros.
copy (GSIMS)—Coatlnued
Table U—Organic Toxic Pollut.nts In
Each ‘of Four Fractions In Analysis by
Gu chromatography/Mu. Speclna .
copy (GS/M$)
Volatile.
saoleln
iaylo n ltrt le
Inazene
bromoform
cubon tetrochioride
chiorobensene
lorodibromomethane
chioroethane
2-chloroethylvtnyl ether
chloroform
d lchlorubromomethane
1.1-dichloroethane
1.2-dich loroethane
1.1-dlch loroethylene
I.2-dzch loropropane
———-—.—,.—,,. .——
ethylbensene
methyl bromide
methyl chloride
methylene chloride
1.I.2.2 .Ie acMoroethane
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
l.Z4rana-dlchloroethy lene
LLl4zichloroethane
U.2 -tnchloroethane
titch loroethylene
vinyl chloride
Ac,d Compounds
2-chiorophenol
2.4-dichiorophenol
2.4-dimethyiphenol
4.4-dmiu o -o-aesol
2.4-dinitiophenol
2nitropheool
4 -mtrophenol
p-chloro-m .cresol
pentachlorophenol
aesnapbthcos
a—
anthisoen.
b.” (a laathrscene
b 14 2..ethyth axyl)phth a late
4.bromophsnyl phenyl ether
butylbeozyl phthalate
2.cblorouaphtha lene
4 .ejtloropbenyl phenyl ether
—I
dlbenzo(a.h)snthtacene
tZ.d leblorobenze ne
44_jth orobenune
3$.dlthlcrobezizldlne
disthyl phthalate
dlmsthyl phthalste
dI.o.batyl phthalate
2 .4-d lntavto luene
L$ -d lnltrotolnene
dI..octyt pbthalste
L$dlphuaythydrszane
fluroranthene
I lucisas
athI rosthane
. i(1.2 .3 -cd)pyrene
U_u.
aubsazene
N.a t a o eodlmethylamlne
N.o1 o.odI -o-propylanth
N-cltrosodlphenylamina
t th a
S .al..L1..I
aIpha - IC
bs t a (C
gsmma. 1C
della -W C
chimdans
4 .DDE
d le lditn
a oodf*n
_ a :::lfa , salfat.
eathin —
heptachiar
heptechior spoidde
pce.uta
P -w11
A
Table 111.—Other Toxic PoUutanta
.(Metsls sad Cyanide) and Total Phenols
AnII. y. Total
Ansot Total
Berytlisa. Total
Cadmisa. Total
Chrood To
Copper. Total
Lead. Total
Mer y. Total
Nichel. Total
Ssi Total
Silver. Total
D’”m . Total
Zinc. Total
Cyanide. Total
P’.” 4s . Total
Bose/N o uliol
es szobenzen.)
phenol
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance
Page 6
-------
3. STEP-BY-STEP
INSTRUCTIONS FOR
RECORDING MONITORING
RESULTS
Please read Sections 2 and 3, and refer to the
additional State-specific requirements in Section 4,
prior to recording monitoring results on a DMR.
When following these step-by-step insrnictions, refer
to the sample DMR for guidance (ExhIbit 3-I). The
words and phrases in Italics In the following step-by-
step instructions refer to specific locations or headings
on the DMR. The steps axe identified on the sample
by the step number enclosed in a circle.
3.1 PREPARING A DMR
(If more than one page is needed to record monitoring
results, enter the information for Steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 13 on every page. Remember that a separate
DMR is required for each storm event and each
outfall sampled.)
1) Name/Address
Enter the Permittee Name/Mailing Address and
Facility Name/Location, if different.
2) Permit Number
Enter the Permit Number for your facility. The
permit number is the unique number assigned
specifically to your facility for coverage under a
storm water general permit. Your facility’s permit
number can be found in the letter you received
confirming that your facility Is covered by the permit.
3) Discharge Number
If you are submitting monitoring results for more than
one outfall, you must record the outfall’s Discharge
Number. You must assign a unique discharge number
(e.g., 001,002, etc.) to each outfall. It Is appropriate
to assign each outfall d same number It Is assigned
in your facility’s swim water pollution prevention
plan. If the facility has existing NPDES permits for
other outfalls, do not duplicate outfall numbers.
Rather, begin with the number following the last one
assigned in your existing permit. If you believe that
the discharges from your facility’s outfalls are
subetan aJly identical, please see Substantially
Identical Outfalls in Section 2.2.
4) MonitorIng Period
Under Monitoring Period, enter dates for the
beginning and end of the six-month period covered by
the DMR (see Exhibit 2-1).
5) DIscharge Category
In d top right corner of the form, indicate the
category or categories for the discharge that was
sampled (i.e., Section 313 EPCRA, primary metal,
etc.).
6) Storm Event Characteristics
Use the first line to record the required storm
information. Under Parameter, enter the date and
duration of the storm, and the time elapsed since the
last measurable storm greater than 0.1 inch.
Under Quantity or Loading, enter in the Maximum
Column the rainfall measurement or estimate for the
storm that generated the discharge.
Under Quality or Concentration, enter in the
Maxinuun column an estimate of the total volume o
the flow through the outfall.
The rainfall estimate should be in inches and the
volume estimate should be in gallons. Record the
units that were used in the Units columns.
7) Sample Type
For discharges from holding ponds or other
impoundments with a retention period greater than 24
• hours, a minimum of one grab sample may be taken
for all parameters.
For all other discharges, both a grab sample and a
composite sample must be collected and analyzed for
all parameters except the following five (for which
only a grab sample is required):
. pH,
• cyanide,
• whole effluent toxicity,
• fecal celiform, and
• oil and grease.
NPDES Stonn Water General Permit DMR Guidance
Page 7
-------
Please note that have monitor for those
parameters listed in your permit (see Exhibit 2-2 and
SectIon 4).
All samples must be collected from a discharge
resulting from a storm of greater than 0.1 inch In
rainfall and that occurs at least fl hours after the
previous storm of 0.1 inch or more. Grab samples
must be taken during the first 30 mInutes of the
discharge, unless impracticable, in which case a grab
sample may be taken during the first hour. If the
grab sample is not taken during the first 30 minutes,
an explanation of why this was not possible must be
submitted with the DMR. -. -
8) Parameters — Sampled Pollutants
Enter each parameter as specified in the monitoring
requirements of your permit (see Exhibit 2-2 and
Section 4). One line is needed for each sample type.
Therefore, to report results for both grab and
composite samples of the same parameter, use two
lines.
9) RecordIng of Sample Results
Enter the monitoring results for each parameter
according to the following format. Under Quality or
Concentration, record grab sample results in the
Maximum column and record composite sample
results in the Average column. Remember to use one
line for each sample type.
Under the Sample Type column, record the type of
sample used for the analysis. Record “0” for a grab
sample, and “C’ for a composite sample. For
composite samples, indicate if the results are from a
flow-weighted (F) or time-weighted (I) composite.
Also, record the units used in the Units column.
10) Emuent Limitations
The only non-State specific effluent limitations listed
in EPA’s general permits are for coal pile runoff.
The effluent limitations for coal pile runoff are: a
maximum conceruration at any time of 50 mgA total
suspended solids (FSS) and a p11 within the range of
6.0 - 9.0 standard units. Compliance with these
effluent limitations must be achieved no later than
October 1, 1995.
To report monitoring results for parameters where
effluent limitations apply, enter the limitation as the
Permü Requirement under Quality or Concentration.
Under d No. Lx column, enter a “r if the sample
measurement during the monitoring period exceeded
the effluent limitation for that parameter. Otherwise,
leave the space Wink
11) State-SpecIfic Effluent Limitations
State-specific effluent limitations also may apply to
your discharges (see Section 4). If your permit
contains State-specific effluent limitations that apply
to the discharge, enter the limitations using the
insmrctions in the second paragraph of step 10. (No
State-specific effluent limitations are shown on the
sample DMR.)
12) Blomonltorlng Results
If a whole effluent toxicity (WET) test is conducted,
all of the test organisms, procedures, and quality
assurance criteria that are used must be in accordance
with the following EPA guidance manual: Methods
for Measunna the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms (EPA/60Qf4-90-027, revised September,
1991).
For WET results, if there is no sjatistical difference
between the control mortality and the effluent
mortality (no dilution), report a “0” in the Maximum
column under Quality or Concentration. If there is a
statistical difference between the control mortality and
the effluent mortality, report a “I” in the Maximum
column under Quality or Concentration. (No WET
test results on the sample DMR.)
13) Identlficatlon/Certlficatlon
Enter NameiTWe q Principal Executive Officer,
Signature of Principal Executive Officer or Authorized
Agent, Telephone Number, and Date at the bottom of
each page of the DMR after reading the Certification
Statement.
14) MillIng the DMR
Send the completed DMRs to the appropriate EPA
Regional mailing address (see Section 5). Please
make sure to provide adequate postage.
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance
Page 8
-------
I.c.hS, N. .FL.ivsl ... ((dtf/.vE*I ) T fl (‘
NAME . u() ompany ______________
ADDRESS 1234 Somewhere St. 2 XXROOM999
— — — — — — 1 Anjwj .e 3 .. JQC_ 5Q0.j — — PERMIt NUMBER
®YEAR MO DAYj
FROM -
EPA Form 3320-
126-27)
OF 2
DISCHARGE MONI . iriG REPORT (DAM ,
( i-Id ) fI7-I9
_______________ 3 001
_________________________ ISCHARGE NUMBER
(20-il,
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR MO DAY
711 1 T0 93 12 31
22-23 244SJ
ia-i (30-3d)
EXHIBIT 3.1: SAMPLE DMR FORM
®Coai Pile Runoff
NOTE: R.sd Instructions b•Ior• computing this torm
PARAMETER
(32.37)
November 10, 1993
D 2 hours
previous-i month
<
a u
MEASUREMENT
(3 Card Only) QUANTITY OR LOADING
(46-33) (5441)
14 COrd O II, ) QUALITY OR CONCENTRATION
(38-43) (46 33) ($44 1)
NO. FREOUENCY
OF
ANALYSIS
62-63 (64.63)
‘
SAMPLE
TYPE
169 ‘0)
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
UNITS
inch
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
UNITS
galli
“
‘.- ‘.‘-
.
I
.
-
SAMPLE
® oil and
grease
MEASUREMENT
25
mg/i
G
EOIMRFMENT
—
( ) TSS
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
I®40__( )
mg/i
®c
F SRMIT
AEOUIREMENT
SAMPLE
TSS
MEASUREMENT
35
mg/i
c ( F)
‘PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
50
SAMPLE
‘
pH
MEASUREMENT
7 . 3
• •
G
- • •
6.0—9.0
I j P
•
.
—
8
mg / 1
c
total
recoverable
copper
SAMPlE
MEASUREMENT
II OUIREMENT
•
.
•
total
recoverabie
copper
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
6
mg/i
C ( F)
—
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
NAMEITITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ICERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT I HAVE PEI SONALLY LZAMINEO
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMATION SUBMIT TED IEREIN. AND BASED
ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
OBTAINING THE INFORMATION I BELIEVE THE SUBMITTED INFORMATION
IS TRUE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE I AM AWARE THAT THERE ARE SIC
NIFICANT PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FALSE INFORMATION. INCLUDING
THE S$IBILITY OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT SEE IS USC I 1001 AND
33 USC 9 1319 (PgwaIlI li nde, t i ,:auis m .nch.de frn,i up w
J juni
J.. t4’%L_ TELEPHONE —
-1 71 91 23—444
SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE F AREA NUMBER
OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
0 A
© Jane Doe,
P re 8 iden t
94 1 1 0 I
J
j
TYPED OR PRINTED
YEAR
MO
OAT
COMMENT AND EXPLANATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS (llaferenc,allcisachnwnfs heft)
p.88) Previous editions may be used.
(REPLACES EPA FORM T I MAY NOT SE USED)
-------
PERMITTU MANE’ • NATIONAL I’LILI UI’
DISCH’
.9 2 2 aaY_____ f; a
ADDRESS i 1) ... — \ .1XXR0OM .
______ X_Z5QQL__ I
FACILITY
LOCATION
lARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
‘tTORING REPORT (DMR)
_______ ( 17.19 )
___ _ 001
- PERMIT NUNSER J 1 DISCHARGE NUMBER
4 MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR MO DAY YEAR MO DAY
FROMI 93 7 i TO 93 12 31
(26-27) (28-29) (30-31)
(20 - i l) (22-231 (24-23)
EXHIBIT 3-1: SAMPLE DMR FORM
®Coai Pile Runoff
NOTE: Read Instructions biter. computing his lorm
PARAMETER
(32
(46-53) (54 6 1)
(3 Co’dOnly QUANTITY OR LOADING
(3843) (46-33) (3461)
(4 (aid Only) QUALITY OR CONCENTRATION
LX
,
OF
FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS
as-u.,
TYPE
SAMPLE
i o
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
UNITS
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
UNITS
total recoverable
nickel
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
I
10
mg/i
G
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
total recoverable
nickel
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
8
mg/i
C(F)
;
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
-
-.
, ,..
,i
-
-,
total recoverable
ZinC
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
12
mg/i
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
-
- - -
total recoverable
Z1flC
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
6
mg/i
—
C(F)
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
.
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
I
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
- -
- . - - I
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
,.4 . - ‘ -- ‘: ‘i
REQUIREMENT - ‘- -
‘•1
NAME(TITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED HEREIN. AND BASED
TELEPHONE — DAT £
- ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
© Jane Doe, OBTAINING THE INFORMATION I BELIEVE THE SUBMITTED INFORMATION
IS TRUE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE I AM AWARE THAT THERE ARE BIG
President NIFICAIâ PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FALSE INFORMATION. INCLUDING -17191123 444 941 1 10
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT SEE II U SC % 1001 AND SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
33 USC I 1319 IP.n.I’Ivi .adt, tk,iv datum map . ida.di ham •q) to 110.000
TYPEDORPRINTED . .xlmiis a,i., 0 fbis ’*icid 5i v OFFICERORAUTHORIZEDAGENT NUMBER YEAR NO j OAT
COMMENT AND EXPLANATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS (Reful’nCVOI! 01101 hn,eni hrrr)
roa FA,m fl fl -1 (Pam 4.Afit P,pvfous editions may be used
REPLACES EPA FORM T 40 WHICH MAY NOT BE USED I
PAGE OF
-------
4. STATE-SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS
In addition to following the instructions discussed in
Sections 2 and 3, dischargers in the States below must
comply with the following special monitoring and
repornng requirements. (Please see Pan X I of your
permit for more specific details.) Please note that the
conditions outlined In this guidanee document are
applicable only to facilities covered by EPA-issued
permits (see Exhibit 1-1).- If you are located in a
NPDES-authorized State, you must consult your
State-specific storm water general permit or your
State permitting authority for specific permit
conditions .
4.1 EPA REGION I
4.1.1 MAINE
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Procedures :
The discharge will not lower the quality of the
receiving waters below the minimum requirements of
their classification and will satisfy the appropriate
requirements of Maine law provided that the test
organisms include ceriodaphrda and brook trout,
salvelinus fonnnahs, to meet the WET requirements
for storm water discharges associated with indusmal
activity.
4.2 EPA REGION II
4.2.1 PUERTO RICO
Additional Parameters : Pemiittees must install a rain
gauge and keep daily records of the amount of
rainfall. A copy of these records must be submitted
on the 28th days of January, April, July, and October,
and shall be attached to the DMR where appropriate.
Storm Characteristic Data :
• In addition to the required storm characteristic
data, perminees must provide an estimate of the
size of the drainage area (in square feet); and an
estimate of the runoff coefficient of the dr2in2ge
area [ e.g., low (under 40%), medium (40% to
65%), or high (above 65%)]. (FacilIties subject
to Section 313 of EPCRA and land disposal
units/incinerators/BIFs are not subject to th;
requirement) This infonnation should
included in the attachment containing the raü
gauge report
Permiu.ees subject to annual monitoring
requirements are not required to provide an
estimate of the total volume (in gallons) of the
discharge sampled.
Sample Type : For data reported in a grab sample and
a composite sample:
‘For the first half of the sampling period, all
samples shall be collected from a discharge
resulting from a storm event that occurs at least
72 hours from the previously measurable storm
event.
In the event that the permittee is unable to
satisfy this condition during the first half of the
sampling period, beginning on the first day of
the second half of the sampling period, the
permiuce shall collect samples from a storm
event that occurs at least 48 hours from the
previously measurable event.
• The perminee must document the condiuc
under which the storm water samples wer
taken, how many manual samples were taken for
the composite sample, and the date of sampling.
This information should be attached to the
sampling results.
• If samples cannot be collected, a certification of
why it was not possible to meet the above
protocol may be submitted in lieu of a DMR.
NOTE : Please be advised that on September 24,
1993, EPA Region II issued a revised §401
Certification (Storm Water General Permit
Certification for Storm Water Discharges Associated
with Industrial Activity) for Puerto Rico. This
revision modified aSpecial Condition Number 13,”
which addresses monitoring requirements, but did not
change any other conditions of d Certification. This
modification has been Incorporated into the General
Permit and is reflected in the above summary.
However, please be advised that permittees that were
covered under the storm water general permit prior to
this date were required to comply with the permit
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance
Page 11
-------
conditions that were effective at that time . Please
contact Region U for more information.
days between sampled storms for facilities required to
monitor semi-annually.
4.3 EPA REGION UI
4.3.1 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Additional Effluent Limitations : For coal pile runoff,
pH must be in the range of 6.0.8.5 standard units.
4.4 EPA REGION VI
4.4.1 LOUISIANA
Additional Parameters :
• Section 313 of EPCRA facilities: TOC
• Primary Metal facilities: TOC
• Land Disposal facilities: TKN
• Wood Treatment facilities: TOC
• Coal Pile Runoff: TOC
• Battery Reclaimers: TOC
Additional Effluent Limitations : For all discharges,
the daily maximums are 50 mg/ I for TOC and 15
mg/I for oil and grease. Pemiftrees must be in
compliance by October 1. 1995.
For oil and gas exploration and production facilities,
in addition to the limitations above, the daily
maximums are 100 mg/i for COD. Maximum
chloride concentrations must not exceed two times the
ambient concentration of the receiving water in
brackish marsh areas, and must not exceed 500 mg/I
in freshwater or intermediate marsh areas and upland
areas.
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Procedwes :
Results must be gmm jz j on Table VI-A and
s,’JbITlIttCd to EPA with the DMR. (A copy of Table
VI-A Is 2?t i 10 these instructions.)
Dlscharaes to Domestic Water Suodies : All
discharges into a designated domestic water supply
must be monitored annuallyior the parameters listed
below (in addition to other monitoring requirements).
If liz cocoenuadon of any sample exceeds the
Reportable Quantity Action Level listed below (all
units are mg/i. except for the radium limit, which is
pCi /I), the permlttee must submit the results of the
sample analysis to the State within 24 hours.
Discharges occuiTing on Indian Nations must submit
the report to Region 6 at the address specified in the
list attached to these instructions, with a copy
provided to the Governing Body of the Indian Nation.
• dissolved arsenic:
• dissolved barium:
• dissolved e dmium:
• dissolved chromium:
• dissolved lead:
• total mervuzy
• dissolved nitrate:
• dissolved selenium:
• dissolved silver:
• dissolved cyanide:
• dissolved uranium:
• radlum-226+radlum-228:
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Procedures :
Results must be summarized on Table VI-A and
submitted to EPA with the DMR. (A copy of Table
VI.A is attached to these instructions.)
The New Mexico river segments designated for use as
a domestic waxer supply can be found in the permit
and the latest design of Water Oualitv Standards for
Interstate and Intrastate Streams in New Mexico .
4.4.2 NEW MEXICO
4.4.3 OKLAHOMA
Samole Tvoe : All grab and composite samples must
be collected from a discharge resulting from a storm
that is greater than 0.1 inches in magnitude and
occurs at least 150 hours from liz previously
measured storm. There must be a minimum of 60
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Test Procedures :
Results must be summarized on Table V1-A and
submitted to EPA with the DMR. (A copy of Table
Vl-A is ttw} d to these instructions.)
0.05
1.0
0.0 10
0.05
0.05
0.002
10.0
0.05
0.05
0.2
5.0
30.0
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance
Page 12
-------
4.4.4 TEXAS Additional Effluent Limitations : Below are special
effluent limitations for hazardous metals in discharge
Additional Parameters : For Wood Treatment facilities to tidal waters and inland waters (all stated in mgIl).
that use chromium-arsenic formulations: a ite WET. TIdal waters are defined as those waters of the Gulf
of Mexico within the jurisdiction of the State of
WIx)le Effluent ToxJcit (WET) Test Procedures : Texas, bays and estuaries thereto, and those portions
Results must be s immanzed on Table VIA and of d river systems which are subject to the ebb and
submitted to EPA with the DMR. (A copy of Table flow of the tides, and to the intrusion of marine
‘11-A is nn ’hed to these instrictions.) waters. Inland waters are defined as all surface
waters in the State other than “tidal waters” as defined
above.
TIDAL WATERS
TOTAL
METAL Monthiy Daily Single
Average Composite Grab
INLAND WATERS
Monthly
Average
Daily
Composite
Single
Grab
Arsenic
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
Barium
1.0
2.0
4.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
Cadmium
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.05
0.1
0.2
Chromium
0.5
1.0
5.0
0.5
1.0
5.0
Copper
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
Lead
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.5
1.0
1.5
Manganese
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Mercury
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.01
Nickel
1.0
2.0
3.0
10
2.0
3.0
Selenium
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.05
0.1
0.2
Silver
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.2
Zinc
1.0
2.0
6.0
1.0
2.0
6.0
All measurements are in mg / I.
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance Page 13
-------
% L a I— — — • . Sd l_. I
Dapluua pulix Survwal
NPDES PerTnht _____
Outfall(s):
Dilution Water Used:
Receiving Suesm
Synthetic Wates
Time
Replicate
Percent
!ffluenc (%)
0%
100%
50%
• .2 .__
13%
6%
24-hour
A
B
a
c
D
Mean
1) Isthemeansujvjvalac24houys>50%inthe l00%dilution7 Yes_ No_
If you report a NO, enter a 1 on the DMR form, Parameter No. 7YJE30. Otherwise, enter a “O.
2) Is there a statistically significant difference in survival at the 100% dilution u compared to the conuol (0%)?
No____
If you report a YES, enter a 1” on the DMR Form. Parameter No. TEE3D. Othei wia, enter a
Pemuuee:
NPDES Permg:_________________
Outfall(s):
Dilution Water Used: ____ Receiving Stream
Synthetic Water
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Survival
Time
Replicate
Percent Effluent (%)
0%
100%
50%
25%
1.3%
6%
24-hour
A
B
c
D
Mean
3) Isthemcanmuvivalat24howi>50%inthelOO%dilu lion? Yes_ No_
If you report a NO, enter a 1 on the DMR form. Parameter No. TGE6C. Otheiwize. enter a ‘O.
2) Is there a statistically significant difference in survival at the 100% dilution en c zed to the control (0%)?
No____
If you report a YES, enter a I on the DMR Form. Parameter No. TEE6C. Otherwise, enter a 0.
Time Date
Compoalte
Sampis
CoUe ed
Teat Initiated
Yes____
Time Date
Composite
Sample
CoUe ed
Teat hlitiRted
Yes____
NPDES Storm Waler General Permit DMR Guidance
Page 14
-------
TABLE VT-A: LOUISL4N ,, NEW MEXICO. OKLAHOMA
Daphnia pulix Survival
___________________ ________ Time Date
NPDES P rTtiL Composite
Ouzfall(s):_ Sample
Collected
Dilution Water Used: ____ Receiving Stream Test Initiated ________ 1
Synthetic Water
Time
-
Replicate
Peseeni
F!fluenz (%)
0%
100%
24-hour
A
B
c
D
Mean
1) Is the mean survival .124 hours >50% in the 100% dilution? Yes_ No-
,! you report a NO. enter a 1 - on the DMR form. Parameter No. TGE3D. Otherwüe, enter a
2) Is there a statistically significant difference in survival at the 100% dilution as compared to the control (0%)? Yes___
No____
If you report a YES, enter a I ” on the DUR Form. Parameter No. TEE3D. Otherwise, enter a 0.”
Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Survival
Time Date
£cLuuII ; __________________________________________________
NPDES Permit:_________________ Composite
Outfall(s) ____________________________ Sample
Collected
Test Initiated
Dilution Water Used: _____ Receiving Stream
Synthetic Water
Time
Replicate
Percent ffluent (%)
0%
100%
24-hour
A
B
c
D
.
Mean
3) Is the mean survival at24 hours >50% in the 100% dilution? Yes_ No-
!! you report a NO. enter a 1 - on the DMR form, Parameter No. TGE4C. Otherwise, enter a ‘O.
2) Is there a stanslically significant diffesencu survival at 100% dilation as to the control (0%)? Yes_
No____
If you report a YES, enter a 1’on the DMR Form, Parameter No. TEE6C. Otherwise, enter a O.
NPDES Storm Water General Permit D Guidance Page 15
-------
4,5 EPA REGION vm
Whole Effluent Toxiaty ( WET’) Test Procedures :
Penniuees required to monitor for wrr must
follow the Region VIII rest procedures as follows:
The permictee must conduct an acute 48-hour static
replacement toxicity test using Certo&ph,rLa dubia
and an acute 96-hour static replacement toxicity test
using Pimephales promeLas ( fathead minnow). The
static replacement toxicity tests must be conducted
in general accordance with “Methods for Measuring
the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater
Marine Organisms” EPA/60W4-90-027 (Revised
September. 1991) and the ”Region VIII EPA
NPDES Acute Test Conditions - Static Renewal
Whole Effluent Toxicity Test” Tests must be
conducted semiannually on a grab sample of the
discharge at 100% strength (no dilution).
After four sets of tests of two species, the perininee
may request that subsequent testing be limited to
the more sensitive of the two species, based on
results of d previous tests, The permit issuing
authority may awrove or deny the request based on
results or other information without an additional
public notice.
Results of all toxicity tests must be reported in a
format consistent with the latest revision of “Region
VIII Guidanoc for Acute Whole Effluent
Reporting,” and include all chemical and physical
data as specified.
NOTE : These WET test procedures specific to
Region VIII were left out of the general permit
language published in the 919/92 Federal Register
(57 FR 41236). A correction to Region Vill’s final
NPDES general permit for storm water discharges
associated with Industrial activity will be published
in a future Federal Register.
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance
Page 16
-------
S. REGIONAL MAILING ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS
STA1 APPRoPR1ATE REGIONAL ADDRESS ] TATES/APPROPRIATE REGIONAL ADDRESS
Manaachuiena Maine New Iümpshirc
U.S. zrmnerxtal Protection Agency, Region I
JFK Federsi Post Office, Box 8127
Bo , MA 02114
(6l7) 65-3525
Region II: Puerto Rico’. New York Indiin L
U.S. B mnentel Protection Agency, Region II
Waxer Mansg nen Division (2WM-WPC)
Storm Water Staff
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-7674
Region III : District of Columbia’, Delaware Federal Facilities
U.S. Envircinneezal Protection Agency Region UI
Waler Management Division (3WM55)
Storm Waxer Staff
841 ( 1eatnut Building
P” 1 4 ”lphia. PA 19107
(215)597-1651
Reason 1V: Florida, Miasumppi Indian land., North Carolina Iraluun linda
U.S. Envircental Protection Agency, Region IV
Water M.nagarn ’t Division (WPEB-7)
Water Permits and Enforc n t Branch
Enforeenwit ciion
345 Cownland Stroet, N.E.
AtI ita. GA 30365
(404)347-3012
Region VI: Louisiana, New Mexico’ (see Region DC for
Navajo lands, and Region VIII for the Mm. Reservation
lands), Oklahoma, Texas
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI
Water Management Division (6W-EA)
Storm Water Staff
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue, 12th floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)655.7175
Region VUI: Colorado 1 ir lands, Colorado Federal Facilities,
Montana T . lands 3 , North Dakota Indian lands, Wyoming Indian
lands, Utah Indian l inda (ree Region DC for Goshute Reservation and
Navajo Reaervation lands)
US. Envircornerual Protection Agency, Region VUI
Waxer Managam t Division, NPDES Branch (8WM-C)
Storm Waxer Staff
999 18th Stinet
Denver, CO 80202-2466
(303)293-1630
Region DC: Arizona, California Indian lands, Nevada Indian
lands, Guam’, American Samoa. Midway and Wake Islands,
Johns’cn Atoll, the Goshute Reservation in UT amid NV, the
Navajo Reservation in UT and NM and AZ. the Duck Valley
Reservation in
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region DC
Waxer Management Division (W-5-3)
Storm Water Staff
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1906
Reeion X Idaho (see Region IX for Duck Valley Reservation
lands), Warlth gton Indian lands. Washington Federal Facilities
U.S. Envircimamial Protection Agency, Region X
Water Manageni t Division (WD-l34)
Storm Water Staff
1200 Sixth Street
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)5. 13-8399
I NOTE: DMR mszeriala ms be sent to the Reginn 1 ad ess, a copy must be sent to the following ccrr .s . .ding State addresc
AK: Alaska Depamunent of Envitonnierual Conservation. Northern Regional Office, 1001 Noble St., Suite 350, Fairbanks, AL 99701. or
Alaska Depsiiiner of Enviroiu ita1 Conservation. Southeastern Regional Office, 410 W. Willoughby, Suite 105. Juneau, AL 99801. or
Alaska Department of Envito , xel Conservation, Southcawal Regional Office, 3601 ‘C Street, Suite 1334, Anchorage, AL 99503, or
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Pipeline Corridor Reginnal Office, 411 W. 4th Ave.. Suite 2C, Anchorage, AL 99502
DC: Govasunern of District of Columbia, Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, tvM..iwiental Regulation Admitianstian. 2100 Martin
Luther King Jr. Ave. S.E. Washington. DC 20020
CU: Guam Environmental Protection Agency, D.107 Harmon Plaza. 130 Rojas St., Harmon, CU 95911
NM: Program Manager, New Mexico Envircimseru Department, Surface Waier Quality Burein, Surface Water Section, 1190 Si. Francis Drive,
P.O. Box 26110. Santa F .. NM 87502
PR: Waler Quality Area, Puerto Rino Environmental Quality Bod, P.O. Box 11488. Santtnce, PR 00910
EPA Cerlbbesn Field Office. Office 2A, Podiany Cinter Building. 1413 Fernandez Jimees Avenue, Saimice, PR 00907
2 NOTE: For Montana Indian Lands, please use the following addresc U.S. EPA, Region VI I I, Montana Operations Office. Federal Office Bu
Drawer 10096, 301 South Park, Helena, MT 59620.0026
NPDES Storm Water General Permit DMR Guidance Page 17
-------
State-ky-St ate Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
REGIONAL GUIDANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STATE-BY-
STATE WATERSHED PROTECTION ASSESSMENTS AND ACTION
PLANS
Executive Summary
EPA’s Office of Water (OW) recently issued the NPDES Watershed Strategy to ensure that
the NPDES program is fully integrated into the Watershed Protection Approach. The
NPDES strategy was developed with the detailed input and participation of Regions, States
and Office of Water program offices, and was signed by the Assistant Administrator for
Water on March 21, 1994. The purpose of the Strategy is to outline national objectives and
implementation activities for the NPDES program to (1) integrate program functions into
the broader Watershed Protection Approach and (2) support development of State-wide
basin management approaches (BMA)’. Basin management is a State-wide approach
designed to meet the objectives of the broader Watershed Protection Approach.
Regional assessments of existing watershed protection efforts in each State and Regional
action plans to support State’s in this area are among the important first steps to ensuring
that the Strategy purpose is achieved. Through these Regional assessments, EPA Regions
will gain information about the watershed protection efforts in each of their States,
including participating programs, short-and long-term goals, needs, and impediments. The
goal of the assessment process is to provide EPA Regions with a detailed range of
watershed protection needs and existing or potential impediments to be addressed through
the Regional action plans.
Action plans should describe specific actions that the Region will take to support and
facilitate watershed protection in each State. The choice of action items will be unique to
each Region and State. In States that are currently developing or implementing basin
management approaches (BMAs), Regional action plans may focus on opportunities for the
Region to provide assistance and guidance in areas such as monitoring and NPDES
permitting strategies, development of environmental indicators, and pollutant trading.
Where States are not developing or implementing BMAs, Regional action plans may focus
on conducting educational workshops, assisting States in basin delineation and
For the purposes of this document, the terms State-wide basin management
approach (Bt%’fA) and State-wide Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) are
intended to refer to the same concept which is a comprehensive state-wide
approach to managing water resources on a geographic basis.
1 May 10. 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
sequencing,and working with States to identify the potential benefits of basin management.
In either case, each action plan should include methods by which the action items will be
implemented and evaluated, and a timeline with quarterly milestones for fiscal year 1995.
EPA Regions have been asked to complete these State-by-State assessments and FY 95
watershed action plans by September 1, 1994. These documents should be submitted to
Mike Cook, Director of the Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, at EPA
Headquarters, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
This document provides guidance to EPA Regions in preparing State-by-State assessments
and action plans. Section 1 offers suggestions on key areas to address in preparing a
Regional assessment of State watershed protection efforts. It also includes model questions
to help Regional staff identify important information for assessing the status of watershed
protection activities in each State. Section 2 discusses how these assessments can be used
to prepare Regional action plans to support watershed protection efforts. Finally, Appendix
A contains detailed suggestions for potential action items that Regions can include in their
action plans. Finally, Appendix B is a final Region 10 assessment of watershed activities in
the State of Idaho, which may be used as a model to assist other Regions when conducting
their State assessments.
2 May 10. 1994
-------
St ate -&v -St ate Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
1.0 Completing State-by-State Assessments
1.1 Objectives
Each Region should assess existing watershed protection activities for each State within its
jurisdiction to obtain sufficient information for developing Regional action plans that
effectively support and facilitate State efforts to establish a basin management approach
(BMA). An assessment of current State water quality program org ni7ation, procedures and
capabilities will provide sufficient information to identify the needs, opportunities and
existing or potential impediments, developing comprehensive State-wide approaches.
Regional assessments are not intended to be compliance audits, rather they are careful and
thoughtful reviews of current state watershed/basin management activities and needs—upon
which to base Regional support activities.
Regions are encouraged to perform comprehensive assessments that will provide both a
strong basis for action plan development and a baseline against which to measure progress.
A few States have already begun implementing State-wide basin management effort and
several others are currently developing management frameworks for implementing BMAs.
Regional assessments of these States will lead to Regional action plans that focus on
activities which the Region can take to assist and further State-wide efforts. Where a State
assessment indicates that a comprehensive BMA is not being developed or implemented,
action plans may focus on conducting educational workshops at the State level, and
working with the State to identify potential benefits of a state-wide approach.
1.2 Assessment Methodology
The following sub-sections provide a step-by-step guide for collecting information about a
State’s watershed protection activities and needs. Sub-sections 1.3-1.8 cover each of the
specific components of the NPDES Watershed Strategy. At the beginning of each of these
sub-sections, a brief explanation is provided on the relationship of that component to a
BMA, and the particular areas in which the Region should focus the assessment. A fmal
sub-section suggests how to compile the individual component assessments into an overall
assessment for each State and identify items for consideration in Regional action plan
development.
Internal coordination at the Regional level is essential to assessing watershed protection
activities and needs within each State. Availability of information for assessments may
vary greatly from Region to egion and State to State. Some information on current State
watershed protection efforts has been compiled at OW Headquarters and has been provided
to each Region for review. The Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW) has
also produced fact sheets for specific State watershed protection projects which have been
3 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
sent to the Regions, as well. Additionally, a few States have developed BMA framework
documents that describe in detail how water quality management programs can operate in
an integrated and coordinated manner. Regions are encouraged to use all these resources in
preparing their assessments, in addition to analyzing any relevant information that may
already have been collected in connection with § 303(d) or 305(b) reports on programs such
as 303(e), NPDES, Nonpoint Source, Clean Lakes or National Estuary Programs.
1.3 State-Wide Coordination
Successful watershed management efforts depend on coordination of resources among
different levels of government and stakeholders. Each Region should know if and how
watershed protection efforts are coordinated in their individual States. A key step to
building a BMA is development of a basin management framework. Two of the critical
elements under a basin management framework are basin/watershed delineation and
establishment of a schedule for periodically evaluating the environmental condition of each
basin to determine which management activities will occur in the basin.
Delineation of management units (basins/watersheds) across an entire State provides a
geographic basis for focusing and coordinating watershed protection efforts and activities.
Establishing a common set of basins that all participants agree to use is a critical step for
development of a BMA. Some States have established a “nested” hierarchy of management
units that provide various levels of resolution that are fully compatible with one another.
For example, SCS 14-digit watersheds nest within USGS hydrologic units, which nest
within State river basin units. This nested approach facilitates information exchange across
all levels of government, particularly where data are maintained in a geographic information
system (GIS) format.
A basin management framework provides the context for coorihn iting management
activities over time. It identifies roles/responsibilities of participating programs, divides an
entire State into basins to coordinate management activities, and establishes a schedule for
evaluating the environmental condition of each basin. The schedule for review of basins is
State-specific, but most States are using a 5-year cycle to coincide with NPDES permitting
requirements. Establishing a schedule for regular evaluations of each basin allows the
States to reassess needs and balance workloads across programs and over time.
Regions should look for the presence of or potential for these coordinating mechanisms in
their assessments for this component. The following informational format is offered to
guide review of State-wide coordination efforts for each State:
4 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-Slate Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
A. Identify all departments within the State that oversee components of the water
program and the components for which they are responsible.
B. Is the State implementing, developing, or considering a BMA?
I. If yes, then:
a. Describe what programs and stakeholders are involved and the
status of the effort, including when it began, its progress to
date, and when the BMA is expected to be completely
implemented.
b. How has the State defined “watershed protection” and how is
this effort coordinated among programs (i.e., determine whether
the State’s approach includes State-wide coordination of
baseline water management activities or whether efforts are
confined to a limited number of “targeted” watersheds)?
c. Describe any methods that the State uses to prioritize watershed
management efforts?
d. What potential or existing benefits/incentives have been
identified for moving to a BMA?
e. What impediments or gaps have been identified that impede or
affect, or have the potential to impede or affect, a BMA effort?
2. If no, then:
a. Does the State use a targeted watershed approach?
b. What indications are there that the State is aware of and
understands the BMA?
c. What, if any, potential barriers have been identified for moving
to a BMA?
C. Describe any Region/State watershed protection partnership that has already
been established. Be sure to address the following:
1. Scope of the partnership (e.g., EPA/State roles, program components,
purpose, agenda, etc.).
5 May 10. 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
2. Type and breadth of watershed protection training that has been
provided to Regional and State staff.
3. Mechanisms that are used for coordination (e.g., MOUs, MOAs, §106
work plans, etc.).
4. Progress and status of any watershed protection efforts.
5. Program gaps or needs that have been identified and whether they are
being addressed.
D. If no Region/State watershed protection partnership currently exists, list any
indications of interest or disinterest by the State in a Region/State.
E. List ways that the State water program is working with other State and
Federal authorities (e.g., BLM, USFS, NEPs, SCS, USGS) regarding
watershed protection.
F. Describe the level of coordination that occurs with local planning authorities
regarding watershed protection, and include descriptions of mandates or State
regulations that make coordination possible.
0. Describe any efforts in response to environmental assessments that’are made
to prioritize management needs and resource allocations across multiple
programs or agencies.
H. Describe the current level of coordination regarding grants administration
activities for State programs operating under Federal grants. Include a
discussion of any State interest in coordinating grants application and
reporting.
1.4 NPDES Permits
A State-wide basin management approach provides the mechanism for issuing NPDES
permits on a watershed basis. The NPDES Watershed Strategy outlines two methods for
issuing NPDES permits on a watershed basis. These methods are 1) development of a
basin management plan and synchronization of permit issuance within basins or 2)
development of a basin management plan and assuring that permits are issued in accordance
with it.
6 May 10. 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
For many States, synchronizing permit issuance within basins will be the first step taken by
them to implement their permit programs under a BMA. For States such as North Carolina
or Michigan, this entails adjusting permit expiration dates so that facilities in the same
general basin or watershed will be re-issued at the same time. The re-issuance date is often
strategically set for a few months after a basin management plan has been adopted so that
permit conditions can reflect the goals, priorities, and management strategies (e.g. TN’fDLs)
set forth in the plan. In addition, issuing permits in the same geographic area at the same
time allows for certain efficiencies such as consolidated public notices and public meetings.
The Regional assessment effort should also evaluate how NPDES permit program resources
and level of effort are tied to environmental priorities. For non-authorized States,
assessment efforts should focus on existing State/EPA roles and needs or problems that
could be addressed through joint WPA efforts. The following informational format is
offered to guide review of NPDES permitting activities for each State:
Regions should understand and document the following activities with respect to NPDES
permit development:
A. Identify the agency that oversees permitting activities.
B. Explain the organization and operation of the State permitting program
(NPDES permitting program). Be sure to address the following
I. Central office versus Regional office responsibilities.
2. Methods for conveying receiving water quality information between
monitoring and assessment programs and permit writers.
C. Describe any efforts the State has made to operate its NPDES permit program
as part of a watershed protection approach (e.g., synchronizing permits,
issuing permits based on basin plans). Also, indicate the type and status of
any watershed protection efforts (e.g., State-wide or targeted; implementing,
developing, or none) and describe program goals and components.
D. Is permit reissuance coordinated on a geographic unit basis (i.e., are permits
within the same watershed or subbasin handled at the same time)? If yes,
then describe the following:
I
1. Delineation of geographic units.
2. Efforts to consolidate public notices by geographic unit.
7 May 10. 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
3. Efforts to consolidate public meetings/hearmgs on permits within the
same geographic unit.
E. Explain any efforts to issue permit issuance on a watershed basis other than
through synchronization of permits.
F. Regions should assess the existing program to determine potential areas of
improvement or further development. Such an assessment may include the
following questions:
1. Does the State know the percentage of discharges to impaired or
threatened waters that receive water quality-based limits? If so, what
are they?
2. What is the scope of wasteload allocation analyses—which parameters
of concern is the State able to cover?
3. Describe the basis for water quality-based limitations (e.g., does the
State use full TMDLs or partial TMDLs, do they mostly rely on
desktop/default assumption methods, etc.?).
4. How does the State use the general permit mechanism to reduce
workload? (If the State is developing or implementing watershed
protection activities, describe any efforts regarding basin-wide or
watershed general permits.)
5. Determine whether the State assigns priorities for permit issuance and,
if so, describe the prioritization criteria.
G. Examine program operations for potential productivity improvements that
could occur through a watershed approach to permitting.
1. What is the current level of permit (majors and minors) backlog for
the State? Is there a trend? (i.e., is the backlog increasing or
decreasing?)
2. How automated is the State permitting program (e.g., use of electronic
expert systems and relational database software)? Are permits stored
in a computer database that allows for quick editing and permit
template development? How is information conveyed between field
and central offices.
8 May 10. 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
1.5 Monitoring and Assessment
The monitoring and assessment elements of a BMA help to drive the management process
by providing the basis for identifying and prioritizing water quality concerns, and
evaluating the success of implemented management strategies. Monitoring may cover a
number of activities from obtaining water quality-related field data to analyzing samples
and placing data into a database (e.g. STORET, local database, etc.). Environmental
assessment is the process of determining levels of water quality and ecosystem quality, and
includes “use support” determinations, identifying sources and causes of impairment,
identifying existing or emerging problems, and preparing reports or lists required by the
CWA or other laws and regulations.
The BMA framework provides the mechanism for bringing active management participants
together to coordinate instruments such as State-wide strategic monitoring plans and
procedures for prioritizing management concerns identified through environmental
assessments. Regional assessments should focus on these and other related features. The
following informational format is offered to guide review of monitoring and assessment
activities for each State:
A. Explain the State’s monitoring coordination and collaboration.
1. Identify the State agencies that oversee water quality and aquatic
habitat monitoring and assessment. Indicate which of the agencies
have biological monitoring programs. What federal agency
information does the State use.
2. Describe the responsibilities of the agencies and programs involved in
monitoring and assessment (be sure to distinguish between central
office and Regional office roles).
B. Identify the State’s monitoring objectives.
1. Describe any efforts to establish a State-wide monitoring strategy.
Determine if the strategy addresses the following:
a. status and trends,
b. existing and emerging problem identification,
c. design of management and regulatory programs (e.g., 305(b)
reports, 303(d) lists, TMDLs, NPDES programs),
9 May 10, 1994
-------
Stare-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
d. evaluation of program effectiveness, and
e. emergency response.
2. What is the level of effort being devoted to monitoring and assessment
activities by the various State agencies (FTEs, funding, other). What
is the level of effort specifically identified for biological monitoring?
10 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
C. Review the State monitoring design program
1. Explain whether monitoring is coordinated around a watershed
approach (e.g., sequenced by basin, targeted in selected priority
watersheds).
2. Is there coordination/integration of monitoring data from various
permittees in a watershed?
3. Is there coordination of application requirements from various
permittees in a watershed?
4. Explain how data are collected (e.g., fixed stations, specific sites that
change with needs, combinations).
a. How are sample sites picked?
b. How frequently is the sampling plan updated to reflect
changing needs and priorities?
5. Identify and describe the data components of the State ambient and
compliance monitoring program (e.g. physical and chemical,
biological, habitat); also, identify the program responsible for the data
(e.g. point source effluent, nonpoint source, storm water, etc).
6. Do the various State monitoring programs have consistent quality
assurance requirements? If they differ, provide examples of how they
differ.
7. Is there coordination/integration of ambient monitoring data from
various permittees in a watershed?
8. Describe the coverage of the State agency monitoring programs, in
terms of the percentages of State waters that are monitored each year,
the scope of parameter coverage, and the frequency of sampling (e.g.
the State is able to monitor 25% of its surface waters for standard
physical/chemical parameters on a quarterly basis; heavy metals are
sampled in 15% of State waters and 5% of sediments annually).
9. How is monitoring data from the various State programs integrated
into the Water Quality Standards process?
11 May 10, 1994
-------
Sr ate-ky-St ate Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
D. Describe monitoring program implementation.
I. In each agency, who actually performs the monitoring (e.g. staff
personnel, other State and Federal agencies, volunteer groups, NPDES
dischargers, contractors, consorua)?
2. Does the State have its own laboratory?
3. To what extent do State agencies use comparable monitoring
protocols? If not, how do they differ?
4. Describe State biological monitoring programs. Include information
on:
a. the biological data components that are collected;
b. how the State assesses physical habitat;
c. the kinds of metrics the State uses;
d. whether ecoregions are a part of the State biological monitoring
programs;
e. if NPDES dischargers collect biological data; and
f. the status of the biocriteria/biological water quality standards
development program.
E. Identify and describe types of assessment tools and techniques used by the
State (e.g., statistical techniques, models, GIS).
F. Discuss the evaluation of monitoring programs.
1. Does the State evaluate its monitoring program periodically and
change it if necessary? When was it last evaluated?
2. How is data on monitoring integrated into the States water quality
standards process?
&
3. Will the NPDES Watershed Strategy cause a change in monitoring?
12 May 10, 1994
-------
State by-Sta1e Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
G. Describe monitoring program reports and communication efforts.
I. Describe the current State monitoring reports, their scales (e.g.
watershed, ecoregion, basin, State) and their target audiences (e.g.
public, managers, legislature).
2. What is the status of State information management capabilities to
support comprehensive assessments?
a. Does the State have its own database and/or does it use Federal
databases? If Federal databases are used, please list them.
b Does the State use GIS for water assessments?
3 Identify documents that describe State monitoring strategies.
4. Identify documents that describe State agency biological monitoring
strategies.
1.6 Programmatic Measures and Environmental Indicators
Progress in watershed protection requires the use of measures that indicate if program
efforts have been successful. Programmatic measures reflect administrative performance
(e.g., number of permits issued in accordance with a basin management plan, percentage of
impaired waters covered by TMDLs), whereas environmental indicators reflect performance
in the ecosystem (e.g., change in chemical concentrations in sediments and water column;
percent aquatic habitat area restored). A balance between the use of both types of
performance measures is recommended.
Measures and indicators need to reflect specific criteria for success (e.g., a 40 percent
reduction in phosphorus loading) and should be defined prior to implementation of
management plans to ensure a performance evaluation capability. Measures of success
provide important feedback to the public and stakeholders on progress made within a
basin/watershed, which may be needed to justify expenditure of public resources and/or to
shape future efforts.
The following informational format is offered to guide review of programmatic measures
and environmental indicators”for each State.
13 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
A. Identify the agency(ies) responsible for measuring water program
implementation and success and distinguish between their areas of
responsibility.
B. How is the State currently measuring program implementation and success?
1. What specific measures are used (e.g., percentage of impaired or
threatened waters, net wetlands/habitat gain or loss, biological indices,
pollutant loading changes, percentage of impaired waters covered by
TMDLs, permit backlog)?
2. Determine which efforts are coordinated within a State’s watershed
protection activities.
3. How are performance measurement data managed (e.g., computerized
database, published reports, internal memos)?
C. What level of effort is devoted to measuring program implementation and
success (e.g., FTEs, funding, other)?
1.7 Public Participation
Active public participation is an important aspect of basin management. The BMA can be
used to raise public awareness of water quality management issues and establish a basis for
public support. Public “buy-in” to basin or watershed management strategies often depends
on whether the public understands and supports the goals of the BMA and the methods
used to implement it. Providing opportunities for the public to participate in goal
development, priority setting, strategy development, implementation, and performance
measurement can be the key to maintaining long-term public support for the BMA.
Traditional public participation in the NPDES program has involved public review and
comment on point source permitting decisions. Basin management offers opportunities to
expand on this tradition by utili7ing it in the context of basin or watershed plans. For
example, meetings could be held in strategic locations to discuss NPDES permit
requirements for a particular watershed in the context of basin water quality assessments,
priorities, and management plans. In addition to basin meetings, some States are looking to
form citizen or stakeholder watershed advisory groups that will help the State set water
quality goals and priorities for management activities in a given basin or watershed.
Volunteer monitoring programs are another way that the public can become involved, and
the BMA often provides the State with a better mechanism for advising and coordinating
with such efforts.
14 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
Regions should assess whether each State has an approach to promote public awareness of
watershed protection related issues and what opportunities are provided for public
participation. The following informational format is offered to guide review of public
participation mechanisms for each State:
A. Identify the agency(ies) responsible for existing public participation activities
in the water program, and describe their respective roles(i.e NPDES program,
WQ standards program, TMDLs program, Nonpoint Source program).
B. What unique opportunities are made available by the State for public
participation in the permitting and watershed man2gement process (e.g.,
special meetings, hearings, festivals, seminars, workshops, citizen advisory
committees, citizen monitoring)? Explain how these methods promote public
involvement.
C. Determine whether any public participation activities are coordinated based
on watershed protection efforts? If yes, how are the activities coordinated?
D. Describe whether State rules or administrative codes regulate, impact, or
facilitate the public participation process and how they do so.
E. What level of effort is devoted to providing public participation opportunities
(e.g., FTEs, funding, other)?
1.8 Enforcement
Watershed management efforts attempt to address all significant sources and causes of
problems regardless of administrative designations (e.g., “major” and “minor” NPDES
permit distinctions). Enforcement activities can be tied to watershed management by using
CWA §308 authorities, compliance inspections, and other means to support watershed
assessment, planning, restoration, and pollution prevention activities. Use of the national
Permit Compliance System (PCS) can provide critical information on historical pollutant
loading rates as well as compliance for tracked facilities in priority waterbodies. In
addition, inspections done on a watershed basis can be coordinated to identify key sources
for follow-up enforcement (e.g., POTWs, industries, animal operations, forestry operations).
Regions should assess a State’s capabilities to identify certain compliance and enforcement
activities according to watershed priorities. For non-authorized States, assessment efforts
should focus on existing State/EPA roles and needs that could be addressed through joint
watershed protection efforts. The following informational format is offered to guide review
of watershed-related enforcement mechanisms for each State:
15 May 10. 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
A. Identify the agency(ies) responsible for compliance and enforcement
activities.
B. Describe program roles and organization. Distinguish between central office
and field or district office responsibilities, if appropriate.
C. Provide an explanation of any enforcement activities that are coordinated with
watershed protection efforts. Be sure to address the following:
1. How §308 authorities are used to support watershed assessment,
planning, restoration, and pollution prevention activities.
2. Whether minor discharges in priority watersheds are targeted for
enforcement.
3. Methods for prioritizing compliance inspection activities according to
watershed management priorities.
1.9 Assessment of Individual Components
Based on the information gathered above for each component, describe the current approach
for that component; identify specific activities that could be enhanced for future efforts;
identify State needs for the individual component; identify existing and potential
impediments to basin management development, implementation, or enhancement for each
individual component.
1.10 Miscellaneous Information on State WPA Activities
Note any additional observations that may fall outside of listed components.
1.11 Identified Needs, Issues, and Impediments
After completing the assessment of watershed protection activities in each of their States,
the Region will need to focus on next steps for supporting and facilitating movement of
their States toward development and implementation of a basin management approach.
Before a Regional action plan can be developed from information in the State assessment,
there are some initial steps the Region must take. The Region should compile a list of
watershed protection needs, issues and impediments for the individual components into an
overall description for that State. Items in this overall description should then be analyzed
16 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
to determine the order in which they will be addressed in the Regional Action plan.
Example criteria for assigning the order for action items include:
• Timing: Issues which must be resolved before a BMA can be developed or
implemented should be given higher priority. In some cases, it will be clear
that one issue must be resolved before another can be addressed (e.g., basins
must be delineated before they can become part of a basin management
schedule).
• Level of Importance: Some issues will need to be addressed (in Regional
action plan) to build fundamental components of a BMA. Also, areas where
efforts will address significant problems or needs under current management
methods may be viewed as priorities.
• Resource Availability: Opportunities may be available to utilize specific
resources for specific projects related to BMA development, and the Region
may want to take advantage of those opportunities.
The identified description of needs, issues, and impediments will form the basis for action
plan development, which is covered in Section 2 of this guidance.
2.0 Developing Regional Action Plans
2.1 Objectives
Each Region is responsible for preparing action plans that identify anticipated Regional
activities to support and facilitate each State in moving toward basin management. A
separate plan should be developed for each State and tailored to that State’s unique needs,
institutional infrastructure, and current program status.
An action plan should generally contain the following components:
• A summary of the State program assessment, which indicates the basis for
the selection of specific action items.
• A description of the specific actions to be taken by the Region to support and
facilitate the State’s basin management efforts, including the methods by
which the actions will be implemented and evaluated.
17 May 10, 1994
-------
Stare-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
• A timeline for implementation of action items, including quarterly milestones
for FY95 together with objectives for FY96 and beyond, if possible.
• A description of how the Regional State-specific action plan fits within the
internal Regional watershed protection strategy.
2.2 Methodology
2.2.1 Using State Program Assessments to Get Started
Development of Regional action plans can begin with a review of key findings from the
assessment of each State’s current watershed protection activities (described in Section 1).
The State assessments should provide an accurate understanding of the status of the State’s
watershed protection efforts, the State’s needs, and any potential impediments to a basin
management approach. This section provides guidance on how to translate State
assessments into State-specific Regional action plans.
The guidance is based upon classifying each State into one of the following three
categories: States currently without a BMA, States developing a BMA, and States
implementing a BMA. These categories are not meant to “pigeon-hole” each State; they are
merely a device to help Regions begin development of action plans.
States currently without a BMA are those States that have not developed or implemented a
BMA. This category also includes States which may target or implement partial watershed
protection efforts, which focuses on a few priority watersheds/basins.
States developing a BMA are States that have initiated the development of a BMA
framework. Under a State-wide management framework, for example, the State has begun
to: identify the roles and responsibilities of participating programs; identify long-term
programmatic and environmental goals as well as key interim milestones; divide the entire
state into basins; and establish a methodology for issuing NPDES permits in each basin.
States implementing a BMA have developed a management framework, and have begun to
operate under that structure. For example, the State may be implementing certain program
activities in individual basins such as development of a monitoring strategy, development of
phased TMDLs, issuing permits and developing nonpoint source controls.
2.2.2 Choosing Action Items for Specific States
The State program assessment summary can be used in conjunction with the
recommendations in Appendix A (Suggested Regional Action Items) to help guide the
18 May 10. 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
selection of action items for each State. This is demonstrated below through examples
categorized by a State’s watershed protection status.
States Currently Without a BMA
If the assessment results indicate that a State does not currently have a BMA but is very
interested in learning more about the approach and its potential benefits, the Region might
first choose to focus on some of the educational and trouble-shooting actions listed in
Appendix A under the States Currently Without a BMA category for the various watershed
protection components. Potential actions might include:
Conducting educational workshops and providing for transfer of information
on watershed protection for State program staff as well as other interested
stakeholders.
• Working with the State to identify and describe areas in which program
coordination could enhance water quality management.
• Helping the State formulate goals and a strategy for moving toward basin
management.
• Assisting the State in identifying and resolving potential impediments to
developing and implementing basin management.
Additional actions could include addressing barriers that might affect start-up and progress.
Examples include:
• Reduction in the “overhead” burden for grants administration by helping
coordinate and streamline State grant application and reporting requirements.
• Assistance in pursuing additional financial or technical support.
Furthermore, for States that are able to quickly pursue development of a BMA, first year
Regional actions could include:
• Technical assistance for the development of a BMA framework document
that describes the approach and provides a long-term reference for all
participating programs, agencies, and the general public.
• Assistance to the State in the delineation of geographic management units.
19 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
• Assistance developing a methodology for issuing NPDES permits that aie
consistent with a basin management plan; options include I) synchronizing
permit issuance within an overall basin management activity, or 2) assure that
permits are issued in accordance with a basin management plan.
On the other hand, for States where impediments are preventing action, the Region may
choose to place more emphasis on other tasks. For example, the Region could focus on
identifying impediments, communicating the potential benefits of watershed protection
(particularly where it appears that State program needs can be addressed through watershed
protection efforts), providing general education on the watershed protection to a broad
spectrum of State staff and stakeholders, and providing technical assistance. These
activities would increase the knowledge of stakeholders and may stimulate movement
toward basin management.
States DeveloDinR a BMA
If a State is already developing a BMA, the Region should review the State assessment to
determine whether the direction of the State’s approach addresses CWA goals and the
individual needs of the State. If the State’s approach appears to be overlooking important
needs, or if progress appears to be slow, the Region might consider variations of the actions
listed above for States Currently Without a BMA. For example, the Region could offer
educational workshops to review the full range of benefits of watershed protection. In
addition, the Region could explore any impediments that could be removed to expedite the
process. A strategy could be developed to address those gaps and needs within the State’s
BMA development effort.
If the BMA is progressing well in the State, the Region could provide support to
compliment the State’s efforts. For example:
• Provide a forum for the State to share information on the development and
implementation of basin management (e.g., newsletter, conference calls,
conferences).
• Assist the State with the identification and recruitment of other Federal and
State agencies to serve as partners for the BMA.
• Assist the State with the development of agreements/memoranda of
understandings with other Federal and State agencies for the purpose of
supporting the&State’s BMA.
If the State does not have a written framework document for its approach, the Region may
be able to support this effort. Also, the Region may be able to assist in tailoring the State’s
20 May 10. 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
approach to address the problem areas noted in the assessment. For example, if a permit
backlog exists, the following potential actions could be reviewed for their appropriateness:
• Assist the State with identification of the number and types of dischargers by
basin or watershed.
• Assist the State in sequencing basins/watersheds to coordinate permit
reissuance, ensuring that for any given year the permit workload is evenly
distributed.
• Help the State resolve scheduling issues associated with synchronizing permit
reissuance with the basin/watershed sequence schedule.
• Assist the State in developing a strategy to issue permits consistent with State
basin/watershed management plans.
• Provide guidance on modifying individual permits (e.g., short-term permits,
administrative extensions, expedited renewal procedures, basin general
permits) to make the transition to a basin/watershed permitting schedule.
• Provide technical assistance to the State for evaluating and assigning
priorities to permits within a basin/watershed. These procedures will help
determine the appropriate level of effort and scrutiny that should be devoted
to each permit.
There are many other options listed in Appendix A that address other components and
issues. Each Region should feel free to choose the combination of actions, including
alternatives to those listed in Appendix A, that is best suited to the specific State and which
compliments or facilitates that State’s watershed protection efforts.
Stales Implemenlin, a BMA
States that are already implementing a basin management approach will be well ahead of
those States that have not developed or are just initiating basin m n gement efforts.
However, there may still be opportunities for EPA to support the State’s efforts. The State
may be quite aware at this point in the process of significant gaps or needs that EPA could
help address. The Region should review its assessment for needs that have already been
identified, and select actions that will address those needs.
21 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
In addition, the Region could modify its operating procedures to compliment the State
approach. The Region could:
• Conduct reviews of the State programs in a manner that is Consistent with the
scope and schedule of the State’s programs and basin/watershed plans.
• Develop plans to reduce the “overhead” burden to the State in administering
grants.
• Negotiate a consolidated reporting format for the State to satisfy CWA
reporting requirements.
• Evaluate State basin/watershed plans in a manner that is consistent with the
State framework while ensuring that the plans support the goals and
objectives of the CWA.
• Develop an assessment approach for Regional oversight that is geographically
targeted to measure the success of watershed protection activities and provide
information to the decision makers when updating basin plans.
• Consider developing a new inspection type which evaluates ambient
environmental quality in a given watershed.
Regions may also be in a position to facilitate enhancement of State program methods and
tools to implement basin management. For example, the Region could:
• Arrange for technical assistance through the Regional Environmental Support
Division, EPA’s Environmental Research Laboratories and the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) to develop improved
environmental indicators and monitoring strategies.
• Support the development of an automated permitting system.
• Assist with the development of innovative permits that use the full potential
of basin management (e.g., pollutant trading, innovative monitoring
requirements, basin-wide general permits).
2.2.3 Timelines for ImDlementation of Action Items
Each action plan should state the time frame for implementation of each of the Regional
action items. While FY95 actions should be clearly indicated, Regions can show longer-
term plans, particularly where they compliment long-term BMA development strategies
22 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
established by the State. Showing long-term plans will be helpful where multi-year efforts
are necessary to reach ultimate goals for the State.
Timelines will likely vary from State to State to account for different circumstances such as
watershed protection status, needs, State infrastructure, etc. Schedules may specify
particular dates or may be dependent on successful completion of previous steps. For
example, a plan may indicate that step two is to begin within 60 days of completion of step
one, etc. At a minimum, however, each action plan should establish quarterly milestones
for FY95.
2.2.4 Implementation Methods, Tracking, and Evaluation
Each Region should describe the methods by which action items will be implemented.
Descriptions should include details on how Regional staff and resowces will be deployed,
how implementation will be tracked, and how efforts will be evaluated. Evaluation
methods should provide for incorporation of feedback with action plan updates as deemed
necessary by the Region.
2.2.5 Action Plans and Internal Regional WPA Strategies
Regions are encouraged to evaluate the relationship between the State-specific action plan
and the overall internal Regional watershed protection strategy. For instance, the action
plan could describe whether its implementation will rely on certain Regional operating
procedures.
23 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-Slate Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
Appendix A (Suggested Regional Action Items) to Regional Guidance Document
Regional action plans for facilitating State watershed protection approach (WPA)
development must be based on State program assessments. A separate Regional action plan
should be tailored for each State based on the State’s status and needs to support progress in
each of the six Strategy component areas.
The recommended action items listed below are specific tasks that can be included in a
Regional plan. Regions should carefully consider each of these recommendations and choose
those that are most appropriate for a given State or develop others based on the results of their
State assessments. This State-specific approach will lead to a more rapid and effective
implementation of the Watershed Protection Approach.
The list of recommended Regional action items is organized according to NPDES
Watershed Strategy components, with the addition of a Funding Administration section. Within
each component area, these recommendations are grouped into three categories which describe
the status of State watershed programs: (1) States Without a State-wide Watershed Protection
Approach; (2) States Developing a State-wide Watershed Protection Approach; and (3) States
Implementing a State-wide Watershed Protection Approach. Action items that are listed in an
earlier status category may be appropriate actions for States with more developed State-wide
WPAs, as well.
State-wide Coordination
States Without a State-wide WPA.
• Conduct educational workshops for States as well as other stakeholders using
information from other States that have developed and are implementing watershed
protection approaches.
• Meet with the State to identify impediments to implementing a WPA.
• Identify and describe the areas in which program coordination will enhance water
quality management activities (e.g., development of TMDLs, NPDES permit issuance
efficiency).
App. A - I May 10, 1994
-------
Stare-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
States Developing a State-wide WPA.
• Provide a forum to States to share information on the development and
implementation of a WPA (e.g., newsletter, conference calls, conferences).
• Work with States to delineate basin boundaries and establish inter-basin priorities,
ensuring that wellhead protection and existing Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program (CSGWPPs) priorities are considered in the decision making
process. Where appropriate, utilize existing analysis reflected in the 319, 3 03(d),
303(e), Clean Lakes, NEP, and NPDES programs.
• Assist States with the identification of stakeholders in basins (NEPs may be of
assistance in coastal areas).
• Assist States with the development of agreements/memoranda of understandings with
other Federal and State agencies for the purpose of supporting the State’s watershed
protection approach.
• Provide technical assistance for the development of a State-wide watershed protection
approach framework document; such a document includes a program description for
all participating programs, agencies, and the general public.
• Assist States with the identification and recruitment of other agencies to serve as
partners for the State-wide basin management framework.
• Identify the mechanisms developed to implement the State WPA (e.g., policies,
regulations).
• Describe the process for involving Federal agencies, Indian tribes, and local
governments.
States Implementing a State-wide WPA:
• Conduct reviews of State programs which take into account the scope and schedule
of State’s programs and basin plans to the extent possible.
App. A - 2 May 10. 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
NPDES Permits
States Without a State-wide WPA
• Work with States to identify the number and types of dischargers in each basin.
• Work with States to sequence basins, ensuring that the permit workload is evenly
distributed in any given year.
• Work with States on scheduling issues associated with synchronizing permits by basin,
or on issues associated with permit issuance under the basin management plan.
• Provide guidance on mechanisms and approaches for modifying individual permits
(e.g., short-term permits, administrative extensions, expedited renewal procedures,
basin general permits).
States Developing a State-wide WPA:
• Assist States in developing a strategy that defines the criteria and approach for issuing
permits consistent with the basin plan.
• Provide technical assistance to States for evaluating and assigning priorities to permits
within a basin. These procedures will help determine the appropriate level of effort
and scrutiny that should be devoted to each permit.
• Support States in assuring that Best Management Practices (BMP) established in
NPDES permits are designed to prevent contamination of the State’s priority ground
water.
States Implementing a State-wide WPA:
• Support the development of automated permitting systems.
• Assist with the development of innovative permits that use the full potential of the
basin-wide approach (e.g., trading, monitoring, pollution prevention and conservation,
basin-wide general permits).
• Expand public notification to include information on permits in the basin plan.
Ai, . A - 3 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
Monitoring and Assessment
States Without a State-wide WPA:
• Help to develop a State-wide monitoring s ategy involving State resources, discharger
monitoring consortiums, and other Federal agencies. Assist with negotiations for
shared monitoring resources.
• Assist with the development of assessment methods (consider biological and
ecological criteria) and record keeping for targeting and ranking water quality
problems. When assessing the status of a watershed, surface water, ground water,
coastal waters, wetlands, sediments, and habitat are all factors that should be
considered. The assessment of the watershed should determine if the waters are
meeting their designated use, and also provide information on critical areas,
endangered species habitats, and areas needing special protection.
• Identify how NPDES ambient monitoring can be incorporated with other monitoring
efforts.
States Developing a State-wide WPA:
• Permits will contain ambient monitoring requirements as appropriate to support the
basin monitoring plan.
• Support upgrades of information management systems, especially the use of
geographic information analysis systems which facilitate analysis and display of
environmental information in a geographic format.
• Help to refine and consolidate the monitoring objectives and reports of the CWA
programs requiring monitoring resources (e.g., 305(b), 303 (e), CSGWPPs) to promote
the targeting and ranking objectives of the watershed approach.
• Work with States to develop a State monitoring strategy that allows regions to fulfill
cross program requirements through a single integrated monitoring system (e.g.,
stormwater, 319, TMDL, drinking water.)
States Implementing a State-wide WPA:
• Provide technical assistance to develop improved environmental indicators and
monitoring strategies.
Apo. A - 4 May 10, 1994
-------
— Stare-by.Staze Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
• Provide support for the development of a citizen/volunteer monitoring program
• Participate in basin water quality assessments and contribute to targeting and ranking
of environmental issues.
• Design pollution prevention and restoration programs relying, where appropriate, on
total maximum daily loads or permits to address impaired ecosystems. Design
monitoring programs to gather additional data to allow program and project design.
Program Measures and Environmental Indicators
States Without a State-wide WPA:
• Identify areas of flexibility with existing program measures.
States Developing a State-wide WPA:
• Negotiate a consolidated reporting format for the State to satisfy CWA reporting
requirements.
• Establish tracking measures to monitor implementation schedule for various
components of the Watershed Protection Approach including: delineation and
sequencing of basins, rescheduling of NPDES permits, development of a State-wide
framework document.
• Establish key environmental indicators that will be used by State to measure progress
toward achievement of both CWA and local goals and environmental objectives.
States Implementing a State-wide WPA:
• Evaluate State basin plans in a manner that is consistent with each State’s watershed
framework and also ensure that the plans support the goals and objectives of the
CWA.
• Develop a s ategy to use basin plans to implement phased TMDLs in all States.
• Develop an assessment approach for regional oversight that is geographically targeted
which measures the success of watershed protection activities and provides
information to the decision makers when updating basin plans.
• Encourage the development of innovative environmental indicators for each basin.
App. A - 5 May 10. 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
Public Participation
States Without a State-wide WPA.
• Identify and develop more efficient means of notifying the public.
States Developing a State-wide WPA:
• Promote outreach to educate the public about the NPDES program and the
components of the WPA. Provide training on the inter-relationship between habitat
protection, ground water contamination, drinking water source protection, nonpoint
source impairment, and the point source program.
• Work with the State to establish a forum in which the public can help to identify
water quality problems and establish goals for the preservation of high quality waters.
States Implementing a State-wide WPA:
• Encourage State linkages with local land use planning authorities to facilitate the use
of water quality information in the planning process (e.g. EPA Region IX North Bay
Initiative).
• Ensure that basin plans are written as educational documents that can be read by the
lay public and which promote environmental stewardship in the basin.
• Target water quality standards hearings to watersheds.
Enforcement
States Without a State-wide WPA:
• To supplement the current information on major facilities, conduct an inventory of
each priority watershed, as necessary, using traditional enforcement authorities (e.g.
308 letters or inspections) to identify minor facilities which will be required to have
a permit.
App. A - 6 May 10, 1994
-------
State-by-State Watershed Protection Assessments and Regional Action Plan Guidance
States Developing a State-wide WPA
• Use enforcement to correct violations at facilities which are causing the greatest
degradation of a basin.
• Assist State in developing a State inspection strategy to support WPA. The Regions
and States should develop criteria to evaluate which facilities should be inspected in
a given year.
States Implementing a State-wide WPA:
• For majors and minors in priority watersheds, focus attention during report reviews
and compliance screening on the completeness of the ambient quality information
submitted by the permittee, as required by the permit.
• Use PCS to track loadings of pollutants in priority watersheds.
Funding Administration
States Without a State-wide WPA:
• Conduct an assessment of the funding sources. Develop plans to reduce the
“overhead” burden to States in administering grants.
States Developing a State-wide WPA:
• Utilize flexible authorities to support the WPA.
States Implementing a State-wide WPA:
• Determine if basin ranking and priority setting criteria are effectively administered and
allow for focusing the appropriate level of program resources to remediate the highest
risk environmental problems.
ADD. A - 7 May 10, 1994
-------
0
Office Of Watir
(4203)
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Muttijurisdictional Pretreatment
Programs
Guidance Manual
- ._..J.J u,
EPA 833•B-94-0O5
June 1994
-------
THIS DOCUMENT IS AGENCY GUIDANCE ONLY
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 the basis of specific facts when permits
are issued, regulations promulgated or programs are approved.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION . 1
1 1 Who is required to develop a pretreatment program . . . I
1.2 Elements of an approved pretreatment program . 2
1.3 When mulcijurisdictional programs are necessary 3
1 4 Overview of the types of multijurisdictional pretreatment programs 4
1.5 Common deficiencies in multijurisdictional pretreatment programs 6
2 SOLUTIONS TO MULTIJURISDICTIONAL APPROVED PRETREATMENT
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS . . . 7
2.1 CONTROL AUTHORITY HAS DIRECT AUTHORITY OVER EXTRAJURIS-
DICTIONAL INDUSTRIAL USERS 9
2. 1 . 1 Control authority applies its local law to extrajurisdictional industrial users under
common law theories . 9
2. 1.2 Control authority applies its local law to extrajurisdictional industrial users
pursuant to authority granted under state statute 10
2. 1.3 Creation under state law of limited function special sewer districts and authorities 11
2.1.4 Annexation 12
2.2 MULTIJURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENTS: IMPLEMENTING THE APPROVED
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM USING THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF MORE THAN
ONE JURISDICTION 12
2.2.1 Minimum elements of a multijurisdictional agreement 13
2.2.2 Delegation of authority to control authority 13
2.2.3 Contributing jurisdiction implements and enforces its own program 15
2.2.4 Creation of a limited function authority . 16
2.2.5 Restrictions on delegation of authority 16
2.3 NONREGULATORY CONTROL: INDUSTRIAL USER CONTRACTS 17
2.3.1 Problem with extrajurisdictional industrial user contracts 17
2.3.2 Enforcement through citizen suits 17
2.4 OBTAINING THE COOPERATION OF CONTRIBUTING MUNICIPAUTIES .... 18
2.4.1 Revision of existing agreements 18
2.4.2 Include contributing jurisdiction on NPDES permit 19
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Page
TABLE 1 Basic requirements of an approved pretreatment program . . . . . 3
TABLE 2. Elements of multijurisdictional agreements . . . . . 14
TABLE 3. Elements of a control authority/extrajurisdictional industrial user contract . . 17
FIGURE 1. Municipality with potw receiving discharges from another municipality . . 5
FIGURE 2. Sewer district or authority covering several municipalities created by contributing
jurisdictions or by state legislature . . . . . . . . 6
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A Example multijurisdictional agreement giving the control authority
responsibility over pretreatment program implementation and enforcement
APPENDIX B Example multijurisdictional agreement giving the contributing jurisdiction
responsibility for pretreatment program implementation and enforcement
APPENDIX C Example of an industrial user contract
Ii
-------
1. INFRODUCTION
The National Pretreatment Program was designed to be developed, implemented, and
enforced primarily by the municipal entities that own or operate wastewater treatment facilities
Effective pretreatment program implementation and enforcement is more difficult to achieve if
some dischargers are located beyond the legal jurisdiction of the municipal entity that administers
the Approved Pretreatment Program. As a general rule, the powers of a municipal entity are
limited to its geographic boundaries, and additional authority will be needed to regulate industrial
users located beyond these boundaries. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
refers to these types of situations as “multijurisdictional,” because industrial users are located
within the boundaries of one or more jurisdictions other than the municipal entity that is charged
with program implementation and enforcement responsibilities. This guidance document is
intended to address these multijurisdictional program implementation and enforcement issues and
offer some of the options that municipal entities may employ to satisfy federal and state program
requirements.
THIS GUIDANCE DOCUMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE ON
WHETHER ANY ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS ADEQUATE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS
PRESENTED BY A PARTICULAR SITUATION. EACH MUNICIPAL ENTITY MUST
RELY ON ADVICE OF ITS LEGAL COUNSEL WHEN EVALUATING THE USE OF THE
OPTIONS PRESENTED.
1.1 WHO IS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A PRETREATMENT
PROGRAM
The General Pretreatment Regulations, set out at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
403, establish uniform federal requirements that apply to wastewater n atment facilities that meet
the definition of the term “Publicly Owned Treatment Works” (POFW) and to the industrial users
that discharge wastes to these facilities. Pursuant to these regulatory requirements, any POTW, or
combination of POTWs operated by the same entity, with a total design flow of greater than 5
Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) and receiving waste from dischargers subject to federal
pretreatment standards and requirements must establish a pretreatment program. The National
1
-------
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authority, either EPA or a state with
an approved NPDES permitting program, also may require that a POPA’ with a design flow of less
than 5 MGD establish a pretreatment program if it determines that it is necessary to prevent
interference or pass through at the POTW. A requirement that the PCJFW implement and enforce
this pretreatment program becomes a condition of the POTV ”s PDES permit
The term POTW, as used in the General Pretreatment Regulations, refers not only to the
waste ter treatment f diity itself, including the sewers, pipes, and other infrastructure used to
convey waste ater to the f cility, but also to the municipal entity or entities that own or operate the
treatment works and have jurisdiction over the persons discharging wastewater to the f cility. The
terms “municipality” or “municipal entity” are used in this guidance as generic terms and may
include towns, villages, cities, counties, sewer districts or authorities, and even the state, where it
owns all or part of the POI’W. It is the municipal entity or entities that own or operate the P01W
that are charged with the responsibility for developing. implementing, and enforcing a preaeaunent
program.
1.2 ELEMENTS OF AN APPROVED PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
Each pretreatment program is evaluated for completeness according to the criteria set out in
the General Pretreatment Regulations. An Approved Pretreatment Program must contain six general
elements. Table 1 summarizes these general requirements. A municipal entity whose pretreatment
program has been approved by EPA or a duly authorized state is referred to as the “Control
Authority.”
To receive pretreatment program appro 1, the Control Authonty must demonstrate that it has
the legal authority to enforce federal, state, and local pretreatment standards and requirements against
all industrial users discharging to the POTW and the procedures necessary for program
implementation. The Control Authority derives this power through state statute or regulations
promulgated thereunder, through its local sewer use ordinance or regulations, or through agreements
with other municipal entities in which industrial users of the Control Authority’s P01W are located
-------
The SpeCifiC legal authorities and procedures that a Control Authority must have to implement a
pretreamlent program are set out in 40 CFR 403.8( 1) of the General Pretreatment Regulations.
TABLE 1. BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF AN APPROVED PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
1 Legal Authority to implement and enforce program requirements through a sewer use
ordinance or similar authority.
2. Local Discharge Limits developed using site-specific data in order to protect the collection
system, treatment plant, POTW employees, sludge reuse and disposal practices, and receiving
stream.
3. Industrial User Inventory to provide current information on the sources, nature, and volume oi
industrial discharges.
4 Control Mechanism such as permits to ensure that industrial users comply with pretreatment
standards and requirements.
5. Compliance Monitoring procedures including inspections, sampling of industrial users, and data
management.
6 Enforcement Response Plan to facilitate swift and effective enforcement against industrial users
violating the sewer use ordinance and/or control mechanism conditions.
1.3 WHEN MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PROGRAMS ARE NECESSARY
A Control Authority’s pov. r to implement and enforce its Approved Pretreatment Program
is directly related to its regulatory “jurisdiction.” Jurisdiction encompasses both the
legal/geographical boundary and the regulatory powers of a municipal entity. In essence, it is the
area within which a municipal entity has power to regulate the activities of people and organizations.
Local jurisdiction limits are usually defined by a state legislature in the charter or enabling legislation
creating the municipality and in the general laws of the state. The enabling legislation defines both
the Control Authority’s ability to exercise regulatory powers and the geographical area within which
these powers may be used. The powers described in the enabling legislation should provide the basis
for a Control Authority’s authority to adopt a local sewer use ordinance that regulates discharges into
the PG W. The geographical bonnd2ries outlined in the enabling legislation identify the perimeter
within which dischargers are subject to the conditions of the sewer use ordinance. As discussed in
Section 2.1.2, this perimeter may be extended by special state legislation. Therefore, the flrn step
tn determining whether a pretreatment program is multijurisdictional is to determine the extent of
3
-------
the Control Authonrys legal jurisdiction and compare that to the location of dischargers throughout
the service area. For the purposes of this guidance document. dischargers located outside of the
Control Authority’s jurisdiction are referred to as “extrajurisdictional industrial users”
Control Authorities with multijunsdicuonal programs must establish legally binding procedures
to ensure that all extrajunsdictional industrial users are subject to enforceable pretreatment standards
and requirements. See 40 CFR §403.8(0(1). The Control Authority must either obtain this
authority for itself or ensure that some municipal entity has both the authority and the obligation to
implement and enforce pretreatment standards and requirements against every industrial user that
discharges to the POTW. Where more than one municipal entity is in lved, the Control Authority
should be able to coordinate their activities and remains liable for all deficiencies in implementation
and enforcement of the Approved Pretreatment Program. Implementation and enforcement options
for multijurisdictional Approved Pretreatment Programs are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.
1.4 OVERVIEW OF THE TYPES OF MULTUURISDIcTIONAL
PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS
There are several possible mukijurisdicuonal scenarios. Figure 1 shows a PCIFW that is owned
by one municipal entity (City A) and receives discharges from extrajurisdictiorial industrial users
located in another municipal entity (City B). City A does not possess authority to regulate facilities
within City B’s boundaries. T v entities have regulatory authority within City B: the state
government and City B itself. To ensure that pretreatment program standards and requirements aie
implemented and enforced against extrajunsdictional industrial users located within City B. City A
must either enter into a multijurisdictional agreement with City B or receive additional authority from
the state legislanire.
In some cüvumstances, there may not be another local government that is responsible for or
able to impose pretreatment program standards and requirements against extrajurisdictional industrial
users. For example, City A may own se wr pipes extending toextrajurisdictional industhal users
in an unincorporated area of the neighboring county and the county may not have regulatory
authority to enforce program standards and requirements against the industrial user. City As only
option may be to obtain additional authority from the stare.
4
-------
FIGURE 1. MUNICIPALITY WITH P01W RECEIVING DISCHARGES FROM
ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY
It is not uncommon for a POFW to receive ste ter discharges from many contributing
jurisdictions. In such cases, several approaches may be needed to resolve program implementation
and enforcement issues. In some major metropolitan areas, scores of local jurisdictions use a single
PCITW. In such circumstai es, some sort of special state authority is a virtual necessity for effective
regulation.
In Figure 2, a regional sewer authority has been established with jurisdiction over several
communities. A regional sewer authority may be iixleperxlently empowered by state enabling
legislation to fully implement and enforce the Approved Pretreatment Program against all dischargers
within a defu area. The service area boundaries are defir d, by state law, to ir lude other
jurisdictions. This is often referred to as a Sanitaiy District or Special Sewer Authority. This
mechanism gives the Control Authority the ability to cross traditional municipal jurisdictional
boundaries to implement and enforce its Approved Pretreatment Program. Because this authority
is granted under state law, there is no multijurisdictional problem, if all industrial users are located
5
-------
within the district. Note that in Figure 2, ho wr, there are iixiustrial users located outside of the
jurisdiction of the Regional Se r Authority, and these users will need to be controlled using other
mechanisms.
1.5 COMMON DEFICIENCIES IN MTJLTLTURISDICTIONA.L
PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS
Most Control Authorities with multijurisdictional programs have entered into agreements
with the municipal entities in which extrajurisdictional industrial users are located. Some of
these agreements predate the imposition of the federal pretreatment program requirements and
address only conditions for providing collection and treatment of wastewater. Existing
agreements are occasionally limited to the following types of provisions:
6
-------
• Wastewater treatment capacity available to the contributing jurisdiction
• Service fees for wastewater treatment
• Ownership and maintenance of sewer lines and interceptors
• Fiscal responsibilities for future treatment plant or collection system expansion
• Requirement that the total discharge from the contributing jurisdiction meet certain
discharge limitations
• Duration of agreement.
Agreements that are limited to the above provisions are inadequate for purposes of Approved
Pretreatment Program implementation and enforcement because they fail to provide for the
imposition of adequate pretreatment standards and requirements on extrajurisdictional industrial
users.
If its existing agreement with a contributing jurisdiction is inadequate, the Control
Authority must either renegotiate with the contributing jurisdiction or receive direct regulatory
authority from the state legislature. If the contributing jurisdiction refuses to renegotiate an
inadequate multijurisdictional agreement, the options discussed in Section 2.4 should be pursued.
2. SOLUTIONS TO MULTLJURISDICnONAL APPROVED
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS
The mechanisms for achieving control of extrajunsdictional industrial users are varied and
their use depends largely on the particular ciicumstances of each Approved Pretreatment
Program. This section highlights some of these alternatives. Model language has been included
in the Appendices to further illustrate these strategies. The alternatives described here are not
exhaustive, and a Control Authority may develop other strategies or use other mechanisms that
provide equivalent implementation and enforcement authorities. A Control Authority should
7
-------
contact its state or EPA Regional Pretreatment Coordinator for advice on the adequacy of
existing or proposed multijurisdictional control mechanisms.
Possible solutions to multijurisdictional program implementation and enforcement issues
are discussed below. It is preferable that a Control Authority have the direct authority to
develop, implement, and enforce pretreatment standards and requirements necessary to regulate
all industrial users of its POTW, including extrajurisdictional industrial users. Options for a
Control Authority to obtain this direct authority are discussed in Section 2.1. Included in this
section is the option of creating new regional entities under state law to implement and enforce
the Approved Pretreatment Program.
An adequate but more cumbersome situation exists where the authorities of more than one
municipal entity must be used, and implementation and enforcement of the Approved
Pretreatment Program are coordinated among these municipal entities. In these cases, it is
necessary for the Control Authority and each municipal entity in which extrajurisdictional
industrial users are located to enter into agreements that outline which entities will have
responsibility for implementing and enforcing pretreatment standards and requirements agamst
the industrial users. Generally, each municipal entity will develop its own pretreatment
authorities (e.g., sewer use ordinance). The Approved Pretreatment Program is then enforced
either by the Control Authority as agent for the others, jointly by some or all of the
municipalities, or by a separately incorporated sewer district or authority that, in effect, acts as
agent for all of the municipalities. These scenarios are discussed in Section 2.2.
When a Control Authority is not able to employ any of the options discussed above, it must
explore other methods for Approved Pretreatment Program implementation and enforcement.
A Control Authority can obtain limited control over extrajurisdictional industrial users by
entering into contracts directly with such users. Contracts generally are not sufficiently
enforceable to satisfy the minimum federal requirements. It may, however, be necessary for the
Control Authority to use contracts until it obtains more effective controls over these users
8
-------
Contracts with extrajurisdjctjonal industrial users, together with enforcement through citizen suits
for violations of federal pretreatment program requirements, are discussed in Section 2.3.
Finally, means by which the Control Authority may obtain the cooperation of contributing
jurisdictions in implementation of a multijurisdictional program are discussed in Section 2.4.
2.1 CONTROL AUTHORITY HAS DIRECT AUTHORITY OVER
EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL INDUSTRIAL USERS
2.1.1 CONTROL AUTHORITY APPLIES ITS LOCAL LAW TO
EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL INDUSTRIAL USERS UNDER
COMMON LAW THEORIES
Municipal ordinances generally are enforceable only in the jurisdiction of the municipal
entity by which they are enacted. Without express authority under state law, most Control
Authorities will not have the ability to enforce local ordinance provisions outside of their
boundaries.
If the extrajurisdictional industrial user discharges directly into the collection system owned
or operated by the Control Authority, the Control Authority’s sewer use laws are more likely
to apply. Some Control Authorities have been advised by their legal counsel that their local
ordinance is applicable to extrajurisdictional industrial users who agree in a contract to be subject
to those laws or enter into the Control Authority’s jurisdiction and accept a permit to discharge
into the system. Again, the efficacy of these approaches will depend on the law of the state in
which the Control Authority is located.
Attempts by Control Authorities to directly enforce their local sewer use ordinance against
extrajurisdictional industrial users in the absence of authorization under state law to do so have
generally been unsuccessful. For example, where an extrajurisdictional industrial user has
refused to allow a Control Authority to conduct inspections, Control Authorities have had limited
ability to obtain a warrant to gain access to the facility. Similarly, if judicial enforcement is
9
-------
necessary, the extrajunsdiccional industrial user may challenge the Control Authority’s ability
to enforce its own law against the industrial user. If, given these limitations, the municipal
entity does not have extraterriconal authority, it must explore other options. some of which are
set out below in this Section. Problems are best eliminated by givmg the Control Authority clear
authority when the pretreatment program is being developed.
2.1.2 CONTROL AUTHORITY APPLIES ITS LOCAL LAW TO
EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL INDUSTRIAL USERS PURSUANT
TO AUTHORITY GRANTED UNDER STATE STATUTE
As indicated in Section 1.3, municipal entities are generally viewed as having definite
geographic boundaries within which they may exercise the governmental power they possess
under state and local law. However, pursuant to some states’ law, municipal entities have been
granted extraterritorial powers over all facilities discharging to their POTWs. Consequently,
in these circumstances, a Control Authority may enforce the provisions of its local sewer use
ordinance against all of its industrial users, regardless of where such industrial users are located.
In these states, multijurisdictional concerns have largely been eliminated because all industrial
users are considered to be within the jurisdiction of the Control Authority for the purposes of
Approved Pretreatment Program implementation and enforcement.
It should be noted that the scope of this extraterritorial power, in most cases, will be
expressly limited by state statute. While some state laws may provide the authority to maintain
an enforcement action against an extrajurisdictional industrial user, one must determine if the
statute also grants the Control Authority the power to develop limits and monitoring
requirements, to permit extrajurisdictional industrial users, or to conduct inspections or
monitoring at facilities located in another municipal entity. A Control Authority with
extrajurisdicuonal industrial users should, therefore, determine both whether it has the power
under state law to regulate such industrial users and the extent of this authority. If the
extraterritorial power does not include all of the authorities required by the General Pretreatment
Regulations, then the Control Authority still must seek means of applying the missing
requirements to the extrajurisdictional industrial users.
10
-------
2.1.3 CREATION UNDER STATE LAW OF LIMITED FUNCTION
SPECIAL SEWER DISTRICTS AND AUTHORITIES
In many municipalities, the responsibility of administering the operation of the local POTW
has been delegated to limited function special districts or municipal sewage authorities. The
utility of special districts and municipal sewage authorities as that their jurisdictional boundaries
may be drawn to include the entire service area of the POTW, thereby effectively eliminating
the multijurisdictional nature of the Approved Pretreatment Program. Ideally, the junsdictional
authority of these entities can be created and fashioned to conform to the particular pretreatment
implementation and enforcement concerns of a POTW.
These types of municipal entities are in most cases created directly by state enactment.
Some states allow for the creation of independent sewer districts or municipal authorities by two
or more municipal entities, with the new municipal entity then having total independence from
the municipalities that brought it into existence.
Sewer districts or municipal sewage authorities may vary in size, function, and
organizational framework from state to state. They are distinct entities that usually are governed
by a board of directors, are administratively independent from other units of local government,
and have independent revenue raising authority. State statutes dictate the procedural steps that
must be followed to bring a special district or municipal sewage authority into existence and may
limit the circumstances under which they may be organized.
It shouLd be noted that many states have laws that limit the enforcement authority of these
local government entities. Because special districts and municipal sewage authorities have only
those powers expressly granted to them under state statute, legislative changes may be necessary
to give them full pretreatment authority. To fulfill the legal authority requirements in the
General Pretreatment Regulations, special districts or municipal sewage authorities that act as
the Control Authority must be granted both the power to enact sewer use ordinances and the
police power to enforce these ordinances in the areas in which they provide services. If they
11
-------
do not have all authorities required under the General Precreaunent Regulations, then these
special government entities will face the same problems as traditional local government entities
in multijunsdictional Approved Pretreatment Program implementation and enforcement
2.1.4 ANNEXATION
If exr.rajurisdictional industrial users are located in unincorporated areas, the Control
Authority may gain the most complete control by annexing the unincorporated area. If complete
annexation is undesirable to the concerned parties, the Control Authorny might consider utility
annexation where, for purposes of sewer and water services, the unincorporated area is within
the Control Authority’s jurisdiction. In a more developed area, annexation is probably not a
viable option. Procedures for annexation vary between states. Control Authorities should
consult with their municipal attorneys if they wish to investigate this option.
2.2 MULTLJURISDICTIONAL AGRF RMENTh: IMPLEMENTING
THE APPROVED PRETREATMENT PROGRAM USING THE
LEGAL AUFHOR1TY OF MORE THAN ONE JURISDICTION
Multijurisdictional agreements entered into by a Control Authority and all contributing
jurisdictions are necessary if the Control Authority is unable to extend its jurisdiction to
administer the Approved Pretreatment Program over all industrial users of the POTW. Such
intermunicipal contracts provide a flexible method for local government to cooperate and share
responsibility and cost for the pretreatment program. The implementation and enforcement
authority of the Approved Pretreatment Program is then based on the sewer use ordmance or
other police powers of more than one municipal entity.
A Control Authority may enter into an agreement with its contributing jurisdictions under
which the contributing jurisdictions can either: (1) agree to be responsible for administering the
Approved Pretreatment Program against all industrial users located in their jurisdiction; (2)
delegate their authority to administer the Approved Pretreatment Program to the municipality
that is acting as the Control Authority; or (3) agree that the Control Authority can enforce the
contributing jurisdiction’s pretreatment program if the contributing jurisdiction fails to do so.
A fourth option would be for the existing Control Authority to delegate its authority to a third
12
-------
entity to which other mumcipalities also delegate their pretreatment implementation arid
enforcement authority. These options and legal issues associated with each are discussed below
These categories are not exclusive and hybrid situations are typical. The availability and scope
of such agreements will be determined by state law.
2.2.1 MINIMUM ELEMENTS OF A MULTLJURISDICTIONAL
AGREEMENT
Two basic concepts should be kept in mind when negotiating and drafting a
multijurisdictional agreement. First, all contributing jurisdictions must agree to develop and
maintain the legal authorities necessary to implement and enforce the Approved Pretreatment
Program within their geographic boundaries. This is necessary because the Control Authority
does not possess the legal authority over extrajurisdictional industrial users located in the
contributing jurisdiction. In some circumstances it may be necessary for the contributing
jurisdiction to obtain the authority for itself from its state legislature. Second, for each industrial
user, some municipal entity must have the responsibility to implement and enforce the Approved
Pretreatment Program. The local sewer use law of a contributing jurisdiction may be enforced
by that jurisdiction, by the Control Authority, or by both. The multijurisdictional agreement
must be specific as to which party is responsible for implementing and enforcing Approved
Pretreatment Program standards and requirements.
The elements of an effective multijurisdictional agreement are listed in Table 2 on the next
page.
2.2.2 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO CONTROL AUTHORiTY
Problems in coordinating administration of the Approved Pretreatment Program are reduced
when the multijurisdictional agreement provides for the Control Authority to implement and
enforce the Approved Pretreatment Program in the contributing jurisdictions. In this situation.
13
-------
TABLE 2. ELEMENTS OF MULTIJURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENTS
An effective multijurisdictional agreement should address the following elements
Sewer Use Ordinance - The contributing jurisdiction should agree to adopt a pretreatment sewer use
ordinance that is no less stringent than the Control Authority’s ordinance.
Local Limits - The contributing jurisdiction should agree to adopt local limits for industrial discharges
into its collection system that are at least as stringent as the Control Authority’s local limits or should
agree to a specific maximum total mass loading of pollutants that the contributing jurisdiction s
system will discharge to the P01W. If the contributing jurisdiction has its own P01W or is serviced
by another P01W in another area, there may be a conflict in local limits. In this event, the
contributing jurisdiction can adopt the most stringent local limit for each pollutant and apply these
limits to all users located in its jurisdiction regardless of the POTW to which they discharge
Alternatively, the contributing jurisdiction may choose to adopt two sets of local limits and apply to
each user the limit appropriate to the plant to which the user discharges.
Control Mechanism - The agreement should indicate whether the contributing jurisdiction or the
Control Authority is responsible for issuing control mechanisms to industrial users located within the
contributing jurisdiction. If joint control mechanisms are to be issued, the agreement should indicate
which parry will take the lead in preparing the draft control mechanisms.
Transfer of Records - The contributing jurisdiction should agree to provide the Control Authority
access to all records compiled as part of the contributing jurisdiction’s pretreatment program
activities. The agreement should also provide for notice to the Control Authority of key activities
(e.g., enforcement actions and permit issuance).
Right of Entry/Inspection and Sampling - The contributing jurisdiction should grant the Control
Authority the power to enter into the facilities of industrial users to periodically verify compliance
with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. Procedures and responsibility for
conducting inspections and other compliance evaluation activities should be established explicitly.
Enforcement - The agreement should indicate whether the contributing jurisdiction or the Control
Authority has primary responsibility for enforcing pretreatment standards and requirements against
industrial users located within the contributing jurisdiction. If the contributing jurisdiction has
primary responsibility for enforcing the ordinance, the agreement should specify whether the Control
Authority can enforce if the contributing jurisdiction fails to do so.
Remedies for Breach - Where the contributing jurisdiction has primary responsibility for permitting,
compliance monitoring, and/or enforcement, it should agree that the Control Authority has the right
to take legal action, as necessary, to enforce the terms of the agreement and/or to take action directly
against noncompliant industrial users in the event that the contributing municipality is unable or
unwilling to do so. The agreement should also provide for remedies available against the
noncomplying municipality, including indemnification and specific performance of pretreatment
activities.
Residential Areas - If no industrial users are located within the contributing jurisdiction, the
agreement should state: (1) no industrial users are currently located within the contributing
jurisdiction; and (2) none shall be allowed to operate unless prior notification us provided to the
Control Authority and a new agreement is entered into addressing implementation and enforcement
of the pretreatment program. A similar agreement might be appropriate if the only existing
nondomestic users are light commercial establishments (e.g., restaurants and hotels).
14
-------
the Control Authority acts as the agent of the contributing jurisdiction, carrying out program
implementation and enforcement on behalf of and under the police powers of the contributing
jurisdiction. The designation of the Control Authority as agent should be clear and specific and
should also be noted in the contributing jurisdiction’s sewer use ordinance. The sole responsibility
of the contributing jurisdiction is to maintain adequate pretreatment authorities. A sample agreement
where the Control Authority has complete responsibility for implementation and enforcement in a
contributing jurisdiction is presented in Appendix A.
2.2.3 CONTRIBUTING JURISDICTION IMPLEMENTS AND
ENFORCES ITS OWN PROGRAM
Appendix B contains a sample multijurisdictional agreement where the contributing jurisdiction
agrees to be responsible for Approved Pretreatment Program implementation and enforcement within
its own jurisdiction. In situations where contributing jurisdictions will implement and enforce
portions of the Approved Pretreatment Program, the multijurisdictional agreement should specify in
detail the distribution of responsibility.
Regardless of the terms of the inultijurisdictional agreement, the Control Authority, through its
NPDES permit, remains responsible for implementation and enforcement of the Approved
Pretreaupent Program. The Control Authority must be able to assure that the program is being
adequately implemented in the contributing jurisdiction. Such assurance may be gained by jointly
issuing industrial user permits, receiving copies of compliance monitoring data, and conducting joint
inspections.
Where a contributing jurisdiction has primary responsibility for enforcement of the local sewer
use ordinance, the multijurisdictional agreement and the sewer use ordinance must indicate whether
the Control Authority has the right to take legal action to enforce the terms of the contributing
jurisdiction’s ordinance if violations occur. The Control Authority should be given the right to
address any such violations at least in the event that the contributing jurisdiction has failed to take
appropriate action.
As discussed in Section 2.2.5, it may not be possible for some contributing jurisdictions to
delegate their enforcement authority to the Control Authority. In such instances, unless the Control
Authority is able to expand its jurisdiction using one of the means discussed in Section 2.1, the
Control Authority will not be able to bring enforcement actions on its own behalf against
extrajurisdictional users. This greatly complicates the administration of the pretreatment program
15
-------
It is particularly important in such cases that the Control Authority have alternative means for
requiring compliance by the industrial users in outlying jurisdictions. For example, it should co-issue
permits to industries in outlying areas and these permits should enable it to discontinue service to non-
complying facilities.
Where only the contributing jurisdiction can take enforcement actions against industhal users
within it boundaries, the contributing jurisdiction should be made jointly responsible for administering
the pretreatment program. As discussed in Section 2.4.2, the contributing jurisdiction may be made
a co-permittee on the Control Authority’s NPDES permit for the limited purpose of making it jointly
responsible under state and federal law for the pretreatment program elements in the NPDES permit.
2.2.4 CREATION OF A LIMITED FUNCTION AUTHORITY
All of the municipal entities that use a portion of the POTW’s collection system may want to
delegate authority to an entity that they create for this limited purpose. The entity would be
separately incorporated and would be controlled by the various municipalities pursuant to the articles
of incorporation and other charter documents. This would be like the sewage district or authority
discussed in section 2.1.3 except that its power is delegated to it from municipalities rather than being
granted to it by the state legislature. Each municipality would have to adopt an adequate sewer use
ordinance and then delegate implementation and enforcement responsibility to the new entity. An
agreement similar to that presented in Appendix A would be used to transfer implementation and
enforcement responsibility and authority to the new entity.
Once again, the ability to create such entities may be limited by state law. It may be necessary
to have hybrid situations where some functions are performed by the existing Control Authority or
the contributing jurisdictions.
2.2.5 RESTRICTIONS ON DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
The extent to which a municipality can delegate its authority will vary from state to state.
Services that are not uniquely governmental, such as trash collection, can usually be contracted out
to a third party. A l the other extreme, inherently governmental activities, such as making laws,
sometimes cannot be delegated. In between are activities such as acting as prosecutor, which only
some jurisdictions allow to be delegated.
Some states will allow a municipality to delegate the authonty to administer the pretreatment
program within its boundaries and some states will not. In states where it is not currently allowed,
16
-------
it may be possible for the legislature to authon.ze murucipaltues to delegate this authority Elsewhere.
there may be a state constitutional limitation on delegation of authority. In the latter states, the
multijunsdictional agreement will have to be crafted so that the contributing jurisdiction retains the
non-delegable authority The options in Section 2.1 should also be considered.
2.3 NONREGULATORY CONTROL: INDUSTRIAL USER CONTRACTS
2.3.1 P ITH EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL INDUSTRiAL USER
Although industrial user contracts will not usually be adequate control mechanisms, a Control
Authority may wish to use them while it or a contributing jurisdiction obtains the necessary regulatory
authority. In a very few jurisdictions, these contracts may be enforceable through the collection of
penalties. Courts may take into account the unique relationship between the parties and the fact that
the extrajurisdictional industrial user has agreed to be subject to penalties. As with other issues, local
legal counsel will need to be consulted.
A sample extrajurisdictional industrial user contract is included in Appendix C. The minimum
elements of these contracts are summarized in Table 3.
TABLE 3. ELEMENTS OF A CONTROL AUTHORITY/EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL INDUSTRIAL
USER CONTRACT
Sewer Use Ordinance - The contract should require the industrial user to comply with all
pretreatment conditions and requirements contained in the Control Authority’s sewer use ordinance.
Industrial Wastewater Dischar2e Permit - Although the requirement to obtain an industrial
wastewater discharge permit is generally contained in the sewer use ordinance, it is helpful that the
user expressly agree, under the terms of the contract, to obtain and comply with such a permit. If a
permit cannot be issued immediately, the industrial user should agree to apply for a permit as soon
as the contributing jurisdiction or Control Authority has obtained the necessary authority.
Right of Entry - The contract specifically should allow the Control Authority the right to enter the
industrial user’s premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of inspecting the entire premises,
taking independent samples, and examining and copying records.Remedies for Breach - The contract
should specify that the industrial user will be subject to the Control Authority’s enforcement powers,
as set forth in the sewer use ordinance.
Other Pertinent Provisions - If the industrial user is not to be immediately issued a permit, the
contract should include the minimum permit requirements: a statement of duration (up to 5 years);
statement of nontransferability without notice; applicable effluent limits; and monitoring, sampling
and reporting requirements.
2.3.2 ENFORCEMENT THROUGH CITIZEN SUITS
The Clean Water Act (CWA) allows citizens to file suits against violators of the CWA in certain
circumstances. Some cities have successfully brought citizen suits against noncompliant industries
17
-------
A Control Authority may want to file a citizen suit if it is unable to collect penalties under its own
ordinance from a noncompliant extrajurisdictional industrial user. This option also has been used
where a city did not have adequate penalty authority and wanted to use the CWA penalty authority
of up to S25,000 per violation per day. Upon collection of sufficient evidence, the Control Authority
files suit against the ext.rajurisdictional industrial user under Section 505 of the CWA
Under Section 505, a citizen must first file a 60-day advance notice of an intent to sue the
extrajurisdictional industrial user. This notice must be sent to the industrial user, EPA, and the state.
After 60 days, if EPA or the state has not initiated any action and violations are ongoing, a civil
complaint may be filed in federal court. A copy of the complaint and
any proposed settlement must also be sent to EPA and the state. Control Authorities should note that
all penalties collected under Section 505 are currently returned to the United States Treasury In
some instances, the extrajurisdictional industrial user may be required to pay into a fund dedicated
to restoring natural resources damaged as the result of their violations.
2.4 OBTAINING THE COOPERATION OF CONTRIBUTING
MUNICIPALITIES
2.4.1 REVISION OF EXISTING AGRI RMEN1S
A Control Authority has various options if its existing agreement with a contributing jurisdiction
is inadequate. It should first attempt to negotiate with the contributing jurisdiction. If a contributing
jurisdiction is unwilling to renegotiate prior to expiration, the Control Authority should explore other
options.
The Control Authority should review the existing agreement for provisions that may allow it to
alter its terms. Some examples include provisions that allow for contract modification when there
are ‘changed conditions” or when there is a change in law that alters the responsibilities of one of
the parties to the agreement.
Another option that may be available to the Control Authority is to seek a judicial reformation
or invalidation of the agreement on the grounds of impracticability or other legal basis. This may
be possible if the existing agreement prevents the Control Authority from meeting obligations under
the General Pretreatment Regulations and its NPDES permit that were imposed after the agreement
was entered into. A court may rule the agreement illegal to the extent it allows the contributing
jurisdiction’s collection system to discharge wastes that violate federal pretreatment requirements
The availability of these and other options will depend on state law and will vary from state to state.
18
-------
2.4.2 INCLUDE CONTRIBUTING JURISDICTION ON NPDES PERMIT
Another means of obtaining cooperation is to have EPA or a state with an approved NPDES
program name the contributing junsdiction as a limited co-permittee on the NPDES permit The
NPDES permit would require the contributing jurisdiction to implement and enforce a local
pretreatment program for industrial users located within its jurisdictional boundaries This can be
accomplished as a modification to an -existing permit or an addition when the Control Authority’s
permit is reissued. The obvious advantage of this approach is that the contributing jurisdiction would
be partially responsible for program implementation deficiencies and/or NPDES permit violations,
depending upon how the permit conditions are written.
If the contributing jurisdiction owns or operates the collection system within its boundaries, then
it is a co-owner or operator of the PO W. As such, it can be included on the POTW’s NPDES
permit and be required to develop a pretreatment program. Contributing jurisdictions should be made
co-permittees where circumstances or experience indicate that it is necessary to ensure adequate
pretreatment program implementation.
The existing Control Authority and the contributing jurisdiction would still need to coordinate
certain pretreatment activities (such as allocation of maximum allowable pollutant loadings) and a
multijurisdictional agreement would be beneficial. If industrial users in the contributing jurisdiction
are not subject to adequate pretreatment program requirements, an enforcement action could be taken
by EPA or the state NPDES permitting authority against the contributing jurisdiction alone or with
the Control Authority as a co-defendant.
19
-------
APPENDIX A
EXAMPLE MULTLJURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT
GIVING THE CONTROL AUTHORiTY
RESPONSIBILITY OVER
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
AND ENFORCEMENT
-------
This model language is intended to be used as a guide for situations where the Control Authority
is responsible for implementation and enforcement of the pretreatment program against industrial
users located in a contributing jurisdiction This language addresses only pretreatment issues.
but may be adapted to address other issues such as sewer use fees. Items in brackets (71”)
must be supplied by the parties to the Agreement.
Agreement between
IControl Authority]
and
[ Contributing Jurisdiction]
This Agreement is entered into this — day of , 19_, between [ Control Authority] and
[ Contributing Jurisdiction] (hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Parties”).
RECITALS
1. [ Control Authority] owns and operates a wastewater treatment system.
2. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] currently utilizes this wastewater treatment system
3 Facilities located in [ Contributing Jurisdiction] currently contribute wastewater which
includes industrial waste. These facilities are hereinafter referred to as industrial users.
4 [ Control Authority] must implement and enforce a pretreatment program to control
discharges from all industrial users of its wastewater treatment system pursuant to
requirements set out in 40 CFR Part 403 [ and State Code citation if appropriate]. In
this Agreement [ Contributing Jurisdiction] agrees to adopt a sewer use ordinance that
subjects the industrial users within its boundaries to the necessary pretreatment controls,
and [ Control Authority] is authorized to implement and enforce that sewer use
ordinance.
AGREEMENT
1 .A [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will adopt a local sewer use ordinance which is no less
stringent and is as broad in scope as the sewer use ordinance [ ordinance citation] of
[ Control Authority]. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will forward to [ Control Authority]
for review a draft of its proposed sewer use ordinance within [ ] days of the date of this
Agreement. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will adopt its sewer use ordinance within [ 1 days
of receiving approval from [ Control Authority] of its content.
B Whenever (Control Authority] revises its sewer use ordinance, it will forward a copy of
the revisions to [ Contributing Jurisdiction]. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will adopt
revisions to its sewer use ordinance that are at least as stringent as those adopted by
[ Control Authority]. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will forward to [ Control Authority]
for review its proposed revisions within [ ] days of receipt of the [ Control Authority]’ s
revisions. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will adopt its revisions within [ ] days of receiving
approval from [ Control Authority] of the content thereof.
C. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will adopt pollutant specific local limits which address at least
the same pollutant parameters and are at least as stringent as the local limits enacted by
A-i
-------
[ Control Authority] within [ 1 days of the date of this Agreement. If (Control Authority]
makes any revisions or additions to its local limits, [ Control Authority] will forward o
[ Contributing Jurisdiction] a copy of such revisions or additions within [ ] days of
enactment thereof. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will adopt any such revisions or additions
within [ ] days of receipt thereof
2. A [ Contributing Jurisdiction] designates [ Control Authority]as the agent of [ Contributing
Jurisdiction] for the purposes of implementation and enforcement of [ Contributing
Jurisdiction]’s sewer use ordinance against industrial users located in [ Contributing
Jurisdiction]. [ Control Authority] may take any action under [ Contributing
Jurisdictionj ’s sewer use ordinance that could have been taken by [ Contributing
Jurisdiction], including the enforcement of the ordinance in courts of law.
B. [ Control Authority], on behalf of and as agent for [ Contributing Jurisdiction], will
perform technical and administrative duties necessary to implement and enforce
[ Contributing Jurisdictioni’s sewer use ordinance. [ Control Authority] will: (1) update
the industrial waste survey; (2) issue permits to all industrial users required to obtain a
permit; (3) conduct inspections, sampling, and analysis; (4) take all appropriate
enforcement action as outlined in [ Control Authorityl’s enforcement response plan and
provided for in [ Contributing Jurisdictioni’s sewer use ordinance; and (5) perform any
other technical or administrative duties the Parties deem appropriate. In addition, [ Control
Authority] may, as agent of [ Contributing Jurisdiction], take emergency action to stop
or prevent any discharge which presents or may present an imminent danger to the health
or welfare of humans, which reasonably appears to threaten the environment, or which
threatens to cause interference, pass through, or sludge contamination.
3. Before an industrial user located outside the jurisdictional boundaries of [ Contributing
Jurisdiction] discharges into [ Contributing Jurisdiction]’s sewer system. [ Contributing
Jurisdiction] and [ Control Authority] will enter into an agreement with the jurisdiction
in which such industhal user is located. Such agreement will be substantially equivalent
to this Agreement and must be entered into prior to a discharge from any such industrial
user.
4. Note: The Control Authorily should choose only of the following paragraphs.
[ Contributing Jurisdiction] will reimburse the [ Control Authority] for all costs incurred
in implementing and enforcing [ Contributing Jurisdiction]’ s sewer use ordinance.
[ Control Authority] will provide [ Contributing Jurisdiction] with a detailed accounting
of all such costs.
[ Control Authority] will be responsible for all costs incurred by it in implementing and
enforcing [ Contributing Jurisdiction]’s sewer use ordinance.
5.A. If any term of this Agreement is held to be invalid in any judicial action, the remaining
terms will be unaffected.
B. The Parties will review and revise this Agreement to ensure compliance with the Federal
Clean Water Act (42 U.S.C. §125 1 ag.) and rules and regulations (s 40 CFR Part
403) issued thereunder, as necessary, but at least once every [ 1 years on a date to be
determined by the Parties.
A-2
-------
C. [ Control Authority] may terminate this Agreement by providing [ ]days written notice to
the [ Contributing Jurisdiction]. All benefits and obligations under this Agreement will
cease following [ ] days from receipt of such notice.
6 If the authority of [ Control Authority] to act as agent for [ Contributing Jurisdiction]
under this Agreement is questioned by an industrial user, court of law, or otherwise,
[ Contributing Jurisdiction] will take whatever action is necessary to ensure the
implementation and enforcement of its sewer use ordinance against its industrial users,
including, but not limited to. implementing and enforcing its sewer use ordinance on its
own behalf and/or amending this Agreement to clarify the Control Authority’s authority
[ Control Authority] [ Contributing Jurisdiction]
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE MULTLJIJRISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT
GWING THE CONTRIBUTING JURISDICTION
RESPONSIBILITY FOR
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
AND ENFORCEMENT
-------
The following model language is intended as a guide for situations where the contributing
jurisdictiOn is responsible for implementation and enforcement of the pretreatment program
against its industrial users. This language addresses only pretreatment issues, but may be
adapted to address other issues such as sewer use fees Items in brackets (“f I”) must be
supplied b . the parties
Agreement between
[ Control Authority]
and
[ Contributing Jurisdiction]
This A reemenI is entered into this ____ day of ____, 19_, between [ Control Authority] and
[ Contributing Jurisdiction] (hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Parties”).
RECITALS
1. [ Control Authority] owns and operates a wastewater treatment system.
2. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] currently utilizes this wastewater treatment system.
3. Facilities located in [ Contributing Jurisdiction] currently contributes wastewater which
includes industrial waste. These facilities are hereinafter referred to as industrial users.
4. [ Control Authority] must implement and enforce a pretreatment program to control
discharges from all industrial users of its wastewater treatment system pursuant to
requirements set out in 40 CFR Part 403 [ and State Code citation if appropriate]. In this
Agreement [ Contributing Jurisdiction) agrees to adopt a sewer use ordinance that subjects
the industrial users within its boundaries to the necessary pretreatment controls, and to
implement and enforce that sewer use ordinance.
AGREEMENT
l.A. [ Contributing Jurisdiction) will adopt and diligently enforce a sewer use ordinance which
is no less stringent and is as broad in scope as the sewer use ordinance [ ordinance
citation] of [ Control Authority). [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will forward to [ Control
Authority] for review a draft of its proposed sewer use ordinance within [ 1 days of the
date of this Agreement. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will adopt its sewer use ordinance
within [ )days of receiving approval from [ Control Authority] of its content.
B. Whenever [ Control Authority] revises its sewer use ordinance, it will forward a copy of
the revisions to [ Contributing Jurisdiction]. [ Contributing Jurisdiction) will adopt
revisions to its sewer use ordinance that are at least as stringent as those adopted by
[ Control Authority). [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will forward to [ Control Authority]
for review its proposed revisions within [ ] days of receipt of the [ Control Authority]’ s
revisions. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will adopt its revisions within [ ] days of receiving
approval from [ Control Authority] of its content.
C [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will adopt and diligently enforce pollutant specific local limits
which address at least the same pollutant parameters and are at least as stringent as the
local limits enacted by [ Control Authority] within [ ] days of the date of this Agreement
B-i
-------
If [ Control Authority] makes any revisions or additions to its local limits, it will forward
to [ Contributing Jurisdiction] a copy of such revisions or additions Within [ 1 days of
enactment thereof. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will adopt any such revisions or additions
within [ ]days of receipt thereof.
2.A [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will take all actions necessary to ensure that industrial users
within its boundaries are subject to an approved pretreatment program to the extent
required by 40 CFR 403.8, including the performance of all technical and administrative
duties necessary to implement and enforce its sewer use ordinance against industrial users
located in its jurisdiction. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will: (1) update the industrial waste
survey; (2) issue permits to all industrial users required to obtain a permit; (3) conduct
inspections, sampling, and analysis: (4) perform enforcement activities; and (5) perform
any other technical or administrative duties the Parties deem appropriate. In addition,
[ Contributing Jurisdiction] will take emergency action to stop or prevent any discharge
which presents or may present an imminent danger to the health or welfare of humans,
which reasonably appears to threaten the environment, or which threatens to cause
interference, pass through, or sludge contamination.
B. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will maintain current information on industrial users located
in its jurisdiction. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will update the industrial waste survey on
[ specific dates - not less than annually] for industrial users located An its jurisdiction.
[ Contributing Jurisdiction] will forward a copy of this survey to [ Control Authority].
C. Whenever a new industrial user begins operations in [ Contributing Jurisdiction), or any
time an existing industrial user increases its discharge [ by ........%J or changes its discharge,
or any time it is requested by [ Control Authority], [ Contributing Jurisdiction) will
require that such industrial user respond to an industrial user questionnaire supplied by
[ Control Authority]. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will forward a copy of the completed
questionnaire to [ Control Authority) for review.
D [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will provide [ Control Authority) access to all records or
documents relevant to the pretreatment program for any industrial user located in
[ Contributing Jurisdiction] or discharging through [ Contributing Jurisdiction] to
[ Control Authority].
E. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will inspect and sample all industrial users located in its
jurisdiction each year. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will submit written notice of scheduled
inspections to [ Control Authority], providing the opportunity for [ Control Authority] to
attend all inspections. If an inspection is in response to an emergency situation and such
notice is not possible, [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will make every effort to informally
notify [ Control Authority) of the impending inspection so [ Control Authority] may
attend. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will forward copies of all inspection reports to
[ Control Authority] within [ J days of the inspection. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will
submit to [ Control Authority] its procedures for sampling and analyses, including all
procedures in place for quality assurance and quality control. All procedures will conform
to those set out in 40 CFR Part 136, except as otherwise required by the U.S
Environmental Protection Agency.
F. [ Control Authority] may, with notice to [ Contributing Jurisdiction], conduct inspections
and sampling at any industrial user’s facility located within [ Contributing Jurisdiction],
as it deems necessary.
B-2
-------
G. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will issue permits to all industrial users required to be
permitted under its sewer use ordinance located in its jurisdiction. Permits must be issued
prior to any discharge. Permits must contain, at a minimum, appropriate effluent
limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, a statement of duration, a statement of
nontransferability. a statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties, and any other
conditions requested to be included in the permit by [ Control Authority]. After
[ Contributing Jurisdiction] drafts a permit, [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will forward a
copy thereof to [ Control Authority] for review and comment at least [ ]days prior to the
expected date of issuance. Within [ ] days of receipt of the proposed permit, [ Control
Authority] will either approve the permit or request [ Contributing Jurisdiction] to make
additions, deletions, or changes. No permit will be issued if [ Control Authority] objects.
H. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will submit a monthly report to [ Control Authority] on the
compliance status of each significant industrial user and any enforcement response taken
or anticipated. Such report will include the time frames for initial enforcement actions, as
well as any subsequent enforcement actions.
[ Contributing Jurisdiction] will enforce the provisions of its sewer use ordinance and
permits. In the event [ Contributing Jurisdiction] fails to take adequate enforcement action
against noncompliant users in [ Contributing Jurisdiction] on a timely basis, [ Control
Authority] will take such action on behalf of and as agent for [ Contributing Jurisdiction].
3. [ Control Authority] may take emergency action, whenever it deems necessary, to stop or
prevent any discharge which presents, or may present, an imminent danger to the health
or welfare of humans, which reasonably appears to threaten the environment, or which
threatens to cause interference, pass through, or sludge contamination. [ Control
Authority] will provide informal notice to the industrial user and [ Contributing
Jurisdiction] of its intent to take emergency action prior to taking action. The opportunity
to respond, however, may be limited to a hearing after the emergency powers of (Control
Authority] have been exercised.
4. Before an industrial user located outside the jurisdictional boundaries of [ Contributing
Jurisdiction] discharges into [ Contributing Jurisdiction] ‘s sewer system, [ Contributing
Jurisdiction] and [ Control Authority] will enter into an agreement with the jurisdiction
in which such industrial user is located. Such agreement shall be substantially equivalent
to this Agreement and must be fully secured prior to a discharge from any industrial user
in the outside jurisdiction.
5. [ Contributing Jurisdiction] will indemnify [ Control Authority] for all damages, fines.
and costs either incurred as a result of industrial waste discharged from [ Contributing
Jurisdiction] or from the failure of [ Contributing Jurisdiction] to comply with this
Agreement.
6.A. If any term of this Agreement is held to be invalid in any judicial action, the remaining
terms of this Agreement will be unaffected.
B. The Parties will review and revise this Agreement to ensure compliance with the Federal
Clean Water Act (42 U.S.C. §125 1 and the rules and regulations (s 40 CFR Part
403) issued thereunder, as necessary, but at least every [ ] years on a date to be determined
by the Parties.
B-3
-------
C. [ Control Authority] may terminate this Agreement by providmg [ 1 days written notice to
the [ Contributing Jurisdiction]. All benefits and obligations under this Agreement will
cease following [ 1 days from receipt of such notice.
[ Control Authority] [ Contributing Jurisdictionj
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF AN INDUSTRIAL USER CONTRACT
-------
This model language is intended as a guide for an individual contract with an industrial user
located in a contributing jurisdiction This language addresses only pretreatment issues and may
be adapted to address other issues, such as sewer use fee schedules. Items in brackets (“ [ 1”)
must be supplied by the parties.
This Agreement is entered into this ____ day of _____ 19 . . . . . between [ Control Authority]
and [ Industrial user] (hereinafter jointly referred to as the “Parties”)
RECITALS
1. [ Control Authority] owns and operates a wastewater treatment system.
2. [ Industrial user] wishes to utilize the wastewater treatment system.
3 The Parties recognize that [ Control Authority] must implement and enforce a pretreatment
program to control discharges from all industrial users of us wastewacer treatment system
pursuant to requirements set out in 40 CFR Part 403 [ and State Code citation if
appropriate].
AGREEMENT
1 [ Control Authority] will provide sewer service to [ Industrial user] in consideration for
payment of applicable sewer use rates and fees.
2 Prior to discharge, [ Industrial user] will submit to [ Control Authority] an application for
a .permit to discharge industrial wastes according to [ cite appropriate provision in Control
Authority’s sewer use ordinance] (hereinafter referred to as the “Ordinance”). The
[ Control Authority] will either issue a permit subject to appropriate terms and conditions
or will deny the permit application in accordance with the Ordinance.
3. Industrial user will comply with all applicable prohibitions of the Ordinance, [ State Code
citation if appropriate] and 40 CFR Parts 403 through 471. If [ Control Authority]
issues a permit to [ Industrial user], [ Industrial user] will comply with all conditions and
obligations imposed on it by the permit.
4 [ Industrial user] subjects itself to any enforcement action available to [ Control Authority]
under the terms of the Ordinance for any violation of the Ordinance or its permit.
[ Industrial user] accepts the jurisdiction of [ cite appropriate Court] for the purposes of
enforcing the Ordinance and will comply with any order of that court to comply with this
Agreement or pay penalties for the violation thereof.
5 [ Industrial user] will provide access to [ Control Authority], or its agents, to all parts of
us facilities for all measuring, sampling, testing, or other inspection to ascertain
compliance with [ Control Authonty]’s sewer use ordinance and [ Industrial userl’s
permit. [ Control Authority] may conduct inspections at all reasonable times and without
prior notice.
6. The permit will authorize [ Industrial user] to discharge to [ Control Authorityls
wastewater treatment system for a specified period of time. Prior to the expiration of its
permit, [ Industrial user] must submit another application for a permit as specified in the
Ordinance. [ Control Authority] will review the application and decide whether to reissue
c-I
-------
a permit to [ Industrial user]. [ Control Authority] may deny [ Industrial user] a permit
for whatever reason it deems appropriate.
7. [ Industrial user] will indemnify (Control Authority] for all damages, fines, and costs
incurred as a result of its industrial waste discharge.
8. If any term of this Agreement is held to be invalid in any judicial action, the remaining
terms will be unaffected.
9. This Agreement will remain in effect for a term of [ 1 years subject to renewal. Renewal
of this Agreement must be executed in a signed writing at least 1] days prior to the
expiration of the term of this Agreement.
10 This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement of the Parties.
[ Control Authority] [ Industrial User]
C-2
-------
Unld St i.s Ofice Of Water EPA 833-B94-0C3
Envuronm.ntal Protsøcn (4203) JUr t994
Ag.fl
I EPA THC Continuous Emission
Monitoring Guidance For Part 503
Sewage Sludge Incinerators
-------
opeL) L4J - 5’ 56 - 75C
United States
Environmental Protecuon Office of Wazer EPA 833-B.94.002
Agency (4203) July 1994
EPA WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
(WET) CONTROL POLICY
POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS IN
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMITS
TO CONTROL WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY FOR THE PROTECTION
OF AQUATIC LIFE
o R.cycsdRCyC abIO
Pnmoø wtth SoylCanda II Cit 2 øf that
fflafla at 50% racydd hb.q
-------
United States EPA 833-B-94-004
Environmental Protection July 1994
Agency
Office of Water (4203) -
EPA NPDES and Sewage
Sludge Program
Authority
A Handbook for
Federally Recognized
Indian Tribes
Q RecycledlRecyclable
\ Pnn .ø *1111 ScyiCaflola Ink on a e’ r a:
rnains Iea 50% ‘eCyced et
-------
Table of Contents
Introduction .3
What Are the NPDES and Sewage Sludge Programs 9 5
What Is a Permit and How Is It Developed, Issued, and Enforced’ 9
What Are the Roles of Federally Recognized Tribes In Administering NPDES
and/or Sewage Sludge Programs 9 15
What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Obtaining Authorization for
NPDES and/or Sewage Sludge Programs 9 17
How Can a Federally Recognized Tribe Obtain Authority to Operate an
NPDES and/or Sewage Sludge Program 9 23
What Assistance Is Available to Tribes 9 27
Additional Resources 31
-------
Introduction
S ection 518 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) directs EPA to promulgate
regulations on how Federally recognized
American Indian Tribes can obtain authority
to run their own wastewater and sewage
sludge programs. On December 22, 1993,
EPA published in the Federal Register (58
FR 67966] a rule citing the requirements for
determining whether a Federally recognized
Tribe is eligible for “Treatment in a Similar
Manner as a State.” The rule also specified
the proceduz for obt iining authorization
from EPA fui Lhe National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) and
sewage sludge programs.
This handbook provides general informa-
tion on the NPDES wastewater and sewage
sludge programs for Federally recognized
Tribes. It:
• Discusses Treatment in a Similar Man-
ner as a State programmatic require-
ments and the definition of Federally
recognized Tribes,
• Describes the NPDES and the National
Sewage Sludge Programs,
• Discusses the advantages and disad-
vantages in assuming these programs,
and
• Outlines the steps a Tribe would take to
qualify for Treatment in a Similar
Manner as a State.
The handbook also addresses these ques-
tions:
• What are the NPDES and National
Sewage Sludge Programs?
• What is a permit and how is it devel-
oped, issued, and enforced?
• What are the roles of Federally recog-
nized Tribes in administering an
NPDES and/or sewage sludge pro-
gram?
• What are the advantages and disadvan-
tages of obtaining authorization for an
NPDES and/or sewage sludge pro-
gram?
1. EPA has proposed regulations (59 FR 13820, March 23, 1994) to simplify the demonstration Tribes must make for
Treatment in a Similar Manner as a State under various environmental programs, including CWA programs. Until this
rule is promulgated, the December 22. 1993, rule and its provisions w l1 apply.
3
-------
• How can a Federally recognized Tribe
obtain authority to operate an NPDES
and/or sewage sludge program?
• What EPA assistance is available to
Tribes?
At the end of the handbook is a list of EPA
sources and staff available to assist Tribes in
applying for Treatment in a Similar Manner
as a State and developing successful NPDES
and/or sewage sludge programs.
4
-------
What Are the NPDES and Sewage Sludge
Programs?
T he CWA’s goal is to restore and main-
tarn the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation’s
waters. To do that, several regulatory pro-
grams limit the amount and type of pollut-
ants discharged into navigable waters, so
that fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreational
opportunities are protected. Two of these
programs are administered by EPA, or by
authorized States and Federally recognized
Tribes approved by EPA: the NPDES permit
program and the National Sewage Sludge
Program.
The process by which States or Federally
recognized Tribes obtain EPA approval to
operate an NPDES and/or sewage sludge
program is known as “authorization.”
Authorization is discussed in detail on page
15 of this handbook.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) Program
Established under CWA Section 402, the
NPDES program regulates pollutant dis-
charges from point sources to waters of the
United States. ‘Point source” generally
means the end of a pipe or ditch from which
wastewater enters a stream, a lake, a river,
or the ocean.
Domestic Sources
/1’
Storm Water
(Industhal)
Scope of NI’DES Programs
7
Indirect Industnal
Users
Municipai Sewage
Sludge
Storm Water
I Muniaoan
Indusmal
Sources
5
—I
-------
Under the NPDES program, EPA or autho-
rized States and Tribes issue permits to:
Wastewater treatment facilities,
Industrial facilities,
• Mining operations, and
• Many animal feedlots.
NPDES permits include:
• Basic facility information and certifica-
tion,
• Limits on chemical/biological contami-
nants in the effluent,
• Monitoring and reporting require-
ments, and
• Other special conditions necessary to
protect the nation’s waters.
The National Pretreatment Program
The National l’retreatnient Program is the
part of the NPDES program that regulates
industrial discharges to municipal wastewa-
ter treatment works. Most treatment works
cannot handle industrial wastes, which can
interfere with treatment plant operations, or
pass through the plant untreated and con-
taminate nearby water bodies. Because of
this, significant industrial users who release
wastewater into municipal treatment works
must obtain pretreatment permits, which
specify pollutant limits that must be met
before wastewater can be discharged to a
municipal treatment works.
The National Sewage Sludge Program
Generally, wastewater treatment separates
the solid material from the liquid. The
liquids are then treated and discharged as
“effluent.” The remaining solids are known
as sewage sludge (or “biosolids”). Sewage
sludge is typically:
• Applied to land (to fertilize crops or
other vegetation or to stabilize the soil),
• Sent to a surface disposal site or mu-
nicipal solid waste landfill, or
• Incinerated.
The National Sewage Sludge Program
regulates the use and disposal of sewage
sludge. Regulations under the program
require sewage sludge to meet numeric
pollutant limits, management practices, and
requirements to reduce pathogens and
attractiveness to nuisance vectors (such as
insects and rodents) before it is used or
disposed. Monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting are also required.
6
-------
In many cases, the sewage sludge use or
disposal standards are induded in NPDES
permits or separate “sludge-only’ permits
issued to facilities that generate, treat, or
dispose of sewage sludge. Facilities that do
not have sewage sludge permits must com-
ply with the standards directly.
The National Sewage Sludge Program also
regulates the use or disposal of domestic
septage (e.g., pumpings from a septic tank).
Septage with a commercial or industrial
component is not covered by the program.
Septage placed on a surface disposal site
must meet vector attraction reduction re-
quirements, while septage applied to the
land is subject to a.n annual application rate,
pathogen reduction requirements, and
vector attraction requirements. Septage
haulers typically do not need to apply for
permits, but must comply with the appli-
cable regulations.
7
-------
• ‘
I i
-------
What Is a Permit and How Is It Developed,
Issued, and Enforced?
I n general, a permit sets conditions
under which an activity that otherwise
would be illegal is allowed. However,
there is no right to a permit, and permits can
be revoked for cause (e.g., noncompliance).
An NPDES permit sets conditions and limits
which, as long as they are met, make dis-
charging pollutants legal. A “sludge-only”
permit sets requirements for the use or
disposal of sewage sludge. (NPDES permit
limits are based on technology and/or water
quality. Sewage sludge limits are generally
risk-based.)
Technology-based NPDES Limits
Technology-based limits can consist of:
• Federal effluent limitation guidelines,
• State or Tribal regulations, and
• The Best Professional Judgment of the
permit writer.
EPA has developed effluent limitation
guidelines for certain classes of industry so
that permits issued across the country have
a uniform basis. States, localities, and autho-
rized Tribes may impose stricter limits to
attain or maintain the beneficial uses of the
receiving water. In some cases where efflu-
ent limitations guidelines have not been
developed and specific State/local/Tribal
provisions do not apply, a permit writer
may use Best Professional Judgment to
determine appropriate permit limits. In any
case, these limits cannot be less stringent
than the Federal limits.
Water Quality-based NPDES Limits
Water quality-based tits are used when
limits more stringer. .an technology-based
effluent guidelines a necessary to protect a
“designated use” of the receiving waters (40
CFR 122.44(d)(1)). Water quality-based
limitations must control all pollutants which
will cause , have the reasonable potential to
cause , or contribute to a violation of any
State or Tribal water quality standard (40
CFR 122.44(d)(1)(i)). Designated uses are
usually established on a stream segment
basis and may include such things as:
• Municipal water supply,
• Water contact recreation,
• Ground water recharge,
9
-------
• Industrial process supply, or
• Wildlife habitat.
Sewage Sludge Limits
Sewage sludge permit limits are based on
the requirements of Section 405 of the CWA.
The standards for sewage sludge use or
disposal are codified at 40 CFR Part 5L3.
These requirements vary with the different
sewage sludge use or disposal practices
employed, but generally indude limits on
specific pollutants, pathogen and vector
attraction reduction measures, and manage-
ment practices. A State or Tribal sewage
sludge program may be part of an approved
NPDES program or a separate program.
States and Tribes are free to set more strin-
gent standards.
The Permit Issuance Process
The basic steps in the permitting process
are:
• Application for a permit by the dis-
charger or sewage sludge user or dis-
poser,
• Development of the draft permit and
fact sheet by EPA or the authorized
State or Tribe,
• Notice to the public and period for
public comments,
• Establishment of the Administrative
Record,
• Award of final permit, and
• Compliance.
These steps are explained in greater detail
on page 12. In addition, they are summa-
rized in Figure 1 (“NPDES Permitting Proce-
dures”).
10
-------
Figure 1: NPDES Permitting Procedures
Public notice of
draft permit
comment penod
(and optional
hearing)
New slalement of basis.
fact sI i ot new dra(i pernul
Issue final permit
decision; respond to
coziuneals
-------
Permit Application
All potential permittees must complete
Form 1, a permit application that requests
general information such as facility name,
address, and ownership. Form 1 directs
applicants to additional relevant application
forms.
Development of Draft Permit
and Fact Sheet
Once the application is submitted, EPA or
the authorized State or Tribe must develop a
draft permit and fact sheet. This draft per-
mit must contain:
• A cover sheet,
• Pollutant limits for effluent or sewage
sludge,
• Monitoring conditions,
• Standard conditions, and
• Any necessary special conditions.
The fact sheet typically explains the source
of the pollutant limits and special condi-
tions. For example, a fact sheet might cite
the effluent limitations guidelines that apply
to the dass of permittee or the applicable
Tribal water quality standard.
Monitoring conditions specify the analytical
method, sample type, and frequency for
sampling the effluent or sewage sludge to
determine compliance with the permit
limits.
Standard conditions appear in almost all
permits; they usually include such things as
reporting and records retention require-
ments.
Special conditions are additional conditions
unique to certain dischargers.
Public Notice
The next step in the permitting process is
public notice of the draft permit and a
public comment period. Anyone who may
be affected by the conditions of the permit
has the opportunity to provide input to the
permitting process. Generally, the public
notice appears in the local newspaper, and
the public comment period can last 30 to 90
days. Hearings may be held in response to
public interest.
12
-------
Administrative Record Compliance
The administrative record consists of all Once the final permit has been issued to the
documents related to development of the discharger, sewage sludge user, or disposer.
permit, including: the permittee must comply with the poilut-
ant limits, monitoring and reporting re-
• The draft permit, quirements, and other specified conditions.
It is then the responsibility of the permitting
• Copies of the applicable effluent limits authority (EPA, authorized State, or autho-
or water quality standards, rized Tribe) to monitor the permittee’s
compliance. The permitting authority re-
• The comments raised during the public views the permittee’s monitoring reports for
notice period, and accuracy and conducts periodic compliance
inspections of the facility.
• Formal responses to the public com-
ments received.
Final Permit
After considering the issues raised by the
public comments, a final permit is issued to
the applicant, which contains the informa-
tion found in the draft permit and revisions
made as a result of input received during
the public notice and comment period.
13
-------
What Are the Roles of Federally Recognized
Tribes In Administering NPDES and/or
Sewage Sludge Programs?
T here are two stages of requirements in the reservation. Prior to authorization, EPA
assuming program administration will:
responsibility:
Issue permits,
Those necessary to obtain authorization
from EPA (such as satisfying §518 of • Conduct compliance and monitoring
the CWA), and activities,
• Those performed after receiving autho- • Provide the necessary enforcement for
rization. the program, and
To achieve authorization, a Tribe must • Provide technical assistance and train-
develop enforceable regulations for the ing to Tribes attempting to gain Treat-
NPDES (including pretreatment) or sewage ment in a Similar Manner as a State.
sludge program. These regulations must be
at least as strict as the Federal regulations. After Tribal authorization, EPA will:
The Tribe must also develop a program to
administer the NPDES and/or sewage • Evaluate and oversee the Tribe’s
sludge program before authorization is NPDES and/or sewage sludge pro-
granted. gram,
Once the Tribe receives authorization, it will • Oversee grant programs (such as CWA
be responsible for implementing the pro- §104(b)(3) and 106 grants), and
gram (including issuing NPDES and/or
sewage sludge permits). The authorized • Provide administrative and legal sup-
Tribe will also conduct compliance and port and continued technical assistance
monitoring activities, and training.
Role of EPA
EPA’s role changes as a Tribe assumes
greater authority for the CWA programs on 15
-------
EPA also will provide enforcement as neces-
sary, according to a Memorandum of Agree-
ment worked out between the Tribe and the
EPA Region. Such EPA enforcement may be
necessary in cases where Tribal authority is
limited, such as for criminal enforcement
actions,
16
-------
What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages
of Obtaining Authorization for NPDES and/or
Sewage Sludge Programs?
E PA recognizes that it is important stringent than Federal regulations. In addi-
for Tribes to: tion, the Tribe will implement the program
and carry out enforcement actions, as appro-
• Consider which environmental pro- priate.
grams would be most beneficial, and
• Target Tribal efforts and resources
towards those specific programs.
Major issues that Tribes should consider
when deciding whether to apply for
authorization include:
• The benefits of self-determination,
• Improved administrative, regulatory,
and technical capabilities, and
• The costs in personnel and financial
resources.
Self-Determination
Obtaining authorization to regulate
reservation waters may support Tribal
self-determination in several ways. For
example, it gives the Tribe increased
authority over what happens on its lands.
The Tribe may impose its own water
pollution control priorities by establishing
Tribal regulations that are as (or more)
17
-------
Administrative, Regulatory, and Technical
Capabilities
Administering an NPDES and/or sewage
sludge program provides important admin-
istrative, regulatory, and technical opportu-
nities for a Tribe. The process of obtaining
authorization to administer these programs
will:
• Broaden the scope of government,
• Build institutional capabilities, and
• Increase the Tribe’s experience in:
Developing and overseeing large
programs, and
4 Implementing an information man-
agement system.
These programs will enable all members of
the Tribe to gain an understanding of water
pollution and other environmental issues.
Tribal authority also imposes administra-
tive, regulatory, and technical burdens. For
example, the Tribe must write necessary
statutes and regulations. It may also need to
create or expand an independent bureau-
cracy to establish and regulate the NPDES
and/or sewage sludge program.
Tribal governments must ensure that regu-
latory and regulated entities are separate, in
order to avoid conflicts of interest when the
Tribe owns or operates a discharger or
sewage sludge facility that would be regu-
lated by the NPDES and/or sewage sludge
program. Tribes may also have to provide
training for engineers, attorneys, permit
writers, and other specialists needed to
manage effective and comprehensive pro-
grams.
Personnel and Financial Resources
Assuming responsibility for an NPDES
and/or sewage sludge program may have
material advantages for a Tribe. For ex-
ample, it may generate revenue from permit
fees and enforcement penalties. It may also
attract or discourage certain industry on
Tribal lands. Program authorization may
also provide job opportunities for Tribal
members.
18
-------
However, there may also be some disadvan-
tages to program assumption. For example,
program development entails certain costs,
such as the labor cost to develop the initial
submission and training costs for new
personnel. In addition, program revenues
will not necessarily cover program costs and
also will not be available until alter the
program is implemented.
19
-------
Questions to Ask
Applying for Treatment in a Similar Manner
as a State and assuming authority for the
NPDES and/or sewage sludge program is
entirely voluntary. EPA recognizes that each
Tribe must evaluate its own circumstances.
The following questions outline the major
issues involved in seeking authorization and
managing art effective NPDES and/or
sewage sludge program. A Tribe’s answers
to these questions may highlight possible
areas of concern before a Treatment in a
Similar Manner as a State application is
submitted or an NPDES and/or sewage
sludge program is developed.
• Do the Tribe and its members want to
expand the Tribal regulatory role and
ability to protect public health and the
environment?
• Does the Tribe have, or expect to de-
velop, the necessary infras ucture, and
is the Tribe prepared to promulgate
comprehensive NPDES and/or sewage
sludge regulations?
• Does the Tribe have the organizational
ability to develop and maintain an
independent regulatory body?
• Is the Tribe prepared to support this
type of program for many years?
• Does the Tribe have, or plan to attain,
the financial resources to support the
development and continued operation
of an NPDES and/or sewage sludge
program?
+ Does the Tribe have the revenue to
hire and pain the staff necessary to
run an NPDES and/or sewage sludge
program?
+ Is theTribe willing to commit to
long-term finandal support of the
program?
9
?‘?
?
?
9
?
20
-------
When to Apply for Authorization
A Tribe should seek authorization if, after
considering all of the benefits and costs, it
has determined that authorization is in its
best interest. Issues that should be consid-
ered include:
• The desire to further Tribal autonomy
and self-determination,
• The ability to play a larger role in the
protection of Tribal interests, and
• The strengthening of Tribal govern-
ment.
At the same time, the Tribe must consider
the need to develop and maintain the neces-
sary components of running an NPDES
and/or sewage sludge program. This may
include:
• Researching current environmental
statutes and regulations to determine
how they will affect the NPDES and/or
sewage sludge program and to identify
program needs,
• Enacting new statutes and regulations,
• Creating or expanding an organization
to run the program, and
• Hiring and training program personnel.
The Tribe must also consider the long-term
financial support of the program. The deci-
sion to seek authorization is one that will
have environmental and economic impacts
for many years.
21
-------
How Can a Federally Recognized Tribe Obtain
Authority to Operate an NPDES and/or Sewage
Sludge Program?
S tates (irtduding Territories) and Tribes
may acquire authority for the NPDES
and/or sewage sludge programs under
Sections 402(b), 405, and 518 of the CWA. To
acquire this authority, a Tribe must:
• File for NPDES and/or sewage sludge
Treatment in a Similar Manner as a
State status. The Treatment in a Similar
Manner as a State application can be
filed simultaneously with an NPDES or
sewage sludge program application.
Tribes that have previously filed a
successful Treatment in a Similar Man-
ner as a State application for another
CWA or Safe Drinking Water Act
program may need only to update their
approved Treatment in a Similar Man-
ner as a State application.
• Develop necessary statutes and regula-
tions, a program description, a Memo-
randum of Agreement, and an Attorney
General’s statement.
• After approval, receive authorization
and fully implement the programs.
Treatment in a Similar Manner as a State
Under the Clean Water Act
A Tribe must meet four criteria to be eligible
for Treatment in a Similar Manner as a
State:
• E dsting substantial governmental
duties and powers,
• Defined jurisdiction over water re-
sources,
• Demonstrated Tribal capability, and
• Federal recognition by the U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior.
Federal Recognition
To receive Treatment in a Similar Manner as
a State status, a Tribe must provide EPA
with certification that it is recognized as a
Tribe by the Department of the Interior.
Any Tribe on the list of Federally recog-
nized Tribes periodically published by the
Secretary of the Interior satisfies this re-
quirement. If a Tribe does not appear on the
Secretary’s list because the list has not been
updated, the Tribe may provide appropriate
documentation to verify to EPA that it is
Federally recognized.
23
-------
Substantial Governmental Duties and
Powers
The Tribe must also demonstrate that it has
a governing body and the ability to carry
out the program for which it is seeking
authorization. EPA defines “substantial
governmental duties and powers” to mean
that the Tribe is currently performing gov-
erninental functions to promote the public
health, safety, and welfare within a defined
geographical area. The Tribe may demon-
strate this by submitting a narrative state-
ment that:
• Describes the form of Tribal govern-
ment,
• Describes the essential governmental
functions performed (such as levying
taxes and exercising police power), and
• Identifies the legal authority for per-
forming these functions (e.g., the Tribal
constitution).
Jurisdiction Over Water Resources
The Tribe must further demonstrate legal
jurisdiction over water resources. In general,
these water resources will be located on
Tribal lands, but may, in some instances,
include those on trust land set apart for use
by American Indians. EPA suggests that
Tribes, in their Attorney General statements,
outline all bases for concluding that the
Tribe has adequate authority to regulate all
claimed water resources under the CWA.
Tribal Capability
Finally, the Tribe must demonstrate that it is
capable of effectively implementing the
program in a manner consistent with the
terms and purposes of the CWA and appli-
cable regulations.
The five factors that EPA will consider
when evaluating a Tribe’s demonstration of
capability are:
• The Tribe’s previous management
experience,
• Existing environmental or public health
programs it administers,
• Existing mechanism(s) to carry out the
executive, legislative, and judidal
functions of the Tribal government,
• The relationship between regulated
entities and the administrative agency
24
-------
of the Tribal government designated as
the primacy agency, and
The technical and administrative capa-
bilities of the staff to administer and
manage the program.
Tribes should note that this demonstration
does not change the traditional requirement
for assumption of an NPDES and/or sew-
age sludge program that the program be
fully effective at the time of approval.
If a Tribe satisfies these criteria and is found
eligible for Treatment in a Similar Manner
as a State, the Tribe is eligible to assume
NPDES and/or sewage sludge program
authority. All applicants for NPDES and/or
sewage sludge program authorization,
including States and Tribes, must meet
applicable NPDES and/or sewage sludge
program regulatory requirements.
NPDES and/or Sewage Sludge Program
Development
To develop an NPDES and/or sewage
sludge program, a Tribe must
Adopt Tribal legal authority (statutes
and regulations) that meets the mini-
mum Federal requirements, and
• Establish procedures to implement
these authorities.
Because Tribal criminal authority is re-
stricted by Federal law, Tribes are not re-
quired to have comprehensive criminal
enforcement capabilities. (The rule establish-
ing requirements for Tribes to be Treated in
a Similar Manner as States includes provi-
sions requiring a Tribe to refer criminal
enforcement matters to the EPA Regional
Administrator in a timely and appropriate
manner when Tribal enforcement authority
does not exist.)
A Tribe must also develop capabilities to
implement the program. These may include:
• Providing training for engineers and
permit writers, or
• Sending such personnel to EPA- or
State-sponsored training courses.
Program development may also include
establishing a separate administrative
agency in order to ensure that a conflict of
interest does not arise between dischargers
or sewage sludge users or disposers and the
regulating agency.
25
-------
Procedure for Applying for NPDES and/or
Sewage Sludge Program Authorization
Tribes must submit a program request to
EPA for approval. The submittal must
include:
• A letter from the Tribe to EPA request-
irtg authorization,
• A complete program description which
explains program operation and covers,
for example:
4 Routine administrative procedures
and operation of the scope, structure,
coverage, and processes of the pro-
gram,
4 A list of agencies which will have
responsibility for administering the
program and their organizational
charts and jurisdiction,
+ A list of the staff who will administer
the program, including the number
of employees, occupations, and
general duties of the staff,
+ A workload analysis that estimates
the administrative and technical costs
of the program for its first two years,
+ A description of the sources of fund-
ing for the first two years of the
program, including any estimate of
Federal funding,
4 Copies of sample permits, applica-
tions, and reporting forms, and
4 Descriptions of applicable Tribal
regulations or laws which address
the procedures for permitting, ad-
ministrative and judicial review,
compliance, and enforcement of
NPDES and/or sewage sludge pro-
gram permits.
• Copies of applicable Tribal statutes and
regulations,
• A signed Memorandum of Agreement
with the Regional Administrator con-
cerning cooperative program responsi-
bilities, and
• A certification from the Tribal Attorney
General (or equivalent) that the Tribe
has adequate legal authority to admin-
ister the program.
26
-------
What Assistance Is Available to Tribes?
E PA will provide technical assistance to • EPA Regional and Headquarters
Tribes interested in obtaining authori- NPDES and Sewage Sludge Program
zation or desiring more information Coordinators.
about the NPDES and/or sewage sludge
programs. Types of available assistance Regulation development support includes:
include:
• Samples of appropriate language for
• Regulation development support, Tribal NPDES and/or sewage sludge
programs,
• Guidance on program submittals,
• A technical review by EPA personnel of
• Sample Treatment in a Similar Manner proposed Tribal statutes and regula-
as a State packages, and tions, and
EPA Regional and Headquarters NPDES Program Coordinators
R.glon I Coordinator
Region I
(CT. hE. MA. NH. RI. YT) DOUQ CorD 61 Waler h nagsm.nl Division.
Region II Wu
(W. NY. PR. P1111 Svveeney 21 2- 4 .29l Water hiorte ement Division. Water
Region lii
(DE.DC. tC.PA.VA.WV) Ken Cox 215-597.8211 Water Piiiottegemeffl Olvislon.
Pentete Enforcement Sreridit
Region N
. FL G . . . . Jim aalc* 404.347.3012 Water hionagsmenz DMslon .
Sea i on
Region V Claudis
(IL. IN. Ml. ai. OH. WI) Jolinson.Sthul 312.886-6108 WaXer Division
Region VI
( AR. LA. NM. . Jayne Fontenot 214-665-7190 Waler hW. j.T. 1l OMsion .
Region VII NPOES PsrnVls Drondi
( IA. KS. MO. NE) Don Toensing 913-551.7448 WaXer hfonaQOrTISnt Olvision.
Region VIII Water Com*stce Brsndi
( CO. MT. IC. SD. Lacembe 303-233-1593 Waler p.fono emsnt Division .
NPOES 9vand
Region IX
(AZ. CA. HI. NV. AS. Terry Oda 415-744-1923 Water hfonagsmsnt Division.
Pormlm and Complionce Brandi
Region X Water Division.
(AK. ID. OR. WA) Linda Uu 206-553-1447 Wastewaler Ifonogement and
Enforcement Brand
EPA HeadQuarters Laura PhillIps 202-260-9522 Office of Wastewaler hforiagemenl.
NPOES Program Brand’i
27
-------
• In some cases, on-site support from
EPA personnel.
EPA will also provide guidance on program
submittals. For example, EPA could provide
Tribes with examples of successful program
submittals from small States. In addition,
EPA can provide sample Treatment in a
Similar Manner as a State applications.
The EPA Regionai and Headquarters
NPDES and Sewage Sludge Program Coor-
dinators are also available to answer ques-
hons about the programs.
In addition, EPA has developed several
guidance documents on the NPDES and
sewage sludge programs. Information on
obtaining these documents is explained on
page 31.
EPA Regional and Headquarters Sewage Sludge Program Coordinators
Region I Coordinator
Region I r ffl a 1iaITIIfto.i 617-565-3569 Water Managemeru Division.
(CT. ME. MA. NH. RI. VT) Munc al Evthak11 Section
Recon H Ma Roufaeal 212-264-8663 Waler Menag.merl Division
(NJ. NY. PR VI)
Region III MnCasthufl 215-597-9406 Water Management Division.
(DE DC MD.PA.VA WV) Permits Enforcement Branch
Region IV VInce Milior 404-347-2391 Waler Management Division.
(AL. FL. GA. KY. MS. NC. SC. N) MunI aI FaciBles Branch
Water Division.
RegionV AsflSaijad 312 6 - 112
(IL. IN. MI. MN. 014. WI) water OuaIly Branch
Region VI
Stephanie Kordzi 214-655-7520 Water Management Division
(AR. LA NM. OK. TX)
Region VII John Dunn 913-551-7594 Water Management Division.
(IA. KS. MO. NE) Waler Co lTplance Branch
Region VIII BCCbS 303-293-16V Water Management OMelet,
(CO MT. ND. SD. UT.WY) NPOES Branch
Region IX ren Fondahl 415-744-1909 Water Management Division.
(AZ. CA. HI. NV. AS. GU) Pretreatment SectIon
Reg ionX
Dick Hethenngton 206-553-1941 Westewater Management and
(AK. ID. OR. WA) Enforcement Branch
Office of Westewater Management.
EPA Neadquaners Wendy Bell 202-260-9534 Pretreatment and Multi-meda
Branch
28
-------
U.S. EPA Region 1:
U.S. EPA Region 2:
U.S. EPA Region 3:
U.S. EPA Region 4:
U.S. EPA Region 5:
U.S. EPA Region 6:
U.S. EPA Region 7:
U.S. EPA Region 8:
U.S. EPA Region 9:
U.S. EPA Region 10:
JFK Federal Building, One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02203
26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278
841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107
345 Courtland St., N.E., Atlanta, GA 30365
77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604-3507
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733
726 Minnesota Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101
999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202-2405
75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105
1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, WA 98101
U.S. EPA Regional Offices
PUERTO
RICO
29
-------
Additional Resources
Unless otherwise indicated, to obtain a copy of the following documents, first contact the
EPA Office of Water Resource Center at the telephone number and address listed below. If
the document is not available from the Resource Center, then contact your Regional
NPDES or Sewage Sludge Program Coordinator (listed on pages 27 and 28).
Office of Water Resource Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 4100
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7786
NPDES Program
NPDES State Program Guidance (July 1986)
• Training Manual for NPDES Permit Writers (January 1993)
• Overview of the Storm Water Program (March 1993)
• NPDES Storm Water Program: Question and Answer Document, Volume I (Also
available from National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 1-800-553-6847; and
from Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), (614)292-6717), (EPA/833/F-93-
002), (March 1992)
• NPDES Storm Water Program: Question and Answer Document, Volume 2 (Also
available from NTIS and ERIC), (EPA/833/F-93-002B), (July 1993)
• EPA’s Enforcement Management System (1989)
• Implementing State/Federal Partnerships in Enforcement (June 1984)
• Quarterly Non-Compliance Report (QNCR) Guidance (March 1986) 31
-------
• NPDES Compliance and Inspection Manual (May 1988)
Pretreatment Program
• Guidance on Development of Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) (September 1989)
• Industrial User Inspections/Sampling Manual for POTWs (April 1994)
• Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual (Also available from NTIS arid ERIC),
(EPA/833/R-89-001), (1990)
• Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge Lirnita-
tions Under the Pretreatment Program (Also available from NTIS and ERIC), (EPA!
833 / B-87-202), (1987)
The National Sewage Sludge Program
• Part 503 Information Packet (Also available from National Small Flows Clearinghouse
(NSFC) #WWPCGN5O, 1-800-624-8301), (1994)
• Sludge Compliance and Enforcement Strategy (Contact Regional Coordinator),
(May 1993)
• Environmental Regulations and Technology: Control of Pathogens and Vector Attrac-
tions in Sewage Sludge (Also available from Center for Environmental Research Infor-
mation (CERI), (513)569-7562), (EPA/625/R-92/013), (December 1992)
• POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance Document (Only available from NTIS,
PB #93-227957), (August 1989)
• A Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule (July 1994)
32
-------
• Preparing Sewage Sludge for Land Application or Surface Disposal: A Guide for
Preparers of Sewage Sludge on the Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Re-
quirements of the Federal Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR
Part 503 (Also available from NSFC and NTIS)
• Surface Disposal of Sewage Sludge: A Guide for Owners/Operators of Surface Dis-
posal Facilities on the Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Notification Requirements of
the Federal Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR Part 503
(June 1994)
• Land Application of Sewage Sludge: A Guide for Land Appliers on the Recordkeeping
and Notification Requirements of the Federal Standards for the Use or Disposal of
Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR Part 503 (July 1994)
• Domestic Septage Regulatory Guidance: A Guide to the EPA Part 503 Rule (Also
available from NSFC, NTIS, and ERIC)
• State Sludge Management Program Guidance Manual (October 1990)
Indian-Specific Policy
• EPA Indian Policy (July 1984 and November 1984)
• Interim Guidance on Review of Indian Lands - Enforcement Actions (October 1992)
33
-------
-
United States FIRS MAIL
EnvIronmental Protection Agency Posta . reOS Patd
EPA
4203
Washington. DC 20460 G-35
Official Business
Penafty for Private Use
$300 -
-------
€: Sd.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
S
WASHINGTON. D C. 20460
1. 4.
4 L D CIt
JUL 28
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Authorization of Partial State Sewage Sludge Programs
FROM: Michael B. Cook, Director’ \,(kflr ( • j
Off ice of Wastewater Mana4 ñt’(42 l) -‘
Office of Water
Susan G. Lepow, Associate Gç1 rpl Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Water Division (2355)
TO: Robert F. McGhee, Acting Director
Water Management Division, Region IV
On Jun. 9, 1994, you wrot to the Office of Water concerning
State sewage sludge program authorization. In particular, you
have requested its view as to whether the State of Georgia may
seek authorization for a partial sewage sludg. permit program
that addre. se; all Part 503 sewage sludge use or disposal
practices with the exception of incineration. You believe that
EPA has the authority to approve such a State program. We agree,
as discussed below.
Section 405(f) of Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that
any National Pollutant D charge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit issued to a publicly owned treatment works or other
treatment works treating domestic sewage must include conditions
to implement the sewage sludge regulations issued under section
405(d) unless these conditions have been included through certain
other specified permits. These permits are: 1) permits under
other specified Federal statutes’ or 2) permits under a State
permit program where EPA determines “such programs assure
compliance with any applicable requirements” of section 405.
Section 405(f) further requires EPA to promulgate regulations
establishing procedures for approving Stat. sewage sludge permit
programs that will assure compliance with section 405.
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C.
S 6921, g., Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C.
S 300h the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1401, . or the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
S 7401,
RicycIsdfR.cyClabIS
uim soy Circa rn or 30 ’
cs ians m 50% .cyc.a •
-------
2
In 1989, EPA promulgated the regulations required by section
405(f). 54 Fed. Re _ g . 18716, seq . (May 2, 1989). The
requirements for State sewage sludge permit programs administered
under the umbrella of a State’s NPDES permit program are codified
at 40 C.F.R. Parts 122. 123 and 124. Requirements for State
sewage sludge permit programs that are administered outside the
framework of the NPDES program are codified at 40 C.F.R. Part
501.
Part 501 (State Sludge Management Program Regulations)
explicitly provides for submission of partial sewage sludge
permit programs ( g 40 C.F.R. § 501.1(d) (1)). However, the
requirements and procedures in Parts 122, 123 and 124 addressing
NPDES sewage sludge permit programs are silent on whether partial
sewage sludge programs are authorized. At the time EPA
promulgated these regulations, EPA stated its intention to
propose further changes that would spell out the criteria for
approval of partial sewage sludge permit programs administered
either through an authorized State NPDES or a Part 501 program. 2
54 Fed. Req . at 18750 (May 2, 1989). But, as you know, the
Agency has never proposed the .planned omnibus NPDES rulemaking it
considered some years ago. C-- equently, EPA has never
promulgated regulations outlining its criteria for partial
program approval.
We understand that Region IV staff have expressed concern
about whether, in light of this history, EPA may approve partial
State sewage sludge program submissions without Part 123 partial
program criteria. We do not view the absence of regulatory
criteria as a legal impediment to case-by-case approval of
partial programs for the following reasons. First, the grant of
authority in section 405(f) is broad and general. Second, unlike
section 402(n), there is no specific statutory limitation on
approval of partial sewage sludge programs in section 405.
Finally, the Part 501 sewage sludge permit program regulations
have explicitly recognized that, in appropriate circumstances,
partial programs could be authorized. Consequently, where EPA
can cor clude that a State partial sewage sludge permit program
does, in fact, assure compliance with section 405, section 405
would authorize EPA approval of the partial program and EPA
retention of authority over the unauthorized elements of the
program.
2 As a result, section 501.1(d) (1) now refers the reader to
a non-existent provision. The regulation requires that a State
Sludge Management Program must address all sewage sludge
management praccices in the State “unless the State is applying
for partial sludge program approval in accordance with Part 40
CFR 123.30.”
-------
3
we conclude that EPA may adopt a case-by-case approach to
approval of partial sewage sludge programs in the absence of
regulations establishing the partial program approval criteria.
However, such an approach will require EPA to articulate clearly.
in any individual program approval proceeding, the Agency’s
approval criteria. The Agency must also provide an opportunity
for the public to comment on the approval criteria, and EPA must
fully explain its reasons for approval of any specific State
partial sewage sludge permit program.
You have specifically asked whether EPA may approve partial
State sewage sludge permit programs which do not cover all areas
within the jurisdiction of the administering State agency. We
believe we could do so. 3 A State may request approval for a
partial State sewage sludge permit program that covers a primary
category of the sewage sludge use or disposal practices or
facilities falling under the jurisdiction of the administering
State agency or department. The submission must constitute a
significant and identifiable part of the State’s sludge
management activities or facilities. For example, the partial
program may address one or more of the following categories of
sewage sludge use or disposal practices: incineration, land
application, and surface disposal. A State, at a minimum, must
administer a complete permit program, including permit
development, issuance, compliance and enforcement
responsibilities with respect to the area for which it requests
partial program approval.
As with any State seeking sewage sludge program
authorization, Georgia must develop and submit for EPA approval a
program submission meeting the requirements of Part 123 (for
NPDES program submittals) or Part 501 (non-NPDES program
submittals). This includes the development of appropriate State
legal authorities, a program description, an Attorney General’s
Statement, and a memorandum of agreement. The public must have
an opportunity to comment on whether EPA should approve the
Georgia partial program submittal during the formal program
approval process under 40 C.F.R. Part 123 or 501. We will be
happy to work with Region IV staff and Georgia during the program
development process.
The statutory nditions for approval of State NPDES
discharge programs under section 402 differ from those for
approval of sewage sludge permit programs under section 405(f).
Thus, section 405(f) would authorize EPA to approve a partial
sewage sludge permit program administered through the State NPDES
program under less restrictive conditions than those required for
CWA discharge permit programs under section 402(n). Of course,
the conditions of section 402(n), however, would apply to NPDES
partial programs that regulated discharges of sewage sludge to
navigable waters.
-------
4
You also note that it may be difficult for some States to
seek “complete” State sewage sludge program authorization due to
the complexity of regulating septage use or disposal. We are
aware of the need for flexibility in order to accommodate various
approaches to regulating septage under an approvable program. We
will work with the Regions and specific States to develop
approvable programs which include or do not include septage
regulation, where appropriate.
If you would like to discuss this matter further, please
call Richard Witt at (202) 260-7715 or Cynthia Dougherty at (202)
260-9545.
CC: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Sludge Coordinators, Regions I-X
Ramona Trovato, OECA
John Barker, RC, Region IV
ORC Water Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Elaine Brenner
Gary Hudiburgh
-------
c i 1,
,r.t FdPi ,
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECflON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUL I -
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy Statement on Scope of Discharge Authorizat Con
and Shield Associa ,pd NPDES Permits
FROM: Robert
Assistant Adminisffitor for Water
%( / k teven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
Jean C. Nelson Q A &Y &--
General Counsel -
TO: Regional Administrators
Regional Counsels
Recently, questions have been raised regarding EPA’S
interpretation of the scope of the “shield” associated with
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 402(k) of the CWA --
the “shield” provision -— provides that compliance with an NPDES
permit shall be deemed compliance, for purposes of section 309
and 505 enforcement, with sections 301, 302, 306, 307 and 403 of
the CWA (except for any standard imposed under section 307 for
toxic pollutants injurious to human health). This policy
statement describes EPA’S position on the scope of the
authorization to discharge under an NPDES permit, and the shield
thus associated with the permit authorization. -
Individual NPDES Permits
As part of an application for an individual NPDES permit,
EPA require. that an applicant provide information on its
facility. In the case of industrial permit applications, this
includes sp.cific information about the presence and quantity of
a number of specific pollutants in the facility’s effluent, as
well as on all waste streams and operations contributing to the
facility’s effluent and the treatment the wastevater receives.
Applications for municipal discharges focus primarily on the
operation and treatment processes at the municipal treatment
works. See 40 C.F.R. S 122.21. -
Historically, EPA has viewed the permit, together with
material submitted during the application process and information
in the public record accompanying the permit, as important bases
ic Pa
-------
-2-
for an authorization to discharge under section 402 of the CWA.
The availability of the section 402(k) shield is predicated upon
the issuance of an NPDES permit and a permittee’s full’ compliance
with all applicable application requirements, any additional
information requests made by the permit authority and any
applicable notification requirements. See 40 C.F.R. SS122.41(l)
and 122.42 Also see, 45 f . Reg . 33311—12, 33522—23 (May 19,
1980) . - -
A permit provides authorization and therefore a shield for
the following pollutants resulting from facility processes, waste
strean and operations that have been clearly identified in the
permit application process when discharged from specified
outfalls:
1) Pollutants specifically limited in the permit or
pollutants which the permit, fact sheet, or
administrative record explicitly identify as controlled
through indicator parameters;
2) Pollutants for whic . :he permit authority has not
established limits or other permit conditions, but
which are specifically identified as present in
facility discharges during the permit application
process; and
3) Pollutants not identified as present but which are
constituents of wastestreams, operations or processes
that were clearly identified during the permit
application process. 2
With respect to subparts 2 and 3 of the permit authorization
described above, EPA recognizes that a discharger may make
changes to its permitted facility (which contribute pollutants to
the effluent at a permitted outfall) during the effective period
of the NPDES permit. Pollutants associated with these changes
(provided they are within the scope of the operations identified
in the p.rmit application) are also authorized provided the
discharger has complied in a timely manner with all applicable
notification requirements (see 40 C.F.R. SS 122.41(1) and
122.42(a) & (b)) and the permit does not otherwise limit or
prohibit such dischar,e...
Of course, authorization is only provided to discharge
such pollutants within the limits and subject to the conditions
set forth in the oermit.
2 The permit, of course, may explicitly prohibit or limit
the scope of such discharges.
-------
.3.
Notwithstanding any pollutants that may be authorized
pursuant to subparts 1 and 2 above, anNPDES permit does not
authorize the discharge of any pollutants associated with
wastestreams, operations, or processes which existed at the time
of the permit application and which were not clearly identified
during the application process.
General NPDES Permits
Section 402(k) also shields discharges of pollutants
authorized under a general permit. EPA’s position is that
geri ral permits authorize the discharge of all pollutants within
the ‘ pecified scope of a particular general permit, subject to
all, pollutant limits, notification requirements and other
conditions within a particular general permit so long as the
permittee complies with all EPA application requirements for the
general permit.
EPA regulations provide t te circumstances for which
discharges may be authorized r a general permit. See 40
C.F.R. 5122.28. To obtain autnorization to discharge under a
general permit (and consequently, the protection of the shield),
in most cases, the prospective permittee must submit either a
written notice of intent to be subject to ths general permit or a
permit application as appropriate. General permittees are also
subject to the notification provisions of 40 C.F.R. SS 122.41 and
122.42.
W! ile NPDES permits may authorize the discharge of
pollutants associated with intermittent flows, permits do not
generally authorize the discharge of pollutants associated with
spills. There may be limited circumstances where anticipated
spills are fully disclosed to EPA and considered during the
permitting process as documented in the public record consistent
with applicable NPOES regulations. In such circumstances the
discharger of pollutants from such spills would be authorized so
long as the p.rmit does not otherwise limit or prohibit such
discharges and such a spill does not violate any statutory or
regulatory provision.
CERCLA . -
Finally, there also has been some question regarding the
relationship of t..e NPDES permit shield and the “federally
permitted release” exemption under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
-------
.4.
EPA’s position is that the scope of federally permitted releases
under CERCLA section lOl(l0)(A), (B) and (C) is currently defined
by the regulations at 40 C.F.R. S 117 1.2, which iuplement
language in section 311 of the CWA that is very s milar to the
federally permitted release definitions. Thus, the Agency takes
the position that the NPDES permit shield outlined above in no
way expands the scope of the federally permitted releases under
CERCLA.
Next Steps
T e Office of Water has established two regulatory
workgroups which are working on revisions to the NPDES permit
application regulations for municipal and industrial dischargers.
We want the regulations to ensure the applicant has the
responsibility to more fully characterize the nature of its
effluent, and the contributions of the effluent to the receiving
water. In addressing this issue, we will review EPA’S position
on the scope of the shield provided by S402(k). In addition, we
will consider changes to related NPDES permit regulations,
including whether to revise the requirements for: facilities to
notify EPA (or the State) of modifications to its operations or
processes; facilities to notify EPA (or the State) of changes in
the discharge; notification to the public of the nature of the
discharge limitations a peraittee is held responsible for; and
the use cf ir. icator pollutants.
We encourage the Regions to actively participate in the
development of these updated regulations. The current schedule
calls for proposal of the changes to the municipal application
requirements in 1994 an’ romulgation of the revised regulations
in 1996. Our new scheduie for changes to the industrial
application requirements, for which there is more interest in
permit shield issues, is proposal of the regulation changes in FY
1995.
If you have any questions on these issues, please contact us
or have your staff contact, Cynthia Dougherty in the Office of
Water at 202 260—9545, David Kindin in the Office of Enforcesertt
at 202 501—6004, or Richard Witt in OGC at 202 260—7715.
cc: Elliott P. Laws
Regional Water Management Division Directors
ORC Water Branch Chiefs
Lois Schiffer, DOJ
Joel Gross, DOJ
-------
Ljr,itec States Office of Researcn and EPA,600R-94 :29
Environmental Protection Develooment Septemoer 1994
Agency Washunglon DC 20460
“,EPA Stormwater Pollution
Abatement Technologies
-------
sD SP 4
f UNIThD STATES ENVtRONMENTAL PROTECflON AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 7 994
CfFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Protection
FROM: . Robert Perciasepe
Assistant
TO: Office of Water Office Directors
Water Management Division Directors
Environmental Services Division Directors
Chesapeake Bay Program Director
Great Lakes National Program Director
Gulf of Mexico Program Director
Ecosystem protection is at the core of Administrator Browner’s goals for
reoriertting EPA towards a more holistic approach to environmental protection. The
Adxniius ator has called on us to forge partnerships with States and other public and
private parties to achieve place-based environmental protection. We also must build
the programmatic framework and the tools that are essential to make place-based
protection work. In response, senior EPA managers aeated a consensus t IIing for
ecosystem protection that is driven by the key environmental problems that occur in
particular geographic places. As envisioned, such environmental management would
be sed ‘n sound sdentiflc E formation and tech: ques, and tegr g l for i c r -
term ecosystem health with those for economic stability and involve stakeholders from
the places to help define the problems, set priorities, and implement solutions.
Place-based environmental protection is not new to the National Water Program.
We are supporting over 130 place-based initiatives. These include nationally known
and treasured watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay, the San Franascor Bay Delta, the
Everglades, and the Great La1es . Locally treasured watersheds are included too, like
Clear Creek, Colorado; Beaver Lake, Arkansas; and the Clwhalis River in Washington.
Our experience has taught us that we need to improve our programs to make them
work better for States and other partners who are pursuing a place-based approach.
In May, I established the Watershed Management Policy Committee because I
believe that, through the watershed approach. we have the opportunity to establish
£ . R.....—.JL-
-—
‘1( 7 a — -
The Watershed Approach: Our
for
-------
national Leadership in realizing the vision for ecosystem protection supported by
Administrator Browner. I know that many of you share my belief. The Watershed
Management Policy Comrzuttee will serve as a leadership forum for coordinating the
water program to support the watershed approach and thus implement ecosystem
protection. This memo defines my vision for ecosystem protection through the
watershed approach. I am excited about and committed to moving this effort forward.
VISION FOR EPAS WA JI SHED APPROACH
Clean water and healthy, sustainable ecosystems
as a result of comprehensive yet tailored
water resource management eDe?ywhere.
We will know we nave achieved our vision when our work is driven by
environmental objectives rather than programmatic requirements. This means
coordinating and tailoring the services we provide to meet the needs of ecosystems.
Consistent with the Agency’s mission, we view ecosystems as the interactions of
complex, dynamic communities that indude people with their physical surroundings;
thus, healthy ecosystems provide for the health and welfare of humans as well as other
living things.
We can achieve our vision over time by working together—inaeasthgly
integrating assessments, aligning prionties, and coordinating actions, while maintaining
the important environmental improvements we have already made. Programs
individually working on a watershed basis will not be sufficient to attain our vision,
rather a concerted effort to integrate our programs into a unified, national water
program is required.
GIJIDNG PRINCIPLES FOR EPA’S WATERSHED APPROACH
A few key prinaples guide EPA’s watershe’ approach.
Geographic Focus-Management activities are directed within specific
geographical areas, typically the areas that drain to surface water bodies or that
recharge or overlay ground waters or a combination of both.
Action Driven by Environmental Objectives an& by Strong Science and Data-
Collectively, managers employ sound scientific data, tools, and techniques in an
iterative process that indudes: characterization of the natural resources and the
communities that depend upon them: identificationof environmental objectives
based on the condition of ecological resources ar& the needs of people within the
comrnuxuty; use of scientifically valid methods to characterize priority problems
and solutions; development and implementation of action plans; and evaluation
of effectiveness.
-------
• Partnerships—Those parties most affected by management decsions are
involved throughout and shape key deasions. Management teams indude
representatives from local, State,’ and Federal agencies, and appropriate public
interest groups, industries, academic institutions, private landowners, and
con cerTted dtizerts. This involvement ensures that environmental objectives are
well integrated with those for economic stability, and that the people who
depend upon the water resources within the watersheds are kept well informed
of management concerns and actions and are invited to partidpate in planning
and implementation activities.
• Coordina 1 itd Priority Setting and Inteç:ted Solutions—The ultimate goal of
EPAs water program is to fadlitate attainment of environmental objectives
everywhere in the United States. Because needs vary front place to place, and
because there are limited resources, and because there are numerous water-
rela ted programs at all levels of government, a comprehensive,
multiorganizational approach is required. Through coordinated efforts,
appropriate parties can establish priorities and take integrated actions based on
consideration of all environmental issues, including threats to public health
(including drinking water supply) and surface and ground water, as well as the
need to protect critical habitat and biological integrity.
WHAT DOES TI-US MEAN FOR WATER PROGRAMS ?
EPA will promote and support the watershed approach at local, State, and
Federal levels arid implement our programs in a manner tailored to meet the specific
needs within watersheds. We recognize that successful management of specific
watersheds is critically dependent upon State and local governments and citizens who,
in many cases, will develop and implement action plans and who have the keenest
sense of the problems and opportunities presented within their communities. Because
our programs are generally implemented by the States, however, we will look to States
to create the fr neworks through which we upp’ rtloc l efforts.
• Invest in State Reorientations —States are pivotal in providing coordination and
direction for the watershed approach. EPA will encourage States to merge their
planning for all water resources into one truly comprehensive effort. To that
end, EPA will promote and support comprehensive State programs through
which States:
- Map the watersheds (this includes making decisions about scale and
“nesting” of watersheds as well as providing for addressing surface and
ground water issues); -
- Set and/or adopt goals (e.g., water quality standards, drinking water
MCL.s, overall no net loss of wet1ands)
Throughout this ocumer t. the word Star s meant to rnc ude the 5tar . Temtortes and ekçbl. Tnbes
-3-
-------
- Establish priorities (ultimately combirung the priorities of specific
programs into a comprehensive set of priorities);
- Convene and oversee management teams (commissioning existing teams
as appropriate); and
- Implement integrated and effective solutions.
In some cases, for example, in those watersheds that cvss State or national
boundaries, EPA and other Federal agencies may provide leadership for
management efforts.
Realign Federal Services to Meet Local Needs as Defined through State
Programs-EPA and other Federal agencies will provide financial and tecnnical
support for comprehensive State watershed programs and, through the States,
local watershed teams.
In particular, EPA will continue to provide guidance for establishing citeria and
standards on a watershed basis and expand its focus to include 1) issues facing
Native Americans and economically disadvantaged minorities; and 2) physical
and biological endpoints, such as habitat and wildlife To enhance good
deasion-making, we will continue to support compreh nsive ecological risk
assessment and to improve modeling tools. We also will improve monitoring
capabilities and coordinate monitoring programs to provide sound information;
and we will provide guidance to identify appropriate environmental measures of
success.
In addition, as appropriate we will implement programs on a watershed basis
(e.g., permit decisions and targeted nonpoint source grants to accelerate
watershed-based runoff control) and streamline program requirements,
providing for multipurpose planning, funding, and reporting.
EPA will continue to develop partnerships with other Federal agencies, as well as
with States and local governments and nongovernmental organizations, to
achieve our vision.
KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WATERSHED APPROACH
How can the watershed approach achieve EPA’s vision for ecosystem protection?
The watershed approach is entirely consistent with and can serve as a foundation
for place-based ecosystem protection; thus, it can help achieve EPA’s vision for
ecosystem protection. Indeed, the momentum and success of the watershed anp roach
and its “predecessors,” the National Estuary Program, Great Water Bodies programs,
and the Clean Lakes Program, strongly influenced the development of EPA’s ecosystem
protection approach.
-4-
-------
How can the, watershed approach address both ground water and surface water
protection?
To be comprehensive, the approach requires consideration of all environmental
concerns, including needs to protect public health (indudirig drinking water), critical
habitat such as wetlands, biological integrity, and surface and ground waters. It is
critical that all relevant programs coordinate priorities so that all water resources are
more effectively and effiaently protected. This requires improved coordination among
Federal, State, and local agencies so that all appropriate concerns are represented. Such
involvement is especially important to integrate our emerging programs—ground water,
wetlands, and drinking water source protection—with older program frameworks. So,
for example, the priorities set by Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection
Programs (CSCWPP), Welihead Protection Programs, National Estuary Programs, or
State Management Plans for Pesticides would be considered along with those for
wetlands protection and our more traditional programs for point and nonpoint source
pollution prevention and control.
When delineating geographical areas as management units, boundaries should
be cons tructed to accommodate hydrologic connections and processes and address the
problems at hand. So, particular management areas may vary depending on the
problems to be addressed. For example, when ground water contributes significantly to
surface water flow, the management unit should indude the ground water recharge
a’rea. When the vulnerability of drinking water to contamination is of primary concern,
then the drinking water source (e.g., reservoir or wellhead protection area) should be
the area upon which attention is focused. When the protection of an aquifer is of
primary concern, the management area should include the overlaying or recharging
area and recognize impacts upon surface water.
How do we invest in the watershed approach while maintaining our baseline levels
of protection?
We have made great strides in improving water quality through the application
of standard, national measures, particularly for point sources (e.g., technology-based
controls) and for drinking water at the tap. We have an obligation to continue the
statutory mandates and our base programs (i.e., traditional grants and regulatory
programs). Our challenge is to reframe our implementation activities through the
watershed approach in a manner that will allow us to better fulfill those obligations.
To be most effective, the watershed approach depends upon improved
coordination of all programs, so, it will require incremental adjustments to the
application of national programs. The NPDES. watershed strategy provides a good
model. Regional staff are assessing to what extent the States are applying watershed
approaches and how the NPDES program may need to cnange to support each State in
its effort. It is likely, for example. that the NPD ES program will become more
customized, State by State, gradually providing for cooperative monitoring and
synchronized permits, and promoting rnechazusrns to deal with cumulative impacts of
-------
point and nonpoLflt Sources. The realigrtxner%t will be realized over tune as the Ragions
and States build their capacity and break down barriers to using the watershed
approach. Similarly, as our place-based programs, such as Natiortai Estuary Program
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans or Spate CSGWPPs, are endorsed,
the Agency will work to support their goals and objectives. Aithough this requii es an
initial investment in coordination and program reorientation, we anticipate that both
EPA and the States will ultimately save resources as we reduce duplicative efforts and
better target controls in watersheds.
Because there are limited resources and a znultft’zde of programs with specific
goals and objectives, priorities will need to be oss checked and sorted out among
programs. We are not suggesting that States stop all current activities in order to adopt
coordinated watershed-based planning and priority setting rather, we support a
phased-in approach whereby those implementation activities that have already been
identified as high priority continue to be implemented as States, with EPA support,
build comprehensive planning mechanisms. Over the long term, however, we envision
that all water resource planning should be carried out in a coordinated fashion and that
implementation activities in particular places will correspond to the goals and objectives
established jointly by watershed communities, the States, EPA, and other stakeholders.
We will work with the States to set the framework necessary to carry out joint planning
and priority setting. Fortunately, computer technologies, such as GIS, are available to
Ftelp us sort out overlaps and conflicts in goals, objectives, and priorities.
We will continue to build on the successes of our place-based programs and
increasingly integrate assessments, sort out and establish joint priorities, and coordinate
actions among programs in order to realize the transition to the watershed approach.
Whether a State starts with its NPDES watershed strategy, its CSGWPP, its Wetlands
Conservation Plan, its National Estuary Program, its Great Water Bodies Program, or
other water resource, place-based strategy, we will support the State in moving to an
even more comprehensive approach to protecting water resources. Ultimately. we hope
to see comprehensive State watershed programs that involve all appropriate State
agency staff in setting goals, establishing priorities, convening and overseeing
wate hed ‘earns, and implen . ting integrated and ffective sc...tions.
How will criteria and standards accommodate the watershed approach?
The ex ting criteria and standards program provides- the statutory basis for
delivering the data, information, and tools needed to support and enhance water
resources management decisions. To meet watershed needs, the program is moving
beyond its traditional focus on toxic chemicals. fl addition, the ecological risk
assessment framework provides a structured scientific method for identifying arid
assessing the problems impairing the waters and for assisting local decision makers in
determining the ecological potential of watersheds and uses to be induded in the
applicable water quality standards. Similar work provides the basis for drinking water
standards that drive efforts to protect source waters or decisions to treat the water prior
to public use. An expanded suite of criteria and implementation guidance will cover
-6-
-------
factors affecting the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters within
watersheds and result in the adoption of new water quality standards. In turn, those
new standards will serve as environmental objectives and provide the statutory basis
for irnpleme tng the pollution prevention and source control measures identified for
particular watersheds.
NEXT STEPS
Over the next few months, under the direction of the Watershed Policy
Committee, EPA’s water program managers will reevaluate and make a commitment to
carry out the specific work needed to support the watershed approach. The resuLtant
action plan will indude and specifically address these broad directions:
• Enhance Interagency Coordination
- Obtain Commitment—Take action to reaffirm commitment to and provide
direction for coordinating Federal activities.
- Provide Support-Provide assistance to the States as they assemble State-
focused interagency teams and support local watershed ecosystem protection
efforts.
• Build State Watershed Programs—Continue to integrate ecisting program-specific
efforts, such as the NPDES watershed strategy, CSGWPP, theemerging
drinking water source water protection initiative, State Wetland Conservation
Plans, and State Nonpoint Source programs, into comprehensive State
watershed programs.
• Expand the Toolbox-Devekp tools (methods, models, citeria, indicators,
monitoring, etc.) that are necessary for efficient and effective watershed
management and facilitate their application. A particular effort is needed to
ascertain how to establish joint priorities aaoss d1ff 11 e 11 t environmental
protection . objectives and programs.
• Improve IritraEPA Coordination
- Streamline Program Requirements-For example, provide for multipurpose
planning, funding, and reporting for State and local watershed efforts.
- Network-Building on CSGWPP’s success in networking, establish
relationships with other EPA offices to garner support for the watershed
approach.
• Reach Out to Watershed Stakeholders
- WATERSHED ‘95—A national conference to promote the watershed .‘proach
among a.ll stakeholders.
- Publicize Our Effort—Publish a united report on watershed accomplishments.
-7-
-------
Most importantly, working with our colleagues in the public and private sector
and espeaally our counterparts in the States, we will continue to build the necessary
framework and clarify the work to be done to achieve our vision.
CONCLUSION
Today more than ever there is a aitical need for comprehensive environmental
protection. The world is not compar nentalized connections are the rule. We cannot
make deasions about ground water without considering suiface water and vice versa.
We cannot make deasions about environmental impacts without considering econonuc
and sodal impacts. As John Muir put it, “When we yto pick out anything by i elf, we
find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” To be fiscally responsible, we must
work dosely together to eliminate duplicative efforts and, even more oublin&
conflicting efforts. But most importantly, to be ecologically responsible we must
connect our own work in order to reflect, respect, and effectively protect the vital
ecosystem connections that are characteristic of our environment. rm looking forward
to working with you to accomplish our vision.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
OCT 1 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy for End of Moratorium for Storm Water
Permitting--October 1, 1994
FROM: Michael B. Cook, Director
—j.r Office of Wastewater Managemen
Robert Van Heuvelen, DirectorY ——: ‘
Off ice of Regulatory Enforcement
TO: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
NPDES State Water Program Directors
Section 402(p) (1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
cannot be required for discharges composed entirely of storm
water prior to October 1, 1994, except for discharges identified
in Section 402(p) (2) of the Act. The purpose of this memorandum
is to provide guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA or Agency) with respect to permit application requirements
for these discharges after October 1, 1994.
Background
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (later
known as the Clean Water Act or CWA), was amended to provide that
a point source discharge of pollutants to waters of the United
States is unlawful except as authorized by a NPDES permit. The
1987 amendments to the CWA provides three exemptions from this
permit requirement for certain discharges composed entirely of
storm water, two of which are permanent, and one of which was
temporary. Section 402(1) (2) of the CWA provides that the EPA
shall not require a permit for discharges of storm water runoff
from mining operations or oil and gas exploration, production,
processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities if
the storm water discharge is not contaminated by contact with, or
does not come into contact with, any overburden, raw material,
intermediate product, finished product, byproduct, or waste
product located on the site of such operations.L Section
See 40 CFR 122.26(a) (2) for implementing regulations.
-------
2
502(14) of the CWA excludes agricultural storm water discharges
from the definition of point source, thereby excluding these
discharges from the requirement to be authorized by an NPDES
permit 2
Section 402(p) (1) of the CWA provides that EPA or NPDES
States cannot require a permit for discharges composed entirely
of storm water prior to October 1, 1994, except for discharges
identified in Section 402(p) (2) of the Act. Section 402(p) (2)
identifies five classes of discharges composed entirely of storm
water which were exempt from the moratorium on NPDES permits. 4
This constitutes phase I of the storm water program:
(A) A discharge with respect to which has been issued a permit
prior to-February 4, 1987;
(B) A discharge associated with industrial activity;
(C) A discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) serving a population of 250,000 or more;
CD) A discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) serving a population of 100,000 or more, but less than
250,000; and
CE) A discharge for which the Administrator or the State
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.
Section 402(p) (6) of the CWA requires that EPA, in
consultation with State and local officials, is to issue
regulations by no later than October 1, 1993, which designate
additional storm water discharges not identified in Section
402(p) (2) of the CWA to be regulated to protect water quality and
establish a comprehensive program to regulate such designated
2 See 40 CFR 122.2 for implementing regulations.
The 1987 amendments to the CWA provided that permits for
affected storm water sources could not be required prior to
October 1, 1992. The moratorium deadline was extended to
October 1, 1994, by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992.
See 40 CFR 122.26(a) (1) for implementing regulations.
The 1987 amendments to the CWA provided that EPA
must issue regulations under Section 402(p) (6) of the CWA by
October 1, 1992. This deadline was extended to October 1, 1993,
by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992.
-------
3
sources. This constitutes phase II of the storm water program.
EPA has not issued these regulations at this time.
Several legislative proposals were introduced in Congress to
amend certain provisions of the CWA, including NPDES requirements
for storm water discharges. All major proposals would either
eliminate the statutory requirement at Section 4 02(p) (6) to
establish NPDES regulations for discharges composed entirely of
storm water previously in the permit moratorium (discharges not
identified in Section 402(p) (2)), and would identify which
moratorium storm water discharges, if any, would be subject to
the NPDES program, or would give EPA additional time to identify
those discharges subject to permit requirements. Congress did
not act on reauthorization of the CWA this session, so none of
the comprehensive amendments to the storm water section of the
law were adopted.
Clarification of Reauirementa
EPA did not issue regulations for implementing the
requirements of Section 402(p) (6) of the CWA before October 1,
1994. However, the Agency and approved NPDES States are unable
to waive the statutory requirement that point source discharges
of pollutants to waters of the United States need an NPDES
permit.
At this time, EPA has completed a draft study identifying
potential point source discharges of storm water for regulatory
consideration under the requirements of Section 402(p) (6) of the
CWA. In addition, the Agency has initiated a process to develop
implementing regulations.
General application requirements for the NPDES program are
contained in 40 CFR 122.21(f). As noted above, however, a
process is underway to develop more specific requirements
relating to storm water dischargers covered by section 402(p) (6).
Development of more focussed application requirements will be
part of this effort. EPA plans to develop these requirements
through the rulemaking process and will seek comment and public
input before issuing final regulations.
Dischargers previously covered by the moratorium should
note that under EPA’S Storm Water Enforcement Strategy (dated
January 12, 1994) the Agency’s compliance/enforcement priorities
in the early stages of the storm water program, through FY 1995,
will be the identification of and appropriate compliance and
enforcement action on:
1. Phase I MS4s that have failed to submit a timely or
complete permit application;
-------
4
2. Regulated phase I storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that have failed to apply for a permit
and are outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of a
regulated phase I MS4; and
3. Regulated phase I storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that have failed to apply for a permit
and are within the jurisdictional boundaries of a regulated
phase I MS4.
The Agency does recognize that under the CWA, citizen suits
can be brought against operators of phase II point source
discharges composed entirely of storm water to waters of the U.S.
that are not authorized by an NPDES permit after October 1, 1994.
If you have any questions, please contact Cynthia Dougherty,
Director, Permits Division, at (202) 260-9545, or have your staff
contact William Swietlik, Chief, Storm Water Section, at
(202) 260-9529.
cc: Susan G. Lepow
-------
11/02/94 09:40 703 358 1735 FWSDI? JDSP — _______ —— 002/004
United States Department of the Interior
National Biological Survey
t,fldweg Sdence Center
4200 New Haven I l Iad
Columbia, MIssouri 65201
October21, 1994
Threatened and endang.r.d species have hmit.d distributions and any further adverse effects on
these populations could lead to extinction. Contaminants vie iCably enter the envi onmsnt from
local land use practices (agrlcul e. forsetry, mining, urban development) and becaus, of the wide
use of chemicals by agriculture, industry, and the public. Numerous Federal agencies have program
responsibilities for resource management. Federal agencie. are required by the Endangered Species
Act to evaluate the impact of their program activities on threatened and sndsng.rsd species.
Listed species may be under protected, or unnecessary regulatory programs may be implemented. if
the contaminant risk to listed ‘ poc 1 es is not evaluated.
A workshop including participants from th. Ash and Wildlife Service, Department of Agncufture.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). National Biological Survey INBS) and others will be held to
discuss the impacts of contaminants on threatened and endangered species. This workshop is to
be held in April, 1995 at the NBS Midwest Scienco Center (Columbia, MO) or the EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory - Gulf Breeze (FL). Th. goal of the workshop Is to develop
data-based approaches for assessing the hazards of contaminants to endangered aquatic species.
Prior to this workshop we want to compile and evaluate the information needs of federal agencies
to address endangered species and conteminants. Your assistance in this proe s Is appreciated.
Please complet. the enclosed informational sheet by 11111194 and return to:
Midwest Science Center
Attil: Jim Dwyer
4200 New Haven Road
Columbia. MO 65201
Please feel free to maks additional copies of this informational sheet and route it to other
individuals within your office or individuals within other federal agencies with which you have
workad. A summary of the findings from this workshop will be provided to all those individuals
who respond to this information request. If you have any Questions contact Jim Dwyer (314-875-
5399).
Sincerely;
LQ 4 _
Denny R. Budder
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IN .Y
-------
11/0 ’94 09:40 iUJ Ll4o r - ’ u r i uu,i’uu .
DATA NEEDS FOR AQUATiC ThREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Name:
Position:
Agency:___________ State or Region: — Phone:_________________
1. What are the primary sources of contaminants which may be impacting
threatened and endangered (T&E) species in your area.
_municipal effluent _Industrial effluent _urban runoff
_min lng practices _agricultural spraying
_Iivestock (cattle, hogs, poultry) operations
_suspended solids from forestry or agricultural practices
other (please specify)
2. Please provide Information concerning the situations that require you to
evaluate the effects of contaminants on T&E species.
3. What effects are contaminants having on the T&E species in your area.
_impacts on survival _impacts on reproductive success
_lmpacts on food sources for T&E species
_impacts on habitat
-------
11/02/94 09:41 703 35 173 1WS—iIL’ t.II) SP 004 /00 .&
4. What type of information do you currently use to evaluate the risk of
contaminant exposure to T&E species.
5. What information would allow you to adequately evaluate the risk to T&E
species from contaminant exposure.
(For example: chemical effects on the species of concern; effects of water
quality on toxicity of various chemicals; information regarding relative
sensitivity of standard test organisms.)
6. Toxicity tests are often required In order to adequately evaluate the
sensitivity of a species to contaminant exposure. With this In mind:
a.__would T&E species be available for toxicity testing;
b._could surrogate species be identified for the T&E species which would
allow for toxicity testing without using T&E species.
7. What other issues have not been addressed in this survey that are important
in the evaluation of contaminant risk to T&E species.
Please return by 11/11/94 to: Jim Dwyer, Midwest Science Center 1 4200 New
Haven Road. Columbia, MO 65203. For further information call 314-875-5399.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
I WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
\ .. ,I
A Z 994
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Moving the NPDES Progi in to a Watershed Approach
FROM: MId e1 B. Cook, Directo 11 .
Office of Wutewa&er Mana nent
TO: Water Managanait Divi on Directors, Regions 1-10
I am pleased to iiamit ir rep MoWr 11* NPDE P)’OgF . 100 Wat ,SJI
Appr cFi. As plain.d thu ng ..ch of the 1994 Regional visita, the purpose of this report is in
summarize the s’ ” of Regional efforts to implement the NPDES Wassihed S ategy and
highlight the vazu as approaches used to develop State sesenients, Regional A on Plans, and
Internal Stra1e es. The Report capsiulizes the Regional views an ismies, needs, and erpected
benefits with regard to implanaiting the NPDES Watershed S ste ,, and disc ism the types of
activities Regions believe the Oflice of Waatewater Management (OWM) should undertake to
support Regional implementation of both the Strategy and the bn,al r Watershed Protection
Approach.
The Repofl indj t that Regional proçams ate mIMn$ progres. in implanaiting the
Strategy since it was fin liue4 in March 1994. Nine of the ten Region. projected that they would
submit thair Intemal S itegie. and completed State Assessments and Regional Action Plans for
39 Statci and Puerto Rico in September ssessmaits and Regional Action Plans for the
remaining 12 State . and the Diathct of Columbia sie cpected to be completed in FY95. Each
Regional office has eatablished some vaziaxion of an internal workgzwp to serve as a focus for
Regional watershed protection oits. These workgroups tend to have multi-program
representation ft both the Water Management Division and Environmental Services Division.
The combined list of Regional iuues and needs reflect common than.. sii h as
coordinated lead p in the Office of Waxer (OW), and anbWty in implemamng watershed
protec on efforts. These common issues and needs are having an impact on our activities in
OWM, and ate bang shared with other OW Programs. I ecpect that they will also be considered
in upcoming mln*gpmait dit ’ ’cns.
Sd ’,r tI
c\ p So c -
‘CQ’ m
-------
We hops thg the Report prumotes ideas aDd thmWates diIcuaD i across the Regions
and S’ ’a’,. P1= fed free to call me Jeff Lape ’ NPDES Waterihed Mathz Manager, at
(202) 260.S23eifyon have any quesüons regarding the Report
Attachment
cc. Bob Perciasepe
Bob Waylanó
Tim Eder
Tudor Davies
Permits Branch Clith Regions 1-10
Cynthia Dongherty
? ke Quigisy
Ramoan Trovato
Jane Epbrimsdes
-------
MOVING THE NPDES PROGRAM TO
A WATERSHED APPROACH
October 1994
U. S. Envir mentaI Prote ücn Ag cy
Office of Wastewaxer Manag ie t
Permits Divisicu
401M Street SW.
Washington DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUIIVE SUMMARY .1
1 0 Iniroducuon .1
1.1 Background. 1
1 2 Purpose and Methodology - I
1.3 Organization of this Report . 2
2.0 RegiOnal Internal S azegies 3
2.1 St ft1t 3
2.2 Approaches 3
2.3 Organizational Change 4
3.0 State Assessment., and Regional Action Plans 4
3.1 St ts 4
3 2 Approaches 5
33 Regional Observations 6
40 NPDES Watershed Sti’ategy Components 6
41 Statewide Coordanan 6
4.3 Monitoring and Assessment 7
44 Programmatic Mea ires and Environments! 8
4.5 Public Participation 8
4.6 Enforcsment 8
50 IssuesandNeeds 9
S l lssues 9
5.2 Needs 10
5.3 Headquarters Implenientation Plan Feedback 12
6 0 Benefit, of a Watershed Sti ategy 12
6.1 Potential Benefits of an Overall Watershed Svategy 13
6.2 Examples&Wa shedSucc ws 13
70 Summary 14
Table of Regional and State Watershed Contacts A-i
Table of State Progress and Highlights .. B-I
Table of Issues andNeeds C-i
Action Items for NPDES Watershed Sti tegj’ Implenienzation. D-i
-------
CU11VE ARY
The Watershed Protection Approach represents the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA’s) renewed emphasis on understanding and addressing all surface water, ground water, and
habitat stressors within a geographically defined area, instead of viewing individual pollutant
sources in isolation. On March 21, 1994, EPA’s Assistant Mministrator for Water signed the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Watershed Strategy. The purpose of
the Strategy is to integrate the NPDES Program into the broader *atershed Protection Approach
and support development of Statewide basin management approaches (BMAs) 1 . Basin
management is a Statewide approach designed to meat the objectives of the broader Watershed
Protection Approath The Strategy identifies key action it ns for the’NPDES Program and
emphasizes cntical areas in which the NPDES Program must coordinate its point source control
activities with the efforts of other water programs.
The Assistant Administrator for Water requested three products from EPA Regions in
the NPDES Watershed Strategy transmittal memorandum:
• State-by-Stat. Auessments and Regional Action Plans - An assessment of
watershed protection activities and needs in each State and, in light of that
assessment, plans that identify how the Region will support and facilitate each
State’s movement toward the Watershed Proteaion Approach
• State/EPA Workplan Agreements- Specific activities within Stare/EPA
workplans for fiscal year 1995 that promote the central components of watershed
protection;
• Internal Coordinadon - Integrated Regional strategies that describe the Regional
decision ma ng processes, oversight role, and internal coordination efforts of the
various water programs necessary to ensure support for the Watershed Protection
Approach.
During the months of June and July 1994, representatives from the Office Wastewater
Management (OWM), Permits Division. visited each EPA Region to discuss Regional progress in
implementing the NPDES Watershed Strategy. This report represents a synthesis of the
individual Regional reports. In particular, it discusses approaches to developing and progress
toward completing Regional Internal Strategies, and State Assessments and Regional Action
Plans, activities related to the NPDES Watershed Strategy components; Regional issues and
needs concerning the Watershed Protection Approach; and espected benefits from implementing
the Watershed Protection Approach
t1 purposes of this dacu , t t ms Sigew de bans m -” r apçroacb (BMA) Swew de
wa1exs1 d pmtecuon appioseb sie wicuded to ithr to i1 cpç ttgy n COsZp! hF.UVe Swewt&
appm l s to ma water resoui es on a geogi pbac basis
I
-------
The findinp 0(the R gicnal reviews suggest that Regions e m*king progress in
implernennng the Stiuzegy since it was completed in March 1994. Nine of the ten Regions
projected that they would submit thar internal Sti ategies and completed Stare Assessments and
Regional ACÜOS P11 515 for 39 Sates and Puerto Rico in September 1994. A tess eats and
Regional ACtIOn Plans for 12 addincnal St ’i and the ismct of C uznbis ate upected to be
completed in fiscal year 1995. Moss Regional offices have established some vanasion 0Cm
internal workgroup to save as a focus for Regional watershed protection efforts These
workgroups tend to have multi-program representation from both the Water Management
Division and Envizcamental Services Division.
Regions have also t fr i steps to implement the six NPDES Watershed Strategy
components: (1) statewide coordination (2) NPDES permits, (3) monitoring and assessment; (4)
programmatic measiwes and environm I indicators; (5) piblic participation; and
(6) enforcement The report discusses some of the Regional efforts related to these components.
Dwing the mid-year visits each Region was asked to identify issues they felt may impede
and activities they felt would assist the implementation of the Wai hed Protection Approach.
The combined list of Regional issues and needs refleot common themes , ueJI as the need for
coordinated Leadership within the Office of Water (OW) for impiem ng the Watershed
Protection Approach, and fl ibility in imp1em ’th’g watershed p W1ion 0Its.
During the Regional visits, OWM asked the Regions to identify amples of
environmental progiess which result flum the application ofa watershed svategy to address
existing issues or prQblem. The Regions also identified areas where they arpeot that a broad-
scale watershed azegy, such as a Statewide ba. n m n genient approach, will prove beneficial
to the environment and to Regional and State agencies. Examples thin both of these areas are
compiled in a section of this report .
II
-------
1.0 Introductio•
This s cn describes the Watthhed Protection Approach and the NPDES Water ed
Strategy, outlinei the pwpose of this report, and uvides a deription of its. .oi’ganiuticn.
ii Raekground
The Watershed Protection Approach is an Office of Water OW) wide initiative which
promotes integrated soluuons to address a irface water, ground waxer, and habitat concerns on a
watershed basis. The Watershed Protection Approach isaita new 1 , u am; rather , it is a
decision rnkking that reflects w for information collection and analysis
and a common understanding of the rcIe priorities and responsibilities of all staktholders
within a watershed.
On March 21, 1994, EPA’s Assistant Mminiatrator for Water si ed the NPDES
Watershed Strategy. The purposes of the S ategy ate ta dcmoastrase EPA’s commitment and
approach for integrating the NPDES program into the broder Watershed Pret# cn Approach
and to support the development of Statewide bn mana ient approaches. The Strategy
identifies key action itenil for the NPDES Pru am and arnphasizes aitical areas in which the
NPDES Program must inte iL . its point saute c ntm La vitiee with the oi of other water
programs.
As first steps toward implementing the NPDES Wat vbsd Strategy, the Assistant
Administrator requested that EPA Region. complete three products by September 1,1994.
These three pro icts are:
• State-by-Stat. Aasessmanta and Regional Action Plan. - An assessment of
watershed protection activities and needs in each State and, in light &that
assessment, plans that identfy how the Region will nmpport and facilitate each
State’s movement toward the-Watershed Protection Approsch
• State /EPA Workplan Agreement. - Specific activities within State/EPA
workplans for fiscal year 1995 that promote the central ccmponenta of watershed
protection
• Internal Coordination - Iinegraled Regional strategies that describe the Regional
decision m*king procetaes over ght role, and internal coordination efforts of the
various waxer programs necessary to ensure nippon for the Watershed Protection
Approach.
1 2 Purpose and Methodology
The purpose of this report is to swiirnarize the s” ’ of implemvutat on of the NPDES
Watershed Strategy. More specifically, the report:
• Highlights EPA Regiona’ efforts to implement the NPDES Watershed Strategy:
1
-------
• DeeuThes ( sauss of concern and needs raised by Regions with regard to the
Watershed Protection Approach and the NPDES Watershed Strategy;
• Provides information to EPA Regions *bo the vuious approaches being “ d by
their counterparts to conduct the State Msessmenu Regional Action Plans, and
Internal Strategicsj.,
• Provides feedback to EPA Headquarters on desired lupport for implementing the
Watershed Protection Approach; and
• Offers Regional perspectives on the succrsm that may result from applying the
Watershed Protection Approach to protect and restore water resources.
During the months of June and July 1994, representatives f the Office of Wastewater
Management (OWM), Permits Division, visited e’ch EPA Region to disaass Regional prowess in
implementing the NPDES Watershed Strategy. These vints were diff t from those of
previous imd-years” or ‘Regional reviews” yesis in f w ways. First, the disrtissions
concentrated on planning and fkmi’e events rather than past perfornerv e. Second, the main
topics of dis issicn centered on the NPDES Watershed S ategy and the Watershed Protection
Approach. Third, the He.dquasisrs iepiw ntaiives used mon çiestic, and Regional report
format to miuttain consistency in information gathering II Regiana ,.Zinaily, this year’s
Regional visits addressed not only on the s’ ” of Regional efforts in implem fting the NPDES
Watershed Strategy, but also afforded the Regions the oppor mity to press their needs and
concerns relative to th Strategy and tho Watershed Pr ecticn A rccb Dining each visit,
Headquarters representatives prepared a substantially complete draft of the Regional report and
discussed it with e h Region. Any Regional comments were incorporated and a final draft
report was prepared for each Region. This report represents a synthesis of the individual
Regional reports.
11 OraanimtionofthiiP t
The remainder of this report is 0 Igani as follows:
• Regional Leternal Strategies. Summarizes the P’u of the Regions’ efforts to
establish Internal Strategies to ensure support for the Watershed Protection
Approach or its approach to developing one. It also discusses the various
procethial and OrgInITh’IOn& approaches used by the Regions.
• State Assessments and Regional Action Plans - Summarizes the stat’s of
completion of the State Assesmients and Regional Aedca Plans and desaibes the
range of approaches taken by the Regions to develop the assessments and plans.
• NPDES Watershed Strategy Components - Discusses a àns being taken by
the Regions to address Strategy components such as statewide coordination,
2
-------
NPDES permits, pro amniadc *2t 3 and M Cfl mZ1al wdiCatcII, ifl utcring
and use vnent, public paroapañon, and enforcem .
• Iuues and Needs - summanzes iwjes raised by Regicc.i with rew to
implementing the NPDES Watershed Straze and the Wazersbed Protection
Approaih needs indks’ed by Regions as neceuazy to suoc illy implement the
Watershed Protection Approach and feedback on potential OWM activities
intended to nippon the S ate . -
• Eapected Benefits - id es mples of nicceu resilting from applicanon of a
watershed aze i to sang isnies or problems.
2.0 Regional Internal Strategies
The Assistant Mminzsvator for Water requested that each Region submit to the O ce of
Wastewater Management (OWM) an Internal Strate dealing with how it plans to make
decisions, provide overngbt, and coordinate its wa management pro ams to ensue support
for the Watershed Prote on Approach. A portion of the Ragional vista focused on the
progress made and approaches taken to develop these w’t gies.
21 Status
Nine Regions projected that they would submit an Internal Stietegy in September 1994. The
remaining Region ccpecta to complete its suaz in the first çiartar Of fiscal year 1995. This
delay is due to extensive State involvement in the stiategy development praocss
22 Approaches
Most Regions have taken two baalc approaches in developing an Internal S sZemr 1) internal
workgroup; and 2) State coordination. All Regions axe developing an Internal Slntm&j ,
document to coordinate implisn. eaiion of Regional watershed antivides and to support State ,
efforts to implement the Watershed Protection Approach. Most Regions have involved the
following programs in the development of thair Internal Strategy: NPDES; Nonpoint Source;
Wetlands; Ground Wa Drinking Water; Enfcroement Water Quality geographically targeted
programs, such the National Estuary Program and the Great Lakes itianve State Revolving
Fund; and Geo aphic Infcrmancn Systems (GIS). In moat cases, elther the Water Quality
Branch or the Wedands and Watershed Branch has the overall Regional lend for watershed
implementation. In addition, all at one Region has identified an NPDES watershed lead to seive
as point of contact for NPDES involvement in watershed implementation 1 The NPDES leads are
often the Permits Branch Chief c c the Pexinits Section Chid “ “ent A provides a list of
Regional and State Watershed Paint of Contacts.
Internal Workgroup: Moat Regions have established some vanation of an internal workgroup to
serve as a focus for Regional Watershed Protec on efforts and to develop thoir Internal Strategy
3
-------
TheSe WO(kgr 1 5 tend to be well epresented fi’uui across the Water Managunent Divition and
from the waz related programs in the Environmental Savices Divfnon.
Stat. C rthnc.th r. Many Regions have held State me n to discuss and to i nr ideas on
how to implement the Watershed Prct on Approach. Sane Regions have t2k. l a mae active
approach to involving thelr S .t s in the decision mifr4ng p t Region S has established a
State workgrc*ap to comment on and approve the Region’s Internal S ate . Region S also has £
State Quality Action Team which, among its other respàii111i s, saves as a means for
developing watershed implementation actions within the R gi ii. Region I h ueazed State
Coordinator Groups, which include representatives om mod f the Region’s watts programs, to
suppcit each State. These groups are responsible ftw elay ng information about the Watershed
Protection Approath to the State on a program-by-program leveL
2 3 Orpn tinnaI Cliingr
As a result of the Internal S ategy development proorsa . several Regions hav made
org2ni’ ’ional chinges to help improve internal coordination. Regiai’l is 1u!ting a pilot
reorg ni bon of one of its NPDES program sections to batter nappod the Stats of
Massachusetts’s implementation of the Watershed Prcte on Approich lii Tcnner MA
NPDES Section is now the MA Watershed Section aM includes b w r quality and water
modeling staff. As part of this OIpI’I’I Onal ek.i 18 . , Region I has funded a position for a
“Reso rce Protection Speaaliat” responsible for identifjing Mdà iesoua u i1 the Region and
targeting regional crte to address those priorities Region 10 a esiid a ‘W shsd
Coordinatcr position to oversee the NPDES program’s m s- -’ on of the Watershed
Protection Approach. The Coordinator is specifically responsible for aai ng State , in the
development of a Statewide basin management approach.
3.0 State Assessments and Regional Action Plans
State Assessments are in’e ded to erp’ine a States current watershed protection activities and
needs. Regional Action Plans then iden fy how the Region will sup rt aid f cllitsts
implementation of the Watershed Protection Approach in such S sbusd on the results of the
State Assessment A portion of the discussion during OW?1s Râ ioaal visits c— t on
progress made and approache. taken to develop the State Assessments and Regional Action
Plans.
31 Stin-’
The Regions prc eGtsd that they would submit State Assessments aM Regional Action Plans for
39 of the States and Puerto Rico in September 1994 and for 12 additional States and the Distnct
of Columbia in fiscal year 1995. There axe currendy no pLans to develop a Stats Assessment or
Regional Action Plan for the ren1 ning territories.
Some Regions have developed well planned strategies for compLedng Stats Assessments and
Regional Action Plans 1 but believed that submissions for one or more S” shculd be delayed
until after September 1994 for a number of reasons, including: insuffiaent time to complete
.4
-------
thorough reviews of all States inadequate wavel funds in 1994 for State visits that wouJd form
the basis of tha ass sinent and present difficulties entering a dialogue with the State concerning
watershed p 1 Mction. Afr hment B has the scheduled compledon date , for each State
Assessment and Regional Acrion Plan and highlights progess in ch State at the time cI the
Regional visit
3 2 Approaches
Regions have taken at least one of four basic approaches to condu ting State Assessments and
developing Regional Action Plans: 1) internal t m 2) State meetinp 3) State que’tionnaires;
and 4) faalitared workshops. Scene Regions seMctsd different approaches for different States.
Most Regions made use of the May 1994 RegionaI Guidance for Development of State-by-State
Assessments and Action Plan? provided by OWM to complete the State Assessments and
Regional Ac cn Plan,, and several Regions added ccn thcns en cthar programs to the
material included in the guidance.
!me,, ! Te r By far the most common approach taken is convening internal Regional teams to
complete bcth the State Assessments and Regional Action Plans 1 Five Regions have formed
internal ‘ earns fc c one or mose al their States. In general, these ‘ earns cut a is program lines
and include staff and m..giwent L n the Environmental Services Division in addition to several
water progilms. Region 10 held a workshop to develop the State Assessment and Regional
Action Plan for Idaho. Sixteen staff fiuw the Wastewater Management and Enforcement Branch,
Surface Water Branch, Environmental Solences Division, and the Ground Water/Drinking Water
program paz cipated in this workshop. The State Assessment was Largely completed by the end
of the first day; a conference call on the second day with representatives t’n the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality was used to fill information gaps.
State Meetings Three Regions held or me p1im ing to hold meodngs with one or more of their
States. The format for these me nga ranges & requ ng information to supplement existing
‘ i t such as during a Region $ State prngiim dire meeting to formal assessments, such as
those planned by Region S during the fiscal year 1995 mm ” 1 State performance evaluations.
State Qvestloiviazru: Two Regions sue developing their State Assessments and Regional Action
Plans based on the results of d i1ed questionnaires sent to each of their S’es The
questionnaires me modeled a the OWM guidance on State Assessments and Regional Action
Plans. Regional ms follow-up with States either to get additional information or to allow the
State to review the draft assessments and action plans.
Facilitated WorLifrc Two Regions are using outside facilitazcn to help then develop Stare
Assessments or Regional Aedon Plans or both. The facilitator, provided through OWM cooa ct
funding, helps Regional t ms walk thrd ugh the process of developing a State Assessment and
Action Plan based on the OWM guidance.
5
-------
LI Regini al Obi&vati j
Regions generafly believe the Sate As semenu and Regional Action Plans ate hdpM tools for
evaluating S.I pivgeas in developing watershed approaches and for gwding Regional work
plans for Fiscg Y 1995. Scene R gioa& commented shot developing these products is bosh
time consuming and labor int ve , but they are fini4ing the process beneficial..
The Assistant Adminis ator for Water asked Regions to includ, specific watershed protection
activities in fiscal year 1995 State EPA work plans Moss Regioi indi” 4 that they would be
buier able to influ theff T l996 pItmiing plucess due to the scheduled coaspleaca
date for the Stats Assesements and Regional Action Plans (laze fiscal year 1994).
4.0 NPDES Wafershàd Strate Components
The NPDES Watershed Scetegy identified six components that should be addressed to flulfihl the
purpose and objectives of the Staitegy: (1) statewide coordination; (2) NPDES penuits
(3) monitonng and ass ”ent; (4) programmatic meanues and soam 1 indicators; (5)
public pastiapation; and (6) enforcement. Associated with each of this , six ponents are
actions that EPA R ons may take to sizp t t 9IJi s.jnd gbjp yq. tha NEDES -
WatershedS TOWMai j g most Regions would undertake such aedvides after
developing Sta by-Sate enta and actian p 1 A R ceal visits however,
OWM fc md that a no ber O(Regi nS are already mifring progsàs en supporting th. six Strategy
components. ________
— -.— — —- — — - - . — — — -
& 1 Statewide Connlin tinn
A number of Regions are supporting their States in developing cc implementing Statewide basin
management appro eh that allow th n to integrate tnm g nem a vides (monitoring
assessment, TMDL devel ment, permitting nonpoint scwte c trol. , ground water
protection) aimed at aquatic ecoy.s protection within the boundaries ofa given buin Thea.
approaches axe tailored to ths u ç , rj ’umisances of e 55.5. , not all programs or
agencies axe paxiiapathig in each St Support &om the Regions for developing, cpanding and
implementing Statewide basin i wrmcm approaches ii oritical to the suooes . of the NPDES
Watershed Suate ’. Region 4 is drafbng a Statewide Watershed Protection Approach that could
be a basis for implementation by Florida Department of Envizcnm I Protection of the NPDES
Strategy upon . o,i on ed the Florida NPDES program. Mdidooally, Region 415 actively
supporting Georgia in their efforts to develop a Statewide basin maii . ui framework
document
Regions also axe directing 104(bX3) money to projects that pliounot. Statewide coordination and
development of Statewide basin management approaches Oklahoma received $100,000 to
establish an adminis ative process that will integrate and coordinate point and nonpoint soiuoa
pollution control activities within a basin; develop a Statewide basin management fiimework
document; and conduct facilitated workshops that will promote acceptanc. of the Statewide
Watershed Protection Approach at all levels of government. Utah reccived $31,000 and Oregon
received 544,251 to develop a Statewide basin management framework document Montana
6
-------
received $20,000 to d vdcp du atiosal materials and a iining a.aniagum p faiiLa &s Statewide
watershed plaiinag at the local, State, and Federal levela.
4.2 NPDES Permits
In most Regions and 1 X1Tha jixtái, the NIbES’program is areladvey stakeholderin
the Watershed Protection Approach. The NPDES Watershed Straz represents an auernpt by
OWM to define the role that the NPDES progiam can play in developing an integrate4 .
gephically a pp ç g w res ua “ ir”- 1j -th. NPDES
progilm is now playing a role on * Regional watershed team . As Regions develop their internal
watershed s ategies and assist their States in developing watershed approaches the NPDES
pro am will be * key conthbutor. Ths is evidenced by amples such as the Watershed
Coordinator hired within the Region 10 NPDES progiam and by the pilot reorpniz on within
Region l’s Water Management Division to support MA’s implementation of a Statewide BMk
Regions have also begun to address specific NPDES permitting ics’ on a watershed basis. For
example, Region 6 iccessiWly ideenfled and issued ‘mincr NPDES permits to several shrimp
processors that were conmbunng to a water quality problem on Bayou Grand Callicu, Louisiana.
In setting permitting priorities, the Region foarsed on the watershed and the known water quality
problems rather than the diatinction between major and minor petmitt _Region 9 is
working with th.Staat of M, s W sno 5 iiwiwmyc(NPDES pb wi g ona
watershed basis. The Region and Stats will work with local stakeholdere ence the
standards and permits procem with other water quality mntiffo
41 Mnnitoring and Ms m it
To meet the objectives &the NPDES Watershed Slnte , S’ s should develop a Statewide
monitonng suacegy that assures the most effective targ ng of limited monitoring iesow’ces and
coordir t.s collection and analysis of NPDES, nonpcint sa c., and other watershed dit
Additionally, the Suate encauagss ambient monitoring reqiiremarzs in NPDES permits,
where appropriate, to suppo 1-emesemem or watershed coaditrona. Regions have not begun to
implement the Monitoring eoi compcn of ths S ate . - However, the
Regions axe supporting their Sta who are implem ng or developing watershed mauitaing
and assessment prowams. For rample: 1) illineis han a monitoring progiam which is based on
a basin management cycle and 2) Arizona, with A giant assistance, is colichicting the
monitoring, aw ent , and pI nning activities in the ddle GUs Basin necessary to develop
and issue multipis NPDES permits in the targeted basin.
Several States received 104(bX3) funds for monitoring and assessment projects that support the
NPDES Watershed Straie . California received $100,000 for a comp h nsivs watershed
project which includes water quality assessment, and monitoring for all the Los Angeles regional
watersheds. Iowa received $25,000 to develop a Statewide monitoring strategy which will reflect
the pro am needs of NPDES permits, non-point source controls, Th(DLIWLA, and support a
watershed based approach to water quality management
7
-------
dl•
I Tndicatnr
• .
The Regions eoini’e the need for ies iris of access that better deni th thë proçeu of
Watershed Appu ith implemaim on and the environmental pins and ieeessn within spoufic
watersheds and o a naácnal bás. There did n appear to bs.&connsteat view, hontever, of
what the short and long term measlres sh dd be. One Region plans to hold an int al ieweaz to
discuss use of the 33 svlrflmi nte1 4k ors developed by the O cecI Water. This R cn
believes that envionmental sages need to be tailored to each watershed and expressed in clear
terms that the public can understand. Two Regions indica t ed that the Stat. Auesements and
Regional Acdous Pta’ccxzld óvea beschmvts for ptc ess. Aá Region has selected fair
‘indic”or bsin? which will be evaluated apinat a comprehensive see c(mesnares At least two
Regions expressed ooocern re &ng the plimi.ed use I loading re ijiicns as a nasional
environmental in& .t ,r for several resscnsb wch as date quality and th. marginal n e of the
remaining rethactions. One Region suggested that fi*we Bividi Chith’ meetinp may be a good
fonim in which to dist jss th. development of na onal programmadc meamires of success.
45 Public Participation
All Regions understaiid the ___ of and need for effbc vs public parifolpedon thrwgh m
the watershed assessment and implanentasion process. Sevual Regions have begun to undertake
new or changed aisii to ithpiuv pubtic partiapasicis and P ulJr w vvwit In
Region 1, Basin Teams have b ’ conducing public m. i’p with w ehed 1iolders
Regzo S intends to build on the public partiapadon experience rnd from development of
RAPs and La?Qs. Region lOis frequendy called upon to fac1li e stakeholder involvement and
has also awarded lO4 X3) nte thi year for w.t .h.d c moila. Region 6 has modified the
public paz apanon process for NPDES permitting. Blore holding a public heaiing on a
proposed permit, the Region invites the public to an informal question and answer session. At
least one Region expressed onnes however, that increased public par apadon may n lead to
efficiency in the permit process or better quality permits
46 nforcement
The NPDES Watershed Stiete , encaniges a watershed approach to enfut uenL This
approach includes emphasising enf teement for b major and min NPDES dischargers in
selected watersheds and ti.’ng en( eruem authonties to correct violations by discharges that
are causing the - degradation in a basin or watershed. A few R cns ate implenwthng
their own watershed approaches to enforcement and supporting r States in deing the same.
Region 10 supported the Oregon Department of Agricultae (ODA) in obtaining 104(bX3) grant
finding for a watershed enf c .nnem initiative. ODA is conducing enf nest initiatives in
three separate watersheds in ern and scinhem Oregon that fail to meet w r quality
standards. ODA intends to raise compliance awareness among C nnd i(nim I Feeding
Operations (CAFO.) that are gei cant sairces of pollution to these watersheds. This work
augrnenta the existing statewide canplaint.daiven enforcement program. By targedng a small
watershed in each of three regions of the State, ODA will increase compliance awareness in the
regulated community while m*int2ining local technical capabilities
$
-------
Region 35 implementing the Environmentally Targeted Enf.xcer ent S ate j. This swategy
utilizes State- arited information in the Wateibody System to identify waxerbody seginen
impaired by pent source discharges. The Region uses information & Permit Compliance
System (PCS) and from State data bases on both major and minor point source. in those
waterbodies to identify potential linkages to water quality impairmaita. Conti buting facilities
are potential enforcement candid if vieancns (Sigeificant Noncompliance or other, ncn-SNC,
olanons) are foimd,or may be candidate. for fluter scninny of their NPDES permits.
—
Region 2 was able to convince the New York State Depsmnent of Environmental Conservation
that more than major point sources were ccnmbuting to water quality impairment in the reservoir
system north.of New York City. NYSDEC now fo ij.es on minors within the watershed and has
commiued resources to input effluent monitoring reports for minor discharges into PCS.
5.0 Issues and Needs
During the mid-year visits, each Region was asked to identify iwt,s they feft may impede and
needs they felt would assist the implementation of the Wa ahed Prute i Approach and the
NPDES Watershed S ate . Mditicnally, the Regions were asked to comment on a pcten al
list of Headquarters action initiatives.
51 Issues
Summarized below are the top five iwi s that the Regions raised as an impediment to
implementing the Watershed Protection Approach. They are listed in des’ ntIing order according
to the number of times they were raised by diffc t Regions (the number ii in parentheses). See
Appendix C for a complete list of the Regional issues
CoorthriwedlCoizsisent L frr*p EPA Hetxlqvwrsrs (6) The primary issue with
implementing the Watershed Proie icn Approach is the Lack Ia coordinated suata within the
OW at EPA HeadquarterL As stated by the Regions, the NPDES Watershed S stegy ift v pts
to pull in all water quality progiims, but is still f mdam ’Iy an ‘NPDES Watershed Svategj .
The Regions suggest that the Assistant Miitrniw atcr needs to aicoiuags all OW programs to
take a coordinated approach if the overall Watershed Prote iicn Approach is to succeed.
Flexibilny in In 4awa .4,rg tier Wa rshedProection Appr k (5) Fleribility was raised as an
issue in relation to several aspe of the NPDES Watershed Strate ,. For ample, the decision
about whether to implement a Statewide basin m nag,mens approach or targeted approach
should be afforded to each S A Statewide basin management approach may not be feamble in
States with drastic differences in hydrolo i, population di sbuticn, and land ownership (e.g.,
80% of Nevada lands are owned by federal agencies or Indian Tribes) States that decide to
implement a Statewide watershed protection approach, should to be allowed to move at their
own pace. Additionally. States and Regions need to have permission to fail and to learn from
those failures as well as the successes . The timing for implementation was also raised U an issue.
Regions felt that the time frame between the final Suaxegy (March 1994) and State Assessment
Guidance (May 1994) and the due daze for State Assessments and Regional Action Plans
9
-------
‘September 1, 1 ) was not feasible given available resources and present fiscal y 1994
commitments.
Mu/np!. Agv ies or Regional Qfflc&t witMn Sk, ti (3) The coordination req’ 1 nred for ecuve
impleinentañon c a basin management approach, aach as agi’eement wi n the State on a
framework for basin management, can be difficult w e wa resource management programs are
divided among different State agencies. In addition, States which have regional cfflces often
create the appearance of separate Sta’es , each with their own water quality programs and
watershed efforts.
Lack of Stassaor Aut writy (2) Implementation cith. NPDES Watershed Strategy would be
simplified if the Approach were specifically authorized in the Clean Water Aot (CWA); Regional
implementation of the NPDES Watershed Stiut can be difficult nce it is voluntazy on the
part of the States, especially in authonzed States.
Conwildated Gnau w Reporting Rsqufrem.n s: (2) Multiple reporting requirements on
different reporting cycles were listed as an impediment to ectively implementing the
Watershed Protection Approach. Specifically, Regions identified the need to consolidate §303(d)
and §305(b) reporting requirements. As a first step towards grant consolidation, it was
recommended that Headquarters enable the Regions to make §319 and §104(bX3) grant decisiona
at the same time.
Summarized below are the top five needs that the Regions 5 tA4 were important to their efforts
to implement the NPDES Watershed Strategy arid the Watershed Protection Approach. See
Appendix C for an overview of all the needs that the Regions expressed.
Additional Resowc.s Ca t Szç pvirt (9) Most Regions dated that present resource and
staffing constraints will hinder the fill implementation of the NPDES Watershed Strategy.
Regions indicated they do riot hav, the necessary travel fhnds or c uructcr support to provide
adequate guidance and outreach to States on impleinenthig the Watershed Protection Approach.
Additional resources, both EPA positions and contract support, are needed to compLete
comprehensive au umenta and action plans for Statrs develop State framework documents,
conduct watershed trsimng to expand State monitoring capabilities, and develop GIS capabilities.
Data Mwwgei 17ngralloti (8) Moat Regions also indicated that EPA needs to play a more
aggi essive role in adthessrig d management issue , sace high quality, reliable d is necessary
to effectively implement the NPDES Watei bed Strategy. Several Regions identified specific
areas where discharger data is either suspea or non.e,dstein (e.g., PCS, STORE?). Where data
does exist, it often does not integrate well with other data management sys ’s (ie., GIS). At
this time, several Regions do not use USGS basin codes in PCS and conversion to these codes is
essential; there is quewon as to whether PCS can accommodate entiy of USGS burn codes for
minor discharges.
10
-------
H /FP 6) and veiner i
prom e technology snsfa and to communicate watershed pricQcnon Iicc ises :
• PVavide case 1 ma4i 5 which docum specific aspects of State watershed
pr ec on approaches including: afterna ves for d ling with permit
synchrcnizaüon and backlo th,som e üver ieuof existing approaches, and
changes in the leval Of effort and efficiencies r slized in v icus program areas
(e.g., ambient mcuuroring)
• Conduct workshops for fte oaz and St i which present the concepts of burn
muagement provide technical guidance support implementation of the
NPDES Watershed S azegy on areas such as ahernative permicing mechanisms,
ambient monitoring and cocrdin ting NPDES permit devalopm t-with TMDL
priori’i”tion and
• Sponsor a national meeting inv ing Rqioes end States across several water
programs to discuss itiu s related to development end mplementation of
coniprehen ve watershed jroccctica prój uiis.
Refinemem, Accoruuabilh’y ms (SD gic Ttwg.t .dActMIIesfr R -’ ’ rST4 qS)
w 0/ftc. of Wastrw .r E4 rc.meia Cc.nlianc. Acc ain a (OW CAS)): (5) The
Regions recommend that Hesdquar s’ accorsetability me es be revised to reflect the emphasis
being placed on implementation of the DES Watershed Sv connering the use of
accountability measures that axe act ali ied with the StraLe ’ does not reinforce the message that
the Permit Diviicn is mit d toesmenting the NPDES p u .rn a watershed basis.
Several Regions proposed that accountability measures be revised to reflect a qualitative, or
narrative nanire. Program meura ent discussions that focus on number of permits issued and
the administrative distinction batween majors and minors have br oo’ne too much I an institution
and are not representative in the ouau ..u of watirshed protmi1ioe
Finally, EPA Headquarters’ expectations and program me rements should takejnto
consideration a period c C tiininorz (e.g., decrease in permit issuance, leerning cwves, and
coordination ic i with other programs). S’ ’es and Regions must also have ‘permission to fail
and learn from feihres as well as succ,,1rs
Coordimmon with QECA: (3) Full coordination with and buy-in to the Watershed Protection
Approach by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is essential;
compliance usrsamer enfoi erncnt reviews and enforcement cms axe almost exclusively
based upon a facility being classified as $ major discharger. The lack of information for minor
dischargers impedes sad limits the ability to deal with all NPDES 1ides within a watershed.
Additionally, it was suggested that OWM initiate actions, as part Of the agent actions underway
to negonaze a memorandum of agreement with OECA on PCS, to address the date
managementAntegration needs to support the transition of the NPDES Program to a watershed
approach.
11
-------
Si H. 4 yi*.t Imp ‘ nanon Plan Jmi4I sak
Regional staff d managanant were pr anted with a list c(26 s on tans that EPA
Headquarters ld undertake to ippoit the Regions an implan ng the NPDES Ws shed
Srnte v. Each Region was asked to seleot the tøp five aedvi that thIj fdtwcadd be most
helpful to them. SrimmMized below are the top i x A H anatkctioar liens that the
Regions voted to have Headquarters undertak, . See Appai xD iots dr. iTs on how each
Region voted on the complate list of potestial Headqutus’ Aedon 1 ’ nw
RsgvIato.yiPoàcySs, v,rtfta Uw Sb #. :C6),E alust. impe inits to mplanaitaiion o(the
NPDES Watershed Strate , as a rendt c(the aciadn fegial.t4,Iy and policy Oimewc&
Consider eK.ng that will foster implemant cn. -
Daat In1egr km (PC S*wage awiReb*wzI of Water-Rsbted ( 7t)W . Toxia Release
!nvv#ciy Sysxem (rn(S). Wt *rh ms).(5) Evaluate ain’est data bases and data
management sy ems to datennine how they should be used (i.e., data inte adon) or updated to
better support a watershed approach to NPDES permitting. Work with OECA to evaluate and
make changes to PCS that better support the S ate - •..
- .
Coo,th,siths, with OWOjk*s OEC (3) Cenw’+ t, with ce of WesI.nds,
Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW); OMcà of Smesce and Tecbno(o COST); O ce of Ground
Waxer and Dn”ki”g Water (OGWDW ) ; and OECA on NPD€S watmñbi cdvidcs to gem that
needed cooperation and support. - .. .. ... . . ... . . -
r
Coiibjcs RegIor I W .¼pr(4) Co ict a .the. alner akahops toe each Regi’ân in order
to facilitate watershed p tac1icn sining (concepts of basin m n gement and the NPDES
Watershed S a&e ,) for individual S’ t
. . i’
Oversight: R,vgse STARS 0 WECAS CrI ria .uqyort (4)
Establish revised measures that demcasv pr sak ons and States to implement the
NPDES Watershed Strategy ss d tej’ite
Approach. - . ... —. . - ____ ____
. .
WwershedM M ,sg.r esW: (4) Provide Ieadershi ánd coordinedon to achieve the
objectives of the )WDES Watershed S ategy. —
6.0 Benefits ala Watershed Strategy
Dwing the Regional visits, OWM asked the Regions to ide mples of environmental
progress which result f m the application of a watershed *ategy to address aaedng issues or
problems. Regions also identified areas where they peet that a binad.cale w sbed
such as a Statewide basin managemest approach, will prove b cia1 to the environment and to
Regional and State agenaea
12
-------
6.1 P t&nh1AI B iefiti of an Ov ill Wir hed Strategy
- ,ror
Regions and St e have idaztified and, i some cases, pni ed a mamber o(bergefits
associated with aüng by a broad-scale watershed s ategy such as the basin manage
approach. Some of these benefits are as follows:
Improved Basis for M vWement Decw ss: A watershed mategy can improve the scientific -
basis for decision making and focuses manag ”ent efforts on basins and wazmheda where they
are most needed. Some Regions halley . that b pethit and nr’npr.%ir J tggi will be
more effective under a watershed approach because the approach moves S’ toward timely
and complete development of TMDLa One Region stated that a watershed-based decision
process will help resolve issues related to apportionment o(lowIinge aa milative capacity of
streams, antidegradation, and other historically difficult p mithngi,,’.s
Enlvaiced P?vç ri Efflcie?Ey: A basin focus can improve the dàcy c(ws management
programs by facilitating ,o1idation of pro ims within each basin. For rample, one Region
noted that handling ill poms source diachargers in a basinat the time should reduce
dnanisvative costs due to the potential to combine hearings and ncdøes as well as allowing staff
to focus on more limited areas in a sequential fashion. Another Region is encouraging one of its
States to use basin plans as an efflaent means for meeting the CWA mandates for §305(b)
ass , vnent and §303(d) listing of wsabodies.
Improved C rdbwition Amr tg Progrwiss Regions and States have fcuàd that as they begin to
focus on river basins, rather than the pro 1ms operating wi n tho.g.baains, they are better able
to participate in da sharing and coordinated awiwiens and convol strategies. Several Regions
demonsti ated improved coordinedcn among that programs through the process they used to
prepare for the OWM Visit and to develop that Internal Strategies, State Assessments, and
Regional Action Plans. Regions have formed teima for these tasks that 4L include program
staff from across the Water Managanail Division and 1 other divisions as well.
Greater Consistency RWv wmu: Developing goals and mgeni t plans thr a basin or
watershed with stakeholder involvement should allow Regions and Stairs to be responsive to the
public and consistent in determining m gement ac S ehddeiom ecp&r improved
consistency and contimaity in decisions when management actions follow a basin plan. One
Region noted t environmental ju ce issues should be more completely addressed since there
will be more comprehensive and complete e iminirion of environmental stressors involving all
stakeholders in a basin.
62 Exainpl dWaiar hM 5iw.t
The Regions provided e camples where watershed strategies inedng integrated, resource-based
decision making are helping to address specific managem problems and to resolve NPDES
permitting issues. A few of these camples are highlighted below:
L ig 1s1 Sour4 Region 2, New York, and Connecticut agreed to control the discharge of
nitrogen into Long Island Sound in order to reduce nitrophication and improve on the low levels
13
-------
of dissolved yges in b4 - WItmT By bnnWng the mkthcrdàs i iIu4 Foà ’ ng on
environmescal aoblams backed by data , the Siat , focu, d on freeing aiuiuges loadings from all
point jrces. In one instance, Westcl esser C mty , New York has a bred ways to obtain
reó ction in i pomt sairce nivogen loadings in order tq3ovidc capeaty farin ,,d loadings
at POTWa.
Georrçljic Information Systesis: Raj 3 ’e W l upa . ( W’- )iI Icsa.g. -
pilot eff crt to use environmaital d to gild. dedmon making and pilorny-setting in the Region.
The Region has ,iccessfWly u, d geogrephic iofoi a on syis ( S) tà develop Regional
sti stagic objeeives. For ample , by a *ing the Wa body Sysrasn up to the
watas shed level, the WMD’s GIS specii1i àd lw sa sta were able to to at the c ” e of
water quality impairment thrcaighcut the Region on a watershed basis Thiy found that acid
mine dreinage was n ng pif cant wa quality piubtanz in : watersheds in the western
part of the Region. As a remIt of this GIS work, addressing anface w r quality problems
asaoaated with sad pcUu on became part of the Region s Strategic Plan. GI *lIo has bees used
to assist in the punning and implementation of geographically tergated orts much as the
Christina River basin i 1 $o1ta1 prcject the identificeion of point sa in waters of concern
for endangered speaes in Pennsylvania; and the loGaIlon o(liviigr ic. seas oIc ’oarn in the
Chesapeake Bay.
- gd a; .. — . - — . 1 ‘ - — •‘ • •— -
Reme d Action P Lakswiá wme,VPIwat In a R al Acdcn Plans
(RAPs) and Lakewide ManagemaitPlans (IiMPs se as wdsu-h 5 ent plans
addressing stresacn which impact, oi have the pmantial to uapaot bcnthcisi ises of the
Great Lakes, including stessors such as point and nonpoint iow ces of PdUu o aiticaJ habitat,
and exotic speaei Implan ticn of the plans is based upâaipplicstioa of base programs such
as the NPDES program. Although RAPs and La7. s are not by themselves reflective of an
entire thing. to a S s program, they r ect the ecordinated resulta that may ocn once a State
reorders its program on a watershed basis
-— —
Storm Watt, Pernvinbrg: The Stats of Wiihingtou is d.velcQulg a w$uihe4 .bued ,ni n apal
separate storm sewer sys (M34) parmit.. Th perimuti. jcsslto cover every
municipal storm sewer syi , tegerrlle si 14th. wamieh and Cedar River
basins. These basins enoompsu Seattle and apprcxima y StpercsntccxinjCaimty, including
some smal1s miancipalities.
7.0 Summary
The NPDES Watershed Strategy issued in March 1994 replesenta a r”fmenz of
commitment and an action plan for moving the NPDES p !Vg!Imto a Wawshed and Vc system
Approach. In a further demcaststion of commitment to the Strategy and the Watershed
Approach, the Office of Wastewater Management mentally ehing d the foci, of the Region
reviews in fiscal year 1995 to address implementation of the NPDES Strategy. The results of
these reviews danaissrates that Regions are miki g progress . Regions are evaluating State
NPDES programs and establishing specific action plans to support the comprehensive State
water resource protection programs. The Regions have also developed intemal strategies that are
designed to coordinate water program efforts within the Region.
14
-------
Table of Ragioaal and State Watitibed Coatacti
AppeudixA
-------
J
I
Regio L f
-
1 .—J — 1 J1n
-
F ra ‘
i
WMm .E.= ._ I
Div on Dü m
—
(617) 565-3478
. M..............
(617) 565-4940
I
R.esowve Pk - ”
Sgei li
Ros y Mw
Eüv ONI
Sci
(617)363.33 1$
(617)563-4940
1
?4PDES
T
P Bi h •
C
(617)565-3560
(617) 565.4940
I
Lc Ccoi e-
CT
M CON
D Cmb
C T P ._.i Cooft
(617)563-3319
.
(617) 565-4940
I
L Cooithi or .
MA
C. K1th -
-
S. Sa r
Esv. Pt Sp .
Eu. E cr
(517)565-3514
(617) 565-3573
(617)565-4940
1
Lc CooPh t -
ME
No1ana
Doug Coib
Euv. S sX
ME Pei At Cooid.
(617)565.48%
(617)565-3519
(617)565.4940
1
L Coor ’r -
a4
a
Euv. E
17) 565-9130
(617) 565.4940
1
Lc Coo1u . .i.
RI
k uw Sulak
319 Cooi
(617)5634523
-
(617) 565-4940
1
L Coor 4 ü •
VT
L Si p
L. Iia
(617) 565.4$74
(617) 563.4940
- 2
Re1 W ”
C
B Ri1
.W Q ‘.‘
I2) 264-561L
2
NPDES Ww ’
L
PN Dw k
C W
aMCö”iJ!—i
ou
(212)264-98%
3
Reçooul W ”
ou
Joe Pioavui
R bP i
CI rf. , W r ( lity
M B
C dP
, ____n_ 3 k
(213) 597-9077
(215) 597-1181
3
NPDES Wwi 4
L
Vi i Bi
C Pu N
3._.ck
(215)3974511
3
NPDES WONa
Co t - DE
Lou E t
(215) 5970347
3
NPDESW- -- l
Kav Z
(213)597.1651
3
Con - I C
NPD W 4
Co .
Aou Ca”
.
(215) 597-94
3
NPD W
L 6 .PA
MPk j.
H boId
(215) 597.7935
(213) 597.0547
3
NPDES W .-”. .4
Coom -VA
F-, 1 , Cz
(215)5974513
3
NPDES Ww ’ 4
Con i- WV
Ric d Pike
(215)5974539
4
4
Regioi 1 W e d
Cooid r
NPDES W ii
ud h A ziou
r P fl
WC?11v41L O .ou,
a W
Bi b
Cbaef, Petunia
(404)347-2126
e 6581
(404) 347-3012
L
Secton
A-i
-------
i L
.
a
W 4
Co 1i fM
(3 l2)U6 243
5
NPDES Wwt1 1
f
5ev. 1
P.- ...J- S. a -
(312) *86-2446
6
Rg o& W b d
L En a
(214)6554023
(214) 635.6490
6
NPDES Wemi l 4
f
Sep n 3á
(214) 655-7537
h
(214) 655.6490
7
RejoI W ’’ 4
C -
Do Sd s
W ?.
D
(913) 551-7500
(913) 551-7765
7
Noiçoa S uw
W L
huM 9fvii
b . Sm on
(913) 551.7475
(913) 551.7763
7
t eringa
WwQi y
W L
Jo Ro’ ’
P1A .g
Evi s S . s
C
(913)551-7432
(913)551.7765
7
?JPDES
y
Don To.
.
P .r a
c_ Sect.
c
(913) 351-7446
(913) 551-7765
7
W ” W a 4
I
D H u r
E üv 1
RevMw.
(913)551-7573
(913) 5514765
.
8
Regwu I W ” 4
Co l:._fA
Ks H 1et
W mr Q a1M
.......k
(303)293-1576
9
R jO1 W ii1rd
Cootth or
Days S Ib
PmeC S
ii i
(415)744-2019
(415) 744.107*
9
Nou oui Sow
W L
Jovia P.r iflo
NP$ Cioi” --’
(415)744-2011
(415)744-107*
9
Momen . a
Wea Q Iity L
P 1 Woo
W Q
(415)744.1997
(415) 744-107*
9
NPDE.S
1
I y
cs
(415) 744-1923
(415) 744.1873
9
W.’d .-4 W 4
T
SNis P
C1 d’. W’ -’-4
k
(415) 744.1953
(415) 744107*
10
W ui d M
Rn. Li.
(206) 5534013
10
NPDES Ww 4
V i g
(206) 553i6977
A-I
-------
S
N
1
T’ ...
Fu
AK
NPDES
-
D g
of
Eav
Co vIü A
(907) 463.5303
A.ft
W - ) 1
—
-
- ----
n i 6 -3991
.
AZ
NPDES
rII t
-
-__AD D
Dti -, W
Q’.glt, DM i
( 2) 2074305 1
- - - —
,
(60 1) 207.4523
.
CA
.
NPD W -
4
.J D
DIv o ctW
Q y. Si W
R s Co v1
Bø d
(916)63T.0 39
- - -.
(9 16)6574756
‘(916)657-2383
- -. --
CT
NP’DES W m6
Cow
• “
PÜS . of
W M
(203) 566-7132
(Z ) 5664650
}a
.
NPDES Ww hd
Cow
Di. J Ha ñpn
-. -
C1 d
PtOffics,
(*0*) 5*6.4333
(80*) 586-4370
L
NPDES Ww k
Caw
-
I A
B of S s
G W
05 1) 2114*69
(315) 281-8*95
:
ID -
?WC W t
Caw
‘
xi uii of -
-
(X 334.0 07
-
IL
Caw-
U 4
NPDES W
c
‘
—
KS
NPD W m bed
C . 4uI4
( o f
1! •!
(913) 2%-5509
LA
bWD W s1.4
E1.s
(304) 765-0511
(504) 7650633
MA
ME
Cow
NPDES
C iia
NPDES W 4
P Ho
-
y XU
P fW
Iitv Sa’ c
DÜ I. d
-
‘ ‘““
.
i1T”
(50*) 839-3469
(207) 2877826
Cow
W QwJ y
Co oI, Düi t of
Lãc. E W. F
MI
NPDES W 6
C
DIM
4
NPDFS Ww 6
Cow
T
MO
NPDES W ”J 4
Cow
Jo M
Ws P1
Secdai. C
(314)751.7421
(314)751.93%
NE
NPDES W ” d
Coi xt
S v WaL r
Sud W
Oualfty Sectâoa
(402) 471-4fl7
‘
(402) 4712909
N H
NPDES W I Jwd
Cow
Rq Caz
A4mini or
(603) 271-3503
(603) 271-3436
I
A-4
-------
5
—. —
(s
lids
Tds
Viz
NJ
NPDES Wds—’-l
Co $
N& iIer Ath a
‘ Dü r,
Dii
(609) 2fl.0407
NM
NPDES Wws d
Co t
Su n M I I I
(505) $27-2792
(505) 827 -0160
NV
NPDES W ih 4
Co t
W’ McOu!y
D gsmi W
( slity. ND
(702) 687-5883
(702) 8850868
NY
NPDES W I d
C i
A i1 Bm cr
C W*
Ev n S dsn
(31$) 457.4352
c i
NPDES
c
P 1
-
( C
NPDES W i h 4
c
Sy vii RA ky
(405) 231.2691
(405) 231-2691
OR
NPDES W
Co i
A y S -”
Dq.&im
E
(503) 2296121
RI
NPDES W i Ii.4
Coiuet
A. L ad
Sup viaoe S zy
W 1Iwww
(401) 2774519
(401) 521.4230
TX
NPDES Wwil d
Wci y Go,ds
(512) 463444$
(512) 475.2454
yr
NPDES Wa
3. KooI
C Di.c p
P
($02) 241 .3 2
($02) 244-5141
WA
NPDES Ww Md
Co t
D Wiye
d
Ec opv
(206)4074459
WI
NPDES W etJM
--
Si Ho
A-S
-------
Tab’e of Stat..Prop’eu and HIgbflgh
Apps.dkB
-------
.
SACI1SAP
I
1
cr
9 .1.94
-.
-
9-1%
Wibed 0S *1 ii ibe &wks t v to
WS D to o n for ww ibe4 1ogua wan ii. i .4 o
J 10, 1994. S w Lc r.I 11 S piov an
anian to tin
1
MA
94.94
9-I -N
lb S .ili.ily $ o
I— a tt_ to our i .J. .. wkhd ’.u.l p.&1
s_ 4W d an Om.x o( oan y
e a d a t ne ye be.In cycle: y oan (or daan
c fl1i ye t r iw w I7.IDL.& y s (or
i r..&rI Ra a S . tiii .wm11 cyd 10
e&.-to wi*bs bun 1 1 d an 1999t
1
ME
9-1-N
.
94.94
E vs by t S Radon to b an
wi* tin S — lec aR or poim io u aning
GS. P in w bsan (or P n aM for all
aMor NPDES I L
1
1
1
? Gi
RI
VT
9- 1-N
9-1-94
9-1-94
9-1.94
9-1-N
.
9-1-94
S ian in p’ -’u)-’ w tin W d Appanank A
in to be in tin Ibtane.
PaaM n to be on a cyck iin4 b.in in 4-3 ym
aM tin St inva aM *—“-d a iM.pg an
panpoM to ka ‘ n on Apdl 12, 1994. 1be
Re on is inoiM ftr a voi*ls i oans.
W h’ 4 t huLJI ts%. is in on.s. t rt to
ftvs W?.WO to ftiaM dleloçan wan cigand on
J 10.1994. S ap w N Bay, tin
Binthinw Riw, GIOIJ9 aM Poto Rivor
Th L in M,s lds an a to tin w d .cb.
W bu4 in in —_ Le’ ’ to
Ss ft W D to opon Ihnu.l w isind 1ogi w .igxisd on
J 10, 1994 S with L f 1L i.iuI SaMy
an an to - -d
2
NJ
9-1-94
9-1-94
lb Rarns bean wo ng with New Juy overall tin
in a ploMng r)Qru New Li .. y is vdcping an
ovuanU w ind w in anpooM a five yew
in . lb Lti_ilfli4 %u aM in dcvelepisg
inii -i L min. lb Ra os i e-iu to be 1s to coinpieto tin
S s Au aM RajoM M1le’ pi by Sspisn or 1,1994
wii on in -- Wp 1% lb
A in vinwad — L. . ._i aM a iIlque of tin
SV5 pI lb R oM in l 1y to (o ,
.JUIthL 1 aanlysin aM evab -‘ “ &e “ g or ant
f Dy vek & an “ “ OIIIk aM
bc -‘
B-2
-------
ReVs.
s
- C .piaiM
SA RAP
H1 Pr. s of S . —
2
NY
94-94
.
9.1-94
—
.
- -
.._______
lb ReVon b wi w Yo* o tr i 1 two y i
0 . 1 pIn. Tbe ‘FY 941FY 94-93 S Vc P lan for New
Yo* S w iT }’ 1 In Th etDL. 1993. lb 1o” I an
of l — *1992 . of ibe Sb Plan for
New Yo . lb e I of S ic Plan is •to 1b i
In I& 1 . i. d * with A flØ IIS be
. . lb Pis. fo s s. this d r .—”
u,.4adjri ,..&. -1 -’--—-l -.—
-- J I II.k-IIL lb
pmcciik d Oil “- -‘ ,L ianMJ Oh W c
wan Ii jukjI all —
lWf 1wh IL • of ,. . o i d
_i t.o e. in ‘—.t’—-’ — of
of p&h ibe p y &U opi
for d w iboi1lis lb Pl ahi
— - i1 LJiLiIy
av i 1 ’ ii ibe J. JI}Q41an lb Rejos ‘qy- [ be th
O’flV 1 I t Stos Aan a Re o n p’an by
SqN er 1,1994 b d os 0 -_ wIsdp of Ibe S s
an. lb S ‘—- Is vIsed i n .&I dj
ann cr*Iqan of Sñ c plan lb ReØsl A on Plan
is 1 1y fo .Jt tiJtU_I ‘-‘ ibet
iuiL.k 1 folly dop 4 — QQ 0 IILIJb%
.--$1-1tII of—- , -ui s &
2
PR
.
9-30.94
9.30.94
lb R. . w Posts Rise EnvIo iay Board
Os I 29,1994 a i1 J — ts &Lkos w sbeth in
PT 95. Posts lbs hi an ,.-L —- w bed an t ,
hi ibe PaVos ts____ - — a ReVsanI
A os Phi by S m 30,1994. lb R. os hi b pin 10k
* — piluildu ts p * thi may
— ,u” piv an l - L lb R.Vos Is ahi wo on
— Posts Rico ts piov w*u quilisy
2
VI
Nan
pt d
Nan
lb ReVs. babisvan du a Re o A n Plan an
Ai ft f — fo Ki
IIS anOn, few — L On ‘ — 1s wisosbath; ard
3
DC
FY93
FY99
lbleØshifusmi4a.: — ftribaD n of
No foit os hi bean -
3
DE
9.1.94
9.14$
Api” ’y -
bean .-,.ied for DS1W ku bean feiw d ts th S
thit iev w. Ra os 3 wfll osan with tk th ith 1994.
3
t
.
FT 95
FT 95
lb lapin hi Ibemad $ s — for M.yl . No
fb,th hi be iJ..-.& Mityhid I ‘ve1opIig a
fl )IPm I1IiIIg pjijz for IN bbih thi 1k
(‘k _fr. lap. l aianuiu 1k ioth, of 1k S e.
3
PA
‘
FT 93
FT 95
lb RaVsn hi for a os for Pu ,..,,lu
lb Co nwuikb d ts in ’—--- a ---“-il- an4
psz* Ilk hi 19S e.ty 199k.
lb pm soma i.- —-..’ ftos yPv ..’I anØ
wan k ts beep os . thiis. Pe ylva n is
fl )IaInP 5 9 1M p& . iiIi& appin A
B e of 1k nean rntui in Pe ytvu a , ReVs. 3 views I a
onority isane for deloviiie an ‘—‘“.“ doa plan.
-------
Rs.
3
—
VA
Co.pisiis.
SA
FY 9 5 ri 95
WI* fPv , s Slato A
lb Re oa fot d * - tór vi 1.
Rs n is de1ayi Eise in VlrV tI fu
.
gova ale coq’ *_Re on 3 v ws oith s of
ai as oim - w — id in two
IWIF’ — ady c _Aiso. Vb
i t . fl%.4 9 uvor for pO $.. Vç* (!P ’M1 0*
L uin — b i. in 1972) 461 biiãai for t asiçoi
pio . i uuuiiE. .aL n
on ! w _ 1 l lis in vsisciis t S s 303(d) Li
w b w &iii to t gi wuj jis & wa is .
3
WV
FY 95
FY 95
lb Regtos f.Q.ui l a for Worn Visguna.
ib I I
wouM bs t floe .i11i..4 in veL i $ A i 4
a wo& do, ----’rn A p il
c m is i l y 1k brnweon We Virgin’s
w ff u
4
—
AL
9.1.94
9.1.96
AL is .--4 in WPA. to s is do. lb Se
to t w $
—- i ..-=--- - ”y k,— to a b a
4
FL
9-1.94
9 .1-94
FL is I only aso. d d Re on IV S E1$ as rn
a Regins - -‘-4 da isas as * WPA wtib FL bin t
ss w ast -‘- —it FL ouw wins • - in
tha WPA, wovor, y w to w l i
fbi NPC ae
4
GA
9-1.96
94-94
GA is sly enp4 i n daveLi 1 r—- a la S -.i wrnaalrd
do A ji. i.iilal 1a, for ns to eisp
ThIDL fbi i iscd wzs is vinwed — k 1 II, for t S e to
b n -
4
KY
9-1-94
9.1-94
KY ap, ü& . .. in i WPA, moon to
4
MS
9-1-96
9.1.96
MS is üeii in WPA. lb Sins ssd 104(bX3) nsy
for a in
4
9.1.94
9.1-94
NC is tally 1 i i g idi_ie n
psv k lb S QU1l ’tod Lu.jher b n
cvc C s F buii
4
SC
9-1-94
9.1-94
SC is tally in ’----” g a t—• in çio . lb S e
coo jlind tM Sav k 3 a c c
4
5
TN
IL
9.1-94
1ST Q1
FY95
9.1—96
2ND QIR
FY95
TN i.uftt igi in WPA. as d is to .
fl is i ly i 1 in twg ng ptslMm e. lb S is wi
iifrw d in a i rn However,
t stciu puo is b.’—J ass b cycle s Sine
bc asd s tMfr wukI onalily “— i1 olen fbi b ’-
5
4
1ST QrR
FY95
2ND qr
FY95
fl4 thlee yasia a dlv d I S i five rgi” w b ass
tougMy kli with ibi bythole cal poc b. ’ lb Siato
I d a five ye —j”. to — — e is to cooi
lb Sins is vs in t e
Ca1u alS& lb S pus e. is nst iiig — tbiy
oiiUy pisssv’& s is ‘ij tod to on a ik of t
raizis f is ioe s asw
5
S
fl
? *4
1ST Q1R
FY 95
1ST QTR
FY 95
2ND qr
FY 95
2ND QTR
FY 95
hU is ta le as t çuo k in ibi potin
i w pio for M or ii ! r e le. hO
aildla to s u*uh m
t O4 is imaernsd in ibi WPA. lb S is devele a WPA
Simegv. lb Stais earn piocain is b d on bs n o 1vnh1
B-4
-------
R.Øs.
S
— C O spL 4 .
RAP
Hi*M Pi,g S of SL A
.
5
d
a4
‘
-1ST qiw
FT 95
l QTR
FY 95
014 “ I a ‘ “ ‘ l a -“--g p’
1990. T S p m co a y cy s t
a WLA valo . T S s dy WPA ass
5
WI
1$TQTR
FT 95
2NDQTR
FT 95
S :n .4 T OS
as a bl.n cyck, b - oopfi g
with IblIlll;1 l i i1i. ___•L L
6
AR
9.1-94
94.94
AR ii a . 1 i1 a S -w wOsabed
6
“a”
‘i
9-I-N
g It si, ftvs t wo w is piojc i
iar .siii.g flhj g Riv
e t Os 3i.ffiM
L.A’s _m. y a y, LA D i ,’-’--” of
Q sthy, y . afrd t
q Li__ . 1 ft Os b(t m Eft S to
“ the A. 11 k
6
NM
9-1-94
9-1.94
•
NM aW QOsiky C ——- ., w ck w iII of
‘ r -‘s-’ s $ g ftp
stftp 1 S io aft
g , ’ftp 1h T 4a T To S r d two
w ft (or i be Sea
Gift w ftt Is ( .sli_&i
vi s. o tft p y (b Is ift SM F’’ Gift,
Ui }4 4 1I,s - s
6
OK
9-1-94
.
Ck pi- ’ ’—- Rj —iJi1 i1i di
ca s w S w w d b
W.S -— 1
6
TX
9.1.94
9.1-94
TX b a b . p w ‘ ‘ s a of
b.is. i PT -N s 10 yp ailèem d l bisini in
S
.JJt_ii,, 7ft S *013 vjs wftcb will
ov 1q p . w R ftuth in
ift S MW — v r S O
Is ft a me- IL4 jt A r pr siud a of
tdcvftias cO11 1LPUUIk w h ---- ‘ Os . dñ t’
7
IA
9-1.94
9-30.94
lsw a 5m4 iR FY95 w 4 ri m wftckd Ifliu
O Ob4&tl - -& w 4 1 LILA
7
KS
9.1.94
9-30-94
“
K iipamd ii do as bw ift
-
7
MO
9-1-94
9.30.94
t ft co a d k
Os Od! OS RdM -- ft SIgg.
7
NE
94-94
9.30.94
?iCb’.- is is Ift asly 1r 1 1 a — di S .Wide BMA .
13 kUi ti w — i”—--i1 .iv ,M I
ths y cycle. F - of bid. p _ s by 4194.
CouçI pst t sy fto s ft dl d r bid I —i.d by
2003. PUfl . tft DMA tb. 111 ,.4 Ift 1Wis
of 1 is 4y p-a—’- is o dIc pa. nvi
ft u.1 dl * s of b i v’—’ puth& isrgcisd
is cyde, ft1 1b
S
CO
94-94
94-94
CO two w w sftd oa i of ..v..l
Iw4 g I Os WO is a ift Uppor
1 S
“ a w ftd ap o b s is
lV41 d to idopt this o b 1bi el1v in ift x ftmiis.
B-S
-------
Re ss
S
CospIaila.
SA RAt
of SIRe Acasin
s
MT
194
-
-
9-1-N
MT Jiveloped $ ThIDL tot t .k Fo B tot
b ig in IllI ’ Iii, O 5 pOE only. 1 Si is
1tJJ P_$ pmes .g’ L 4 by I 1.k F TMDL on
p . thj cycin. 1 pei wwv as in
g k - .a — .-
IS I w O Y
8
ND
9-L.%
9-1-N
ND wo’ i wib ?.Q4 in vdop a TMDL for t Rod Pivot of
t Nosth an aed iassmsii,onJ w mi t ND NPDES
t N*4 —.—.i— - thu.
8
SD
9.1-N
9-1-N
boon a , in coon*eds in t $ .— —-- v i
b—--— o(a . I i a
8
UT
9.1-N
9-1-N
T Re os bsl voo UT A s 1& .4
— ve p a m-w w ibod
ie k UT p s in uiop a o& dx with
ooo A HQ. Ibo S I s va in aU ibo
iLt - in ie
w —y.
8
WY
9-1-N
9-1-N
Tkae as bit as m Cm, Oem, w k theugh tin
Ci of Tin WY Dlp& nLP of Envüv Quilily.
WY G aM F b and tin Cb.,i Board of Pitic Util t axe
ü as L in as in
problen. aM w int - I IIr s j f •
USGS is a s insvily ul,M .1riaar g Wason Alt Foi Bass.
M i s i nbsi oIliiisdby t i naM o f19N,wbasiswilibs
I Le fL will be içd aM
swillbspuiinpbsss. ApsIoft modwil1bsapilocGIS
mrdv.
9
AZ
9-1-94
9-1
Strong S aM ‘ iil p tot w
Strong nlto sstwo* aM GIS •. - ‘1I 7 . Good
coor . in as of aM 5 in ig
ft-
9
CA
9-1-N
9-1-N
Growing in was”kid pin aasng S aM regtooal
bointh. Son. r’ ’ pilot psojeas way. Ovu 100 k,cally-
d w1m1 psoj h inraoing pi
iii : i t
Pe b Ios 11 Ld
9
HI
9-1-N
9-1-N
•
T._It&(plg$ asif in fu on w d me ot en.. Dr t
fore w ind . I.f11o’ psasb bot only foaMng as
sas oow.
9
NV
9-1-N
9.1-N
Akeody ll —qii -d i ” ’do to # to p in
n.q wn.nin . Ablo in as for
aM in toll n—. -.k as by tn.
10
FY95
FY 95
W Md in tin Sas of ‘ poosias a r’ rnl
IIftfl !ng1 of tin in of tin $ ‘1 oajsphy
Q4ItIIpliAf) 01 w I ç.llty prob 1m. a l k of of tin
Sas ‘ivar ot in drinils 01 tin beds
Tin Repon uj cti to on ba
n flpIii a Sas aM develop a Re ed aMos plan
with &Ifr j R year 1995.
B .6
-------
na - - — fl — — Ne I . ap
10
OR
94-9’
I
94-94
v k 1 S ve pi a
wo dov1.1t ii 1994 RaØon
be I dn,---- Tbe Re on
____ — a iIo. — by Ssp er 1,
1994.
10
WA
FY9S
FY 95
W Ia iii1o md a S .q ib n for
- y. i9 l sJ .Jia a. E I iepo I
s in Athi L pii.ar i4 b m P is
— 1 _g Th La. Tbe Region
ijLidlll “- - os içU a t b n pi k
‘— - d M pi*& vein (at
in tbe W AI MI _
RaVe
10
ID
Cospl
SA RAP
9 .14$
94-94
R a 10 n i1ew d
A by Sqi
ir 1 • ——
C
I
__ n — will be
S. Tbe R 1 aI’u . 1
— ____
— be Rel
in I cycle is r 1n Iy 1$ RaVes 10 is
¶ AV Lwi- — -
1o c
-------
Tible of luies aRd Needs
Ap e.d1zC
-------
;oor .udiC i.i . 1 sVlØ EPA I’$ 5
I____
uI p s ar Qm .e iui t
Iii i.. .* WPA
..T..
r
3
T
;o 4 w ip
1
v “w ’v £
uffldsit m.au s $S
c i Ii £UI .U $
I
i a4V iRy I a ‘.* 10 I
1
.. eis WJ hIJ b umJ n y ‘o.
pxpsiIsi S — d t b..,. S W r—”-4
cncsm . ci WPA I 6ØIah.flUlOn dOSS IU IlSit l
my W a1 mi vy iri s Ii iv nur1?
ci ci NP E3 P!CvdJ% Ii R$. 1 $ Jh14 * OS
ft ki SS ’ç NPOES Piu,un ,ii.iis Uis Ps . y a
ssa wd as — isw us_f s fl
1
.adi ci .aioaly iSU N - fl a s I
. of sdu a aicvUmrb WUSs sid ‘f s . c swi.
mØia i. .1a1 ci .u. 1 .hId l&I
r .ioi. d & jiiI.t i y d i *5 pin iuift. ISVS
Sin MIUSI MEwia *5 ci T?.iOLs a dO s
MSw St ds%sIop fldOI • i us m .i is
itT rI at Ios1rçs S a s JiL r U
I
—
—
It,
—
*‘
—
‘I
Sc
£,
—
—
—
T
—
z
—
I.
V
1-
V
i •
T
•
— —
— —
— —
—
—
—
-—
—
“ ‘
—
—
x
—
—
x
p• .
— — — —
—
—
—
A
I
ddi1I mI Rsasa s sid Cu.iIaJ 3. pst
s - —- “y $ysias (8TARS uW CM)
I
-I--
1
I
:oor n.xn *m CECA
3
‘WT t S ssi i c ‘V * if IS ..Ion
if wai...h.4 .d s i S ..L Ii.±I i S pI L1a oflail
:m v m JI M J ESdk IS
I
Ip ihoiid d cç I,-- —--
I
1szib ty .,P r’uws I&4 a& NPUE5 I$a& Jima
P oSS ‘MIS —. wt uI 1 ci
IS psnrwi ap,Aison. s’. Ii am , on .i.
I
vg.ong Io ng r ’1on ivt baa uirdi
nsaaaramwn ci sw4,. un&.SJ Tp—’—
1
I
*
x
I
p
I
U
I
r
T
—
.J.
x
x
— — —
— — —
— — —
I
C-2
-------
Acdss Items for NPDES Watershed Sbategy
App dIz D
-------
I
A Ion Moms
Dsscdptlon
of
E W.ii,y
-
ffth y 5’Wan kg
‘
- —— ——
•
I
- - j 0 Ii.d Iinfl oIi NPUES
___________________________________
Wii S gy is
c -.-
6 : x . ‘
•‘
—
- - -
2
a IAscpiiom(1 . ai issi.
TIJS. NEEDS, ac.) .oi4
Dlcbop P’ ’—
C dáiis KI
R a diii .. so dcaanii bow y osdd bs iad (i.. diii
i)a sçdpisd ii bsi u ,p i* a walisubid ipo b so NPDES
Wak widi O A so v.buiis ad so S diii
II NI* dii
5
—
,
‘I
—
—
4
C m.I w àW
OECA -
,•
- wjdi , 051, OOWDW. ad 0IC a NP DES wasmnbid
Sua.
5
4
‘$
r4
—
“
j
.•)(
1
I
X
—
‘
‘
ow
X
—
‘.
.
‘•
)(
—
-
-
S
— - -
isu t owvi aiai —
OWECAS Qiuli so -‘i
Wsia,bid 1 1 ”
g by Iii ad Sha .
so — ibo NPD S Wgubid aii ad s ac NPDES
owl ii ii i A 1 ak
4
Wasmbi Mais Mat .i
6
P ids ls .bip ad aoor’ - so .1 .ro of di . 1ff DES
wiiin s ta uo . w-ar . p&. n,
4
—
17;
.
X
—
X
D .v.k p l licy a
7
I vu1Op a palkiy Jcb il s bow PIPIJUS oil — j.i
. i..i
3
.X
X
;_‘ —
X
vckçP’ 1 &y s o
Cotwdaiis NPDES
$ 1 q..—wIdi 1.
PVi oih7
9 S aqii
Dv.1opAI.advsP rs
10 I’- —•—•
4 .I i ad ‘ — - oI 1 fflla
— —
.
:
C
.
)
:
—
‘(
so owisis ad s,abiaii di. io jI.. by di.
‘ijadadu.-
. a d s b o ..oI aoivsp . .k —’---(s 4 , .lp----’-) s o
-i ’-s’-i ‘- oIdi.NPDE3 Wasak.d$k.s.y.
— — — —
2 I 11 x
— — — — —
2 .
j — — — — —
2 f’ X X :r
j
a — — — — — — — — —
R -O °’ ad
lignsaws
—
a.. ijw - 1 — —so i&bu..
PA-
2
4
I
x
-a
x
x
x
x
-------
r G ç
w th L_ . NflJIS i
12
U 1*1*3 sQrn ( — - - ‘
Me i ,sin Coii’— ’s)
a .itj — -
2
14
W- C
1 s IC r’ j j- v. .iuL. NPI)ES
2
MId-Y Iavis L.
16
e A r1 . ____ )iy. 199S. 1 p uy
OS IVS P w I s NPI*$
Sus . 1 vi i i ull M i. 7 U1 1
Iaii. di — —-‘
Coa ti . w IMIS b
17 Ir r .••
1— --— -—aiSiç ai*WPA
‘—‘4 a .ii Dii .saI - - s lM1 p
wait pa.ç (106 31 ‘ a i) -—‘ —
k.(q Ir ‘ g fl - —- -- - ‘--
1
I MIy WS Vi a ia
Is Pg ia Paiu.
11 —‘ P i “ f,—” iu w ‘—“yr
—— &k IJ 1 i tc s W.— --a
L-’.-
I
Ileddy 1*1*5 .M
.
P4PV ISW
-
— -py 5ulp
°
I.vâ — 1*1*5 ,... qp&ili. - •_•
psiIds T jLi_ -— -j
L a-’--
-
- - IMvI .d vIIIia, Pit aIoa - U
—-.umswl is
— rAIIIG 3)tb
21
0
—
bylaw bii
-- ——dl*.MAaI.
Ft.. S.i au1 $ aw
aT aivl. w - — — -
NPfl I adisR aiauu1Mais IvM
Wdl&iILII b..d apiioa b b s P4FI*S Plop...
0
—
“
ai
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
aw
—
—
, ,
.
—
I
Moon Isms
13
D .aiibs I r u
0I
vo l..
IS
O áb as..it Acávii.
4iiia W- — -
I 2A r ” — ai - * I ájai v .I uiri
W - SV ai thi lows iiq thai ibE&
2
1d .’wi.uI
.i 11*3 S y iliuM
Etiws ’- -
‘-- L- .ais l ii
1
-------
A lon Isn
D.scrIpt Ion
Humb.r
0I
V.,..
&3
Nfl IWFA M w$
.
1110 For a aaI.JMS( N’U ad
osba by pu ICb . 1IIj IlrqaI y sia d., NDL w q y
,p aI1e., ad a&u’ nu, ad bq t I3 -‘— .
0
U
1dai y ad Uow ssr oa
NP ñior lot Pu.
I 41 isco’ ‘ .1 II i Jiu-- -’. ev
NK 3 p i. ad dsa o i .1ev_s m
— - d s tIDe W s 4 a .ss _y
— j_s
Th1 Ui
fNpus ha o a 1* .11
—‘ £ a- 1i ad Sims p s a sb — jv bsè 1
s BU pm ad lb ala Nfl 1 WW. a 3i y
0
16
w CA ‘°“r
Dc(iui of SNC
W.ua ims ad
Swfacc W.i P!i .s
Weà - “ PFo,4: ; — ( ) i.I.
whth pa . 1s ad INC ‘fft -:
e vd 1 eØy.
.
0
—
I-’
—
—
—
!
cI
..
F
I
6 171 8 I’
•I
II
J .
.
4
III
I
-------
tD 37
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4L p,IOj*
OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL
FEB I 7 f995
8UBJECT: Interpretation of Industrial Wastewater Discharge
xc1 sion Fr m th Definition of Solid Waste
PROM:
ire or -
Offi e of Solid Waste (5301)
Lisa K. Friedman .. j -
Associate General Counsel
Solid Waste and ergency Response Division (2366)
TO: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
This memorandum is to clarify that the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (R RA) requirements apply to discharges of
leachate into groundwater from leaking waste management units,
even when the groundwater provides a direct hydrologic connection
to a nearby surface water of the United States. The definition
of solid waste in R RA section 1004(27) excludes certain
industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits
under the Clean Water Act (CWA); and EPA has said that CWA
jurisdiction (under section 402) extends to point source
discharges to groundwater where there is a direct hydrologic
connection between the point source and nearby surface waters of
the United States. However, discharges of leachate from waste
management units to groundwater are not excluded from the
definition of solid waste in RCRA section 1004(27), because the
exclusion extends only to “traditional,” pipe outfall—type point
source discharges, and not to discharges upstream of that point.
(This memorandum interprets the meaning of “point source
discharge” solely for the purposes of R RA section 1004(27), and
not for CWA purposes.)
Discussion
RCRA section 1004(27) excludes from the definition of solid
waste “solid or dissolved materials in . . . industrial
discharges which are point sources subject to permits under
-------
2
(section 402 of the Clean Water Act].” For the purposes of the
RCRA program, EPA has consistently interpreted the language
“point sources sublect 2 permits under (section 402 of the Clean
Water Act]” to mean point sources that should have a NPDES permit
in place, whether in fact they do or not. Under EPA’s
interpretation of the “subject to” language, a facility that
should, but does not, have the proper NPDES permit is in
violation of the CWA, not RCRA.
In interpreting and implementing this exclusion, the Agency
promulgated a rule at 40 C.F.R. S 261.4(a) (2) that states:
The following materials are not solid wastes for the purpose
of this part:
• . . Industrial wastewater discharges that are point source
discharges subject to regulation under section 402 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended.
EPA’s interpretation of the rule’s narrow scope is set out
in an explanatory “Comment” that also appears in the Code of
Federal Regulations following the final rule language:
This exclusion applies only to th. actual point source
discharge. It does not xcl industrial wastewaters while
gj çb g , nor does it .xcl e sludges that are generated by
industrial wastewater tr.at t.
40 C.F.R. S 261.4(a)(2) (comment) ( hasis added). This
explanatory comment to the rule asizes that the exclusion is
a modest and narrow one. Moreover, the comment reflects EPA’S
intent, at the time it promulgated the rule, that the exclusion
apply solely to the traditional pip. outfall-type situation
(i.e., ultimate release to waters of the United States). As EPA
explained in the preamble:
The obvious purpose of the industrial point source discharge
exclusion in section 1004(27) was to avoid duplicative
regulation of point source dimcharg.s under RCRA and the
clean Water Act. Without aa a provision, the discharae of
wastavater into naviaabl. tsrs would be “disposal” of
solid waste, and potentially abjeot to regulation under
both the Clean Water Act and k Subtitle C. I
considerations do not annlv tø ii ustria1 wastewatars ørior
to discharae since ‘ost of the environmental hazards Dosed
by wastewaters in treatment aed holdina facilities --
Drimarilv arounduater cont-a 4i ation —— cannot be controlled
under the Clean Water Act or other EPA statutes.
45 Rep . 33098 (May 19, 198O)( basis added).
-------
3
Thus, EPA based this exclusion on the need to avoid
duplicative regulation under two statutes for discharges that
occur at the end-of-the—pipe (i.e., discharges directly to
surface water). EPA did not intend that the exclusion cover
groundwater discharges from treatment processes that occur prior
to the “end-of-the—pipe” discharge. Thus, this exclusion only
covers a subset of point sources regulated under the CWA.
Therefore, wastewater releases to groundwater from treatment
and holding facilities do not come within the meaning of the RCRA
exclusion in 40 C.F.R. S 261.4(a) (2), but rather remain within
the jurisdiction of RCRA. In addition, such groundwater
discharges are subject to CWA jurisdiction, based on EPA’s
interpretation that discharges from point sources through
groundwater where there is a direct hydrologic connection to
nearby surface waters of the United States are subject to the
prohibition against unpermitted discharges, and thus are subject
to the NPDES permitting requirements. 55 Fed. Reg. 47990,
47997 (Nov. 16, 1990) (storm water permit application
regulations); 56 Fed. Req. 64876, 64892 (Dec. 12, 1991) (Indian
water quality standards regulations); 58 Fed. Req. 7610, 7631
(Feb. 8, 1993) (Region 6 general permit for feedlots).
If you have any questions on this memorandum, please call
Kathy Nam of OGC at (202) 260-2737 or Mitch Kidwell of OSW at
(202) 260—4805.
-------
Office of Water
(4201)
EPA 830/B-95-QOl
March 1995
6EPA
OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
Catalog of Publications
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
11
-------
The Office of Wastewater Management Publications Catalog is an educatio
resource for SChOOlS, local governments, professional organizations, the general publ
and any other groups that would like information on Wastewater issues. It is provid
to you. compliments of the Office of Wastewater Management (Office of Water).
you would like a copy of this catalog, please write, call, fax, or email:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Resource Center
RC-41 00
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7786 [ Voice mail publication request mel
(202) 260-0386 (FaxI
waterpubs@epamail.epa.gov
-------
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON
THE ROLE OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
IN CSO PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
EXTERNAL WORKING DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
6EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
March 1995
-------
K /
c:IL
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 ,‘
APR2d o ic oc
GE ERAL. CCI. SE .
SUBJBCT: Consent Decree in Natural Resources Defense Council.
Inc. v. Browner , Civ. NO. 95—634 PLY (Storm water Phase
II litigation)
FROM: Susan G. Lepo .
Associate Genefal Counsel
Water Division (2355)
TO: Michael B. Cook
Director
Office of Wastewater Management (4201)
Attached is the Consent Decree settling litigation over EPA
implementation of Section 402(p) (6) of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. S 1342(p)(6). The Consent Decree, entered by the court on
April 7, 1995, contains schedules by which the Agency is to
propose and publish regulations for storm water discharges other
than those already regulated under 402(p)(2). As you know, these
new regulations have been referred to as Phase II of the storm
water program. Also attached is a Settlement Agreement
addressing issues remanded by the Ninth Circuit in litigation
over Phase I of the storm water program. Though NRDC could have
sought judicial remedy to enforce the remand, they chose not to
do so based on the Settlement Agreement.
To remind you of its terms, the Consent Decree requires the
Administrator to sign and promptly forward to the Office of the
Federal Register a notice proposing Phase II storm water rules
for public comment by September 1, 1997. Signature on the final
regulations is required by March 1., 1999. The Settlement
Agreement contains identical dates for regulations addressing the
portions of Phase I storm water regulations that were remanded by
the Ninth Circuit.
Pnnrea a” : , .- ,.- .
-------
2
We have worked closely with your staff and we greatly
appreciate all the time and effort they invested in settling this
matter. Pleas. extend our gratitude to thea, especially Ephxaim
King. If you have any questions, pleas. have your staff contact
Stephen Sweeney of my staff at 260-8739.
Attachment
cc: Dana Miner -va
Jim Pendergast
Epttraim King
Bill Swietlik
-P m Mazakas
Carrie Wehling
-------
IN TEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ‘I L E D
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUHEIA 1 /
________________________________ APR igg
)
NATURAL RESOURCES DEPENSE COUNCIL, ) Cleric, U.S. District Court
INC., ) Diatrict of Columbia
)
Plaintiff,
civ. _______
CAROL N. BROWN , As AdministratOr )
of the U. S • Environmental Protection )
Agency; and UNITED STATES )
ENVIRONNESTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; )
)
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________)
CONSENT DECREE
W1 EAS plaintiff the Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. (“NRDC”) filed a complaint in this Court pursuant to section
505(a) (2) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA ”), 33 U.S.C. S 1365(a) (2),
alleging that the defendants, Carol Browner, in her official
capacity as Administrator, and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (collectively “EPA”), have violated
nondiscretionary duties under sections 402(p) (5) & (6)
of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. S 1342(p)(5) & (6), by failing to submit
reports pursuant to section 402(p) (5) and issue storm water
regulations pursuant to section 402 (p) (6) (“Phase II storm
water regulations”);
WHEREAS plaintiff NRDC seeks in its complaint a declaration
that EPA’s alleged failure to perform the alleged
ondiscretionary duties violates the CWA and is arbitrary and
..ONSENT DECREE — 1.
-------
capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.s.c.
SS 55 559 , 701—706, and an order requiring the submission of the
reports and the promulgition of the regulations by dates certain;
WM EAS EPA issued on or about March 30, 1995 a direct
final rul, pursuant to CWA section 402(p) (6), 33 U.S.C.
S 1342(p) (6), providing (a) that each stormvat.r discharge
designated by the National Pollutant Diachargs Elimination System
(“NPDES) permitting authority as contributing to a violation of
a. water quality standard or as a significant contributor of
pollutants to United States waters, shall apply for a NPDES
permit within 180 day. of designation or a later dat. specified
by the NPDES permitting authority, and (b) that all other sources
of stormvat.r discharges, net otherwise regulated under CI
section 402(p) (2)—(4), 33 U.S.C. S 1342(p)(2)—(4), must apply for
a permit by March 31, 2001;
WH .EAS NRDC and EPA have agreed to ex.cut. this Consent
Decree without trial or ad:judication of any issue of law or fact
herein in order to avoid protracted litigation and have agreed to
a settlement which they consider to be fair, adequat. and in the
public interest;
WH EAS flDC and EPA agree that it i. in the public interest
that EPA .eak and obtain recommendations from a broad-based
advisory group in developing the Phase II storm water regulations
on an orderly and expeditious basis;
W EAB EPA . intends to convene an advisory group pursuant to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, to determine
CONSENT DECREE — 2
-------
wtiich point sources of etor2 vater should be covered by the Phase
II stora water regulations, relative priorities aaong such
sources, and bow they should be addressed;
W EAS A intends to convene the first aeetinq of this
advisory group before April 30, 1995;
W EAS it is in the interest of the public, the parties,
and judicial .conoay to resolve this action without continuing
litigation and the Court finds and deteraines that this
aettlesent represents a fair, just and equitable resolution of
the claiss raised in the coaplaint and is in the public interest;
WH EAS by entering into this Consent Decree, WROC and A
do not waive any claus or defenses related to any final agency
action taken pursuant to this Decree or adait to any contention
of law or fact;
WX 3M the parties have resolved issues related to the
court’s order in Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. y . 0.5 .
nvjor antal Protection Agency, 966 P.24 1292 (9th Cir. 1992),.
in a separate 3.ttleaent Aqrsuant, a copy of which is attached
hereto and filed with this Decree solely for inforaational
purposes; and
W .EA8 on or about March 31, 1995, A subsitted to
Congress reports required by CWA section 402(p) (5), 33 LS.C.
S 1342 (p) (5).
NOW TE EPORZ, before the taking of testiaony, without trial
or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon the consent
‘C the parties, the parties hereby stipulate and it is hereby
CONSEN’r DEcREE — 3
-------
ADJUDGED, ORD .W AND DE as follows:
Issuance f Phase II Stors Water Penorta and Reaulptjp g
1. By Septeaber’ 2., 1997, A shall sign and prouptly
forward to the Office of the Federal Register for publication a
notice of proposed rulesaking concerning Phase I X stora water
regulations required by CW’A section 402(p)(6 , 33 U.S.C.
S 1342(p)(6).
2. By March 1, 1999, A shall sign and proiptly forward to
the Office of the Federal Register for publication a notice of
final rulesaking concerning Phase XX stars water regulations
required by CWA section 402(p) (6), 33 U.S.C. S 1342(p) (6).
3 • The final rulesaking described in paragraph 2 shall
fully and coapletely discharge A’ s obligations under A
section 402(p)(6), 33 U.S.C. S 1342(p)(6)
• . shall issu. regulations . . . which designate storsvatsr
discharges, other than those described in (CWA section
402(p) (2) J, to be regulated to protect water quality and shall
establish a cospr.h.nsivs program to regulate such designated
sources. The progria shall, at a pinia , (A) establish
priorities, (B) establish requiresents for State storswater
sanagesent pxoqrw, and (C) establish expeditious deadlines • 9.
NRDC has taken the legal position that, if A d.tersin.s that
p.rforsance standards, guidelines, guidance, aanagea.nt practices
and/or treatsent techniques ar. necessary to establish a
cosprehensive roqraa, then A has a nondiscretionary duty to
publish any such perforsance standards, guidelines, guidance,
CONSENT DECREE - 4
-------
managesent practic and/Or trsataent technique. by the dat, of
the final rule described in paragraph 2 • A does not
necessarily agree vita C’s legal position regarding the scope
of the nondiecretionary duty Under CWA section 4 02(p) (6). The
parties reserve the right to contest the scope of the
nondiscretionary duty under CW’A section 402(p) (6) in a court
having jurisdiction.
4 • The final rulesaking described in paragraph 3 shall
include either (1.) regulations fully inpl nting CWA section
402(p) (6) vita respect to all star R water discharges not already
regulated under CWA section 402 (p) (2) -(4) or by designation of
the NPOES peraitting authority under the direct final rule EPA
intends to issue by March 31, 1995 (othervise Unregulated stora
water discharges”), or (2) regulations fully ixplesenting CWA
section 402(p) (6) vita respect to sea. otherwise unregulated
stora water discharges and a decision that no further rulesaking
is necessary in order to fully discharge EPA ’s obligations under
CWA section 402 (p) (6) with respect to the renaming otherwise
unregulated stern water discharges.
5. The direct final rule EPA issued on or about March 30,
1995 is not intended to and does not satisfy EPA’s obligation.
under paragraphs 1 aM 2.
Re ortina and Modification of this Decree
6. Beginning on October 31, 1995 and each six nonths
thereafter until th publication of the Final Rule under
aragraph 2, EPA shall provide a written update to counsel for
CONSENT DECREE — 5
-------
NRDC concerning actions taken in the preceding period to
effectuate this Dcree and the attached Settlement Agreement.
EPA shall make such reports publicly available upon request.
7. Th, provisions of this Decre. shall be modified for good
cause shown. The provisions relating to dates established by
this Decree shall be modified according to the procedures set
forth in paragraph 8 of this Dcree. Al] other provisions of
this Decree may be modified by written consent of NRDC and EPA,
or by the Court upon request of either party.
8. Modification of the dates set forth in this Decree she]].
be by written consent of NRDC and EPA, or in accordance with the
procedures specified belov.
(a) If a party files a motion requesting modification
of a date or dates established by this Decre. and provides notice
to the other party at least thirty (30) days prior to filing such
motion, and files the motion at least sixty (60) days prior to
the date for which modification is sought, then the filing of
such motion, upon request, shall stay the date for which
modification is sought. To be effective, any such notice must
include the status of actions the party has made in attempt to
comply with the deadline, its actions to expedit. its compliance
with the requirement, and the proposed date by which it expects
to fulfill its obligations. Such stay shall remain in effect
until the earlier to occur of (i) dispositive ruling by this
Court on such motion, or (ii) the dat. sought in the
modification, or (iii) the date which is sixty (60) days after
CONSENT DECREE - 6
-------
the date for Which modification iS sought. Only one such
automatic stay shall be permitted for each deadline for which
modification is sought.
(b) If a party files a motion requesting modification
of a data or dates established by this Decree totalling thirty
(30) days or less and provides notice, as described above, to the
other party at least thirty (30) days prior to the filing of such
motion, then the filing of such motion shall, Upon request, stay
the date for which modification is sought. Such stay shall
remain in effect until the earlier to occur of (i) a dispocitive
ruling by this court on such motion, or’ (ii) the date sought in
the modification. Only one such automatic stay shall be
permitted for each deadline for which modification i. sought.
(C) If a party seeking modification doss not provide
notice pursuant to subparagraphs (a) or (b) ahoy., that party may
move the Court for a stay of the dat. for which modification is
sought. The party seeking modification under this subparagraph
(c) shall give notice to the other party as soon as possible of
its intent to sI&c a modification and/or stay of the dat. sought
to be modified. The notice provided under this subparagraph and
any motion for a stay shall demonstrate convincingly why the
party could not have utilized the notification procedures set
forth in subparagrapba (a) and (b) above.
(d) If the Court denies a motion by A to modify a
date established by this Deer.., then the dat. for which
modification had been requested shall be (i) the later of tan
CONS (T DECREE — 7
-------
day. after the date Of the Court’s denial or the dat. act forth
in this Decree, or (ii) such other date as the Court may Specify.
(e) Any motion to modify the sch.dule established in
this Decree shall be accompani.d by a motion for expedited
consideration. All parties to this Decre. shall join any such
motion for expedited consideration.
(f) Nothing in this Decree, or in the parties’
agreement to its terms, shall be construed to limit the equitable
powers of the Court to modify the terms of this Decree upon a
showing of good cause by any party;.
9. Nothing in this Consent Decree relieves A of the
obligation to act in a manner consistent with applicable law,
including the notice and coent and other provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 55 551—559, 701-706; and
CWA section 402, 33 U.S.C. S 1342. No provision of this Decree
shall be interpreted as or constitute a nitosat or requirement
that A obligate or pay funds in contravention of the
Anti-Deficiency Act, S U.8.C. S 1341; or any other applicable
appropriations law or regulation. If A believes that
compliance with any applicable law may lead to noncomplianc, with
the term.. of this Consent Decree, A shall utilize the
procedure. for modification of this Consent Decree specified
herein.
10. If subsequent legislation alters or relieves A of it.
obligations with respect to this Decree, then the relevant
portion. of this Decree shall be altered to the extent applicable
CONSENT DE 2E - 8
-------
and the parties shall jointly mt era the Court.
ii. In the event of a dispute between the parties
concerning the interpretation or iapleaentation of any aspect of
this Decree, the disputing party shall provide the other party
with a written notice outlining the nator. of the dispute and
requesting negotiations. If the partie. cannot reach an agreed-
upon resolution within twenty (20) working day . after the receipt
of the notice, either party aay ve the Court to resolve the
dispute.
Coats and Attorney Fees
12 • k agrees that pursuant to CI section 505(d), 33
U.S • C. S 1365(d), NBDC is entitled to costs (including reasonable
attorneys’ fees) accrued as of the date of this Decree and fees
to be incurred in obtaining thos. fees. )IBDC shall su it any
dais and supporting doc .nta after entry of this Decree to A.
Within a period of 90 days, beginning with the date A receives
NRDC’ s dais and supporting docusentation, & will exasins
NRDC’s dais for reasonable fees and costs, and the parties will
sake a good faith effort to agree as to the ap opriate aaount to
be paid to 1 C. If the parties are unable to agree on this
issue, NRDC viii file an application with the Court for tbs
recovery of costs inóurr.d in connection with this Decree and k
say file a response thereto vit (T 30 day. fros receipt of 1IRDC’s
application.
Recthienta of Notification
13. My notices or notifications required or provided for
CONS (T DECR.EE - 9
-------
by this Decree should be gent to the following:
For NRDC: Peter if. Lshnsr
Matural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
40 West 20th Street
)fev York, NY 10011
OFFICE: (212) 727-2700
FAX: (2 2) 727—1773
or to such other person as NRDC may subs.qu.ntly identify in
writing to EPA.
For EPA: Stephen J. Sweeney
U • S • vironmontal Protection Agency
Office of General Counsel (2355)
401 N Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
OFFICE: (202) 260—7700
FAX: (202) 260—7702
Jeffrey K. Lee
U • S Department of Justice
Environmental Defense Section
10th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530 -
OFFICE: (202) 514—1880
FAX: (202) 514—2584
or to such other person or persona as EPA or 003 may subsequently
identify in writing to IIRDC.
Jurisdiction.. Termination and Authority
1.4. Tha Court shall retain jurisdiction to construe and to
determine and .ffectuat. compliance with this decree and to
decide any motion to modify and any petition for attorneys’ fees
and costs that may be filed by NRDC. This Consent Decree shall
terminate upon publication of the final regulations described in
paragraphs 1 and 2 • After publication, EPA shall so notify the
parties and the Court.
CONSD(T DECREE — 10
-------
1.5. Nothing in the terms of this Decre, shall be construed
to confer jurisdiction upon this Court to review any decision,
either procedural or substantive, to be pads by the Administrator
pursuant to this Decre., except for the purposes of determining
EPA’s compliance with this Decree.
16. Nothing in this Decree shall b construed to limit or
modify EPA’s discretion under the Clean Water Act, or by general
principles of a 4 ’tistrative law to alter, amend, or revise
regulations, performance standards, guideline., guidance,
management practices or treatsent requirements related to the
matters resolved in this Decree, if any, from time to time, or to
promulgate superseding regulations.
17. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit
NRDC’ s remedies or claim, against EPA if EPA doe . not comply with
the ob .igations of this Decree or the obligation, as modified in
the manner provided for in this Decree.
18. The undersigned representative. of each party certify
that they are fuily authorized by the party they represent to
consent to the Court’s entry of, and bind the party to the terms
of, this Decree.
CONSENT DECREE - ii .
-------
‘i’ll! PARTIES SO AGREE:
FOR ‘LIfE - PL X1ITIPF NATURAL RESOURCES
P8T N. L W
Natural Res c.. Defense Council, Inc.
40 West 20th Street
11ev York, NY 10011
(2l2 727-2700
DAT : 4 Vrtl
- i.A
bbH W lU(bCiiFWeig54 0)
Natural Resources O.f.nse Council, Inc.
1350 11ev York Ave., U.N.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 783—7800
DkT : 4 rt) ,
FOR TEE DE7 IDAI UNIT STATES OP
I ICA on behalf of t UNIT STATES
DIVIRO1O( ITAL P E IO11 AGESCY and
CA L N. BRCWNU, Adainistrator:
wxs . scixpv
Agsistant Attorney General
vironaent and Natural Resource.
Divilion
na.nta Defense Section
vfronaent and Natural Resources
Division
United States Depar .nt of Justice
P.O. Box 23986
Washington, DC 20026—3986
(202) 514—1880
DAT : _______ ii r
CONSENT DECREE
-------
S 1
STEP 3 • SWE 1EY
U • B. Environ .ntal Protection Agency
Off ic. of General Counsel (2355)
401 N Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260—7700
DATED: ____________________
I
SO oRD ED:
_
United Stats. District udge
DATED:
CONS IT DECREE
-------
I I •—
APR •
p ET?L ( T AGRZIM1 I ? Cte..It
wii s the Administrator of the United States Environ enta ,
Protection Agency ( EPA 0 ) pro ulgated National Pollutant
Discharge Elinination Syst.* (UNPDESI) p.z it application
regulations for discharges co2posed entirely of stars water
associated with industrial activity on Novesber 16, 1990,
pursuant to Clean water Act (NCWA ) sections 402(p)(2), (3) &
(4), 33 U.S.C. SS 1242(p)(2), (3) & (4),, (Phase I stor. water
regulations”);
W .EAS in Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. V. United
States Environmental Protection Aaencv ( “NPnC v. EPA ” , 966 1.24
1292 (9th Cir. 1992), the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit held (a) that WA’s decision in the Phase I storm
water regulations that construction activity disturbing less than
five acres was not “associated with industrial activity” was
arbitrary and capricious and remanded that portion of th. rule
for further proceedings, and (b) that the portion of the Phase I
stormwater regulations governing certain categories of
manufacturing facilities, as determined by their Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) code, that are covered only if
certain work areas or materials are exposed to storavat.r
(“nonexposed light industry”) was arbitrary and capricious,
vacated that portion of the rule and r ” ’tdM it for further
proceedings;
S .-iL E T AGRE ENT - I.
-------
wii ZAS NRDC has taken the position that EPA has not taken
action pursuant to the remand ordered by the Ninth circuit in
NR1? v . EP I, 966 P.24 1292 (9th Cir. 1992);
wI .E s NRDC has agreed not to file a Petition for Xandamua
in the United States Court of Appeals seeking an order requiring
EPA to take action pursuant to the remand ordered in
966 P.24 1292 (9th Cir. 1992);
wmz&s EPA intends to convene by April 30, 1995 an advisory
group (Rwet weather advisory gZ0Up9 pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Co (ttee Act, S U.S.C. App. 2, to develop broad-based
consensus relating to wet weather issues under the CWA, incluA (‘tg
regulation of storm water;
WE EM Under C 104 (b) (3), EPA has awarded approximately
$30,000.00 in grants in fiscal year 1994 and has budgeted
approximately $400,000.00 for grant awards in fiscal year 1995 to
be awarded to applicants seeking to conduct storm water
industrial permitting effectiveness projects under the CWA;
WHEREAS the parties wish to effect a settlement of this
matter without expensive and protracted litigation;
NOW T 31OR3, IIRDC and EPA hereby agreó as follow.:
Reauest for P ru-nendations and Issuance of Rsaulations
1. If the wet weather advisory group is convened, EPA
shall request that group assess and provide r.comndations
regarding (a) public participation in storm water permitting and
regulation and (b) facilities where mat.rial handling equipment
or activities, raw materials, intermediate products, final
S L- L (T AGRE (T - 2
-------
products, Vests naterials, byproducts, or industrial nachinery
are not exposed to stern water.
2. B Septenber 1, 1997, A shall sign and forward to the
Office of the Federal Register for publication a notice of
proposed rul.aaking that addresses the r.nand.d portions of th.
Phase I stern water regulations. -
3. By March 31, 1999, EPA shall to sign and forward to the
Office of the Federal Register for publication a notice of final
rulenaking that addresses the r ’tded portions of the Phase I
stern water regulations.
4. The final r 3lenaking d.a ibed in paragraph 3 shall
fully and ceapletely discharge EPA’s obligations under the
r and ordered in NPnç v. A, 966 F.Zd 1292 (9th Cir. 1992).
Modification of this Aarsea.nt
5 • The provisions of this Agreenent may be nodif Led for
good cause shown by written consent of NRDC and EPA.
6 • If subsequent legislation alters or relieves EPA of its
obligations with respect to this Agreenent, then the relevant
portions of this Agrs ..nt shall be altered to the extent
applicable and the partie. shall jointly inform the Court.
7 • No provision of this Agresnent shall be interpreted as
or constitut, a couitnent or requirement that EPA obligate or
pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 5 U.S.C.
S 1341; or any other applicabl, appropriations law or regulation.
If EPA believe, that compliance with any applicable law may lead
S 1 L (ENT AGRW 4T - 3
-------
to noncOnpli&flCS with the terna of this Aqr.tRsn , EPA shall
utilize the prOC.durss for modification of this Agra ai
specified above.
Recipients of Notification
8. Any notices or notifications required or provided for
by this Agreenent should be sent to the folloving:
For NRDC: Peter H. L.hner
Natural Resources Defense Council
40 West 20th Street
New York, NY 10011
OFFICE: (212) 727—2700
FAX: (212) 727—1773
or to such other psrsôn as NRDC ay subsequently identify in
writing to EPA.
For EPA: Stephen 7. Sweeney
U. S • Environsental Protection Agency
Office of General Counsel (23U)
402. * Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
OFFICE: (202) 260—7700
FAX: (202) 260—7702
Jsffrey X. Lee
U.S • Dspar ent of Justice
Enviz’on .ntal Defense Section
10th 8tr..t and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
OFFICE: (202) 514—1880
FAXi (202) 514—2584
or to such other person or persona as EPA or DOIJ aay subsequently
identify in writing to NRDC.
Costs and Attorney Fees
9 • EPA agrees that a clam for costs and fees ac ued by
NRDC in negotiating this Agreenent should be governed by the
S r i (ENT AGRE I (T - 4
-------
process described in paragraph 13 of the Consent Decree entered
in NRDC v. firovn , to which a copy of this Agreement is
attached. NRDC and EPA agree that costs and fees which may be
claimed by NRDC in negotiating the Consent Decree and this -
Settlement Agreement are related to on. joint, negotiated
settlement and NRDC need not separately identify costs and fees
associated with the Consent Decree and this Agreement for
purposes of saab—itting a claim to EPA.
Jurisdiction. Termination and Authority
10. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit
or modify EPA’S discrstion under the Clean Water Act, or by
general principles of administrative law to altar, amend, or
revise regulations, performance standards, guidelines, guidance,
management practices or treatsent r.quirwnts related to the
matters resolved in this Agreement, if any, from time to time, or
to promulgate superseding regulations.
11. Nothing in th. terms of this Agreement shall be
construed to confer upon a district court jurisdiction to review
any decision, either procedural or substantive, to be made by EPA
pursuant to this Agreement.
12 • EPA’S obligations under this Agreement terminate
l- ediately upon EPA’s promulgation of the regulations described
in paragraph 3.
13. If EPA does net act by the dates identified in this
Agreement or as modified by the parties, )IRDC say institute, in a
court having jurisdiction, an appropriate action to seek an order
S - L1T AGRE 1 IT - 5
-------
requiring EPA to take action pursuant to the rA t d ordered in
NRDCv. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1992) or pursue any other
remedy available at lay.
14. Nothing in this Agreement relieves EPA of th.
obligation to act in a manner consistent with applicable law,
including the notice and comment and other provisions of the
Ad (i%istrativs Proc.durs Act, 5 U.S.C. SS 551—559, 701—706 or CWA
section 402, 33 U.S.C. S 1342.
15 • The undersigned representatives of each party certify
that they ar, fully authorized by the party or parties they
represent to bind the respective parties to the terms of this
Agreement. This Agreement will be deemed to be executed and
shall becom. effective when it has been signed by the
representatives of the parties eat forth baby.
SE’Z’rL 1T AGR2 1T - 6
-------
THE PARTIES SO AGREE:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF NATURAL RESOURCES
D7B CIL f
PET H. L Q(U
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
40 West 20th Street
14ev York, NY 1.0011
(212) 727—2700
DATED: J ,‘qqs
1(pts )
DAVID HAWKINS (D.C. Bar ii .. 49540)
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1350 New York Ave., LW.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 783—7800
DATED: _________________
FOR THE DEF (DA1IT UKIT STATES 0?
AMESICA on behalf of TEE UNIT STATES
IVIRONXENTAL PROTECTIOW AG 1CY and
CAROL N. BROWN , A inistrator:
LOIS J. SCEIFF
Assistant Attorney General
tvironaent and Natural Resources
Division
JEFJ’S ‘ -
&ivironaental Defense Section
virozaent and Natural Resources
Division
United States Departusat of Justice
P.O. Box 23986
Washington, DC 20026—3986
(202) 51.4—1.880
DATED: / , n, ’-L 3 /1TS
s E TL (E14T AGRE 1 IT — 7
-------
S. ttf T. J .uqjA A 1
ST PH 1 • SWW(ZY I (
0. Environw ta1 Prot.ction AqnCy
Off ics of G.nsral Couna.1 (2355)
401 )( Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260B739
DATED: ______________
SETTL IT AGRE T - 8
-------
EPA
Offi Of W r
(4204)
EPA 8 9 OO3
Mayt995
Corn ISewr Overflows
Guidance For Nine M’njrnur.
Controls
.
I ..
JTc
IX :fl ,,*Tt JT
- Ufitd
E n Ofl
-fe-
-------
EPA/832-B-95-002
August 1995
Combined Sewer Overflows
Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Washington, DC 20460
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
‘ 4L , tG’
AUG t 4 9 5
CFF E OF
4FOA At
CO& U NCE ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: National Policy Regarding Whole Effluent Toxicity
Enf ement
FROM: Rob an ’ i , irector
t nfozernent
/ V ichael
Office of Wastewater i iag ent
TO: Water Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
State NPDES Directors
The purpose of this joint memorandum is to clarify National
policy with regard to the two most common issues raised by the
regulated community involving the enforcement of whole effluent
toxicity (WET) requirements in NPDES permits: 1) single
exceedances of WET limits, and 2) inconclusive toxicity reduction
evaluations (TREs).
Single Exceedances -
Section 309 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) states that any
violation of a permit condition or limitation is subject to
enforcement. Through EPA’s “Enforcement Management System” (EMS)
g-iidance, the EPA Regional or State enforcement authority is
encouraged to initiate an appropriate enforcement response to all
permit violations. EPA’s overall approach to enforcement applies
to all parameters- -once a facility has been identified as having
an apparent permit violation(s), the permitting authority reviews
all available data on the seriousness bf the violation, the
ccLnipliance history of the facility, and other relevant facts to
determine whether to initiate an enforcement action and the type
of action that is appropriate. The EMS.recoinmende an escalating
reeponse to continuing violations of any parameter.
EPA does not recommend that the initial response to a single
exc!eedance of a WET limit, causing no 1 own harm, be a formal
enforcement action with a civil penalty. The “Whole Effluent
Toxicity Basic Permitting Principles and Enforcement Strategy”
d.d Rscydlbls
&9 5o Cafd. wa.,
li... 75% — W
-------
2
issued by the Office of Water on January 25, 1989 states that any
violation of a WET limit is of concern and should receive an
immediate, professional review. It does not necessarily require
that a formal enforcement action be taken- - the enforcement
authority has discretion on selecting an appropriate response.
I
Guidance on enforcement responses to WET violations was
added to the EMS in 1989. For example, EPA’s recommended
response to an isolated or infrequent violation of a WET limit,
causing no known harm, is issuance of a letter of violation or an
Administrative Order (AO), which does not include a penalty. As
with violations of any parameter, the EMS recommends an
escalating enforcement response to continuing violations of a WET
limit.
The regulated community has expressed concern about the
potential for third party lawsuits. for single exceedances of WET
limits. Citizens c ”ot sue a permittee on the basis of a single
violation of a permit limit. Under § 505(a) of the CWA, citizens
are allowed to take a civil action against anyone who is alleged
“to be in violation” of any standard or limit under the CWA. In
Gwa].tney of Smithfield. Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Inc. ,
484 U.S. 49, 108 S.Ct. 376, 98 L.Ed.2d 306 (1987), the Supreme
Court held that the most natural reading of “to be in violation”
is “a requirement that citizen-plaintiffs allege a state of
either continuous or intermittent violation--that is, a
reasonable likelihood that a past polluter will continue to
pollute in the future.”
Inconclusive TREs
The 1989 “Whole Effluent Toxicity Basic Permitting
Principles and Enforcement Strategy” states on page 9:
“In a few highly unusual cases where the permittee has
implemented an exhaustive TRE plan, applied appropriate
influent and effluent controls, maintained compliance with
all other effluent limits, compliance schedules, monitoring,
and other permit requirements, but is still unable to attain
or maintain compliance with the toxicity-based limits,
special technical evaluation may be warranted and civil
penalty relief granted. Solutions in these cases could be
pursued jointly with expertise froth EPA and/or the States as
well as the permittee.”
EPA is committed to providing technical support in the
“highly unusual cases” described above and is in the process of
determining the number of facilities nationwide that fit in this
category. As the WET program has grown and evolved, sources for
this type of technical support have shifted to EPA Regions,
States, and Tribes. In a conference call with Regional permits
and enforcement staff in April and feedback from the annual
-------
3
Biological Advisory Committee in May, the Regions requested
support from Headquarters in helping to establish national WET
technical expertise to address issues such as inconclusive TR.Es.
There has been a national mechanism for this type of support in
the past, as a complement to Regional and State/Tribal efforts
(e.g., the National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center). A
national vehicle for this type of effort is currently being
evaluated with a view toward providing additional support for the
national WET program.
EPA believes that the science behind the WET program and
test procedures is sound and continually improving, and fully
supports the mid-course evaluations that are being planned and
executed through an upcoming WET workshop, as well as other
planned or ongoing studies. The September 1995 workshop is being
organized by the Society for Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC) as part of their Peliston workshop series,
through partial funding frqn EPA and other groups. The purpose
of the workshop is to assess where we are in the WET program- -
i.e., identify technical issues that have been resolved and need
no further work as well as explore associated technical issues
that do need further research, clarification, or resolution.
Because participation in the workshop is by invitation only, an
open forum will be held soon after the workshop to discuss the
results with all interested parties.
Please call us or have your staff call Kathy Smith (ORE) at
202-564-3252 or Donna Reed (OWM) at 202-260-9532 if you have any
questions regarding this matter.
cc: Tudor Davies (OST)
NPDES Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
-------
EPA 832-B-95-004
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
GUIDANCE FOR SCREENiNG AND RANKING
Office of Wastewater Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
August 1995
-------
NOTICE
The statements in this document are
intended solely as guidance. This
document is not intended, nor can it be
relied on, to create any rights
enforceable by any party in litigation
with the United States. EPA and State
off ici k may decide to follow the
guidance provided in this document, or
to act at variance with the guidance,
based on an n2Iysis of specific site
circumstances. This guidance may be
revised without public notice to reflect
changes in EPA’s strategy for
implementation of the Clean Water Act
and its Implementing regulations, or to
darif3i and update the text.
Mention of trade names or commercial
products in this docwnent does not
constitute an endorsement or
recommendation for i&se.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 History of the CSO Control Policy
1.3 Key Elements of the CSO Control Policy .
1.4 Guidance to Support Implementation of the CSO
1.5 Purpose of Manual and Target Audience
1.6 Watershed Approach to Permitting
2 The
2.1
2.2
Screening Process
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Page
3 The
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3-i
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
APPENDIX A
TESTING OF THE GUIDANCE FOR SCREENING
AND RANKING COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMS
A-i
REFERENCES
LIST OF EXHIBiT AND TABLES
R-1
Exhibit 1-1
Roles and Rest,onsibilities
1-5
Table A-i.
Table A-2.
..A-2
A-4
Control Policy : : :
1—1
1—1
1—1
1-3
1-4
1-6
1-8
2-i
2-i
2-2
Ranking Process
Criterion i
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5
Criterion 6
Criterion 7
Sources From Which Needed Information Was Acquired for Screening
azxl Ranking Process Criteria
Summary of Results Obtained in Applying the Screening and Ranking
Process to 13 CSSs
1
August 1995
-------
CILiFFER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Combined sewer systems (CSSs) are wastewater collection systems designed to carry
sanitary sewage (consisting of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater) and storm water
(surface drainage from rainfall or snowmelt) in a single pipe to a treatment facility. CSSs serve
about 43 million people in approximately 1,100 communities nationwide. Most of these
communities are located in the Northeast and Great Lakes regions. During dry weather, CSSs
convey domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater. In periods of rainfall or snowmelt,
total wastewater flows can exceed the capacity of the CSS and/or treatment facilities. When this
occurs, the CSS is designed to overflow directly to surface water bodies, such as lakes, rivers,
estuaries, or coastal waters. These overflows—called combined sewer overflows (CSOs)—can
be a major source of water pollution in communities served by CSSs.
Because CSOs contain untreated domestic, commercial, and industrial wastes, as well as
surface runoff, many different types of contaminants can be present. Contaminants may include
pathogens, oxygen-demanding pollutants, suspended solids, nutrients, toxics, and floatable
matter. Because of these contaminants and the volume of the flows, CSOs can cause a variety
of adverse impacts on the physical characteristics of surface water, impair the viability of aquatic
habitats, and pose a potential threat to drinking water supplies. CSOs have been shown to be
a major contributor to use iwpairment and aesthetics degradation of many receiving waters and
have contributed to shellfish harvesting restrictions, beach closures, and even occasional fish
kills.
1.2 History of the CSO Control Policy
Historically, the control of CSOs has proven to be extremely complex. This complexity
stems partly from the difficulty in quantifying CSO impacts on receiving water quality and the
site-specific variability in the volume, frequency, and characteristics of CSOs. In addition, the
financial considerations for communities with CSOs can be significant. The U.S. Environmental
1-1 August 1995
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Protection Agency (EPA) estimates the CSO abatement costs for the 1,100 communities served
by CSSs to be approximately $41.2 billion.
To address these challenges, EPA’s Office of Water issued a National Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Strategy on August 10, 1989 (54 Federal Register 37370). This Strategy
reaffirmed that CSOs are point source discharges subject to National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and to Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements.
The CSO Strategy recommended that all CSOs be identified and categorized according to their
status of compliance with these requirements. It also set forth three objectives:
• Ensure that if CSOs occur, they are only as a result of wet weather
• Bring all wet weather CSO discharge points into compliance with the technology-
based and water quality-based requirements of the CWA
• Minimize the impacts of CSOs on water quality, aquatic biota, and human health.
In addition, the CSO Strategy charged all States with developing state-wide permitting strategies
designed to reduce, eliminate, or control CSOs.
Although the CSO Strategy was successful in focusing increased attention on CSOs, it
fell short in resolving many fundamental issues. In mid-1991, EPA initiated a process to
accelerate implementation of the Strategy. The process included negotiations with
representatives of the regulated community, State regulatory agencies, and environmental groups.
These negotiations were coiilucted through the Office of Water Management Advisory Group.
The initiative resulted in the development of a CSO Control Policy, which was published in the
Federal Register on April 19, 1994 (59 Federal Register 18688). The intent of the CSO Control
Policy is to:
• Provide guidance to permittees with CSOs, NPDES permitting and enforcement
authorities, and State water quality standards (WQS) authorities
1-2 August 1995
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
• Ensure coordination among the appropriate parties in planning, selecting, designing,
and implementing CSO management practices and controls to meet the requirements
of the CWA
• Ensure public involvement during the decision-making process.
The CSO Control Policy contains provisions for developing appropriate, site-specific
NPDES permit requirements for all CSSs that overflow due to wet weather events. It also
announces an enforcement initiative that requires the immediate elimination of overflows that
occur during dry weather and ensures that the remaining CWA requirements are complied with
as soon as possible.
1.3 Key Elements of the CSO Control Policy
The CSO Control Policy contains four key principles to ensure that CSO controls are
cost-effective and meet the requirements of the CWA:
• Provide clear levels of control that would meet appropriate health and environmental
objectives
• Provide sufficient flexibility to municipalities, especially those that are financially
disadvantaged, to consider the site-specific nature of CSOs and to determine the most
cost-effective means of reducing pollutants and meetmg CWA objectives and
requirements
• Allow a phased approach for implementation of CSO controls considering a
community’s financial capability
• Review and revile, as appropriate, WQS and their implementation procedures when
developing long-term CSO control plans to reflect the site-specific wet weather
impacts of CSOs.
In addition, the CSO Control Policy clearly defines expectations for permittees, State
WQS authorities, and NPDES permitting and enforcement authorities. These expectations
include the following:
1-3 August 1995
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
• Permittees should immediately implement the nine minimum controls (NMC), which
are technology-based actions or measures designed to reduce CSOs and their effects
on receiving water quality, as soon as practicable but no later than January 1, 1997.
• Pennittees should give priority to environmentally sensitive areas.
• Perminees should develop long-term control plans (LTCPs) for controlling CSOs.
A permittee may use one of two approaches: 1) demonstrate that its plan is adequate
to meet the water quality-based requirements of the CWA (“demonstration
approach”), or 2) implement a minimum level of treatment (e.g., primary
clarification of at least 85 percent of the collected combined sewage flows) that is
presumed to meet the water quality-based requirements of the CWA, unless data
indicate otherwise (“presumption approach”).
• WQS authorities should review and revise, as appropriate, State WQS during the
CSO long-term planning process.
• NPDES pennitting authorities should consider the financial capability of permittees
when reviewing CSO control plans.
Exhibit 1-I illustrates the roles and responsibilities of permittees, NPDES permitting and
enforcement authorities, and State WQS authorities.
In addition to these key elements and expectations, the CSO Control Policy also addresses
important issues such as ongoing or completed CSO control projects, public participation, small
communities, and watershed planning.
1.4 Guidance to Support Implementation of the CSO Control Policy
To help permittees aiid NPDES permitting and WQS authorities implement the provisions
of the CSO Control Policy, EPA is developing the following guidance documents:
• Combined Sewer Overflows—Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan (Publication
number 832-B-95-002)
• Combined Sewer Overflows—Guidance for Nine Minimum Control Measures
(Publication number 832-B-95-003)
• Combined Sewer Overflows—Guidance for Screening and Ranking (Publication
number 832-B-95-004)
1-4 August 1995
-------
Exhibit 1-1. Roles and Responsibilities
I
Permittee
NPDES Permitting Authority
NPDES Enforcement Authority
State WQS Authuritiea
•
Evaluate and implement NMC
• Reassess/revise CSO permitting
strategy
• Ensure that CSO requirements and
schedules for compliance are
•
Review WQS in CSO-impactcd
receiving water bodies
•
Submit documentation of NMC
incorporated into appropriate
implementation by January 1. 1997
• Incorporate into Phase I permits
CSO-related conditions (e g.
enforceable mechanisms
•
Coordinate review with LTCP
development
•
Develop LTCP and submit for
NMC implementation and
• Monitor adherence to January I,
review to NPDES permitting
documentation and LTCP
1997. deadline for NMC
•
Revise WQS as appropriate
authority
‘development)
implementation and documentation
•
Support the review of WQS in
• Review documentation of NMC
• Take appropriate enforcement
Development of site-specific
criteria
CSO-impacted receiving water
implementation
action against dry weather
bodies
overflows
Modification of designated use to
•
Comply with permit conditions
• Coordinate review of LTCP
components throughout the LTCP
• Monitor compliance with Phase I.
-- Create partial use reflecting
based on narrative WQS
development process and
accept/approve permittee’s LTCP
Phase Ii, and post-Phase II permits
and take enforcement action as
appropriate
specific situations
-- Define use more explicitly
•
implement selected CSO controls
troin LTCP
• Coordinate the review and revision
Temporary variance frouii WQS
of WQS as appropriate
•
Perform post-construction
compliance monitoring
• Incorporate into Phase II permits
CSO-related conditions (e.g..
•
Reassess overflows to sensitive
continued NMC unplementauon
areas
and LTCP unplementation)
•
Coordinate all activities with
• Incorporate implementation
NPDES permitting authority. State
schedule into an appropriate
WQS authority, and State
enforceable mechanism
watershed personnel
• Review implementation activity
reports (e.g . compliance schedule
progress_reports)
I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
• Combined Sewer Overflows—Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling (Publication
number 832-B-95-005)
• Combined Sewer Ovetfiows—Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment
(Publication number 832-B-95-006)
• Combined Sewer Overflows—Guidance for Funding Options (Publication number 832-
B-95-007)
• Combined Sewer Overflows—Guidance for Permit Writers (Publication number 832-B-
95-008)
• Combined Sewer Overflows—Questions and Answers on Wwer Quality Standards and
the CSO Program (Publication number 832-B-95-009)
1.5 Purpose of Manual and Target Audience
This guidance presents a process for screening and ranking CSSs with CSOs that have
adverse impacts on water quality, aquatic life, or human health. Its primary purpose is to give
NPDES permitting authorities (i.e., EPA Regions and States with approved NPDES programs)
a method of prioritizing the issuance of NPDES permits to communities with CSSs. A
secondary purpose is to give communities with multiple CSOs to multiple receiving water bodies
a tool for ranking CSOs. Ranking CSOs will give the communities a basis for allocating
resources to eliminate or control, in accordance with the CSO Control Policy, CSOs with the
most significant impacts and to maximize the environmental benefits achieved for the resources
expended. It can also help target monitoring needs. The screening and ranking process relies
primarily on information readily available for most CSSs, such as a general knowledge of known
or expected impacts from CSOs, estimates of CSO flows and their characteristics, and receiving
water characteristics. -
This guidarx e is not designed or intended to be used as a tool to prioritize Federal
enforcement actions. Decisions to initiate an enforcement action are generally based on site-
specific data and information and in accordance with the NPDES permitting authority’s
enforcement management system.
In this recommended screening and ranking process, the NPDES permitting authority uses
the available information to assess an individual CSS. The screening process involves two
1-6 August 1995
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
criteria. If the NPDES permitting authority determines through the screening process that the
CSS has a high likelihood of causing significant adverse impacts, the CSS may be assessed (i.e.,
scored) using the ranking process, which has seven criteria. Chapters 2 and 3 of this guidance
discuss the screening and ranking processes, respectively. They present each criterion, the
associated scoring, and the rationale for its use in the screening or ranking process. The scores
for all ranking criteria may be totaled to determine priorities.
NPDES permitting authorities should develop and issue NPDES permits for those
communities with the highest point totals and proceed, in order, to the communities with the
lowest point totals.
This guidance can also be used to rank individual CSO outfalls within a CSS, to identify
CSOs requiring prompt attention, to better allocate limited resources, and to prioritize any
necessary modifications under individual CSO permits. Ranking individual CSO outfalls is
particularly useful whenever resources or other constraints limit an NPDES permitting
authority’s or a community’s ability to address all of its CSS and CSO problems simultaneously.
In applying this recommended screening and ranking process, it is important to recognize
that, as stated in the CSO Control Policy,
EPA expects a permittee ‘s long-term CSO control plan to give the highest
priority to controlling overflows to sensitive areas. Sensitive areas, as
determined by the NPDES authority in coordination with State and Federal
agencies, as appropriate, include designated Outstanding National
Resource Waters, National Marine Sanctuaries, waters with threatened and
endangered species and their habitat, waters with primary contact
recreation, public drinking water intakes or their designated protection
areas, and shellfish beds.
EPA also recognizes, however, that technical and financial constraints may limit a
permittee’s ability to implement controls for all CSOs to sensitive areas at the same time. This
document can help establish priorities to phase in permitting efforts across multiple CSSs and
CSOs to many sensitive areas, as well as CSOs to less sensitive areas.
1-7 August 1995
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.6 Watershed Approach to Permitting
In response to the 1989 EPA National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy, 30
States have received approval or conditional approval for CSO permitting strategies. EPA
expects States to evaluate the need to revise their CSO strategies for consistency with the 1994
CSO Control Policy. This represents an opportunity for NPDES permitting authorities to
reconsider their CSO permitting priorities in light of current or suspected environmental impacts,
watershed permitting initiatives, and other factors. States and EPA Regions should review these
strategies and establish appropriate permitting priorities for implementation of the CSO Control
Policy. In establishing CSO permitting priorities, the NPDES permitting authority should
consider factors such as the environmental impacts of CSOs (e.g., beach closings, human health
hazards, and potential risk to endangered species). The NPDES permitting authority should also
consider requiring immediate action for CSOs to areas that meet the CSO Control Policy’s
definition of “sensitive areas.” This document provides guidance on establishing permitting
priorities for CSSs and provides perminees with a tool for prioritizing individual CSOs within
their CSSs to allow for effective allocation of resources.
EPA encourages States to use a watershed approach to set permitting priorities. Under
a watershed approach, all surface water, ground water, and habitat stressors within a
geographically defmed area are understood and addressed in a coordinated fashion, as an
alternative to addressing individual pollutant sources in isolation. To support States that want
to implement a comprehensive statewide watershed approach, the Office of Water has developed
guidance and training designed to assist communities and natural resource agencies that are
pursuing a watershed approich. One part of the effort is the release of the NPDES Watershed
Strategy. This Strategy encourages NPDES permitting authorities to evaluate water pollution
control needs on a watershed basis. The CSO Control Policy supports the goals of the NPDES
Watershed Strategy and urges communities to work with NPDES permitting authorities to
coordinate CSO control program efforts with other point and nonpoint source activities within
the watershed.
1-8 August 1995
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Applying a watershed approach to the CSO control program is particularly timely and
appropriate since the ultimate goal of the CSO Control Policy is development of long-term CSO
controls that will provide for the attainment of WQS. Since pollution sources other than CSOs
are likely to be contributing to the receiving water and affecting whether WQS are achieved, the
NPDES permitting authority needs to consider and understand these other sources.
NPDES permitting authorities can use this document to prioritize other wet weather
sources, as well as CSOs. Assessing wet weather sources on a watershed basis will allow the
NPDES permitting authority to effectively allocate resources for the greatest improvement in the
quality of the receiving water bodies within the watersheds under its jurisdiction. For
watersheds with interstate consideration, the respective NPDES permitting authorities should
establish an ongoing dialogue to address mutual concerns for improving the watersheds’ quality.
The CSO Control Policy promotes ongoing interaction between the NPDES permitting
authority and the permittees during CSO control program planning and impLementation. Such
interaction is critical to the success of a CSO program and is important in the screening and
ranking process. As the NPDES permitting authority compiles available information for the
screening and ranking process, the permittee can also contribute valuable information.
1-9 August 1995
-------
CatrrER 2
THE SCREENiNG PROCESS
To rank CSSs using this guidance, the NPDES permitting authority should first identify
through the screening process CSSs with the greatest likelihood of causing significant adverse
impacts. The screening can be based primarily on information available in documents recently
prepared by States under Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the CWA. Supplemental information
can be obtained from sources such as State health departments, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), news
organizations, permittees, and consultants. (Table A-i in Appendix A lists the sources of
information obtained for 13 CSSs across the United States during a test of this screening and
ranking process.) If information necessary for the screening is not available, the screening
system should not be used.
2.1 Criterion 1
Does any CSO in the CSS discharge into a receiving water body recently listed in the
State’s 303(d), 305(b), or other similar reports as not attaining use goals or as
having impacts that could be caused by CSOs?
• Yes - Assume CSOs are a contributing problem and proceed to the ranking
criteria, given in Chapter 3.
• No - Proceed to Criterion 2 of the screening process.
Rationale: Under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, each State is required to
submit to EPA, on a biennial basis, a report that, among other things, describes the quality of
all surface waters within the State and provides recommendations regarding point and nonpoint
source control programs and actions to achieve the water quality goals of the Act. Under
Section 303(d) and EPA’s implementing regulations, 40 CFR § 130.7(b), each State is also
required to submit to EPA, again on a biennial basis, a list of water quality-limited segments that
still require total maximum daily loads (i.e., those waters that do not or are not expected to
attain water quality standards after implementation of technology-based or other controls). The
2-1 August 1995
-------
Chapter 2 The Screening Process
Section 303(d) lists also identify the pollutants of concern and, sometimes, the contributing
sources.
For many States, these reports and lists provide information adequate to identify water
bodies that do not attain applicable water quality standards, the nature of the impacts, and
possibly whether CSOs are a primary or probable source of these impacts. When a water body
receiving CSOs is listed as not attaining water quality standards or the goals of the Act because
of pollutants or effects typically associated with CSOs (e.g., high bacteria counts), States should
assume, absent information to the contrary, that CSOs contribute to the problem. In such cases,
the NPDES permitting authority should continue to evaluate the CSS using the ranking process.
Another set of lists developed by the States may also be of some limited use. These lists,
which were developed in 1989 or 1990 under CWA Section 304(1), identify waters not attaining
water quality standards or the goals of the Act. In addition, for waters impaired by point source
discharges of toxics, the lists identified the point sources of those pollutants. The Clean Water
Act does not require States to update these lists; nevertheless, they might be useful screening
devices in appropriate cases.
2.2 Criterion 2
Does other available information indicate that CSO-related adverse impacts might
be occurring and that permitting and a CSO control program might be a high
priority?
• Yes - The NPDES permitting authority should begin discretionary review of
other available information to indicate whether the CSS should be
included for evaluation using the ranldng process. Proceed to the ranking
process given in Chapter 3.
• No — Infer that significant adverse CSO impacts do not occur and remove the
CSS from further consideration for prioritized action.
Rationale: This screening criterion provides the States and EPA Regions with the
flexibility to include in the ranking process those CSSs with CSOs to a receiving water body that
is not included in Section 303(d) or 305(b) reports. Under Screening Criterion 2, for example,
2-2 August 1995
-------
Chapter 2 The Screening Process
the NPDES permitting authority may decide to include in the ranking process those CSSs in
which solid and floatable materials are discharged in close proximity to recreational waters or
raw sewage is discharged to commercial and recreational fishing areas, even if the water body
is not listed in the previously mentioned reports.
Note that removal of a CSS from the screening and ranking process at this stage does not
mean that it should be removed permanently from consideration in permitting and enforcement
actions. Removal simply means that control of the CSS should not be the primary focus of the
NPDES permitting authority. EPA expects that the NPDES permit for such a CSS, when
issued, will contain appropriate CSO requirements.
2-3 August 1995
-------
CHAIVrER 3
THE RANKING PROCESS
CSSs that are identified in the screening process as most likely to cause significant
adverse impacts should be ranked through a seven-criterion process using site-specific
information. Information needed for ranking may be available from many sources, including
NPDES pennits, NPDES permit applications, 305(b) reports, and compliance and enforcement
reports. When adequate information cannot be obtained from these sources, new information
can be obtained from site visits or from other outside sources (e.g., consultant reports and data
from other agencies, such as USGS), as noted in more detail below. Information from outside
sources on the CSSs and CSOs under evaluation can be invaluable during the ranking process.
The NPDES permitting authority should make every reasonable effort to obtain the information
necessary to give each CSS a score under each ranking criterion. If a particular criterion does
not apply to a community (e.g., if a community has no dry weather overflows under Criterion
2), it should receive a score of zero.
In ranking individual CSOs, each individual score should be used. In ranking each CSS,
the CSSs that receive the highest point totals from the ranking process should be judged as likely
to cause the greatest impacts and should, in most cases, be the highest priority for NPDES
permitting. Clearly, this represents a simplistic approach to the ranking of CSSs for NPDES
permitting. EPA expects that additional analysis may be necessary and that in some cases it may
be desirable to compare systems using “second tier” scores to reflect additional impacts.
3-1 August 1995
-------
Chapter 3 The Ranking Process
3.1 Criterion 1
If any CSOs within the CSS pose a direct risk to public health or contribute to the
non att2inment of designated uses on an ongoing basis, or if the potential impacts
from CSOs are significant to areas designated under Federal or State Law as sensitive
or protected resources, assign points as Listed below:
• Discharges to waters experiencing beach closings or where there is a significant
risk to public health from direct contact with pollutants in CSOs:
Score 250 points.
• Discharges to Outstanding National Resource Waters, National Marine
Sanctuaries, or waters with threatened and endangered species and their habitat;
public drinking water intakes or their designated protection areas; or shellfish
beds: Score 200 points.
Rationale: The primary purpose of this criterion is to identify CSSs with CSOs that
endanger public health and affect water quality. This criterion is assigned a high point total
because it addresses observed impacts often associated with CSOs. The high point score for the
first category in this criterion is consistent with the risks that the pollutants in CSOs pose to
public health. Potential impacts to the sensitive areas listed under the second category are
included because, as identified in the CSO Control Policy, they generally need the highest levels
of protection.
Information required to determine the score for this criterion is often available from State
and local public health officials, the NPDES permit, the NPDES permit application, and the
305(b) report. NPDES permit applications and permits contain the specific locations of CSO
outfalls. Commonly, 305Qi) reports identify whether the use of a water body is impaired and
whether municipal sources are responsible; these reports may not give a specific location or
specifically identify CSOs as a contributing or primary cause of the impairment. However, if
the 305(b) report does not provide adequate information, an appropriate State agency often can
help in completing evaluations under this criterion. Local offices of State and Federal natural
resource management agencies (e.g., fish and game agencies or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) can provide information on sensitive resources.
3-2 August 1995
-------
Chapter 3 The Ranking Process
3.2 Criterion 2
If dry weather overflows (DWOs) occur within the CSS, score the following points
depending on the frequency of the DWOs:
Chronic DWOs (i.e., they occur on a regular basis and are not caused by an
occasional blockage of a regulator by debris):
Score 150 points.
• Infrequent DWOs caused by infrequent maintenance:
Score 75 points.
Rationale: Dry weather flows include sanitary flows, industrial flows, and infiltration
from ground water. DWOs result when dry weather flow is discharged from a CSO outfall.
Many CSSs continue to have DWOs for a variety of reasons, including illegal connections to the
CSS causing flows that exceed the system’s design capacities, plugging of underflow (dry
weather) screens, tidal or high stream flow intrusions, damaged or poorly designed flow-
regulating equipment, undersized interceptor sewers, and insufficient plant capacities. Ground
water may infiltrate into old, poorly designed, or poorly maintained CSSs, causing their design
capacities to be exceeded. Because DWOs are not diluted by storm water, they can cause
significant impacts in receiving waters.
NPDES regulations prohibit DWOs, and both the 1989 National CSO Control Strategy
and the 1994 CSO Control Policy target the expeditious elimination of all DWOs. Both
documents recommend that NPDES authorities take appropriate enforcement actions to eliminate
all such discharges and to ensure that all CSOs comply with technology-based and water quality-
based requirements of the CWA. This criterion has a relatively high maximum score (150
points) because DWOs are undiluted by storm water and, thus, are likely to cause impacts and
because DWOs are prohibited.
A CSS would automatically receive a score of 150 points if the DWOs are occurring
because of structural problems such as an undersized pipe. The score of 75 points addresses
infrequent DWOs that result from inadequate operation and maintenance programs and
3-3 August 1995
-------
Chapter 3 The Ranking Process
procedures. The owner/operator of the CSS should be able to mitigate or eliminate these DWOs
by implementing a more aggressive operation and maintenance program.
In many cases, the municipal and State personnel will know the dry weather status of a
system. In some cases, however, the CSS may not have been studied and may not be well
characterized. In these cases, the permittee will generally need to evaluate dry weather flows,
which can often be accomplished by relatively simple observations.
3.3 Criterion 3
Depending on the type of water body receiving the CSO, as well as the body’s
turbulence and mixing characteristics (energy), score points according to the
following table:
Water Body Type
Low
Energy
Medium
Energy
High
Energy
Estuarine and Wetland
100 points
N/A
N/A
Near-Shore Oceanic
60 points
40 points
20 points
Offshore Oceanic
30 points
15 points
10 points
Lakes and Ponds
100 points
N/A
N/A
River
40 points
20 points
10 points
Streams
60 points
40 points
20 points
N/A = Not applicable
Rationale: Investigations done in North America and Europe provide information on the
relative susceptibility of various water body types to CSO and storm water impacts. Using this
information, water bodies most likely to suffer impacts from CSOs can be identified and
categorized based on two factors: type of water body (e.g., estuary, river) and its relative
energy (i.e., low, medium, or high). Water body energy describes the degree of turbulence and
mixing in the receiving water body. Water bodies that flow rapidly and have noticeable
turbulence will mix and flush more quickly than standing water systems and, therefore, are more
likely to disperse any pollutant loadings from CSOs before they cause substantial impacts. Thus,
3-4 August 1995
-------
Chapter 3 The Ranking Process
flowing water systems with high energy receive proportionally lower scores than low energy
flowing systems and standing water systems. This criterion assumes that lakes and ponds are
always considered low energy due to minimal mixing.
Similarly, potential impacts to flowing waters are stratified because smaller flowing
systems (i.e., streams) may not as readily or rapidly flush themselves of accumulated sediments
and associated pollutants as would larger systems (i.e., rivers). Because systems with greater
sediment accumulation rates are more prone to environmental or humpn health impacts, they are
given more points than waters relatively less prone to sediment accumulation. This criterion can
conthbute a maximum of 100 points to a system’s total score, substantially lower than that
possible in each of the first two criteria. This is because the emphasis of this guidance is first
on actual or highly probable impacts to receiving water bodies, which are emphasized under the
first two ranking criteria, and then on potential impacts having a lesser degree of certainty,
which are evaluated under this and the next three criteria. If a CSS has CSOs occurring to more
than one type of water body with various energy levels, then scores for each receiving water
body are not combined. Rather, the CSS is assigned the score based on the receiving water
body and energy level with the highest point value.
Because of Regional differences relevant to the meanings of streams and rivers, etc., this
document does not defme these terms. Instead, the NPDES permitting authority should provide
clear and appropriate definitions of all terms when using this guidance.
Information necessaiy for this criterion is generally contained in the NPDES permit. If
NPDES permits are not available or if additional information on the characterization of a
receiving water body is needed, information can generally be obtained from in-state offices of
the USGS or State water resources offices.
3-5 August 1995
-------
Chapter 3 The Ranking Process
3.4 Criterion 4
If the measured or estimated proportion of the flow rate(s) of all CSO outfalls to the
receiving water flow rate (including CSO flow) in streams or rivers is:
• More than 50 percent:
Score 50 points.
• Twenty-five to 50 percent:
Score 30 points.
• Less than 25 percent:
Score 10 points.
Note that since the proportion of CSO flow rate(s) to receiving water flow rate
cannot be calculated for lakes and estuaries, they should automatically receive
30 points.
Rationale: This criterion continues the projection of probable impacts from CSOs to
water bodies begun in Criterion 3. It is based on the assumption that impacts increase as the
proportion of CSO flow increases relative to receiving water flow. It might be difficult to
evaluate the CSS under this criterion if flow information is lacking.
Authorized States and/or EPA Regional offices maintain enforcement or compliance
records for many CSOs. These records can provide information on CSO occurrences, volumes,
durations, and frequencies. When data are not available, Section 308 information requests or
new or revised permit requirements can, as appropriate, require monitoring programs to gather
needed information. Alternatively, the CSO flow can be estimated using one of several available
modeling approaches. A model can predict peak runoff flow rates resulting from recurring
precipitation rates for the watershed drained by the CSO. The approximate flow volume
discharged horn the CSO outfall is then computed by subtracting the treatment capacity (i.e.,
flow conveyed to the POTW treatment plant) of the CSS from the sum of the projected peak
runoff and dry weather flow volumes predicted by the model.
Useful stream and river flow information may be available from the USGS network of
stream and river gage stations.
3-6 August 1995
-------
Chapter 3 The Ranking Process
3.5 Criterion 5
If a drinking water intake is within 10 miles (downstream in flowing water systems)
of any CSO outfall in the CSS, score the following points:
• Within 5 miles:
Score 100 points.
• Between 5 and 10 miles:
Score 50 points.
Rationale: CSOs might contaminate drinking water supply systems and cause widespread
human health problems associated with pathogens or toxic materials. Most drinking water
treatment facilities with intakes located near CSO outfalls have developed various operational
and treatment strategies to avoid such problems. But unforeseen problems, including illegal new
connections or discharges of toxic wastes to the CSS, might occur, or new drinking water
intakes might be constructed. While routine treatment of drinking water supplies is likely to
protect public drinking water supplies from CSOs in most cases, impacts may still occur. Thus,
while the association between CSOs and impacts to drinking water sources may be rare, the
consequences may be rather severe. Therefore, this criterion yields a score of 100 points if the
intake is within 5 miles and 50 points if it is between 5 and 10 miles of a CSO outfall.
The information necessary for this criterion should be available at the State or local
public health agency offices or other State offices responsible for monitoring or regulating
drinking water intakes and drinking water supplies.
(Note: During the test of this guidance, this criterion was the only one to score zero for
every permittee tested. Where CSOs occur to salt or brackish water, the reason for this score
is obvious. Most of the other perminees included in this test have a long history of water
quality problems in the water bodies affected by CSOs. It is likely that drinking water supply
intakes are not located near CSO outfalls in such cases.)
3-7 August 1995
-------
Chapter 3 The Ranking Process
3.6 Criterion 6
If the composition of wastewater flows prior to any CSO outfall (based on dry
weather flows) in the CSS includes:
• More than 50 percent industrial and commercial discharges or significant
individual sources of potentially toxic materials:
Score 50 points.
• Thirty to 50 percent industrial and commercial discharges or significant
individual sources of potentially toxic materials:
Score 25 points.
• Less than 30 percent industrial and commercial discharges or significant
individual sources of potentially toxic materials:
Score 0 points.
Rationale: This criterion uses the surrogate measure of CSO industrial/commercial
contributions to address the potential impact of CSOs on the quality of the receiving water body.
It is based on the following assumptions: (1) possible discharges to the CSS of potentially
hazardous materials, including oils, greases, and spilled materials, are greatest for industrial
users and intermediate for commercial users, (2) runoff volumes would be greatest from
industrial and commercial areas because of their high proportions of impervious surfaces and the
likelihood of runoff cont2min2tion is higher in these areas, and (3) most residential areas have
relatively higher rates of wet weather infiltration, lower traffic volumes, and thus lower
potentials for the release of toxic chemicals in significant quantities.
State agencies generally do not have the information needed for this criterion. Often, the
perminee’s staff or consultant reports prepared for the permittee are the best sources of this
information. When this information is not otherwise available, USGS topographic maps can be
used to delineate the drainage basin. Then, land-use or zoning maps available for most cities
can be laid over the USGS maps, and the percent composition of the area can be delineated
using planimetry or a related method.
3-8 August 1995
-------
Chapter 3 The Ranking Process
3.7 Criterion 7
For any site-specific concern not addressed through the other criteria that is a major
concern to the NPDES permitting authority:
Score 0 to 200 points.
Rationale: This criterion recommends that the NPDES permitting authority increase the
score and rank of any CSS where special concerns not addressed in other criteria are attributable
to actual or potential impacts from the system. Permit writers can assign a score based on best
professional judgment and the relative impacts of the system. Concerns considered under this
criterion might include CSOs that threaten aesthetics or human health. For example, if
floatables from CSOs compromise the aesthetics in an area used for recreational boating, this
criterion might receive a score of 100. If the concern is a threat to human health (e.g., CSOs
entering streets or basements), a permit writer should assign a score of 200 for this criterion.
The value of this criterion was illustrated during the test of this guidance (see Appendix
A). If it were not for this criterion, the CSS for Sacramento, California, would have scored
only 50 points, primarily because Criteria 1 to 6 focus on impacts to receiving waters. For
Sacramento, however, CSO impacts on receiving waters appear to be relatively minor, but there
is a major problem with CSOs onto city streets and into homes and commercial basements in
the older sections of the city. Because of this impact to human environments, an additional
score of 200 points was assigned under this criterion.
3-9 August 1995
-------
APPENDIX A
TESTING OF THE GUIDANCE FOR SCREENING
AND RANKING COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMS
EPA tested the usability and effectiveness of the screening and ranking process for CSSs using
information available for 13 CSSs in 11 cities and 7 EPA Regions. All of the CSSs evaluated
were identified previously as causing serious water quality impacts. For most of these systems,
remediation is already underway or being planned. In brief, the evaluation determined that the
screening and ranking process described in this guidance provides useful information that is
relevant for ranking CSO problems of the 13 CSSs examined and is relatively easy to apply.
A. 1 Methods
Table A-i presents the locations of the CSSs examined in this evaluation and the source of each
major category of information used. EPA Headquarters and Regional offices provided
applicable NPDES permits, NPDES permit applications, enforcement and compliance reports,
305(b) reports, and other relevant information. State agencies also were contacted to obtain
additional needed information that was not available from EPA. Generally, enough information
was compiled by this point to allow complete evaluation of most CSSs through the first six
ranking criteria. In some cases, however, more detailed information had to be obtained from
the permittees and, sometimes, their consultants.
A.2 Results and Conclusions
Information in NPDES permits and in 305(b) reports, which are often available from EPA
Regional offices, was sufficient to complete the screening process for some CSSs. In all cases
but one, NPDES permits were useful in identifying specific CSO outfall locations for each CSS.
The 305(b) reports adequately identified specific use attainability problems in Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, but CSOs were not
always shown as likely caus s. Additional information about CSSs in Maine, Pennsylvania, and
California was necessary to confirm the occurrence of surface water impacts from CSOs or other
CSO-related problems. Using all ranking criteria generally required information from EPA,
State, and municipal sources (Table A-i).
A-I
-------
Appendix A
Testing of the Guidance for Screening and Ranking CSSs
Table A-i. Sources From Which Needed Information Was Acquired for Screening and
Ranking Process Criteriaa
City
Sot ces
for
Screening
Sources for Rankingc
Criterion
1
Criterion
2
Criterion
3
Criterion
4
Criterion
5
Criterion
6
Criterion
7
Region 1
Hartford. CT
E
E
S
Sb
5 b
Sb
Sb
Bridgeport. CT
E
E
S
E
E
S
S
South Portland. ME
S
S
S
S
S
S
P
Gloucester, MA
E
E
S
E
E
S
S
Holyoke, MA
E
E
E
E
S
E
E
Region 2
Brooklyn, NY
E
P
P
P
P
P
C
Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
NPDES Permit
#0026662
E
E
E
E
E
E
P
Philadelphia, PA
NPDES Permit
#0026689
E
E
E
E
E
E
P
Philadelphia, PA
NPDES Permit
#0026671
E
S
S
E
E
E
P
Region 4
Chattanooga, TN S S S S I S S
Region 5
lnkster,Ml E I E E J C S C I
Region 9
Sacramento,CA I E E E E I E I S S I E
Region 10
Portland,OR E I E I I I I S ‘ I
Key: E = EPA Regional Offices
S = State Agencies
P = Permittees
C = Consultants
If information for a criterion was obtained from more than one source, only the most local
source is given. Consultant reports obtained from the EPA Regional office are identified by
E and those obtained from a State agency are identified by S.
b This information was acquired from a state-chartered utility group, which serves a number
of municipalities.
USGS offices in individual States provided stream flow information for municipalities that
discharge to flowing waters.
A-2
-------
Appendix A Tesang of the Guidance for Screening and Ranking CSSs
Table A-2 summarizes the results of each screening and each ranking process for the 13 CSSs.
The test of this process suggested that the information most frequently needed to assess CSSs
seems to be readily available from the EPA Regional or State offices.
The screening and ranking process as described in this guidance was reasonably easy to follow
and provided useful information for ranking the severity of problem associated with CSSs. The
process proved general enough to allow assessment of all CSO problems encountered. In
addition, it helped bring together valuable information and provided a useful method to evaluate
and rank environmental impacts typically associated with CSOs. All CSSs evaluated during this
test were identified previously as having CSO problems. By applying the techniques described
in this guidance, all CSSs were ranked for priority permitting, receiving scores ranging from a
high of 555 to a low of 250 points.
A-3
-------
Table A-2. Summary of Results Obtained in Applying the Screening and Ranking Process to 13 CSSs
City
Ranking Scores
Criterion
1
Criterion
2
Criterion
3
Criterion
4
Criterion
5
Criterion
6
Criterion
7
Total
Points
Hanford, CT
250
75
10
10
0
0
0
345
Bridgeport, CT
250
75
60
30
0
25
0
440
South Portland, ME
200’
0
100
30
0
0
0
330
Gloucester, MA
200
0
100
30
0
25
0
355
Holyoke, MA
250
75
10
30
0
0
0
365
Brooklyn, NY
250
150
100
30
0
25
0
555
Philadelphia, PA, #1
250
150
100
30
0
0
0
530
Philadelphia, PA, #2
250
150
100
30
0
0
0
530
Philadelphia, PA, #3
200
150
100
30
0
0
0
480
Chattanooga, TN
250
0
20
10
0
25
0
305
lnkster, MI
250
75
60
50
0
0
0
435
Sacramento, CA
0
0
40
10
0
0
200
250
Portland, OR
250
75
i0
10
0
0
0
345
a Values reflect assumptions regarding the energy levels of the receiving waters.
Note: The cities analyzed in this test were cities with known CSO problems. Many cities may experience point totals
significantly lower than these.
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Works Association. 1981. Urban Stormwater Management. Special Report
No. 49.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1960. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm
Sewers. ASCE Manual of Engineering Practice, No. 37. New York, NY.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1969. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm
Sewers. ASCE Manual of Engineering Practice, No. 37. New York, NY.
Chow, V.T., D.R. Maidment, and L.W. Mays. 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, NY.
Elder, JR. 1990. The regulation of CSOs and storm water in the United States. Pages 85-93
in H.C. Torno (editor). Urban Stormwazer Quality Enhancement - Source Control,
Retrofitting, and Combined Sewer Technology. American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, NY.
Ellis, I. B. (editor). 1989. Urban Discharges and Receiving Water Quality Impacts. Pergamon
Press, New York, NY.
Field, R. and R.E. Pitt. 1990. Urban storm-induced discharge impacts. Water Environment
and Technology 2(8):64-67.
Freedman, P.L. and J.K. Marr. 1990. Chapter 3 - Receiving water impacts. Pages 79 - 117
in P. E. Moffa (editor). Control and Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Nix, S. 1990. Mathematical Modeling of the Combined Sewer System. In Control and
Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows. Peter E. Moffa (editor).
NOAA. 1963. Probable Maximum Precipitation in the Hawaiian Islands. Hydrometeorological
Report No. 39. Washington, DC.
NOAA. 1966. Probable Maximum Precipitation, Northwest States. Hydrometeorological
Report No. 43. Washington, DC.
NOAA. 1969. Interim Report, Probable Maximum Precipitation in Cal(fornia. Hydrometeoro-
logical Report No. 36, revised Oct. 1969. Washington, DC.
NOAA. 1977. Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado River and the Grew Basin
Drainage. Hydrometeorological Report No. 49. Silver Spring, MD.
R-1
-------
References
NOAA. 1978. Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United Stcies East of the 105th
Meridian. Hydrometeorological Report No. 51. Washington, DC.
NOAA. 1982. Application of the Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East of the
105th Meridian. Hydroineteorological Report No. 52. Washington, DC.
NOAA. 1984. Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates—United States between the
Continental Divide and lO3th Meridian. Hydrometeorological Report No. 51. Silver
Spring, MD.
U.S. EPA. 1989. National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy. 54 FR 37370. Office
of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1992 State Water Quality Assessments
(305(b) Reports). Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: the TMDL Process. Office of
Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 440/4-91-001.
U.S. EPA. 1994. NPDES Watershed Strategy.
U.S. EPA. 1994. National Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy. 59 FR 18688.
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical
Release No. 55, January 1975.
Viessman, Jr., W., G.L. Lewis, and J.W. Knapp. 1977. Introduction to Hydrology, Second
Edition. Harper and Rowe, New York, NY.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1989. Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution Abatement,
Manual of Practice FD-17. Water Pollution Control Federation (Water Environment
Federation), Alexandria, VA.
R-2
-------
EPA/832—B—95—007
August 1995
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
GUIDANCE FOR FUNDING OPTIONS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Municipal Support Division
Washington, D.C.
------- |