REVIEW OF CENTRAL VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY BOARD PRETREATMENT PROGRAM SOUTH SALT LAKE, UTAH Science Applications International Corporation ------- REVIEW OF CENTRAL VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY BOARD PRETREATMENT PROGRAM SOUTH SALT LAKE, UTAH April 1986 Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII Prepared by: Science Applications International Corporation 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102 EPA Contract No. 68-01-7043, WA #P-17 SAIC Project No. 2-834-07-173-69 ------- D/8-8/#8 1. INTRODUCTION Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, provides technical assistance to implement the National Pretreatment Program. EPA Region VIII requested that SAIC review the Pretreatment Program submitted by the Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility Board, South Salt Lake, Utah. The Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility is comprised of the following seven entities: o Salt Lake County Cottonwood Sanitary District o Salt Lake City Suburban Sanitary District No. 1 o Granger-Hunter Improvement District o Kearns Improvement District o Murray City Corporation o City of South Salt Lake o Taylorsvi1le-Bennion Improvement District. The program submission consists of four volumes and contains the following documents: o Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility Pretreatment Program, Parties, Authority, Procedures and Enforcement document o Wastewater Control Rules and Regulations for each entity o Facilities Description, Survey Process, and General Program Description document o Industrial Waste Survey for each entity o Attorney's Opinions and other legal documents o Related documents. SAIC has reviewed the submission using a checklist developed to verify compliance with the General Pretreatment Regulations. A copy of this checklist is provided with this report. Items marked "Yes" on the checklist indicate that the requirement was adequately addressed in the submission. Items marked "No" indicate a deficiency in the program and are accompanied by 1-1 ------- D/8-8/#8 a comment that appears in this report. The section numbers used in this report refer to the checklist and appear in the same order. 1-2 ------- C/8-8/#10 2. REVIEW OF LEGAL AUTHORITY In this section of the program review, SAIC evaluates the Wastewater Control Rules and Regulations for both the Cental Valley Water Reclamation Facility Board itself and its member entities. Since the entities have all adopted virtually identical ordinances, only one legal authority checklist is completed for all seven. In addition, this section discusses the adequacy of the multijurisdictional agreement between the entities that established the Central Valley Board. 2.1 CENTRAL VALLEY BOARD LEGAL REVIEW PART I. Submission Completeness B. Requirements for Attorney's Statement (1) 403.8(f)(2) Authorities -- Inadequate (2) 403.8 Program Requirements Implementation -- Inadequate The attorney's statement should cite the particular provision from the Central Valley Board's rules and regulations for each authority listed in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1). It should also specify the way in which industrial users will be controlled, such as permits or contracts. PART II. Legal Authority B. Require Compliance with Pretreatment Standards (1) Locally Developed Limits -- Inadequate Schedule 1, Controlled Limited Pollutants, and Schedule 2, Controlled Admissible Pollutants, are referenced in Section 2.5 of the Central Valley Board's rules and regulations. However, in the copy of this ordinance submitted for review, these schedules were not included. D. Require Development of Compliance Schedules and Submission of Reports -- Inadequate Although ordinances from the member entities require the development of compliance schedules, Central Valley Board's rules and regulations do not. In addition, the Central Valley Board specifies the submission of only one of the Federally required reports, the compliance date report. The Board's ordinance fails to require the submission of: 2-1 ------- C/8-8/#10 o Baseline monitoring reports o Compliance schedule progress reports o Periodic reports on continued compliance o Notice of slug loading. E. Carry Out Inspection and Monitoring Procedures -- Inadequate A POTW must have the authority to enter industrial premises to inspect, sample, and monitor industrial waste discharges and review any records required to be kept onsite. Although Section 5.5 of the member entities' ordinances provides such authority, Central Valley Board's rules and regulations fail to mention this authority entirely. F. Remedies for Noncompliance by Industrial User (1) Remedies for Noncompliance o Injunctive Relief -- Since injunctive relief is not specifically mentioned in the Board's ordinance, the attorney's statement should explain precisely how the POTW can seek such relief. G. Confidentiality Requirement -- Inadequate The General Pretreatment Regulations state that all effluent data, including that furnished by industrial users, must be available to the public without restriction. Thus, Section 4.3 of the Central Valley Board rules and regulations, which allows an III to claim protection for certain data (including monitoring results) as trade secrets, should clarify this point. 2.2 LEGAL REVIEW FOR MEMBER ENTITIES PART I. Submission Completeness B. Requirements for Attorney's Statement (1) 403.8(f)(2) Authorities -- Inadequate The attorney's statement should reference the particular provision from each entity's ordinance for each authority listed in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1). 2-2 ------- D/8-8/#10 PART II. Legal Authority F. Remedies for Noncompliance by Industrial User (1) Remedies for Noncompliance o Injunctive Relief -- Since injunctive relief is not specifically mentioned in each entity's ordinance, the attorney's statement should explain precisely howthe POTW can seek such relief. G. Confidentiality Requirement -- Inadequate The General Pretreatment Regulations state that all effluent data, including that furnished by industrial users, must be available to the public without restriction. Thus, Section 5.9 of each entity's ordinance, which allows an III to claim protection for certain data (including monitoring results) as trade secrets, should clarify this point. In addition the following definitions should be amended in all the ordi nances: o Definition of incompatible pollutant - The ordinances reference the definition of compatible pollutant to define incompatible pollutant. However, the correct citation should be paragraph 10 and not 12. o Definition of new source - The definition should be revised to conform with EPA1s revised definition promulgated July 1984. o Definition of toxic pollutant - The ordinances should reference EPA regulations under Section 307(b) and (c). Also, the ordinances do not define Class I, II and III users or significant Ills. The program's significant IU definition is different from the ordinances' definition of an IU. Therefore, who must apply for and receive a discharge permit is unclear. These discrepancies should be resolved. Finally, neither the ordinances nor enforcement procedures specify a time period in which an IU must respond to a notification of violation unless the notification is of suspension of service, whereby the IU must respond within 15 days. 2-3 ------- E/8-8/#10 2.3 MULT IJURISDICTIONAL REVIEW As the permit holder, Central Valley is the entity responsible for the implementation and enforcement of pretreatment standards and requirements throughout its service area. Consequently, the critical aspect of the adequacy of Central Valley's interjurisdictional arrangements for implementing its program is the oversight authority it possesses that effectively ensures that the Member Entities carry out their program responsibilities. The approach that Central Valley is pursuing should be adequate to bring about program implementation and enforcement. Each Member Entity has adopted a uniform ordinance and a resolution that, with some changes noted above, should provide the necessary legal framework to enforce the program. Chapter 3 of the Central Valley ordinance should provide the requisite oversight authority to ensure that the Member Entities perform their delegated responsi bi1ities. The only concern of note is whether Central Valley has the necessary police powers, under State law, to enforce either its own ordinance throughout the service area or to enforce a Member Entity's ordinance. In this matter, deference is given to Central Valley's attorney unless EPA Regional Counsel arrives at a different conclusion. Otherwise, the interjurisdictional arrangement is adequate. 2-4 ------- A/8-8/#12 3. REVIEW OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION In this section, SAIC evaluates the adequacy of the industrial waste surveys conducted by the member entities and the procedures to establish industrial discharge limitations. Part I. Industrial Waste Survey B. Criteria for Elimination -- Inadequate The Board has defined three classes of industrial users: Class I - Significant Industrial User Class II - Minor Industrial User Class III - Insignificant Industrial User Class I users will be permitted and monitored; Class II users will be monitored; and Class III users will be eliminated from further direct pre- treatment control. Therefore, it is essential that each industrial user be correctly classified. However, the POTW's definitions for its industry classes are confusing and have resulted in incorrect classification of various industries. For Class I, it appears that Central Valley has properly iden- tified the significant industrial users but the definition of Class I users, as contained in the submission, could include many nonsignificant industries. Central Valley should make the following revisions to its Class I definition: (1) Significant industries discharge 25,000 gpd of nondomestic wastewater, rather than just all wastewaters. This revision ensures that schools and other dischargers of large volumes of domestic wastewater will not be classified as significant industrial users. (2) Include as a criteria for Class I any IU with a flow or load greater than five percent of flow or load to POTW. (3) Consider changes to the classification language so that industries can be clearly classified as Class I or Class II. The current Class I definitions refering to the discharge of one or more priority 3-1 ------- A/8-8/#12 pollutants could include virtually every industry discharging to the system. Similarly, the Class II definition refers to discharges of nondomestic pollutants, and could also be all inclusive. Comparing Class II and Class III industrial users (referred to as Group 2 and Group 3 in Volume 4 of the submission), the primary difference appears to be that the former discharges at least some nondomestic wastewater while the latter discharges only sanitary wastewater. However, the definition does not adequately explain the assignment of various industries. For example, restau- rants, beauty shops, coin-operated laundries, and food stores are usually placed into Class II. However, these industries probably discharge only sanitary wastewater. Conversely, Class III lists contained a number of indus- tries that have a strong potential for discharging nondomestic pollutants. Such industries include miscellaneous metal working shops, commercial testing labs, and welding shops. In order to adequately monitor and control such industries, the Board must place into Class II, at least, all industries discharging nondomestic pollutants. Further, if the Board wants to include restaurants, stores, etc. in Class II, it should expand its definition of Class II to include criteria for their type of wastewaters. C. Survey Questionnaire (1) Survey Questionnaire o Address — Inadequate. In the industrial user lists presented by the Salt Lake County Cottonwood Sanitary District, there are a number of industries whose address appears to be a post office box number (i.e., 4195 S 500 W # .) The POTW should obtain the address of the physical location of these facilities. (3) Signature of Authorized Representative Apparently, all the jurisdictions used a common permit application form as a survey questionnaire. If the jurisdictions also intend to use this form as a BMR form, they should revise the form to obtain the following information which the present form does not request but which is required by 40 CFR 403.12(b). 3-2 ------- A/8-8/#12 o Daily maximum (as well as daily average) flows of each regulated process wastestream o Environmental permits o Production figures (where applicable for CI Us subject to production-based standards) o Schematic of process wastestreams depicting each discharge point to POTW o Type of sampling method (flow proportioned composite sampling required wherever feasible) and certification that sampling is representative of normal operation conditions and discharge. E. Summary Information (2) & (3) Waste Characterization -- Inadequate. The problems of waste characterization and industry class definition were discussed in Comment B. In addition, the listing of Class I industries contained in Appendix B (Volume I) does not include all Class I industries identified in the Granger-Hunter District Class I list (Volume 4). The Board should explain this apparent discrepancy. Part II. Methodology for Establishing Discharge Limitations A. POTW Operating Problems and Plant History -- Inadequate. o Inhibition/upset: The Board claims that very few industrial waste discharge incidents have occurred at its facilities. The data pre- sented are inadequate to verify this statement. The Board must list all NPDES violations at all plants for a period of at least the previous 18 months. The Board must also explain the causes for any such exceedances. o Pass Through: The Board used literature values to determine removal rates for heavy metals by its treatment plants. For example, cadmium removal at each of the plants was 75 percent, while copper removal was 80 percent. These estimated removal rates do not prove lack of pass through. The Board must sample both influent and effluent at each of its plants in order to confirm the accuracy of these removal rates. o Sludge contamination: The Board presents, in Tables IV - X, heavy metals concentration data for each plant's sludge. However, the figures for the concentrations in sludge, both in terms of pounds per day and mg per kg, are based on assumed metals removal rates taken from the literature. The Board must make actual metals measurements for each plant's sludge in order to determine true conditions. The ------- A/8-8/#12 1980 values from South Salt Lake and the 1981 values from Granger- Hunter are too far in the past to be applicable. Acceptable analyses must be no more than three years old. B. (1) POTW Sampling -- Inadequate. o Influent sampling: The Board should also sample and analyze all plant influents for non-metal priority pollutants, i.e., toxic organics. This is required because several of the significant industrial users are categorically regulated for toxic organics and because toxic organics are potentially discharged by many Class II industries. o Unit operations sampling: The Board's submission contains no recent analysis ot plant unit operations. The submission should contain a performance evaluation of each plant. o Effluent sampling: The Board must sample and analyze all plant effluents for metals and toxic organics. These values are to be compared to the influent results to determine plant performance and pass-through. The particular metals to be measured are the twelve metals shown in Table II of Volume 4 of the submission. The toxic organics to be measured shall consist of all non-metal priority pollutants used, stored, or discharged by IUs or expected to be present from the results/information obtained from the industrial waste survey. o Sludge sampling: The Board must sample and analyze all plant sludges for non-metal priority pollutants and the twelve metals of Table II. The results will allow determination of any sludge contamination problems. o Industrial effluent samp!ing: The Board should submit any toxic organics analysis from its significant industrial users. (2) Pollutants of Concern Analyzed -- Inadequate. Refer to comments contained in B(l). (3) Appropriate Sampling Locations Chosen -- Inadequate. When actual sampling data were presented, the data were insufficient to determine if proper sampling locations were used. The inclusion of flow diagrams, with sampling plants indicated, would assist in this determination. The submission should make clear that industrial flows include only flows from that industry, that plant influent samples contain no recycle streams, and that sludge values do not include composting filler and are presented on a dry weight basis. 3-4 ------- A/8-8/#12 (4) Appropriate Sampling Type Performed -- Inadequate. Sampling methods for the industrial wastewaters and Granger-Hunter data were not described. The submission must describe sampling methods for these data and for all additional required data. (5) Sampling Frequency The influent metals analyses appeared to be from a number of composite samples taken during a four month period. This is a sufficient sampling period to provide an accurate characterization. The South Salt Lake data were sampled three times in 1980; the 1981 influent data from Granger-Hunter were sampled once; and the effluent data from the significant industries were apparently sampled once. It is not possible to tell if these data are representative of normal conditions. The submission should include a statement on the ability of its sampling to accurately characterize these and the other required wastewaters. C. Need for Locally Developed Discharge Limitation (1) Prevention of Inhibition -- Inadequate. The Board claims that pollutants do not inhibit treatment processes. The influent metals' data appear to support this conclusion. However, the Board has not examined the potential for inhibition from toxic organics. The sub- mission also indicated a regular problem from gasoline in the wastewater. The Board needs to eliminate these gasoline contributions by locating offenders and enforcing current discharge restrictions in the rules and regulations. (2) Prevention of Pass Through -- Inadequate. The submission contained no discussion of the impacts of plant discharges on water quality. At a minimum, the Board must submit the water quality standards and/or criteria applicable to each plant and discuss whether or not plant effluents are effecting these standards and/or criteria. 3-5 ------- A/8-8/#12 (3) Sludge Management Problems -- Inadequate. The submission includes a detailed discussion of expected heavy metal loads in plant sludges. The analysis shows that current metal loadings exceed criteria for composting of sludge. For the Granger-Hunter plant, which currently provides sludge to the public for soil conditioning, the analysis shows excessive levels of cadmium, copper, nickel and zinc. For the Murray and South Salt Lake plants, which also provide sludge to the public, the analysis shows excessive levels of copper and zinc. Finally when the entire service area is combined into a single plant, which is expected to compost its sludge, the analysis shows exceedances of cadmium, copper and nickel. While this analysis may be somewhat flawed, because it was based on estimated metals removal rates (see comment II-A-1, Pass Through), it shows a real need to closely examine metals levels in the sludge. If these predicted removal rates are accurate, the Board must develop metals local limits to protect its siudge. D. Methodology for Setting Local Limitations (1) Appropriate Methodology -- Inadequate. Schedule 1 of each member entity's wastewater control rules and regulations contains an extensive list of controlled pollutants with maximum allowable levels in the effluent. However, this list as presently proposed is not acceptable. The technical sources which are the basis of the list must be referenced. Also, the schedule notes that only substances regulated under the Federal Categorical Standards and Federal Prohibited Discharge Standards are regulated. The list must spell out which pollutants are covered by this criteria and if the limits are to be modified from those presented in the Schedule. Finally, and perhaps the most important criticism, the limits have no demonstrated relationship to prevention of sludge contamination, compliance with NPDES limits, or maintenance of water quality standards and criteria. (2) Relevant Numbers Used for Supporting Data — Inadequate o Inhibition/upset: The table must include threshold concentrations for toxic orgamcs. 3-6 ------- A/8-8/#12 o Removal Efficiencies: Actual operating data indicating removal efficiencies were not presented. The data are needed as described in Comment B-l. o Water quality criteria/standards: The submission contained no presen- tation or analysis ot water quality criteria and standards. Refer to Comment C-2 for submission requirements. E. Appropriateness of Local Pollutant Discharge Limitations (2) Compliance With NPDES Limits -- Inadequate. Refer to Comments C-l and D-l. The limits of Schedule 1 have not been demonstrated to be capable of ensuring that the plants will meet their NPDES 1imits. (3) Water Quality Standards -- Inadequate. Refer to Comments C-2 and D-l. The limits of Schedule 1 have not been demonstrated to be capable of ensuring that applicable water quality standards and criteria will be met. (4) State Sludge Disposal Guidelines -- Inadequate. Refer to Comments C-3 and D-l. The plant sludge, as indicated by the Board's submission, currently exceeds sludge use criteria for several metals. The limits of Schedule 1 do not address this problem. 3-7 ------- D/Reg. 8-8/#13 4. REVIEW OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES In this section, the program implementation procedures of the Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility Board are evaluated, including procedures to: update the industrial waste survey; notify industries of changes in Federal, State, and/or local standards; sample and analyze industrial discharges; investigate noncompliance; enforce against violations; and provide opportunities for public participation. This review found Central Valley's program implementation procedures to be inadequate as a whole. The program lacks a detailed and explicit presentation of the procedures that will be used to implement the various pretreatment tasks and ensure coordination between the parties. Central Valley must demonstrate that it has a clear understanding of its pretreatment obligations and has well-de/ined, consistent procedures to carry them out. Central Valley should refer to EPA1s Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment Program Development for assistance in this area. PART II. Notification of Appropriate Standards or Limitations A. Keeping Abreast of New Requirements -- Inadequate Central Valley's submission does not discuss the procedures that will be used by the individual POTWs to stay up-to-date with all Federal pretreatment standards and other statutory requirements, including Federal categorical standards, State regulations, local limits and others. The Board may wish to assign a staff member or engage an attorney to review the Federal Register. PART III. Receipt and Analysis of Self-Monitoring Reports and Other Notices The program must detail the specific procedures practiced by each member entity for receiving, analyzing, and storing all reports including self- monitoring reports and compliance schedule reports. The submission must include a description of the data management system used and must demonstrate the ability of the system to ensure that reports are received on time, are reviewed by a technical specialist, and are filed properly. The analysis must include a comparison between the discharge values that appear in the reports ------- C/Reg. 8-8/#13 and those specified in the industry's permit or contract and in the municipal ordinance. Procedures must be developed to follow up on cases of noncompli ance. PART IV. PQTVI Compliance Sampling and Analysis A. Random Sampling The submission must document the member entities' schedules and procedures relating to random sampling. Random sampling must be conducted for each significant industrial user at least once a year. B. Monitoring Parameters for SIUs Appendix B of the submission includes a list of Class I industries (significant industrial users) and their respective limits. However, the five industries listed in the Appendix are not the same as those identified as Class I industries in the Industrial Waste Survey (IWS) in Volumes 3 and 4. Furthermore, in several instances, the IWS has included industries in Class II that may be categorical and, hence, might belong in Class I. It is important that these questions and discrepancies be resolved as soon as possible. In addition, SAIC suggests that more detailed procedures be established to ensure that proper sampling methods are maintained. For example, the Board should describe the sampling approach, frequency and technique as well as the pollutants to be monitored for each group of industrial users. C. POTW Sampling Criteria A list of Controlled Limited Pollutants is included in Volume 1, Appendix B of the submission. However, the submission does not specify the criteria used to select these regulated pollutants. Selection should be based on information identified in the IWS, limitations of the treatment plant, or water quality considerations of the receiving stream. PART V. Noncompliance Investigations and Enforcement A. Followup Activities The submission must include a more detailed discussion of the processes by which the member entity POTWs will verify that correction action has 4-2 ------- C/Reg. 8-8/#13 worked. Verification can be assured through certification by the industrial user that the violation has been corrected, increased self-monitoring require- ments, or a follow-up monitoring inspection by the POTW. While certification is acceptable for less serious violations, the POTW should verify corrective actions first-hand in serious cases. B. Quick Response Sampling and Analysis The POTWs must be able to perform quick response sampling, analysis, and inspection in the event of emergency conditions such as fire, explosion, corrosive action, acute upset, or imminent danger to health and safety. Central Valley must establish criteria for classifying situations as emergencies that will require immediate action. C. Chain-of-Custody and Quality Control -- Inadequate Every sample collected by the Board or Member Entity has the potential to be included in a legal action against the discharger. As such, formal procedures must be established and followed to ensure that the collection, handling and analyses of samples are consistent with EPA procedures, and that sample integrity can be assured and proven. These procedures must be fully described as part of the program submission. PART VI. Public Participation B. Notice and Opportunity to Respond As local industrial effluent limitations are developed, Central Valley must ensure that both industrial users and the general public are provided with notice and opportunity to respond. C. Public Access to Program Records Central valley must ensure that all program records -- including industrial effluent data, monitoring results, noncompliance, and corrective action efforts -- are available to the public. 4-3 ------- C/Reg. 8-8/#14 5. REVIEW OF RESOURCES This section reviews Central Valley's organization and staffing, equip- ment, and funding sources. PART I. Organization and Staffing Although the minimum requirements of this part were addressed in the submission, SAIC recommends that the following elements be more clearly delineated to facilitate implementation: o Description of each individual POTW organization, including the functional departments and specific staff members that will carry out the program o Identification of staff responsibilities o Qualifications of all key staff positions. The Central Valley member entities should reevaluate their staffing levels based upon the program implementation needs uncovered in this process. PART II. Equipment A. Sampling Equipment The program submission should clearly define the equipment needs and availability of each member entity including all major equipment to be used as well as any outside capabilities that will be employed. It must be evident that the equipment listed in the submission will be adequate to fulfill the necessary sampling and analysis needs of the program. PART III. Funding Estimates and Sources A. Estimation of Pretreatment Implementation Costs In order to properly evaluate the funding proposal provided in the submission, an itemized cost estimate must be included. Although the submission indicated the 1985 budget for each member entity, the estimate was not itemized. Costs should be detailed for the following areas: labor, annualized capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, overhead, debt service, and any other applicable expenses. 5-1 ------- C/Reg. 8-8/#14 PART IV. Multijurisdictional Submissions The submission should more clearly define the relationships between the staffs of the member entities and the Board. For example, it is unclear whether the individual pretreatment supervisors are employed by each entity or by the Central Valley Board. 5-2 ------- Legal Authority Checklist Name of POTWCentral Valley Board Date April 1986 Yes No Section of POTW's Submission PART I. Submission Completeness Checklist (Legal Aspects) A. 40 CFR 403.9(b) requirements for submission: (1) Does the submission contain a statement from the city solicitor, POTW attorney, or other official? (2) Does the submission contain a copy of every legal authority source cited in the attorney's statement or necessary for program implemen- tation? (e.g., ordinances, contracts, statutes, joint agreements, permits, regulations, etc.) (3) Does the submission contain endorsements from all local boards/bodies responsible for super- vising/funding the pretreatment program? *(4) If any of the legal authorities cited are vested in a particular official's discretion, is there a statement of endorsement from such official? B. 40 CFR 403.9(b)(1) requirements for attorney's statement: (1) Does the statement identify the provision of legal authority for each requirement under 403.8(f)(2)? (2) Does the statement identify the manner in which 403.8 program requirements will be implemented? (3) Does the statement identify how the POTW intends to ensure compliance? C. If the POTW service area includes more than one agency, jurisdiction, government, or body, does the submission include all ordinances, resolutions, regulations, service agreements and other legal documents relevant to the analysis of multijuris- dictional issues? (Use separate Part II forms for each jurisdiction.) PART II. Legal Adequacy [403.8(f)(1)] Does the POTW have the authority to: A. Deny or condition new or increased contributions of pollutants? [403.8(f)(1)(i)] B. Require compliance with applicable pretreatment standards? [403.8(f)(I)(ii)] Vol. 2, pp. 1-3 Vol. 2, pp. 69-104 JL_ Not applicabl JL_ JL. Vol. 1. p, 2 (1) General prohibitions: ference [403.5(a)] pass-through, inter- Sec. 4.1 Sec. 2.3 Sec. 2.2.5(4) (6) + (7) 1 ------- Legal Authority Checklist (Continued) Name of pqtwCentral Valley Board Date April 1986 C. D. E. F. Yes X X JL_ JL_ _X_ X (2) Specific prohibitions [403.5(b)]: • Fire/explosive hazard? • pH/corrosion? • Solid or viscous - obstruction/interference? • Flow rate or concentration to cause inter- ference? • Heat - treatment plant influent 40°C (104°F)? (3) Locally developed limits? [403.5(c) and (d)] (4) National categorical standards? [403-8(f)C1)(ii)] Control through permit, contract, etc., to ensure compliance? [403.8(f)(1)(iii)] Require development of compliance schedules and submission of reports? [403.8(f)(1)(iv)] (1) Development of compliance schedules for installation of technology? (2) Submission of notices and self-monitoring reports including 403.12 requirements (baseline report, compliance schedule progress report, report on final compliance with categorical pretreatment standards, periodic reports on continued compliance, notice of slug loading)? Carry out inspection, surveillance, and monitoring procedures: [403.8(f)(1)(v)] (1) Right to enter premises at any reasonable time? (2) Right to inspect generally for compliance? (3) Right to sample? (4) Right to require installation of monitoring equipment? (5) Right to inspect and copy records [403.12(n)]? Remedies for non-compliance by industrial users? [403.8(f)(1)(vi)] (1) Obtain remedies for noncompliance: • Injunctive relief? X • Are the civil or criminal penalties sufficient to bring about compliance, or act as a deterrent? X (2) Halt immediately and effectively any actual or threatened discharge? X G. Comply with confidentiality requirements (protection of public access to effluent data)? [403.8(f)(1)(vii)] [403.14] 2 No JL. _X_ _X_ _X_ _X_ X Section of POTW's Submission Sec. 2.2.5(1) Sec. 2.2.5(3) Sec. 2.2.5(2) Spc. 7.7-5(10 Sec/ 2.2.5(9) Spr, 7.3 Sec. 4.1 Vol. 1, p. 2 (see comment) Vol. 1, p. 67 Sec. 5.4 Sec. 4.3 ------- Legal Authority Checklist (Continued) Name of potw Central Va 1 ley Board Date April 1986 Section of POTW's Yes No Submission H. Form special agreements (waivers): (1) Does the ordinance contain a special agreement clause? X (2) If yes, does this special agreement clause specifically exclude the waiver of Federal categorical pretreatraent standards? I. Control extra-jurisdictional agencies, and industries which contribute industrial wastewaters to the POTW? See discussion in Sec. 2.3 *Indicates item is recommended, but not mandatory. I have reviewed this submission in detail and have determined the legal authority to be: ( ) Adequate ( ) Inadequate Date: Reviewed by: (Name) 3 ------- Legal Authority Checklist Name of potw Member Entities Date April 1986 (1) General prohibitions: ference [403.5(a)] pass-through, inter- Yes No Section of POTW s Submission PART I. Submission Completeness Checklist (Legal Aspects) A. 40 CFR 403.9(b) requirements for submission: (1) Does the submission contain a statement from the city solicitor, POTW attorney, or other official? (2) Does the submission contain a copy of every legal authority source cited in the attorney's statement or necessary for program implemen- tation? (e.g., ordinances, contracts, statutes, joint agreements, permits, regulations, etc.) (3) Does the submission contain endorsements from all local boards/bodies responsible for super- vising/funding the pretreatment program? *(4) If any of the legal authorities cited are vested in a particular official's discretion, is there a statement of endorsement from such official? B. 40 CFR 403.9(b)(1) requirements for attorney's statement: (1) Does the statement identify the provision of legal authority for each requirement under 403.8(f)(2)? (2) Does the statement identify the manner in which 403.8 program requirements will be implemented? (3) Does the statement identify how the POTW intends to ensure compliance? C. If the POTW service area includes more than one agency, jurisdiction, government, or body, does the submission include all ordinances, resolutions, regulations, service agreements and other legal documents relevant to the analysis of multijuris- dictional issues? (Use separate Part II forms for each jurisdiction.) PART II. Legal Adequacy [403.8(f)(1)] Does the POTW have the authority to: A. Deny or condition new or increased contributions of pollutants? [403.8(f)(1)(i)] B. Require compliance with applicable pretreatment standards? [ 403.8(f)(1)(H)] Vols. 1 & 2 Vol. 1, pp. 17-35 Vols. 1 & 2 Not appl i cab"1 ¦ Sec. Sec. 5.1 5.23 Sec. 2.2.5(4), Sec. 2.4 Sec. 2.2.5/(4) (6) + (7) 1 ------- Name of potw Member Entities Legal Authority Checklist (Continued) Date April 1986 Section of POTW s Yes No Submission (2) Specific prohibitions [403.5(b)]: • Fire/explosive hazard? _X Sec. 2.2.5 (1) • pH/corrosion? J( Sec. 2.5.5 (3) • Solid or viscous - obstruction/interference? Sec. 2.5.5 (2) • Flow rate or concentration to cause inter- ference? _X Sec. 2.5.5 (10 • Heat - treatment plant influent 40°C (104°F)? _X Sec. 2.5.5 (9) (3) Locally developed limits? [403.5(c) and (d)] X Sec. 2.2.5 (4) (4) National categorical standards? and Sec. 2.6 (See comments-Ch.3, Partll [403.8(f)(1)(ii)] "XI ~ Sec. 2.2.5(TFT Sec. 2.4 C. Control through permit, contract, etc., to ensure compliance? [403.8(f)(1)(iii)] _X Sec. 5.1 D. Require development of compliance schedules and submission of reports? [403.8(f)(1)(iv)] (1) Development of compliance schedules for installation of technology? J( Sec. 5.2.4 (f) (2) Submission of notices and self-monitoring reports including 403.12 requirements (baseline report, compliance schedule progress report, report on final compliance with categorical pretreatment standards, periodic reports on Sec. 5.2.4(g) continued compliance, notice of slug loading)? _X Sec. 5.3 E. Carry out inspection, surveillance, and monitoring procedures: [403.8(f)(1)(v)] (1) Right to enter premises at any reasonable time? _X Sec. 5.5 (2) Right to inspect generally for compliance? % Sec. 5.5 (3) Right to sample? _X Sec. 5.5 (4) Right to require installation of monitoring equipment? J( Sec. 5.4 (5) Right to inspect and copy records [403.12(n)J? X Sec. 5.5 F. Remedies for non-compliance by industrial users? [403.8(f)(1)(vi)] (1) Obtain remedies for noncompliance: Attorney's ltr • Injunctive relief? (see comment) • Are the civil or criminal penalties sufficient to bring about compliance, or act as a deterrent? _X Vol. 1, p.67 (2) Halt immediately and effectively any actual or threatened discharge? X Sec. 7.4 G. Comply with confidentiality requirements (protection of public access to effluent data)? [403.8(f)(1)(vii)] [403.14] 2 _X_ Sec. 5.9 ------- Legal Authority Checklist (Continued) Name of POTW Member Entities Date April 1986 Yes No H. Form special agreements (waivers): (L) Does the ordinance contain a special agreement clause? (2) If yes, does this special agreement clause specifically exclude the waiver of Federal categorical pretreatment standards? I. Control extra-jurisdictional agencies, and industries which contribute industrial wastewaters to the POTW? Section of POTW s Submission Sec. 2.13 Sec. 2.13 See Discussion in Section 2.3 *Indicates item is recommended, but not mandatory. I have reviewed this submission in detail and have determined the legal authority to be: Date: ( ) Adequate ( ) Inadequate Reviewed by: (Name) 3 ------- TECHNICAL INFORMATION CHECKLIST POTW: CENTRAL VALLEY, UTAH DATE: March iytfb YES NO SECTION OF POTW's SUBMISSION I. Industrial Waste Survey [403.8(f)(2)(i) and (ii)] A. Were the sources used sufficient to assure that all major industrial users were identified and 1ocated? X Vol. 1-p 45 B. Were the criteria used to eliminate industries from the inventory appropriate? X Vol. Vol. 1-pp 44-46 3; Vol. 4 (1) Did the POTW obtain the following informa- tion (either through the survey or other means): o Name? X Vol. Vol. , I-pp 45-46 . 3; Vol. 4 o Address? X Vol, Vol, . 1-pp 45-46 . 3; Vol. 4 o SIC code(s) or expected classification?... X Vol. Vol, . 1-pp 45-46 . 3; Vol. 4 o Wastewater flow rate or water consumption rate? X Vol Vol . 1-pp 44-46 . 3: Vol. 4 o Loads and/or concentrations of pollutants in discharge? X Vol. 1-pp 45-46 Appendix B o Major products manufactured or services supplied? X Vo I . 1-pp 4b-4b Appendix B Vol. 3; Vol. 4 *o Residuals generated by IU's disposal methods? X *o Locations of discharge points? X Vol . 1-pp 45-46 o Description of existing pretreatment fac- ilities and practices? X Vol . 1-pp 45-46 (2) Is the information current within the last three years? X Vol . 1-p 45 *(3) Does the questionnaire require the signature of an authorized company representative?... X D. Follow-up Procedures (1) Did the POTW follow-up the questionnaire (with additional written requests, telephone calls or site visits) to obtain a complete and accurate response? X Vol . 1-p 45 ------- TECHNICAL INFORMATION CHECKLIST, continued CENTRAL VALLEY, UTAH March 1986 YES NO SECTION OF POTW's SUBMISSION E. Summary Information (1) Were the users classified by industrial category and/or SIC code? _X_ (2) Has the POTW correctly character!zed the waste discharged from each industrial user or industrial type? (3) Does the information obtained demonstrate sufficient characterization of the IU's waste discharges to the POTW? II. Methodology for Establishing Discharge Limitations [403.5(c) J A. POTW Operating Problems and Plant History (1) Did the POTW adequately document instances of: o Inhibition/upset? o Pass-through?..... o Sludge contamination? B. Developmental Sampling Program (1) Has the POTW recently sampled and analyzed: o Treatment plant influent? o Treatment plant unit operations? o Plant effluent? o Sludge? *o Industrial effluents? (2) Did this analysis include pollutants of concern identified in the survey? (3) Were appropriate sampling locations chosen?: o In the treatment system? o In the collection system? X X X X X Vol. 3; Vol. 4 Vol. 1-pp 44-46 Appendix B- Vol.3; Vol Vol. 1-pp 44-46 Appendix B Vol. 3; Vol. 4 Vol. 4- Part 2-B Vol. 4- Part 2-B Vol. 4- Part 2-B Vol. 4- Part 2-B Vol. 4- Part 2-B Vol. 4- Part 2-B Vol. 4- Part 2-B Vol. 1-Appendix B ------- TECHNICAL INFORMATION CHECKLIST, continued CENTRAL VALLEY, UTAH March 1986 YES NO SECTION OF POTW's SUBMISSION o At the industries? 4. Was the appropriate type of sampling per- formed for each pollutant type (composite or grab)? *5. Was the sampling frequency sufficient to give an accurate characterization? C. Need for Locally Developed Discharge Limitations (1) Did the POTW assess whether or not pollu- tants are present in the influent in amounts that inhibit treatment processes used by the POTW? (2) Did the POTW assess whether or not toxic pollutants are present in the POTW effluent in amounts known to exceed water quality criteria? (3) Are sludge disposal methods acceptable in view of pollutant load? D. Methodology for Setting Local Discharge Limits (1) Is the methodology appropriate? (2) Were relevant numbers used for: o Inhibition/upset concentrations? o Background concentrations? o Removal efficiencies? o Water quality criteria/standards? o Sludge use criteria? o Non-secured landfill disposal (in- cluding ash disposal)? E. Appropriateness of Locally Developed Dis- charge Limitations (1) Are local limitations at least as stringent as national pretreatment standards for the appropriate categories? _X_ X X X Vol. 4- Part 2-B "Vol. 4- Part 2-B Vol. 4- Part 2-B Vol. 4- Part 2-B Schedule 1 Vol. 4 Part 2^B, Table I Vol. 4 Part 2-B. Table II' Vol, 4 Part 2-B. Table III Not Applicable Section 2.4 of Wastewater Rules and Regulations ------- TECHNICAL INFORMATION CHECKLIST, continued CENTRAL VALLEY, UTAH March 1986 YES NO SECTION OF POTW's SUBMISSION (2) Do local limitations enable the POTW to meet NPDES permit limits? (3) Will State water quality standards be met once local discharge limits are complied with? (4) Will State sludge disposal guidelines/ regulations be complied with? F. Multijurisdictional Submissions Were data from IUs and treatment plants in all jurisdictions considered in developing this technical information X Vol. 4-Part 2-B Vol. 1-4 * Indicates item is recommended, but not mandatory. fFNTRAI Vfll I FY I have reviewed the submission in detail and have determined the submission, in regard to technical information to be: ( ) Adequate ( X ) Inadequate )ate: 3/31/86 Reviewed by: Fred Test (SAIC) ------- Program Implementation Procedures Checklist Name of potw Central Valley, Utah Date April 1986 Section Yes PART I. Updating the Industrial Waste Survey [403.8(f)(2)(i) and (ii)] A. Are procedures identified for updating (periodically) the waste survey information for existing users? B. Do procedures require new industries to supply discharge information or otherwise ensure that it will be collected? PART II. Notification of Appropriate Federal, State, and/or Local Standards or Limitations [403 .8(f)(2)(iii)] A. Are there procedures for keeping abreast of existing and newly promulgated standards and requirements? B. Is there a mechanism to identify and notify industrial users of standards, limitations, or other requirements? X PART III. Receipt and Analysis of Self-Monitoring Reports and Other Notices [403.8(f)(2)(iv)] A. Are there procedures for determining what self- monitoring and other reports are due? B. Are values reported by industries compared to discharge standards or compliance schedules? C. Are problems referred to appropriate authorities for technical evaluation and follow-up? PART IV. POTW Compliance Sampling and Analysis [403-8(f)(2)(v)] A. Does the description of the monitoring program include procedures for periodic random sampling of significant industrial dischargers? B. Are sampling and monitoring parameters identified for each firm or group of industries? C. Is the POTW sampling for the significant pollutants identified by the Industrial Waste Survey or by the priority pollutant/industry matrix? D. Do the sampling and monitoring procedures conform to EPA requirements? (40 CFR 136Standard Methods") E. Is the frequency adequate to determine compliance independent of information supplied by IUs (at least annually)? of POTW's No Submission Vol. 1, pp. 46-47 Vol.1, p.34; p.49 Rules & Regs §5.2.2; §5.3.1 X Vol. 1, p.49; p. 51 Vol. 1, pp.11-12; pp.49-51;Rules&Regs §5.2.4; §5.3.1; X §5.3.2; see comment Vol. 1, pp.9-11; p.5 X see comment Vol. 1, pp.9-11 X see comments Vol. 1, pp.10-11; p.49 Vol. 1, App. B, p.46, see comment Vol. 1, App. B, Schedule 1 Vol. 1, p.46, Rules&Regs, §5.7 Vol. 1, pp.50-51 7 ------- Name of POTW Central Valley, Utah Program Implementation Procedures Checklist (Continued) Date April 1986 Yes No Section of POTW s Submission PART V. Noncompliance Investigations and Enforcement [403 - 8(f)(2)(vi)] A. Are follow-up activities described that include provisions to: (1) Cover emergency situations? (2) Notify industrial users of violations? (3) Allow for response by industrial users? (4) Abate and control problem discharges? (5) Verify that corrective actions have worked? (6) Obtain compliance through legal means if necessary? (7) Assess penalties for noncompliance? B. Are procedures for quick response sampling and analysis included (demand sampling)? C. Are chain-of-custody and quality control provisions specified? PART VI. Public Participation A. Do procedures include at least annual notice of violations published in local newspapers? [403.8(f)(2)(vii)] B. Is notice and opportunity to respond provided, both to the industrial users and the general public, on the process of developing local industrial effluent limitations? [403.5(c)(3)] Are program records available to the public? Multijurisdlctional Submissions Are there procedures to coordinate monitoring, enforcement, and implementation activities between the jurisdictions involved? Has the NPDES permit holder assumed lead responsibility in program implementation? *C. PART VII. A. B. Vol. 1, p.50 Rules&Regs, §7.4, see comment Rules&Regs.§7.9 Vol.1,p.53,Rules&Regs,§7.9 Rules&Regs,§7.4 X Vol.l.p.9 Vol.1,pp.14-15 Rules&Regs,§7.6, §7.10, 67.11 Vol.1.p.53; p.67 Rules&Regs. §7.11 X Rules&Regs §5.5 Vol.1,p.57 Rules&Regs, §5.i Rules&Regs §5.9 Vol .1,pp.7-11; pp.54-57 *Indicates item is recommended, but not mandatory. I have reviewed this submission in detail and have determined the implementation procedures to be: ( ) Adequate ( X ) Inadequate Date: Reviewed by: 8 (Name) ------- Resources Checklist Name of POTW Central Valley, Utah Date April 1986 Yes No Section of POTW s Submission PART I. Organization and Staffing [403.8(f)(3) and 403.9(b)(3)i A. Is the description of the POTW organization clear and appropriate? B. Are mechanisms identified for delegating pretreatraent tasks to other local government agencies? C. Are personnel or positions identified that are responsible for: (1) Technical review? (2) Monitoring? (3) Laboratory analysis? (4) Legal assistance and enforcement? (5) Administration? D. Have appropriate staffing levels been determined based on the program description? PART II. Equipment A. Does the POTW have adequate sampling equipment or other provisions to conduct necessary sampling? B. Does the POTW have adequate analytical capabilities to perform analyses for: (1) Nutrients and other non-conventionals? (2) Metals? (3) Toxic organics? C. If not, are other arrangements made to do so (e.g., contract with private laboratory, other agency)? PART III. Funding Estimates and Sources A. Does the POTW present an itemized estimate of pre- treatment implementation costs? B. Is there an account of revenue sources that will cover the annual costs of the pretreatment program? Vol. l,pp 7-11; pp.54-57 see comment Vol.1, pp. 7-11; pp. 54-57 Vol Vol. 1, pp. 9-11; pp. 54-57 .1,DP.8-11; dd.54-57 Vol.1, DD.54-57 Vol Vol .1.DD.9-11-.DD. 54-57 .1,dd.7-11;dd.54-57 Vol.1, p.58 see comment Vol.1, p.58 see comment Vol. 1, p.54 Vol.1, p.58 Vol.l,p.8,pp.57-58 9 ------- Resources Checklist Name of POTW Central Valley, Utah Date April 1986 Section of POTW's Yes No Submission PART IV. Multijurisdictional Submissions A. Does each jurisdiction participate in funding the Vol.1, pp.7-11; pretreatment program? X pp.57-58 B. Are the relationships between the staff (personnel) of the participating jurisdictions adequately described and documented? X Vol .l,pp.7-ll;p.55 I have reviewed this submission in detail and have determined the resources to be: ( ) Adequate ( x ) Inadequate Date: Reviewed by: 10 ------- |