CONTROL AUTHORITY PRETREATMENT AUDIT
CHECKLIST AND INSTRUCTIONS
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
May 1992
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
This project has been funded, at least in part, with Federal funds from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance under Contract No. 68-C8-0066, WA No. C-3-4 (P). The mention of trade
names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
Government.
-------
ACRONYM LIST
Acronym
AO
BMP
BMR
CA
CERCLA
CFR
CIU
CSO
CWA
CWF
DMR
DSS
EP
EPA
ERP
PDF
FTE
FWA
gpd
IU
IWS
MOD
MSW
N/A
ND
NOV
NPDES
O&G
PCI
PCS
PIRT
POTW
QA/QC
RCRA
RNC
SIU
SNC
SUO
TCLP
TOMP
TRC
TRE
TRIS
TSDF
TTO
UST
WENDB
Term
Administrative Order
Best Management Practices
Baseline Monitoring Report
Control Authority
Comprehensive Environmental Remediation, Compensation, and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Categorical Industrial User
Combined Sewer Overflow
Clean Water Act
Combined Wastestream Formula
Discharge Monitoring Report
Domestic Sewage Study
Extraction Procedure
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Response Plan
Fundamentally Different Factors
Full-Time Equivalent
Flow-Weighted Average
gallons per day
Industrial User
Industrial Waste Survey
Million Gallons Per Day
Municipal Solid Waste
Not Applicable
Not Determined
Notice of Violation
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Oil and Grease
Pretreatment Compliance inspection
Permit Compliance System
Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reportable Noncompliance
Significant Industrial User
Significant Noncompliance
Sewer Use Ordinance
Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
Toxic Organic Management Pfan
Technical Review Criteria
Technical Review Evaluation
Toxics Release Inventory System
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
Total Toxic Organics
Underground Storage Tank
Water Enforcement National Data Base
Audit Checklist
(reviled April 1992)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PART I: INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION 1
Overview 1
Purpose 2
Experience Necessary to Conduct an Audit 2
Procedures for Conducting an Audit 3
Checklist Structure 6
Resources for Conducting Audits 7
WordPerfect Disk Information 7
PART II: CONTROL AUTHORITY PRETREATMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST
AUDIT CHECKLIST CONTENTS 1
Acronym List 2
General Instructions 3
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION 3
IU Identification 5
IU File Review 9
A. Issuance of IU Control Mechanism 9
B. CA Compliance Monitoring 12
C. CA Enforcement Activities 13
D. Other 14
SECTION II: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT 15
A. CA Pretreatment Program Modification 15
B. Legal Authority 16
C. IU Characterization 17
D. Control Mechanism Evaluation 18
E. Application of Pretreatment Standards and Requirements 19
F. Compliance Monitoring 20
G. Enforcement 22
H. Data Management/Public Participation 23
I. Resources 24
J. Environmental Effectiveness/Pollution Prevention 26
K. Additional Evaluations/Information 28
-------
SECTION ffl: FINDINGS 29
A. CA Pretreatment Program Modification 29
B. Legal Authority 29
C. IU Characterization 30
D. Control Mechanism Evaluation 30
E. Application of Pretreatment Standards and Requirements 31
F. Compliance Monitoring 31
G. Enforcement 32
H. Data Management/Public Participation 33
I. Resources 33
J. Environmental Effectiveness/Pollution Prevention 34
K. Additional Evaluations/Information 34
ATTACHMENTS
A: Pretreatment Program Status Update A-l
B: Pretreatment Program Profile B-l
C: Worksheets:
IU Site Visit Data Sheet C-l
WENDB Data Entry Worksheet C-3
RNC Worksheet C-5
PART III: AUDIT CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION 1
IU Identification 1
IU File Review 2
A. Issuance of IU Control Mechanism 2
B. CA Compliance Monitoring 7
C. CA Enforcement Activities 8
D. Other 12
SECTION II: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT 13
A. CA Pretreatment Program Modification 13
B. Legal Authority 14
C. IU Characterization 16
D. Control Mechanism Evaluation 19
E. Application of Pretreatment Standards and Requirements 21
F. Compliance Monitoring 24
G. Enforcement 28
H. Data Management/Public Participation 31
I. Resources 33
J. Environmental Effectiveness/Pollution Prevention 35
K. Additional Evaluations/Information 38
SECTION III: FINDINGS 39
-------
PART I:
INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
The pretreatment program represents a unique partnership in the regulatory community, a partnership
between Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies. The Approval Authority [the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) or the authorized State] is responsible for ensuring that local program
implementation is consistent with all applicable Federal requirements and is effective in achieving the
National Pretreatment Program's goals. To carry out this responsibility, the Approval Authority
determines local program compliance and effectiveness, and takes corrective actions [e.g., changes to the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, enforcement] where needed to bring
these about. The Approval Authority currently uses three oversight mechanisms to make these
determinations: (1) the program audit; (2) the Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI); and (3) the
Control Authority's (CA's) annual pretreatment program performance report.
The audit, which for most programs takes place once every 5 years, is the most comprehensive of
the three mechanisms and provides the opportunity to evaluate all aspects of the CA's program. It also
provides the opportunity to help the CA build its local program implementation capability. Since the audit
was developed in 1986, its purpose was to assess the program's compliance with the regulatory
requirements as they were expressed in the NPDES permit. The audit also identified areas of the CA's
program that needed to be modified to bring the program into compliance with the regulations.
In recent years, both the pretreatment program itself and the tracking of program implementation
compliance have undergone major changes. Revisions to the General Pretreatment Regulations [40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 403] in response to the Pretreatment Implementation Review Task
Force (PIRT) recommendations in January 1989 and the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) findings in July
1990 resulted in numerous additions to local program requirements. This has necessitated a revision of
the audit checklist. The attached audit checklist replaces the checklist developed in 1986. This checklist
covers all the evaluated components of the previous checklist, but goes beyond and looks at the program's
impact in terms of environmental effectiveness and pollution prevention.
The audit serves several important functions such as identifying needed changes to the NPDES
permit and initiating enforcement action against CA noncompliance. Using this checklist, the auditor can
also examine the effectiveness of the program by evaluating environmental indicators and investigating the
CA's use of pollution prevention techniques to enhance the impact of the program. The new checklist is
-------
also geared toward identifying program areas where recommendations may be made to increase the
effectiveness of the CA's program.
PURPOSE
The principal reason for conducting an audit is to assess the CA's program as a whole by reviewing
all components and determining the program's overall effectiveness and compliance. This is done by
examining the discreet portions of the whole program [e.g., legal authority, Industrial User (IU) control
mechanisms, compliance monitoring, and enforcement], and making an assessment based upon how the
discreet portions interact to form the whole. The specific objectives to be accomplished by conducting an
audit are: determining the CA's compliance status with requirements of its NPDES permit, approved
program, and Federal regulations; evaluating the adequacy and effectiveness of the program in achieving
compliance and environmental goals of the program; determining whether any modifications have been
made to the program; and verifying important elements of the CA's program performance reports.
EXPERIENCE NECESSARY TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT
Because the new audit checklist looks at the entire program in extensive detail and examines areas
that were previously looked at only on a case-by-case basis, this checklist assumes a high level of
pretreatment program expertise on the part of the auditor. He/she must be very familiar with the goals of
the pretreatment program, the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403), categorical standards,
and EPA/State policy and guidance. He/she should also have participated in audits conducted by a senior
lead auditor.
The auditor must be familiar enough with all aspects of a local pretreatment program to conduct an
audit that will collect the data necessary to make a meaningful evaluation of the CA's compliance status
and the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals. At a minimum, he/she should be able to:
Identify the category to which an industry belongs and to develop appropriate permit limits based
on the process wastewater discharged. To do this, the auditor must be knowledgeable about the
National categorical pretreatment standards.
Evaluate the adequacy of the control mechanisms issued by the CA to their Significant Industrial
Users (SIUs). The auditor must be able to determine whether the control mechanism meets the
minimum regulatory requirements and whether it is effective in controlling the discharge of the
SIU.
Evaluate the CA's legal authority for its compliance with regulatory requirements and the ability
of the CA to enforce its program throughout its service area. The auditor must have an
understanding of the authorities provided to the CA by its Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO), including
available remedies and procedures for taking action for IU noncompliance. He/she must also be
-------
familiar with issues related to implementing and enforcing a local program across jurisdictional
boundaries and approaches to resolving such issues.
Understand compliance monitoring requirements. The auditor's knowledge must include
appropriate sampling techniques, EPA approved methods, and proper Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) and chain-of-custody procedures so that data may be admissible as evidence in
enforcement proceedings.
Conduct a comprehensive pretreatment inspection at IU facilities and be familiar with hazardous
waste requirements and spill prevention and control.
Evaluate the CA's enforcement responses. To do so, the auditor must be knowledgeable of the
various types of possible enforcement actions which are available to the Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTW) as well as EPA/State policies and guidance on enforcement.
Assist the CA to determine what pollution prevention techniques may enhance the local program.
This requires the auditor to be knowledgeable about current efforts and policies regarding
pollution prevention.
Evaluate the environmental effectiveness of the program by examining data collected over the
years by the CA concerning pollutant loadings, discharges, and other indicators.
PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT
The audit requires extensive preparation, detailed data collection when onsite, and timely follow-up.
In brief, the major steps for conducting an audit are:
Office preparation prior to going onsite
- Review NPDES permit file, enforcement file, and pretreatment program file
- Review such documents as a manufacturers' guide, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) permit list for the municipalities involved, Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS)
data, etc., to be familiar with all industries that may contribute to the POTW
- Notify the CA of the upcoming visit (if appropriate)
Onsite visit
- Entry (present credentials)
- Review SID files
- Inspect selected SIUs
- Interview program staff
- Review POTW records and files
- Conduct closing conference
-------
Follow-up
- Prepare and distribute report
- Enter Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data elements
- Determine Reportable Noncompliance (RNC)/Significant Noncompliance (SNC) and enter data
- Modify NPDES permit (if appropriate)
- Refer for enforcement (if appropriate).
Preparation
The amount of data to be collected and evaluated during an audit is considerable and time is limited.
Thus, preparation for the audit is crucial to the well-focused collection of meaningful data. The
pretreatment program profile data sheets and status update sheets attached to the checklist will help Ihe
auditor compile very general program information before he/she goes onsite. The auditor should spend
time obtaining information about the industrial contribution to the POTW by reviewing the CA's Industrial
Waste Survey (IWS) as well as the manufacturers' guides for the municipalities covered by the local
program. The auditor should also review TRIS and RCRA permitting data. After becoming familiar with
the industrial picture, the auditor may want to review development documents to familiarize
himself/herself with the primary industries discharging to the POTW. The auditor should also become
familiar with issues affecting the POTW such as being listed on 304(1) or being involved in a Technical
Review Evaluation (TRE).
File Review
Once onsite, the auditor should go through standard NPDES inspection entry procedures then explain
to CA personnel what the audit will entail. Once the initial entry procedures are complete, the auditor
should select IU files and conduct the file review. Files may be chosen in many ways; however, use of
the scheme shown in Figure 1 is strongly recommended as best providing a reasonable representation of
SIUs regulated under local program. The auditor should bear in mind that the above recommendations are
for review of SIU files. This does not imply that non-SIU files ought not also be reviewed. The auditor
will need to exercise his/her best professional judgment to determine the number of both SIU and non-SIU
files to review. He/she should allocate 2 to 3 hours per file for a detailed review.
-------
Figure 1. Recommended Number of SIU Files to Review
Total No. of SIUs
Minimum No. of Files to Review
£ 10
11-20
21-30
31-50
51-100
101-200
201-300
301-1,000
1,000-1,500
5
5
8
10
15
20
25
30
50
The auditor should select files that demonstrate a representative cross section of the CA's TUs.
He/she should evaluate both categorical and significant noncategorical lUs and give particular attention to
files of SIUs newly added to the program and those with compliance issues (e.g., in SNC, having received
escalated enforcement action). Special attention should also be given to CIUs without pretreatment, but
reported to be in compliance with categorical standards. The auditor should also choose files based on:
CIUs with complicated processes [i.e., production based, Combined Wastestream Formula (CWF) - Flow
Weighted Averaging (FWA) issues, etc.]. Finally, he/she should review some files that were not reviewed
during previous audits or inspections.
IU Site Visits
After the file review, the auditor should conduct as many IU site visits as possible. IU site visits are
often essential to verify information found in the files. They are also helpful in making the lUs aware of
the importance EPA places on the local programs. Again, the number and types of lUs to be visited
should be representative of the program's industrial make-up and based on the time needed for each visit.
The auditor should compile the results of the file review and site visits prior to conducting the interview
portion of the audit.
-------
Interview
During the interview portion, the auditor should talk with as many CA personnel as necessary to
obtain an accurate picture of how the local program is implemented. Although the pretreatment
coordinator may be familiar with proper monitoring procedures, he/she may not be completely familiar
with how the program's monitoring is actually being conducted, particularly in large programs.
Information on what is happening in the field should be obtained from field personnel. Also, in
multijurisdictional situations, it may be necessary to speak with representatives of the contributing
jurisdictions to learn how the program is actually being implemented in those service areas. The auditor
should take detailed notes to document each interview. Also, whenever possible, he/she should collect
supporting documentation to corroborate answers given by the interviewees. For instance, if a CA staff
person states that a total of 26 inspections were conducted in the last calendar year, the auditor should
request a copy of the CA's log or its equivalent to verify this information.
Closing Conference
After the file review, IU site visits, interviews, and other evaluations are complete, the auditor
should compile all the data obtained to prepare for the closing conference. At the closing conference, the
auditor should verbally present his/her findings to that point to the CA. He/she should make it clear that
these findings are preliminary and subject to change once the data collected have been more thoroughly
reviewed.
Follow-up
Audit follow-up will center on preparing the report and identifying the action necessary to ensure
that appropriate changes to the POTW's program occur. Follow up action may include revisions to the
NPDES permit, formal enforcement action, or other action. The auditor should analyze his/her data as
quickly as possible and draft the report so that it can be transmitted to the CA in a timely manner. The
auditor should also enter the WENDB and RNC data in the data base. In addition, he/she should complete
the appropriate NPDES Compliance Inspection Report Forms and update the Status Update and Program
Profiles. The auditor should handle NPDES permit modifications and enforcement activities in accordance
with EPA Regional/State policy.
As mentioned earlier, the audit requires balancing many different data gathering techniques. By
balancing these techniques properly, the auditor will obtain the best result and a comprehensive look at the
CA's program. The file review and IU site visits are areas that pose the greatest resource burden to the
Approval Authority. EPA recommends looking at as many files and visiting as many lUs as possible with
balance in mind. For example, reviewing 25 files and visiting 2 lUs does not provide the balance that
-------
would be achieved by reviewing 15 files and visiting 10 lUs at a medium sized POTW with 100 SIUs.
Although this latter effort requires a greater resource commitment, it provides much more meaningful
data.
CHECKLIST STRUCTURE
The audit checklist is divided into the following three sections. Regulatory citations are provided for
all required program items. Items on the checklist that do not have a corresponding regulatory citation are
not required, but are recommended because they would enhance the effectiveness of the program.
Comment space is also provided for each item to enable adequate documentation of the findings.
Section I: File Review - evaluates the CA's performance by reviewing the IU records which the CA
maintains. Unlike information obtained in interviews, a review of the CA's files provides proof that the
CA is either implementing or not implementing its program. If relevant information is not found in the
files, the auditor should note this problem as one of the audit findings. The File Review is suggested to
be conducted first because it enables the auditor to identify issues that can be discussed during the
interview, and either resolved during the closing conference or established as a finding for the report.
The file review also provides a basis on which to select lUs for site visits.
Section II: Interview - is intended to evaluate the portions of program implementation that could
not be evaluated adequately by looking at the IU files. This section also complements the information
gained during the file review and IU site visits. For example, the file review looks at the quality of
permits issued while the interview investigates the adequacy of the issuance process.
Section III: Findings - enables the auditor to organize all issues that will need to be addressed in
the subsequent report. This section is organized to correspond to the subsections in Sections I and II.
The areas of concern to consider are listed with corresponding regulatory and checklist question citations.
This was done to assist the auditor in compiling all findings for each one.
There are five attachments to the checklist: the Pretreatment Program Status IJpdate and
Pretreatment Program Profile to be completed before the audit and updated subsequent to the audit; the IU
Site Visit Data Sheet to be used at the auditor's option when conducting IU site visits during the audit; and
the WENDB Data Entry Worksheet and the RNC Worksheet to be completed as part of the audit follow-
up to provide input into the data base. When completed with thoroughness, the body of the checklist and
its attachments will provide the auditor with the documentation needed to draft the audit report, initiate
any corrective and enforcement actions needed, and enter WENDB and RNC data into the data base.
-------
RESOURCES FOR CONDUCTING AUDITS
The resources necessary to conduct audits will vary greatly from program to program. Some
variables contributing to different resource needs include: size of the POTW; number and size of SIUs;
and number of jurisdictions involved. These variables will impact preparation time, time onsite, report
preparation, and follow-up. The average resources needed to conduct an audit of a small local program
would be 1-2 people onsite for 2 days with 2-4 hours needed for preparation and 8-16 hours needed to
write the report. For a medium-size program, the Approval Authority should allow 2 people onsite for 2-
3 days, 4-8 hours for preparation, and 16-24 hours to write the report. Finally, a large program is likely
to require 3-5 people onsite for 3-5 days, 16-24 hours of preparation, and 24-40 hours to write the report.
The Approval Authority should be aware that these are broad estimates and are provided only as a general
basis for decisions regarding scheduling and staffing.
COMPUTER FILE INFORMATION
For the user's convenience, this "Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist and Instructions"
package includes a 5 1/4" High Density diskette containing the audit checklist form in seven files
corresponding to the cover page, Sections I, II, and III, and Attachments A, B, and C. To use the
checklist computer file, you must have WordPerfect Version 5.1 (with manual) and a LaserJet series III
printer (with manual). Use on another printer may cause format problems. The following instructions
will facilitate the use of the Pretreatment Audit Checklist computer file.
Entering Data in the Computer File
The Checklist was designed using the WordPerfect 5.1 TABLES function which uses "cells" and
"columns" to create multi-structure tables. The questions on the enclosed hard copy of the checklist
correspond to the cells containing text in the computer file (i.e., the "question cells"). These cells are
locked to facilitate moving through the checklist; the cursor will skip over them. (Note: to delete these
cells, see Unlocking Cells, below.) The blank spaces on the hard copy correspond to the empty cells (i.e.,
the "answer cells") in the file. These cells are not locked and are formatted so that the information typed
into them will print in boldface italic type.
To ensure that the information in the IU Identification section prints properly, the cursor must be
placed between the "[BOLD][ITALIC][italic][bold]" codes before typing in the text. Working with the
"REVEAL CODES" (Fll or ALT F3) displayed will ensure a consistent product. Also, each unlocked
cell contains a specific number of HARD RETURNS (HRts) that ensure the table will remain intact on
one page. When entering text, the user is advised to cursor to each line. Where text automatically wraps,
the same number of HRts should be deleted as the SOFT RETURNS (SRts) that were entered by the
-------
wraps. The user is cautioned that entering more SRts than there are HRts available, may cause an
inappropriate page break. If this occurs,it is recommended that a new table be created using the
TABLE function (ALT FT) to move what is needed to the next page.
Once the text has been entered, you can use the "SAVE AS" function (F10) to give the files new
names, thus keeping the original blank checklist file intact. In addition, entering data in the computer file
necessitates use of several complex functions. These are described below.
Unlocking Cells
It is recognized that standardized forms such as the "Pretreatment Audit Checklist" cannot meet
everyone's needs on every occasion. From time to time, it may be desirable to enter data into a locked
cell. The cursor must be within the table frame and you must access the TABLE function using "ALT
F7" to make any changes to a cell. Once in the TABLE function, the cursor can be moved to the locked
cell and you can use the editing menu to make necessary changes. To unlock the cell, choose the
following selections from the menu: 2 Format; 1 Cell; 5 Lock; 2 Off. After exiting the TABLE function,
text may be entered in the cell. If you want the text to be consistent with that entered in the formatted
cells, use "CTRL F8" and "F6" to italicize and bold text. The user is cautioned that entering text into
unlocked cells may cause format and pagination changes that will need to be corrected by deleting
space elsewhere or creating additional cells using the TABLE function.
Creating Check Marks
The diskette also includes two macros: "ALT C" to create a check mark (S) as used in the
"Yes"/"No" questions and in the file review; and "ALT X" to create check marks in boxes (0) as used on
the cover page and in the IU Identification section. When using "ALT X" you must delete the code for
the empty box, place the cursor where the box code was, and type ALT X.
Entering Vertical Names
The first page of Section I: IU File Evaluation uses vertical boxes to contain the file name. To enter
the IUs' names in these boxes, cursor to the first box and use the TEXT BOX (ALT F9) function choosing
the following selections from the menu: 3 Text Box; 2 Edit; type Table Box number; Enter; 9 Edit; type
name; ALT F9 (Graphics); 2 909; F7 (Exit). The name will not appear in the box on the screen. To
verify that the name was correctly entered, use View Document function (Shift F7, 6). Follow the same
procedure for each box. You are allowed 24 character spaces (one line) for the Ill's name. Do not Iry to
make the box larger; instead, abbreviate the name to make it fit.
-------
PART U:
CONTROL AUTHORITY PRETREATMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST
-------
CONTROL AUTHORITY PRETREATMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST
D
D
Control
Cover Page and
Section I
Section II
Section III
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
AUDIT CHECKLIST CONTENTS
Acronym List
IU File Evaluation
Data Review/Interview/IU Site Visit(s)
Findings
Pretreatment Program Status Update
Pretreatment Program Profile
Worksheets
D IU Site Visit Data Sheet
D WENDB Data Entry Worksheet
D RNC Worksheet
Supporting Documentation
Authority (CA) name and address
Date(s) of audit
AUDITOR(S)
Name
Title/Affiliation
Telephone
Number
CA REPRESENT ATIVE(S)
Name
Title/ Affiliation
«
Telephone
Number
""Identified program contact
Audit Checklist
(revised M»y 1992)
-------
ACRONYM LIST
Acronym
AO
BMP
BMR
CA
CERCLA
CFR
CIU
cso
CWA
CWF
DMR
DSS
EP
EPA
ERP
PDF
FTE
FWA
gpd
IU
IWS
MGD
MSW
N/A
ND
NOV
NPDES
O&G
PCI
PCS
PIRT
POTW
QA/QC
RCRA
RNC
SIU
SNC
SUO
TCLP
TOMP
TRC
TRE
TRIS
TSDF
TTO
UST
WENDB
Term
Administrative Order
Best Management Practices
Baseline Monitoring Report
Control Authority
Comprehensive Environmental Remediation, Compensation, and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Categorical Industrial User
Combined Sewer Overflow
Clean Water Act
Combined Wastestream Formula
Discharge Monitoring Report
Domestic Sewage Study
Extraction Procedure
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Response Plan
Fundamentally Different Factors
Full-Time Equivalent
Flow-Weighted Average
gallons per day
Industrial User
Industrial Waste Survey
Million Gallons Per Day
Municipal Solid Waste
Not Applicable
Not Determined
Notice of Violation
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Oil and Grease
Pretreatment Compliance Inspection
Permit Compliance System
Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Quality Assurance/ Quality Control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Reportable Noncompliance
Significant Industrial User
Significant Noncompliance
Sewer Use Ordinance
Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
Toxic Organic Management Plan
Technical Review Criteria
Technical Review Evaluation
Toxics Release Inventory System
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
Total Toxic Organics
Underground Storage Tank
Water Enforcement National Data Base
Audit ChcckJiti
(revi«ed May 1992)
-------
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
1. As noted in the Introduction, the auditor should review a representative number of SIU files. Section I of this
checklist provides space to document five IU files. This should not be construed to mean that five is an
adequate representation of files to review. The auditor should make as many copies of Section I as needed to
document a representative number of files according to the discussion in the Introduction.
2. The auditor should ensure that he/she follows up on any and all violations noted in the previous inspection and
annual report during the course of the audit.
3. Throughout the course of the evaluation, the auditor should look for areas in which the CA should improve
the effectiveness and quality of its program.
4. Audit findings should clearly distinguish between violations, deficiencies, and effectiveness issues.
Audit Checklist
(reviied M»y 1992)
-------
Audit Checkliit
(revised M«y 1992)
-------
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION
INSTRUCTIONS: Select a representative number of SIU files to review. Provide relevant details on each file reviewed.
Comment on all problems identified and any other areas of interest. Where possible, all CIUs (and SIUs) added since the last
PCI or audit should be evaluated. Make copies of this section to review additional Mies as necessary.
IU IDENTIFICATION
FILE
Industry name and address
Type of industry
LJ CIU40CFR
Category(ies)
Average total flow (gpd)
Average process flow (gpd)
Other SIU
D
Non SIU
Industry visited during audit
Yes
D
No
D
Comments
FILE
Industry name and address
Type of industry
CIU 40 CFR
Average total flow (gpd)
Category(ies)
Average process flow (gpd)
I Other SIU
Non SIU
Industry visited during audit
Yes
No
n
Comments
Audit Checkiiit
(revited M«y 1992)
-------
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION (Continued)
IU IDENTIFICATION (Continued)
FILE Industry name and address
Type of industry
CH CIU40CFR.
Category(ies)
Average total flow (gpd)
Average process flow (gpd)
Other SIU
D
Non SIU
Industry visited during audit Yes
No
Comments
FILE Industry name and address
Type of industry
I I CIU 40 CFR
Category(ies)
Average total flow (gpd)
Average process flow (gpd)
Other SIU
Non SIU
Industry visited during audit Yes
No
Comments
Audit Checklix
(reviicd May 1992)
-------
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION (Continued)
IU IDENTIFICATION (Continued)
FILE Industry name and address
Type of industry
CIU 40 CFR
Category(ies)
d) Other SIU
Average total flow (gpd)
Average process flow (gpd)
Non SIU
Industry visited during audit Yes
No
D
Comments
General Comments
Audit Checklid
(reviled Miy 1992)
-------
Audit Checklirt
(reviled May 1992)
-------
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION (Continued)
Industry Name
INSTRUCTIONS: Evaluate the contents of selected IU files; emphasis should be placed on
SIU files. Use N/A (Not Applicable) where necessary. Use ND (Not Determined) where there
is insufficient information to evaluate/determine implementation status. Comments should be
provided in the comment area at the bottom of the page for all violations, deficiencies, and/or
other problems as well as for any areas of concern or interest noted. Enter comment number in
box and in the comment area at the bottom of the page, followed by the comment. Comments
should delineate the extent of the violation, deficiency, and or problem. Attach relevant copies
of IU file information for documentation. Where no comment is needed, enter S (check) to
indicate area was reviewed. The evaluation should emphasize any areas where improvements in
quality and effectiveness can be made.
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
A. ISSUANCE OF IU CONTROL MECHANISM
1. Control mechanism application form
2. Fact sheet
3. Issuance or reissuance of control mechanism
4. Control mechanism contents
a. Statement of duration « 5 years)
b. Statement of nontransferability w/o prior notification/approval
403.8(0(l)fiii)
403.8(f)(l)fui)
403.8(0
-------
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION (Continued)
File
File
Fife
File
Fife
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
A. ISSUANCE OF IU CONTROL MECHANISM (Continued)
c. Applicable effluent limits
Application of applicable categorical standards
- Classification by category/subcategory
- Classification as new/existing source
- Application of limits for all categorical pollutants
- Application of TTO or TOMP alternative
- Calculation and application of production-based standards
- Calculation and application of CWF or FWA
Application of variance to categorical standards
Application of applicable local limits
Application of most stringent limit
403.8
-------
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION (Continued)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
A. ISSUANCE OF IU CONTROL MECHANISM (Continued)
d. IU self-monitoring requirements
Sampling (pollutants, frequency, locations, types)
Reporting requirements (e.g., periodic, resampling)
Notification requirements (e.g., slug, spill, changed discharge,
24-hour notice of violation)
Record keeping requirements
e. Statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties
f. Compliance schedules/progress reports (if applicable)
g. Slug discharge control plan requirement (if applicable)
403.8(f|(l)(iiiXD)
403.12(o)
403.8(2Xv)
Comments
11
Audil Checklirt
(rcvi.ed May 1992)
-------
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION (Continued)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
B. CA COMPLIANCE MONITORING
1. Inspection
a. Inspection (at least once a year) 403.*<0<2Xv)
b. Inspection at frequency specified in approved program 403.8(c)
c. Documentation of inspection activities 403.8(f)(2)(vi)
d. Evaluation of need for slug discharge control plan (reevaluation of 403.8(f)(2)(v)
existing plan)
2. Sampling
a. Sampling (at least once a year) 403.8(0(2)(v)
b. Sampling at frequency specified in approved program 403.8(c)
c. Documentation of sampling activities {chain-of-custody; QA/QC) 403.8(f)C2)(vi)
d. Analysis for all regulated parameters 403.i2(j)(l)
e. Appropriate analytical methods (40 CFR Part 136) 403.g(f)(2)
-------
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION (Continued)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
C. CA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
1. Identification of violations
a. Discharge violations
IU self-monitoring
CA compliance monitoring
b. Monitoring/reporting violations
IU self-monitoring
- Reporting (e.g., frequency, content)
- Sampling (e.g., frequency, pollutants)
- Record keeping
Notification (e.g., slug, spill, changed discharge, 24-hour notice
of violation)
Slug control plan
Compliance schedule/reports
c. Compliance schedule violations
Start-up/final compliance
Interim dates
403.8(0(2)(vi)
Comments
13
Audil Checklist
(revi«ed May 1992)
-------
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION (Continued)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
C. CA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (Continued)
2. Calculation of SNC
a. Chronic
b. TRC
c. Pass through/interference
d. Spill/slug load
e. Reporting
f. Compliance schedule
g. Other violations (specify)
3. Response to violation
4. Adherence to approved ERP
5. Return to compliance
a. Within 90 days
b. Within time specified
c. Through compliance schedule
6. Escalation of enforcement
7. Publication for SNC
403.8(0(2)(vii)
403.8(0(5)
403.8(0(5)
403.8(0(2Kvii)
D. OTHER
Comments
SECTION I COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
Audit Checklist
(reviled May 1992)
14
-------
SECTION II: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT
INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this section based on CA activities to implement its pretreatment program. Answers to these
questions may be obtained from a combination of sources including discussions with CA personnel, review of general and
specific IU files, IU site visits, review of POTW treatment plants, among others. Attach documentation where appropriate.
Specific data may be required in some cases.
Write ND (Not Determined) beside the questions or items that were not evaluated during the audit; indicate the reason(s)
why these were not addressed (e.g., lack of time, appropriate CA personnel were not available to answer)
Use N/A (Not Applicable) where appropriate.
A. CA PRETREATMENT PROGRAM MODIFICATION [403.18]
1. a. Has the CA made any substantial changes to the pretreatment program that were not reported
to the Approval Authority (e.g., legal authority, less stringent local limits, multijurisdictional
situation)?
If yes, discuss.
Yes
No
b. Is the CA in the process of making any substantial modifications to any pretreatment program
component (including legal authority, less stringent local limits, DSS requirements,
multijurisdictional situation, etc.)?
If yes, describe.
Yes
No
15
Audit Checklist
(revi*ed May 1992)
-------
SECTION H: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
B. LEGAL AUTHORITY (403.8(00)1
1. Are there any contributing jurisdictions discharging wastewater to the POTW?
If yes, explain how the legal authority addresses the contributing jurisdictions.
Yes
No
2. a. Has the CA updated its legal authority (e.g., SUO) to reflect changes in the General
Pretreatment Regulations?
b. Did all contributing jurisdictions update their SUOs in a consistent manner?
Explain.
Yes
No
3. Does the CA experience difficulty in implementing its legal authority [i.e., SUO,
interjurisdictional agreement (e.g., permit challenged, entry refused, penalty appealed)]?
If yes, explain.
Yes
No
Audit Checklist
(revised May 1992)
16
-------
SECTION D: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
C. IU CHARACTERIZATION [403.8]
1. How does the C A define SIU? (Is it the same in contributing jurisdictions?)
2. How are SIUs identified and categorized (including those in contributing jurisdictions)?
Discuss any problems.
3. a. How and when does the CA update its IWS to identify new lUs (including those in contributing jurisdictions)?
b. How and when does the CA identify changes in wastewater discharges at existing lUs (including contributing
jurisdictions)?
4. How many Ills are currently identified by the CA in each of the following groups?
a. SIUs (as defined by the CA) [WENDB-SIUS]
CIUs [WENDB-CIUS]
b.
c.
Noncategorical SIUs
Other regulated noncategorical lUs (specify)
TOTAL
17
Audit Checklist
(revised May 1992)
-------
SECTION C: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
D. CONTROL MECHANISM EVALUATION i4]
Audit Checklist
(reviled May 1992)
18
-------
SECTION II: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
E. APPLICATION OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
1. What limits (categorical, local, other) does the CA apply to wastes that are hauled to the POTW (directly to the treatment
plant or within the collection system, including contributing jurisdictions)? (403.l(b)(i)]
2. How does the CA keep abreast of current regulations to ensure proper implementation of standards? [403.8(f)C2)frii))
3. Local limits evaluation: [403.8(0(4); 122.2l(j)]
a. For what pollutants have local limits been set
b. How were these pollutants decided upon
c. What was the most prevalent/most stringent criteria for the limits
d. Which allocation method(s) were used?
e. Has the CA identified any pollutants of concern beyond those in its local limits?
If yes, how has this been addressed?
No
19
Audit ChectliU
(reviied May 1992}
-------
SECTION II: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
E. APPLICATION OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS (Continued)
4. What problems, if any, were encountered during local limits development and/or implementation?
F. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
1. a. How does the CA determine adequate IU monitoring (sampling, inspecting, and reporting) frequencies?
[403.8(f)(2}CiiWv)]
b. Is the frequency established above more, less, or the same as required?
Explain any difference.
2. In the past 12 months, how many, and what percentage of, SIUs were: [403.8(f)(2)(v)][RNC-H]
(Define the 12 month period to .)
a. Not sampled or not inspected at least once [WENDB-NOIN]
b. Not sampled at least once
c. Not inspected at least once (all parameters)?
if any, explain. Indicate how percentage was determined (e.g. actual, estimated).
3. Indicate the number and percent of SIUs that were identified as being in SNC* with the following requirements from the
CA's last pretreatment program performance report. [WENDB] [RNC-n)
SNC Evaluation Period
Applicable pretreatment standards and reporting requirements
Self-monitoring requirements
Pretreatment compliance schedules
*SNC defined by:
POTW
EPA
Audit Checklist
(reviied Mty 1992)
20
-------
SECTION H: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
F. COMPLIANCE MONITORING (Continued)
4. What does the CA's basic inspection include? (Process areas, pretrcatment facilities, chemical and hazardous waste
storage areas, chemical spill prevention areas, hazardous waste handling procedures, sampling procedures, laboratory
procedures, and monitoring records.) (403.8(f)(2)(v)&(vi)]
5. Who performs CA's compliance monitoring analysis?
Metals
Cyanide
Organics
Other (specify)
Performed by:
CA/Contract Laboratory Name
6. What QA/QC techniques does the CA use for sampling and analysis (e.g., splits, blanks, spikes), including verification of
contract laboratory procedures and appropriate analytical methods? (403.8(f)(7)(vi)]
7. Discuss any problems encountered in identification of sample location, collection, and analysis.
8. Did any lUs notify the CA of a hazardous waste discharge? [403.l2G)
-------
SECTION D: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
F. COMPLIANCE MONITORING (Continued)
9. a. How and when does the CA evaluate/reevaluate SIUs for the need for a slug control plan? [403.g(f)(2)(v)]
b. How many SIUs were not evaluated for the need to develop slug discharge control plans in the last 2
years?
G. ENFORCEMENT
1. What is the CA's definition of SNC? [403.8(0(2)(vii)]
2. ERP implementation: [403.8(0(5)]
a. Status
b. Problems with implementation
c. Is the ERP effective and does it lead to compliance in a timely manner? Provide examples if any are available.
3. a. Does the CA use compliance schedules? [403.8(0(1 )(iv)(A)]
b. If yes, are they appropriate? Provide examples.
Yes
No
Audit Checklist
(revised May 1992) 22
-------
SECTION II: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
G. ENFORCEMENT (Continued)
4. Did the CA publish all SIUs in SNC in the largest daily newspaper in the previous year?
[403.8(0(2)(vii)]
If yes, attach a copy.
If no, explain.
Yes
No
5. How many SIUs are in SNC with self-monitoring requirements and were not inspected and/or sampled (in the
four most recent full quarters)? [WENDS]
6. a. Has the CA experienced any problems since the last inspection (interference, pass
through, collection system problems, illicit dumping of hauled wastes, or worker
health and safety problems) caused by industrial discharges?
Unk
Yes
No
b. If yes, describe and explain the CA's enforcement action against the lUs causing or contributing to problems.
fRNC-n
H. DATA MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1. How is confidential information handled by the CA? [403.14]
2. How are requests by the public to review files handled?
23
Audit ChcckJitt
(reviied May 1992)
-------
SECTION II: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/rU SITE VISIT (Continued)
H. DATA MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (Continued)
3. Describe whether the CA's data management system is effective in supporting pretreatment implementation and
enforcement activities.
4. How does the CA ensure public participation during revisions to the SUO and/or local limits? (403.5(c)(3)]
5. Explain any public or community issues impacting the CA's pretreatment program.
6. How long are records maintained? [403.l2(o>]
I. RESOURCES f403.8(f){3)}
1. Estimate the number of personnel (in FTEs) available for implementing the program. [Consider:
legal assistance, permitting, IU inspections, sample collection, sample analysis, data analysis,
review and response, enforcement, and administration (including record keeping and data
management)].
FTEs
Audit CheckliM
(revi«ed Miy 1992) 24
-------
SECTION H: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
I. RESOURCES 1403.8(0(3)] (Continued)
2. Does the CA have adequate access to monitoring equipment? (Consider: sampling, flow
measurement, safety, transportation, and analytical equipment.)
If no, explain.
Yes
No
3. a. Estimate the annual operating budget for the CA's program.
b. Is funding expected to: stay the same, increase, decrease (note time frame; e.g., following year, next 3 years, etc.)?
Discuss any changes in funding.
4. Discuss any problems in program implementation which appear to be related to inadequate resources.
5. a. How does the CA ensure personnel are qualified and up-to-date with current program requirements?
b. Does the CA have adequate reference material to implement its program?
Yes
No
25
Audit Checklid
(reviied Miy 1992)
-------
SECTION II: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
J. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECnVENESS/POLLUTION PREVENTION
1. a. How many times were the following monitored by the CA during the past year?
Metals
Priority pollutants
Biomonitoring
TCLP
EP toxicity
Other (specify)
Influent
Effluent
b. Is this frequency less than, equal to, or more than that required by the NPDES
permit?
Explain any differences.
Sludge
Ambient
(Receiving
Water)
Less
Equal
More
2. a. Has the CA evaluated historical and current data to determine the effectiveness of
pretreatment controls on:
Improvements in POTW operations
Loadings to and from the POTW
NPDES permit compliance
Sludge quality?
b. Has the CA documented these findings?
c. If they have been documented, what form does the documentation take?
Explain. (Attach a copy of the documentation, if appropriate.)
Yes
No
Audit Checklist
(reviied May 1992)
26
-------
SECTION D: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
J. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTTVENESS/POLLtrnON PREVENTION (Continued)
3. If the CA has historical data compiled concerning influent, effluent, and sludge sampling for the POTW, what trends have
been seen? (Increases in pollutant loadings over the years? Decreases? No change?)
Discuss on pollutant-by-pollutant basis.
4. Has the CA investigated the sources contributing to current pollutant loadings to the POTW (i.e.,
the relative contributions of toxics from industrial, commercial, and domestic sources)?
If yes, what was found?
Yes
No
5. a. Has the CA attempted to implement any kind of public education program?
b. Are there any plans to initiate such a program to educate users about pollution prevention?
Yes
No
Explain.
6. What efforts have been taken to incorporate pollution prevention into the CVs pretreatment program (e.g., waste
minimization at lUs, household hazardous waste programs)?
27
Audit Checklist
(revited May 1992)
-------
SECTION II: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT (Continued)
j. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS/POLLUnON PREVENTION (Continued)
7. Does the CA have any documentation concerning successful pollution prevention programs being
implemented by lUs (e.g., case studies, sampling data demonstrating pollutant reductions)?
Explain.
Yes
No
K. ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS/INFORMATION
SECTION II COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
Audit Checklist
(revii«d Miy 1991)
28
-------
SECTION IE: FINDINGS
INSTRUCTIONS: Based on information and data evaluated, summarize the findings of the audit for each program element
shown below. Identify all problems or deficiencies based on the evaluation of program components. Clearly distinguish
between deficiencies, violations, and effectiveness issues. This is to ensure that the final report will clearly identify required
actions versus recommended actions and program modifications.
Description
Regulatory
Citation
Checklist
Question(s)
A. CA PRETREATMENT PROGRAM MODIFICATION
Status of program modifications
403.18
n.A.i
B. LEGAL AUTHORITY
Minimum legal authority requirements
403.8(0(1)
ILB.2&3
Adequate multijurisdictional agreements
403.8(0(1)
D.B.I&3
29
Audit Checkli*
(revited May 1992)
-------
SECTION III: FINDINGS (Continued)
Description
Regulator;
Citation
Checklist
Questions)
C. IU CHARACTERIZATION
Application of "significant industrial user" definition
403.3(l)(l)
n.C.l;
AtUch B.E.2
Identify and categorize lUs
403.8(0(2)0)401)
I.A.4.c;
G.C.2&3
D. CONTROL MECHANISM
Issuance of individual control mechanisms to all SIUs
403.8(f)(l)0ii)
n.D.l
Adequate control mechanisms
I.A.4
Adequate control of trucked, railed, and dedicated pipe wastes
403
5(b)(8)
II.D.2A3,
E.I
Audit Checldifl
(reviied Miy 1992)
30
-------
SECTION III: FINDINGS (Continued)
Description
Regulatory
Citation
Checklist
Question^)
E. APPLICATION OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
Appropriately categorize, notify, and apply all applicable pretreatment
standards
Basis and adequacy of local limits
403.5
I.A
403.8(0(4); 122.21Q)
H.E.3&4
F. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Adequate sampling and inspection frequency
Adequate inspections
Adequate sampling protocols and analysis
Adequate IU self-monitoring
Notification of changed and hazardous waste discharges
Approved progrmm
I.B.I.»&b, 2.tib;
H.F.I&2
403.8(OC2)(v)&(vi)
I.B.2.C; n.F.3
403.8(f)(2)(vi)
I.B.t.c,d&e;
n.F.4,5&6
403.8(f)(2)0v)
I.A.4.d, C.l.b;
D.F.6, G 5
403.L2(j)&(p)
I.C.l.b;n.F.7
31
Audit Checklist
(reviled Mty 1992)
-------
SECTION III: FINDINGS (Continued)
Description
Regulatory
Citation
Checklist
Question(s)
F. COMPLIANCE MONITORING (Continued)
Evaluate the need for SIUs to develop slug discharge control plans
403.8(0(2)(v)
I.B.2.d; n.F.8
Monitor to demonstrate continued compliance and resampling after
violation(s)
403.12(g)(1)
-------
SECTION III: FINDINGS (Continued)
Description
Regulatory
Citation
Checklist
Question(s)
H. DATA MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Effective data management/public participation
403.5
-------
SECTION III: FINDINGS (Continued)
Description
Regulatory
Citation
Checklist
Question^)
J. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTTVENESS/POLLUTION PREVENTION
Understanding of pollutants from all sources
D.J.1&3
Documentation of environmental improvements/effectiveness
OJ.2
Integration of pollution prevention
DJ.6
K. ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS/INFORMATION
SECTION III COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
Audit Checkliit
(reviled May 1992)
34
-------
ATTACHMENT A
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE
INSTRUCTIONS: This attachment is intended to serve as an update of program status. It should be updated prior to each
audit based on information obtained from the most recent PCI and/or audit and the last pretreatment program performance
report.
A. CA INFORMATION
1 . CA name
2. a. Pretreatment contact b. Mailing address
c. Title d. Telephone number
3. Date of last CA report to Approval Authority
4. Is the CA currently operating under any pretreatment-related consent decree, Administrative
Order, compliance schedule, or other enforcement action?
Yes No
5. Effluent and sludge quality
a. List the NPDES effluent and sludge limits violated and the suspected cause(s).
Parameters Violated
Cause(s)
b. Has the treatment plant sludge violated limits based on the following tests?
EP toxicity
TCLP
B. PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS
1. Indicate components that were identified as deficient.
a. Program modification
b. Legal authority
c. Local limits
d. IU characterization
e. Control mechanism
f. Application of pretreatment standards
g. Compliance monitoring
h. Enforcement program
i. T>ata management
j. Program resources
k. Other (specify)
Yes No
Last PCI
Date:
Last Audit
Date:
Program Report
Date:
A-l
ATTACHMENT A: UPDATE
(reviied May 1992)
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE (Continued)
B. PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS (Continued)
2. Is the CA presently in RNC for any of these violations?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
Failure to enforce against pass through and/or
interference [RNC-ntSNCj
Failure to submit required reports within 30 days [RNC-I][SNC]
Failure to meet compliance schedule milestones within
90 days [RNC-I][SNC]
Failure to issue/reissue control mechanisms to 90 percent
of SIUs within 6 months [RNC-n]
Failure to inspect or sample 80 percent of SIUs within
the last 12 months [RNC-H]
Failure to enforce standards and reporting requirements [RNC-U]
Other (specify) [RNC-ni
Data Source
Yes
No
3. List SIUs in SNC identified in the last pretreatment program performance report, PCI, or audit (whichever is most
recent).
Name of SIU in SNC Reason for SNC
Source (PCI, Annual Report)
4. Indicate the number and percent of SIUs that were identified as being in SNC* with the following requirements from the
CA's last pretreatment program performance report. If the CA's report does not provide this information, obtain the
information for the most recent four full quarters during the audit.
SNC evaluation period
% Applicable pretreatment standards and reporting requirements
% Self-monitoring requirements
% Pretreatment compliance schedules
*
SNC defined by:
POTW
EPA
5. Describe any problems the CA has experienced in implementing or enforcing its pretreatment program.
ATTACHMENT A COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
ATTACHMENT A: UPDATE
(rcviied Mty 1992)
A-2
-------
ATTACHMENT B
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE
INSTRUCTIONS: This attachment is intended to serve as a summary of program information. This background information
should be obtained from the original, approved pretreatment program submission and modifications and the NPDES permit.
The profile should be updated, as appropriate, in response to approved modifications and revised NPDES permit requirements.
A. CA INFORMATION
1. CA name
2. Original pretreatment program submission approval date
3. Required frequency of reporting to Approval Authority
4. Specify the following CA information.
Treatment Plant Name
NPDES Permit Number
5. Does the CA hold a sludge permit or has the NPDES permit been modified to include
and disposal requirements?
If yes, provide the following information.
POTYVName
Issuing
Authority
Issuance Expiration
Date Date
Effective
Date Expiration Date
Yes No
sludge use
Regulated Pollutants
B. PRETREATMENT PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS
1. When was the CA's NPDES permit first modified to require pretreatment implementation?
[WENDB-PTIM]
2. Identify any substantial modifications the CA made in its pretreatment program since the approved pretreatment program
submission. [403.18]
Date Approved
Name of Modification
Date Incorporated in NPDES
Permit
B-l
ATTACHMENT B: PROFILE
(rcviied May 1992)
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE (Continued)
C. TREATMENT PLANT INFORMATION
INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this section for each treatment plant operated under an NPDES permit issued to the CA.
1. Treatment plant name
2. Location address
3. a. NPDES permit
number
b. Expiration date
4. Treatment plant wastewater flows
Design
MOD
Actual
MOD
5. Sewer System
a. Separate
% b. Combined
c. Number of CSOs
6. a. Industrial contribution
(MGD)
b. Number of SIUs discharging to plant
c. Percent industrial flow to plant
7. Level of treatment
a. Primary
b. Secondary
c. Tertiary
Type of Process(es)
8. Indicate required monitoring frequencies for pollutants identified in NPDES permit.
a. Metals
b. Organics
c. Toxicity testing
d. EP toxicity
e. TCLP
Influent
(Times/Year)
Effluent
(Times/Year)
Sludge
(Times/Year)
Receiving Stream
(Times/Year)
9. Effluent Discharge
a. Receiving water name
b. Receiving water classification
c. Receiving water use
d. If effluent is discharged to any location other than th£ receiving water, indicate where.
10. 301 (h) waiver (ocean discharge)
a. Applied for
b. Granted
Yes
No
c. Date of application
d. Date approved or denied
ATTACHMENT B: PROFILE
(revised M*y 1992)
B-2
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE (Continued)
C. TREATMENT PLANT INFORMATION (Continued)
N/A
11. Did the CA submit results of whole effluent biological toxicity testing as part of its
NPDES permit application(s)? [122.21(j)(l) and (1)]
a. If yes, did the CA use EPA-approved methods? [I22.21(j)(3)]
b. Has there been a pattern of toxicity demonstrated?
Yes
No
12. Indicate methods of sludge disposal.
Quantity of sludge
dry tons/year
dry tons/year
dry tons/year
Quantity of sludge
a. Land application
b. Incineration
c. Monofill
d. MSW landfill
e. Public distribution
f. Lagoon storage
g. Other (specify)
dry tons/year
dry tons/year
dry tons/year
dry tons/year
D. LEGAL AUTHORITY
1. a. Indicate where the authority to implement and enforce pretreatment standards and requirements is contained (cite
legal authority).
b. Date enacted/adopted
c. Date of most recent revisions
2. Does the CA's legal authority enable it to do the following? (403.8(f)(l)(i-vii)]
a. Deny or condition pollutant dischargers [403.8(0(1)0)1
b. Require compliance with standards (403.8(0(1)01)]
c. Control discharges through permit or similar means [403.8(f)(l)(iii)]
d. Require compliance schedules and IU reports [403.8(i)(l)(iv)]
e. Carry out inspection and monitoring activities [403.8(f)0)(v)j
f. Obtain remedies for noncompliance [403.8(f)(l)(vi)]
g. Comply with confidentiality requirements (403.8(f)(l)(vii)l
Yes
No
3. a. How many contributing jurisdictions are there?
List the names of all contributing jurisdictions and the number of SIUs in those jurisdictions.
Jurisdiction Name
Number of CIUs
Number of Other SIUs
B-3
ATTACHMENTS: PROFILE
(reviied Miy 1992)
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE (Continued)
D. LEGAL AUTHORITY (Continued)
3. b. Has the CA negotiated all legal agreements necessary to ensure that pretreatment standards
will be enforced in contributing jurisdictions?
Yes
No
If yes, describe the legal agreements (e.g., intergovernmental contract, agreement, IU contracts, etc.).
4. If relying on contributing jurisdictions, indicate which activities those jurisdictions perform.
a. IWS update e. Notification of lUs
b. Permit issuance f. Receipt and review of IU reports
c. Inspection and sampling g. Analysis of samples
d. Enforcement h. Other (specify)
E. IU CHARACTERIZATION
1. a. Does the CA have procedures to update its IWS to identify new lUs or changes in wastewater
discharges at exisitng lUs? [403.8(0(2)0)1
Yes
No
b. Indicate which methods are to be used to update the IWS.
Review of newspaper/phone book
Review of water billing records
Review of plumbing/building permits
c. How often is the IWS to be updated?
Onsite inspections
Permit application requirements
Citizens involvement
Other (specify)
2. Is the CA's definition of "significant industrial user" consistent within the language in the Federal
regualtions? [403.3(0(1)]
If no, provide the CA's definition of "significant industrial user."
Yes
No
ATTACHMENT B: PROFILE
(revised May 1992)
B-4
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE (Continued)
F. CONTROL MECHANISM
1. a. Identify the CA's approved control mechanism (e.g., permit, etc.).
b. What is the maximum term of the control mechanism?
2. Does the approved control mechanism include the following? [403.8(fO(l)fiH)J
a. Statement of duration
b. Statement of nontransferability
c. Effluent limits
d. Self-monitoring requirements
Identification of pollutants to be monitored
Sampling location
Sample type
Sampling frequency
Reporting requirements
Notification requirements
Record keeping requirements
e. Statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties
f. Applicable compliance schedule
3. Does the CA have a control mechanism for regulating IU whose wastes are trucked
to the treatment plant?
4. Does the program identify designated discharge point(s) for trucked or hauled
wastes? [403.5(b)(8>]
If yes, described the discharge point(s) (including security procedures).
N/A
Yes
No
Yes
No
G. APPLICATION OF STANDARDS
1. Does the CA have procedures to notify all lUs of applicable pretreatment standards and
applicable requirements under the CWA and RCRA? [403.8(0(2)0")]
2. If there is more than one treatment plant, were local limits established specifically for
each plant?
any
N/A
Yes
Yes
No
No
B-5
ATTACHMENTS: PROFILE
(reviled May 1992)
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE (Continued)
G. APPLICATION OF
STANDARDS (Continued)
3. Has the CA technically evaluated the need for local limits for all pollutants listed below?
[WENDB-EVLL] [403.5(c)(l); 403.8(0(4)]
a. Arsenic (As)
b. Cadmium (Cd)
c. Chromium (Cr)
d. Copper (Cu)
e. Cyanide (CN)
f. Lead (Pb)
g. Mercury (Hg)
h. Nickel (Ni)
i. Silver (Ag)
j. Zinc (Zn)
k. (Other (specify)
Partial Technical Evaluation (not all 10 pollutants evaluated)?
Headworks
Analysis
Completed?
Yes
No
Technically
Evaluated?
Yes
No
Local Limits
Adopted?
Yes No
Local
(Num
Limit
eric)
H. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
1 . Indicate compliance monitoring and inspection frequency requirements.
Program Aspect
a. Inspections
CIUs
Other SlUs
Approved
Program
Requirement
NPDES Permit
Requirement
State
Requirement
Minimum Federal
Requirement
I/year
I/year
b. Sampling by POTW
CIUs
Other SIUs
c. Self-monitoring
CIUs
Other SIUs
d. Reporting by IU
CIUs
Other SIUs
I/year
I/year
2/year
2/year
2/year
2/year
ATTACHMENTS: PROFILE
(reviied Miy 1992)
B-6
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE (Continued)
I. ENFORCEMENT
1. Does the CA's program define "significant noncompliance"?
If yes, is the CA's definition of "significant noncompliance" consistent with EPA's?
[403.8(f)(2)(vii)]
Yes
No
If no, provide the CA's definition of "significant noncompliance."
2. Does the CA have an approved, written ERP? (403.8(0(5))
Yes
No
3. Indicate the compliance/enforcement options that are available to the POTW in the event of IU noncompliance.
[403.8(f)(l)(vi)l
a. Notice or letter of violation
b. Compliance schedule
c. Injunctive relief
d. Imprisonment
e. Termination of service
f. Administrative Order
g. Revocation of permit
h. Fines (maximum amount)
Civil $_
Criminal $_
Administrative $
../day/violation
_/day/violation
./day/violation
J. DATA MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1. Does the approved program describe how the POTW will manage its files and data?
Are files/records
computerized?
hard copy?
Yes
No
both?
2. Are program records available to the public?
Yes
No
3. Does the POTW have provisions to address claims of confidentiality? (403.8(0(2)(vii)]
B-7
ATTACHMENTS: PROFILE
(reviied Miy 1992)
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE (Continued)
K. RESOURCES
1. What are the resource allocations for the following pretreatroent program components:
a. Legal assistance
b. Permitting
c. Inspections
d. Sample collection
e. Sample analysis
f. Data analysis, review, and response
g. Enforcement
h. Administration?
TOTAL
FTEs
2. Identify the sources of funding for the pretreatment program. [403.S(f)(3)l
a. POTW general operating fund
b. IU permit fees
c. Industry surcharges
d. Monitoring charges
e. Other (specify)
L. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ATTACHMENT B
COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
ATTACHMENT B: PROFILE
(reviled May 1992)
B-8
-------
ATTACHMENT C
WORKSHEETS
IU SITE VISIT DATA SHEET
WENDB DATA ENTRY WORKSHEET
RNC WORKSHEET
-------
IU SITE VISIT DATA SHEET
1. IU SITE VISIT REPORT FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: Record observations made during the IU site visit. Provide as much detail as possible.
Name and address of industry
Date of visit
Time of visit
Name(s) of inspectors)
Provide name(s) and title(s) of industry representative^).
Name
TiUe
Classification assigned by CA:
Provide the following documentation:
1. Describe the products manufactured or the services provided by the IU.
2. Verify CA's classification or discuss any errors.
3. Describe any significant changes in processes or flow.
4. Identify the raw materials and processes used. (Include discussion of where wastewater is produced and discharged and
attach a step-by-step diagram if possible.)
5. Describe the sample location and any differences in CA and IU locations.
6. Describe the treatment system which is in place.
7. Identify the chemicals that are maintained onsite and how they are stored. (Attach list of chemicals, if available.)
Discuss the adequacy of spill prevention.
8. Discuss whether hazardous wastes are stored or discharged and any related problems.
Notes:
ATTACHMENT C: WORKSHEETS
C-l (revwed May 1992)
-------
IU SITE VISIT DATA SHEET (Continued)
lUName
Date
Notes:
IU SITE VISIT REPORT FORM
COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
ATTACHMENT C:
(revited May 1992)
WORKSHEETS
C-2
-------
WENDB DATA ENTRY WORKSHEET
H. WENDB DATA ENTRY WORKSHEET
INSTRUCTIONS: Enter the data provided by the specific checklist questions that are referenced.
CA name
NPDES number
Date of audit
Number of SIUs*
Number of CIUs
- Number of SIUs without control mechanism
- Number of SIUs not inspected or sampled
- Number of SIUs in SNC** with standards or reporting
- Number of SIUs in SNC with self-monitoring
- Number of SIUs in SNC with self-monitonng and not inspected or
sampled
PCS
Code
SIUS
CIUS
NOCM
NOIN
PSNC
MSNC
SNIN
Checklist
Reference
II.C.4.8
II.C.4.a
II.D.l.a
II.F.Z.a
Attach A.B.4
Attach A.B.4
II. G. 5
Data
*The number of SIUs entered into PCS is based on the CA's definition of "significant industrial user."
**As defined in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii).
WENDB DATA ENTRY WORKSHEET
COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
C-3
ATTACHMENTC: WORKSHEETS
(revUed May 1992)
-------
C-4
-------
RNC WORKSHEET
in. RNC WORKSHEET
INSTRUCTIONS: Place a check in the appropriate box on the left if the CA is found to be in RNC or SNC.
CA name
NPDES number
Date of audit
Failure to enforce against pass through and/or interference
Failure to submit required POTW reports within 30 days
Failure to meet compliance schedule milestone date within 90 days
Failure to issue/reissue control mechanisms to 90% of SIUs within 6 months
Failure to inspect or sample 80% of SIUs within the last 12 months
Failure to enforce pretreatment standards and reporting requirements (more than
15% of SIUs in SNC)
Other (specify)
Level
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
Checklist
Reference
n.c.6
Attach A.B.2.b
Attach A.B.2.C
II.D.l.b
II.F.2.a
I.C.I; II.G.2.
SNC
CA in SNC for violation of any Level I criterion
CA in SNC for violation of two or more Level II criterion
For more information on RNC. please refer to EPA's 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncomcliance
with Pretreatment Implementation Requirements.
RXC WORKSHEET COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
C-5
ATTACHMENTC: WORKSHEETS
(reviied M«y 1992)
-------
C-6
-------
PARTHI:
AUDIT CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS
-------
SECTION I: IU FILE EVALUATION
Each of the major program components in Section I of the Checklist is listed below along with an
explanation (generally an explanation of the regulatory requirement). Guidance is provided on how the
auditor can evaluate the CA's (or IU's) compliance with the program requirement and on what constitutes
a deficiency. Much of the information needed to do necessary evaluations will probably be in the CA's
files on the individual lUs. The auditor should begin by rinding out how the CA organizes their files.
Some CAs have individual files for each IU and all information pertaining to that IU is in the file. Other
CAs may have files segregated by subject so that all permits are in one file while all monitoring data are
in another file and all correspondence in another and so on. Once the auditor has determined the file
organization, he or she can move on to doing the evaluation.
Section I requires the auditor to review certain components of the CA's IU files. After reviewing
each component, the auditor must determine if what he or she found was adequate or appropriate. Once
this determination has been made, the auditor should decide if the information learned is worthy of
comment or explanation. If comment or explanation is necessary, the auditor should put a number in the
square corresponding to the component being evaluated, and the same number in the comment area
followed by the explanation of what was found. It is recommended that numbering begin anew on each
page.
To facilitate completion of this section, elements of each program area are listed for consideration.
The regulatory citations are provided where there are specific requirements for that element. The auditor
should be aware that not all questions on the checklist reflect regulatory requirements. Some of the
questions are included to allow the auditor to better evaluate program effectiveness. This fact should be
taken into consideration when developing required versus recommended actions to be taken by the CA.
IU Identification
PURPOSE: This section is designed to provide a brief profile of the IU. This information
should summarize industrial categorization, discharge characterization, and comment on
compliance history and'other issues of note. The auditor should briefly look through the file
and fill out the information requested. Some information will be filled out at the start of the file
review (e.g., name, address, etc.). Some information (e.g., category, flow, compliance status,
etc.) will be obtained as the review proceeds. The auditor should enter additional information
about the industry obtained from the interview with CA staffer site visit to the IU.
SECTION I
-------
IU File Review
The auditor should review each point covered in the file review to determine if there is anything
worth noting to question the CA about during the interview. For instance, something the CA is
doing that is out of the ordinary either positive or negative.
A. Issuance of IU Control Mechanism
Note: This section takes a comprehensive look at the CA's control mechanism. The auditor
should evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the control mechanism used. Comments
should reflect an evaluation of the control mechanism for both presence and the adequacy of
all control mechanism components. For each area examined in this section of the file review,
the auditor should determine whether the CA met the regulatory requirement and also if the
CA is effective in controlling its I Us. If the auditor determines there is a problem or
deficiency (e.g., control mechanisms are not issued/reissued in a timely manner, do not
contain all the elements required by the regulation, contain incorrect limits, etc.), he/she
should comment on it in the area provided and explain it in the report to be attached.
A.I. Control mechanism application form
PURPOSE: The CA should require certain baseline data from the IU in order to write an
appropriate control mechanism. Although there are several ways these data may be obtained, it
is strongly recommended that the CA utilize an application form (there is no regulatory
requirement). For CIUs, the Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR) may serve as an application
and may then be updated for permit reissuance purposes. For each point covered or issue
addressed in the file review, the auditor should also review each point to determine if there is
anything worth noting to question the CA about during the interview. For instance, something
the CA is doing that is out of the ordinary either positive or negative.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If the application is being used as a BMR, it must contain all the 40 CFR 403.12(b) required
elements.
To be useful, the application should at least include IU identification, address, phone,
responsible officer, a clear description of processes, the flow from each, as well as a
description of any pretreatment system in place or proposed.
Where applications are incomplete, there should be evidence that the CA followed up by
requiring the applicant to submit missing data or, at least, that the CA obtained the missing
data on its own.
Where there is evidence that the data contained in the application are inaccurate, there
should be evidence that the CA took an enforcement action.
SECTION I
-------
A.2. Fact sheet
PURPOSE: Individual control mechanisms issued to SIUs must contain specific conditions
applicable to the IU. A fact sheet is recommended to provide data concerning decisions made in
developing the control mechanism (there is no regulatory requirement).
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The fact sheet should explain the basis of every lU-specific standard or requirement
contained in the control mechanism, including:
- The basis for determining that the IU is subject to a particular category and subcategory,
if applicable.
- The basis for the permit limits applied (i.e., local limits versus categorical standards,
production-based limits, CWF/FWA, and mass versus concentration-based limits).
- The rationale behind the pollutants specified for self-monitoring.
- Documentation for the need for any slug control plan, Best Management Practices
(BMPs), and compliance schedule requirements. It should include the circumstances
identified which necessitated these requirements.
A.3. Issuance or reissuance of control mechanism
PURPOSE: The CA is required to control IU discharges to the POTW. Under 40 CFR
403.8(f)(l)(iii), all SIU discharges are required to be controlled under individual control
mechanisms (i.e., permit, order, or similar means).
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If the auditor cannot locate a control mechanism or if the control mechanism is not current
or valid, a deficiency should be noted. If the control mechanism has to be signed by the CA
and it is not signed, it may not be valid.
The auditor should check an expired control mechanism to see if it has been or will be
reissued within 180 days from the expiration of the last control mechanism.
A.4. Control mechanism contents
PURPOSE: Individual control mechanisms issued to SIUs must contain the minimum conditions
listed in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii). The required elements to consider are elaborated upon below
in A.4.a-g.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Each condition contained in the control mechanism must also be evaluated for
appropriateness and accuracy. For instance, if production-based categorical standards are
applied, the auditor must determine whether the IU was correctly categorized and whether
SECTION I
-------
the discharge limit contained in the control mechanism was correctly calculated. An
explanation of each control mechanism condition is presented below.
A.4.a. Statement of duration (£ 5 years)
PURPOSE: The auditor should review the control mechanism to determine that the duration is
not for more than 5 years.
A.4.5. Statement of nontransferability w/o prior notification/approval
PURPOSE: The control mechanism is not allowed to be transferred without, at a minimum,
prior notification to the CA and provision of a copy of the existing control mechanism to the
new owner or operator.
A.4.c. Applicable effluent limits
PURPOSE: The control mechanism must contain effluent limits based on applicable general
pretreatment standards in 40 CFR 403.5, categorical pretreatment standards, local limits, and
State and local law. The auditor should determine that the limits in the control mechanism are
correct.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Application of applicable categorical standards includes the following:
- Classification by category/subcategory
- Classification as new/existing source
- Application of limits for all categorical pollutants
- Application of Total Toxic Organics (TTO) or Toxic Organic Management Plan (TOMP)
alternative
- Calculation and application of production-based standards
- Calculation and application of CWF or FWA
- Application of variance to categorical standards, including Fundamentally Different
Factors (PDF) variances and net/gross adjustments.
Application of applicable local limits
Application of most stringent limit.
SECTION I
-------
A.4.d. IU self-monitoring requirements
PURPOSE: All SIUs are required to submit a report at least semiannual!;/. For all CRTs, the
semiannual report must include results of monitoring for all pollutants regulated under the
applicable categorical standard and any additional applicable local limits. These requirements
can be modified if the CA assumes responsibility for the sampling. The auditor should review
the self-monitoring requirements contained in the control mechanism to determine whether they
will be effective in identifying noncompliance considering the type and size of the facility,
variability in sampling results, the lU's compliance history, etc. (Note: the CIV is required to
report on all regulated pollutants at least semiannually whether or not the requirement is
included in the control mechanism.)
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Sampling:
- Pollutants - All pollutants regulated under an applicable categorical standard must be
sampled and analyzed at least semiannually.
- Frequency - Although all SIUs are required to self-monitor for all regulated pollutants at
least semiannually, these two monitoring events may not be sufficient to provide the CA
with a true picture of ongoing compliance, but it is the minimum frequency.
- Location(s) - Should be clearly identified.
- Types of samples (e.g., 24-hour composite, grab) - To be taken for each parameter. The
auditor should be aware that all pretreatment compliance monitoring must be done in
accordance with the procedures specified under 40 CFR Part 136. Further, 24-hour
composite samples (or their equivalent) must be used to determine compliance with
categorical pretreatment standards except for the following parameters which require the
use of grab samples: pH, heat, oil and grease, volatile organics, and phenols.
Reporting requirements (e.g., periodic, resampling).
Notification requirements (e.g., slug, spill, changed discharge, 24-hour notice of violation).
Record keeping requirements - All SIUs are required to retain effluent self-monitoring data
and other related documentation for a period of at least 3 years, throughout the course of
any ongoing litigation related to the IU, and for the period of time specified by the CA.
A.4.e. Statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties
PURPOSE: All SIU control mechanisms are required to specify the penalties applicable for
violation of control mechanism conditions. These penalties must include civil and/or criminal
penalties in an amount up to at least $1,000 per day per violation.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA may also apply administrative penalties for control mechanism violations and is
encouraged to do so. However, administrative penalties do not satisfy this regulatory
requirement.
SECTION I
-------
If penalties are not stated, the control mechanism should cite the specific ordinance
provision which establishes the penalties.
A.4.f. Compliance schedules/progress reports Of applicable)
PURPOSE: The CA must require compliance schedules where a CIU is not in compliance with
a newly promulgated categorical standard. This schedule must have a final compliance date
which is no later than the compliance deadline specified by the standard. The schedule must
also include milestone dates and a requirement for progress reports to be submitted for each
milestone [see requirement under 40 CFR 403.12(b)(7) and (c)].
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Compliance schedules for compliance with a categorical standard deadline which has already
passed should not be contained in the control mechanism, but in an enforcement order.
Compliance schedules are also strongly recommended for use where any IU is out of
compliance with any pretreatment standard or requirement. These schedules are also best
placed in an enforcement order.
Compliance schedules used for attaining compliance with a revised local limit by the limit's
effective date should be treated similarly to those prepared for compliance with a categorical
compliance date.
A.4.g. Slug discharge control plan requirement (if applicable)
PURPOSE: Where IU slug discharge control plans are required to prevent slug loadings to the
POTW, they must contain the elements specified under 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v): (1) A
description of discharge practices, including nonroutine batch discharges; (2) a description of
stored chemicals; (3) procedures for immediately notifying the POTW of slug discharges,
including any discharge which would violate a prohibition under 40 CFR 403.5(b), with
procedures for follow-up written notification within 5 days; and (4) if necessary, procedures to
prevent adverse impact from accidental spills, including inspection and maintenance of storage
areas, handling and transfer of materials, loading and unloading operations, control of plant site
run-off, worker training, building of containment structures or equipment, measures for
containing toxic organic pollutants (including solvents), and/or measures and equipment
necessary for emergency response.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
's SIU control mechanisms must contain the requirement to immediately notify the CA of any
slug discharge. However, it is recommended that the CA incorporate the entire slug
discharge control plan into the control mechanism, making compliance with the plan a
condition of discharge.
Any plan which is less inclusive or less stringent than that required under 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(v) should be recorded as a deficiency.
SECTION I
-------
B. CA Compliance Monitoring
Note: The CA is required to do sampling and inspecting of I Us to verify compliance
independent of information supplied by the IU. If the CA has not undertaken any surveillance
activity or no documentation exists, \f documentation is insufficient, or if the CA has not
sampled for all regulated parameters, the auditor should note these problems,
B.I. Inspection
B.I.a. Inspection (at least once a year)
B.l.b. Inspection at frequency specified in approved program
B.l.c. Documentation of inspection activities
B.l.d. Evaluation of need for slug discharge control plan (revaluation of existing plan)
PURPOSE: The CA is required to inspect all lUs to determine compliance with pretreatment
standards and requirements independent of data submitted by the IU.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Inspection at least once a year or as specified in the approved program.
Although the CA is required to inspect the IU once a year, or more frequently if required by
the approved program, the auditor should assess the adequacy of this frequency based on the
lU's compliance history, lU-specific requirements, process changes, etc.
Documentation of inspection activities should be clear and cover every aspect of the
inspection. Some CAs may use activity logs to demonstrate an inspection took place,
however, the log alone will not fulfill the requirement for sufficient care to produce
evidence admissible in enforcement cases [40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi)].
Evaluation of need for slug discharge control plan (reevaluation of existing plan) - The CA
is required to evaluate each lU's need for a slug discharge control plan at least once every 2
years. Note: This may also be called an accidental spill prevention plan. However, to
fulfill the regulatory requirement, the plan must also address any potential nonaccidental
slug discharges.
B.2. Sampling
B.2.a. Sampling (at least once a year)
B.2.b. Sampling at frequency specified in approved program
B.2.C. Documentation of sampling activities (chain-of-custody; QA/QC)
B.2.d. Analysis for all regulated parameters
SECTION I
-------
B.Z.e. Appropriate analytical methods (40 CFR Part 136)
PURPOSE: The CA is required to sample each SIU discharge point to verify compliance
independent of self-monitoring data supplied by the IU. The auditor should determine that the
CA has sampled the IU by reviewing sampling records, lab reports, chain-of-custody forms, etc.
The auditor should examine all CA compliance sampling data in the lU's file.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Sampling frequency - At least once a year or at the frequency specified in the approved
program.
Documentation of sampling activities should include QA/QC analytical results and chain-of-
custody [sample date and time; location; flow, where applicable; sampling method/type;
sampler's name; sample preservation techniques; sample characteristics; dates of analyses;
name of analyst; analytical technique/method (40 CFR Part 136); and analytical results].
Sampling results should include analyses for all regulated parameters.
Appropriate analytical methods (40 CFR Part 136) - The SIU is required to use the methods
defined under 40 CFR Part 136 when collecting and analyzing all samples obtained to
determine compliance with pretreatment standards. Since the CA's compliance monitoring
serves to verify compliance with the same standards and to check the validity of self-
monitoring data, the CA's monitoring should also be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 136. While specific test procedures included in Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater are approved under 40 CFR Part 136 for many parameters, not all
the test procedures in "Standard Methods" are approved.
CA Enforcement Activities
Note: This section serves several purposes. In this section, the auditor will determine the
compliance status of the selected I Us and the corresponding response of the CA. If the IU is
in noncompliance and the CA fails to identify the noncompliance, the auditor should note this
on the checklist and explain the situation in the comment section. The auditor should also
determine if the IU is in SNC, whether the enforcement taken by the CA was effective and
followed the approved Enforcement Response Plan (ERP). If the auditor finds any problems,
he/she should note these and explain the situation in the report.
C.I. Identification of violations
C.l.a. Discharge violations
C.l.b. Monitoring/reporting violations
C.l.c. Compliance schedule violations
PURPOSE: The CA is required to identify and investigate all instances of noncompliance with
pretreatment standards and requirements. The auditor should verify the CA has identified all
violations.
SECTION I
-------
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA must identify any and all IU noncompliance. It is recommended that the CA use a
tracking system to:
- Obtain and compare sampling data with applicable limits and identify and investigate any
violations. The investigation should include requiring the IU to explain the violation.
- Receive IU reports and determine their timeliness, completeness, and accuracy.
- Determine appropriate progress with compliance schedules.
The CA must obtain enough IU discharge data to determine compliance on an ongoing basis.
If the IU has a history of noncompliance and/or variability in discharge constituents and
characteristics, the CA will need more frequent sampling data to determine the pattern and
causes of noncompliance.
If the IU has a history of noncompliance, has not submitted any required self-monitoring
reports, or discharges pollutants for which the POTW has NPDES violations, these facts
should be noted.
The auditor should attempt to determine whether the monitoring frequency and the reports
for the particular IU is sufficient to provide a true picture of compliance.
IU self-monitoring - As discussed above, all SIUs are required to report at least twice a
year, and more frequently if required by the CA.
Where CA compliance monitoring data show instances of noncompliance, the auditor should
find Notices of Violation (NOVs) provided to the IU for each instance as well as other
appropriate follow-up.
Violations of monitoring and reporting requirements must be addressed by the CA's
enforcement program. IU reporting includes all notices required to be submitted by the IU
[i.e., notice of a slug discharge (including accidental spills), prior notice of a changed
discharge, and 24-hour notice of violation identified in self-monitoring data].
The CA should respond to any failure by the IU to comply with compliance schedule
requirements.
C.2. Calculation of SNC
C.2.a. Chronic
C.2.b. TRC
C.2.c. Pass through/interference
C.I.6. Spill/slug load
C.2.e. Reporting
9 SECTION I
-------
C.2.f. Compliance schedule
C.2.g. Other violations (specify)
PURPOSE: The CA is required to calculate SNC in order to determine which industries to
publish at least annually in the largest local daily newspaper. The CA must also report a
summary of IU compliance status in its pretreatment program performance reports to the State
or EPA. The auditor should evaluate the file to determine if the CA correctly calculated SNC.
This can be done by reviewing violations and performing SNC calculations. (Note: if the
auditor is unfamiliar with the definition of SNC, he/she should refer to the definition in the
General Pretreatment Regulations and EPA policy.)
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
CAs should be evaluating SNC based on the procedures set forth in the regulations and
EPA's September 9, 1991, memorandum on the Application and Use of the Regulatory
Definition of Significant Noncompliance for Industrial Users.
Evidence of SNC evaluation should be found and evaluated. This information may be in the
CA's enforcement file, the pretreatment program performance report submitted to EPA or
the State, as well as in the CA and IU sampling reports or included in the data management
system. The auditor should look for any SNC violations as described below and determine
whether the CA has correctly determined SNC.
C.3. Response to violation
PURPOSE: The CA is expected to respond to every violation in an appropriate manner and
consistent with its approved ERP.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If the CA has an approved ERP, did it respond to each violation as specified in the ERF?
Effective enforcement requires a timely response by the CA to all violations. The auditor
should investigate the cause of any instances where response did not occur in a timely
manner.
C.4. Adherence to approved ERP
PURPOSE: Where the CA has an approved ERP, it is required to implement that plan in all its
enforcement proceedings.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Implementation of the approved ERP involves timely and appropriate enforcement and
escalation of enforcement actions where violations persist. The CA should have noted and
responded to any instance of noncompliance with local limits and/or categorical pretreatment
standards. At a minimum, for minor violations the CA should have notified the IU of the
violation through a phone call, meeting, or NOV. Instances of noncompliance with any
pretreatment requirement should also have resulted in a response by the CA.
SECTION I 10
-------
Where the CA's actions conformed to the ERP but were not effective (i.e., they did not
result in a final resolution within a reasonable length of time), the auditor should document
the situation and consider whether the ERP requires modification.
C.5. Return to compliance
C.5.a. Within 90 days
C.S.b. Within time specified
C.5.C. Through compliance schedule
PURPOSE: There are a number of criteria by which to determine effective enforcement. A
return to compliance within 90 days of the initial violation is the primary goal, but even
effective enforcement may take longer.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
One criteria for successful enforcement is returning the IU to compliance within 90 days.
The IU should be returned to compliance within the time specified by the CA. If the IU
must come into compliance with a categorical pretreatment standard deadline or a deadline
for compliance with a modified local limit, the CA should take appropriate actions (usually
issuance of a compliance schedule) to ensure that the IU will meet that deadline.
Violation of a compliance schedule deadline may indicate lack of effective enforcement. If
the deadline has built-in milestone dates, the CA has the opportunity to take actions
whenever the IU falls behind in its progress toward compliance. Effective action should
result in achievement of compliance by the schedule's deadline.
C.6. Escalation of enforcement
PURPOSE: The CA is expected to escalate enforcement for persistent violations.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA is expected to bring noncompliant users back into compliance by timely and
appropriate enforcement. This requires escalation of enforcement activity for persistent
violations per the CA's ERP. The auditor should look for patterns of increasingly severe
enforcement actions [e.g., NOVs followed by Administrative Orders (AOs)] where the past
enforcement actions have not resulted in the IU achieving consistent compliance. The
auditor should evaluate dates of the enforcement actions and IU responses (provide
examples).
Where self-monitoring data show instances of noncompliance, the auditor should look for
and note follow-up by the CA to any violations and determine the appropriateness of actions
taken.
11 SECTION I
-------
C.7. Publication for SNC
PURPOSE: The CA is required to annually publish, in the area's largest daily newspaper, a list
of lUs found to be in SNC. The auditor should verify that lUs in SNC, if any, were properly
published.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The IU file or a central enforcement file should contain a copy or clipping of the latest
notice placed in the local newspaper. The CA may keep this public notice in a separate file.
If an IU has been in SNC at any time during the year to which the publication pertains, then
the IU must be included in the published list. Even those lUs that returned to compliance
and are in compliance at the time of publication must be included in the published list. lUs
that are on compliance schedules (but have had or continue to have SNC violations of
standards or requirements) must also be published.
The auditor should randomly check lUs in SNC against the published list and determine
whether the CA published and reported on all these lUs.
Publication may take the form of a legal notice; however, it may be more effective in the
form of an article or advertisement.
D. Other
PURPOSE: The auditor should use this section to document any initiatives, unusual situations,
or other issues of note or concern identified in the file review and not covered under the sections
above.
SECTION I 12
-------
SECTION H: DATA REVIEW/INTERVIEW/IU SITE VISIT
Each of the questions in Section II of the Checklist is listed below along with an explanation of the
purpose or intent of the question. Brief guidance is provided on how the auditor can evaluate the CA's
efforts. More detailed guidance on the technical aspects of each question may be found in the appendices.
This section is primarily designed to be interactive between the auditor and the CA personnel. However,
the information collected should not be solely from the answers provided by the CA personnel. Where
possible, all answers provided by the CA should be supported by other data (monitoring reports,
correspondence, etc.). The auditor should use this section to compliment the data gathered through the
file review and to further evaluate the effectiveness of the CA's implementation of the pretreatment
program.
To facilitate completion of this section, elements of each program area are listed for consideration.
The regulatory citations are provided where there are specific requirements for that element. The auditor
should be aware that not all questions on the checklist reflect regulatory requirements. Some of the
questions are included to allow the auditor to better evaluate program effectiveness. This fact should be
taken into consideration when developing required versus recommended actions to be taken by the CA.
A. CA Pretreatment Program Modification [403.18]
Note: The auditor should attempt to determine JJ any modifications have taken place without
approval by the Approval Authority. He/she should also determine if any modifications are
planned in the near future or are currently being worked on.
A.I.a. Has the CA made any substantial changes to the pretreatment program that were not
reported to the Approval Authority (e.g., legal authority, less stringent local limits,
multijurisdictional situation)? If yes, discuss.
A.l.b. Is the CA in the process of making any substantial modifications to any pretreatment
program component (including legal authority, less stringent local limits, DSS
requirements, multijurisdictional situation, etc.)? If yes, describe:
PURPOSE: The CA is required to notify the Approval'Authority of any substantial
modifications it intends to make in its pretreatment program. Substantial modifications should
not be made without approval by the Approval Authority.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
When investigating this area, the auditor should keep in mind that program modifications are
likely to be made in any of the following areas:
13 SECTION II
-------
- Contributing jurisdictions added
- Legal authority - SUO and interjurisdictionai agreements
- Local limits - reevaluation and modification, addition or deletion of parameters
- Definition of SIU and/or changes in criteria for lUs to be included in the pretreatment
program
- Control mechanisms (including IU contracts) - type (order vs. permit, etc.), content,
format, or standard conditions
- Inspection and sampling (including self-monitoring) frequencies and/or priorities
- Resources committed to the program - equipment, personnel, funding.
B. Legal Authority [403.8(0(1)]
Note: This section is designed to investigate whether the CA has adequate legal authority to
implement their program. The auditor should review the CA's legal authority/ordinance to
make sure it is current with the new regulations, and to determine that the CA has adequate
authority to cover any extrajurisdictional situation that may exist. The auditor should note
any problems and explain them in the spaces provided on the checklist.
B.I. Are there any contributing jurisdictions discharging wastewater to the POTVV? IF yes,
explain how the legal authority addresses the contributing jurisdictions.
PURPOSE: The CA is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of its pretreatment
program for all IDs (i.e., existing and future lUs) throughout its service area, regardless of
jurisdictional boundaries. The CA should have a mechanism(s) to ensure implementation and
enforcement in its contributing jurisdictions.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA may be relying on its SUO to regulate lUs in contributing municipalities, but may
not have adequate authority to do so under State law.
The CA may be relying on existing interjurisdictionai agreements that were entered into for
the purpose of guaranteeing treatment capacity and providing for payment thereof. Such
agreements seldom address the needs of pretreatment program implementation. At a
minimum, the agreement should require the contributing municipality to adopt and maintain
a SUO which is at least as stringent and inclusive (including local limits) as the CA's SUO.
Ideally, the agreement (or a supplement to the agreement) should provide for every program
implementation activity.
The CA may have no means of obtaining an adequate agreement with a contributing
municipality (i.e., the CA may be required to continue providing service to the municipality)
and may not have entered into a contract with extrajurisdictional lUs.
SECTION n 14
-------
The CA may not have entered into an agreement (or may have an inadequate agreement)
with contributing municipalities which do not currently have lUs located within their
boundaries. Even if zoning in such cases allows only for commercial and/or residential
premises, the CA should have an agreement which requires notification to and approval by
the CA should any IU request to connect to the system since zoning laws are subject to
change.
B.2.a. Has the CA updated its legal authority (e.g., SUO) to reflect changes in the General
Pretreatment Regulations?
B.2.b. Did all contributing jurisdictions update their SUOs in a consistent manner?
Explain.
PURPOSE: The CA is required to amend its legal authority, as necessary, to be consistent with
all revisions of the General Pretreatment Regulations. The amendment would be a substantial
program modification and must be approved by the Approval Authority. The auditor should
verify the status of the CA's legal authority.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
CA may have modified its SUO without submitting proposed changes to the Approval
Authority or may have enacted modifications without approval. If so, this should be noted
along with the date modifications were enacted and citations of the modified provisions.
CA may have submitted proposed changes, but has not yet received approval. The date of
the submission should be noted.
The SUO may have been modified to be consistent with PIRT, but not yet modified to be
consistent with DSS.
Additional modifications (not required by PIRT or DSS) may have been made or proposed.
If so, cite and explain those modifications and the reasons for them.
B.3. Does the CA experience difficulty in implementing its legal authority [e.g., SUO,
interjurisdictional agreement (e.g., permit challenged, entry refused, penalty
appealed?)] If yes, explain.
PURPOSE: The CA should be able to ensure the successful implementation of its SUO
provisions throughout its service area.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
CA's SUO authorities may have been challenged as being inconsistent with State statutes or
as being unconstitutional. State statutes may not provide adequate authority for the CA to
take effective enforcement action. SUO may contain language that is open to interpretation.
In general, the CA's SUO applies only to lUs within its jurisdictional boundaries. However,
a few State's provide authority to public utilities to regulate all users throughout their
service area. In such cases, the SUO may apply to all users of the POTW.
15 SECTION II
-------
CA may not have an agreement with all contributing municipalities or it may have an
inadequate existing agreement which cannot be modified without the mutual consent of both
parties.
Interjurisdictional agreements may not be specific enough to ensure that the contributing
municipality takes adequate enforcement when required.
Interjurisdictional agreements may not provide the CA with authority to take direct action
against a violating IU where the contributing jurisdiction has failed to do so. Where this is
the case, it may be that State law does not allow for such authority. Further, this authority
generally does not exist in interstate situations unless special legislation has been enacted.
C. IU Characterization [403.8&
-------
C.2. How are SIUs identified and categorized (including those in contributing jurisdictions)?
Discuss any problems.
PURPOSE: Proper identification and categorization of SIUs is essential to the application of
appropriate pretreatment standards and requirements. The CA should have procedures for
determining which lUs are significant, which of those are subject to categorical standards, and
the appropriate category/subcategory to apply to each CIU.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA may be including lUs in its program based on determinations made prior to the
adoption of a Federal definition for SIU. They should have reevaluated their IWS to
determine if there are any existing SIUs who were not previously included in the program.
The CA should have procedures to determine which SIUs are subject to categorical
pretreatment standards and the applicable category(ies) for those which are. These
procedures should include permit application/BMR review, onsite inspection, and
comparison to categorical pretreatment standard regulations, guidance documents, and/or
development documents.
C.3.a. How and when does the CA update it IWS to identify new IUs (including those in
contributing jurisdictions)?
PURPOSE: The CA needs to be able to identify new IUs that move into the CA's service area.
The CA is also required to update its IWS at least annually [40 CFR 403.12(i)]. Generally, a
system for continuous update is the most effective.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should be relying on numerous sources to identify new users. Reliance on one
municipal department (e.g., building permits) to identify these users is likely to result in the
CA overlooking some new IUs such as those located in existing facilities. At a minimum, it
is recommended that the CA verify its IWS by comparing it to another source such as water
billing records at least annually.
CAs also frequently experience difficulty in identifying new users locating in contributing
municipalities. If the CA relies on that municipality to notify it of new IUs, the CA should
have procedures to verify this information at least annually.
C.3.b. How and when does the CA identify changes in wastewater discharges at existing IUs
(including contributing jurisdictions)?
PURPOSE: Identification of changed discharges from existing IUs is part of the CA's IWS
update and is required to be done at least annually. Again, continuous update procedures are
the most effective.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Existing IUs are required to notify the CA of any changes in their facilities or processes
which might result in the discharge of new or substantially increased pollutants. The CA
17 SECTION II
-------
should ensure that all Ills (including those in contributing jurisdictions) are aware of this
requirement.
The CA should have procedures to review existing lUs not currently included in the
program. The CA should verify current conditions at those facilities having the greatest
potential for changes which may result in a change of status. Water billing records provide
data for lUs that suddenly change volume of water used which is a strong indicator of a
change in processes being operated.
The CA may only update its IWS for IDs in its program when their control mechanisms are
due for reissuance. If this is the case, update for existing lUs may not be occurring
annually and/or may be reliant upon permit application data rather than onsite inspection
data.
If contributing municipalities are conducting their own inspections, the CA should have
oversight procedures to ensure that those inspections are adequate to identify any facility
changes which might result in the discharge of new or increased pollutants.
C.4. How many lUs are currently identified by the CA in each of the following groups?
C.4.a. SIUs (as defined by the CA); CIUs; Noncategorical SIUs
PURPOSE: The CA is required to issue control mechanisms to all SIUs in its service area. It
is also required to identify those SIUs which are subject to categorical pretreatment standards
and their applicable category/subcategory.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA generally should have the numbers of CIUs and noncategorical SIUs readily
available. However, in the case of a very large program, the CA may need to obtain data
from its computer system to provide these numbers. Enough time should be allowed to
ensure that the auditor obtains these data during the course of the audit.
If the CA issues control mechanisms to non-SIUs, it should still be able to identify which
lUs are SIUs to ensure that all applicable pretreatment standards and requirements are being
applied.
C.4.b. Other regulated noncategorical lUs (specify)
PURPOSE: The CA is not required to regulate non-SIUs; however, many choose to regulate
some or all of these lUs,
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Often, the CA regulates non-SIUs strictly for revenue purposes. If this is the case, the
auditor should determine what pollutants are monitored and/or what other requirements are
applied to these users.
SECTION II 18
-------
Some CAs regulate specific categories of non-SIUs such as photo finishers, dry cleaners,
and transportation centers. In such cases, the auditor should ask why the CA decided to
regulate those particular Ills and how.
C.4.c. Total
PURPOSE: Although the CA is only required to issue individual control mechanisms to its
SIUs, many also issue control mechanisms to non-SIUs. Non-SIU control mechanisms are not
required to contain the elements specified under 40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii), however, it is
recommended that they do.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA may issue control mechanisms to specific categories of industries/commercial
facilities because of problems experienced from such facilities (e.g., shipping depots - oil
and grease). Although these control mechanisms are not required to be as comprehensive as
those for SIUs, they should contain standards and/or requirements that make sense (e.g.,
clean traps bi-weekly).
D. Control Mechanism Evaluation [403.8(0(1)0")]
Note: This section is designed to help the auditor evaluate the CA's issuance and reissuance
of control mechanisms. The auditor should determine whether the control mechanisms used
are issued/reissued in a timely manner, whether the CA is controlling all sources and whether
the control mechanisms are adequate and effective. Any problems should be recorded.
D.I.a. How many and what percent of the total SIUs are not covered by an existing,
unexpired permit or other individual control mechanism?
PURPOSE: Under 40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(m), the CA is required to issue individual control
mechanisms to all SIUs.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The auditor should consider how many SIUs the CA reported in question C.4 and whether
the number of control mechanisms reported here matches. If it does not, the auditor should
determine why the discrepancy exists.
If the CA reports any expired and not reissued or reissued late control mechanisms, the
auditor should determine the reason.
D.l.b. How many control mechanisms were not issued within 180 days of the expiration date
of the previous control mechanism? If any, explain.
PURPOSE: A CA is considered to be in RNC if it fails to issue, reissue, or ratify control
mechanisms for at least 90 percent of its SIUs within 180 days of the expiration date of the
previous control mechanism. If the CA failed to issue or reissue all control mechanisms in the
appropriate time frames, the auditor should record and explain.
19 SECTION II
-------
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should have procedures which ensure timely reissuance of all control mechanisms.
Control mechanisms should be issued/reissued on time; if any are not, the auditor should
record this and determine the reason they were not issued/reissued on time.
The CA may grant an administrative extension of the current control mechanism. However,
only those extensions provided for due cause (e.g., awaiting the approval of revised local
limits) are adequate to exempt the CA from being considered in RNC. A lack of adequate
CA staff and resources or simply a failure to issue/reissue permits in a timely manner are
not acceptable instances for granting an extension.
D.2.a. Do any UST, CERCLA, RCRA corrective action sites and/or other contaminated
ground water sites discharge wastewater to the CA?
D.2.b. How are control mechanisms (specifically limits) developed for these facilities? Discuss.
PURPOSE: Any Underground Storage Tank (UST), Comprehensive Environmental
Remediation, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), or RCRA corrective action site
which requests to discharge to the CA, even though the discharge may be of short duration,
should be considered an SIU. As such, each facility must be issued a control mechanism
containing all required elements.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA's local limits should cover the pollutants of concern to be discharged by these
facilities. The CA should have prepared an lU-specific permit to address such pollutants.
Unfortunately, in the case of CERCLA and RCRA facilities, there may not be much
literature data available regarding secondary treatment inhibition from the applicable
pollutants. The CA will have to rely upon whatever data is available and best professional
judgment. Where there is doubt that these sources will ensure protection of the POTW, the
CA should consider requiring/conducting a bench-scale study to obtain better data.
The CA should be aware that receipt of hazardous wastes through a dedicated pipe or via
truck into the headworks of the POTW will cause the CA to be considered a Treatment
Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) under the RCRA permit-by-rule. The CA is then
subject to applicable liabilities.
D.3.a. Does the CA accept any waste by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe?
D.3.b. Is any of the waste hazardous as defined by RCRA? If a. or b. above is yes, explain.
D.3.c. Describe the CA's program to control hauled wastes including a designated discharge
point (e.g., number of points, control/security procedures). [403.5(b)(8>]
PURPOSE: According to 40 CFR 403.1(b)(l), the General Pretreatment Regulations apply to
pollutants from all nondomestic sources subject to pretreatment standards (including prohibited
discharge standards, local limits, and categorical pretreatment standards) which are indirectly
discharged into or transported by truck or rail or otherwise introduced into a POTW or may
contaminate sewage sludge.
SECTION II 20
-------
Under 40 CFR 403.5(b)(8), the CA is required to prohibit the discharge of trucked or hauled
pollutants except at a point which the CA designates. The auditor should determine what kind
of program the CA has in place for handling hauled waste and whether any of the hauled waste
qualifies as hazardous waste under RCRA. The auditor should determine if there is some kind
of permitting system in place, and if so, how it is implemented.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should be aware that any hazardous wastes received by the POTW from these
sources are not covered by the domestic sewage exclusion provision of RCRA. Therefore, a
POTW receiving such waste may be considered a TSDF and subject to "permit by rule."
Where the CA states that it accepts only sanitary or sanitary and grease trap wastes, it
should be able to demonstrate that it prohibits the discharge by the sources of any other
wastes. Unless it has established (in its SUO or elsewhere in its code) that it is illegal for
these sources to discharge industrial waste, the CA probably will not be able to enforce
against such discharges. Even where the CA has prohibited the discharge of industrial
wastes by these sources, it should have sufficient oversight procedures (e.g., manifest
verification, manned discharge points, random sampling) to ensure compliance.
E. Application of Pretreatment Standards and Requirements
Note: This section is set up to compliment the file review's investigation of the CA's
application of pretreatment standards. The auditor should collect information on the CA's use
and understanding of pretreatment standards. He/she should try to determine whether the CA
understands all issues relevant to the application of these standards. The auditor should also
determine how the CA developed local limits. Any problems encountered by the CA in
applying pretreatment standards or developing local limits should be recorded.
E.I. What limits (categorical, local, other) does the CA apply to wastes that are hauled to
the POTW (directly to the treatment plant or within the collection system, including
contributing jurisdictions)? [403.l(b)(D]
PURPOSE: According to 40 CFR 403.1(b)(l), the General Pretreatment Regulations apply to
pollutants from all nondomestic sources subject to pretreatment standards (including prohibited
discharge standards, local limits, and categorical pretreatment standards) which are indirectly
discharged into or transported by truck or rail or otherwise introduced into a POTW. The
auditor should determine that the appropriate limits are being applied to hauled waste.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Any nondomestic wastes from these sources must, at minimum, be subject to the CA's
prohibited discharge standards and local limits.
If the discharge contains, or is likely to contain, pollutants which may interfere with or pass
through the POTW, but are not currently regulated by the CA (e.g., discharges from ground
water cleanup sites), it is recommended the CA determine the allowable concentrations/
loadings from such pollutants and apply them in a control mechanism issued for that
discharge.
21 SECTION II
-------
E.2. How does the CA keep abreast of current regulations to ensure proper implementation
of standards? [403.8(f)(2)(tii)]
PURPOSE: It is the CA's responsibility to keep up-to-date with all applicable regulations.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
It is recommended the CA have procedures to review the Federal Register or some other
publications or source that provides routine updates of the Federal Register.
CAs frequently rely on information provided by EPA or the approved State to keep up-to-
date with pretreatment and applicable RCRA revisions. This may not be adequate since
such updates usually occur quarterly or less frequently.
EJ. Local limits evaluation: [403.8(0(4); m.2l(j)l
Note: The auditor should determine what methods were used to establish the CA's local
limits, how these limits are being allocated, and whether there is any indication that the limits
should be reevaluated (e.g., more pollutants covered).
E.3.a. For what pollutants have local limits been set
PURPOSE: The CA is required to evaluate the need for new or revised local limits. This must
be a technical evaluation to determine the maximum allowable POTW headworks loading for
each pollutant which will ensure protection of: the treatment plant unit processes from
inhibition or upset; the receiving stream from violation of any water quality standards;
compliance with any effluent or sludge use and disposal requirements in the NPDES permit; and
worker health and safety.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Frequently, the local limits contained in the approved program submission were developed
by a consultant and the CA may not know the methods used for their development. The CA
may be able to call the consultant in or to obtain the appropriate documentation. Time
should be allowed, where possible.
A technical evaluation may have been conducted, but may have been reliant mainly upon
literature values due to a lack of real data. In this case, the validity of the limits may be
questionable.
E.3.b. How were these pollutants decided upon
PURPOSE: The CA should evaluate the need for local limits for any pollutant reasonably
expected to occur in the POTW.
SECTION II 22
-------
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
EPA generally recommends that limits be evaluated for 10 parameters that frequently occur
in POTWs receiving industrial discharges. These parameters include: arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc.
The CA should also evaluate other pollutants reasonably expected to occur in the POTW.
The CA may identify these pollutants in several ways, including running a priority pollutant
scan on the POTW influent and identifying pollutants common to the types of industries
located in its service area. The CA should be able to explain the rationale for selecting the
pollutants for which local limits exist.
The CA should consider volatile pollutants likely to be found in the collection system which
may not be detectable in the POTW but are necessary to protect worker health and safety.
E.3.C. What was the most prevalent/most stringent criteria for the limits
PURPOSE: According to 40 CFR 122.210), the CA must reevaluate its local limits and submit
the results with each application for a NPDES permit. Under 40 CFR 403.5(c)(l), the CA
developing a pretreatment program must develop and enforce local limits to prevent interference
and pass through. The CA must also continue to develop these limits as necessary.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should develop local limits as part of its pretreatment program submission, when
applying for a new NPDES permit, and when any substantial change in loadings occur at the
plant (for instance when new IUs hook onto the system).
The CA should develop local limits for any pollutant which is known to have caused
interference or pass through or worker health and safety problems, or that has a reasonable
potential to cause these problems.
E.3.d. Which allocation method(s) were used
PURPOSE: Federal regulations require local limits to be developed on a technical basis to
prevent interference and pass through. The regulations do not specify the manner in which the
CA must allocate those loadings.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The regulations require that the CA have the legal authority to establish local limits. They
do not require local limits to be contained in the SUO. If the CA chooses to allocate its
maximum allowable headworks loadings to all IUs on a uniform concentration basis, it is
recommended that these end-of-pipe discharge limits be specified in the SUO.
The CA may choose to allocate these loadings for specific pollutants among those IUs with
the potential for those pollutants in their discharge. In this case, the limits are best placed in
the IU control mechanisms.
23 SECTION II
-------
lU-specific limits are not required to be uniform for all lUs to which they apply. However,
the CA should have a defensible rationale for its allocations. Where lU-specific limits are
applied, the SUO should specify the maximum allowable headworks loadings and prohibit
the discharge of those pollutants at a rate which, alone or in conjunction with other
discharges, causes an exceedence of those loadings.
EJ.e. Has the CA identified any pollutants of concern beyond those in its local limits? If yes,
how has this been addressed.
PURPOSE: The CA is required to continue to develop local limits, as necessary.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If the CA has experienced a pass through or interference event caused by a pollutant not
included in its list of local limits, the auditor should determine what follow-up has been done
to regulate that pollutant in the future.
Where a new SIU, particularly a ground water cleanup site has come on line and has the
potential to discharge pollutants that could impact the POTW but for which it does not have
a local limit, the auditor should determine the CA's approaches to recycling that pollutant.
Pollutants which are not likely to be discharged by more than one or two IDs may be more
appropriately regulated on an lU-specific basis. The CA should still have a technical
rationale for these limits.
E.4. What problems, if any, were encountered during local limits development and/or
implementation?
PURPOSE: Frequently, the CA encounters difficulties in evaluating its local limits.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The State may not have developed water quality standards for the receiving stream. Data
may not be available for a particular unit process used at the POTW. There may not be a
point at which the CA can monitor to get a good profile of domestic contributions.
F. Compliance Monitoring
Note: This section evaluates the CA *s compliance monitoring of its lUs. The monitoring
should be conducted at a frequency that will produce data that is indicative of the Ws
discharge, and with care (proper sampling, analysis, and record keeping) to produce data that
are supportive of enforcement actions. The auditor should record any problems that are
found.
SECTION II 24
-------
F.l.a. How does the CA determine adequate IU monitoring (sampling, inspecting, and
reporting) frequency? [403.8
-------
Note: The auditor should be aware that CA's often establish their monitoring schedules
around their reporting to the Approval Authority. Therefore, they may not have completed all
the required monitoring in the last 12 months, but they will complete it before they are
required to submit their annual performance report to the Approval Authority.
F.3. Indicate the number and percent of SIUs that were identified as being in SNC (as
defined by the POTW or EPA) with the following requirements from the CA's last
pretreatment program performance report.
PURPOSE: The auditor must determine the number and percent of SIUs in SNC for
noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards and reporting requirements, self-
monitoring requirements, and pretreatment compliance schedules for input into WENDB and to
determine RNC.
F.4. What does the CA's basic inspection include? (Process areas, pretreatment facilities,
chemical and hazardous waste storage areas, chemical spill-prevention areas, hazardous
waste handling procedures, sampling procedures, laboratory procedures, and
monitoring records.) [403.8(f)(2)(v)&(vi)]
PURPOSE: The CA is required to inspect its lUs to determine compliance with all applicable
standards and requirements. The auditor should determine that the CA is aware of all areas that
need to be investigated during an inspection.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The regulations do not specify required components of an IU inspection. However, to
adequately determine compliance with all applicable standards and requirements, the CA
should inspect all areas indicated above.
If the CA inspects facilities more frequently than once a year, only one inspection may need
to be comprehensive. Other inspections may be limited to areas of specific concern.
F.S. Who performs CA's compliance monitoring analysis?
PURPOSE: The CA is required to conduct its compliance monitoring and analysis in a manner
that will provide admissible evidence in enforcement proceedings. The auditor should verify
that the analysis are performed properly by reviewing reports and through discussions with the
CA.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If the CA performs ail of its own analyses or if it is performed by a contract lab, the CA
should have documented that adequate procedures, equipment, and qualified personnel were
used to analyze for all pollutants required to be monitored under its program.
SECTION II 26
-------
F.6. What QA/QC techniques does the CA use for sampling and analysis (e.g., splits,
blanks, spikes), including verification of contract laboratory procedures and
appropriate analytical methods? [403.8
-------
F.9.a. How and when does the CA evaluate/reevaluate the need for a slug control plan?
[403.8(0(2)(v)]
PURPOSE: The CA is required to evaluate all lUs at least once every 2 years to determine the
need to develop or revise a slug discharge control plan. The auditor should determine if the CA
evaluated its SIUs for the need to develop a slug control plan.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Many CAs require through their SUO that all lUs submit an accidental spill prevention plan.
Although this may be adequate for non-SIUs, it is not adequate for any SIU with the
potential to discharge an intentional slug load (e.g., nonroutine batch discharge).
The requirement for a slug control plan for discharges other than accidental spills may be
contained in the IU permits.
Where the CA has conducted initial inspections for slug control plans, the auditor should
determine if the CA has done a follow-up inspection within 2 years to determine the need
for any revisions, as required.
F.9.b. How many SIUs were not evaluated for the need to develop slug discharge control plans
in the last 2 years?
PURPOSE: The CA is required to evaluate each SIU for the need to develop or revise a slug
discharge control plan at least once every 2 years. The auditor should combine this information
with the information collected in the previous question.
G. Enforcement
Note: This section is designed to evaluate the CA's enforcement program. The auditor should
evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the CA's enforcement actions by examining its
definition of SNC, implementation of the SNC definition, implementation of Us approved ERP,
problems with the POTW, and use of compliance schedules. Any problems found by the
auditor should be recorded.
G.I. What is the CA's definition of SNC? [403.8(f)(2)(vii)}
PURPOSE: EPA has defined the term "significant noncompliance" in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii)
and requires the CA to publish all SIUs in SNC at least once per year. The auditor should
determine what the CA's definition for SNC is and whether it matches the Federal definition and
subsequent guidance.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
EPA's current definition of SNC replaces the earlier definition of "significant violation"
which formerly provided the criteria for publication.
SECTION II 28
-------
If the CA's NPDES permit requires adoption of DSS regulatory revision requirements, the
CA must apply EPA's definition of SNC or more stringent criteria when determining which
lUs must be published.
G.2. ERP implementation: [403.8(0(5)1
G.2.a. Status
G.2.b. Problems with implementation
G.2.c. Is the ERP effective and does it lead to compliance in a timely manner? Provide
examples if any are available.
PURPOSE: The CA is required to develop an ERP. Once approved by the Approval
Authority, the ERP constitutes a modification of the approved program. As such, the CA is
obligated to conduct its enforcement activities in a manner consistent with the procedures
established in the ERP. The auditor should determine whether or not the CA is following their
approved ERP.
Note: If the CA does not yet have an approved ERP, the auditor should use this section to
evaluate and discuss the enforcement actions the CA is taking.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If the ERP has not yet been approved, the CA has no obligation to conduct its enforcement
activities in accordance with the ERP procedures.
In some cases, the ERP may not work or may be in conflict with the CA's legal authority.
This does not exempt the CA from implementing its ERP. However, where such problems
are identified, the CA should be required to submit a request for modification of its ERP to
correct the problem.
Even when the CA successfully implements its ERP as approved, it may run into problems.
For instance, although circular enforcement may not be apparent in the ERP, certain
scenarios may result in such a situation. In any such instances, the ERP should be
modified.
The ERP should result in a return to compliance by the IU within 90 days or within the time
specified in a compliance schedule or order.
G.3.a. Does the CA use compliance schedules? [403.8(0(i:)(iv)(A)]
G-3.b. If yes, are they appropriate? Provide examples.
PURPOSE: The CA should establish compliance schedules for SIUs in accordance with its
approved ERP. The auditor should determine if the CA uses compliance schedules; if the CA
does, the auditor should determine if they are effective.
29 SECTION II
-------
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Compliance schedules should identify specific actions the SIUs are to take and establish
specific dates by which these actions are to be completed.
Where a CIU is on a compliance schedule for achieving compliance with a categorical
deadline that has already passed or will pass prior to the schedule's final compliance
deadline, the compliance schedule/enforcement order should clearly state the CIU is subject
to enforcement for failure to comply with a Federal deadline even though the user is in
compliance with the terms of the schedule.
G.4. Did the CA publish all SIUs in SNC in the largest daily newspaper in the previous
year? [403.8(f)(2}(vii)] If yes, attach a copy. If no, explain.
PURPOSE: The CA is required to publish (on an annual basis) all SIUs that had been in SNC
during the reporting year. The auditor should verify that the CA did publish those lUs that
were in SNC during the reporting year.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Where the CA's NPDES permit requires adoption of DSS regulatory revision requirements,
publication of lUs in SNC must be based on EPA's definition of SNC or on more stringent
criteria. Publication is required to appear in the largest daily newspaper in the municipality.
G.5. How many SIUs are in SNC with self-monitoring requirements and were not inspected
and/or sampled (in the four most recent full quarters)?
PURPOSE: Failure by the CA to inspect and/or sample any SIU which is in SNC with self-
monitoring requirements must be reported in WENDB. The auditor should determine the
number of SIUs in SNC with self-monitoring that were not inspected and/or sampled and record
it for WENDB. Indicate if this is an actual or estimated number.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
SIUs which are not complying with self-monitoring requirements have the potential to have
serious discharge violations. Therefore, failure by the CA to inspect or sample these lUs
may result in allowing serious violations to continue without enforcement.
G.6.a. Has the CA experienced any problems since the last inspection (interference, pass
through, collection system problems, illicit dumping of hauled wastes, or worker health
and safety problems) caused by industrial discharges?
G.6.b. If yes, describe the CA's enforcement action against the lUs causing or contributing to
problems.
PURPOSE: The CA must investigate and take enforcement actions against lUs causing or
contributing to pass through or interference. The auditor should be aware of any effluent
violations at the POTW based on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data that may be due to
SECTION 11 30
-------
discharges from lUs. The auditor should investigate the CA's response to any problems caused
by IU discharges.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Any indications of pass through or interference should result in immediate response by the
CA to determine the source(s) of the violation and take appropriate enforcement actions.
Where the source(s) of the violation could not be determined, the CA should have detailed
documentation of the event and the reasons why the source could not be determined.
H. Data Management/Public Participation
Note: This section is designed to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the CA's data
management and public participation procedures. The auditor should examine the CA's
procedures for dealing with confidential information, public inquiry, public notice, and
confidentiality issues impacting the program. Any problems identified should be recorded.
H.I. How is confidential information handled by the CA? [403.14]
PURPOSE: Where the CA allows for confidentiality for information determined to be
proprietary, it should have procedures to guarantee that confidentiality while ensuring that IU
effluent data remain available to the public and that all IU data obtained through the course of
program implementation remain available to EPA and/or the approved State. The auditor should
determine if the CA has procedures to handle confidential information; if the CA does, the
auditor should evaluate whether they are adequate.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
It is recommended that confidential information be maintained in a locked file to which only
one or a few people have access. All personnel with access to confidential information
should be fully conversant with the CA's confidentiality procedures.
H.2. How are requests by the public to review files handled?
PURPOSE: All IU effluent data must be made available to the public. The auditor should
determine the level of interest in the program and whether the CA has a mechanism in place to
handle public inquiry.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Effluent data should be maintained separately or procedures should be established to ensure
that the public has ready access to these data.
31 SECTION II
-------
HJ. Describe whether the CA's data management system is effective in supporting
pretreatment implementation and enforcement activities.
PURPOSE: A well organized data management system is essential to maintaining the IWS,
issuance of control mechanisms, efficient compliance tracking, and timely and effective
enforcement. The auditor should evaluate the CA's data management system.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
An effective data management system can range from a well organized filing system to a
sophisticated computer data system.
All data on each IU should be readily accessible in the lU's file.
The data should be organized in a reasonable manner. That is, all control mechanism
components should be kept together as should all CA sampling data, etc. Organizing files
by subject matter and then chronologically within the subject is recommended.
All inspections, meetings, and telephone calls should be clearly and comprehensively
documented so as to provide evidence in enforcement actions.
All chain-of-custody and QA/QC data should be complete.
H.4. How does the CA ensure public participation during revisions to the SUO and/or local
limits? [403.5(c)(3)|
PURPOSE: The auditor should determine what mechanism the CA has for ensuring adequate
public comment during revisions to the program.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should have procedures for public notice which include the opportunity for public
comment. Frequently, these procedures are specified in the municipality's code or State
code.
H.5. Explain any public or community issues impacting the CA's pretreatment program.
PURPOSE: Frequently, public/community issues affect the implementation of the CA's
pretreatment program. Such issues which impede effective implementation and enforcement of
the local program should be discussed.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Enforcement may be difficult where a violating IU is one of the community's major sources
of revenues and employment.
CA's practicing public outreach often find it facilitates program implementation.
SECTION II 32
-------
H.6 How long are records maintained? (403.l2(o)]
PURPOSE: SIUs are required to maintain and retain data obtained in response to program
requirements for a period of at least 3 years and/or throughout the course of any ongoing
litigation related to the IU. The auditor should determine that SIUs maintain files for the
appropriate length of time.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should review SIU records during the course of its annual comprehensive
inspection. Any problems with IU record maintenance should be noted in the inspection
report and should result in an enforcement response.
I. Resources {403.8(0(3)1
Note: This section is designed to determine whether the CA has dedicated enough resources
(i.e., personnel, equipment, and funding) to implement each program activity effectively. The
auditor should bear in mind that while resources for present activities may be adequate, if the
CA's activities themselves are not adequate (e.g., not regulating all SIUs), the resources may
be inadequate to cover the additional work necessary to correctly implement the program. The
auditor should identify any existing resource problems as well as any anticipated problems.
I.I. Estimate the number of personnel On FTEs) available for implementing the program.
[Consider: legal assistance, permitting, IU inspections, sample collection, sample
analysis, data analysis, review and response, enforcement, and administration
(including record keeping and data management)].
PURPOSE: The CA is obligated to have at least the number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
specified in the approved program available for program implementation activities. It should
have increased personnel if required to adequately implement the program. The auditor should
determine the number of FTEs devoted to the program and whether a lack of resources
contributes to ineffective implementation.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Frequently, the CA uses the same personnel for collection system maintenance, POTW
sampling, and pretreatment sampling. With this, and with all program areas, the FTEs
should reflect the number actually, and consistently, available to the program.
If the CA uses a contract lab for sampling and/or analysis, the FTEs should reflect the
approximate number the contract budget would cover.
1.2.
Does the CA have adequate access to monitoring equipment? (Consider: sampling,
flow measurement, safety, transportation, and analytical equipment.) If no, explain.
PURPOSE: The CA is obligated to have at least the equipment specified in the approved
program available for program implementation activities. It should have additional equipment if
required to adequately implement the program. The auditor should inquire about whether or not
the CA has certain basic equipment necessary to run their program,
33 SECTION II
-------
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Although not specifically required, the CA should have adequate safety equipment, including
equipment for safely entering a man hole, where necessary.
If the CA uses a contract lab, the contract budget should provide for an adequate number of
analyses, including additional analyses for demand sampling, that the CA is expected to
require.
I J.a. Estimate the annual operating budget for the CA's program.
1.3.b. Is funding expected to: stay the same, increase, decrease (note time frame; e.g.,
following year, next 3 years, etc.)? Discuss any changes in funding.
PURPOSE: The CA is obligated to have at least the funding specified in the approved program
available for program implementation activities. It should have increased funding if required to
adequately implement the program. The auditor should inquire about the annual operating
budget necessary to run the program.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Frequently, funding for the pretreatment program comes from the municipality's/Department
of Public Works' general fund. A review of the CA's program funding over the past
several years may be necessary to determine funding adequacy. The auditor should also
inquire into any anticipated funding problems. In addition, if the audit has found that the
scope of any program activity is inadequate, then funding will most likely need to be
increased to bring the program into compliance.
1.4. Discuss any problems in program implementation which appear to be related to
inadequate resources.
PURPOSE: The CA is obligated to have at least the funding specified in the approved program
available for program implementation activities. It should have increased funding if required to
adequately implement the program. The auditor should investigate whether the funding devoted
to the program seems adequate, and if there are any problems related to funding, the auditor
should note it in the report.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
See question 1.1-3. ?bove.
I.S.a. How does the CA ensure personnel are qualified and up-to-date with current program
requirements?
PURPOSE: In order to adequately implement the pretreatment program, all program staff need
to be qualified for the positions they hold and trained to perform their jobs in a manner
consistent with pretreatment program requirements. The auditor should determine whether staff
seem adequately trained and note any problems in the report.
SECTION II 34
-------
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Although the CA's pretreatment coordinator may be qualified and up-to-date with program
requirements, it is not uncommon to find that field and lab personnel are not.
1.5.b. Does the CA have adequate reference material to implementing its program?
PURPOSE: In order to determine correct categorization of SIUs, the CA should have ready
access to the General Pretreatment Regulations, categorical pretreatment standard regulations,
and EPA's categorical pretreatment standards guidance documents. The auditor should
determine whether the CA seems to have adequate access to resource material or whether
resource material has an impact on the implementation of the program. The auditor should
review the CA's reference material to determine whether any additional materials may be
needed. The auditor should plan to provide any missing materials.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The Region/State may know that particular documents have been provided to the CA.
However, some mailings never quite make it to the pretreatment staff but end up in the
Public Works Department, etc. Also, when staff members leave for another position, these
documents frequently leave with them.
It is not uncommon that documents were received and shelved, but that the pretreatment
staff (including inspectors) may not have reviewed them. All pretreatment personnel should
be familiar with guidance material.
J. Environmental Effectiveness/Pollution Prevention
Note: This section is designed to assist the auditor in determining whether the CA's program
has evaluated and documented any environmental benejits to date. Although there are no
regulatory requirements directly related to achieving environmental benefits, it is EPA's stated
goal for all environmental regulatory programs. The auditor should make every effort to
determine (f sufficient data are being collected, analyzed, and summarized to demonstrate
trends (whether positive or negative) in the years since the CA's pretreatment program
implementation, particularly in the years since the last audit. AU findings should be
documented as thoroughly as possible.
J.I.a. How many times were the following monitored by the CA during the past year?
Metals, priority pollutants, biomonitoring, TCLP, EP toxicity, other.
J.l.b. Is this frequency less than, equal to, or more than that required by the NPDES permit?
Explain any differences.
PURPOSE: The primary goal of the pretreatment program is to improve environmental quality.
Environmental monitoring is essential to determine the program's effectiveness and the
accomplishment of this goal. The auditor should determine whether the CA has a monitoring
program in place that will assist the CA in tracking any progress or lack of progress the
program is making in enhancing environmental effectiveness.
35 SECTION II
-------
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
It is recommended that the CA perform monitoring of its treatment plant(s) in order to track
the environmental effectiveness of the program's implementation. The frequency should be
such that enough data are collected to recognize trends of increasing or decreasing loadings
in the influent, effluent, and sludge.
J.2.a. Has the CA evaluated historical and current data to determine the effectiveness of the
pretreatment controls on: improvements in POTW operations, loadings to and from
the POTW, NPDES permit compliance, and sludge quality?
J.2.b. Has the CA documented these findings?
J.2.C. If they have been documented, what form does the documentation take? Explain.
(Attach a copy of the documentation, if appropriate.)
PURPOSE: A successful pretreatment program is expected to result in improved POTW
operations and NPDES compliance as well as in reduced pollutant loadings. The auditor should
review any data the CA has available on environmental effectiveness and record any findings. If
the CA has no data, the auditor should recommend the CA start collecting data.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Environmental monitoring should demonstrate a trend of decreasing concentrations of
pollutants coming to the POTW and ending up in the receiving stream and sludge.
The cost of operating and maintaining the POTW (minus cost of living increases) should
decrease due to fewer system upsets and inhibitions.
As sludge quality improves, less expensive disposal operations may become available.
NPDES permit compliance should improve.
J.3. If the CA has historical data compiled concerning influent, effluent, and sludge
sampling for the POTW, what trends have been seen? (Increases in pollutant loadings
over the years? Decreases? No change?) Discuss on pollutant-by-pollutant basis.
PURPOSE: It is generally anticipated that a successfully implemented local pretreatment
program will result in a decrease of pollutant loadings to the POTW and a resulting decrease in
loadings to the receiving waters. Where this has not happened, the auditor should attempt to
determine the causative factors. These factors should be well documented.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If all lUs were in compliance with applicable pretreatment standards prior to the CA
obtaining POTW monitoring data, it is likely that no change will be seen.
If the CA's service area has recently experienced industrial growth or a change in the
character of its industries, the data may show an increase in pollutant loadings even though
effective program implementation is taking place.
SECTION n 36
-------
J.4. Has the CA investigated the sources contributing to current pollutant loadings to the
POTW (i.e., the relative contributions of toxics from industrial, commercial, and
domestic sources)? If yes, what was found?
PURPOSE: In order to effectively control toxics discharged to the POTW, the CA needs to
determine the types and amount of toxics received from the above sources. The auditor should
determine what the CA is doing to evaluate and keep track of pollutant loadings to the treatment
plant, specifically what kind of monitoring program the CA has in place for tracking
contributions to the collection system. If no system exists, the auditor should recommend the
CA start one.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Along with sampling plant influent, effluent, and sludge, it is recommended that the CA
monitor points within the collection system to better characterize the contributions of toxics.
This will help to determine program effectiveness and to assist in developing more
appropriate local limits.
J.S.a. Has the CA attempted to implement any kind of public education program?
J.S.b. Are there any plans to initiate such a program to educate users about pollution
prevention? Explain.
PURPOSE: Practicing pollution prevention by changing the types of products used can be a
painless way for the public to make a contribution to the environment. Industries often realize
significant cost savings when they adopt pollution prevention measures. Adoption of pollution
prevention practices on all fronts will almost certainly result on a reduced need for enforcement
as well as a decreased loading of pollutants at the POTW. However, pollution prevention has
not been a raging overnight success due to the lack of public awareness of the possibilities in
this area. The CA is in an ideal position to foster pollution prevention and improve its image
with both its lUs and the general public. Where the CA has no pollution prevention awareness
program in place, the auditor should recommend one be adopted.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
CAs often see pollution prevention awareness as yet another task they are being asked to
take on in an already too full work load. Frequently, they are unaware of the benefits to be
reaped for both the POTW and their pretreatment program, including an eventual reduction
in their work load.
Making their lUs aware of pollution prevention need not really impact the CA's work load.
They might consider bringing State pollution prevention literature out with them on IU
inspections. Specific questions can then be handled by State personnel.
37 SECTION II
-------
J.6 What efforts have been taken to incorporate pollution prevention into the CA's
pretreatment program (e.g., waste minimization at lUs, household hazardous waste
programs)?
PURPOSE: Pollution prevention is of great importance in implementing a comprehensive
pretreatment program. In order to further the CA's attainment of program goals, pollution
prevention initiatives and ideas should be discussed with CA personnel.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
It is hoped that, at minimum, the CA will be talking to its ILJs about pollution prevention
and the benefits of pollution prevention/waste minimization to the IU.
The auditor should be aware that the States have grants to conduct pollution prevention
studies at industrial facilities. He/she should inquire as to the CA's awareness of this
program. Generally, the State's are encouraging CA's to recommend likely candidates for a
study. The study is free of charge to the industry and carries no obligation.
J.7.
Does the CA have any documentation concerning successful pollution prevention
programs being implemented by RJs (e.g., case studies, sampling data demonstrating
pollutant reductions)? Explain.
PURPOSE: The more documentation we can provide to other CAs regarding successful IU
pollution prevention programs, the more willing they will be to bring the pollution prevention
message to their own lUs. The auditor should obtain all available documentation. He/she
should also consider contacting the IU to ask whether the IU would be willing to be named in
case studies and/or to respond to questions from interested parties.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Sometimes lUs have made recent modifications to incorporate pollution prevention measures
of which the CA is unaware. In the course of the IU site visit, the auditor should ask the IU
whether this has been done or is being considered.
K. Additional Evaluations/Information
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The auditor should record any activities being taken by the CA, EPA, the State,
environmental organizations, or j,he public at large that have, or may have in the future, any
bearing on the CA's pretreatment program. Included in these considerations should be any
new initiatives (e.g., regulatory, hospital waste, river, bay, geographic targeted, result
oriented initiatives).
SECTION II 38
-------
SECTION HI: FINDINGS
The intent of Section III is to provide a brief summary of the concerns and deficiencies identified
(findings) throughout the audit in each program area. It also provides the opportunity to identify
inconsistencies in information collected. For instance, information obtained through the interview process
is sometimes in disagreement with information obtained during the file review. For this reason, it is
strongly recommended that the auditor(s) complete Section III prior to the audit's closing conference in
order to raise, and hopefully resolve, such issues at that time.
To facilitate completion of this section, elements of each program area are listed for consideration.
Citations to all pertinent checklist questions are provided for each element. The regulatory citations are
also provided where there are specific requirements for that element. The auditor should be aware that
not all questions on the checklist reflect regulatory requirements. Some of the questions are included to
allow the auditor to better evaluate program effectiveness. This fact should be taken into consideration
when developing the subsequent report which specifies the required versus recommended actions to be
taken by the CA.
When documenting findings, the auditor should take care to clearly distinguish between findings of
deficiencies, violations, and program effectiveness issues. He/she should also specify whether follow-up
actions are required or recommended or whether program modification is needed. Thoroughness in
completing Section III of the checklist will facilitate preparation of a clear and accurate final report.
Section III should provide the framework for the report to which the checklist may be attached.
Since the checklist constitutes the auditor's field documentation of findings, it should contain only the
audit's factual findings.
39
------- |