CONTROL AUTHORITY PRETREATMENT
AUDIT CHECKLIST AND INSTRUCTIONS
833-B-10-001
February 2010
4>EPA
Office of Wastewater Management
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
PURPOSE
EXPERIENCE NECESSARY TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT.
PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING AN AUDIT
PREPARATION
INTERVIEW
FILE RE VIEW
IU SITE VISITS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WALK THROUGH...
CLOSING CONFERENCE
FOLLOW-UP
-1
-1
-3
-3
-5
-7
-7
-9
-9
-9
CHECKLIST STRUCTURE 1-10
RESOURCES FOR CONDUCTING AUDITS 1-11
CHAPTER 2. CONTROL AUTHORITY PRETREATMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST
CONTROL AUTHORITY PRETREATMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST PCA-1
ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST PCA-2
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW PCA-5
SECTION II: IU FILE EVALUATION PCA-25
SECTION III: OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS PCA-41
ATTACHMENT A: PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE
ATTACHMENT B: PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE
ATTACHMENT C: LEGAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
ATTACHMENT D: SITE VISIT DATA SHEET, WENDB DATA ENTRY WORKSHEET, PCA
REQUIRED ICIS DATA ELEMENTS WORKSHEET, RNC WORKSHEET
CHAPTER 3. AUDIT CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW 3-1
SECTION II: IU FILE EVALUATION 3-42
SECTION III: OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS 3-74
February 2010
-------
DISCLAIMER
DISCLAIMER
The discussion in this document is intended solely as guidance. The statutory provisions and regulations
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) described in this document contain legally binding
requirements. This document is not a regulation itself, nor does it change or substitute for those
provisions and regulations. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States or the
regulated community. This guidance does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations on any
member of the public.
While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this guidance, the
obligations of the regulated community described in this document are determined by statutes, regulations
or other legally binding requirements. If a discussion in this document conflicts with any statute or
regulation, this document would not be controlling.
The use of non-mandatory words like "should, "could," "would," "may," "might," "encourage," "expect,"
and "can," in this guidance means solely that something is suggested or recommended and not that it is
legally required or that the suggestion or recommendation imposes legally binding requirements or that
following the suggestion or recommendation necessarily creates an expectation of EPA approval.
The general descriptions provided here might not apply to situation's circumstances. Interested parties are
free to raise questions about and objections to the substance of this guidance and the appropriateness of
applying this guidance to a situation. EPA and other decision makers retain the discretion to adopt
approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in this guidance where appropriate.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation
for their use.
This document may be revised periodically without public notice. EPA welcomes public input on this
document at any time.
February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
Pretreatment Standards are derived from a number of sources. First, the Clean Water Act (CWA) (title
33 of the United States Code [U.S.C.] section 1251 et seq.) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to promulgate Pretreatment Standards and Requirements. EPA has responded by
establishing general and specific prohibited discharge standards [Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 403.5] applicable to all nondomestic users and by promulgating categorical
Pretreatment Standards applicable to specific industrial categories [40 CFR Parts 405-471]. In addition,
the General Pretreatment Regulations [40 CFR Part 403] require Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) to develop local limits where necessary to implement the prohibited discharge standards.
Finally, states and POTWs always have the option of establishing more stringent requirements if they so
choose. Therefore, the pretreatment program is a mixture of federal, state, and local standards and
requirements.
The General Pretreatment Regulations require all POTWs with design flows greater than 5 million gallons
per day (mgd) and receiving industrial discharges that pass through or interfere with the operation of the
POTW, or are otherwise subject to Pretreatment Standards, to develop local pretreatment programs
(unless the state government has elected to administer the local program). EPA or a state authorized to
implement a state pretreatment program may require other POTWs to implement pretreatment programs.
It is assumed for the purposes of this manual that the POTW issuing significant industrial user (SIU)
permits has an approved pretreatment program and is, thus, the Control Authority (CA) responsible for
administering and enforcing the pretreatment program. The program implementation and enforcement
responsibilities are contained in the POTW's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit, and failure to adequately fulfill those activities constitutes an NPDES violation and could subject
the POTW to penalties.
States with approved pretreatment programs are responsible for overseeing and coordinating the
development and approval of local pretreatment programs. Before state approval, EPA is the Approval
Authority (AA) for local pretreatment programs. (NPDES states must receive EPA approval before they
can function as Approval Authorities for pretreatment purposes. Before this approval, EPA serves as the
pretreatment AA, even where the state issues NPDES permits.) However, states can participate in
pretreatment activities even before their state program is approved.
February 2010 1-1
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
The pretreatment program represents a unique partnership between federal, state, and local regulatory
agencies. The AA (EPA or an 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 that responsibility, the AA must ensure compliance
with pretreatment program requirements and take responsive actions (e.g., changes to a POTWs' NPDES
permit, enforcement) where needed to bring about compliance. The AA has three tools for doing this: (1)
the program audit, (2) the Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI), and (3) the CA's annual
pretreatment program performance report.
A comprehensive audit is the most effective of the three mechanisms and provides an opportunity to
evaluate all aspects of the CA's program. In EPA's view, the CA should audit all approved active POTW
pretreatment programs at least once in each 5-year permit term, generally corresponding to an annual
audit rate of 20 percent. The audit also provides the opportunity to help the CA build its local program
implementation capability. The purpose of an audit is to assess the program's compliance with the
regulatory requirements as they were expressed in the NPDES permit. The audit also identifies areas of
the CA's program that need to be modified to bring the program into compliance with the regulations.
The audit serves several important functions, such as identifying needed changes to the NPDES permit
and identifying circumstances that might warrant enforcement actions against the CA. The checklist
includes sections for evaluating environmental indicators and investigating the CA's use of pollution-
prevention techniques. The auditor could develop recommendations for improving the performance of a
CA's program that might be useful in enhancing a CA's program. Thus, the new checklist could help the
AA identify program areas where recommendations could be made to increase the effectiveness of the
CA's program.
The intent of the sample audit form (included in this document) is to provide an example of the
information that should be reviewed during an audit. Some of the data are required by EPA's pretreatment
regulations. In such cases, the sample audit form provides the corresponding legal citation. In October
2005, EPA amended its General Pretreatment Regulations (70 Federal Register [FR] 60134-60198;
October 14, 2005). Those changes referred to as the Streamlining Rule, clarified existing requirements
under the regulations and revised others to provide additional flexibility to POTWs and its industrial
users, among other things, to reduce regulatory burden and simplify compliance. The sample audit form
specifically highlights those provisions of the regulations that were part of the Streamlining Rule. The
sample audit form also provides examples of other optional pretreatment program information that the
1-2 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
auditor might want to review and highlight during the audit to reflect the varied activities that
pretreatment programs implement to achieve their environmental objectives.
The PCI is a tool for the AA to determine the CA's compliance with and enforcement of its approved
pretreatment program during the intervening years between audits. The CA submits its annual
pretreatment program performance report to the AA. Review of the annual report is also another tool for
evaluating the pretreatment program. It supplies basic information on the CA's industrial user (IU)
compliance with Pretreatment Standards and local limits and POTW compliance monitoring and
enforcement activities during the year. The purpose of the annual report is to provide a relatively brief
self-assessment of the POTW's performance in implementing its approved pretreatment program.
Both the pretreatment program itself and the requirements for tracking program implementation
compliance have undergone major changes. The October 2005 revisions to the General Pretreatment
Regulations (70 FR 60134-60198; October 14, 2005) resulted in additions to local program requirements.
That necessitated a revision of the audit checklist. The attached audit checklist replaces the checklist
developed in May 1992. The checklist covers all the evaluation components of the previous checklist, but
it also looks at other areas including a program's environmental effectiveness and its use of pollution-
prevention measures.
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 compliance with regulatory requirements. This is
done by examining the discrete portions of the entire program (e.g., legal authority, IU control
mechanisms, compliance monitoring, and enforcement) and making an assessment on the basis of how
the discrete 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. Additional information might also be useful in evaluating the adequacy
and effectiveness of the program in achieving compliance with those requirements and environmental
goals of the program. The audit might also prove helpful in 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, the checklist assumes a high level of pretreatment
February 2010 1-3
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
program expertise on the part of the auditor. The auditor, consequently, should be familiar with the goals
of the pretreatment program, the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403), categorical
standards, and EPA/state policy and guidance. Auditors should also have participated in audits conducted
by a senior lead auditor.
It is EPA's policy to ensure that those who lead environmental compliance audits, inspections, or field
investigations are properly trained to perform those functions in a legally and technically sound manner.
As such, EPA Order 3500.1 establishes an agency-wide training and development program for personnel
leading environmental compliance audit, inspections, or field investigations. This order applies to all EPA
personnel who lead or oversee the conduct of compliance inspections or field investigation. Furthermore,
the order is advisory to state and local agencies. The training program under this order consists of three
partsOccupational Health and Safety curricula, Basic Inspection curriculum, and Program-specific
curricula. In addition EPA expects its inspectors to have completed training to develop a good working
knowledge of the subject-related problems, regulations, control technologies, and best management
practices (BMPs). For further guidance regarding the standard procedures of inspection, see EPA's
NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual (EPA 305-X-03-004). The manual is at
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/monitoring/cwa/inspections/npdesinspect/npdesin
spectnoapps.pdf
The auditor should 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 effectiveness in
complying with its program requirements. The absence of an adequate understanding of the program and
its requirements undercuts the reliability of the audit. At a minimum, the auditor should be able to do the
following:
Identify the category to which an industry belongs and to develop appropriate permit limits
on the basis of the process wastewater discharged. To do this, the auditor should be
knowledgeable of the national categorical Pretreatment Standards and local limits.
Evaluate the adequacy of the control mechanisms issued by the CA to its SIUs. As a result,
the auditor should be able to determine whether the control mechanism meets the minimum
regulatory requirements and whether they are 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. This means that the
1-4 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
auditor should have an understanding of the authorities provided to the CA by its Sewer Use
Ordinance (SUO) and state law, including available remedies and procedures for taking
action for IU noncompliance. Auditors should 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. Thus, the auditor's knowledge should
include appropriate sampling techniques, EPA-approved methods, and proper quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and chain-of-custody procedures so that data can 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 should be knowledgeable of
the various types of possible enforcement actions that are available to the POTW, as well as
EPA/state policies and guidance on enforcement.
Assist the CA to determine what pollution-prevention techniques might enhance the local
program. The auditor should be knowledgeable of 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 on-site, and timely follow-up.
EPA recommends, in brief, that an auditor include the following major steps, discussed in greater detail
below, in conducting an audit:
Office preparation before going on-site
- Review the NPDES permit file, enforcement file, pretreatment program file (if available),
the latest annual pretreatment report, and the previous PCI findings
Review such documents as manufacturers' guides, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) permit list for the municipalities involved, Toxic Release Inventory System
(TRIS) data, and so forth, to be familiar with all industries that might contribute to the
POTW
February 2010 1-5
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
- Notify the CA of the upcoming visit (if appropriate)
- Update the CA's Pretreatment Program Status sheets (Attachment A of the Audit
Checklist)
Request that the CA complete Pretreatment Program Profile sheets (Attachment B of the
Audit Checklist)
- Request that the CA complete an evaluation of its legal authority (Attachment C of the
Audit Checklist)
- Request that the CA have copies of relevant standard operation procedures for
pretreatment program implementation (i.e., Enforcement Response Plan [ERP], Industrial
Waste Survey [IWS] procedures, BMP programs, and such) available during the audit
On-site visit
- Entry (present credentials)
- Interview program staff
- Review SIU files
- Inspect selected SIUs
- Review POTW records and files
- A walk through of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), if time allows
- Conduct closing conference
Follow-up
- Prepare and distribute report
- Enter Water Enforcement National Data Base (WENDB) data elements or Required ICIS
Data Elements (RIDE) or both
Determine Reportable Noncompliance (RNC)/Significant Noncompliance (SNC) and
enter data
Modify NPDES permit (if appropriate)
Refer for enforcement (if appropriate).
1-6 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Preparation
The following describes how EPA recommends that the auditor prepare for the audit. The amount of data
to be collected and evaluated during an audit is considerable, and time is limited. Thus, preparing the
audit is crucial to the we 11-focused collection of meaningful data. Preparing the Pretreatment Program
Profile data sheets and Status Update sheets that are attached to the audit checklist will help the auditor
compile very general program information before he or she goes on-site. EPA recommends that the
auditor complete a Pretreatment Program Status Update such as that provided at Attachment A of the
Audit Checklist before conducting the audit. The historical program information requested on the Status
Update sheets, including the most recent pretreatment program compliance assessment, will help the
auditor prepare for the upcoming audit. In addition, the auditor should spend time obtaining information
about the industrial contribution to the POTW by reviewing the CA's IWS. The auditor should also
review TRIS and RCRA permitting data. After becoming familiar with the industrial picture, the auditor
might want to review applicable documents used in developing the National Categorical Pretreatment
Standards to familiarize him or herself with the primary industries discharging to the POTW. The auditor
should also become familiar with issues affecting the POTW, such as whether the POTWs' discharges are
subject to total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), whether the POTW is being involved in a Technical
Review Evaluation (TRE), or whether the POTW is subject to enforcement actions (e.g., noncompliance
with its NPDES permit requirements).
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 might
be familiar with proper monitoring procedures, the coordinator might not be completely familiar with
how the program's monitoring is actually being conducted, particularly in large programs. The auditor
should obtain information on what is happening in the field from field personnel. Also, in
multijurisdictional situations, the auditor might need 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, the auditor 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 the information.
February 2010 1-7
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
File Review
Once on-site, the auditor should go through standard NPDES inspection entry procedures and explain to
CA personnel what the audit will entail. When the initial entry procedures are complete, the auditor
should select IU files and conduct the file review. Files can 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 a local program. The auditor should bear in mind that the recommendations are for
reviewing SIU files, although non-SIU files can be reviewed for the part of the audit. The auditor will
need to exercise his or her best professional judgment to determine the number of both SIU and non-SIU
files to review, as well as the time needed to conduct such reviews.
The auditor should select files that demonstrate a representative cross section of the CA's lUs and
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). In addition, the auditor should evaluate the thoroughness and adequacy of any SIU
general control mechanisms, if used, to ensure compliance with the 2005 revisions to the General
Pretreatment Regulations (70 FR 60134-60198: October 14, 2005). Furthermore, the auditor should
ensure that if the CA has implemented any of the optional provisions promulgated as part of the 2005
revisions to the General Pretreatment Regulations that require special documentation (e.g., documentation
of the CA's rationale for granting monitoring waivers and any information submitted by the SIU in its
request for a waiver), that the required documentation is maintained in the SIU's file. Special attention
should also be given to categorical industrial users (CIUs) without pretreatment but reported to be in
compliance with categorical standards. In particular, the auditor should ensure that dilution is not being
used in lieu of treating wastewater to comply with Pretreatment Standards. The auditor should also review
files for those CIUs whose Pretreatment Standards depend on a number of elements and require more
complex calculations (e.g., the Pretreatment Standard is production-based or requires use of the
Combined Wastestream Formula [CWF] or Flow-Weighted Averaging [FWA]). Finally, he or she should
review some files that were not reviewed during previous audits or inspections.
IU Site Visits
EPA recommends that the auditor conduct at least two IU site visits, but the auditor should use his or her
best professional judgment to determine the minimum number of IU site visits necessary for each POTW.
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. The auditors should also seek input
1-8 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
from the CA to determine which Ills to visit. The auditors should consider visiting Ills with outstanding
pollutant prevention programs, innovative processes, or advanced pretreatment systems. Again, the
number and types of Ills to be visited should be representative of the program's industrial make-up and
based on the time needed for each visit. Furthermore, IU site inspections should help the auditor
determine whether the CA is conducting adequate compliance inspections, issuing proper permits to
reflect the physical and operational conditions of the Ill's facility, and evaluating compliance including
correct sampling.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Walk Through
If time allows, the auditor should conduct a walk through of the WWTP. The walk through is helpful in
observing if the plant is experiencing any foaming, sludge buildup, unusual odors, unusual color, and any
other abnormal events. These could be indicators of noncompatible wastes being discharged from a
nondomestic discharger.
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 or her initial concerns or observations to the CA. The auditor should make it
clear that the concerns or observations are preliminary and subject to change once the data collected have
been more thoroughly reviewed. It is important that the auditors clearly articulate that their preliminary
concerns or observations are based solely on the information presently available and are subject to change
on the basis of new information or upon further review. Furthermore, EPA cautions that the auditors
should avoid using the term findings because it could lead to confusion. Some enforcement programs
routinely use the term finding in Finding of Violations letters and in administrative complaints to
characterize violations.
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. The audit might dictate follow-up actions that include
revisions by the AA to the NPDES permit, formal enforcement action, or other action. The auditor should
analyze the 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 any WENDB, RIDE, and RNC data, as appropriate, in the
database. In addition, the auditor should complete the appropriate NPDES Compliance Inspection Report
February 2010 1-9
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Forms and update the Status Update and Program Profiles. The auditor should handle NPDES permit
modifications (e.g., local limits review) and enforcement activities in accordance with EPA Regional/state
policy. The auditor should ensure that the observations and concerns from the audit are forwarded to the
appropriate NPDES personnel for any modifications to the POTW's NPDES permit.
As mentioned earlier, the audit requires balancing many different data-gathering techniques. By balancing
the techniques properly, the auditor will obtain 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 AA. EPA recommends
looking at as many files and visiting as many Ills as possible with balance in mind. For example,
reviewing 25 files and visiting 2 Ills does not provide the balance that would be achieved by reviewing 15
files and visiting 10 Ills 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
EPA's recommended audit checklist is divided into the three sections listed below. 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 are useful for evaluating and
improving the effectiveness of the program. Comment space is also provided on each item to enable
adequate documentation of the findings. An electronic copy of the audit checklist is available on the EPA
Web site at www.epa.gov.
Section I: 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. The interview is suggested to be conducted first because it
enables the auditor to gain some background information of the program, and the auditor can review IU
records to verify information collected during the interview.
Section II: File Review evaluates the CA's performance by reviewing the IU records that 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 also provides a
basis on which to select lUs for site visits.
1-10 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Section III: Observations and Concerns enables the auditor to organize required actions and applicable
recommendations 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 help the auditor compile all
observations and concerns for each area of concern.
Four attachments are appended to the checklist: the Pretreatment Program Status Update, Pretreatment
Program Profile, the Legal Authority Review Checklist, and various worksheets that include the IU Site
Visit Data Sheet to be used at the auditor's option when conducting IU site visits during the audit; the
WENDB Data Entry and RIDE Worksheet; and the RNC Worksheet to be completed as part of the audit
follow-up to provide input into the Permit Compliance System (PCS) or Integrated Compliance
Information System (ICIS) database. The auditor should complete the Pretreatment Program Status
Update before the audit and update it after the audit. Furthermore, the auditor should request that the CA
complete the Pretreatment Program Profile and the Legal Authority Review Checklist before the audit.
During the audit, the auditor should receive the completed Pretreatment Program Profile and the Legal
Review Checklist from the CA along with a copy of all documents used to complete the checklist. The
Legal Review Checklist should be completed at least once every 5 years to ensure that the POTW
complies with the legal authority requirements of 40 CFR Part 403. Furthermore, a legal review should be
conducted whenever there are regulation revisions or if the POTW is experiencing difficulties
implementing its SUO (i.e., denied entry for inspections, denied entry for sampling). The auditor should
note that by having the CA complete these checklists, it could invoke EPA's self-auditing policy. For
more details, see FR Volume 65, No. 70, 19618-19627 (April 11, 2000).
The various worksheets contain both PCS and ICIS worksheets, but the auditors are required to complete
only one set of worksheets. Depending on the state's implementation status of ICIS, the auditor should
pick the appropriate worksheets to complete. When thoroughly completed, 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 any WENDB, RIDE, and RNC data into the
database, as appropriate.
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
February 2010 1-11
-------
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
of jurisdictions involved. Those variables will affect preparation time, time on-site, report preparation,
and follow-up.
1-12 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 2. CONTROL AUTHORITY PRETREATMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
CONTROL AUTHORITY PRETREATMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST
AUDIT CHECKLIST CONTENTS
Cover Page and Acronym/Abbreviation List
Section I
Section II
Section III
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Data Review
ID File Evaluation
Observations and Concerns
Pretreatment Program Status Update
Pretreatment Program Profile
Legal Authority Review Checklist
Worksheets
Site Visit Data Sheet
WENDB Data Entry Worksheet
PCA Required ICIS Data Elements Worksheet
RNC Worksheet
Attachment D
Supporting Documentation
Control Authority (CA) name and address
Date(s) of audit
Treatment Plant Name
NPDES Permit Number
Effective Date
Expiration
Date
Permit
Reviewed?
AUDITOR(S)
Name
Title/Affiliation
Telephone Number
Email Address
CA REPRESENTATIVE(S)
Name
Title/Affiliation
Telephone Number
Email Address
"Identified program contact
February 2010
PCA-1
-------
ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST
Acronym/Abbreviation
Term
AO
BMP
BMR
CA
CERCLA
CFR
CIU
CSO
CWA
CWF
DMR
DSS
EP
EPA
ERP
PDF
FTE
FWA
gpd
ICIS
IU
IWS
mgd
MSW
N/A
ND
NOV
NPDES
NSCIU
O&G
PCA
PCI
PCS
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
Integrated Compliance Information System
Industrial User
Industrial Waste Survey
Million gallons per day
Municipal solid waste
Not applicable
Not determined
Notice of Violation
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Nonsignificant Categorical Industrial User
Oil and grease
Pretreatment Compliance Audit
Pretreatment Compliance Inspection
Permit Compliance System
PCA-2
February 2010
-------
ACRONYM AND ABBREVIATION LIST (CONTINUED)
Acronym/Abbreviation
Term
PIRT
POTW
QA/QC
RCRA
RIDE
RNC
SIU
SNC
SUO
TCLP
TMDL
TOMP
TRC
TRE
TRIS
TSDF
TTO
UST
WENDB
Y/N
Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force
Publicly owned treatment works
Quality assurance/quality control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Required ICIS Data Element
Reportable Noncompliance
Significant Industrial User
Significant Noncompliance
Sewer Use Ordinance
Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
Total maximum daily load
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
Yes or no
February 2010
PCA-3
-------
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
1. As noted in the Introduction, the auditor should review a representative number of SIU files. Section II of this
checklist provides space to document five ID 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 during the audit, he or she follows up on any and all violations noted in the
previous inspection, annual report, or 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.
PCA-4 February 2010
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW
INSTRUCTIONS: Complete this section on the basis of CA activities to implement its pretreatment program. Answers to
these questions could be obtained from a combination of sources including discussions with CA personnel, review of
general and specific ID files, ID site visits, review of POTW treatment plants, among others. Attach documentation where
appropriate. Specific data might be required in some cases.
Write ND (Not Determined) beside the questions or items that were not evaluated during the audit.
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 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, and
required pretreatment provisions from the 2005 revisions to the General Pretreatment
Regulations, multijurisdictional situation, and others)?
If yes, describe.
Yes
No
c. Has the CA made any nonsubstantial changes to the pretreatment program (i.e., pH limit
modification, reallocation of the maximum allowable headworks loading, and such)?
Yes
No
If yes, describe.
February 2010
PCA-5
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
A. CA PRETREATMENT PROGRAM MODIFICATION (continued) [403.18]
1 . d. Has the CA amended its pretreatment program to include the following components require
amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations:
Slug control requirements in control mechanisms. [40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii)(B)(6)]
Notification requirements to include changes that might affect the potential for a slug
discharge. [40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi)]
Revised SNC definition. [40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)]
Clarification that SIU reports must include any applicable BMP compliance information.
[40CFR40.12(b), (e), (h)]
SIU control mechanisms must contain any BMPs required by a Pretreatment Standard,
local limits, state, or local law. [40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii)(B)(3)]
Record-keeping requirements for BMPs. [40 CFR 403.l2(o)]
Clarification that CAs that perform sampling for SILJs must perform any required repeat
sampling and analysis within 30 days of becoming aware of a violation. [40 CFR
403.12(g)(2)]
Modifications to the sampling requirements. [40 CFR 403.l2(g)]
Requirement to report all monitoring results. [40 CFR 403.l2(g)]
If not, when?
e. Has the CA adopted or does the CA plan to adopt any of the optional measures provided
by the 2005 amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations?
d under the 2005
Yes
No
Yes
No
If yes, check which ones.
Issuance of monitoring waivers for pollutants that are not present [40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v) and 403.12(e)(2)]
Issuance of general control mechanisms to regulate multiple industrial dischargers with similar wastes
[40 CFR 403.8(f)(1 )(iii)(A)]
Using BMPs as an alternative to numeric local limits [40 CFR 403.3(e), 403.5(c)(4), 403.8(f), 403.12(b), (e),
and (h)]
Authority to implement alternative sampling, reporting, and inspection frequencies for NSCIUs
[40 CFR 403.3(v)(2), 403.8(f)(2)(v)(B), 403.8(f)(6), 403.12(e)(1), 403.12(g), (i), and (q)]
Authority to implement alternative sampling, reporting, and inspection frequencies for middle-tier ClUs
[40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)(C), 403.12(e)(3), and 403.12(i)]
Authority to implement equivalent concentration limits for flow-based standards [40 CFR 403.6(c)(6)]
Authority to implement equivalent mass limits for concentration-based standards [40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)]
PCA-6
February 2010
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
A.
2.
B.
1.
CA PRETREATMENT PROGRAM MODIFICATION (continued) [403.18]
a. Are there any planned changes to the POTWs treatment plant(s)?
If yes, describe.
b. Are these changes to the treatment plant(s) due to pretreatment issues?
If yes, what were the issues?
LEGAL AUTHORITY [403.8(f)(1) ]
a. Are there any contributing jurisdictions discharging wastewater to the POTW?
If yes, complete questions b-e.
b. List the contributing jurisdictions.
c. Does the CA have an agreement in place that addresses pretreatment program
responsibilities?
d. Is the CA or the contributing jurisdiction responsible for the following:
CA Responsibility
Updating the IWS
Notifying IDs of requirements
Issuance of control mechanisms
Receiving and reviewing ID reports
Conducting inspections
Conducting compliance monitoring
Enforcement of Pretreatment Standards and Requirements
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Contributing Jurisdiction
Responsibility
February 2010
PCA-7
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
B. LEGAL AUTHORITY (continued) [403.8(f)(1)] (continued)
e. Has the CA had any problems with implementation of its pretreatment program within
the contributing jurisdictions?
If yes, explain.
Yes
No
2. a. Has the CA updated its legal authority to reflect the 2005 General Pretreatment
Regulation changes?
b. Did all contributing jurisdictions update their SUOs to be as stringent as the receiving
POTW?
c. Did the CA update its procedures and ERP to implement the changes in its SUO?
Yes
No
Explain
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
PCA-8
February 2010
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
C. IU CHARACTERIZATION [403.8(f)(2)(i)&(M)]
1. a. How does the CA define SIU? (Is it the same in contributing jurisdictions? Is it different from the federal definition at
40 CFR 403.3(v)?)
b. If the CA has implemented the middle-tier CIU provisions, how does the CA define middle-tier CIU?
c. If the CA has implemented the NSCIU provisions, how does the CA define NSCIU?
2. How are SILJs 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 IDs (including those in contributing jurisdictions)?
b. How and when does the CA identify changes in wastewater discharges at existing IDs (including those in
contributing jurisdictions)?
February 2010 PCA-9
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
C. IU CHARACTERIZATION [403.8(f)(2)(i)&(ii)] (continued)
4. How many IDs are identified by the CA in each of the following groups?
a.
b.
SlUs (as defir
Other regulat
TOTAL
SlUs (as defined by the CA) [WENDB - SIUS, RIDE - SlUs]
ClUs, excluding middle-tier ClUs and NSCIUs [WENDB - CIUS, RIDE - ClUs]
Middle-tier ClUs** (specify below)
Noncategorical SlUs
id nonsignificant lUs (specify)
Noncategorical nonsignificant lUs
NSCIUs**, excluding zero-discharging ClUs [as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2)]
(specify below)
Zero-discharging ClUs** (specify below)
** The following section is to be completed only if the POTW has adopted middle-tier permitting [40 CFR 403.3(v),
403.8(f)(2)(v)(C), 403.12(e)(3)], general control mechanisms [40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)(A)], or NSCIUs [40 CFR
403.3(v)(2), 403.8(f)(2)(v)]. In addition the POTW's program must be revised and approved for these classifications
before they can be used.
List of NSCIUs and zero-discharging ClUs:
List of Middle-Tier ClUs:
If middle-tier CIU classification is used, what is 0.01% of the POTW's dry-weather capacity?.
List of SlUs with general control mechanisms:
PCA-10
February 2010
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
D. CONTROL MECHANISM EVALUATION [403.8(f)(1)(iii)]
1. a. How many and what percent of the total SILJs are not covered by an
existing unexpired permit, or other individual control mechanism? [WENDB - NOCM, RIDE - SlUs without Control
Mechanisms] [RNC- II]
b. Has the CA implemented any general control mechanisms?
c. If yes, how many SlUs (as defined by the CA) are covered by a general control mechanism?
List the types of SlUs covered under a general control mechanism:
d. How many control mechanisms were not issued within 180 days of the expiration date of the
previous control mechanism or extended beyond 5 years? [RNC - II]
If any, explain.
2. a. Do any UST), CERCLA, RCRA corrective action sites and/or other contaminated
groundwater sites discharge wastewaterto the CA?
b. How are control mechanisms (specifically limits) developed for these facilities?
Discuss
3. a. Does the CA accept any waste by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe (including septage)?
b. Is any of the waste hazardous as defined by RCRA?
c. Does any waste accepted via truck, rail, or dedicated pipe meet the CA's SIU definition?
Yes
No
d. 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)]
February 2010
PC A-11
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (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)? [403.1(b)(1)]
2. How does the CA keep abreast of current regulations to ensure proper implementation of standards? [403.8(f)(2)(iii)]
3. Local limits evaluation: [403.8(0(4); 122.21 (j)(2)(ii)]
a. For what pollutants have local limits been set?
b. How were these pollutants selected?
c. What was the most prevalent/most stringent criteria (e.g., NPDES permit requirements, plant inhibition, and/or
sludge disposal requirements) for the limits?
d. Which allocation method(s) were used?
e. What was the limit basis (i.e., instantaneous maximums, daily maximums, or other) for the local limits?
f. When was the CA's last local limits evaluation? What was the approval date?
g. Has the CA identified any pollutants of concern beyond those in its local limits?
If yes, how has this been addressed?
Yes
No
PCA-12
February 2010
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
E. APPLICATION OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS (continued)
4. What challenges, if any, were encountered during local limits development and/or implementation?
F. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
1. a. How does the CA determine adequate ID monitoring (sampling, inspecting, and reporting) frequencies?
b. Is the frequency established above more, less, or the same as required?
Explain any difference.
c. Does the CA perform ID monitoring in lieu of requiring IDs to conduct self-monitoring? If yes, list IDs.
2. In the past 12 months, how many, and what percentage of, SILJs were: [403.8(f)(2)(v)] [RNC -
(Define the 12-month period to .)
a. Not sampled or not inspected at least once [WENDB - NOIN]
b. Not sampled at least once [RIDE - SlUs Not Sampled]
c. Not inspected at least once (all parameters)? [RIDE - SlUs Not Inspected]
If any, explain. Indicate how the percentage was determined (e.g., actual, estimated).
February 2010
PC A-13
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
F. COMPLIANCE MONITORING (continued)
3. a. Indicate the number and percent of SILJs that were identified as being in SNC* with the following requirements as
listed in the CA's last pretreatment program report: [WENDB, RIDE] [RNC - II]
SNC Evaluation Period
% Applicable Pretreatment Standards and reporting
requirements *SNC defined by:
% Self-monitoring requirements POTW
% Pretreatment compliance schedule(s) EPA
/
b. Are any of the SILJs that were listed as being in SNC in the most recent pretreatment report still in SNC status? If
yes, list SILJs.
c. Indicate the number of SILJs that have been in 1 00% compliance with all Pretreatment Standards and Requirements.
Evaluation Period:
Number of SILJs:
Names of SILJs:
4. What does the CA's basic nspection 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)&(vii)]
Request a copy of the CA's inspection form, if applicable.
5. Who performs the CA's compliance monitoring analysis?
Performed by: CA/Contract Laboratory Name
Metals
Cyanide
Organics
Other (specify)
PCA-14
February 2010
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
F. COMPLIANCE MONITORING (continued)
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)(2)(vii)]
Check all that are applicable.
QA/QC for Sampling
QA/QC for Analysis
Gloves
Sample Splits
Chain-of-custody forms
Sample Blanks
New Sampling Tubes
Sample Spikes
Field Blanks
Other:
Other:
7. Discuss any problems encountered in identification of sample location, collection, and analysis.
8. a. Did any IDs notify the CA of a hazardous waste discharge since the last PCI or PCA?
[403.12(j)&(p)]
Yes
No
If yes, summarize.
b. How does the CA notify its users of the hazardous-waste reporting requirement? When was the last time the CA
notified its I Us?
9. a. How and when does the CA evaluate/reevaluate SILJs for the need for a slug discharge control plan? [403.8(f)(2)(vi)]
List SILJs required to have a slug discharge control plan:
b. For all existing SILJs identified as significant before November 14, 2005, or within a year
of becoming an SIU (whichever is later), has the POTW performed the evaluation to
determine whether each SIU needs a plan or action to control slug discharges?
Yes
No
If not, which SlUs have not been evaluated?
February 2010
PC A-15
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
G. ENFORCEMENT
1. What is the CA's definition of SNC? [403.8(f)(2)(viii)]
2. ERP implementation: [403.8(f)(5)]
a. Has the ERP been adopted by the POTW?
b. Has the ERP been approved by the Approval Authority?
c. Does the ERP describe how the CA will investigate instances of noncompliance?
d. Does the ERP describe types of escalating enforcement responses and the time frames for each response?
e. Does the ERP identify the title of official(s) responsible for implementing each type of enforcement response?
f. Does the ERP reflect the CA's responsibility to enforce all applicable Pretreatment Standards and Requirements?
g. Is the ERP effective, and does it lead to timely compliance? Provide examples if any are available.
3. a. Does the CA use compliance schedules? [403.8(f)(1)(iv)(A)]
b. If yes, are they appropriate? Provide a list of SILJs on compliance schedules.
Yes
No
PCA-16
February 2010
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
G. ENFORCEMENT (continued)
4. Did the CA publish a list of all SILJs in SNC in a daily newspaper of general circulation that
provides meaningful public notice within the jurisdiction served by the POTW in the previous
year? [403.8(f)(2)(viii)]
If yes, attach a copy.
If no, explain.
5. a. How many SILJs are in SNC with self-monitoring requirements and were not inspected
(in the four most recent full quarters)?
b. How many SILJs are in SNC with self-monitoring requirements and were not sampled
(in the four most recent full quarters)?
6. a. Did the CA experience any of the following caused by in
Interference
Pass through
Fire or explosions (flashpoint, and such)
Corrosive structural damage
Flow obstruction
Excessive flow rates
Excessive pollutant concentrations
Heat problems
Interference due to oil and grease (O&G)
Toxic fumes
Illicit dumping of hauled wastes
Worker health and safety
Other (specify)
dustrial discharges?
Yes
No
Yes No
Unknown
Explain
February 2010
PCA-17
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
G. ENFORCEMENT (continued)
b. If yes, did the CA take enforcement action against the IDs causing or
contributing to pass through or interference? [RNC -1]
Yes
No
7. a. Did the POTW have any sanitary sewer overflows since the last PCI or PCA?
b. If yes, how many were due to nondomestic waste issues (O&G blockages)?
Yes
No
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?
PC A-18
February 2010
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
H. DATA MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (continued)
3. Does the CA accept electronic reporting? If no, does it plan to do so?
4. Describe whether the CA's data management system is effective in supporting pretreatment implementation and
enforcement activities.
5. How does the CA ensure public participation during revisions to the SUO and/or local limits? [403.5(c)(3)]
6. Explain any public or community issues affecting the CA's pretreatment program.
7. How long are records maintained? [403.12(0)]
February 2010 PCA-19
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
I. RESOURCES [403.8(f)(3>]
1. Estimate the number of personnel (in FTEs) available for implementing the program.
Activity
FTEs
Activity
FTEs
Legal Assistance
Sample Analysis
Permitting
Data Analysis: Review and Response
Inspections
Enforcement
Sample Collection
Administration
Total Number of FTEs
2. Does the CA have adequate access to monitoring equipment? (Consider: sampling, flow
measurement, safety, transportation, and analytical equipment.)
Yes
No
If not, explain.
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)?
Discuss any changes in funding.
4. Discuss any problems in program implementation that appear to be related to inadequate resources.
PCA-20
February 2010
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
1. RESOURCES (continued) [403.8(f)(3)] (continued)
5. a. How does the CA ensure that personnel are qualified and up-to-date with current program
b. Does the CA have adequate reference material to implement its program?
requirements?
Yes No
J. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS/POLLUTION PREVENTION
1 . a. How many times was the POTW monitored in the past year'
Metals
Priority pollutants
Biomonitoring
Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP)
Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity
Other (specify)
b. Is this frequency less than, equal to, or more than that requir
permit?
Explain any differences.
>
Influent
Effluent
ed bytheNPDES
Ambient
Sludge (Receiving
Water)
Less Equal More
February 2010
PCA-21
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
J. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS/POLLUTION PREVENTION (continued)
c. Is the CA reporting these results to the Approval Authority?
If yes, at what frequency?
Yes
No
Yes
No
2. a. Has the CA evaluated historical and current data to determine the effectiveness of
pretreatment controls on the following:
Improvements in POTW operations
Loadings to and from the POTW
NPDES permit compliance
Sludge quality?
Sludge disposal options?
b. Has the CA documented these findings?
Explain. (Attach a copy of the documentation, if appropriate.)
3. If the CA has historical data 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 a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.
PCA-22
February 2010
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
J. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS/POLLUTION PREVENTION (continued)
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 implemented 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 CA's pretreatment program (e.g., waste
minimization at IDs, household hazardous waste programs)?
7. Does the CA have any documentation concerning successful pollution-prevention
programs being implemented by IDs (e.g., case studies, sampling data demonstrating
pollutant reductions)?
Yes
No
Explain.
February 2010
PCA-23
-------
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW (CONTINUED)
K. ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS/INFORMATION
SECTION I COMPLETED
BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
PCA-24
February 2010
-------
SECTION II: 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 CILJs (and SILJs) added since the
last PCI or PCA should be evaluated. Make copies of this section to review additional files as necessary.
IU IDENTIFICATION
FILE
Industry name and address
Type of industry
SIC Code:
NAICS Code:
[ ] CIU40CFR.
Category(ies)
[ ] Other SIU [ ] Non-SIU [ ] NSCIU
Average total flow (gpd)
Average process flow
Industry visited during audit Yes
No [ ]
Comments
FILE
Industry name and address
Type of industry
SIC Code:
NAICS Code:
[ ] CIU40CFR.
Category(ies)
[ ] Other SIU [ ] Non-SIU [ ] NSCIU
Average total flow (gpd)
Average process flow
Industry visited during audit Yes
No [ ]
Comments
February 2010
PCA-25
-------
SECTION II: IU FILE EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
IU IDENTIFICATION (continued)
FILE
Industry name and address
Type of industry
SIC Code:
NAICS Code:
[ ] CIU40CFR.
Category(ies)
[ ] Other SIU [ ] Non-SIU [ ] NSCIU
Average total flow (gpd)
Average process flow
Industry visited during audit Yes
No [ ]
Comments
FILE Industry name and address
Type of industry
SIC Code:
NAICS Code:
[ ] CIU40CFR.
Category(ies)
[ ] Other SIU
] Non-SIU [ ] NSCIU
Average total flow (gpd)
Average process flow
Industry visited during audit Yes
No [ ]
Comments
PCA-26
February 2010
-------
SECTION II: IU FILE EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
IU IDENTIFICATION (continued)
FILE
Industry name and address
Type of industry
SIC Code:
NAICS Code:
[ ] CIU40CFR.
Category(ies)
[ ] Other SIU
Average total flow (gpd)
Average process flow
[ ] Non-SIU [ ] NSCIU
Industry visited during audit Yes
No [ ]
Comments
General Comments
February 2010
PCA-27
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
Industry Name
INSTRUCTIONS: Evaluate the contents of selected ID files; place an emphasis on SIU files.
Use N/A (Not Applicable) where necessary. Use ND (Not Determined) where there is
insufficient information to evaluate/determine implementation status. Provide comments 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 a 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, or if
the item was found to be satisfactory, enter ^ (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 orreissuance of control mechanism
a. Individual control mechanism
b. General control mechanism
4. Control mechanism contents
a. Statement of duration (< 5 years)
b. Statement of nontransferability w/o prior
notification/approval
c. Applicable effluent limits (local limits, categorical standards,
BMPs
403.8(f)(1)(iiD
403.8(0(1 )(iii)(B)(2)
Comments
PCA-28
February 2010
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
A. ISSUANCE OF IU CONTROL MECHANISM (continued)
d. Self-monitoring requirements
Identification of pollutants to be monitored
Process for seeking a waiver for pollutant not present or
expected to be present (CILJs only)
Is the monitoring waiver certification language included in
the control mechanism? (Y/N)
Are conditions for reinstating monitoring requirements if
pollutants not present are detected in the future included in
the permit? (Y/N)
Sampling frequency
- Has the POTW reduced the ILJ's monitoring
requirements for pollutants not present or expected to
not to be present? (Y/N)
Sampling locations/discharge points
Sample types (grab or composite)
Reporting requirements (including all monitoring results)
Record-keeping requirements
403.12(e)(2)(v)
403.12(e)(2)(vi)
Comments
February 2010
PCA-29
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
A. ISSUANCE OF IU CONTROL MECHANISM (continued)
e. Statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties
f. Compliance schedules/progress reports (if applicable)
g. Notice of slug loadings
h. Notification of spills, bypasses, upsets, etc.
i. Notification of significant change in discharge
j. Notification of change affecting the potential for a slug
discharge
k. 24-hour notification of violation/resample requirement
I. Slug discharge control plan conditions, if determined by
the POTWto be necessary
403.8(f)(1)(iv)
403.12(f)
403.16,403.17
403.120)
403.8(f)(2)(vi)
403.12(g)(2)
.8(f)(1)(iii)(B)(6
403.8(f)(2)(vi)
Comments
PCA-30
February 2010
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
A. ISSUANCE OF IU CONTROL MECHANISM (continued)
5. Issuance of General Control Mechanisms
a. Involve the same or similar operations
b. Discharge the same types of wastes
c. Require the same effluent limitations
d. Written request by the IU for coverage by a general control
mechanism including:
Contact information
Production processes
Types of waste generated
Location for monitoring all wastes covered by the general
permit
Any requests for a monitoring waiver for a pollutant neither
present nor expected to be present
e. Documentation to support the POTW's determination
Comments
February 2010
PCA-31
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
B. CA APPLICATION OF IU PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
1. IU categorization
2. Calculation and application of categorical standards
a. Classification by category/subcategory
b. Classification as new/existing source
c. Application of limits for all regulated pollutants
d. Classification as an NSCIU
e. Documentation for the qualification to be classified as NSCIU
f. Documentation of reasons for supporting sampling wavier for
pollutant not present
3. Application of local limits
4. Application of BMPs
5. Calculation and application of production-based standards
403.8(0(1)(ii)
403.8(0(1)00
403.3(v)(2)
403.12(2)(iv)
403.5(c)&(d)&
403.6(c)
Comments
PCA-32
February 2010
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
B. CA APPLICATION OF IU PRETREATMENT STANDARDS (continued)
6. Calculation of equivalent mass limits for concentration limits
a. IU has demonstrated or will demonstrate substantially reduced
water usage
b. IU uses control and technologies adequate to achieve
compliance
c. IU has provided information regarding actual average daily
flow
d. IU does not have variable flow rates, production levels, or
pollutant levels
e. IU has consistently complied with applicable categorical
requirements
f. Did the CA use appropriate flow rates when developing limits?
(Y/N)
g. Did the CA use the correct concentration-based limits for the
applicable categorical standards? (Y/N)
h. Upon notification of revised production rate, did the CA
reassess the mass limits? (Y/N)
7. Calculation of equivalent concentration limits for flow-based
standards
a. Is the IU subject to 40 CFR Part 414, 419, or 455? (Y/N)
b. Documentation that dilution is not being used as treatment?
(Y/N)
8. Calculation and application of CWF or FWA
9. Application of most stringent limit
403.6(c)(5)
403.6(c)(5)(i)(A)
403.6(c)(5)(i)(B)
403.6(c)(5)(i)(C)
403.6(c)(5)(i)(D)
403.6(c)(5)(i)(E)
406.3(c)(5)(iii)(A)
403.6(c)(5)(iii)(B)
403.6(c)(6)
403.6(d)&(e)
Comments
February 2010
PCA-33
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
C. CA COMPLIANCE MONITORING
1. Inspection (at least once a year, except as otherwise specified)
a. If the CA has determined a discharger to be an NSCIU
Evaluation of discharger with the definition of NSCIU once per
year
b. If the CA has reduced an ID'S reporting requirements
Inspect at least once every 2 years
2. Inspection at frequency specified in approved program
3. Documentation of inspection activities
4. Evaluation of need for slug discharge control plan (reevaluation
of existing plan)
5. Sampling (at least once a year, except as otherwise specified)
a. If the CA has waived monitoring for a CIU
Sample waived pollutant(s) at least once during the term of
the control mechanism
b. If the CA has reduced an ID'S reporting requirements
Sample and analyze ID discharge at least once every 2
years
6. Sampling at the frequency specified in approved program
7. Documentation of sampling activities (chain-of-custody; QA/QC)
8. Analysis for all regulated parameters
9. Appropriate analytical methods (40 CFR Part 136)
403.8(f)(2)(v)
403.8(f)(2)(v)(B)
403.8(f)(2)(v)(C)
403.8(c)
403.8(f)(2)(v)
403.8(f)(2)(vi)
403.8(f)(2)(v)
403.8(f)(2)(v)(A)
403.8(f)(2)(v)(C)
403.8(c)
403.8(f)(2)(vii)
403.12(g)(1)
403.8(f)(2)(vii)
Comments
PCA-34
February 2010
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
D. CA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
1. Identification of violations
a. Discharge violations
IU self-monitoring
CA compliance monitoring
b. Monitoring/reporting violations
ID 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 discharge control plan
Compliance schedule/reports
c. Compliance schedule violations
Start-up/final compliance
Interim dates
403.8(f)(2)(vii)
Comments
February 2010
PCA-35
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
D. CA ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (continued)
2. Determination of SNC (on the basis of rolling quarters)
a. Chronic
b. TRC (Technical Review Criteria)
c. Pass through/interference
d. Spill/slug reporting load
e. Reporting
f. Compliance schedule
g. Other violations (e.g., BMPs requirements)
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(f)(2)(viii)
403.8(f)(5)
403.8(f)(5)(ii)
403.8(f)(2)(viii)
Comments
PCA-36
February 2010
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
E. IU COMPLIANCE STATUS
1. Self-monitoring and reporting
a. Sampling at frequency specified in control
mechanism/regulation
b. Analysis of all required pollutants
c. Appropriate analytical methods (40 CFR Part 136)
d. Appropriate sample collection methods
e. Compliance with sample collection holding times
f. Submission of BMR/90-day report
g. Periodic self monitoring reports
h. Reporting all required pollutants
i. Signatory/certification of reports
j. Annual certification by NSCIUs
k. Submission of compliance schedule reports by required
dates
I. Notification within 24 hours of becoming aware of violations
Discharge violation
Slug load
Accidental spill
m. Resampling/reporting within 30 days of knowledge of
violation
n. Notification of hazardous waste discharge
o. Submission/implementation of slug discharge control plan
p. Notification of significant changes
403.12(e)&(h)
403.12(g)(1)&(h)
403.12(b)&(d)
403.12(e)&(h)
403.12(g)(1)&(h)
403.12(1)
403.12(q)
403.12(c)
403.12(g)(2)
403.12(g)(2)
403.12(j)&(p)
403.8(f)(2)(vii)
403.12(j)
Comments
February 2010
PCA-37
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
E. IU COMPLIANCE STATUS (continued)
2. Compliance with all general control mechanism requirements
3. If the CA has classified the discharger as a middle-tier CIU
Categorical flow does not exceed 0.01% of the design dry-
weather hydraulic capacity or 5,000 gpd (whichever is
smaller)
Categorical flow does not exceed 0.01% of the design dry
weather organic treatment capacity of the POTW
Categorical flow does not exceed 0.01% of the maximum
allowable headworks loading for any regulated categorical
pollutant
4. If the CA has granted the discharger a monitoring waiver
Certification statements with each compliance report
5. Compliance with BMR requirements, if applicable (Y/N)
6. If the CA has classified the discharger as an NSCIU
ID discharges less than 100 gpd of total categorical
wastewater
Annual certification statements from the IU
403.12(e)(3)
403.12(e)(2)
403.3(v)(2)
Comments
PCA-38
February 2010
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
E. IU COMPLIANCE STATUS (continued)
7. If the CA has established equivalent mass limits fora CIU
ID is effectively operating treatment technologies to achieve
compliance
IU is recording the facility's flow rates
IU is recording the facility's production rates
IU has notified the CA whenever production rates vary
IU continues to employ water conservation
methods/technologies
403.6(c)(5)(ii)
Comments
February 2010
PCA-39
-------
SECTION II: IU EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
File
File
File
File
File
IU FILE REVIEW
Reg.
Cite
F. OTHER
Comments
SECTION II COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
PCA-40
February 2010
-------
SECTION III: OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS
INSTRUCTIONS: On the basis of the information and data evaluated, summarize the observations and concerns of the
audit for each program element shown below. Identify all problems or deficiencies from 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
I.A.1
Modification to the program to accommodate the 2005 General
Pretreatment Regulation changes
403.8(f)(2)(vi),
403.12(g)
I.A.1
B. LEGAL AUTHORITY
Minimum legal authority requirements
403.8(f)(1)
I.B.2&3
Adequate multijurisdictional agreements
403.8(f)(1)
I.B.1&3
February 2010
PCA-41
-------
SECTION III: OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS (CONTINUED)
Regu
Description Cita
atory Checklist
tion Question(s)
C. IU CHARACTERIZATION
Application of significant industrial user definition 403.3
Application of middle-tier CIU definition
Application of NSCIU definition
Identify
and categorize IDs 403.8(f)(2
(v)(1) I.C.1;
Attach B.E.2
)(i)&(ii) I.C.2&3; II.B
D. CONTROL MECHANISM
Issuance of individual or general control mechanisms to all SILJs 403.8(f)('
Adequate control mechanisms 403.8(f)(1
Adequate control of trucked, railed, and dedicated pipe wastes 403.5(b)(
)(iii) I.D.1
)(iii)(B) II.A.4
8) I.D.2&3, E.1
PCA-42
February 2010
-------
SECTION III: OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS (CONTINUED)
Description
Regulatory
Citation
Checklist
Question(s)
E. APPLICATION OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
Appropriately categorize, notify, and apply all applicable pretreatment
standards
403.5
I.B
Basis and adequacy of local limits
403.8(f)(4);
122.21
I.E.3&4
F. COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Adequate sampling and inspection frequency
Approved
program
403.8(f)(2)(ii)&(v)
I.F.1&2; II.C
Adequate inspections
403.8(f)(2)(v)&(vi) I.F.2&4; II.C.1-3
Adequate sampling protocols and analysis
403.8(f)(2)(vii)
I.F. 5&6; II.C.5-9
February 2010
PCA-43
-------
SECTION III: OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS (CONTINUED)
Description
Regulatory
Citation
Checklist
Question(s)
F. COMPLIANCE MONITORING (continued)
Adequate ID self-monitoring
403.8(f)(2)(iv)
I.F.6.G.5; II.E
Notification of changed and hazardous waste discharges
403.12(j)&(p)
I.F.8; II.D.Lb
Evaluate the need for SILJs to develop slug discharge control plans
403.8(f)(2)(vi)
I.F.9; II.C.4
Monitor to demonstrate continued compliance and resampling after
violation(s)
403.12(g)(1)&(2)
403.8(f)(2)(vi)
II.A.4J&II.C.5
G. ENFORCEMENT
Appropriate application of significant noncompliance definition
403.8(f)(2)(viii)
I.G.1; II.D.2;
Attach B.1.1
Develop and implement an ERP
403.8(f)(5)
I.G.2; II.D.3
Annually publish a list of IDs in SNC
403.8(f)(2)(viii) I.G.4; II.D.7
PCA-44
Febraary 2010
-------
SECTION III: OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS (CONTINUED)
Description
Regulatory
Citation
Checklist
Question(s)
G. ENFORCEMENT (continued)
Effective enforcement
403.8(f)(5)
I.G.2.C, 5&6;
II.D.1.C, 4&5
H. DATA MANAGEMENT/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Effective data management/public participation
403.5(c)(3);
403.12(0); 403.14
I.H
I. RESOURCES
Adequate resources
403.8(f)(3)
February 2010
PCA-45
-------
SECTION III: OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS (CONTINUED)
Description
Regulatory
Citation
Checklist
Question(s)
J. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTIVENESS/POLLUTION PREVENTION
Understanding of pollutants from all sources
I.J.1&3
Documentation of environmental improvements/effectiveness
I.J.2
Integration of pollution prevention
I.J.6
K. ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS/INFORMATION
SECTION II COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
PCA-46
February 2010
-------
ATTACHMENT A: PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE
INSTRUCTIONS: This attachment is intended to serve as an update of program status. Either the
CA should updated this form before each audit on the basis of information obtained from the most
and/or audit and the last pretreatment program performance report.
auditor or
recent PCI
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 operating under any pretreatment-related consent decree, Y<
Administrative Order, compliance schedule, or other enforcement action?
3S NO
5. Effluent and sludge quality
a. List the NPDES effluent and sludge limits violated and the suspected cause(s)
Parameters Violated
b. Has the treatment plant sludge violated these
EP toxicity
TCLP
Cause(s)
tests? Y«
Y<
6. Does the treatment plant discharge to a 303(d) impaired waterbody?
If yes, list the pollutants of concern.
Y<
7. Does the treatment plant discharge to a waterbody that has a TMDL that has
been developed or is being developed?
If yes, include the information on the TMDL (i.e.
, pollutants of concern, limits, effective
3S NO
3S NO
3S NO
date).
February 2010
A-l
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE
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. Data management
j. Program resources
k. Other (specify)
Last PCI
Date:
Last Audit
Date:
Program Report
Date:
2. Is the CA presently in RNC for any of these violations?
a. Failure to enforce against pass through and/or interference
[RNC-I][SNC]
b. Failure to submit required reports within 30 days [ RNC -1 ] [ SNC ]
c. Failure to meet compliance schedule milestones within 90 days
[RNC-I][SNC]
d. Failure to issue/reissue control mechanisms to 90% of SI Us within
6 months [RNC-II]
e. Failure to inspect or sample 80% of SILJs within the past 12 months
[RNC-II]
f. Failure to enforce standards and reporting requirements [ RNC - n ]
g. Other (specify) [ RNC - n i
Data Source
Yes
No
3. List SlUs in SNC identified in the last pretreatment program performance report, PCI, or audit,
(whichever is most recent)
Name of SIU in SNC
Compliance Status
Source
4. Indicate the number and percent of SlUs that were identified as being in SNC* with the following
requirements from the CA's last pretreatment program 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 I
Applicable Pretreatment Standards and reporting requirements
Self-monitoring requirements
Pretreatment compliance schedules
*SNC defined by:
POTW
EPA
A-2
February 2010
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE
B. PRETREATMENT PROGRAM STATUS (continued)
5. Describe any problems the CA has experienced in implementing or
program.
enforcing its pretreatment
ATTACHMENT A COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
February 2010
A-3
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
A-4 February 2010
-------
ATTACHMENT B: PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE
INSTRUCTIONS: This attachment is intended to serve as a summary of program information. The
auditor or CA should obtain the needed information from the original, approved pretreatment program
submission and modifications and the NPDES permit. The auditor or CA should update this from, as
appropriate, in response to approved modifications and revised NPDES permit requirements.
A. CA INFORMATION
1. CA name
2. Original pretreatment program submission date
3. Required frequency of reporting to Approval Authority
4. Specify the following CA information
Treatment Plant Name
NPDES Permit Number
Effective Date Expiration Date
5. Does the CA hold a sludge permit or has the NPDES permit been modified Yes No
to include sludge use and disposal requirements?
If yes, provide the following information.
POTW Name
Issuing
Authority
Issuance Expiration
Date Date
Regulated Pollutants
B. PRETREATMENT PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS
1 . When was the CA's NPDES permit first modified to require pretreatment
implementation?
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
February 2010
B-l
-------
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 addi
3. a. NPDES permit
number
5. Sewer System
b. Expiration date 4. Treatment plant wastew
Design mgd
a. Separate % b. Combined
6. a. Industrial contribution (mgd) b. Number of SILJs discharging to pl<
7. Level of treatmer
a. Primary
b. Secondary
c. Tertiary
ess
ater flows
Actual mgd
% c. Number of CSOs
ant c. Percent industrial flow to plant
it Type of Process(es)
8. Indicate methods of sludge disposal.
Quantity of sludge
a. Land application
b. Incineration
c. Monofill
d. MSW landfill
dry tons/year e. Public distributio
dry tons/year f. Lagoon storage
dry tons/year g. Other (specify)
dry tons/year
Quantity of sludge
n dry tons/year
dry tons/year
dry tons/year
D. APPLICATION OF STANDARDS
If there is more than one treatment plant, were local limits established
specifically for each plant?
N/A Yes No
B-2
February 2010
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PROFILE (Continued)
E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ATTACHMENT B COMPLETED
BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
February 2010
B-3
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
B-4 February 2010
-------
ATTACHMENT C: LEGAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
CHECKLIST - PRETREATMENT PROGRAM LEGAL AUTHORITY REVIEWS
NAME OF POTW:
DATE OF REVIEW:
Note: Several changes to the National Pretreatment Regulations made as a result of the 2005 revisions to the General Pretreatment
Regulations (streamlining rule, 70 FR 60134-60198: October 14, 2005) are more stringent than the previous federal requirements and
therefore are considered required modifications for the POTW. Therefore, to the extent that existing POTW legal authorities are inconsistent
with those required changes, they must be revised. Where local authorities are already consistent with the required provisions, further
changes are not necessary.
NONE = No revision necessary REQ = Require Revision REC = Recommend Revision
A. Definitions [403.3 & 403.8(f)(2)]
1. Act, Clean Water Act
2. Authorized or Duly Authorized
Representative of the User
3 . Best Management Practices or BMPs
4. Categorical Pretreatment Standard or
Categorical Standard
5 . Indirect Di scharge or Di scharge
6. Industrial User (or equivalent)
7. Interference
8. National Pretreatment Standard,
Pretreatment Standard, or Standard
9. New Source
10. Pass Through
1 1 . Pretreatment Requirement
12. Publicly Owned Treatment Works or POTW
13. Significant Industrial User
[NOTE: §1.4 GG(3) is an optional streamlining
provision for Nonsignificant Categorical
Industrial User classification.]
14. Significant Noncompliance
Part 403
Citation
^^m
403.3(b)
403.12(1)
403.3(e)
403.6
403.3(1)
403.3©
403.3(k)
403.3(1)
403.3(m)
403.3(p)
403.3(t)
403.3(q)
403.3(v)
403.8(f)(2)(vii)
Model
SUO
Section
§1.4 A
§ 1.4 C
§1.4E
§1.4F
§ 1.4 M
§ 1.4 LL
§1.40
§ 1.4 BB
§ 1.4 T
§1.4V
§ 1.4 AA
§ 1.4 DD
§ 1.4 GG
§ 9 (A-H)
REVISIONS
NONE
RECl
REC
POTW
Ordinance
Section
Comments/Notes |
February 2010
C-l
-------
NONE = No revision necessary REQ = Require Revision REC = Recommend Revision
15. Slug Load or Slug Discharge
16. Other definitions based on terms
used in the POTW Ordinance
B. National Pretreatment Standards -
Prohibited Discharges
1 . General Prohibitions
a. Interference
b. Pass Through
2. Specific Prohibitions [403. 5(b)]
a. Fire/Explosion Hazard (60 °C or
140 °F flashpoint)
b. pFI/Corrosion
c. Solid or Viscous/Obstruction
d. Flow Rate/Concentration
(BOD, etc.)
e. Heat; exceeds 40 °C (104 °F)
f Petroleum/Nonbiodegradable
Cutting/Mineral Oils
g. Toxic Gases/Vapor/Fumes
h. Trucked/Hauled Waste
Part 403
Citation
403.8(f)(2)(vi)
403. 5(a)
403. 5(a)
403.5(b)(l)
403.5(b)(2)
403.5(b)(3)
403.5(b)(4)
403.5(b)(5)
403.5(b)(6)
403.5(b)(7)
403.5(b)(8)
Model
SUO
Section
§ 1.4 HH
§2.1A
§2.1A
§2.1B(1)
§2.1B(2)
§2.1B(3)
§2.1B(4)
§2.1B(5)
§2.1B(6)
§2.1B(7)
§2.1B(8)
REVISIONS
NONE
REQ
_
REC
POTW
Ordinance
Section
^
Comments/Notes
^m
^^B
C-2
February 2010
-------
NONE = No revision necessary
REQ = Require Revision
REC = Recommend Revision
3. National Categorical Standards
4. Local Limits Development
[NOTE: POTWs may develop Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to implement the prohibitions listed
in 40 CFR 403.5(a)(l). Such BMPs shall be
considered local limits and Pretreatment Standards.]
5. Prohibition Against Dilution as Treatment
6. Best Management Practices Development
[NOTE: Optional streamlining provision.]
C. Control Discharges to POTW System
1. Deny /Condition New or Increased
Contributions
2. Individual Control Mechanism (e.g., permit)
to ensure compliance
- Permit Content
a. Statement of Duration
b. Statement of Nontransferability
c. Effluent Limits
Part 403
Citation
403.8(f)(l)(ii)
403.5(c)&(d)
403. 6(d)
403.5(c)(4)
403.8(f)(l)(i)
403.8(f)(l)(iii)
403.8(f)(l)(B)
(1)
403.8(f)(l)(B)(2)
403.8(f)(l)(B)
(3)
Model
SUO
Section
§2.2
§2.4
§2.6
§2.4C
^H
§§4.8&
5.2
§4.2
§§5.1 &
5.2A(1)
§5.2A(2)
§ 5.2A(3)
REVISIONS
NONE
^m
REQ
^H
REC
^m
POTW
Ordinance
Section
^^m
Comments/Notes
^^^^m
February 2010
C-3
-------
NONE = No revision necessary
REQ = Require Revision
REC = Recommend Revision
d. Best Management Practices
[Note: This is a required streamlining provision
for a CIV with BMP requirements as part of its
Categorical Standards. But ifBMPs are being
applied to other CIUs or n on categorical SIUs
without categorical BMP requirements, this
provision would be optional and is required only if
the POTWhas incorporated the use ofBMPs (§
2.4 C).]
e. Self-Monitoring Requirements
f. Reporting & Notification Requirements
g. Record-Keeping Requirements
h. Process for Seeking a Waiver for
Pollutants Not Present or Expected to be
Present
[NOTE: Optional streamlining provision.
Required only if the POTWhas incorporated §
6.4B of the Model SUO.J
i. Statement of Applicable Civil and Criminal
Penalties
j. Slug Discharge Requirements (if
necessary)
[NOTE: Required streamlining change. Where the
POTWhas determined that slug controls are neces-
sary, the ordinance must provide authority for the
POTWto include such requirements in IU permits.]
Part 403
Citation
403.8(f)(l)(B)
(3)
403.8(f)(l)(B)
(4)
403.8(f)(l)(B)
(4)
403.8(f)(l)(B)
(4)
403.8(f)(l)(B)
(4)&403.12(e)
(2)
403.8(f)(l)(B)
(5)
403.8(f)(l)(B)
(6)
Model
SUO
Section
§ 5.2A(3)
§ 5.2A(4)
§ 5.2A(4)
§ 5.2A(4)
§ 5.2A(5)
§ 5.2A(6)
§ 5.2A(7)
REVISIONS
NONE
REQ
REC
POTW
Ordinance
Section
Comments/Notes
C-4
February 2010
-------
NONE = No revision necessary
REQ = Require Revision
REC = Recommend Revision
k. Specific Waived Pollutant
[NOTE: Optional streamlining provision.
Required only if the POTWhas incorporated §
6.4B of the Model SUO./
1. Permit Application/Reapplication
Requirements
[Note: Optional permit provision]
m. Permit Modification
[Note: Optional permit provision]
n. Permit Revocation/Termination
[Note: Optional permit provision]
o. Proper Operation and Maintenance
[Note: Optional permit provision]
p. Duty of Halt/Reduce
[Note: Option al permit provision]
q. Requirement to Submit Chain-of-Custody
Forms with Monitoring Data
[Note: Option al permit provision]
3. General Control Mechanism to Ensure
Compliance
[NOTE: Optional streamlining provision. Required
only if the POTWhas incorporated the use of
General Permits (§ 4. 6 of the Model SUO).]
- Permit Content
a. Statement of Duration
b. Statement of Nontransferability
Part 403
Citation
403.8(f)(l)
(B)(4)
403.8(f)(l)
(iii)(A)
403.8(f)(l)
(B)
(1)
403.8(f)(l)
(B)(2)
Model
SUO
Section
§ 5.2A(8)
§§5.3&
5.7
§5.4
§§5.6&
10.8
§3.1
§ 10.7
§ 4.2 & 4.6
§§5.1&
5.2A(1)
§ 5.2A(2)
REVISIONS
NONE
REQ
REC
POTW
Ordinance
Section
Comments/Notes
February 2010
C-5
-------
NONE = No revision necessary
REQ = Require Revision
REC = Recommend Revision
c. Effluent Limits
d. Best Management Practices
[Note: This is a required streamlining provision
for a CIV with BMP requirements as part of its
Categorical Standards. But ifBMPs are being
applied to other CIUs or noncategorical SIUs
without categorical BMP requirements, this
provision would be optional and is required only if
the POTWhas incorporated the use ofBMPs (§
2.4C).]
e. Self-Monitoring Requirements
f. Reporting & Notification Requirements
g. Record-Keeping Requirements
h. Process for Seeking a Waiver for
Pollutants Not Present or Expected to be
Present
[Note: Required only if POTWhas incorporated
the use of Pollutants Not Present and §6.4 of the
Model SUO.J
i. Statement of Applicable Civil and Criminal
Penalties
Part 403
Citation
403. 8(f)
(1)(B)(3)
403. 8(f)
(1)(B)(3)
403. 8(f)
(1)(B)(4)
403. 8(f)
(1)(B)(4)
403. 8(f)
(1)(B)(4)
403. 8(f)
(1)(B)(4)
&
403.12(e)
(2)
403. 8(f)
(1)(B)(5)
Model
SUO
Section
§ 5.2A(3)
§ 5.2A(3)
§ 5.2A(4)
§ 5.2A(4)
§ 5.2A(4)
§ 5.2A(5)
§ 5.2A(6)
REVISIONS
NONE
REQ
REC
POTW
Ordinance
Section
Comments/Notes
C-6
February 2010
-------
NONE = No revision necessary
REQ = Require Revision
REC = Recommend Revision
j. Slug Discharge Requirements (if
necessary)
[NOTE: Required streamlining change. The
ordinance should indicate that a user is required
to develop a slug discharge control plan if
determined by the POTWto be necessary.]
k. Permit Application/Reapplication
Requirements
[Note: Optional permit provision]
1. Permit Modification
[Note: Optional permit provision]
m. Permit Revocation/Termination
[Note: Optional permit provision]
n. Proper Operation and Maintenance
[Note: Optional permit provision]
o. Duty of Halt/Reduce
[Note: Option al permit provision]
p. Requirement to Submit Chain-of-Custody
Forms with Monitoring Data
[Note: Option al permit provision]
D. Required Reports
1 . Develop Compliance Schedule for Installation
of Technology
Part 403
Citation
403. 8(f)
(1)(B)(6)
403. 8(f)
(l)(iv)
Model
SUO
Section
§ 5.2A(7)
§§5.3&
5.7
§5.4
§§5.6&
10.8
§3.1
§10.7
§§ 5.2b(2)
&10.4
REVISIONS
NONE
REQ
REC
POTW
Ordinance
Section
^
Comments/Notes
^^
February 2010
C-7
-------
NONE = No revision necessary
REQ = Require Revision
REC = Recommend Revision
2. Reporting Requirements [403.12]
Types of Reports
a. Baseline Monitoring Report
(i) Identifying Information
(ii) Other Environmental Permits
Held
(iii) Description of Operations
(iv) Flow Measurements
(v) Measurement of Pollutants
(vi) Certification
(vii) Compliance Schedule
b. Compliance Schedule Progress Report
c. Report on Compliance with Categorical
Pretreatment Standard Deadline
d. Periodic Reports on Continued
Compliance
- From categorical users
- From significant noncategorical
users
e. Notice of Potential Problems to be
Reported Immediately (Including Slug
Loads)
Part 403
Citation
403.12(b)
403.12(b)(l)
403.12(b)(2)
403.12(b)(3)
403.12(b)(4)
403.12(b)(5)
403.12(b)(6)
403.12(b)(7)
403.12(c)
403.12(d)
403.12(e)
403.12(h)
403.12(f)
Model SUO
Section
§6.1
§6.1B(1)&
§ 4.5A(l)a
§§6.1B(1)&
4.5A(2)
§§6.1B(1)&
4.5A(3)a
§§6.1(b)(2)
& 4.5A(6)
§6.1B(2)
§6.1B(3)
§6.1B(4)
§6.2
§6.3
§6.4A
§6.4A
§6.6
REVISIONS
NONE
REQ
REC
POTW
Ordinance
Section
Comments/Notes
^H
February 2010
-------
NONE = No revision necessary
REQ = Require Revision
REC = Recommend Revision
f. Notification of Changes Affecting Potential
for a Slug Discharge
[NOTE: Required streamlining revision]
g. Notice of Violation/Sampling Requirement
[NOTE: Required streamlining revision.]
h. Requirement to Conduct Representative
Sampling
i. Notification of Changed Discharge
j. Notification of Discharge of Hazardous
Waste
Other Reporting Requirements
k. Data Accuracy Certification & Authorized
Signatory
1. Record-Keeping Requirement (3 years or
longer)
- Including documentation associated
with Best Management Practices
[NOTE: Required streamlining provision.]
m. Submission of All Monitoring Data
[NOTE: Required streamlining revision]
n. Annual Certification by Nonsignificant
Categorical Industrial Users
[Note: Optional provision, required only if the
POTWhas incorporated §1.4GG(3) of the Model
SUO.J
Part 403
Citation
403. 8(f)
(2)(vi)
403.12(g)
(2)
403.12(g)
(3)
403.12(j)
403.12(p)
^M
403. 6(a)
(2)(ii) &
403.12(1)
403.12(0)
403.12(0)
403.12(g)
(6)
403. 3(v)
(2)
Model SUO
Section
§§6.5&6.6
§6.8
§6.4E
§6.5
§6.9
^^
§§6.4D&
6.14
§6.13
§6.13
§6.4F
§§4.7C&
6.14B
REVISIONS
NONE
^H
REQ
^H
REC
^m
POTW
Ordinance
Section
^^
Comments/Notes
^^^^m
February 2010
C-9
-------
NONE = No revision necessary
REQ = Require Revision
REC = Recommend Revision
Part 403
Citation
Model SUO
Section
REVISIONS
NONE
REQ
REC
POTW
Ordinance
Section
Comments/Notes
o. Certification of Pollutant Not Present
[NOTE: Optional provision, required only if the
POTWhas incorporated § 6.4 B of the Model
SUO/
403.12(e)(2)(v)
§6.14C
E. Test Procedures [40 CFR Part 136 &
403.12(g)]
1. Analytical Procedures (40 CFR Part 136)
[NOTE: Required streamlining provisions]
403.12(g)
§6.10
2. Sample Collection Procedures
[NOTE: Required streamlining provisions]
403.12(g)(3)&
(4)
§6.11
F. Inspection and Monitoring Procedures
[403.8(f)]
1 . Right to Enter All Parts of the Facility at
Reasonable Times
403. 8(f)
§7.1
2. Right to Inspect Generally for Compliance
403. 8(f)
§7.1
3. Right to Take Independent Samples
403. 8(f)
(l)(v), 403.8(f)
(2)(v) &
403. 8(f)
§7.1
4. Right to Require Installation of Monitoring
Equipment
403. 8(f)
§7.1
5. Right to inspect and copy records
403.12(o)(2)
§7.1
G. Remedies for Noncompliance
(Enforcement) [403.8(f)(1)(vi)]
1 . Non-Emergency Response
a. Injunctive Relief
b. Civil/criminal Penalties
C-10
February 2010
-------
NONE = No revision necessary
REQ = Require Revision
REC = Recommend Revision
Part 403
Citation
Model
SUO
Section
REVISIONS
NONE
REQ
REC
POTW
Ordinance
Section
Comments/Notes
2. Emergency Response
a. Immediately Halt Actual/Threatened
Discharged
3. Legal Authority to Enforce Enforcement
Response Plan
H. Public Participation
1. Publish List of Industrial Users in Significant
Noncompliance
[NOTE: Required streamlining revision]
2. Access to Data [403.8(f)(l)(vii)& 403.14]
a. Government
b. Public
I. Optional Provisions
1. Net/Gross Adjustments [streamliningprovision]
403.15
§2.2D
2. Equivalent Mass Limits for Concentration
Limits [streamliningprovision]
403.6(c)
§2.2E
3. Equivalent Concentration Limits for Mass
Limits [streamliningprovision]
403.6(c)
§2.2F
4. Upset Notification
403.16
§13.1
5. Waive Monitoring for Pollutant Not Present or
Expected to be Present [streamliningprovision]
403.12(e)(2)
§6.4B
6. Reduce Periodic Compliance
Reporting [streamliningprovision]
403.12(e)(3)
§6.4C
7. Other Special Agreement or Waivers
(Excluding Wavier of National Categorical
Pretreatment Standards and Requirements)
February 2010
C-ll
-------
NONE = No revision necessary
REQ = Require Revision
REC = Recommend Revision
8. Hauled Waste Reporting/Requirements
9. Grease Interceptor Reporting/Requirements
10. Authority to Issue Notice of Violations
(NOVs)
11. Authority to Issue Administrative Orders
(AOs)
12. Authority to Issue Administrative Penalties
13. Authority to Enforce Against Falsification or
Tampering
14. Any Other Supplemental Enforcement
Actions as Noted in the POTW's
Enforcement Response Plan
15. Permit Appeals Procedures
16. Penalty or Enforcement Appeals Procedures
17. Bypass Notification
Part 403
Citation
403.17
Model SUO
Section
§3.4
§3.2C
§10.1
§10.6
§13.3
REVISIONS
NONE
REQ
REC
POTW
Ordinance
Section
Comments/Notes
Document(s) submitted for review:
Name of Reviewers
C-12
February 2010
-------
ATTACHMENT D: SITE VISIT DATA SHEET, WENDB DATA ENTRY WORKSHEET, PCA
REQUIRED ICIS DATA ELEMENTS WORKSHEET, RNC WORKSHEET
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
SITE VISIT DATA SHEET
INSTRUCTIONS: Record observations made during the IU site visit. Provide as much detail as
possible.
Name of industry:
Address of industry:
Date of visit:
Time of visit:
Name of inspector(s):
Provide the name(s) and title(s) of industry representative(s)
Name
Title
Phone/E-mail
IU Permit Number:
Exp Date:
IU Classification:
Inspection
Type/Purpose
Scheduled
PCI
Unscheduled
New Company
PCA
Complaint
Please provide the following documentation:
1. Nature of operation:
2. Number of
employees
Number of
shifts:
Hours of
operation:
3. Water source:
4. Wastestream flow(s) discharged to the POTW:
Sanitary:
(gpd)
Process:
Combined:
(gpd)
5. Describe any significant changes in process or flow:
6. Type of pretreatment system (Describe):
Continuous flow
Batch
Combined
7. Condition/operation of pretreatment system (Describe):
Any unusual conditions or problems with the pretreatment system:
February 2010
D-l
-------
SITE VISIT DATA SHEET (Continued)
8. Process area description (identify raw materials and processes used):
9. Condition/operation of process area (Describe):
Any unusual conditions or problems with the process area:
10. General housekeeping in process area (Describe):
Any unusual conditions or problems with general housekeeping in process area:
11. Chemical storage area (identify the chemicals that are maintained on-site and how they are
stored):
Any floor drains? | | Any spill control measures?
General housekeeping of chemical storage area (Describe):
12. Are hazardous wastes drummed and labeled?
13. Does the IU have hazardous waste manifests?
Any problems associated with hazardous waste:
D-2 February 2010
-------
SITE VISIT DATA SHEET (Continued)
14. Solid waste production:
Solid waste disposal method(s):
15. Description of sample location:
Sampling method/technique:
16. Evaluation of self-monitoring data: | | Yes | | No | | N/A
If yes, was self-monitoring adequate:
17. Who performs the self-monitoring analysis?
Notes:
February 2010 D-3
-------
WENDB DATA ENTRY WORKSHEET
WENDB DATA ENTRY WORKSHEET
INSTRUCTIONS: Enter the data provided by the specific checklist questions that are referenced.
CA name
NPDES number
Date of inspection
Number of SlUs*
- Number of SlUs without control mechanism
- Number of SlUs not inspected or sampled
- Number of SlUs in SNC** with standards or reporting
- Number of SlUs in SNC with self-monitoring
- Number of SlUs in SNC with self-monitoring and not
inspected or sampled
Number of ClUs
Date entered into PCS
PCS
Code
SIUS
NOCM
NOIN
PSNC
MSNC
SNIN
CIUS
Checklist
Reference
I.B.2.a
I.C.lb
I.E. 2
I.F.S.a
I.F.S.a
I.G.5
I.B. 2. a
Data
*The number of SlUs entered into PCS is based on the CA's definition of Significant Industrial User.
**As defined in EPA's 1986 Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance.
WENDB DATA ENTRY WORKSHEET
COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
D-4
February 2010
-------
PCA REQUIRED ICIS DATA ELEMENTS WORKSHEET
> TYPE OF COMPLIANCE MONITORING: RCA
> NAME OF PRETREATMENT PROGRAM:
> CONTROLLING AUTHORITY NPDES ID:
START DATE OF INSPECTION
> END DATE OF INSPECTION
LEAD INSPECTOR (Name, Company, Phone, E-mail [if available]):
ACCOMPANYING INSPECTOR(s)
(Name, Company, Phone, E-mail
[if available]):
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USERS (SIUs)
> SIUs*:
> SIUs Without Control Mechanism:
> SIUs Not Inspected:
* SIUs Not Sampled:
> SIUs in SNC with Pretreatment Standards** :
> SIUs in SNC with Reporting Requirements:
SIUs in SNC with Pretreatment Schedule:
SIUs in SNC Published in Newspaper:
Criminal Suits Filed Against SIUs:
CATEGORICAL INDUSTRIAL USERS (CIUs)
> CIUs:
OTHER INFORMATION
Pass-Through/Interference Indicator (none, Yes, or No)
DEFICIENCIES
Control Mechanism Deficiencies (No or Yes)
Inadequacy of Sampling and Inspections (No or Yes)
Adequacy of Pretreatment Resources (Yes or No)
PCI CHECKLIST
REFERENCE
II.B.2.a
II.C.1.C
II.E.2.C
II.E.2.b
II.F.3.3
II.F.3.3
II.F.1
PCA CHECKLIST
REFERENCE
I.C.4.3
I.D.1 and II.A
I.F.2.C
I.F.2.b
I.F.3.3
I.F.3.3
I.F.3.3
I.G.4; II.D.7
I.C.4.3
I.G.6
I.D.1 ill.A.4
II. C and
Site Visit Sheets
I.I
DATA
FOOTNOTES:
> denotes required information
* The number of SIUs entered into PCS is based on the CA's definition of "Significant Industrial User."
** AS DEFINED IN EPA's 1986 Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance.
DATA ENTRY WORKSHEET
COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE NO.:
February 2010
D-5
-------
RNC WORKSHEET
RNC WORKSHEET
INSTRUCTIONS: Place a check in the appropriate box to 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 reports within 30 days
Failure to meet compliance schedule milestone date within 90 days
Failure to issue/reissue control mechanisms to 90% of SILJs within 6 months
Failure to inspect or sample 80% of SILJs within the past 12 months
Failure to enforce Pretreatment Standards and reporting requirements (more
than 15% of SlUs in SNC)
Other (specify)
Level
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
Checklist
Reference
I.G.6
Attach A.B.2.b
Attach A.B.2.C
I.D.1.C
I.F.2.a
II.D.1; I.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, see EPA's 1 990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment
Implementation Requirements
RNC WORKSHEET COMPLETED BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
TELEPHONE:
D-6
February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3. AUDIT CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
SECTION I: DATA REVIEW
Each of the questions in Section I 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.
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 (e.g., monitoring reports,
correspondence). The auditor should use this section to complement 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. The auditor should
take this fact into consideration when developing required versus recommended actions to be taken by the
CA.
A. CA Pretreatment Program Modification [403.181
Note: The auditor should attempt to determine if any modifications have taken place without
approval by the AA. In addition, the auditor should 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, and required
pretreatment provisions from the 2005 revisions to the General Pretreatment Regulations,
multijurisdictional situation, and others)? If yes, describe:
A.l.c. Has the CA made any nonsubstantial changes to the pretreatment program (i.e., pH limit
modifications, reallocation of the maximum allowable headworks loading, and such)? If yes,
describe.
February 2010 3-1
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
A.l.d. Has the CA amended its pretreatment program to include the following components
required under the 2005 amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations: slug
control requirements in control mechanisms [40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii)(B)(6)]; notification
requirements to include changes that might affect the potential for a slug discharge [40
CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi)]; revised SNC definition [40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)]; clarification that SIU
reports must include any applicable BMP compliance information [40 CFR 40.12(b); (e),
(h)]; SIU control mechanisms must contain any BMPs required by a Pretreatment
Standard, local limits, state, or local law [40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii)(B)(3)]; record-keeping
requirements for BMPs [40 CFR 403.12(o)]; clarification that CAs that perform sampling
for SIUs must perform any required repeat sampling and analysis within 30 days of
becoming aware of a violation [40 CFR 403.12(g)(2)]; modifications to the sampling
requirements [40 CFR 403.12(g)]; and requirement to report all monitoring results [40 CFR
403.12(g)].Ifnot,when?
A.l.e. Has the CA adopted or does the CA plan to adopt any of the optional measures provided by
the 2005 amendments to the General Pretreatment Regulations? If yes, check which ones.
(Issuance of monitoring waivers for pollutants that are not present [40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)
and 403.12(e)(2)]; issuance of general control mechanisms to regulate multiple industrial
dischargers with similar wastes [40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii)]; using BMPs as an alternative to
numeric limits; authority to implement alternative sampling [40 CFR 403.3(e), 403.5(c)(4),
403.12(b), (e), and (h)], reporting, and inspections frequencies for NSCIUs [40 CFR
403.3(v)(2), 403.8(f)(2)(v)(B), 403.8(f)(6), 403.12(e)(i), 403.12(g), (i), and (q)]; authority to
implement alternative sampling, reporting, inspections frequencies for middle-tier CIUs [40
CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v)(C), 403.12(e)(3), and 403.12(i)]; authority to implement equivalent
concentration limits for flow-based standards [40 CFR 403.6(c)(6)]; and authority to
implement equivalent mass limits for concentration-based standards [40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)].)
A.2.a. Are there any planned changes to the POTW's treatment plant(s)? If yes, describe.
A.2.b. Are these changes to the treatment plant(s) due to pretreatment issues? If yes, what were
the issues?
PURPOSE: The CA is required to notify the AA of any substantial modifications it intends to
make in its pretreatment program. Substantial modifications should not be made without approval
by the AA. Note, however, that the changes to the pretreatment program due to the 2005 revisions
3-2 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
to the General Pretreatment Regulations (70 FR 60134-60198: October 14, 2005) are not
considered substantial as long as the changes mirror EPA language and intent.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
In some authorized states, the CA cannot adopt less stringent or less restrictive program
elements until the state has modified its state rules and regulations to authorize the less
stringent provisions.
When investigating this area, the auditor should keep in mind that program modifications are
likely to be made in any of the following areas:
Contributing jurisdictions added
Legal authoritySUO and interjurisdictional agreements
Local limitsreevaluation and modification, addition or deletion of parameters
Definition of SIU and/or changes in criteria for Ills to be included in the pretreatment
program
Control mechanismstype (order vs. permit, etc.), content, format, or standard
conditions
- Inspection and sampling (including self-monitoring) frequencies and/or priorities
- Resources committed to the programequipment, personnel, funding
B. Legal Authority [403.8(0(1)1
Note: This section is designed to investigate whether the CA has adequate legal authority to
implement its 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 might exist. The auditor should note any problems and
explain them in the spaces provided on the checklist. Furthermore, if the CA has adopted any of
the optional provisions from the 2005 revisions of the General Pretreatment Regulations (70 FR
60134-60198: October 14, 2005) into its legal authority, the auditor should ensure that the
optional provision is allowed by state law.
February 2010 3-3
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
B.l.a. Are there any contributing jurisdictions discharging wastewater to the POTW? If yes,
complete questions b-e.
B.l.b. List the contributing jurisdictions.
B.l.c. Does the CA have an agreement in place that addresses pretreatment program
responsibilities?
B.l.d. Is the CA or the contributing jurisdictions responsible for the following: updating the IWS,
notifying Ills of requirements, issuance of control mechanisms, receiving and reviewing IU
reports, conducting inspections, conducting compliance monitoring, enforcement of
Pretreatment Standards and Requirements?
B.l.e. Has the CA had any problems with implementation of its pretreatment program within the
contributing jurisdictions? If yes, explain.
PURPOSE: The CA is responsible for implementing and enforcing its pretreatment program for
all Ills (i.e., existing and future Ills) 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 could be relying on its SUO to regulate Ills in contributing municipalities, but it
might not have adequate authority to do so under state law.
The CA might be relying on existing interjurisdictional 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 that 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. For additional information regarding
interjurisdictional agreements, see EPA' $ Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Programs
Guidance Manual (EPA-833-B-94-005).
The CA might have no means of obtaining an adequate agreement with a contributing
municipality (i.e., the CA might be required to continue providing service to the
municipality) and might not have entered into a contract with extrajurisdictional lUs.
3-4 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
The CA might not have entered into an agreement (or might have an inadequate agreement)
with contributing municipalities that do not currently have Ills within their boundaries. Even
if zoning in such cases allows for commercial and/or residential premises, because zoning
laws are subject to change, the CA should have an agreement that requires notification to and
approval by the CA if any IU request is made to connect to the system.
B.2.a. Has the CA updated its legal authority to reflect the 2005 General Pretreatment Regulation
changes?
B.2.b. Did all contributing jurisdictions update their SUOs to be as stringent as the receiving
POTW?
B.2.c. Did the CA update its procedures and ERP to implement the changes in its SUO? 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 AA. The auditor should verify the status of
the CA's legal authority.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA might have modified its SUO without submitting proposed changes to the AA or
might have enacted modifications without approval. If so, that should be noted along with the
date modifications were enacted and citations of the modified provisions.
The CA might have submitted proposed changes but has not yet received approval. The date
of the submission should be noted.
The General Pretreatment Regulations were revised on October 14, 2005 (70 FR 60134-
60198: October 14, 2005). The required provisions from this revision must be adopted by the
CA in accordance with the requirements of the CA's NPDES permit, enforcement order, or
state law. In addition, before the CA's adoption of many of the optional provisions
promulgated in the 2005 revision to the General Pretreatment Regulations, those provisions
must be adopted into the state regulations. For further guidance regarding changes to the SUO
in regards to the provisions, see EPA Model Pretreatment Ordinance (EPA 833-B-06-002)
and Checklist-Pretreatment Program Legal Authority Reviews (EPA 833-B-07-001).
February 2010 3-5
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
B.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.
PURPOSE: The CA should be able to ensure the successful implementation of its SUO
provisions throughout its service area.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA's SUO authorities might have been challenged as being inconsistent with state
statutes or as being unconstitutional. State statutes might not provide adequate authority for
the CA to take effective enforcement action. The SUO could contain language that is open to
interpretation.
In general, the CA's SUO applies only to lUs within its jurisdictional boundaries. However, a
few states provide authority to public utilities to regulate all users throughout their service
area. In such cases, the SUO could apply to all users of the POTW.
The CA might not have an agreement with all contributing municipalities, or it might have an
inadequate existing agreement that cannot be modified without the mutual consent of both
parties.
Interjurisdictional agreements might not be specific enough to ensure that the contributing
municipality takes adequate enforcement when required.
Interjurisdictional agreements might 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 could 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(m2)(i)&(ii)1
Note: This section is to be used to evaluate how the CA identifies and characterizes its lUs. The
auditor should determine whether the CA has any problems identifying lUs, differentiating
between SIUs and non-SIUs, and further, differentiating between CIUs and significant non-CIUs.
Any problems should be recorded.
3-6 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
C.I.a. How does the CA define SIU? (Is it the same in contributing jurisdictions? Is it different
from the federal definition at 40 CFR 403.3(v)?)
C.l.b. If the CA has implemented the middle-tier CIU provisions, how does the CA define middle-
tier CIU7
C.l.c. If the CA has implemented the NSCIU provisions, how does the CA define NSCIU?
PURPOSE: In accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii), the CA is required to issue individual
control mechanisms to all its SIUs as defined under 40 CFR 403.3(v). The CA must apply
equivalent or more encompassing criteria to determine which Ills must obtain individual control
mechanisms. The auditor should determine what definition the CA is applying to its SIUs and
whether the definition is equivalent or more stringent than the federal definition.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
EPA adopted its definition of SIU on July 24, 1990. Furthermore, on October 14, 2005 (70
FR 60134-60198: October 14, 2005), EPA amended the definition of SIU by the addition the
NSCIU definition. An NSCIU is still considered a categorical user but is not considered
significant.
Before implementing an NSCIU provision, the CA must ensure that it has submitted to the
AA its program for the NSCIU in accordance with 40 CFR Part 403 and has the legal
authority to do so (i.e., this option has been adopted in state and local regulations).
Frequently, the CA's definition of SIU includes any IU that has in its discharge toxic
pollutants as defined under CWA section 307. That provision is not a substitute for specifying
all lUs subject to national categorical Pretreatment Standards because not all categorical
standards regulate toxic pollutants. For example, the categorical Pretreatment Standards for
dischargers subject to 40 CFR Part 415 subpart AC does not specifically regulate toxic
pollutants.
The CA's definition of SIU must include any IU whose discharge constitutes 5 percent or
more of the average dry-weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant.
Auditors should review the POTW's legal authority to ensure that both criteria are included.
EPA's definition includes any IU that the CA determines has a reasonable potential to
adversely affect the POTW or cause a violation of applicable standards or requirements. If the
February 2010 3-7
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
CA's definition contains only criteria that include any IU that the Director has found to have
an effect on the POTW, such criteria are not as inclusive as the federal definition.
EPA's definition of a middle-tiered CIU is a categorical user that discharges less than 0.01
percent of the design dry-weather hydraulic capacity of the POTW or 5,000 gallons per day
(gpd) (whichever is smaller); less than 0.01 percent of the design dry-weather organic
treatment capacity of the POTW; and less than 0.01 percent of the maximum allowable
headworks loading of any pollutant for which approved local limits were developed by the
POTW.
EPA's definition of an NSCIU is a CIU that never discharges more than 100 gpd of total
categorical wastewater (excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling and boiler blowdown
wastewater, unless specifically included in the Pretreatment Standard), the user has
consistently complied with all applicable categorical Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements, and the user never discharges any untreated concentrated wastewater.
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 applying 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:
Because of EPA's adoption of the definition of NSCIU on October 14, 2005, NSCIUs are not
considered to be SIUs even though they are still considered CIUs (70 FR 60134-60198:
October 14, 2005).
The CA should have procedures to determine which SIUs are subject to categorical
Pretreatment Standards and the applicable category(ies) for those that are. The procedures
should include permit application/Baseline Monitoring Report (BMR) review, on-site
inspection, and comparison to categorical Pretreatment Standard regulations, guidance
documents, and/or development documents.
February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
C.3.a. How and when does the CA update its IWS to identify new Ills (including those in
contributing jurisdictions)?
PURPOSE: The CA needs to be able to identify new Ills 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 Ills such as those in existing facilities. At a minimum, EPA
recommends 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 in contributing
municipalities. If the CA relies on that municipality to notify it of new Ills, the CA should
have procedures to verify this information at least monthly.
C.3.b. How and when does the CA identify changes in wastewater discharges at existing Ills
(including contributing jurisdictions)?
PURPOSE: Identifying changed discharges from existing lUs is part of the CA's IWS update
and must be done at least annually. Again, continuous updating procedures are the most effective.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Existing lUs are required to notify the CA of any changes in their facilities or processes that
might result in the discharge of new or substantially increased pollutants. The CA should
ensure that all lUs (including those in contributing jurisdictions) are aware of the
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 that could 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 performed.
February 2010 3-9
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
The CA might only update its IWS for Ills in its program when their control mechanisms are
due for reissuance. If this is the case, update for existing Ills might not be occurring annually
and/or might be reliant upon permit application data rather than on-site 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 that might result in the discharge of new or increased pollutants.
C.4. How many Ills are identified by the CA in each of the following groups?
C.4.a. SIUs (as defined by the CA): CIUs, excluding middle-tier CIUs and NSCIUs; Middle-tier
CIUs; Noncategorical SIUs
PURPOSE: The CA is required to use control mechanisms such as the issuance of permits for all
SIUs and middle-tier CIUs in its service area. It is also required to identify those lUs that 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 might 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.
The approved pretreatment program for an individual CA might not have the legal authority
necessary to implement NSCIU or middle-tier reduced reporting provisions. If the CA is
implementing those provisions, the auditor should verify that the CA has the authority to do so.
If allowed by state law and if the CA's legal authority has been revised and approved
accordingly, a CA may designate certain CIUs to be middle-tier CIUs. A middle-tiered CIU
is a categorical user that discharges less than 0.01 percent of the design dry-weather hydraulic
capacity of the POTW or 5,000 gpd (whichever is smaller); less than 0.01 percent of the
design dry-weather organic treatment capacity of the POTW; and less than 0.01 percent of the
maximum allowable headworks loading of any pollutant for which approved local limits were
developed by the POTW.
3-10 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
An IU must obtain approval from the CA before reducing its reporting frequency. The auditor
should keep in mind that the CA must have this provision incorporated into its legal authority
before granting reduced reporting frequencies.
C.4.b. Other regulated noncategorical nonsignificant Ills (specify): Noncategorical nonsignificant
lUs; NSCIUs, excluding zero-discharging CIUs [as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2)] (specify);
Zero-discharging CIUs (specify)
PURPOSE: The CA is not required to issue control mechanisms to non-SIUs; however, many
choose to issue control mechanisms to some of or all the lUs. Furthermore, the CA might choose
to adopt the optional regulations as promulgated in the 2005 revision to the General Pretreatment
Regulations that allow reduced monitoring and reporting requirements for NSCIUs (70 FR
60134-60198: October 14, 2005).
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Often, the CA regulates non-SIUs strictly for revenue purposes. If that is the case, the auditor
should determine what pollutants are monitored and/or what other requirements are applied to
such users.
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 and how the CA decided to
regulate those lUs.
Some CAs might regulate non-SIUs through BMPs or Pollution Reduction Plans.
If allowed by state law and if the CA's legal authority has been revised and approved
accordingly, a CA may designate certain CIUs to be NSCIUs. An NSCIU is a discharger that
never discharges more than 100 gpd of categorical wastewater to the POTW, has consistently
complied with all applicable categorical standards and requirements, and never discharges
any untreated concentrated wastes.
An NSCIU is not considered an SIU, and therefore 40 CFR Part 403 has no requirement to
control the discharger through a permit or other control mechanism. The CA, however, is
required to provide a list of all NSCIU facilities in the annual pretreatment report and to
ensure that the annual certification report is submitted.
An NSCIU is still, however, a categorical discharger and therefore is still required to comply
with applicable categorical Pretreatment Standards and related reporting and notice
February 2010 3-11
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
requirements. EPA recommends that the CA issue some form of control mechanism for those
dischargers to ensure compliance with the federal requirements.
C.4.c. Total
PURPOSE: Although the CA is required to issue only 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)(B); however, EPA recommends
that they do so.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The CA can issue control mechanisms to specific categories of industries/commercial facilities
because of problems experienced from such facilities (e.g., shipping depotsO&G). Although
those 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 biweekly). Furthermore,
the CA is allowed to issue control mechanisms to categorical industries that do not discharge
regulated process wastestreams. EPA recommends that if a control mechanism is issued, it
contain the following conditions: No discharge of process wastewater is permitted; a requirement
to notify the POTW of any changes in operation resulting in a potential for discharge; a
requirement to certify at least annually that no discharge has occurred; and a requirement to
comply with RCRA and state hazardous waste regulations regarding the proper disposal of
hazardous waste
Note: This question is designed to help the auditor determine which facilities the CA has
classified as either NCSIU, zero-discharging CIU, or middle-tier CIU. In addition, this question
will help the auditor identify which industry sectors the CA has developed general control
mechanisms for. The auditor should determine whether the CA's implementation of the optional
classification categories and general control mechanisms are adequate and in compliance with
federal regulations.
D. Control Mechanism Evaluation [403.8(f)(n(iii)1
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 or 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.
3-12 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
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: The regulations at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii), require the CA to issue individual or
general 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. Has the CA implemented any general control mechanisms?
D.l.c. If yes, how many SIUs (as defined by the CA) are covered by a general control mechanism?
List the types of SIUs covered under a general control mechanism.
PURPOSE: Under 40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii)(A), at the CA's discretion, the CA may issue general
control mechanisms to SIUs.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If allowed by state law and if the CA's legal authority has been revised and approved
accordingly, a CA might be able to issue general control mechanisms to SIUs, at the CA's
discretion.
The facilities covered by general control mechanisms must [40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii)(A)(l)]
- Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations
- Discharge the same types of wastes
- Require the same effluent limitations
Require the same or similar monitoring
- In the opinion of the CA, be more appropriately controlled under a general control
mechanism than under individual control mechanisms
February 2010 3-13
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
Facilities regulated by categorical standards expressed as mass limits cannot receive coverage
under a general control mechanism. The one exception to this exclusion would be situations
where the CA has imposed the same mass-based limit on a number of facilities.
General control mechanisms are not available for Ills whose limits are based on the CWF or
net/gross calculations.
General control mechanisms are not available for CIUs subject to production-based limits.
D.l.d. How many control mechanisms were not issued within 180 days of the expiration date of the
previous control mechanism or extended beyond 5 years? [RNC - II] 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 why.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should have procedures that ensure timely reissuance of all control mechanisms.
Control mechanisms should be issued or reissued on time; if any were not, the auditor should
record this and determine the reason they were not issued or 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. In addition, in no case
may extensions cause the term of the permit to exceed 5 years. A lack of adequate CA staff
and resources or simply failure to issue or reissue permits in a timely manner are not
acceptable reasons for granting an extension.
D.2.a. Do any UST, CERCLA, RCRA corrective action sites and/or other contaminated
groundwater sites discharge wastewater to the CA?
D.2.b. How are control mechanisms (specifically limits) developed for these facilities? Discuss.
PURPOSE: Any UST, CERCLA, or RCRA corrective action site that requests to discharge to
the CA, even though the discharge might be of short duration, should be considered an SIU. As
such, each facility must be issued a control mechanism containing all required elements.
3-14 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
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 Ill-specific permit to address such pollutants.
Unfortunately, in the case of CERCLA and RCRA facilities, there might 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 the 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 (including septage)?
D.3.b. Is any of the waste hazardous as defined by RCRA?
D.3.c. Does any waste accepted via truck, rail, or dedicated pipe meet the CA's SIU definition?
D.3.d. 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)j
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) that are indirectly
discharged into or transported by truck or rail or otherwise introduced into a POTW or could
contaminate sewage sludge.
Under 40 CFR 403.5(b)(8), the CA is required to prohibit the discharge of trucked or hauled
pollutants except at a point that 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.
February 2010 3-15
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should be aware that any hazardous wastes received by the POTW from such 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 the sources
to discharge industrial waste, the CA probably will not be able to enforce against such
discharges. In these instances, however, the municipality should contact the appropriate state
personnel to discuss illegal hauled waste dischargers when they occur because there might be
state septage or industrial waste law violations. 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 complement the file reviewer'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 or she should try to determine whether the CA
understands all issues relevant to the application of the 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)? [403.1(b)(l)]
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) that are indirectly
discharged into or transported by truck or rail or otherwise introduced into a POTW. The auditor
should determine whether the appropriate limits are being applied to hauled waste.
3-16 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
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 that could interfere with or pass
through the POTW but are not currently regulated by the CA (e.g., discharges from
groundwater cleanup sites), EPA recommends that the CA determine the allowable
concentrations/loadings from such pollutants and apply them in a control mechanism issued
for that discharge.
E.2. How does the CA keep abreast of current regulations to ensure proper implementation of
standards? [403.8(f)(2)(iii)]
PURPOSE: It is the CA's responsibility to keep up-to-date with all applicable regulations.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
EPA recommends that 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 might not be adequate because such
updates usually occur quarterly or less frequently.
E.3. Local limits evaluation: [403.8(f)(4); 122.21(j)(2)(ii)]
Note: The auditor should determine what methods were used to establish the CA's local limits,
how the 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 that will ensure protection of the treatment plant unit processes from inhibition or upset;
compliance with the POTWs' NPDES permit, conditions (including water quality-based effluent
limitations); protection of 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
protection of worker health and safety.
February 2010 3-17
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Frequently, the local limits contained in the approved program submission were developed by
a consultant, and the CA might not know the methods used for their development. The CA
might be able to call the consultant to obtain the appropriate documentation. Time should be
allowed, where possible, for this documentation to be provided.
A technical evaluation might have been conducted but might have been reliant mainly on
literature values because of a lack of real data. In such a case, the validity of the limits might
be questionable, except where data obtained is below the quantifiable levels of the test
method.
E.3.b. How were these pollutants selected?
PURPOSE: The CA should evaluate the need for local limits for any pollutant that might
reasonably be expected to be discharged to the POTW in sufficient amounts to cause pass through
or interference, cause problems in its collection system, or jeopardize its workers. Pollutants that
are contributing to or known to cause operational problems should also be considered even if the
pollutants are not currently causing NPDES permit violations.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
EPA generally recommends that limits be evaluated for 10 parameters that frequently occur
in POTWs receiving industrial discharges. The parameters include arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc, molybdenum, selenium, 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and ammonia (for WWTPs that accept
nondomestic sources of ammonia). For additional information regarding the development of
local limits, the auditor should review EPA's Local Limits Development Guidance (EPA 833-
R-04-002A).
The CA should also evaluate other pollutants reasonably expected to occur in the POTW. The
CA might identify those pollutants in several ways, including running a priority pollutant
scan on the POTW influent and identifying pollutants common to the types of industries 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 limits for volatile pollutants likely to be found in the collection
system that might not be detectable in the POTW but are necessary to protect worker health
and safety.
3-18 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
E.3.c. What was the most prevalent/most stringent criteria (e.g., NPDES permit requirements,
plant inhibition, and/or sludge disposal requirements) for the limits?
PURPOSE: According to 40 CFR 122.21(j)(2)(ii), the CA must reevaluate its local limits. 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 those
limits as necessary.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA must develop local limits as part of its pretreatment program submission, reevaluate
local limits following the reissuance of the POTW's NPDES permit, and when any substantial
change in loadings occur at the plant (for instance when new lUs hook into the system).
The CA should develop local limits for any pollutant that is known to have caused
interference, pass through, or worker health and safety problems, or that has a reasonable
potential to cause those 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 lUs on a uniform concentration basis, EPA
recommends that the end-of-pipe discharge limits be specified in the SUO.
The CA may choose to allocate the loadings for specific pollutants among those lUs with the
potential for those pollutants in their discharge. In such a case, the limits are best placed in
the IU control mechanisms.
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 must
prohibit the discharge of those pollutants at a rate that, alone or in conjunction with other
discharges, cause an exceedance of those loadings.
February 2010 3-19
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
E.3.e. What was the limit basis (i.e., instantaneous maximums, daily maximums, or other) for the
local limits?
PURPOSE: Frequently, the CA does not specify the limit basis for its local limits.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Without proper identification of limit basis, the auditor cannot determine whether the CA and
SIUs are complying with the local limits.
An instantaneous maximum limit is a value never to be exceeded for any period of time and
requires grab samples to evaluate compliance.
Compliance with a daily maximum limit is evaluated by the average measurement of a
pollutant during a calendar day.
Compliance with a monthly average limit is evaluated by the average measurement of a
pollutant during a calendar month.
E.3.f. When was the CA's last local limit evaluation? What was the approval date?
E.3.g. 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 groundwater cleanup site has come online and has the
potential to discharge pollutants that could affect the POTW but for which the CA does not
have a local limit, the auditor should determine the CA's approaches to regulating that
pollutant.
Pollutants that are not likely to be discharged by more than one or two lUs might be more
appropriately regulated on an lU-specific basis. The CA should still have a technical rationale
for those limits. The CA must possess the legal authority to establish and enforce such limits.
3-20 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
E.4. What challenges, if any, were encountered during local limits development and/or
implementation?
PURPOSE: Frequently, the CA encounters difficulties in evaluating its local limits.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The state might not have developed water quality standards for the receiving stream. Data might
not be available for a unit process used at the POTW. There might 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 Ills. The monitoring should
be conducted at a frequency that will produce data that is indicative of the Ill's 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.
F.I.a. How does the CA determine adequate IU monitoring (sampling, inspecting, and reporting)
frequency? [403.8(f)(2)(iv)&(v)]
PURPOSE: Under 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v), the CA is required to inspect and sample all SIUs at
least once a year except for CIUs for which the CA has reduced reporting requirements under 40
CFR 403.12(e)(3). The CA must inspect and sample those dischargers (also known as middle-tier
CIUs) at least once every 2 years. Furthermore, the CA is not required to inspect or sample any
dischargers classified as nonsignificant CIU (NSCIUs). According to 40 CFR 403.12(e), CIUs are
required to submit reports twice per year, and 40 CFR 403.12(h) requires the same reporting from
noncategorical SIUs. Further, the CA's approved program or NPDES permit may specify
required sampling, inspection, self-monitoring or reporting requirements. The auditor should
determine that the CA knows how to establish proper monitoring frequencies and that it is aware
of their minimum requirements.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
At minimum, the CA's monitoring frequencies should be consistent with the regulatory
requirements.
The CA should also consider each lU's potential for affecting the POTW and determine
monitoring frequencies accordingly.
February 2010 3-21
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
F.l.b. Is the frequency established above more, less, or the same as required? Explain any
difference.
PURPOSE: The CA should have a rationale for its monitoring frequency. The auditor should
investigate any discrepancies between required and actual monitoring frequencies.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
Where monitoring frequencies are not consistent with required frequencies, the CA's rationale for
its monitoring frequencies should demonstrate that the monitoring is adequate to determine
ongoing compliance by all regulated Ills.
F.l.c. Does the CA perform IU monitoring in lieu of requiring Ills to conduct self-monitoring? If
yes, list Ills.
F.2. In the past 12 months, how many, and what percentage of, SIUs were [403.8(f)(2)(v)]
(Define the 12-month period):
F.2.a. Not sampled or not inspected at least once
F.2.b. Not sampled at least once
F.2.c. Not inspected at least once (all parameters)
If any, explain. Indicate how the percentage was determined (e.g., actual, estimated).
PURPOSE: Under 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v), the CA is required to inspect and sample all SIUs at
least once a year with the exception of middle-tier CIUs and NSCIUs. For middle-tier CIUs, the
CA is required to inspect and sample at least once every 2 years, and for NSCIUs, the CA is not
required to conduct any inspections or monitoring. According to 40 CFR 403.12(e), CIUs are
required to submit reports twice per year, and 40 CFR 403.12(h) requires the same reporting from
noncategorical SIUs. In addition, middle-tier CIUs are required to submit an annual report only as
long as the sample results are representative of the discharge conditions for the reporting period,
and NSCIUs are required only to submit a certification statement.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If the CA fails to inspect or sample at least 80 percent of its SIUs at least once during the past
12 months, the CA is considered to be in RNC.
3-22 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
If the CA is performing the sampling and analysis in lieu of the IU and determines that a
violation has occurred, the CA must perform the repeat sampling and analysis unless it
notifies the user of the violation and requires the user to perform the repeat analysis.
Note: The auditor should be aware that CAs often establish their monitoring schedules around
their reporting to the AA. Therefore, they might not have completed all the required monitoring
in the past 12 months, but they will complete it before they are required to submit their annual
performance report to the AA.
F.3.a. 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 as listed in the CA's last
pretreatment program performance report [WENDB, RIDE] [RNC - II] (SNC Evaluation
Period): Applicable Pretreatment Standards and reporting requirements, Self-monitoring
requirements, Pretreatment compliance schedule(s)
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 PCS or ICIS, and
to determine RNC.
F.3.b. Are any of the SIU that were listed as being in SNC in the most recent pretreatment report
still in SNC status? If yes, list SIUs.
F.3.c. Indicate the number of SIUs that have been in 100% compliance with all Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements. (Evaluation Period, Number of SIUs, Names of SIUs)
PURPOSE: To collect data for Strategy for Pretreatment Program Results-Based
[Environmental] Measures.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The auditor should look for upward trends in SIUs in 100 percent compliance with all
Pretreatment Standards and reporting requirements.
February 2010 3-23
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
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)] Request a copy of the CA's inspection form, if applicable.
PURPOSE: The CA is required to inspect its Ills to determine compliance with all applicable
standards and requirements. The auditor should determine whether 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 might need
to be comprehensive. Other inspections might be limited to areas of specific concern.
F.5. Who performs the CA's compliance monitoring analysis? (Metals, cyanide, organics, other
(specify))
PURPOSE: The CA is required to conduct its compliance monitoring and analysis in a manner
that will provide admissible evidence in enforcement proceedings [40 CFR403.8(f)(2)(vii)].
Furthermore, all analyses must be performed in accordance with procedures established by EPA.
Where 40 CFR Part 136 does not include sampling or analytical techniques for the pollutants in
questions, or where EPA determines that the Part 136 sampling and analytical techniques are
inappropriate for the pollutant in question, sampling and analyses must be performed using
validated analytical methods or any other sampling and analytical procedures approved by EPA
[40 CFR403.12(g)(5)]. The auditor should verify whether the analyses are performed properly by
reviewing reports and through discussions with the CA.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
If the CA performs all 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.
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
3-24 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
methods? [403.8(f)(2)(vi)] Check all that are applicable. (Sampling: gloves, chain-of-custody
forms, new sampling tubes, field blanks, other; Analysis: sample splits, sample blanks,
sample spikes, other)
PURPOSE: The CA is required to conduct its compliance monitoring and analysis in a manner
that will provide admissible evidence in enforcement proceedings [40 CFR403.8(f)(2)(vii)].
Furthermore, all analyses must be performed in accordance with procedures established by EPA.
Where 40 CFR Part 136 does not include sampling or analytical techniques for the pollutants in
question or where the EPA determines that the Part 136 sampling and analytical techniques are
inappropriate for the pollutant in question, sampling and analyses must be performed using
validated analytical methods or any other sampling and analytical procedures approved by EPA
[40 CFR 403.12(g)(5)]. The auditor should review the QA/QC and chain-of-custody procedures
used by the CA to determine if they are adequate.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The analytical results for spikes, splits, and blanks should be included with the analytical data.
The CA's in-house lab should have written QA/QC protocols. QA/QC protocols should be
provided by the contract lab.
F.7. Discuss any problems encountered in identification of sample location, collection, and
analysis.
PURPOSE: The CA must sample its lUs to determine compliance independent of data submitted
by the IU. The auditor should investigate any problems the CA has determining the compliance
status of its lUs.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Frequently, the CA requires CIUs to self-monitor after pretreatment but conducts its own
monitoring at end-of-pipe to avoid having to enter the facility. All sampling should be
conducted at the same sampling point.
Both the IU and the CA must follow 40 CFR Part 136 procedures.
Appropriate types of samples should be taken (i.e., composite vs. grab).
February 2010 3-25
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
F.S.a. Did any Ills notify the CA of hazardous waste discharge since the last PCI or PCA?
(403.12(j) & (p)] If yes, summarize.
F.S.b. How does the CA notify its users of the hazardous-waste reporting requirements? When
was the last time the CA notified its Ills?
PURPOSE: The CA is required to notify all its lUs of the requirement to notify the CA, EPA,
and the state of any hazardous waste in their discharges that are subject to the requirement, as
specified at 40 CFR 403.12(p). The auditor should verify that the CA notified its Ills of this
requirement and determine whether any Ills contacted the CA.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
Many CAs have notified their permitted Ills of this requirement but are unaware that it applies to
all Ills. Unless the CA permits all lUs, it is likely that many non-SIUs have not been notified.
The lUs are still required to contact the POTW, state, and EPA even if the CA did not contact the
lUs.
F.9.a. How and when does the CA evaluate/reevaluate the need for a slug discharge control plan?
[403.8(f)(2)(v)] List SIUs required to have a slug discharge control plan.
PURPOSE: The CA is required to evaluate all lUs at least once 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 might 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 CA must include in its IU permits the conditions requiring implementation of a slug
discharge control plan, if determined to be required for an IU, for discharges other than
accidental spills. The IU must also notify the CA of changes that affect the plan or the need
for one.
F.9.b. For all existing SIUs identified as significant before November 14, 2005, or within a year of
becoming an SIU (whichever is later), has the POTW performed the evaluation to
3-26 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
determine whether each SIU needs a plan or action to control slug discharges? If not, which
SIUs have not been evaluated?
PURPOSE: To determine compliance with the regulations regarding slug discharge control
evaluations. The CA is required to evaluate each SIU for the need to develop a slug discharge
control plan at least once.
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 its approved ERP,
problems with the POTW, and use of compliance schedules. The auditor should record any
problems found.
G.I. What is the CA's definition of SNC? [403.8(f)(2)(viii)]
PURPOSE: EPA has defined the term significant noncompliance in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii) 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.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The 2005 revisions to the General Pretreatment Regulations have changed the definition of SNC
(70 FR 60134-60198: October 14, 2005).
G.2. ERP implementation: [403.8(f)(5)]
G.2.a. Has the ERP been adopted by the POTW?
G.2.b. Has the ERP been approved by the Approval Authority?
G.2.c. Does the ERP describe how the CA will investigate instances of noncompliance?
G.2.d. Does the ERP describe types of escalating enforcement responses and the time frames for
each response?
G.2.e. Does the ERP identify the title of official(s) responsible for implementing each type of
enforcement response?
February 2010 3-27
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
G.2.f. Does the ERP reflect the CA's responsibility to enforce all applicable Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements?
G.2.g. Is the ERP effective, and does it lead to timely compliance? Provide examples if any are
available.
PURPOSE: The CA is required to develop an ERP. Once approved by the AA, the ERP must be
incorporated into the approved POTW pretreatment program. As such, the CA is obligated to
conduct its enforcement activities consistently with the procedures established in the ERP. The
auditor should determine whether the CA is following its approved ERP.
Note: If the CA does not 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 been approved, the CA has no obligation to conduct its enforcement
activities in accordance with the ERP procedures.
In some cases, the ERP might not work or might 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 might run into problems.
For instance, although repetitive enforcement (i.e., enforcement actions without escalation)
might not be apparent in the ERP, certain scenarios could 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.
If the POTW has more than 15 percent of its SIUs in SNC over a 6-month period without
formal POTW actions or penalties where appropriate, there is a reasonable assumption that
the CA is not effectively enforcing its program. To overcome the presumption of ineffective
enforcement, the POTW should be able to demonstrate maximum use of its enforcement
authorities in a time frame consistent with its enforcement procedures (FY1990 Guidance for
Reporting and Evaluating POTWNoncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation
Requirements}.
3-28 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
The auditor should review the nature and timeliness of the enforcement actions taken by the
POTW to obtain compliance from individual SIUs. As a general rule, EPA recommends that
a POTW respond initially to all violations with either formal or informal enforcement action
within 30 days from the date the violation is reported or identified by the POTW (FY1990
Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment
Implementation Requirements).
G.3.a. Does the CA use compliance schedules? [403.8(f)(l)(iv)(A)]
G.3.b. If yes, are they appropriate? Provide a list of SIUs on compliance schedules.
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 so, the
auditor should determine if they are effective.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Compliance schedules should identify specific actions the SIUs are to take and establish
specific dates by which those 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 before the schedule's final compliance deadline,
the compliance schedule/enforcement order should clearly state that 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 a list of all SIUs in SNC in a daily newspaper of general circulation that
provides meaningful public notice within the jurisdiction in the previous year?
[403.8(f)(2)(viii)] If yes, attach a copy. If no, explain.
PURPOSE: The CA is required to publish (annually) a list of all SIUs that had been in SNC
during the reporting year. The auditor should verify that the CA did publish the list of those lUs
that were in SNC during the reporting year.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The definition of SNC and the requirements for publication were revised as part of the 2005
regulatory revisions. 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 a daily newspaper of general
February 2010 3-29
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
circulation that provides meaningful public notice with the jurisdiction (70 FR 60134-60198:
October 14, 2005).
G.S.a. How many SIUs are in SNC with self-monitoring requirements and were not inspected (in
the four most recent full quarters)?
G.S.b. How many SIUs are in SNC with self-monitoring requirements and were not sampled (in
the four most recent full quarters)?
PURPOSE: Failure by the CA to inspect and/or sample any SIU that is in SNC with self-
monitoring requirements should be reported in PCS or ICIS. The auditor should determine the
number of SIUs in SNC with self-monitoring that were not inspected and/or sampled and
recorded in PCS or ICIS.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
SIUs that are not complying with self-monitoring requirements have the potential to have serious
discharge violations. Therefore, failure by the CA to inspect or sample such lUs could result in
allowing serious violations to continue without enforcement.
G.6.a. Did the CA experience any of the following caused by industrial discharges? (interference,
pass through, fire or explosion (flashpoint, and such), corrosive structural damage, flow
obstruction, excessive flow rates, excessive pollutant concentrations, heat problems,
interference due to O&G, toxic fumes, illicit dumping of hauled wastes, worker health and
safety, and other (specify))
G.6.b. If yes, did the CA take enforcement action against the lUs causing or contributing to pass
through or interference? [RNC -1]
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 on the basis of Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data that might be
due to discharges from lUs. The auditor should investigate the CA's response to any problems
caused by IU discharges.
FACTOR 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
3-30 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
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.
G.7.a. Did the POTW have any sanitary sewer overflows since the last PCI or PCA?
G.7.b. If yes, how many were due to nondomestic waste issues (O&G blockages)?
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 affecting the program. The auditor should record any problems identified.
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 the approved state. The auditor should
determine if the CA has procedures to handle confidential information; if so, the auditor should
evaluate whether they are adequate.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
EPA recommends that the CA maintain confidential information 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 in 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.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
Effluent data should be maintained separately, or procedures should be established to ensure that
the public has ready access to these data. Furthermore, production data used to calculate effluent
limits cannot be considered confidential.
February 2010 3-31
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
H.3. Does the CA accept electronic reporting? If no, does it plan to do so?
PURPOSE: A POTW that chooses to receive electronic documents must satisfy the requirements
of 40 CFR Part 3. The final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) is effective as
of January 11,2006.
H.4. 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.
For each IU, 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, and so forth.
EPA recommends organizing files by subject matter and then chronologically within the
subject.
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.5. 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.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The CA should have procedures for public notice that include the opportunity for public
comment. Frequently, the procedures are specified in the municipality's code or state code.
3-32 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
H.6. Explain any public or community issues affecting the CA's pretreatment program.
PURPOSE: Frequently, public/community issues affect the implementation of the CA's
pretreatment program. Such issues that impede effective implementation and enforcement of the
local program should be discussed.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Enforcement could be difficult where a violating IU is one of the community's major sources
of revenues and employment.
CAs practicing public outreach often find that it facilitates program implementation.
H.7. How long are records maintained? [403.12(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.
FACTOR 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)
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 might be adequate, if the CA's
activities themselves are not adequate (e.g., not regulating all SIUs), the resources might 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.
February 2010 3-33
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
I.I. Estimate the number of personnel (in FTEs) available for implementing the program, (legal
assistance, permitting, inspections, sample collection, sample analysis, data analysis (review
and response), enforcement, and administration).
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 of employees that are actually and consistently available to the program.
If the CA uses a contract lab for sampling or analysis or both, the CA should provide
documentation outlining adequate funding to implement compliance sampling. The contract
budget should be converted to the approximate number of FTEs.
Consider the following: legal assistance, permitting, IU inspections, sample collection,
sample analysis, data analysis, review and response, enforcement, and administration
(including record keeping and data management).
1.2. Does the CA have adequate access to monitoring equipment? (Consider sampling, flow
measurement, safety, transportation, and analytical equipment.) If not, explain.
PURPOSE: The CA must 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 the CA has
certain basic equipment necessary to run its program.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Although not specifically required by the program, the CA should have adequate safety
equipment, including equipment for safely entering a manhole, 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.
3-34 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
I.3.a. Estimate the annual operating budget for the CA's program.
I.3.b. Is funding expected to stay the same, increase, decrease (note time frame; e.g., following
year, next 3 years)? Discuss any changes in funding.
PURPOSE: The CA must 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.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
Frequently, funding for the pretreatment program comes from the municipality's or department of
public works' general fund. A review of the CA's program funding over the past several years
might 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, funding will most likely need to be increased to bring the program into
compliance.
1.4. Discuss any problems in program implementation that appear to be related to inadequate
resources.
PURPOSE: The CA must 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.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
See question 13.b. above.
I.S.a. How does the CA ensure that personnel are qualified and up-to-date with current program
requirements?
PURPOSE: To adequately implement the pretreatment program, all program staff need to be
qualified for the positions they hold and trained to perform their jobs consistently with
pretreatment program requirements. The auditor should determine whether staff seem adequately
trained and note any problems in the report.
February 2010 3-35
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
Although the CA's pretreatment coordinator might be qualified and up-to-date with program
requirements, it is not uncommon to find that field and lab personnel are not so qualified and up-
to-date.
I.S.b. Does the CA have adequate reference material to implement its program?
PURPOSE: 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
effect on the implementation of the program. The auditor should review the CA's reference
materials to determine whether any additional materials might be needed. The auditor should plan
to provide any missing materials.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The region or state might 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, and so on. Also, when staff members leave for another position, the
documents sometimes leave with them.
It is not uncommon that documents were received and shelved but that the pretreatment staff
(including inspectors) might not have reviewed them. All pretreatment personnel should be
familiar with guidance material.
For additional information, the CA should access EPA's Web site at www.epa.gov.
J. Environmental Effectiveness/Pollution Prevention
Note: This section is designed to help the auditor determine whether the CA has evaluated and
documented any environmental benefits to date as a result of the implementing program.
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 if 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. All findings should be
documented as thoroughly as possible.
3-36 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
J.I. a. How many times was the POTW monitored 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 help the CA track any progress or lack of progress the CA is making in
enhancing environmental effectiveness.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
It is recommended that the CA perform monitoring of its treatment plant(s) 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.l.c. Is the CA reporting these results to the Approval Authority? If so, at what frequency?
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
If the POTW monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by its NPDES permit using
approved test procedures, the CA must include the results of the monitoring (including data
calculations) in the POTW's DMR or sludge reporting form specified by the AA [40 CFR
J.2.a. Has the CA evaluated historical and current data to determine the effectiveness of the
pretreatment controls on the following: improvements in POTW operations, loadings to
and from the POTW, NPDES permit compliance, sludge quality, and sludge disposal
options?
J.2.b. Has the CA documented these findings? 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. Some POTWs have
historical influent data that could indicate a downward trend of pollutant loadings. In addition,
February 2010 3-37
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
some POTWs have implemented pollution prevention programs have actual data from before and
after the implementation of the programs. These data sets can be used to showcase how pollution
prevention is an effective way to control pollution. 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 that the CA start collecting data. In addition, this information would
help with EPA's Strategy for Pretreatment Program Results-Based Measures.
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 and any
more stringent effluent limits) should decrease because of fewer system upsets and
inhibitions.
As sludge quality improves, less expensive disposal operations could 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 a 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.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If all Ills were in compliance with applicable Pretreatment Standards before the CA obtained
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 might show an increase in pollutant loadings even though
effective program implementation is taking place.
3-38 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
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: 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 that the CA start one.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
Along with sampling plant influent, effluent, and sludge, EPA recommends that the CA monitor
points within the collection system to better characterize the contributions of toxics. This will
help determine program effectiveness and help the CA develop more appropriate local limits.
J.S.a. Has the CA implemented 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. Adopting pollution-
prevention practices on all fronts will almost certainly result in a reduced need for enforcement as
well as a decreased loading of pollutants at the POTW. 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 might want to
recommend that the CA adopt one.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
CAs often consider pollution-prevention awareness as yet another task they are being asked
to take on in an already too-full workload. Sometimes, they are unaware of the benefits to be
reaped for both the POTW and their pretreatment program, including an eventual reduction in
their workload.
February 2010 3-39
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
Making their Ills aware of pollution prevention need not really affect the CA's workload.
They might consider bringing state pollution-prevention literature out with them on IU
inspections. State personnel can then handle specific questions.
J.6 What efforts have been taken to incorporate pollution prevention into the CA's
pretreatment program (e.g., waste minimization at Ills, household hazardous waste
programs)?
PURPOSE: Pollution prevention is of great importance in implementing a comprehensive
pretreatment program. To further the CA's attainment of program goals, the auditor should
discuss pollution prevention initiatives and ideas with CA personnel.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
EPA hopes that, at a minimum, the CA will be talking to its Ills about pollution prevention and
the benefits of pollution prevention/waste minimization to the IU.
J.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.
PURPOSE: The more documentation EPA can provide to other CAs regarding successful IU
pollution-prevention programs, the more willing CAs will be to bring the pollution-prevention
message to their own lUs. The auditor should obtain all available documentation. He or she
should also consider contacting the IU to ask whether the IU would be willing to be named in
case studies or to respond to questions from interested parties.
FACTOR 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
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The auditor should record any activities that the CA, EPA, the state, environmental organizations,
or the public at large are taking that have, or might in the future have, any bearing on the CA's
3-40 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
pretreatment program. Included in such considerations should be any new initiatives (e.g.,
regulatory, hospital waste, river, bay, geographic targeted, result-oriented initiatives).
February 2010 3-41
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
SECTION II: IU FILE EVALUATION
Each of the major program components in Section II 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 Ill'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 Ills. The auditor should begin by finding out how the CA organizes its files. Some
CAs have individual files for each IU and all information pertaining to that IU is in the file. Other CAs
might 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. It is important to stress that all data related to
the program be provided including any slug control, pollution prevention, and toxic organic management
plans. Once the auditor has determined the file organization, he or she can move on to doing the
evaluation.
Section II would require the auditor to review certain components of the CA's IU files. After reviewing
each component, the auditor should 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.
To help the auditor complete 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. The auditor should
take this fact into consideration when developing required versus recommended CA actions.
ID Identification
PURPOSE: This section is designed to provide a brief profile of the IU. The information should
summarize industrial categorization, discharge characterization, and comment on compliance history or
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). This
information can usually be found in an lU's control mechanism application or permit fact sheets. Some
3-42 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
information (e.g., category, flow, compliance status) will be obtained as the review proceeds. The auditor
should enter additional information about the industry obtained from the interview with CA staff or the
site visit to the IU.
ID 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 closing 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 meets the regulatory requirement and if the CA is effective in
controlling its Ills. If the auditor determines there is a problem or deficiency (e.g., control
mechanisms are not issued/revised in a timely manner, do not contain all the elements required by
the regulation, and contain incorrect limits), he or 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 to write an appropriate
control mechanism. Although there are several ways these data can be obtained, it is EPA
strongly recommends that the CA use an application form (there is no regulatory requirement for
this). For CIUs, the BMR (Baseline Monitoring Report) can serve as an application and can 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 closing interview. For instance, it could be 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.
February 2010 3-43
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
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.
The application (when used) should be updated before issuing the permit.
Where there is evidence that the data in the application are inaccurate, there should be
evidence that the CA has either requested that the application be corrected or has received a
revised application form from the IU.
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 are no regulatory requirements for a fact sheet just as
there is no requirement for documentation when the CA is granting certain waivers. A fact sheet,
however, serves as a useful way to document the basis for permitting decisions.
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 discharge control plan, BMPs, and compliance
schedule requirements. It should include the circumstances identified that necessitated the
requirements.
3-44 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
A.3 Issuance or reissuance of control mechanism
A.3.a-b. Individual and general control mechanism
PURPOSE: The CA is required to control IU discharges to the POTW. At 40 CFR
403.8(f)(l)(iii), all SIU discharges are required to be controlled under either an individual or
general control mechanism (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, the auditor should note a deficiency. If the control mechanism has to be signed by the
CA and if it is not signed, it might not be valid.
The effective date must be after the issuance date.
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. Extensions could
be granted, but the term of the permit cannot exceed 5 years.
The POTW should issue control mechanisms to 90 percent of the SIUs within 6 months after
the POTW's program approval or within 6 months following the promulgation of a federal
requirement. POTWs that failed to reissue permits within that time frame should be reported
on the Quarterly Noncompliance Report (FY1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating
POTWNoncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation Requirements).
The POTW should reissue control mechanisms to 90 percent of the SIUs within 6 months of
the expiration of the previous permit. POTWs that failed to reissue permits within that time
frame should be reported on the Quarterly Noncompliance Report (FY 1990 Guidance for
Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation
Requirements}.
A.4 Control mechanism contents
PURPOSE: Individual and general control mechanisms issued to SIUs must contain the
minimum conditions listed at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii)(B). The required elements to consider are
elaborated upon below in A.4.a-l.
February 2010 3-45
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
Each condition 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 the discharge limit 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
no longer than 5 years.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Beware of permit durations of 5 years and 1 day. If the permit issuance date is November 1,
2006, and the expiration date is November 1, 2011, that permit duration actually exceeds the
maximum 5-year period.
Keep in mind the CA's answer to question D. 1 of the Interview portion of the audit regarding
expired permits.
A.4.b. 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.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
This statement must be included in the permit. Inclusion of this statement in the control
mechanism by referencing the CA's legal authority (i.e., SUO) is not considered adequate.
A.4.c. Applicable effluent limits (local limits, categorical limits, BMPs)
PURPOSE: The control mechanism must contain effluent limits based on applicable general
Pretreatment Standards at 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.
3-46 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
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 the most stringent limit
Application of BMPs (if applicable)
A.4.d. Self-monitoring requirements
PURPOSE: All SIUs (except for middle-tier CIUs whose semiannual reporting requirement have
been reduced by the CA to once a year) are required to submit a report at least semiannually. For
all CIUs (except nonsignificant categorical users and middle-tier CIUs), the semiannual report
must include results of monitoring for all pollutants regulated under the applicable categorical
standard limits unless a waiver of pollutants not present is granted and any additional applicable
local limits. Such 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, and
so forth.
The CA may reduce a CIU's semiannual requirement to submit periodic compliance reports
to report no less frequently than once a year, unless required more frequently in the
Pretreatment Standard or by the CA or the AA, if the IU meets all the conditions listed at 40
CFR 403.12(e)(3). If the CA has reduced a CIU's reporting and monitoring requirement, the
February 2010 3-47
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
auditor should ensure that this provision is allowed by state law and that the CA's legal
authority has been revised and approved accordingly.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Identification of pollutants to be monitoredAll pollutants regulated under an applicable
categorical standard must be sampled and analyzed at least semiannually unless the CA has
authorized the CIU to forego sampling of a pollutant regulated by a categorical standard or
the CA has reduced this compliance monitoring requirement to once a year.
The CA could authorize a waiver where a pollutant is determined to be present solely due
to sanitary wastewater discharged, provided that the sanitary wastewater is not regulated
by an applicable categorical standard and is typical of domestic background in the
community.
- The monitoring waiver is valid only for the duration of the effective period of the control
mechanism, but in no case longer than 5 years.
In making a demonstration that a pollutant is not present, the IU must provide data from
at least one sampling of the facility's process wastewater that is representative of all
wastewater from all processes before any treatment present at the facility.
Nondetectable sample results could be used only as a demonstration that a pollutant is not
present if the EPA-approved method from 40 CFR Part 136 with the lowest minimum
detection level for the pollutant was used in the analysis.
Process for seeking a waiver for pollutant not present or not expected to be present (CIUs
only)
In seeking a waiver for a pollutant not present nor expected to be present, the discharger
must provide data from at least one sampling of the facility's process wastewater before
any treatment present.
The request for the waiver must be signed in accordance with 40 CFR 403.12(1) and
include the certification statement at 40 CFR 403.6(a)(2)(ii).
Is the monitoring waiver certification language included in the control mechanism? (Y/N)
- Any grant of the monitoring waiver by the CA must be included as a condition in the
discharger's control mechanism. The CA must maintain reasons supporting the waiver
3-48 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
for at least 3 years after the expiration of the waiver (i.e., typically 3 years after the
permit expiration).
Are conditions for reinstating monitoring requirements if pollutants not present are detected
in the future included in the permit? (Y/N)
- In the event that a waived pollutant is found to be present or is expected to be present
based on changes that occur in the CIU's operation, the CIU must immediately: (1)
comply with the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR403.12(e)(l) or other more frequent
monitoring requirements imposed by the CA, and (2) notify the CA of this in discharge
condition.
Sampling frequencyAlthough all SIUs (except those CIUs that have been authorized to
forego or to reduce sampling) are required to self-monitor for all regulated pollutants at least
semiannually, those two monitoring events might not be sufficient to provide the CA with a
true picture of ongoing compliance, but it is the minimum frequency.
Sampling location/discharge pointsThe sampling location(s) should be clearly identified.
This can be achieved by a narrative description of the sampling location(s), a facility map
clearly indicating where the sampling location(s) are located, and/or digital pictures of the
sampling location along with global positioning system (GPS) mapping.
Sample types (grab or composite):
Types of samples (e.g., 24-hour composite, grab)This must be noted for each
parameter. The auditor should be aware that all pretreatment compliance monitoring must
be done in accordance with the procedures specified at 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 that require the
use of grab samples: pH, heat, O&G, volatile organics, and phenols.
Grab samples must be used to determine compliance with instantaneous maximum limits.
Reporting requirements (including all monitoring results)SIUs are required to submit
periodic compliance reports, resampling reports, and any additional monitoring results of any
regulated pollutant monitored at the appropriate sampling location using 40 CFR Part 136-
approved methods more frequently than required by the CA.
February 2010 3-49
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
Record-keeping requirementsAll 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 control mechanisms are required to specify the penalties applicable for violation
of control mechanism conditions. The penalties must include civil and/or criminal penalties in an
amount of at least $1,000 per day per violation [40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(vi)(A)].
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should also apply administrative penalties for control mechanism violations, and
EPA encourages the CA to do so. However, administrative penalties do not satisfy this
regulatory requirement.
This statement of penalties must be included in the control mechanism. Incorporating the
statement by referencing a specific ordinance provision is not acceptable.
The auditor should be aware of more stringent state or local requirements.
A.4.f. Compliance schedules/progress reports (if applicable)
PURPOSE: The CA must require compliance schedules where a CIU is not in compliance with a
newly promulgated categorical standard. The schedule must have a final compliance date that 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 the
requirement at 40 CFR 403.12(b)(7) and (c)).
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Compliance schedules for compliance with a categorical standard deadline that has already
passed should not be contained in the control mechanism but in an enforcement order.
EPA also strongly recommends compliance schedules for use where any IU is out of
compliance with any Pretreatment Standard or requirement. The 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
3-50 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
compliance date, however, the final compliance date with the revised local limits should be
achieved as soon as possible.
A.4.g. Notice of slug loadings
PURPOSE: All Ills are required to notify the CA of any slug loadings (e.g., spills, pretreatment
system malfunctions).
A.4.h. Notification of spills, bypasses, upsets, etc.
PURPOSE: If an IU knows in advance of the need for a bypass (the intentional diversion of
wastestreams from any portion of an lU's treatment facility), the IU must notify the CA at least
10 days before the date of the bypass.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Notification requirements of a bypass must be included the control mechanism. If an
unanticipated bypass occurs, the IU is required to notify the CA within 24 hours of becoming
aware of the bypass. Within 5 days of the bypass event, the IU is required to submit a written
notification containing a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the bypass,
including exact dates and times, and if the bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time
it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent the
reoccurrence of the bypass.
An IU is required to report an upset (an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional
and temporary noncompliance with categorical standards because of factors beyond the
reasonable control of the IU), if the discharger would like to constitute an affirmative defense
to an action brought for noncompliance with categorical standards.
A.4.i. Notification of significant change in discharge
PURPOSE: All lUs are required to promptly notify the CA in advance of any substantial change
in volume or character of pollutants in their discharge, including the listed or characteristic
hazardous wastes for which the IU has submitted initial notification under 40 CFR 403.12(p).
This notification requirement is required to be in the control mechanism.
A.4.J. Notification of change affecting the potential for a slug discharge
PURPOSE: SIUs are required to notify the POTW immediately of any changes at its facility
affecting the potential for a slug discharge.
February 2010 3-51
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
A.4.k. 24-hour notification of violation/resample requirement
PURPOSE: SIUs subject to self-monitoring requirements are required to notify the CA within 24
hours of noticing an effluent violation. In addition, SIUs are required to conduct resampling and
analysis of the pollutant in violation and submit the resampling results to the CA within 30 days
of becoming aware of the violation. This requirement must be included in the control mechanism.
A.4.1. Slug discharge control plan requirement, if determined by the POTW to be necessary.
PURPOSE: Where IU slug discharge control plans are required to prevent slug loadings to the
POTW, such plans must contain the elements specified at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vi): (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 that would violate a prohibition at 40 CFR 403.5(b), with procedures for
follow-up written notification within 5 days; and (4) if necessary, procedures to prevent adverse
effect from accidental spills, including inspection and maintenance of storage areas, handling and
transfer of materials, loading and unloading operations, control of plant site runoff, worker
training, building of containment structures or equipment, measures for containing toxic organic
pollutants (including solvents), and/or measures and equipment necessary for emergency
response.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
SIU control mechanisms must contain the requirement to immediately notify the CA of any
slug discharge.
Any plan that is less inclusive or less stringent than that required under 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vi) should be recorded as a deficiency.
The CA must revise its legal authority to clarify that slug control requirements must be
referenced in the control mechanism because the 2005 revisions to the General Pretreatment
Regulations specify new minimum requirements for all control mechanisms. Furthermore, the
control mechanism must require the SIU to notify the CA of any changes that could affect the
lU's slug discharge or spill potential (70 FR 60134-60198: October 14, 2005).
If the CA has determined that an IU is required to develop and implement a slug discharge
control plan, the lU's control mechanism must specify that the IU is required to control slug
discharges.
3-52 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
The auditor should keep in mind the CA's answer to F.9 of the Interview portion of the audit.
A.5 Issuance of General Control Mechanisms
PURPOSE: The 2005 revisions to the General Pretreatment Regulations authorize CAs to use
general control mechanisms to regulate SIUs in certain circumstances in lieu of issuing individual
control mechanisms (70 FR 60134-60198: October 14, 2005). Before implementing the optional
provision, the CA and state must have the appropriate structure in place to implement general
control mechanisms.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The CA and state must have the legal authority to issue general control mechanisms before the
CA may issue general control mechanisms.
A.S.a. Involve the same or similar operations
PURPOSE: All the dischargers to be covered by a general control mechanism must employ the
same or substantially similar types of industrial processes [40 CFR403.8(f)(l)(iii)(A)(l)(i)].
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The CA must determine that the SIU is more appropriately controlled under a general control
mechanism than under individual control mechanisms.
A.S.b. Discharge the same types of wastes
PURPOSE: All the dischargers to be covered by a general control mechanism must discharge the
same types of wastes [40 CFR403.8(f)(l)(iii)(A)(l)(ii)].
A.S.c. Require the same effluent limitations
PURPOSE: All the dischargers to be covered by a general control mechanism must have the
same effluent limitation requirements [40 CFR403.8(f)(l)(iii)(A)(l)(iii)].
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Facilities regulated by categorical standards expressed as mass-based limits cannot receive
coverage under a general control mechanism. The one exception to this exclusion would be a
situation in which the CA has imposed the same mass-based limit on a number of facilities.
February 2010 3-53
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
General control mechanisms are not available for Ills whose limits are based on the CWF or
net/gross calculations.
General control mechanisms are not available for CIUs subject to production-based limits.
A.S.d. Written request by the IU for coverage by a general control mechanism (including contact
information, production processes, types of waste generated, location for monitoring all
wastes covered by the general permit, and any requests for a monitoring waiver for a
pollutant neither present nor expected to be present)
PURPOSE: To be covered by a general control mechanism, an SIU must file a written request
for coverage that identifies its contact information, production processes, the types of wastes
generated, the location for monitoring all wastes covered by the general control mechanism, and
any requests for a monitoring waiver for a pollutant neither present nor expected to be present.
A.S.e. Documentation to support the POTW's determination
PURPOSE: The CA is required to retain a copy of the general control mechanism;
documentation to support the POTW's determination that a specific SIU meets the criteria of 40
CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii)(A)(l)(i-v); and a copy of the lU's written request for coverage for 3 years
after the expiration of the general control mechanism.
B. CA Application of IU Pretreatment Standards
B.I IU Categorization
PURPOSE: The CA must correctly apply Pretreatment Standards and Requirement to all SIUs.
The auditor should verify that the CA has correctly classified the discharger as an SIU or a CIU.
B.2 Calculation and application of categorical standards
PURPOSE: The CA is required to ensure that SIUs are in compliance with applicable
Pretreatment Standards and Requirements.
B.2.a. Classification by category/subcategory
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The lU's permit must contain the correct category and/or subcategory.
If the CIU is subject to several categories or subcategories, the permit should clearly identify
them.
3-54 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
B.2.b. Classification as new/existing source
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The category and subcategory classification refers to Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
(PSES) or Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) and not to direct discharge
requirements.
B.2.c. Application of limits for all regulated pollutants
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Compliance with categorical limits is determined at the end-of-process, before mixing with
any sanitary wastewaters.
Typically, compliance with local limits is determined at the end-of-pipe, after all process
wastewater, sanitary wastewater, and any other nondomestic wastewaters are commingled.
B.2.d. Classification as an NSCIU
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
State law must provide for distinguishing between SIUs and NSCIUs before the CA may
adopt it into its legal authority.
The CA must have legal authority to adopt the NSCIU provision before implementation.
The CIU never discharges more than 100 gpd of total categorical wastewater (excluding
sanitary, noncontact cooling, and boiler blowdown wastewater).
The CIU has consistently complied with all applicable categorical standards and
requirements.
The CIU never discharges any untreated, concentrated wastewater.
The CIU submits an annual certification statement.
B.2.e. Documentation for the qualification to be classified as NSCIU
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA is required to include a list of users considered to be NSCIUs in its annual report to
the AA [40 CFR 403.12(1)].
February 2010 3-55
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
The federal regulations require the CA to evaluate, at least once per year, whether an IU
previously determined to be NSCIU still meets the nonsignificant criteria in 40 CFR
403.3(v)(2) [40 CFR403.8(f)(2)(v)].
B.3 Application of local limits
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Local limits are developed by POTWs to enforce the specific and general prohibitions, as
well as any state and local regulations. The prohibitions and categorical standards are
designed to provide a minimum acceptable level of control over IU discharges. They do not,
however, take into account site-specific factors at POTWs that might necessitate additional
controls.
Local limits are intended to prevent site-specific POTW and environmental problems due to
nondomestic discharges.
The CA can impose local limits on an IU that are more stringent, or cover more pollutants,
than an applicable categorical standard.
B.4 Application of BMPs
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
BMPs means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and
other management practices to implement the prohibitions lists at 40 CFR 403.5(a)(l). BMPs
may be used in lieu of Pretreatment Standards when the CA has established BMPs as local
limits to implement the general and specific prohibitions.
BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control
plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material
storage.
BMPs may be used in lieu of Pretreatment Standards when the BMPs are categorical
pretreatment standards established by EPA.
If allowed by state law and if the CA's legal authority has been revised accordingly, the CA
can use BMPs in lieu of local limits.
Enforceable BMPs should have the following:
Specific notice to lUs of requirements and enforceability
3-56 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
- Installation of treatment
- Requirements for or prohibitions on certain practices, activities, or discharges
- Requirements for operation and maintenance (O&M) of treatment units
- Time frames associated with key activities
- Compliance certification, reporting, and records retention
Provisions for reopening or revoking the BMP conditions
Other requirements as determined by the CA.
B.5 Calculation and application of production-based standards
FACTORS TO CONSIDER
Production-based standards are expressed in terms of allowable pollutant mass discharge rate
per unit of production such as pollutant per 1,000 pounds of product produced.
Production-based standards are administratively more difficult for the CA to implement than
concentration-based standards. To ensure compliance with production-based standards, the
CA must measure the flow of the regulated wastestream and determine the corresponding
production rate. When determining representative production levels, the CA should evaluate
historical production data and the corresponding wastewater flowrates.
Rather than measure the production rate each time that compliance monitoring is performed,
the CA may use equivalent mass or concentration limits as a tool for routine monitoring and
enforcement purposes [40 CFR 403.6(c)]. Equivalent mass or concentration limits use an
Ill's long-term average daily production and flow rates to derive a limit that is essentially
equivalent to the production-based standard but is expresses as mass per day or concentration.
The CA should require an IU subject to production-based standards to submit periodic
production data. The CA should compare the periodic data with the values used to calculate
the permit limits to ensure continued use of representative production values and
corresponding limits.
If multiple production lines are acknowledged in the calculated production-based limit, the
production rate should be based on the production of the process lines operating
simultaneously.
February 2010 3-57
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
B.6 Calculation of equivalent mass limits for concentration limits
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If the CA has implemented equivalent mass limits for concentration limits, the auditor should
determine if it is allowed by state law and if the CA has revised its legal authority to reflect
the authority to include this provision.
The CA should provide documentation of its calculation of equivalent mass limits.
B.6.a. IU has demonstrated or will demonstrate substantially reduced water usage
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The IU must demonstrate that it will employ water-conservation methods and technologies
that will substantially reduce water use during the term of its control mechanism.
The IU is required to employ water conservation to remain eligible for equivalent mass limits.
EPA considers a 20 percent change in flow rate to be a significant change in flow rate (EPA's
Guidance Manual for the Use of Production Based Pretreatment Standards and the
Combined Wastestream Formula, September 1985).
The National Metal Finishing Strategic Goals Program promotes a 50 percent water reduction
from each participating industry's baseline 1992 water usage
(http://www.strategicgoals.org/coregoals.cfm).
B.6.b. IU uses control and technologies adequate to achieve compliance
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The lU's use of technologies adequate to achieve compliance with applicable Standards
provides the CA with a level of assurance that qualifying lUs have not been meeting their
concentration-based limits through dilution.
Although waste conservation typically increases the concentration of pollutants in the process
wastewater before treatment, facilities with on-site treatment typically show a reduction of
pollutant loadings in their final effluent before its discharge to the POTW even where the
facility has instituted water conservation methods and technologies.
3-58 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
B.6.c. IU has provided information regarding actual average daily flow
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Accurate flow monitoring is required to determine compliance with an equivalent mass limit
on the basis of a concentration sample result received from the laboratory. Relying on water
consumption records when determining compliance with mass-based limits is not an
acceptable practice (EP A's Industrial User Inspection and Sampling Manual for POTWs,
April 1994).
The use of the long-term average daily and monthly flow is the only way to ensure that mass-
based limits are truly equivalent.
B.6.d. IU does not have variable flow rates, production levels, or pollutant levels
FACTOR TO CONSIDER
In order to be eligible for equivalent mass limits, the IU must not have daily flow rates,
production levels, or pollutant levels that vary so significantly that equivalent mass limits are
not appropriate to control the discharge.
B.6.e. IU has consistently complied with applicable categorical requirements
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The IU should be consistently compliant with applicable categorical requirements for at least 2
years before its request for equivalent mass-limits.
B.6.f. Did the CA use appropriate flow rates when developing limits? (Y/N)
FACTOR TO CONSIDER
A CA which chooses to establish equivalent mass limits must calculate the equivalent mass limit
by multiplying the actual average daily flow rate of the regulated process(es) of the IU by the
concentration-based daily maximum and monthly average Standard for the applicable categorical
Pretreatment Standard and the appropriate unit conversion factor. The CA should also review
historical wastewater flow rates to determine if there any seasonal or production fluctuations.
February 2010 3-59
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
B.6.g. Did the CA use the correct concentration-based limits for the applicable categorical
standards? (Y/N)
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The formula for converting daily maximum concentration standards to equivalent daily
maximum mass limits is the product of the facility's actual average daily flow rate, the
applicable concentration-based categorical daily maximum standard, and the appropriate unit
conversion factor. The unit conversion factor is 8.34 when multiplying a concentration limit
(expressed as milligrams per liter) by flow (expressed as millions of gallons per day).
The formula for converting monthly average concentration standards to equivalent monthly
average mass limits is the product of the facility's actual average daily flow rate, the
applicable concentration-based categorical monthly average standard, and the appropriate
unit conversion factor.
It is important to note that the same flow value, the CIU's long-term average daily flow rate,
is used in the calculation of both the daily maximum and monthly average equivalent mass
limits.
B.6.h. Upon notification of revised production rate, did the CA reassess the mass limits? (Y/N)
FACTOR TO CONSIDER
If an IU subject to equivalent mass limits notifies the CA of a revised production rate, the CA
must reassess the equivalent mass limit and recalculate the limit as necessary to reflect the
changed conditions at the facility.
B.7 Calculation of equivalent concentration limits for flow-based standards
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
If the CA has implemented equivalent concentration limits for flow-based standards, the auditor
should determine if it is allowed by state law and if the CA has revised its legal authority to
reflect the authority to include the provision.
3-60 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
B.7.a. Is the IU subject to 40 CFR Part 414, 419, or 455? (Y/N)
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The federal regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(c)(6) allow the CA to use concentration-based limits
instead of flow-based mass limits for new and existing indirect dischargers in the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers category; new indirect dischargers in the Petroleum
Refining category; and new and existing indirect dischargers in the Pesticide Chemicals category.
B.7.b. Documentation that dilution is not being used as treatment? (Y/N)
FACTOR TO CONSIDER
If the CA is converting mass limits for the categorical Pretreatment Standards at 40 CFR Parts
414, 419, or 455 to concentration limits, the CA must document that dilution is not being
substituted for treatment as prohibited by 40 CFR 403.6(d).
B.8 Calculation and application of CWF or FWA
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should provide documentation of its calculation and application of CWF or FWA.
The CA should use the correct classification of regulated, nonregulated, and dilute
wastestreams.
B.9 Application of most stringent limit
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA should ensure that compliance with categorical limits is evaluated at end-of-process.
The CA should ensure that compliance with local limits is typically evaluated at end-of-pipe.
The CA should ensure that instantaneous maximum, daily maximum, 4-day average, and
monthly average limits are not the same, and therefore are not comparable.
C. CA Compliance Monitoring
Note: The CA is required to do sampling and inspecting of Ills to verify compliance independent
of information supplied by the IU. If the CA has not undertaken any surveillance activity or no
documentation exists, if documentation is insufficient, or if the CA has not sampled for all
regulated parameters, the auditor should note such problems.
February 2010 3-61
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
C.I Inspection (at least once a year, except as otherwise specified)
PURPOSE: The CA is required to inspect all Ills to determine compliance with Pretreatment
Standards and Requirements independent of data submitted by the IU.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Inspection is required at least once a year (except for middle-tier CIUs and NSCIUs) or as
specified in the approved program.
Although the CA is required to inspect the SIU once a year (except for middle-tier CIUs), or
more frequently if required by the approved program, the auditor should assess the adequacy
of this frequency on the basis of the lU's compliance history, lU-specific requirements,
process changes, and so forth.
For middle-tier CIUs, the CA is required to conduct inspections once every 2 years. If the CA
has implemented middle-tier CIU classification, the auditor should determine if it is allowed
by state law and if the CA has revised its legal authority to reflect the authority to include this
provision.
Documentation of inspection activities should be clear and cover every aspect of the
inspection. Some CAs might 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)(vii)].
C.I.a. If the CA has determined a discharger to be an NSCIU
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Evaluation of discharger with the definition of NSCIU once per yearThe CA is required to
evaluate whether an IU previously determined to be an NSCIU still meets the nonsignificant
criteria listed at 40 CFR 403.3(v)(2). This evaluation should primarily involve the CA's
verification that the NSCIU has submitted certification forms documenting continued
eligibility for NSCIU status and compliance with applicable Pretreatment Standards and
Requirements.
The state must adopt the NCSIU provision into its state law before the CA may adopt it into
is legal authority.
The CA must adopt the NSCIU provision into its legal authority before implementation.
3-62 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
C.l.b. If the CA has reduced an Ill's reporting requirements
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
Inspect at least once every 2 yearsIf the IU no longer meets the conditions for reduced
reporting listed at 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3), the CA must immediately begin inspecting the IU at least
once a year.
C.2 Inspection at frequency specified in approved program
C.3 Documentation of inspection activities
C.4 Evaluation of need for slug discharge control plan (reevaluation of existing plan)
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Evaluation of need for slug discharge control plan (reevaluation of existing plan)the CA is
required to evaluate each Ill's need for a slug discharge control plan or other action to control
slug discharges.
For Ills identified as significant before November 14, 2005, this evaluation must be
completed at least once by October 14, 2006. Additional SIUs must be evaluated within one
year of being designated as significant.
The slug discharge control plan could also be called an accidental spill prevention plan.
However, to fulfill the regulatory requirement, the plan must also address any potential,
nonaccidental, slug discharges.
C.5 Sampling (at least once a year, except as otherwise specified)
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, and so
forth. The auditor should examine all CA compliance sampling data in the lU's file.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Sampling frequencyAt least once a year (except for middle-tier CIUs and NSCIUs) or at
the frequency specified in the approved program.
For middle-tier CIUs, the CA is required to conduct compliance sampling once every 2
years.
February 2010 3-63
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
- For NSCIUs, the CA is not required to conduct any compliance sampling, but this does
not relieve the NSCIU of its duty to comply with applicable categorical Pretreatment
Standards.
Documentation of sampling activities should include QA/QC analytical results and chain-of-
custody forms (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.
C.S.a. If a POTW has waived monitoring for a CIU
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If allowed by state law and if the CA's legal authority has been revised and approved
accordingly, the CA may waive monitoring requirements for pollutant(s) not expected to be
present.
The CA must sample waived pollutant(s) at least once during the term of the control
mechanism.
If the CA subsequently determines that the waived pollutant(s) is present or is expected to be
present in the Ill's wastewater, the CA must immediately begin at least annual monitoring of
the Ill's discharge, and the SIU must resume monitoring at least once every 6 months.
C.S.b. If a POTW has reduced an Ill's reporting requirements
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If allowed by state law and if the CA's legal authority has been revised and approved
accordingly, the CA can reduce a CIU's reporting frequency.
If the CA has reduced an Ill's reporting requirements, the CA must sample and analyze the
Ill's discharge at least once every 2 years. If the IU no longer meets the conditions for
reduced reporting listed at 40 CFR 403.12(e)(3), the CA must immediately begin sampling at
least once a year.
3-64 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
C.6 Sampling at the frequency specified in approved program
C.7 Documentation of sampling activities (chain-of-custody; QA/QC)
C.8 Analysis for all regulated parameters
C.9 Appropriate analytical methods (40 CFR Part 136)
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
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.
Because 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 must 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 at 40 CFR
Part 136 for many parameters, not all the test procedures in that document are approved. If
multiple methods are approved for the same parameter at 40 CFR Part 136, the analytical
method used should have an appropriate detection method to determine compliance with the
effluent limit.
D. CA Enforcement Activities
Note: This section serves several purposes. The auditor will determine the compliance status of
the selected Ills 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 that on the checklist and explain
the situation in the comment section. The auditor should also determine if the IU is in SNC and
whether the enforcement taken by the CA was effective and followed the approved ERP. If the
auditor finds any problems, he or she should note them and explain the situation in the report.
PURPOSE: The CA is required to identify and investigate all instances of noncompliance with
Pretreatment Standards and Requirements. The auditor should verify that the CA has identified all
violations.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
The CA must identify any and all instances of IU noncompliance. EPA recommends that the
CA use a tracking system to
February 2010 3-65
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
- 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, the CA should
note such facts.
The auditor should attempt to determine whether the monitoring frequency and the reports for
the IU are sufficient to provide a true picture of compliance.
IU self-monitoringAs discussed above, all SIUs are required to report at least twice a year
(except for middle-tier CIUs), and more frequently if required by the CA.
A middle-tier CIU's self-monitoring requirement could be reduced to once a year. This self-
monitoring data must be representative of conditions occurring during the reporting period.
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
records of 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 a compliance schedule
requirement.
D.I Identification of violations
D.I.a. Discharge violations
D.l.b. Monitoring/reporting violations
3-66 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
D.l.c. Compliance schedule violations
D.2 Determination of SNC (on the basis of rolling quarters)
PURPOSE: The CA is required to determine SNC to verify which industries it will publish at
least annually in daily newspaper of general circulation that provides meaningful public notice
within the jurisdiction. 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 verify if the CA correctly determined SNC. This can be done by reviewing violations and
performing SNC calculations. (Note: If the auditor is unfamiliar with the definition of SNC, he or
she should refer to the definition in the General Pretreatment Regulations and EPA policy.)
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
CAs should be evaluating SNC on the basis of 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.
The auditor should find and evaluate evidence of SNC evaluation. This information might 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.
D.2.a. Chronic
D.2.b. TRC (Technical Review Criteria)
D.2.c. Pass through/interference
D.2.d. Spill/slug load
D.2.e. Reporting
D.2.f. Compliance schedule
D.2.g. Other violations (e.g., BMPs requirements)
February 2010 3-67
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
D.3 Response to violation
PURPOSE: The CA is expected to respond to every violation in an appropriate manner
consistent with its approved ERP.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
If the CA has an approved ERP, did the CA respond to each violation as specified in the
ERP?
Effective enforcement requires a timely response by the CA to all violations. The auditor
should investigate the cause of any instances where a response did not occur in a timely
manner.
D.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.
In cases 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.
D.5 Return to compliance
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 might take longer.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
One criterion for successful enforcement is the lU's return to compliance within 90 days.
3-68 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
Enforcement actions taken in response to discharges that resulted in pass through and/or
interference that failed to eliminate the violation within 90 days of identifying the responsible
industry or failed to place the responsible industry on an enforceable schedule within 90 days
of identification are not considered to be effective enforcement, unless otherwise defined in
an approved ERP. The auditor should consider this as a Level I criteria POTW violation (FY
1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment
Implementation Requirements).
Enforcement actions taken in response to incidents of SNC that failed to return the SIU to
compliance (or in compliance with an enforceable compliance schedule) within 90 days of
the receipt of information establishing SNC are not considered effective enforcement, unless
otherwise defined in an approved program ERP. The auditor should consider this as a Level
II criteria POTW violation (FY 1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW
Noncompliance with Pretreatment Implementation Requirements).
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 by
issuing a compliance schedule) to ensure that the IU will meet that deadline.
Violation of a compliance schedule deadline could 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.
D.S.a. Within 90 days
D.S.b. Within time specified
D.S.c. Through compliance schedule
D.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
February 2010 3-69
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
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.
As a general rule, escalation of enforcement should occur within 90 days of the initial
enforcement action, if compliance has not been achieved. Where an SIU continues to violate,
so that the pattern of violations meets the criteria for SNC, the violation should be resolved
within 90 days of the receipt of information that established the SIU to be in SNC, or the
POTW should issue an enforceable schedule for resolution of the noncompliance within 90
days (FY1990 Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTW Noncompliance with
Pretreatment Implementation Requirements).
D.7. Publication for SNC
PURPOSE: The CA is required to annually publish, in a daily newspaper of general circulation
that provides meaningful public notice within the jurisdiction(s) served by the POTW, 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 could 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, 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.
3-70 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
Publication could take the form of a legal notice; however, it might be more effective in the
form of an article or advertisement.
E. IU Compliance Status
PURPOSE: The auditor should use this section to evaluate whether the discharger is in
compliance with its self-monitoring and reporting requirements. If the auditor finds that a
discharger is not in compliance with these requirements, the auditor should verify whether the CA
took appropriate enforcement actions.
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
The auditor should evaluate whether the CA's compliance monitoring procedures and analytical
methods are in compliance with 40 CFR Part 136.
E.I Self-monitoring and reporting
E.l.a. Sampling at frequency specified in control mechanism/regulation
E.l.b. Analysis of all required pollutants
E.l.c. Appropriate analytical methods (40 CFR Part 136)
E.l.d. Appropriate sample collection method
E.l.e. Compliance with sample collection holding times
E.l.f. Submission of BMR/90-day report
E.l.g. Periodic self-monitoring reports
E.l.h. Reporting all required pollutants
E.l.i. Signatory/certification of reports
E.l.j. Annual certification by NSCIUs
E.l.k. Submission of compliance schedule reports by required dates
E.I.I Notification within 24-hours of becoming aware of violations
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Discharge violation
February 2010 3-71
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
Slug load
Accidental spill
E.l.m. Resampling/reporting within 30 days of knowledge of violation
E.l.n. Notification of hazardous waste discharge
E.l.o. Submission/implementation of slug discharge control plan
E.l.p. Notification of significant changes
E.2 Compliance with all general control mechanism requirements
E.3 If the CA has classified the discharger as a middle-tier CIU
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Categorical flow does not exceed 0.01% of the design dry-weather hydraulic capacity or
5,000 gpd (whichever is smaller)
Categorical flow does not exceed 0.01% of the design dry-weather organic treatment capacity
of the POTW
Categorical flow does not exceed 0.01% of the maximum allowable headworks loading for
any regulated categorical pollutant
E.4 If the CA has granted the discharger a monitoring waiver
FACTOR TO CONSIDER:
Certification statements with each compliance report
E.5 Compliance with BMP requirements, if applicable (Y/N)
E.6 If the CA has classified the discharger as an NSCIU
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
Discharges less than 100 gpd of total categorical wastewater
Annual certification statements
3-72 February 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
E.7 If the CA has established equivalent mass limits for a CIU
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
An IU subject to equivalent mass limits must maintain and effectively operate control and
treatment technologies adequate to achieve compliance with the equivalent mass limits.
The IU must continue to record the facility's flow rates through the use of a continuous
effluent flow monitoring device.
The IU must continue to record the facility's production rates and notify the CA whenever the
production rates are expected to vary by more than 20 percent from its baseline production
rates as determined by the regulations at 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(i)(C).
The IU must employ the same or comparable water conservation methods and technologies as
those implemented pursuant to 40 CFR 403.6(c)(5)(i)(A) so long as it discharges under an
equivalent mass limit.
F. 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.
February 2010 3-73
-------
CHAPTER 3 Audit Checklist Instructions
SECTION III: OBSERVATIONS AND CONCERNS
Section III is intended to provide a brief summary of the concerns and deficiencies identified
(observations and concerns) 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,
EPA strongly recommends that the auditor(s) complete Section III before the audit's closing conference
to raise, and hopefully resolve, such issues at that time.
To help the auditor complete 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. The auditor should take this fact into consideration
when developing the subsequent report, which specifies the required versus recommended actions the CA
should take.
When documenting the observations and concerns, the auditor should take care to clearly distinguish
between findings of deficiencies, violations, and program effectiveness issues. The auditor 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. In addition, the auditor should document positive aspects of the CA's pretreatment
program. For example, recognize positive steps the CA is taking in its program that go beyond the
minimum federal requirements or any corrective actions taken to address previous deficiencies.
Section III should provide the framework for the report to which the checklist could be attached. Because
the checklist constitutes the auditor's field documentation of findings, it should contain only the audit's
factual findings.
3-74 February 2010
-------
Appendix of Documents Referenced In The Manual
Appendix of Documents Referenced in the Manual
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 403
40 CFR Part 136
Checklist - Pretreatment Program Legal Authority Reviews (EPA 833-B-07-001)
NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual (EPA 305-X-03-004, July 2004)
EPA Model Pretreatment Ordinance (EPA 833-B-06-002)
EPA's self-audit policy. Federal Register Volume 65, No. 70, 19618-19627 (April 11, 2000)
FY1990 Guidance for Reporting andEvaluating POTW Noncompliance with Pretreatment
Implementation Requirements
Guidance Manual for the Use of Production Based Pretreatment Standards and the Combined
Wastestream Formula (September 1985)
Industrial User Inspection and Sampling Manual for POTW's (April 1994)
Local Limits Development Guidance (EPA 833-R-04-002A)
Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Programs Guidance Manual (EPA-83 3 -B-94-005)
February 2010 Appendix-1
-------
Appendix of Documents Referenced In The Manual
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix-2 February 2010
------- |